A Geohistorical Study of ‘The Rise of Modern Science’: Mapping Scientific Practice Through Urban Networks, 1500–1900

Using data on the ‘career’ paths of one thousand ‘leading scientists’ from 1450 to 1900, what is conventionally called the ‘rise of modern science’ is mapped as a changing geography of scientific practice in urban networks. Four distinctive networks of scientific practice are identified. A primate network centred on Padua and central and northern Italy in the sixteenth century expands across the Alps to become a polycentric network in the seventeenth century, which in turn dissipates into a weak polycentric network in the eighteenth century. The nineteenth century marks a huge change of scale as a primate network centred on Berlin and dominated by German-speaking universities. These geographies are interpreted as core-producing processes in Wallerstein’s modern world-system; the rise of modern scientific practice is central to the development of structures of knowledge that relate to, but do not mirror, material changes in the system.

The non-molecular structure of solids

To sum up our argument then: It is shown, in the first place, that the arrangement of the atoms in certain crystals, as determined by the X-ray spectra, indicates definitely that in these crystals there is no molecular structure.In extending the argument to all solid matter it is pointed out, from the dependence of crystal form on chemical composition, from a consideration of the Dulong-Petit law and of the nature of cohesion, and from the evidence of X-rays as to certain crystals, that each atom in a solid oscillates about a definite position of stable equilibrium.From a further examination of the nature of cohesion and of the forces concerned in chemical combination and especially from the general relation found between the atomic heat of formation of a substance and its melting-point it is found that the forces holding the atoms in their positions of stable equilibrium are of the same nature and comparable in magnitude with the forces binding together a chemical molecule.It is seen further that the atoms in a solid are very close together so that they often come in contact. And, since an atom attracts equally all atoms of another kind which are in contact with it, an atom cannot remain combined for more than an infinitesimal interval with any other particular atom ordinary temperatures.Finally, it was shown that, since in the solid state each atom has three degrees of translational freedom and is strongly attracted by atoms other than those of its own “molecule,” it must, on the average, exert equal attractions on all the neighboring atoms.From this the conclusion is drawn that in the particular molecules cannot be definitely defined.When those properties of solid matter which have been explained by molecules are considered, nothing is found which indicates at all definitely a molecular structure.We feel justified in concluding, therefore, that the structure of solid matter is not molecular.