DEMOCRITUS (c.460–c.370 B.C.

)
Democritus was a Greek philosopher born in Abdera in the north of Greece. Democritus was a
student of Leucippus, who proposed the atomic theory of matter. There is little documentation on
the philosophy of Leucippus; however, it was Democritus, who elaborated extensive works on
his theories on the atomic structure of the physical world, of the universe, and the void of space.
Although Democritus was a philosopher, he is included here among the list of great pioneers of
physics and chemistry of the 19th and 20th centuries, because many of his teachings on the
structure of matter were demonstrated finally by scientists over 2000 years after his death.

Sign in to download full-size image

Democritus taught the theory of atomism, which held the belief that indivisible and indestructible
atoms are the basic components of all matter in the universe. Thus the word atom is derived from
the Greek atomos meaning indivisible. It was not until 20 centuries after Democritus did
Rutherford, Bohr, Soddy, and others demonstrate the atom to be the smallest unit of an element
consisting of a positively charged nucleus surrounded by electrons equal to the number of
protons in the nucleus. Modern science has demonstrated that atoms remain undivided in matter
(in accord with the early philosophical teachings of Democritus) or in chemical reactions with
the exception of a limited removal, exchange, or transfer of electrons. The atom is also the basic
unit of elements and is the source of nuclear energy. The postage stamp illustrated here was
issued by Greece in 1961 to commemorate Democritus' teachings of atomism and the
development of peaceful applications of atomic energy in the world.
Democritus was not alone in the teaching of atomism, but his writings on this philosophy were
most extensive. He held that atoms were the tiniest of particles, too small to be perceived by the
senses, of which all matter was composed, and that the atoms differed in size, shape, and mass.
He also argued that atoms were in constant motion and could coalesce to form the larger bodies
of matter that we can see, feel, and taste. The properties of matter that we can perceive with the
senses such as color, taste, and hardness were the result of the interactions of atoms that
constituted a given substance and the interactions of atoms with our body. For example, the taste
of a substance would be the result of the interactions of atoms with the atoms of our tongue.
Democritus also held to the belief of the existence of the “void” or empty space to which atoms
or matter can move into. He argued that the lights of the Milky Way were the lights of distant
stars, and that there existed other worlds, some with suns and moons, and others without.
Likewise there would be other worlds with animal life, plants, and water and others without.
Much of Democritus' philosophy of atomism was demonstrated by modern science to be true. In
honor of Democritus the national institution dedicated to research on peaceful applications of
atomic energy for development in Greece is named the Democritus Nuclear Research Center. For
additional reading on one of the greatest philosopher–scientists from antiquity see Taylor's
book The Atomists (1999).
View chapterPurchase book
Accommodation of the Rare Earths in the Periodic Table
Pieter Thyssen, Koen Binnemans, in Handbook on the Physics and Chemistry of Rare Earths,
2011
6 Seaborg's Actinide Concept
Although Bohr considered thorium, protactinium, and uranium as members of a second series of
rare earths, the majority of chemists remained convinced that these elements were homologues
of hafnium, tantalum and tungsten, for a time after Bohr had formulated his atomic theory. The
reason for the delay of acceptance of a second rare-earth series was mainly due the fact that the
highest valence states of thorium (+ IV), protactinium (+ V) and uranium (+ VI) suggested that
these elements were transition metals. Moreover, with the exception of thorium and cerium, there
are, besides the similarities in electronic configuration, only few similarities in chemical
properties between the early actinide elements and the lanthanides. The chemical properties of
uranium seem to differ very much from those of neodymium, whereas on the other hand there
are striking similarities between uranium and the elements of group 5 (Cr, Mo, W). For instance,
uranium and tungsten both form hexachlorides (UCl6 and WCl6). Uranium forms the ion
U2O72− and the compound UO2Cl2, while chromium forms Cr2O72− and CrO2Cl2. However, one
should note that the dissimilarities between uranium and neodymium are only evident when
hexavalent uranium (the most common oxidation state for uranium) and trivalent neodymium
(the most common oxidation state for neodymium) are compared. Uranium(III) on one hand,
shows many similarities with neodymium(III), whereas on the other hand, uranium(IV)
resembles thorium(IV) and cerium(IV). Another point of confusion was the very small energy
differences between the 5f- and 6d-shell, even in the range of the chemical binding energy, so
that it was difficult to predict when the 5f-shell started to be filled. It was assumed that in
thorium, protactinium, and uranium the 6d-shell was being filled. Goldschmidt (1924) predicted
that the transuranium elements up to element 96 would be platinum group elements.
Nevertheless, several researchers believed in the existence of a second series of rare earths, even
before the introduction of Bohr's atomic theory in 1922. As early as 1892, Bassett considered
thorium and uranium to be analogous to cerium and praseodymium, respectively (Bassett, 1892).
It should be noted that he preferred the order {Ce, Nd, Pr} rather than {Ce, Pr, Nd} for the
lanthanides. Werner considered thorium as an analogue of cerium and uranium as an analogue
of europium. Both authors reserved open spaces in their periodic tables for other members of the
second rare earths series that were still undiscovered at that time.
In 1926, Goldschmidt demonstrated the analogies between the elements {Th, Pa, U} and the
lanthanides on the basis of the observation that the volumes of Th4+ and U4+ showed the same
contractions as the ions of the lanthanide series. Striking early examples of periodic tables in
which actinium, thorium, protactinium, and uranium are considered as homologues of the rare
earths lanthanum, cerium, praseodymium, and neodymium are the circular system and left-step
table of Charles Janet (Janet, 1929).
Seaborg (1944, 1945) noticed that whereas thorium, protactinium, and uranium showed
similarities in chemical behavior with zirconium, tantalum, and tungsten,
respectively, neptunium and plutonium did not show such similarities with rhenium and osmium,
or with technetium and ruthenium. For instance, in contrast to the volatiles osmium tetroxide and
ruthenium tetroxide, there exists no volatile plutonium tetroxide. On the other hand, the chemical
properties of neptunium and plutonium are very similar to those of thorium and uranium. These
four elements have a stable + IV oxidation state. ThO2, UO2, NpO2, and PuO2 are isomorphous
and there is a steady decrease of the metallic ion radius when going from Th4+ to Pu4+. Other
evidence was based on magnetic susceptibility data, on the absorption spectra of the ions in
aqueous solution and in crystals, on the spectra of the gaseous atoms, and on additional
crystallographic and chemical data. These observations made Seaborg propose the existence of a
second rare-earth series that begins with actinium, in the same sense as that the lanthanide series
begins with lanthanum. He termed this second rare-earth series the “actinide series.≥ The
actinide elements do not tend to occupy the 6d orbital, but there is a gradual filling of the 5f shell
over the actinide series. Although Seaborg assumed that thorium would be the first element at
which the 5f orbital becomes occupied, he also considered the possibility that thorium and
protactinium do not have 5f electrons, and that uranium has three 5f electrons. The actinide
concept has as a consequence that + III is a characteristic oxidation state for the actinides.
However, a striking difference between the lanthanide and actinide series is the existence of
oxidation states higher than + IV in the actinide series (+ V and + VI). This is an indication that
the 5f electrons are less tightly bonded than the 4f electrons. Seaborg (1949) introduced the form
of the periodic table with which so many chemists are familiar with: one that considers the
lanthanides and actinides as footnotes of the main body of the periodic table. A detailed account
of the development of the actinide concept can be found in Chapter 118 in this Handbook
(Seaborg, 1994).
View chapterPurchase book
František Wald (1861–1930)
Klaus Ruthenberg, in Philosophy of Chemistry, 2012
Publisher Summary
The Czech chemist František Wald (1861–1930) was professor of physicochemistry and
metallurgy in the Czech Technical University of Prague from 1908 until the year of his death. He
developed a theory of substances based on the concept of phase in response to his critique
of atomic theories inspired in large part by Ernst Mach. Although František Wald left out of
account topics which would, perhaps, be appropriate for a “complete” theory and philosophy of
chemistry (such as an account of the character of processes, the relation between time and
potentiality, the predictive power of certain, even “metaphysical” theoretical concepts, the
periodicity of elements, and so on), his approach is original and highly suggestive. He gave
intriguing and substantial pointers to how the theoretical gap between the existing, positive
knowledge about stuff and the phenomenalist, operational description of the path leading to that
knowledge might be closed.
View chapterPurchase book

Atomic Theory
Atomic theory has evolved since ancient times. The hypothesis of
Greek scholars has become the basis of analysis by scientists. They
have done a lot of discoveries and theories regarding the atom.
Moreover, it derives from the Greek word “atomos,” which means
indivisible.
Since then, the scientific community has discovered that these particles
further divide into sub-particles called protons, neutrons, and electrons.
Nevertheless, the name “atom” has stuck.

List of Atomic Theories

1. Ancient Greek Beliefs

“All the matter is made up of tiny units called atoms” this was first
proposed by Leucippus and Democritus, in the fifth century B.C., that
all matter is made of tiny units called atoms.

In addition, they tell that these were solid particles without internal
structure, and came in a variety of shapes and sizes. Moreover, they also
made some intangible qualities such as taste and color.

2. Dalton’s Atomic Theory

English chemist John Dalton subsequently made on the Greek notion of

atoms in 1808. He postulated that matter is made of atoms, which are
small indivisible particles. He also proposed that while all atoms of one
element are identical, they are totally different from those that make up
other elements.

3. J.J. Thomson’s Theory

In 1904, English physicist Joseph J. Thomson proposes the “plum

pudding” theory of the divisible atom. He does so after discovering
electrons in 1897.

Also, his model suggested that atoms consist of a big positively-charged

sphere studded with negatively charged electrons (he called them
“corpuscles”) like fruit in a plum pudding.

Furthermore, he put forward that the charge of the positive sphere’s

charge is equal to the negative charges of the electrons. Today we call
the positive charged particles protons and the negative one’s electrons.

4. Rutherford’s Hypothesis

In 1911, Ernest Rutherford (British physicist) proposed a nuclear model

on atoms. An atom in which a nucleus exists. In the past, he discovered
the part of activity such as the movement of protons and electrons
within the central part of the atom. He further hypothesized that the
number of protons and electrons are equals in an atom.

5. Bohr’s Theory

In 1913, Danish physicist Niels Bohr proposed a planetary model,

which states that electrons revolve about the nucleus just as the planets
orbit the sun. When the electrons are in orbit, they possess “constant
energy.”

When these atoms grasp the energy and move into a higher orbit, this
theory refers to them as “excited” electrons. At the time of returning to
their original orbit, they leave this energy as electromagnetic radiation.
6. Einstein, Heisenberg and Quantum Mechanics

As far as the earlier theories are concerned, the atom consists of a

central and heavy nucleus centered by a number of electrons. Earlier
theories used to treat electrons, and other tiny particles as fixed solid
“lumps,”.

On the other hand, modern quantum theory specifies them as statistical

“clouds”. Moreover, one can measure their speed exactly along with
their locations. However, we can’t do them at the same time.

Atomic Models
Soon after the discovery of the sub-atomic particles of an atom,
scientists were eager to figure out the distribution of these particles
within the atom. Several atomic models were proposed to explain the
structure of the atom. However, a lot of them could not explain the
stability of the atom. Let’s learn about two of these atomic models that
have led to our current concept of the atom.

Thomson’s Atomic Model

In 1898, J. J. Thomson proposed the first of many atomic models to
come. He proposed that an atom is shaped like a sphere with a radius of
approximately 10-10m, where the positive charge is
uniformly distributed. The electrons are embedded in this sphere so as
to give the most stable electrostatic arrangement.
Thomsons’ atomic model [Source: Wikimedia Commons]

Doesn’t the figure above remind you of a cut watermelon with seeds inside?
Or, you can also think of it as a pudding with the electrons being the plum or
the raisins in the pudding. Therefore, this model is also referred to as
the watermelon model, the plum pudding model or the raisin pudding
model.
An important aspect of this model is that it assumes that the mass of the
atom is uniformly distributed over the atom. Thomson’s atomic model
was successful in explaining the overall neutrality of the atom.
However, its propositions were not consistent with the results of later
experiments. In 1906, J. J. Thomson was awarded the Nobel Prize in
physics for his theories and experiments on electricity conduction by
gases.

Rutherford’s Atomic Model

The second of the atomic models was the contribution of Ernest
Rutherford. To come up with their model, Rutherford and his students –
Hans Geiger and Ernest Marsden performed an experiment where they
bombarded very thin gold foil with α-particles. Let’s understand this
experiment.

α-Particle Scattering Experiment

Experiment

In this experiment, high energy α-particles from a radioactive source

were directed at a thin foil (about 100nm thickness) of gold. A circular,
fluorescent zinc sulfide screen was present around the thin gold foil. A
tiny flash of light was produced at a point on the screen whenever α-
particles struck it.

Rutherford’s alpha-particle scattering experiment [Source: Wikimedia Commons]

Results

Based on Thomson’s model, the mass of every atom in the gold foil
should be evenly spread over the entire atom. Therefore, when α-
particles hit the foil, it is expected that they would slow down and
change directions only by small angles as they pass through the foil.
However, the results from Rutherford’s experiment were unexpected –

 Most of the α-particles passed undeflected through the foil.

 A small number of α-particles were deflected by small angles.
 Very few α-particles (about 1 in 20,000) bounced back.
Thomson’s model versus Rutherford’s model [Source: Wikimedia
Commons]

Conclusions of the α-scattering experiment

Based on the above results, Rutherford made the following conclusions

about the structure of the atom:

 Since most of the α-particles passed through the foil undeflected,

most of the space in the atom is empty.
 The deflection of a few positively charged α-particles must be due to
the enormous repulsive force. This suggests that the positive charge
is not uniformly spread throughout the atom as Thomson had
proposed. The positive charge has to be concentrated in a very small
volume to deflect the positively charged α-particles.
 Rutherford’s calculations show that the volume of the nucleus is
very small compared to the total volume of the atom and the radius
of an atom is about 10 m, while that of the nucleus is 10 m.
-10 -15
Nuclear Model Of The Atom
Based on his observations and conclusions, Rutherford proposed his
model of the structure of the atom. According to this model –

 Most of the mass of the atom and the positive charge is densely
concentrated in a very small region in the atom. Rutherford called
this region the nucleus.
 Electrons surround the nucleus and move around it at very high
speeds in circular paths called orbits. This arrangement also
resembles the solar system, where the nucleus forms the sun and
the electrons are the revolving planets. Therefore, it is also referred
to as the Planetary Model.
 Electrostatic forces of attraction hold the nucleus and electrons
together.

Drawbacks Of Rutherford’s Atomic Model

 According to Rutherford’s atomic model, the electrons (planets)
move around the nucleus (sun) in well-defined orbits. Since a body
that moves in an orbit must undergo acceleration, the electrons, in
this case, must be under acceleration. According to Maxwell’s
electromagnetic theory, charged particles when accelerated must
emit electromagnetic radiation. Therefore, an electron in an orbit
will emit radiation and eventually the orbit will shrink. If this is true,
then the electron will spiral into the nucleus. But this does not
happen. Thus, Rutherford’s model does not explain the stability of
the atom.
 Contrarily, let’s consider that the electrons do not move and are
stationary. Then the electrostatic attraction between the electrons
 and the dense nucleus will pull the electrons into the nucleus to
form a miniature version of Thomson’s model.
 Rutherford’s model also does not state anything about the
distribution of the electrons around the nucleus and the energies of
these electrons.
Thus, Thomson and Rutherford’s atomic models revealed key aspects
of the structure of the atom but failed to address some critical points.
Now that we know the two atomic models, let’s try to understand a few
concepts.

Atomic Number And Mass Number

As we know now, a positive charge on the nucleus is due to the protons.
Also, the charge on the proton is equal but opposite to that of the
electron. Atomic Number (Z) is the number of protons present in the
nucleus. For example, the number of protons in sodium is 11 whereas it
is 1 in hydrogen, Therefore, the atomic numbers of sodium and
hydrogen are 11 and 1, respectively.

Also, to maintain electrical neutrality, the number of electrons in an

atom is equal to the number of protons (atomic number, Z). Therefore,
the number of electrons in sodium and hydrogen is 11 and 1,
respectively.

Atomic number = the number of protons in the nucleus of an atom

= the number of electrons in a neutral atom

The positive charge on the nucleus is due to protons, but the mass of the
atom is due to protons and neutrons. They are collectively known
as nucleons. Mass number (A) of the atom is the total number of
nucleons.
Mass number (A) = the number of protons (Z) + the number of neutrons
(n)

Therefore, the composition of an atom is represented using

the element symbol (X) with the mass number (A) as super-script on the
left and atomic number (Z) as sub-script on the left –  AZX.

Learn about Atomic number here in more detail here.

Isobars and Isotopes

Isobars are atoms with the same mass number but a different atomic
number. For example, 146C and 147N.

Learn about Isobars here in more detail here.

Isotopes, on the other hand, are atoms with the same atomic number but
a different mass number. This means that the difference in the isotopes
is due to the presence of a different number of neutrons in the nucleus.
Let’s understand this using hydrogen as an example –

 99.985% of hydrogen atoms contain only one proton. This isotope

is protium ( H).
1
1

 The isotope containing one proton and one neutron is deuterium

( D).
2
1

 The isotope with one proton and two neutrons is tritium ( T). This
3
1

isotope exists in trace amounts on earth.

Other common isotopes are – carbon atoms with 6 protons and 6, 7, or 8
neutrons (126C, 136C, 146C) and chlorine atoms with 17 protons and 18 or
20 neutrons (3517Cl, 3717Cl).
Note: Chemical properties of atoms are under the influence of the
number of electrons, which are dependent on the number of protons in
the nucleus. The number of neutrons has a very little effect on the
chemical properties of an element. Therefore, all isotopes of an element
show same chemical behaviour.

Learn about Isotopes here in more detail here.

Solved Examples For You

Question 1: Match the columns:

1. Mass number a. Nuclear Model of Atom

2. J.J. Thomson b. Number of protons

3. Rutherford c. Number of nucleons

4. Atomic number d. Plum pudding model

Solution: 1 → c, 2 → d, 3 → a, 4 → b.

Question 2: Calculate the number of protons, neutrons, and electrons

in 5626Fe.

Solution: In 5626Fe, atomic number (Z) = 26, mass number (A) = 56.

Number of protons = number of electrons = Z = 26.

 Number of neutrons = A – Z = 56 – 26 = 30.

List of Atomic Theories

1. Ancient Greek Beliefs

“All the matter is made up of tiny units called atoms” this was first
proposed by Leucippus and Democritus, in the fifth century B.C., that
all matter is made of tiny units called atoms.

In addition, they tell that these were solid particles without internal
structure, and came in a variety of shapes and sizes. Moreover, they also
made some intangible qualities such as taste and color.

2. Dalton’s Atomic Theory

English chemist John Dalton subsequently made on the Greek notion of

atoms in 1808. He postulated that matter is made of atoms, which are
small indivisible particles. He also proposed that while all atoms of one
element are identical, they are totally different from those that make up
other elements.

3. J.J. Thomson’s Theory

In 1904, English physicist Joseph J. Thomson proposes the “plum

pudding” theory of the divisible atom. He does so after discovering
electrons in 1897.

Also, his model suggested that atoms consist of a big positively-charged

sphere studded with negatively charged electrons (he called them
“corpuscles”) like fruit in a plum pudding.

Furthermore, he put forward that the charge of the positive sphere’s

charge is equal to the negative charges of the electrons. Today we call
the positive charged particles protons and the negative one’s electrons.
4. Rutherford’s Hypothesis

In 1911, Ernest Rutherford (British physicist) proposed a nuclear model

on atoms. An atom in which a nucleus exists. In the past, he discovered
the part of activity such as the movement of protons and electrons
within the central part of the atom. He further hypothesized that the
number of protons and electrons are equals in an atom.

5. Bohr’s Theory

In 1913, Danish physicist Niels Bohr proposed a planetary model,

which states that electrons revolve about the nucleus just as the planets
orbit the sun. When the electrons are in orbit, they possess “constant
energy.”

When these atoms grasp the energy and move into a higher orbit, this
theory refers to them as “excited” electrons. At the time of returning to
their original orbit, they leave this energy as electromagnetic radiation.

6. Einstein, Heisenberg and Quantum Mechanics

As far as the earlier theories are concerned, the atom consists of a

central and heavy nucleus centered by a number of electrons. Earlier
theories used to treat electrons, and other tiny particles as fixed solid
“lumps,”.

On the other hand, modern quantum theory specifies them as statistical

“clouds”. Moreover, one can measure their speed exactly along with
their locations. However, we can’t do them at the same time.