You are currently browsing the monthly archive for April 2011.









A Brief History of Atomic Theory

 — DrTony @ 2:50 pm    Thanks to you Tony!
The Scriptures for this Sunday, the 2nd Sunday of Easter, are Acts 2: 14, 22 – 32; 1 Peter 1: 3 – 9; and John 20: 19 – 31. My post is tentatively entitled “Faith and Vision”. But some of what I want to say or write for Sunday requires an understanding of what we know about the atom and I didn’t feel like putting a theory of the atom into a Sunday piece. Of course, if I were to get called to preach somewhere this Sunday, I would have to figure out a way to condense this.

Should people in the pews have some understanding of the basic principles of physics, chemistry, and biology? Should a pastor or a lay speaker focus on scientific theory when speaking of the Gospel or other passages in the Scriptures?

One would think that the answer to the first question should be yes, if for no other reason than such information is covered in basic courses taught in high school and college. You know that there is a problem when many people still hold onto the Aristotelian view point that heavier things fall faster than light while they were taught in school that all things fall at the same rate. Perhaps I shouldn’t worry but there is other evidence to suggest that there are quite a few basic ideas that are taught in school today but not really learned. And the same applies to church as well; it is well documented that the majority of Americans claime to be Christian but cannot provide basic information about the Bible, Christianity or their denomination.

Clearly, there is a need to reform our educational processes, both in the sectarian schools and in the secular schools as well. And that is one issue that I want to address. But in the meantime, let me offer these thoughts on atomic theory.

To understand the history of atomic theory, you need a basic understanding of the processes of science. Some of this was covered in “Processes of Science”; I may expand on that later.

The simplest way to start is to say that the “universe” is composed of matter and energy. As a consequence of Albert Einstein’s work on relativity, we know that matter and energy are interchangeable.

Generally speaking, we break down matter from heterogeneous mixtures into homogeneous mixtures (or solutions) and then into compounds and elements. The separation of mixtures is done mainly through physical changes and processes. The separation of compounds into elements is done through chemical changes and processes. (See “Matter Chart” for a pictorial explanation of this.)

Elements are the simple form of matter and atoms are the simplest form of an element. The Greek philosopher/scientist Leucippus and his student, Democritus, developed the first atomic theory in the 5th and 4th century (B.C.E.). The word “atom” is derived from the Greek for “indivisible” and the premise of the theory was that atoms were indivisible particles. The theory that Democritus developed from his studies with Leucippus was not easily accepted at the time and there are suggestions that Democritus’ works were destroyed or people were discouraged from using them.

But Issac Newton would find references to these works and use them developing his ideas on optics. (In the preparation of these notes, I found a reference that said that Newton believed the idea of atoms was first developed by a person known as Moschus or Moses of Sidon; Newton believed this to be the biblical Moses – references: and The foundation for this linkage may be more theological in nature but if you understand Newton, this is totally understandable – see “A Dialogue of Science and Faith”.) Other contemporaries of Newton’s, including Robert Boyle and John Dalton, would use the idea of the indivisible particle to explain some of their observations.

Dalton would codify his thoughts in what we called the first modern atomic theory. All matter consists of tiny particles called atoms that are indestructible and unchangeable. Elements are characterized by the mass of their atoms. When elements react, their atoms combine in simple whole-number ratios; though sometimes there may be more than one possible ratio.

Dalton also included a postulate that when atoms combine in only one ratio, it is a binary one, unless some cause appears to the contrary. Now, Dalton had no experimental evidence to support this postulate and it led him to assume that the formula for water was OH and the formula for ammonia was NH. This in turn lead him to incorrectly determine the mass of oxygen and nitrogen. These incorrect values would lead to conclusions that were not supported by the experimental data and would prevent many from accepting his theory. (A Short History of Chemistry, J. R. Partington, MacMillan (London), 1937)

In the end, his basic statements about the nature of the atom, though modified, are still true today.

Now, if science is absolute, which some people believe to be the case, then the activities of the18th and 19th century will cause them grief. In addition, if one is not able to see the connection between two sets of data, it is also possible that what happened in the 18th and 19th century will also cause them grief.

It may be true today that what transpires in chemistry today often times has little impact on what is happening in physics or biology. And it also may be true that there are many chemists, physicists, and biologists who have no interest in what transpires in the other fields. And we certainly teach these subjects as if they were independent of each other. But that was certainly not the case in the 18th, 19th, and early 20th centuries.

The discovery of electricity would lead to the discovery of the electron and suggest that the atom was, in point of fact, divisible. And because the electron carried a negative charge (although this was an arbitrary decision), it implied the existence of a second charged particle which was ultimately called the proton.

The discovery of radioactivity also brought into doubt the stability of the atom. Wilhelm Röentgen’s discovery of X-rays would lead others to seek other sources of radiation (though, as I pointed out in “The Strange Case of Mr. Piltdown”, not with the same results). In 1896 Henri Becquerel, Pierre and Marie Curie would identify and characterize what we call radioactivity (the three would share the 1903 Nobel Prize in Physics).

Ernest Rutherford, working with Paul Villard in 1899 and 1900, characterized radioactivity as alpha (α) and beta (β) rays. A third form of radiation (gamma – γ – rays) would also be discovered. The names of these rays were chosen in order of their discovery. Later experiments would show that these were not alpha and beta rays but particles. A side note – in 1948 George Gamow would suggest to Robert Alpher that Hans Bethe be added as a co-author for their paper on the synthesis of the elements that they (Gamow and Alpher) had been preparing for publication. This paper (Alpher, R. A., H. Bethe and G. Gamow, “The Origin of Chemical Elements,” Physical Review, 73, Issue 7, (1948), 803-804) would provide data and thoughts on how the various elements (from hydrogen to heavy elements such as uranium) were synthesized in the universe. The details in this paper would provide the first suggestion of what we now call the “big bang”. Because of the inclusion of Hans Bethe’s name on the paper, the paper became known as the Alpha – Beta – Gamow paper and because it was published on 1 April 1948, it was seen more as a joke or an attempt at humor than real and ground breaking physics.

With the discovery of radioactivity and the knowledge that some atoms emitted alpha and/or beta particles, the notion that the atom was indivisible and indestructible was pretty well destroyed. This discovery would also lead to the discovery of isotopes, atoms of the same element but with different masses. This was obviously in clear violation of one of John Dalton’s postulates that all atoms of the same element have the same mass.

Isotopes are atoms of the same element with different masses. This discovery meant that further study of the atom was necessary. It required the refinement of the atomic theory and an explanation for the makeup of isotopes in terms of atomic masses and atomic numbers (for explanation of isotopes from the 1930′s, see “Thoughts on the Nature of Teaching Science in the 21st Century”; this explanation was in print at the same time as the discovery and confirmation of the existence of the neutron).

In addition, the idea that some nuclei of atoms (the nucleus was first identified by Rutherford while working on and with alpha and beta particles) were unstable lead to experiments which resulted in the splitting of the atom (nuclear fission, first proposed by Enrico Fermi and Leo Szilard in 1993 and confirmed by Lise Meitner, Otto Frisch, Otto Hahn, and Fritz Strassman in 1939).

This work would ultimately lead to the development of the atomic bomb but it would also open the door to the creation of man-made elements and an understanding of nuclear decay and ½-life.

Decay in this context is meant to describe the physical and chemical breakdown of an unstable atom by the emitting of one type of particle; ½-life is the time it takes for ½ of the material to decay. These terms can and are equally applicable to other materials such as plastics. One reason for recycling plastics is because the ½-life of many plastics is extremely long and unless the material is biodegradable, unlikely to decay in a land-fill somewhere.

The discovery of the neutron doesn’t mean that the development of the atomic theory is complete. Further work has shown that protons, neutrons, and electrons can be further subdivided. Each step in this process is increasingly more complex. But complexity does not preclude solvability and the work goes on.

At this point, one can see that the postulates first proposed by Dalton are no longer valid as written. The idea that the atom is indivisible has been replaced with the notion that there are some other basic particles which cannot be divided. And physicists are working on that idea as this piece is being written. Perhaps one day there will be an ultimate atomic theory – that is what Democritus was seeking and what Dalton was seeking and what drives the exploration of the world of sub-atomic particles today.

Fortunately, for most chemists, the atomic theory of the proton and neutron in the nucleus and electrons in “clouds” around the nucleus provides a nice working model that explains most, if not all, chemical reactions.

Similarly, the idea of nuclear decay and ½-life become very useful in other areas of science; areas perhaps where the collisions of faith, logic, reason and belief collide.

In the next part of this discussion, I want to look at the measurement of the age of something.

Come live with me and be my love

a poem by Christopher Marlowe

Come live with me and be my love,
And we will all the pleasures prove
That valleys, groves, hills, and fields,
Woods or steepy mountain yields.

And we will sit upon the rocks,
Seeing the shepherds feed their flocks,
By shallow rivers to whose falls
Melodious birds sing madrigals.

And I will make thee beds of roses
And a thousand fragrant posies,
A cap of flowers, and a kirtle
Embroidered all with leaves of myrtle;

A gown made of the finest wool
Which from our pretty lambs we pull;
Fair lined slippers for the cold,
With buckles of th purest gold;

A belt of straw and ivy buds,
With coral clasps and amber studs:
And if these pleasures may thee move,
Come live with me and be my love.

The shepherds’ swains shall dance and sing
For thy delight each May morning:
If these delights thy mind may move,
Then live with me and be my love.

The Passionate Shepherd to His Love
Christopher Marlowe

Pie Jesu Domine,
dona eis requiem, dona eis requiem.

Pie Jesu Domine,
dona eis requiem, dona eis requiem.

Dona eis domine, dona eis requiem,
sempiternam requiem,
sempiternam requiem,
sempiternam requiem.

Pie Jesu, Jesu, pie Jesu Domine,
dona eis, dona eis,
sempiternam requiem, sempiternam requiem.

Merciful Lord Jesus, 
grant them rest, 
eternal rest.  (English translation)

singing for hazel:  a reposting from appalachia today

Spring winds are tousling the treetops outside my window, and a cold, gray mist is hanging like a shroud on the mountains. We’re in mourning today for Hazel Dickens, whose stark, plaintive voice underscored the truth of her songs. 

I got the news of her passing this morning when I checked into Facebook, something I rarely do these days.  Singer/songwriter John Lilly’s status report broke the news to me, but several other Facebook friends have commented on her death.

I first heard the music of Hazel Dickens when I was in my twenties, struggling to come to terms with who I was and what I wanted to be. I loved music and singing, but never would have dared to sing in public—until I heard Hazel. Hazel, who had that same piercing singing style as my grandmother, born in 1895, in Summers County, West Virginia.  Hazel was born in 1935 in neighboring Mercer County.  My grandmother was born into a Primitive Baptist family.  Hazel’s father was a Primitive Baptist preacher.  Forty-five years separated them generationally, but they were born and bred in the same stoic mountain culture where singing was something you did to entertain yourself, whether you had a pretty voice or not. 

I cringed when I read the Washington Post’s obituary that states, “Ms. Dickens grew up in dire poverty inWest Virginia’s coal country and developed a raw, keening style of singing that was filled with the pain of her hardscrabble youth.”

If you actually listen to Hazel’s songs, you’ll find that they are filled with longing for her West Virginia youth:

In the dead of the night, in the still and the quiet I slip away

like a bird in flight

Back to those hills, the place that I call home.

It’s been years now since I left there

And this city life’s about got the best of me.

I can’t remember why I left so free what I wanted to do,

what I wanted to see,

But I can sure remember where I come from.

West Virginia, oh, my home

West Virginia, where I belong….

Well I paid the price for the leavin’

And this life I have is not one I thought I’d find.

Just let me live, love, let my cry,

but when I go just let me die

Among the friends who’ll remember when I’m gone.


Was it dire poverty she grew up in?  Well, the whole country was still in the throes of the Great Depression when she was born, and almost everybody—even Washington, D.C. newspaper reporters–was financially insecure.  (A lot like these days.)  Hazel spoke of a childhood shared with 10 siblings, and a mother who lived in the kitchen, preparing fresh bread for three home-cooked meals a day. Can people who put three meals on the table each day for 13 people without any government assistance be described as poor? As my mom used to say, “We’re not poor. We just don’t have any money.” Then she would add, “Right now.”

Hazel’s daddy was not a miner, but he cut timbers for the mines, and her brothers became miners as those were the most plentiful jobs in most of resource-rich West Virginia until the 1950s, when machines began replacing men.

The Dickens family was resourceful, and young Hazel Jane somehow intuited that it was better to pine for the mountains of southern West Virginia than to be a working-class woman there, so she flew away. It was in Baltimore that she learned what hardscrabble really was. She worked to support herself, learned how to communicate with city people, and learned that her experience, her point of view, was valuable. We’re fortunate that she was a poet. Hazel taught a generation of women, including me, to sing the truth. She looked back at Appalachia and could see very clearly that her people had been and were being used and abused by an industry that chewed people up and spat them out.

She taught at least one person how to deal with death, and she did it through her song, “Won’t You Come and Sing for Me?”

The song first caught the ear of Vic Lukas, charter citizen of the Transcendent New Nation of Appalachia, when he heard it performed by Tim O’Brien’s band, Hot Rize. He later had the privilege of listening to Hazel herself sing it in a late-night jam at Clifftop, accompanied by Alice Gerrard.

“I was very moved by the song,” Vic says. “I quietly added my voice to the chorus in the background. It meant so much to me. It set me on the road to thinking how much I wanted folks to sing for me when I am gone, that I wanted to go with dignity.  I’d like people to sing, and I’d like to have my ashes scattered at some place like the Mt. Airy festival grounds, or some other place that is beautiful. I realized then that I had to make all the rest of the plans so folks would know what I want.  I’ve now done all that, and discussed it with my family and friends.  I don’t want anyone to feel bad, so I’ve taken care of everything in advance.  I’m ready, and all because of that song.”

I feel the shadows now upon me

And the angels beckon to me

Before I go, dear sisters and brothers

Won’t you come and sing for me?

Sing those hymns we sang together

In the plain little church with the benches all worn

How dear to my heart, how precious the moments

We stood shaking hands and singing a song.

My burden is heavy, my way has grown weary

I have traveled a road that is long

And it would warm this old heart, my dear brother

If you come and sing me one song.

In my home beyond the dark river

Your sweet faces no more I will see

Until we meet where there’s no more sad parting

Won’t you come and sing for me?

Next Tuesday, somewhere in Mercer County, West Virginia, Hazel’s family and friends will no doubt do just that.

I might be tempted to say that we’re poorer today because of Hazel’s passing, but a trip to YouTube will show that her spirit enriches the repertoire of musicians all over the world.

Many thanks to the writer of this tribute to Hazel Dickens!

monthly archives


Joan of Arc

I know this now. Every man gives his life for what he believes. Every woman gives her life for what she believes. Sometimes people believe in little or nothing yet they give their lives to that little or nothing. One life is all we have and we live it as we believe in living it. And then it is gone. But to sacrifice what you are and live without belief, that's more terrible than dying.--

  • 347,953

say hello

If you drop by my site, I'd love to know what brought you here and a bit about where you are from and how you feel about your visit. Take a minute and say hello!


This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. This material is distributed without profit.
April 2011



On the day when
the weight deadens
on your shoulders
and you stumble,
may the clay dance
to balance you.

And when your eyes
freeze behind
the grey window
and the ghost of loss
gets in to you,
may a flock of colours,
indigo, red, green,
and azure blue
come to awaken in you
a meadow of delight.

When the canvas frays
in the currach of thought
and a stain of ocean
blackens beneath you,
may there come across the waters
a path of yellow moonlight
to bring you safely home.

May the nourishment of the earth be yours,
may the clarity of light be yours,
may the fluency of the ocean be yours,
may the protection of the ancestors be yours.
And so may a slow
wind work these words
of love around you,
an invisible cloak
to mind your life.

John O'Donohue, Echoes of Memory