Atomic models

Atomic models

We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

How to explain what is invisible? Despite all the sophisticated devices employed in the research and the advanced research on the atom, it remains invisible.

The study of the atom is based on models idealized by scientists, that is, hypothetical representations of one's ideas of how the atom is formed.

The concept of the indivisible, immutable, and indestructible atom affirmed by the Greek sages was a philosophical idea.

From the philosophical idea to the first scientific explanation of the atom, more than twenty centuries have passed.

It was in the nineteenth century, with the beginning of the industrial revolution, that scientific knowledge gained the most importance. In this century, the interest for knowledge that could make the transformation of one material into another intensified. Scientists were still looking for a way to transform common mineral elements such as iron, for example, into noble and rare elements such as gold and silver.

Dalton's atomic theory

In 1808, the English chemist John Dalton took up Democritus's atomic hypothesis to explain the composition of matter.

Through various experiments, Dalton concluded that some substances are formed by other elements. For example, hydrogen and oxygen are substances that combine to form the substance water.

According to Dalton, in the various combinations of atoms - still considered as fundamental and indivisible particles - would be the origin of the diversity of known substances.

He then formulated explanations for his atomic theory. In the model conceived by Dalton, atoms would be tiny, homogeneous, indivisible and indestructible massive spheres

Carrier of specific blindness for certain colors, he studied this anomaly named after color blindness, in his honor.


  1. Kajill

    This is the convention

  2. Circehyll

    does not at all agree with the previous communication

  3. Calum

    I didn't understand very well.

  4. Tekazahn

    Excuse for that I interfere... At me a similar situation. I invite to discussion.

  5. Giselmaere

    What a nice idea

  6. Jordi

    Nice blog, but worth adding more information

Write a message