Small microscopic visible particles move randomly around in water.
If water were continuous, this shouldn't happen. Therefore this serves as one important evidence of atomic theory.
The amount it moves also quantitatively matches with the expected properties of water and the floating particles, was was settled in 1905 by Einstein at: investigations on the theory of the Brownian movement by Einstein (1905).
This suggestion that Brownian motion comes from the movement of atoms had been made much before Einstein however, and passed tortuous discussions. Subtle is the Lord by Abraham Pais (1982) page 93 explains it well. There had already been infinite discussion on possible causes of those movements besides atomic theory, and many ideas were rejected as incompatible with observations:The first suggestions of atomic theory were from the 1860s.
Further investigations eliminated such causes as temperature gradients, mechanical disturbances, capillary actions, irradiation of the liquid (as long as the resulting temperature increase can be neglected), and the presence of convection currents within the liquid.
Tiny uniform plastic beads called "microbeads" are the preferred 2019 modern method of doing this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microbead
Original well known observation in 1827 by Brown, with further experiments and interpretation in 1908 by Jean Baptiste Perrin. Possible precursor observation in 1785 by Jan Ingenhousz, not sure why he wasn't credited better.
Observing Brownian motion of micro beads by Forrest Charnock (2016)
Source. Articles by others on the same topic
Standard one-dimensional Brownian motion is a real-valued stochastic process on a probability space with three defining properties: almost surely; its sample paths are continuous almost surely; and its Brownian increments over any finite collection of disjoint time intervals are independent, withHere denotes the normal distribution with expectation and variance . The alternative symbol denotes the same kind of stochastic process. Continuity is a simultaneous statement about an entire sample path, rather than a separate assertion at each fixed time. Relative to its natural Brownian filtration, a future Brownian increment is independent of all observations up to its starting time.
The normalization gives , so the standard deviation of a Brownian increment over duration is . For , , and , the corresponding standard deviations are , , and . Time becoming one hundred times shorter makes typical displacement ten times smaller. Brownian scaling expresses this rule for the whole stochastic process, while the Brownian covariance kernel describes how positions at different times remain related despite independent increments.
For a concrete probability calculation, let be the cumulative distribution function of . At time four, has that normal distribution, henceThese numbers can be reproduced using the error function: . In particular, zero expectation does not mean small displacement: , but the same fixed interval contains only about of the probability at time four.
The probability density function of , for , isIts partial derivatives satisfyThus the normal distribution spreads according to the heat equation. Starting at a fixed position replaces by . This is a useful bridge between individual random trajectories and the deterministic evolution of their probability density function: the same Brownian motion provides both descriptions.
Physical diffusion uses its own scale. For constant diffusion coefficient , the position model has variance , and its probability density function satisfies . For example, gives displacement variance after four seconds, hence standard deviation . Standard Brownian motion corresponds numerically to in chosen units; omitting the factor two changes the physical convention. Einstein's 1905 paper relates diffusion to the mean squared displacement in precisely this convention. [ref]
https://djalil.chafai.net/docs/M2/history-brownian-motion/Einstein%20-%201905.pdf. Einstein, 1905 paper, English translation, section 4
Continuity does not supply a smooth physical velocity. The difference quotient has normal distribution , so its standard deviation grows as : for the three durations above it is , , and . This calculation motivates the nowhere differentiability of Brownian motion, but it alone is not a proof of the simultaneous assertion at every time. The theorem says that, with probability one, no finite derivative exists anywhere along the sample path. A drawn polygon only displays a finite grid; its straight segments cannot establish this theorem. See Theorem 7.1.6 in Probability: Theory and Examples (fifth edition) by Rick Durrett.
For physical particles, Brownian motion is a model of position on suitable observation scales. It does not claim that microscopic velocity is a derivative of this idealized path. Einstein explicitly restricts his assumption of independent increments to intervals that are not too short. [ref]
https://djalil.chafai.net/docs/M2/history-brownian-motion/Einstein%20-%201905.pdf. Einstein, 1905 paper, English translation, section 4
Another way to measure the roughness is quadratic variation. On , divide time into equal intervals and formWriting each Brownian increment as with independent standard normal random variables gives . Since and , the variance of is , andThis proves mean-square convergence to along uniform partitions. For and , the expectation is , the variance is , and the root mean square of the error is . For a general deterministic partition of an interval with lengths , the same calculation gives error variance , so shrinking the largest interval also suffices.
The resulting quadratic variation is , whereas the smooth function gives . This difference explains why the ordinary rules of calculus need the second-order correction in the Itô formula. In the figure, coarser sums reuse the same finest-grid Brownian increments; their individual values can oscillate with refinement even though the error tends to zero in mean-square convergence. Refining a fixed interpolating polygon forever would instead give zero quadratic variation, so the finite-grid illustration must not be confused with the limiting Brownian motion.
Historically, Brown's 1828 report describes microscopic observations made in 1827, starting with particles released from pollen and extending to inorganic materials; this challenged an explanation based solely on living matter. His observations and the later mathematical model are distinct contributions. [ref]
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_miscellaneous_botanical_works_of_Robert_Brown/Volume_1/A_brief_account_of_microscopical_observations_made_on_the_particles_contained_in_the_pollen_of_plants. Brown, 1828 report, reprinted in his collected works
Einstein's 1905 paper derived a quantitative connection between kinetic theory, diffusion, and displacement. [ref]https://djalil.chafai.net/docs/M2/history-brownian-motion/Einstein%20-%201905.pdf. Einstein, 1905 paper, English translation
Wiener's 1923 Differential-Space developed integration on spaces of paths, a foundation for Wiener measure; it also acknowledges earlier work and his own previous papers. These dates mark documented contributions rather than an assertion that each subject had a single discoverer. [ref]https://djalil.chafai.net/docs/M2/history-brownian-motion/Wiener%20-%201923.pdf. Wiener, Differential-Space, 1923, sections 1 and 6
Brownian motion, also known as particle theory, is the random movement of small particles suspended in a fluid (like air or water) resulting from their collision with the fast-moving molecules of the fluid. This phenomenon was named after the botanist Robert Brown, who observed it in 1827 while studying pollen grains in water. The key characteristics of Brownian motion are: 1. **Randomness**: The movement is erratic and unpredictable.
