====== Redaktion Artikel Atom ======
===== Allgemeines =====

Verfasser:

Koautor:

Redaktionell verantwortlich:

Abgabetermin:

Autorenabsprachen:

Expertisen:

Bemerkungen:


===== Stand der Redaktionsarbeit =====



bei jedem Neueintrag Signatur nicht vergessen:  --- //[[hetzer@zfl-berlin.org|Susanne Hetzer]] 2008/11/27 11:36//

===== Internes Material =====


  * Krips, H.: Atomism, Poincaré and Planck. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 17/1, 1986, S. 43-63. 

|Abstract: Planck's change in attitude to the question of whether atomic hypotheses were scientifically accessible is discussed. It is argued contra Holton, that Planck's change in attitude to this question did not signal a methodological shift towards realism. The point of doing this is not just to investigate a significant episode in the history of quantum theory, but also to use the episode as a case study in support of a broader historical thesis. This thesis is that there was a widespread late-nineteenth century methodological tradition which motivated the change in status of certain ontological claims — e.g., that atoms exist — from ‘inaccessible to science’ to ‘scientifically acceptable’ even though those claims were not strictly ‘observable’. This methodological tradition is a hybrid of positivist and realist views. Thus, contrary to one popular view, the fin de siécle triumph of atomism is not to be seen as a triumph for a realist view of science Poincare's views are also used as an illustration.|


* Post, H. R.: Atomism 1900 II. Physics Education 3/6, 1968, 307-312. 

|Abstract: Many students identify atomism with `the' atomic theory, and consider the truth of the latter established. Textbooks list successes of the atomic theory in classical physics and chemistry. How, then, could outstanding scientists, such as Ostwald and Mach, at the turn of the century, deny the existence of atoms? The best answer is given by these anti-atomists themselves. Their controversy with Boltzmann and Planck illustrates general points in the study of the history and philosophy of science. One argument, the irreversibility paradox, is not resolved satisfactorily to this day. This is Part II of an article, the first part of which appeared in the September issue of Physics Education.|


  * Usselman, Melvyn C., Derek G. Leaist u. Katherine D. Watson: Dalton’s Disputed Nitric Oxide Experiments and the Origins of his Atomic Theory. ChemPhysChem 9/1, 2008, S. 106-110. 

|Abstract: In 1808 John Dalton published his first general account of chemical atomic theory, a cornerstone of modern chemistry. The theory originated in his earlier studies of the properties of atmospheric gases. In 1803 Dalton discovered that oxygen combined with either one or two volumes of nitric oxide in closed vessels over water and this pioneering observation of integral multiple proportions provided important experimental evidence for his incipient atomic ideas. Previous attempts to reproduce Daltons experiments have been unsuccessful and some commentators have concluded the results were fraudulent. We report a successful reconstruction of Daltons experiments and provide an analysis exonerating him of any scientific misconduct. But we conclude that Dalton, already thinking atomistically, adjusted experimental conditions to obtain the integral combining proportions.|
