01862    a2200325   4500001001100000005001700011008003900028020001800067037003600085040000700121041000800128072001500136072001400151072001400165072001300179072001200192072001400204072002100218072002100239072002100260072002100281072001800302100002000320245009100340250000600431260003200437300001000469520104400479999001301523113839389420250317100351.0250312042020GB                   eng    a9781138393899  bTaylor & FranciscGBP 33.99fBB  a01  aeng7 aPDX2thema7 aNH2thema7 a3M2bisac7 aPDX2bic7 aHB2bic7 a3J2bisac7 aHIS0000002bisac7 aHIS0370302bisac7 aHIS0370602bisac7 aSCI0340002bisac7 a541.242bisac1 aDavid M. Knight10aAtoms and ElementsbA Study of Theories of Matter in England in the Nineteenth Century  a1  aOxfordbRoutledgec20200814  a178 p  bFirst published in 1967. The impression is sometimes given that the Atomic Theory was revived in the early years of the nineteenth century by John Dalton, and that continuously from then on it has played a vital role in chemistry. The aim of this study is to revise this over-simplified picture. Atomic explanations seemed to chemists to go beyond the facts, to fail to lend themselves to mathematical expression, and to deny the ultimate simplicity and unity of all matter. Most, therefore, rejected them. Meanwhile, physicists were developing a whole range of atomic theories to explain the physical properties of bodies in terms of very simple atoms or particles. During the last thirty years of the century the position changed, as physicists and chemists came to agree on a common atomic theory. But the last prominent opponents of atomism were not converted until the early years of the twentieth century, by which time studies of radioactivity had made it clear that the billiard-ball Daltonian atom must, in any case, be abandoned.  c201d201