How did Robert Boyle's understanding of matter differ from the ideas held by the alchemists?

• A. Boyle believed that chemical reactions were driven by mystical forces, whereas alchemists relied on scientific experimentation.
• B. Boyle thought that matter was continuous and infinitely divisible, while alchemists believed in discrete particles.
• C. Boyle supported the idea that matter was made of earth, air, fire, and water, just like the alchemists.
• D. Boyle believed that matter was composed of atoms and could not be transformed into gold, while alchemists thought all substances could be changed into gold.

Answer: (D)

Verified step by step guidance

1. Understand the historical context: Alchemists believed that all matter was composed of the four classical elements—earth, air, fire, and water—and that substances could be transformed into one another, especially the idea of turning base metals into gold through mystical or secret processes.
2. Recognize Robert Boyle's contribution: Boyle challenged the alchemical view by proposing that matter is made up of small, indivisible particles (atoms) and that chemical reactions involve the rearrangement of these particles rather than mystical transformations.
3. Identify the key difference: Boyle rejected the idea that substances could be transformed into gold or other elements through alchemical means, emphasizing instead that matter has a fixed composition and properties determined by its atomic structure.
4. Note Boyle's emphasis on experimentation: Unlike alchemists who often relied on mystical explanations, Boyle promoted systematic scientific experimentation to understand the nature of matter and chemical reactions.
5. Summarize the contrast: Boyle's atomic theory laid the groundwork for modern chemistry by asserting that matter is composed of atoms and that chemical changes involve rearrangement of these atoms, whereas alchemists believed in the mutability of substances through mystical processes.