Language
Country/Area
No result found
From Atoms to Energy: Why did Wilhelm Ostwald abandon atomic theory?
In the evolution of science, different theories often experience struggles for support and opposition. Among them, Wilhelm Ostwald's Energeticism was an important challenge to atomic theory. This theory was developed by Ostwald, Georg Helm, and Pierre Duhen at the end of the 19th century, but eventually faded out of history with the advent of atomic experimental confirmation in the 20th century.
"Energy is the ultimate element of physical entities."
While teaching at the Riga Polytechnic, Osterwalder came to believe that certain chemical reactions could only be explained through the concept of energy, without resorting to the assumption of the existence of atoms. He was inspired by the work of Josiah Gibbs in thermodynamics. In 1887, he made it clear in his opening speech at the University of Leipzig that energy theory was a viable alternative to atomic theory. In the second edition of "Physical Chemistry" published in 1892, Osterwalder emphasized that atomization considerations should be avoided and advocated the reduction of mass and matter to energy.
"Osterwalder believed that the relationship between energy can explain all chemical and physical phenomena."
At this time, Helm also published his "Energy Theory" in 1887, proposing an expanded concept of energy conservation. In pursuit of the simplification of mechanics, Helm proposed formulas that showed the relationship between internal energy changes and other physical quantities, demonstrating the potential of energy theory.
However, this theory encountered a huge challenge during the Lubeck debate in 1895. The debate was organized by Postmann, who supported atomic theory, in contrast to Ostwald's theory of energy. Postmann's statistical mechanics provided strong support for atomic theory, while Ostwald and Helm defended energy theory. By the time the conference ended, Postman's ideas had gained support among younger mathematicians, demonstrating the growing dominance of atomic theory in the scientific community.
"Osterwalder's and Helm's defenses appear to be unable to contend with Postman's arguments."
In addition to the German debate, France's Pierre Duhan also supported the theory of energy, believing that all physical and chemical phenomena can be explained through the principles of thermodynamics. His work developed into a series of thermodynamics courses and he delved into a certain depth of energy theory, but he was ultimately criticized by his peers.
As experimental evidence gradually increased, Osterwalder finally gave up energy theory and turned to atomic theory in the fourth edition of "Outline of General Chemistry" published in 1908. Not only did he admit the existence of atoms, he transformed the theory of energy into an ontological philosophy, inspired by Einstein's mass-energy equivalence formula.
"Osterwalder's transformation reflects the importance of progress in scientific thought."
With the general acceptance of atomism in the scientific community, Osterwalder turned his attention to sociological and cultural phenomena and formed sociological energy theory, which attempted to simplify the complexity of science and social science. It triggered strong criticism from sociologist Max Weber.
Through the theory of energy and its subsequent development, Ostwald's work left an important footprint in the history of science. Even if his ideas failed to remain popular in the end, the atomic theory he challenged was important because of its importance. It is stabilized by experimental and theoretical support. Osterwalder's theoretical path reveals to us the fragility and vicissitudes of scientific thought changes. Those theoretical foundations that once seemed stable may be shaken at any time with the emergence of new evidence.
Can these historical changes and challenges remind us to think about the possibilities and fragility of future scientific theories?
