Corpuscular theory of matter

A primary text for seminar discussion was J. J. Thomson s Corpuscular Theory of Matter. 119... 

William B. Jensen begins the volume with an overview of scientific atomic theories from the 17 through 20 centuries. He mentions ancient atomism, but he begins in earnest analyzing corpuscular theories of matter proposed or entertained by natural philosophers in the 17 century. He describes the dominant flavors of atomic notions over fom centuries, from the mechanical through the dynamical, gravimetric, and kinetic, to the electrical. Jensen is Oesper Professor of Chemical Education and History of Chemistry at the University of Cincirmati and was the foimding editor of the Bulletin for the History of Chemistry. 

Both Boyle and Mayow were disciples of the mechanical or corpuscular theory of matter. Boyle seems to have been particularly influenced by Gassendi, though familiar also with Descartes theory, while Mayow was a disciple of Descartes. While Gassendi, 1592-1658, was a follower of... 

In quantum-mechanical application the characteristic eigenvectors of the Schrodinger equation are called wave functions. The casual conclusion that matrix mechanics is a corpuscular theory of matter, and therefore distinct from wave mechanics, although of historical interest, persists even today. The... 

Thomson, J.J. The Corpuscular Theory of Matter. Charles Scribner s Sons, New York. 1907. 

I read a bit more about Boyle s corpuscular theory of matter. Boyle used his vacuum pump to test the possibility that there is a substance called ether that fills up the spaces between corpuscles of air, of the type described by M. Descartes... 

For centuries chemists and physicists believed that it was possible to transmute one element, such as lead, into another, such as gold. When the corpuscular theory of matter was developed and accepted (which could explain but not predict chemical changes in terms of transmutations), this belief was strengthened. By the middle of the eighteenth century, however, virtually all chemists and physicists believed that transmutations of matter into other kinds of matter were not possible. But lack of... 

By the time of Newton s death, in 1727, the corpuscular theory of matter (despite the variations) had come to dominate the study of nature. What was less clear was whether elements played any role in understanding the natural world or whether it was better, following the various mechanical philosophies of Descartes, Gassendi, Boyle, and Newton, to consider the world in terms of motion and mass. In a sense, the rise of physics reduced the number of elements from four or three to one. The problem for the natural philosophers was that they could not quite agree what characteristics that one element could have that would result in the huge range of matter in the real world. In terms of science, the triumph of experiment and the new science opened the door to a far more open and systematic examination of matter. 

Boyle believed in a corpuscular theory of matter—something of a fore bear-er to atomic theory. In this pretty little Effluviums book (Figure 170) he conducts gedanken (thinking) experiments to calculate the upper limits to the measurable masses of effluvia. But before we illustrate some of these, let Boyle define the contemporary debate ... 

Robert Boyle and Isaac Newton, both strong adherents of alchemy, advanced a corpuscular theory of matter. It is worth remembering that, since they believed that lead could be transmuted to gold, there could be no uniquely gold or lead corpuscles. Their views were influenced by Gassendi. ... 

Stlliman Lectures, 1903 Phil. Mag., 1904, vii, 237 1906, xi, 769 Electricity and Matter, 1904 The Corpuscular Theory of Matter, 1907 Rays of Positive Electricity, 1913, 2 ed. 1921 The Atomic Theory. The Romanes Lecture, Oxford, 1914 The Electron in Chemistry (Franklin Institute Lectures), 1923 see Hardin, Science, 1916, xliv, 655 (hist, of atomic structure). 

In the ncmy places where Boyle actualty does cite Sennert, he typically presents him as scholastic, chymist, and physician, not as a corpuscularian. In only one out of fifty-two references does Boyle even intimate that Sennert upheld a corpuscular theory of matter, and there Boyle misrepresents Sennert as an t jponent of chrysopoeia. See Newman and Principe, Alchemy Tried in the Firey pp. 20-21. 

Thomson JJ (1907) The corpuscular theory of matter. Archibald and Constable, London... 

---