Atoms Fall "Down"

I'm not sure how applicable this might be, but just watched a Vsauce video on the meaning of "Down". Since Epicurus maintained that atoms fall "down" unless they "swerve" I found Michael's explanation of"down" interesting. I never put this much thought into it... Which makes the Vsauce channel so enjoyable!

Here you go:

That's my take. Epicurus's whole "down" thing never made much sense to me. Once you have swerving and collisions, you've messed up any original parallel trajectories. Okay, an atom moves in a straight line unless acted on (not sure if that's accurate, but I'm not too concerned about that).

In any case, I found the Vsauce video thought-provoking and enjoyable. It's a fun YouTube channel, and we got to see Michael do a program once with Adam Savage of Mythbusters. A fun night of popular science stuff!

I hadn't heard of that one! I've heard of CGPGrey from other sources but never dug into their work. This is a good opportunity. Thanks for the recommendation [runs off to podcast app to search and subscribe...]

Thanks for those insights, Martin ! In light of what you said, I went back to Diogenes to see what the Letter to Herodotus said:

Quote

60] "Further, we must not assert `up' or `down' of that which is unlimited, as if there were a zenith or nadir. As to the space overhead, however, if it be possible to draw a line to infinity from the point where we stand, we know that never will this space --or, for that matter, the space below the supposed standpoint if produced to infinity--appear to us to be at the same time `up' and `down' with reference to the same point ; for this is inconceivable. Hence it is possible to assume one direction of motion, which we conceive as extending upwards ad infinitum, and another downwards, even if it should happen ten thousand times that what moves from us to the spaces above our heads reaches the feet of those above us, or that which moves downwards from us the heads of those below us. None the less is it true that the whole of the motion in the respective cases is conceived as extending in opposite directions ad infinitum. [61] "When they are travelling through the void and meet with no resistance, the atoms must move with equal speed. Neither will heavy atoms travel more quickly than small and light ones, so long as nothing meets them, nor will small atoms travel more quickly than large ones, provided they always find a passage suitable to their size, and provided also that they meet with no obstruction. Nor will their upward or their lateral motion, which is due to collisions, nor again their downward motion, due to weight, affect their velocity. As long as either motion obtains, it must continue, quick as the speed of thought, provided there is no obstruction, whether due to external collision or to the atoms' own weight counteracting the force of the blow.

It seems a bit more nuanced than I remembered. He seems to say that atoms can move any direction but their downward motion is due to their "weight" which, in a manner of speaking, is correct! The fact that he also says that "Neither will heavy atoms travel more quickly than small and light ones," took me by surprise. I didn't remember that. And that's correct (in a vacuum), right? How or why would he intuit that? I think I need to revisit that Letter.

Quote from JJElbert

Quote

And that's correct (in a vacuum), right? How or why would he intuit that? I think I need to revisit that Letter.

I don't have a citation to hand, but see Lucretius on this point. I think he says that in the absence of air-resistance a ball of wool and a ball of lead will fall at the same speed.

This?

Quote

Which but for voids for bodies to go through 'Tis clear could happen in nowise at all. Again, why see we among objects some Of heavier weight, but of no bulkier size? Indeed, if in a ball of wool there be As much of body as in lump of lead, The two should weigh alike, since body tends To load things downward, while the void abides, By contrary nature, the imponderable. Therefore, an object just as large but lighter Declares infallibly its more of void; Even as the heavier more of matter shows, And how much less of vacant room inside. That which we're seeking with sagacious quest Exists, infallibly, commixed with things- The void, the invisible inane.

Quote from JJElbert

I might be misremembering slightly! That does look like the right passage.

I thought you were kidding at first, Joshua ! LOL I didn't remember the ball of wool and lead!! That's amazing that he had that kind of insight about mass! Thanks for calling my attention to that!