3 ms·
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
by 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 agoThey'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 agoAre 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 agoIf you genuinely find that interpretation of my statement plausible then I don't really have anything to add.
- thaumasiotes 6y agoHere'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?