3 ms·

Do you want to count Democritus and indivisible constituents of matter?

mehrdadn 6y ago
Holy cow, he predicted way more than just indivisible constituents of matter [1]: > The theory of Democritus held that everything is composed of "atoms", which are physically, but not geometrically, indivisible; that between atoms, there lies empty space; that atoms are indestructible, and have always been and always will be in motion; that there is an infinite number of atoms and of kinds of atoms, which differ in shape and size. The accuracy is uncanny. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democritus#Atomic_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democritus#Atomic_hypothesis
- pmiller2 6y ago
  Uncanny indeed, especially when you consider that Democritus's understanding of atoms is a mostly sufficient underpinning for the science of chemistry, at least up through the end of the 19th century.
  - klyrs 6y ago
    Lacking evidence, scientists didn't accept Democritus's model continued to speculate. My favorite being the "plum pudding" model proposed by JJ Thompson in 1904.
- SAI_Peregrinus 6y ago
  > that there is an infinite number of atoms and of kinds of atoms Well, that bit is wrong. Especially if you take the fundamental constituents of what are now called atoms: 6 quarks, 6 antiquarks, 6 leptons (counting neutrinos), 6 antileptons, 5 gauge bosons, 1 scalar boson. Only 30, possibly + whatever dark matter and dark energy are.
  - mehrdadn 6y ago
    We don't know how many kinds of atoms there are, and infinite is pretty damn accurate all things considered. And it's pretty disingenuous to go out of your way to take quarks to mean what he called atoms just so you can claim he's wrong.
    - pierrec 6y ago
      They're just trying to be accurate. The most important aspect of Democritus' atoms is indivisibility, so that's why fundamental particles like quarks are technically a better fit.
    - thaumasiotes 6y ago
      Are you seriously suggesting that when Democritus referred to "uncuttable things", he meant to describe particles that would in the future be named after his work rather than to describe particles that were indivisible?
      - mehrdadn 6y ago
        If you genuinely find that interpretation of my statement plausible then I don't really have anything to add.
        thaumasiotes 6y ago
        Here's your statement: > And it's pretty disingenuous to go out of your way to take quarks to mean what he called atoms just so you can claim he's wrong. You can try to identify atoms by his description of them, in which case you'd have to choose fundamental particles. But you've already explicitly chosen to interpret Democritus' "atoms" as identical with our "atoms", despite the fact that they do not exhibit any of the characteristics Democritus described. What can I conclude except that you think Democritus, in the past, named his concept after ours, in the future?

Holy cow, he predicted way more than just indivisible constituents of matter [1]: > The theory of Democritus held that everything is composed of "atoms", which are physically, but not geometrically, indivisible; that between atoms, there lies empty space; that atoms are indestructible, and have always been and always will be in motion; that there is an infinite number of atoms and of kinds of atoms, which differ in shape and size. The accuracy is uncanny. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democritus#Atomic_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democritus#Atomic_hypothesis

pmiller2 6y ago
Uncanny indeed, especially when you consider that Democritus's understanding of atoms is a mostly sufficient underpinning for the science of chemistry, at least up through the end of the 19th century.
- klyrs 6y ago
  Lacking evidence, scientists didn't accept Democritus's model continued to speculate. My favorite being the "plum pudding" model proposed by JJ Thompson in 1904.
SAI_Peregrinus 6y ago
> that there is an infinite number of atoms and of kinds of atoms Well, that bit is wrong. Especially if you take the fundamental constituents of what are now called atoms: 6 quarks, 6 antiquarks, 6 leptons (counting neutrinos), 6 antileptons, 5 gauge bosons, 1 scalar boson. Only 30, possibly + whatever dark matter and dark energy are.
- mehrdadn 6y ago
  We don't know how many kinds of atoms there are, and infinite is pretty damn accurate all things considered. And it's pretty disingenuous to go out of your way to take quarks to mean what he called atoms just so you can claim he's wrong.
  - pierrec 6y ago
    They're just trying to be accurate. The most important aspect of Democritus' atoms is indivisibility, so that's why fundamental particles like quarks are technically a better fit.
  - thaumasiotes 6y ago
    Are you seriously suggesting that when Democritus referred to "uncuttable things", he meant to describe particles that would in the future be named after his work rather than to describe particles that were indivisible?
    - mehrdadn 6y ago
      If you genuinely find that interpretation of my statement plausible then I don't really have anything to add.
      - thaumasiotes 6y ago
        Here's your statement: > And it's pretty disingenuous to go out of your way to take quarks to mean what he called atoms just so you can claim he's wrong. You can try to identify atoms by his description of them, in which case you'd have to choose fundamental particles. But you've already explicitly chosen to interpret Democritus' "atoms" as identical with our "atoms", despite the fact that they do not exhibit any of the characteristics Democritus described. What can I conclude except that you think Democritus, in the past, named his concept after ours, in the future?