The London evening courses of Benjamin Martin and James Ferguson,eighteenth-century lecturers on experimental philosophy

A study of some London newspapers of the early 1770s has shown that Martin and Ferguson gave continuous courses of evening lectures during the winter, in direct competition with each other. In this paper the coverage of their courses is derived from their advertisements, and related to their publications and other activities. In some subjects, such as Electricity, Hydrostatics, and Air-pump Experiments, there was close correspondence between the courses, but others reflected the lecturers' primary interests: for Martin, Optics, and for Ferguson, Mechanics and Astronomy.     

Fritz London and the scale of quantum mechanisms

Fritz London's seminal idea of “quantum mechanisms of macroscopic scale”, first articulated in 1946, was the unanticipated result of two decades of research, during which London pursued quantum-mechanical explanations of various kinds of systems of particles at different scales. He started at the microphysical scale with the hydrogen molecule, generalized his approach to chemical bonds and intermolecular forces, then turned to macrophysical systems like superconductors and superfluid helium. Along this path, he formulated a set of concepts—the quantum mechanism of exchange, the rigidity of the wave function, the role of quantum statistics in multi-particle systems, the possibility of order in momentum space—that eventually coalesced into a new conception of systems of equal particles. In particular, it was London's clarification of Bose-Einstein condensation that enabled him to formulate the notion of superfluids, and led him to the recognition that quantum mechanics was not, as it was commonly assumed, relevant exclusively as a micromechanics.     

Chemistry and Chemists at the London Institution 1807-1912

The London Institution, established in the City of London in 1807, was devoted, as its full title proclaimed, to the 'advancement of Literature and the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge'. With its extensive lecture programme, splendid reference library, reading rooms, laboratory and other amenities, it provided for its members a scientific and cultural centre, modelled on the highly successful and fashionable Royal Institution in London's West End. Among its scientific activities, chemistry long maintained a leading role, in terms of both the sheer volume and variety of its presentations, and the high standing of its lecturers; they included Faraday, Playfair, Hofmann, Roscoe, Odling, Norman Lockyer, Meldola, and Sir William Ramsay, as well as other visiting lecturers, specially selected for their ability to present their subject in an interesting and attractive fashion to a wider lay public. The laboratory of the Institution, although limited in size and facilities, was the scene of instruction in practical chemistry, and between 1863 and 1884 attained the reputation of a significant centre of chemical research during the successive tenure of the professorship in chemistry by J. A. Wanklyn and H. E. Armstrong. Their publications, appearing under the device 'From the Laboratory of the London Institution', were a frequent feature of the leading chemical periodicals. Thus, within its many-sided activities, the Institution promoted significantly the public appreciation of the function of chemistry, as a contributor both to pure knowledge, and to technical and economic progress. It achieved this in an environment of influential City merchants, manufacturers and financiers and doubtless led to beneficient, if unrecorded, consequences. It was only towards the close of the nineteenth century, when the universities had become increasingly concerned with the systematic study of the discipline, that chemistry lost its direct impact in the London Institution, but continued to maintain a presence within its cultural framework.     

Empirical factors and structure transference: Returning to the London account

We offer a framework to represent the roles of empirical and theoretical factors in theory construction, and examine a case study to illustrate how the framework can be used to illuminate central features of scientific reasoning. The case study provides an extension of French and Ladyman's (1997) analysis of Fritz and Heinz London's model of superconductivity to accommodate the role of the analogy between superconductivity and diamagnetic phenomena in the development of the model between 1935 and 1937. We focus on this case since it allows us to separate the roles of empirical and theoretical factors, and so provides an example of the utility of the approach that we have adopted. We conclude the paper by drawing on the particular framework here developed to address a range of concerns.