000			01862 a2200325 4500
001			1138393894
005			20250317100351.0
008			250312042020GB eng
020			_a9781138393899
037			_bTaylor & Francis _cGBP 33.99 _fBB
040			_a01
041			_aeng
072	7		_aPDX _2thema
072	7		_aNH _2thema
072	7		_a3M _2bisac
072	7		_aPDX _2bic
072	7		_aHB _2bic
072	7		_a3J _2bisac
072	7		_aHIS000000 _2bisac
072	7		_aHIS037030 _2bisac
072	7		_aHIS037060 _2bisac
072	7		_aSCI034000 _2bisac
072	7		_a541.24 _2bisac
100	1		_aDavid M. Knight
245	1	0	_aAtoms and Elements _bA Study of Theories of Matter in England in the Nineteenth Century
250			_a1
260			_aOxford _bRoutledge _c20200814
300			_a178 p
520			_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.
999			_c201 _d201