Micelle colloids form, for example, in aqueous solutions of soaps and dyes (see
[10], pp. 8–9; [1], pp. 80–81; [19], p. 250). However, soaps dissolve “normally” [1,
p. 81], i.e. without micelle formation, in alcohol (cf. [10], pp. 8–9). This is also true
of the high-polymer material rubber if menthol is used as the solvent [1, p. 81]. The
crucial role played by the solvent (cf. [15], p. 208) therefore makes it difficult
to determine correctly whether a low or highmolecular substance is involved.
Depending on the nature, concentration and temperature of the solvent, it is
evidently the case that primary valence bonds can break too, while secondary
valence bonds remain stable. Even if a colloid proves to be resistant to many
different solvents, there is still some uncertainty about whether the dissolved
substance can be identified definitely as macromolecular. The process is not
therefore conclusive enough. Staudinger himself also felt that resistance was
merely “a valuable indication but not definite proof that the colloid particles are
macromolecular in structure” [1, p. 119]. “Determination of the size [. . .] does not
reveal the inner structure of the particles. This question is answered via chemical
experiments that are carried out here at the same time, like when investigating
the structure of particles of low-molecular organic compounds [. . .], in order to
demonstrate that the atoms in a particle of a certain size are bonded by primary
valences, i.e. that this particle represents a chemical molecule” [10, pp. 15–16].
2.13 How Staudinger Proved the Existence
of Macromolecules
But how could the necessary proof be provided? This is exactly what the Japanese
Emperor also wanted to know from Staudinger when he granted an audience to the
man who was later to win the Nobel Prize: “Professor, are macromolecules merely
concepts that enable many different phenomena to be explained or is there strictly
scientific proof of their existence too and, if so, what methods are used to supply the
proof?” [1, p. 115]. The answer was: experimental proof of the existence of
macromolecules has been provided when a substance “is transformed into derivatives without changing (or reducing) its degree of polymerisation” [1]. “Transformation of this kind [. . .] into derivatives with the same degree of polymerisation is
known as polymer-analogue conversion” [10, p. 17].
This reasoning is based on the assumption “that a secondary valence bond [. . .]
does not survive chemical conversion unchanged. [. . .] The secondary valences
must disappear at least in the transition state of the reaction” [15, p. 342]. If the
colloids prove to be resistant even so, i.e. their degree of polymerisation does “not”
change even “in such profound chemical conversion processes as esterification or
saponification”, it is definite that “all the basic molecules [. . .] are bonded to each
other via primary valences” [10, p. 17] and not by secondary valences, which “are
definitely destroyed [. . .] by such chemical intervention” [26, p. 482]. In a nutshell,
in this case, macromolecules and not micelles must be involved. “Such proof [. . .]
Courageous Questioning of Established Thinking: The Life and Work of Hermann. . .
101
[10], pp. 8–9; [1], pp. 80–81; [19], p. 250). However, soaps dissolve “normally” [1,
p. 81], i.e. without micelle formation, in alcohol (cf. [10], pp. 8–9). This is also true
of the high-polymer material rubber if menthol is used as the solvent [1, p. 81]. The
crucial role played by the solvent (cf. [15], p. 208) therefore makes it difficult
to determine correctly whether a low or highmolecular substance is involved.
Depending on the nature, concentration and temperature of the solvent, it is
evidently the case that primary valence bonds can break too, while secondary
valence bonds remain stable. Even if a colloid proves to be resistant to many
different solvents, there is still some uncertainty about whether the dissolved
substance can be identified definitely as macromolecular. The process is not
therefore conclusive enough. Staudinger himself also felt that resistance was
merely “a valuable indication but not definite proof that the colloid particles are
macromolecular in structure” [1, p. 119]. “Determination of the size [. . .] does not
reveal the inner structure of the particles. This question is answered via chemical
experiments that are carried out here at the same time, like when investigating
the structure of particles of low-molecular organic compounds [. . .], in order to
demonstrate that the atoms in a particle of a certain size are bonded by primary
valences, i.e. that this particle represents a chemical molecule” [10, pp. 15–16].
2.13 How Staudinger Proved the Existence
of Macromolecules
But how could the necessary proof be provided? This is exactly what the Japanese
Emperor also wanted to know from Staudinger when he granted an audience to the
man who was later to win the Nobel Prize: “Professor, are macromolecules merely
concepts that enable many different phenomena to be explained or is there strictly
scientific proof of their existence too and, if so, what methods are used to supply the
proof?” [1, p. 115]. The answer was: experimental proof of the existence of
macromolecules has been provided when a substance “is transformed into derivatives without changing (or reducing) its degree of polymerisation” [1]. “Transformation of this kind [. . .] into derivatives with the same degree of polymerisation is
known as polymer-analogue conversion” [10, p. 17].
This reasoning is based on the assumption “that a secondary valence bond [. . .]
does not survive chemical conversion unchanged. [. . .] The secondary valences
must disappear at least in the transition state of the reaction” [15, p. 342]. If the
colloids prove to be resistant even so, i.e. their degree of polymerisation does “not”
change even “in such profound chemical conversion processes as esterification or
saponification”, it is definite that “all the basic molecules [. . .] are bonded to each
other via primary valences” [10, p. 17] and not by secondary valences, which “are
definitely destroyed [. . .] by such chemical intervention” [26, p. 482]. In a nutshell,
in this case, macromolecules and not micelles must be involved. “Such proof [. . .]
Courageous Questioning of Established Thinking: The Life and Work of Hermann. . .
101