= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
iDante comments on How confident are you in the Atomic Theory of Matter? - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (80)
I'm a little confused by this question. In my experience, atomic theory always refers to atoms. I think you're really asking whether quarks and such are divisible. I'm confident that there is no substructure to elementary particles, but I won't give a number.
I did, indeed, phrase the question poorly. Yes, I'm asking about the atomic theory referring to atoms (whatever they themselves may be made of).
Oh. That one is so close to 1 that there's no use even discussing it anymore.
If that's how you feel... then when would you say that confidence in atomic theory /got/ close enough to 1 that there was no more use in discussing it?