Feb 20, 2013

Atomic Hypothesis in Ancient India and Greece

Though John Dalton is credited with the introduction of atomic viewpoint in modern science, scholars in ancient India and Greece conjectured long before the existence of atoms and molecules. In the Vaiseshika school of thought in India founded by Kanada (Sixth century B.C.) the atomic picture was developed in considerable detail. Atoms were thought to be eternal, indivisible, infinitesimal and ultimate parts of matter. It was argued that if matter could be subdivided without an end, there would be no difference between a mustard seed and the Meru mountain. The four kinds of atoms (Paramanu — Sanskrit word for the smallest particle) postulated were Bhoomi (Earth), Ap (water), Tejas (fire) and Vayu (air) that have characteristic mass and other attributes, were propounded. Akasa (space) was thought to have no atomic structure and was continuous and inert. Atoms combine to form different molecules (e.g. two atoms combine to form a diatomic molecule dvyanuka, three atoms form a tryanuka or a triatomic molecule), their properties depending upon the nature and ratio of the constituent atoms. The size of the atoms was also estimated, by conjecture or by methods that are not known to us. The estimates vary. In Lalitavistara, a famous biography of the Buddha written mainly in the second century B.C., the estimate is close to the modern estimate of atomic size, of the order of 10 –10 m.
In ancient Greece, Democritus (Fourth century B.C.) is best known for his atomic hypothesis. The word ‘atom’ means ‘indivisible’ in Greek. According to him, atoms differ from each other physically, in shape, size and other properties and this resulted in the different properties of the substances formed
by their combination. The atoms of water were smooth and round and unable to ‘hook’ on to each
other, which is why liquid /water flows easily. The atoms of earth were rough and jagged, so they held
together to form hard substances. The atoms of fire were thorny which is why it caused painful burns.
These fascinating ideas, despite their ingenuity, could not evolve much further, perhaps because they
were intuitive conjectures and speculations not tested and modified by quantitative experiments - the
hallmark of modern science.

No comments: