Postmodern Atomism’s Opposition to Modern Quantum Mechanics
Published: October 14, 2010

Modern quantum mechanics is a theory that was developed to explain the atom of modern physics, which has been split into sub-atomic particles− protons, neutrons, and electrons. As the American theoretical physics and Nobel Prize winner Richard P. Feynman (1918-1988) explains, “Quantum mechanics” is the description of the happenings on an atomic scale. Things on a very small scale behave like nothing that you have any direct experience about. They do not behave like waves, they do not behave like particles, they do not behave like clouds, or billiard balls, or weights on springs, or like anything that you have ever seen.”1 As I explained in my book The End of Pseudo-Science (2007), the particle called an “atom” in modern physics is not an atom; it’s a misnamed particle that I call a “ Thom.” The word “atom” comes from the Greek word atomos, meaning “ uncuttable.” If the description of a particle does not fit this definition of an atom, it cannot be an atom. Furthermore, the word atomos was coined by the ancient Greek Atomist Democritus (c. 460-c. 370 BC), an originator of Atomism, the original quantum mechanics, to describe an atom as the smallest particle of matter that can exist; the ultimate and smallest division of matter. He described an atom as being absolutely solid with no internal structure. The ancient Greek Atomist Epicurus (341-370 BC), who wrote on the atomic structure of the universe, explained that atoms are the primary things from which nature forms, increases, and sustains all things, and into which nature again resolves them when they decay or disintegrate. They are the ultimate instruments nature’s work.

To quote Democritus, “ Nothing exists but atoms and the void; everything else is opinion.”2 The splittable atom of modern physics is an aggregate of atoms, not an individual atom. It is the smallest aggregate of atoms, or part, of a chemical element that has all the properties of that element. Its sub-
particles are nothing but tinier aggregates of atoms.

It is very important to understand that since it is impossible for atoms to come into existence out of nothing (the non-existent) or pass away into nothing (masslessness), they are eternal and indestructible. Being absolutely solid particles, they are eternally immutable.

Being an Atomist, when I founded postmodern Atomism in 2007, I explained that quantum mechanics is not a description of real atoms, but rather of thoms. Also, being a believer in Newton’s law of universal gravitation and three laws of motion, I explained that gravity is a fundamental property of atoms and that the motion of atoms are mostly governed by these laws, and so are all aggregates of atoms.

According to quantum mechanics, Newton’s laws of motion cannot explain why electrons stay in their orbital paths around the nucleus of the thom. It claims that if Newton’s laws of motion governed the working of a thom, electrons would rapidly travel towards and collide with the nucleus. I argue that this claim is not true, if the solar system model of the thom is correct. This model, which was proposed in 1913 by the Danish physicist Niels Bohr, shows the electrons traveling in fixed orbits like the planets around the sun, considered to be the nucleus. Just as Newton’s laws of motion explain why the planets of the solar system do not rapidly travel towards and collide with the sun, they will do the same about the electrons.

There’s another claim made by quantum mechanics that I reject as an Atomist. It claims that it provides accurate and precise descriptions for many phenomena that Newton’s laws of motion cannot explain on the thomic and subthomic level. I argue that the fact gravity is a fundamental property of atoms, the gravitational interaction of atoms ultimately causes all the different phenomena in and outside the thom, including electromagnetism. In fact, without the use of Newton’s laws of motion, quantum mechanics cannot understand the atomic origin and workings of the thom. Only Atomism can explain the atoms and the thoms.



  1. Richard P. Feynman, Six Easy Pieces (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Perseus, 1995), p. 116.
    Lives of Eminient Philosophers, Vol.11, Book 1X (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1925), p. 455.