Chapter 16 Chapter 14 Lavoisier and the Chemical Revolution

The chemical revolution occupies the first place among the scientific revolutions because it was the first to be generally recognized and recognized by its initiator A-L.Lavoisier called the revolution the main revolution.Scientists before Lavoisier had recognized that their project would lead to something entirely new and would directly violate the established norms of scientific creed accepted as true; however, unlike others, Lavoisier also thought of the concept of a particularly transformative scientific revolution, and he concluded that what he himself was doing would in fact constitute such a revolution.Others have written about revolutions in science, but these are things that happened in the distant past, or at least yesterday, not in the present.As far as I know, only Robert Simmel preceded Lavoisier to describe his contribution to science as a "revolution"-creation; but Simmel's two-current theory of electricity did not cause a revolution, just as Lavoisier's chemical theory did not cause a revolution.Moreover, electricity is at best a separate branch of one science (physics), while chemistry encompasses the whole science of matter.Thus, a revolution in chemistry has the potential to shake the foundations of nearly all natural sciences and even biological sciences.

In formulating his research plans and goals, Lavoisier had to think about their fundamental significance for science.He wrote in a laboratory note in 1773: "The importance of this subject has once again impelled me to undertake the whole work. It seems to me that this work is destined to cause a revolution in physics and chemistry." "["In Lavoisier's letter to Chaptal in 1791, we see the same concept and vision of Lavoisier about a revolution in chemistry. Lavoisier said in the letter: " All young scientists have accepted the new theory, so I conclude that the revolution was accomplished in chemistry".

The Chemical Revolution took place around the time of the American Revolution and reached its climax during the French Revolution.Lavoisier was aware of this confluence of revolutions.On February 2, 1790, he wrote a very notable letter to Benjamin Franklin.In his letter he gave his American friend a succinct account of the chemical revolution, yet he also addressed the political revolution in France - thus clearly showing how, in his view, the two revolutions were connected .He announced to Franklin that French scientists were divided into two camps: one camp of scientists clings to and adheres to old doctrines and theories; the other camp of scientists stands on his side.The latter camp included de Movio, Berthollet, Foucroy, Laplace, Monge, and "generally speaking the physicists of the Academy of Sciences".After reporting on the state of chemistry in England and Germany, he concluded (Duveen and Krickstein, 1955, 127; Smith, 1927, 31): "Thus here, in an important part of human knowledge, A revolution since you left Europe".At the same time he added: "If you agree, I shall regard this revolution as fully developed or even completely completed." Then, Lavoisier turned to the political revolution: "After introducing you to the After what has happened so far in chemistry, it may be appropriate to tell you about our political revolution. We believe that this revolution is complete and that there can never be a return to the old order".By February 1790, the absolute rule of the king had been abolished and France had become a constitutional monarchy, with the main power vested in the National Assembly; however, it was not until July 14, 1790 that a new constitution was drawn up and endorsed by the king.

In 1790 or 1791, when a revolution had fully developed in the political sphere, it was not surprising to find Lavoisier thinking about a revolution in chemistry.Even his relatively early reference to revolution in the laboratory records of 1773, before the American and French revolutions, is not particularly surprising, since, by that time, political, cultural, and intellectual The concept of the revolution in France has become quite common in France.What is noteworthy about Lavoisier's notes of 1773 is (1) that he predicted in them an imminent and profound revolution in the natural sciences which later actually took place; that is, he was able to predict a scientific revolution. revolution; and (2), the author of this note is the same person as the chief initiator of this revolution.

Lavoisier's contribution The most important feature of the chemical revolution is that it overthrew the dominant "phlogiston" theory and replaced it with a theory based on the role of oxygen.Lavoisier proved that this gas is a constituent of air.He believes that air is a gaseous substance rather than a mixture of a single substance that is easily metamorphosed.Oxygen is an active agent in combustion, calcination and respiration.To see how profound the changes wrought by the chemical revolution, note that at that time metallic ores were seen as composed of elements and metallic elements were considered mixed (i.e. metallic ores or mixtures of "metallic ash" and "phlogiston" ).Since Lavoisier, we have considered metals to be elements (neither alloys nor mixtures, if uniform), and metals to be mixtures of metallic elements and oxygen.The language of chemistry reflects new knowledge in terms such as "oxide," "dioxide," "peroxide," and so on.The basic content of the new chemistry includes the modern concept of elements, compounds and mixtures; the production of element tables (very similar to what we see today); chemical analysis of known compounds.

The chemical revolution exploited a general principle commonly known as "conservation of mass" or "conservation of matter".This principle states that in a chemical reaction, the total mass (or weight) of all the reactants involved is equal to the total mass (or weight) of all products produced. This principle is now fundamental to all sciences, It was not then a fundamental principle of chemical theory. If so, then there might be a surprise (assuming that phlogiston is a substance, and therefore - in the Newtonian sense - has mass and weight). For experiments show that, In the process specified by the equation metal gray ten phlogiston = metal, the weight of the metal dust is greater than the weight of the metal. Some adherents of the phlogiston account explain this contradiction by assigning a "negative weight" to the phlogiston, while others Priestley is far superior to either of these types of people, and others try to reduce the problem of mass or weight to a problem of specific gravity (see Partington and Mackay, 1938, part 3). Priestley is far superior to both. said that weight (or mass) is not always a major consideration in the natural sciences. Of course, he is right. Three examples of tangible "matter" that are not discussed in terms of mass or quantity are: Newton ether, Franklin's electric current, and (as Lavoisier believed) heat flow. We can see here how revolutionary the principles of the new chemistry are. We may note that Lavoisier's correction of the above equation (metal Ash = metal ten oxygen) provides experimental proof for the fundamental principle of conservation of matter (since air has weight).

Lavoisier's analysis of the role of oxygen (or elements of air) in combustion and calcination is recorded in a scholarly essay dated November 1, 1772 (this essay was published in the royal court on May 5, 1773 read by the Academy of Sciences).In this article, he pointed out that "sulphur, instead of losing weight when it burns, gains weight" and that "the same is true for phosphorus".He went on to say that this "increase in weight came from the large amount of air that solidified during the combustion process "actually, as he later discovered, only a part of the air, namely oxygen"". This finding, he noted, led him to believe: "For "The same phenomenon is likely to occur" for all substances which gain weight by burning or calcining (Eder 1964, 61; Mackay, 1935, 117). 1773 on "Revolutions in Physics and Chemistry" The thesis (notes) is based on a series of experiments "with a new apparatus" aimed at "connecting our knowledge of the entry of air into a compound or release from matter with other acquired knowledge" to "form a theory "(Meldrum 1930, 9; Berthelow 1890, 48).

I have already mentioned the new chemical names for oxides.It is characteristic of scientific revolutions to change existing names in accordance with the stricter logic of new theories.We have seen an illustration of this process in arteries and veins after Harvey's discovery of the circulation of blood.In 1787, Louis Bernard Guyton de Movio, Claude Berthollet and Antoine François de Foucroy collaborated with Lavoisier to coin a new term Table - These terms will reflect the actual chemical composition of the substance according to Lavoisier's new chemical theory.The Nomenclature of Chemistry, published by these four collaborators in 1787, was a first-hand revolutionary document that was key to Lavoisier's dynamic intellectual framework.Not only does the new name depend on Lavoisier's analysis of the compounds, but the order of the names can also provide information about the corresponding degree of oxygen saturation.For example, sulfur-containing salts may be sulfates or sulfites; and generally speaking, higher valence acids (and ... acid salts) are those that are permeable to oxygen.However, compounds containing sulfur without oxygen are -ides (plural), as in potassium sulfide.Similarly, a compound of potassium and oxygen may be potassium oxide (and the same is true for other metal elements).In his Preliminaries on Chemistry (1789; published again in German in 1792 and in English in 1790, also in Dutch, Italian and Spanish), Lavoisier emphasized that the philosopher Condillac's influence.Condillac once said: "The art of reasoning depends on a well-made language".Of course we may need to take Lavoisier's statement with a grain of salt (Glacier 1975, 112), but he makes it clear that this final account stems from considerations of language and nomenclature - in "I have not been able to prevent it" case, has been formed as a chemical system.

acknowledgment of the revolution Almost simultaneously, it was acknowledged in the publications that a chemical revolution had taken place.Lavoisier's friend and collaborator Jean-Baptiste-Michel Buquet referred to this revolution relatively early in a pamphlet published in 1778 (Gourve, 1983); the pamphlet It was written on the basis of a thesis presented to the Paris School of Medicine a year earlier.Biquet believed that the new chemical "gas theory" fully explained the principle that old ideas must be discarded when faced with new discoveries.Nothing, he said, had "generated such a great revolution in science" and "contributed so much to the progress of this wonderful science" than the new discovery about gases.

Gourve (ibid.) has tracked down what was probably the first person to mention Lavoisier's chemical revolution in publications.It is mentioned after Lavoisier had just begun a series of experiments that would lead to a new view on combustion and air.Antoine Baum, who wrote a three-volume work on chemistry, mentioned this revolution in his publication in 1773, when Lavoisier privately expressed his belief that his research The plan would "cause a revolution in physics and chemistry".By this time Lavoisier had become convinced that combustion caused a combination with air (or a portion of it) and that the phlogiston theory should be abandoned, but he had not yet published anything on the subject.In an appendix to his thesis, Baum referred to a revolution in chemistry when discussing new discoveries, especially "freezing air" (carbon dioxide) and its properties.According to Baum, some natural scientists believe that the frozen air has "properties" that must cause phlogiston to be discarded and replaced.He goes on to say (Gourf 1983): "In the eyes of these same natural scientists", congealed air "would cause a complete revolution in chemistry [a revolution in general]" and, even, "change the order of our knowledge" .Because Baum was not particularly closely related to Lavoisier, we have no idea how he heard Lavoisier's revolutionary ideas; "The phrase loosely refers to Lavoisier and his followers—who, then, is making such a revolution, as far as the rest are concerned?

Henry Gluck (1976) traces us back to the later recognition of the chemical revolution.Bikay's 1778 book is not particularly famous.Gluck found that the author most responsible for popularizing the concept of the chemical revolution initiated by Lavoisier was Foucroy.Foucroy even mentioned an impending revolution "before turning to Lavoisier's new chemistry" in his Lectures on Natural History (1782).Here he writes: "Only when further experiments have convinced us that all chemical phenomena can be explained by means of the theory of gases without resorting to phlogiston can there be a more suitable teaching." In particular, he points out that his Fellow chemist Michael was convinced that "the new discovery must cause a great revolution in chemistry" (Foucroy, 1782, 1:22).In later editions, Foucroy speaks of new discoveries that give new power to our theories every day.Due to the popularity of Foucroy's "Primary Course in Natural History" (1782) and other works in which Foucroy spoke of "revolutions," Gluck asserts that it was Foucroy who recognized and extolled the "revolution in chemistry" " or other equivalents and normalized them (see Smeaton 1962 for a further discussion).In particular, there is a long review of Lavoisier's magnum opus—"signed by Foucroy and J. de Orne"—which was actually "written and submitted" by Foucroy (Ger. Lacker 1976, 3)—pointed out that "the revolution that chemistry has experienced in recent years is actually the result of a series of experiments by Mr. M. Lavoisier." This comment is "as the first First published as an appendix to the second edition of the second edition, and continued to be published in subsequent editions" (ibid.), Lavoisier, therefore, while fully formulating his own theory, proclaimed the birth of the revolution. . Gluck also found that, even "before Lavoisier established his new theory of chemistry with the publication of the Preliminaries of Chemistry in 1789", in the French translation of the work on phlogiston by the Irish chemist Richard Colwan A preface already mentions this ongoing revolution.This preface, attributed to Madame Lavoisier, who (according to Grimmox's authority) is generally regarded as the translator of the book, explains why a series of footnotes have been added to include Colwan's phlogiston view is refuted at every step.Without these annotations, Madame Lavoisier argued, "this work may not be sufficient to advance the revolution that is going on in chemistry." This record should also include another important example of a published account of revolution—the account of Lavoisier himself.This treatise (like Michael's view mentioned by Foucroy, the preface to the calligraphic edition of Corvin and Biquet's) preceded Lavoisier's publication of his whole theory in the Preliminaries of Chemistry. .According to the paper "On the Necessity of Improving and Perfecting Chemical Nomenclature".It was "read by Monsieur Lavoisier at a public meeting of the Paris Academy of Sciences, April 18, 1787" and published as an introductory chapter in the book "Introduction to the Classification of Chemical Terms" (Paris, 1787).Lavoisier does not say in the text that the reform of the taxonomy of chemical terms constitutes a revolution in the chemical sciences, or that such a revolution is in the making.On the contrary, Lavoisier declared that "new methods" would "bring about a necessary and even rapid revolution in the way chemistry is taught. This example recalls that almost a century ago, when describing the revolution in mathematics , Fontenelle invokes the principle that any truly fundamental revolution in science implies a revolution in education. Lavoisier's prophecy was quickly borne out.Evidence of this can be found in a pamphlet written by Joseph Priestley in 1796.This pamphlet came out nine years after the publication of "An Introduction to the Taxonomy of Chemical Terms" and eight years after the publication of the French translation of Kervin's treatise, "Moviot, Lavoisier, Price, Monge, Beau Annotated by Tolay and Foucroy".Priestley, speaking of "Berthollet, Price, Monge, Movio, Foucroy, Messrs Hasenfritz, and the surviving respondent of Messrs. A brief defense of the phlogiston theory".He started by saying, Few, if any, revolutions have been so large, so sudden, and so pervasive, that what is now commonly called new chemical systems and antiphlogiston theory is so prevalent and widespread.The main target of the anti-phlogiston theory was Stahl's phlogiston theory, which was once considered the greatest discovery that science had ever made. The pace of this revolution, Priestley argues, is such that "every year in the past twenty or thirty years has been of greater importance to science, especially chemistry, than any decade in the last century." ".He then concedes that "this new theory" was supposed to be "on such firm ground" that "a new taxonomy of terms—on which all attention is directed—was invented and created "—" People are now using this taxonomy almost universally.As a result, "whether we use the system or not, we have to learn new languages".For, without learning the language, one would no longer be able to "understand some of the most valuable modern publications."This demonstrates the close connection between what Lavoisier called the revolution in teaching and taxonomy of chemical terms and the revolution in chemistry. Finally, we may note that the publication of Lavoisier's laboratory notes (by M. Berthelot in a book entitled "The Chemical Revolution: Lavoisier" in 1899) is popularly and Permanently anchored the name Chemical Revolution.As early as a century and a half ago (as Morris Crossland put it in 1963), G. -F．Vinell was apparently the first to mention a revolution in chemistry, and to predict such a "revolution" (Encyclopedia, 1754 edition, entry "Chemistry")]. Obviously, Lavoisier's chemical revolution has passed all the tests of a revolution in science.All historians and scientists regard it as a revolution, as it was a revolution in its own time.Moreover, the entire science of chemistry and its language follow the lines and lines set forth in the chemical revolution.Thus, the chemical revolution is a demonstrative example of a scientific revolution.