u/Thunderbird93

What are the similarities between the ancient atomist Leucippus of Miletus and the modern physicist Ernest Rutherford in their findings?

Leucippus used logic and his view was that the universe is made of atoms moving through void

When Rutherford carried out his gold experiment most of the particles radium was radioactively ejecting went straight through the gold foil, proving that the atom is mainly empty space

So were these two gentlemen in agreement to a degree?

"No, electrons do not decay over time. [1]

Because the electron is a fundamental particle with no known internal structure, it cannot "fall apart" or split into smaller pieces. Under the laws of physics, particularly the conservation of electric charge, an electron is a completely stable particle."

"In physics, a completely stable particle is a subatomic particle that never spontaneously decays into other particles. Because it is in the lowest possible energy state, it has an infinite lifespan and persists indefinitely unless destroyed by an external force (such as encountering its antiparticle)."

Whats the take on this? Bismuth 209 has a half life older than the universe. I am wondering about the nature of the electron though. Thanks for your feedback. Cheers

Abit of a philosophical question here but my favorite natural science so far are chemistry and physics so I want it addressed here. How do we account for change? Parmenides the Eleatic asserted that "Change Is An Illusion". Chemically speaking is that true?

Lavoisier - The famous quote, "Nothing is lost, nothing is created, everything is transformed," summarizes French chemist Antoine Lavoisier's Law of Conservation of Mass, first definitively formulated in his 1789 work, Traité élémentaire de chimie (Elementary Treatise of Chemistry)

Leucippus - Leucippus apparently formulated this position in response to the Eleatic claim that ‘what is’ must be one and unchanging, because any assertion of differentiation or change within ‘what is’ involves the assertion of ‘what is not,’ an unintelligible concept. While Parmenides' argument is difficult to interpret, he was understood in antiquity to have forced philosophers after him to explain how change is possible without supposing that something comes from ‘what is not,’ i.e. nothing. Aristotle tells us that Leucippus tried to formulate a theory that is consistent with the evidence of the senses that change and motion and a multiplicity of things exists in the world (DK 67A7). In the atomist system, change only occurs at the level of appearances: the real constituents of being persist unchanged, merely rearranging themselves into new combinations that form the world of appearance. Like Parmenidean Being, the atoms cannot change or disintegrate into ‘what is not’ and each is a solid unit; nonetheless, the combinations of atoms that form the world of appearance continually alter. Aristotle cites an analogy to the letters of the alphabet, which can produce a multitude of different words from a few elements in combinations; the differences all stem from the shape (schêma) of the letters, as A differs from N; by their arrangement (taxis), as AN differs from NA; and by their positional orientation (thesis), as N differs from Z (DK 67A6).

So chemically speaking are Lavoisier and Leucippus both correct? Change is an illusion and in reality it is just re-arrangement of atoms? However this introduces a funny if not outright false notion. If change is an illusion then energy is also an illusion. Energy being defined as the capacity to do work or produce change. If energy and change are intertwined how do we account for the atomist / chemical view of atomic combination and re-arrangement as the ultimate reality?

According to Etymology it seems to be the case

Source - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymology_of_chemistry

"The word chemistry derives from the word alchemy, which is found in various forms in European languages.

The word alchemy itself derives from the Arabic word al-kīmiyāʾ (الكيمياء), wherein al- is the definite article 'the'. The ultimate origin of the word is uncertain,^([1]) but the Arabic term kīmiyāʾ (كيمياء) is likely derived from either the Ancient Greek word khēmeia (χημεία) or the similar khēmia (χημία).^([2])^([3])

The Greek term khēmeia, meaning 'cast together',^([4]) may refer to the art of alloying metals, from root words χύμα (khúma, 'fluid') and χέω (khéō, 'I pour').^([5]) Alternatively, khēmia may be derived from the ancient Egyptian name of Egypt, khem, khm, khame, or khmi, meaning 'blackness', likely in reference to the rich dark soil of the Nile river valley."

So what is the consensus amongst chemists on this?

Studied Economics in college. We were taught about the "Malthusian Catastrophe". Where Thomas Malthus predicted that population growth would outpace agricultural production, leading to mass starvation. I bring this up because of the German Chemist Fritz Haber. Fritz is rather responsible for artificial synthetic fertilizers used in agriculture today, helping feed the world. So who are some of the greatest chemists and what were their contributions?

What do chemists think about the ancient Greek philosopher Leucippus of Miletus? Leucippus was the first in the Western world to advocate for atomism. Leucippus primarily relied on logical reasoning to argue for minute particles constituting all matter. So what do chemists think about this man?

Source 1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universalism

"Universalism is the philosophical and theological concept that some ideas have universal application or applicability."

If all baryonic matter in the universe is atomic then isn't the natural science of Chemistry Universalist in scope?

Source 2 - https://thevarsity.ca/2008/11/06/did-you-know-that-the-periodic-table-of-the-elements-is-universal/

My Query - Is chemistry therefore a science that has teachings valid for application throughout the universe as the study of matter? The periodic table of elements as universalist?

Source - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_three_stages

Do you all agree with Comte? That religion is a product of the primitive mind. An example one can give is that back in the day people believed "evil spirits" were the causes of diseases. Yet today because our scientists have microscopes we recognize the true cause of diseases as micro-organisms and "Germ Theory". There are many issues with religion. Lack of evidence, The Problem of Evil. But I think Comte's Law of 3 Stages explains religion best. When man was primitive he had no way to understand nature so resorted to his imagination