What did Democritus talk about when he talked about “atoms”?

Democritus believed that atoms were uniform, solid, hard, incompressible, and indestructible and that they moved in infinite numbers through empty space until stopped. Differences in atomic shape and size determined the various properties of matter.

What happened to Democritus ideas about atoms?

Aristotle rejected Democritus’ idea of the atom. In fact, Aristotle thought the idea was ridiculous. Unfortunately, Aristotle’s opinion was accepted for more than 2000 years, and Democritus’ idea was more or less forgotten. However, the idea of the atom was revived around 1800 by the English scientist John Dalton.

Who first talked about atoms?


Democritus was a Greek philosopher who was the first person to use the term atom (atomos: meaning indivisible). He thought that if you take a piece of matter and divide it and continue to divide it you will eventually come to a point where you could not divide it any more.

How did Democritus theory explain?

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, …

How did Democritus discover atoms?

Democritus knew that if a stone was divided in half, the two halves would have essentially the same properties as the whole. Therefore, he reasoned that if the stone were to be continually cut into smaller and smaller pieces then; at some point, there would be a piece which would be so small as to be indivisible.

See also  Have the implications of cybernetics on epistemology been studied?

What is Democritus discovery?

The main contribution Democritus made was his discovery of the atomic theory. He eventually discovered that the mass of the negatively charged particles was 2000 times lighter than the mass of a hydrogen atom. Democritus regarded the freedom of the individual as more important than the needs of the state.