The Cosmological Views of Democritus

and Modern Physics

Danezis, E., Theodossiou, E., Stathopoulou, M., Grammenos, Th.
Department of Astrophysics-Astronomy and Mechanics, School of Physics, University of Athens

Introduction
The modern scientific views
As it is known today, the scientific notion of space is closely connected with the natural
properties of space. Their experimental verification supplies its form for the human
senses and logic.
The description of space through its properties consists a topic of geometry, and the best
known form of space is the one described by the Euclidean geometry, which is based on
the well-known axioms of Euclid, propositions that cannot be proven mathematically, but
instead we accept them as «logically self-proven».
What should be noted is that the notion of a geometry cannot be identified with the notion
of space and the number of its dimensions. Geometry describes a set of properties of the
space independently of the number of its dimensions. For example, a space, regardless of
its dimensions, is Euclidean if it obeys the basic axioms of the Euclidean geometry.
Beyond the known, and immediately conceivable through the human senses, Euclidean
space, the great mathematicians Lobatschewski and Riemann built two non-Euclidean
geometries that describe the respective properties of two independent and different
spaces, which bear their names.
These two spaces and their respective geometries were mere theoretical constructions,
without any physical significance, until the moment that Einstein introduced the General
Theory of Relativity, which presupposes and operates only inside the frame of a
Riemannian space. In short, the space of the Universe that surrounds us and which we
want to claim we measure, if we accept within its frame the validity of the General
Theory of Relativity, is not Euclidean but Riemannian1.
The Euclidean geometry can be applied with very good approximation to very small
portions of a Lobatschewski space. However, its deviation from reality becomes
noticeable in astronomical scales. This indicates that the Euclidean geometry consists a
limiting case of Riemannian geometry.
But at this point start the paradoxes for the human «common sense», since, as we know
today, our senses can record and specify shapes that take form only in spaces of up to
three dimensions, described by Euclidean geometry. The shapes that take form in spaces
described by non-Euclidean geometries, such as the Riemannian and the Lobatschewski
geometry, are imperceivable by the human senses* .
Therefore, since the geometry of the four-dimensional space of Einstein’s General
Theory of Relativity is Riemannian, the Universe is not generally Euclidean. This means
that the forms of our cosmic space should not be perceivable through our senses. The fact
that we realize the shapes that surround us is a consequence of the property of our senses
to record, by creating virtual divisions of the spacetime continuum of the cosmic space,
small pieces of the surrounding non-Euclidean Riemannian space, which as we
mentioned behave as Euclidean spaces, perceivable by our senses.
Thus what we essentially perceive is simply the projectional shadow of Riemannian
forms and shapes in the three-dimensional Euclidean space, which is created by arbitrary
divisions of the continuous and indivisible cosmic space perceived by our senses.
The arbitrary divisions of the senses
The virtual view of the events in the cosmic spacetime that we form through our senses
can be also perceived through the classic theory of physics.
It is common knowledge that the human eye is an imperfect radiation collector. Its
imperfection consists mainly in that it cannot perceive:
1. Objects smaller than a certain size, e.g. specks of dust.
2. Distances between separate objects, if these distances are smaller than a certain limit. The eye perceives
these objects as one.
3. Any radiations beyond the very small band of the visible wavelengths.
4. With our vision or with any other of our senses we cannot perceive but an infinitesimal portion of the
cosmic space that surrounds us.
This incapability of the human senses forces us to limit the world of our sensed
impressions to a very small subset of the cosmic space, that is to create an infinitesimal
Euclidean subjective section of the non-Euclidean spacetime continuum, and inside it to
create what we call world of our senses. Some results of these incapabilities of our senses
are:
1. A series of objects or events remain invisible to humans if the wavelengths of the radiation they emit are
not recorded by the eye.
2. A number of particles, such as specks of dust or molecules of aromatic volatile substances, intervening
among the regarded as independent objects, remain invisible to the eye due to their small size. Because of
this limitation of our vision, the impression of «void» between seemingly independent objects is created.
3. Because the distances between molecules or atoms are extremely small, we do not perceive their
independent existence, but we have the false impression that a dense collection of atoms or molecules
constitutes a single autonomous material entity. This is how the illusion of the material individuality of the
sensed objects is created. If the organ of our vision had infinite capabilities and did not have these
weaknesses, then presumably humans would not create the impression of independent material objects, but
instead they would have the impression of a pulp of subatomic particles and of a pulp of radiations, within
which what we call an individual material object would not consist but a condensation of this energetic
pulp* .
The same illusion is created by the sense of touch. We think we touch an object. In
reality, however, the terminal structural components of our hand during the event we call
«touch», stay at relatively large distances from the terminal structural components of the
object we «think» we touch. What we perceive with our brain as touch are just the
repulsive forces created between the fields that surround the structural components of our
hand and of the object.
The previous facts are stressed in a characteristic way by Michael Talbot in his book
Mysticism and Modern Science7. He writes: «According to the New Physics we can only
dream of the real world. We dream that it exists mysteriously visible, omnipresent in
space and constant in time. Nevertheless, we consciously assented to the fictitious
creation of illogical, sparse and eternal breaks of its architecture, so that we may be able
sometime to see how false is our initial frame».
The classical physical theory was structured based on this arbitrary division of the cosmic
continuous four-dimensional Riemannian space. As the father of the General System
Theory, Ludwig von Bertalanffy, writes 6: «It seems that the only purpose of science was
the analysis, i.e. the division of reality into much smaller units and the isolation of the
individual chains of causes. Thus the physical reality was divided into point masses or in
atoms, the living organism into cells, the behavior into reflexes, the perceptions into exact
senses. Therefore, the causality was the necessary way.»
On the same topic D. Bohm and B. Hiley write in their article «On the Intuitive
Understanding of Non-Locality as Implied by Quantum Theory»2:
«Our work shows intuitively exactly how and why a quantum many-body system cannot
be analyzed into independent parts with constant and determinable dynamical relations
among them. The parts appear rather to be in direct relation with each other. A
connection on which depend their dynamical relations within the whole system.
Moreover, within the framework of the wider systems in which they are incorporated,
they finally extend in principle to the whole Universe. Thus we come to the new idea of
the indivisible wholeness, which negates the classical idea of analyzing the world into
separate and independent parts.»
In this new physical reality, what is «matter», a notion based up to now on the illusion of
the human sensory organs, is described elegantly by Charles Muses 3 in his book
Consciousness and Reality:
«A tree, a table, a cloud, a stone. All these are dissolved by the science of the twentieth
century into something consisting of the same material. This something is a medley of
whirling particles that obey to the laws of quantum physics. This means that all the
objects we can observe are three-dimensional images formed by by waves stationary or
moving under the influence of electromagnetic and nuclear processes. All the objects of
the world are three-dimensional images formed electromagnetically, images of a
superhologram, if you wish.»
This of course is true for the limited space of our close environment. However, in the
case we want to observe very large parts of the Universe, such as the ones studied by
cosmology, the Euclidean geometry does not describe them, and the resulting shapes
remain unconceivable by the human senses.
Thus, the human senses do not represent an infallible criterion of the truth of the forms
and phenomena of the Universe, so that we can now say that: «through our senses, and
through our instruments that amplify them, we do not perceive the Universe as it really
is, but as our brain has the capability to perceive it through the very imperfect human
senses. The real nature of the four-dimensional Riemannian Universe is imperceptible
and can be described only through mathematical relations.»
However, these views about the falsehood of the human senses and the imperceptible
truth of the creation, although they seem novel, had not escaped the ancient greek
positive thinking. In the contrary, they had been analyzed in length and depth enough that
is interesting to be registered and connected with the modern physical theory, which, in
addition to predicting, can probably expand mentally and theoretically.
After all these ruminations, let us examine a part of the views of Democritus along with
the corresponding commentary, that makes clear the fact that Democritus and other
presocratic philosophers knew the inability of our senses to perceive the real (non-sensed)
nature of the Universe. They were referring to it as the «μη ον». Similarly, they had in
 full the feeling of the illusion of the sensed Creation, referring to it with the philosophical
term «ον».
Democritus of Avdera
Information about Democritus is supplied by Diogenes Laertius (Diogenes Laertius,
Φιλοσόφων βίων και δογμάτων συναγωγή, IX, 34), who reports:
«Democritus, son of Egesistratos or, according to other evidences, of Athenocritos or
Damasippos, was from Avdera or, as some say, from Miletus... Later on he was
acquainted with Leucippos and, according to some, with Anaxagoras... As he himself
relates in his work «Mikros Diakosmos», he was young at Anaxagoras’ old age, being
forty years younger than him. He says that «Mikros Diakosmos» was written 730 years
after the capture of Troy. As Apollodorus writes in his «Chronika», he should have been
born during the eightieth Olympiad (460-457 B.C.), while according to Thrasylos in his
work with the title «The ones before reading the books by Democritus», he was born in
the third year of the seventy-seventh Olympiad (470/69 B.C.), being (as he says) one year
younger than Socrates.»
About the opus of Democritus, Diogenes Laertius [Diogenes Laertius, Φιλοσόφων βίων
και δογμάτων συναγωγή, IX, 45-49 ], reports:
«Thrasybulus classified his writings according to tetralogies, exactly as he did with the
works of Plato. His ethical works are... The natural philosophy ones are: The «Megalos
Diakosmos», the «Cosmographia» and the «Peri Planeton»...»

Presocratic thought and modern physics

The terminology in the texts of Democritus
A serious problem faced by students of the ancient texts when they try to compare the
views expressed therein with the modern scientific positions, is the meaning of the
employed terms. These terms have different meanings in the texts of the various authors,
while in most cases they do not have any relation with the meaning we assign to them
today. For this reason it would be prudent to study the meaning of some terms used by
Leucippos and Democritus, and to distinguish them from the meaning we assign to them
nowadays. Let us consider the three following quotations:
1. [Simplicius, Υπόμνημα εις τον Αριστοτέλη, «Περί Ουρανού», 294, 33]: ...Democritus
thought that the nature of the eternal things is an infinite number of small «ουσίες»
(essences). And for them he supposes that there exists another place («τόπος») of infinite
size, calling the τόπος with the names «κενόν» (void) and «ουδέν» (nothing) and
«άπειρον», while the ουσίες with the names «δεν» (something) and «ναστόν»* (solid,
dense) and «ον».
2. [Aristotle, Μετά τα Φυσικά, Α4 9.85β4.Λ.]: ...Leucippos and his follower Democritus
maintain that «πλήρες» (full) and κενόν are elements, calling the one ον and the other μη
ον, and of these the πλήρες and «στερεόν» (solid) is the ον, while the κενόν and
«αραιόν» (diffuse) is the μη ον. Therefore they claim that the ον has no more real
existence than the μη ον, because nor the void is less real than the body... These are the
material causes of the beings.
3. [Simplicius, Υπόμνημα εις την Αριστοτέλους «Φυσική Ακρόαση», 28,4.
Λ.]: ...Leucippos hypothesized that there is an infinite number of evermoving elements,
the «άτομα» (atoms)... For, supposing that the essence of atoms is solid and compact, he
said that this essence is the ον and that it moves in the void, called μη ον, and he alleged
that its existence is no less real than the existence of the ον. Similarly, his follower
Democritus from Avdera also posited as basis the πλήρες and the κενόν, calling the one
ον and the other μη ον.
It appears that Democritus describes the «τόπος», i.e. what we call today «mathematical
space», using the words κενόν, ουδέν or άπειρον. The void for him coincides with the
notion of «μη ον». The «μη ον» according to Democritus (quotation 2) has an existence
in no way inferior to that of the sensed «ον», since it also possesses a nature and
substance of its own.
Similarly he calls the ον «πλήρες» or «στερεόν», identifying it with the notion of atoms,
thus calling the ον «ναστόν» and «δεν».
At this point we must distinguish the notion of «μη ον» in Democritus from the notion
given by Parmenides. According to Parmenides, the «μη ον» is a more general with
respect to its nature cosmological constituent, having no relation with the material nature
of the Universe and attributed to the sphere of the mental or the metaphysical. As D.
Makriyannes10 writes in his work Cosmology and Ethics of Democritus (award of the
Academy of Athens):
« [the «μη ον» = void] is not just the empty space (the one we mean today by this term)
inside which the atoms move, but something more essential, extending as a substrate for
the motion of atoms. Without it this motion would be physically impossible. So we can
compare the void as a kind of screen upon which the atoms move, like the figures on the
screen of the shadow theatre. The screen does not take part at the essence of the images
showed, but without it the images would be impossible to appear. The same with the void
according to the theory of Democritus: it is a cause of the existence of beings, not
because it forms a part of their nature, but because it contributes as an invisible
substrate to their appearance.»
The word «λόγος» acquires a different content than the modern one in the texts of
presocratic philosophers. As Sextus relates:
[Sextus VII 126 (Heraclitus A 16)]: «...Heraclitus also believed that man employs two
organs for learning the truth, the sense and the logos. Of these, he considered the sense
deceptive, in accordance with the previous natural philosophers, while he accepts as a
criterion the logos.»
[Sextus VII 122 (Empedocles B 1)]: «...There are two kinds of the right logos, the divine
and the human. Of these, the divine is inexpressible, while the human is expressible.»
What should be stressed is that with the term «λόγος» is described the opposite of the
product of senses, the non-discernible by the senses. With the previous meaning, logos is
still used by the Christian theology in order to render the notion of God, considering God
through this expression «non-discernible by the senses».
The delusion of the senses
As can be seen from the introduction, the modern scientific view accepts the idea that the
objective world of the senses is an erroneous image, and a very small part of what really
exists and evolves around us. This fact had not escaped the comprehension of the ancient
greek philosophers.
The first allusion to the relativity of the truth of the events perceived through the human
senses can be attributed to Xenophanes:
[Fragm. 34, Sextus, Προς Φυσικούς VII, 49 & 110 comp. Plutarch]: «No man knows, nor
will ever learn, the truth about gods and about what I say, for even if someone happens
to say the whole truth, he will not know it; for all matters there are only opinions.»
[Fragm. 35, Plutarch, Symposiaka Zetemata IX, 7, 746b]: «Let us consider that the
matters resemble the truth.»
A second allusion is recorded in the words of Heraclitus, who is reputed to say:
[Fragm. 123, Themistios, Logoi 5, p. 69D]: «The true structure of things usually is
hided.»
[Fragm. 54, Hippolytus, El. IX, 9, 5]: «The obscure link is stronger than the obvious.»
Moreover, Sextus Empiricus, referring to Heraclitus’ views, finally persuades us that the
great positive philosopher had fully perceived the illusion of our sensory world:
[Sextus VII 126 (Heraclitus A 16)]: «...Heraclitus also believed that man employs two
organs for learning the truth, the sense and the logos. Of these, he considered the sense
deceptive, in accordance with the previous natural philosophers, while he accepts as a
criterion the logos.»
But also Parmenides, as mentioned by Diogenes and by Simplicius, had a correct view
about the illusion of the natural world as it is perceived through the human senses.
Specifically about the views of Parmenides they report:
[Diogenes IX, 22 (Parmenides A 1, 22)]: «Parmenides said that philosophy is dual: Its
one form agrees with truth, while the other guesses... ...and he defined the logos * as a
criterion, because the senses are not exact.»
[Simplicius Peri Ouranou 557, 20 (Parmenides B 1)]: «These men hypothesized two
substances: The one of the mental real «ον», and the other of the becoming and sensed,
which did not condescend to call simply «ον»** , but they called it «νομιζόμενον ον»*** .
Therefore they say that truth relates to the real «ον», while for the changing ον (the
physical things) there is only guess.»
These views of Parmenides are described in their entirety in his hexameter poem, large
fragments of which were saved by Sextus Empiricus (the preamble) and by Simplicius.
But according to Sextus Empiricus the idea of the false reality created by our senses had
been formed also by Empedocles:
[Sextus VII 122 (Empedocles B 1)]: «Others were saying that according to Empedocles
criterion of truth are not the senses but the right logos («ορθός λόγος»). There are two
kinds of the right logos, the divine and the human. Of these, the divine logos is
inexpressible, while the human is expressible.»
As can be understood by all the previous passages, the fact that the natural creation as
perceived by the human senses is just a human «delusion», was a common realization of
the presocratic positive philosophical thought. At the same time, the belief in an
objectively real physical creation perceivable not through human senses but only through
thought (through mathematical analysis and models, as we would say now), was deeply
rooted.
These expressed views, predating Democritus, very probably consisted the necessary
original material upon which he, but also Leucippos, was based in order to formulate
some more integrated positions on the topic, and in turn to support their expressed atomic
theory.
Let us now examine more closely the views of Democritus on the «truth» of the sensed
Creation, as reported by Simplicius, Sextus, Galenos, Aetius and Aristotle, adding our
respective comments.
1. (Sextus, Προς Φυσικούς, VII, 138) ...But in the Kanones he writes that there are two
kinds of knowledge, the one through the senses and the other through the mind. Of these,
the one acquired through the mind he calls genuine, attributing to it reliability for
expressing correct judgement, whereas the one acquired through the senses he calls
spurious, not acknowledging infallibility at the discernment of truth. He writes «there are
two forms of knowledge, one genuine and one spurious. To the spurious one belong all of
the following, the sight, the hearing, the smelling, the taste, the touch. The other form of
knowledge is genuine and separate from the spurious.
It is interesting to observe that Democritus recognizes as spurious the knowledge
resulting through the senses, referring to them by name. A second interesting point that
should be stressed is that the majority of the presocratic philosophers, including
Democritus, refer to the intellect proclaiming it as a sixth sense, through which we can
perceive the non-sensible but existent and objective reality of the natural world.
Therefore, it will no more seem strange that, rephrasing the view, if we want in the future
centuries to perceive as objective reality the physical and universal structuring, as this is
expressed by the modern physics and astrophysics, we must train our intellect,
proclaiming it as a sixth super-sense.
2. (Democritus, fragm. 9, Sextus, Προς Φυσικούς VII, 135) ...In the cratynteria (proving
elements), although [Democritus] had promised to assign to the senses the authority of
certitude, on the contrary he finds himself condemning them, for he says: «But in reality
we don’t conceive anything certain, only something that changes according to the
condition of the body and to the things entering it and pressing it.»
3. (Sextus, Προς Φυσικούς, VII, 137) ...And again he says (fragm. 10) «So it became
obvious in many ways that in reality we do not conceive truth, we don’t conceive how
things are or are not.» And in Peri Ideon (fragm. 6) «Man must learn from this rule that
he is separated from the reality.» And again (fragm. 7) «And also this argument shows
that in reality we don’t know anything for any object, but for each one of us there is a
recreated form of it, the belief.» And yet (fragm. 8) «However, it should be obvious that it
is very difficult to learn how really is each object.»
4. (Sextus, Προς Φυσικούς, VII, 135) ...Democritus sometimes refutes those that seem to
the senses and says that no one of them corresponds to the truth, only in the human
imagination.
5. (Aristotle, Μετά τα Φυσικά, Γ5, 1009b7) ...Moreover, to many healthy animals the
same things appear opposite than to us, but also a human does not feel always things in
the same way. Thus it is unknown which of them is true and which is false, because the
former are not more true than the latter, but equally. That’s why Democritus says that
either nothing is true, or [if it is true] it is obscure to us.
6. (Galenos, Περί Ιατρικής Εμπειρίας, εκδ. Schone 1259,8. ) ...Oh wretched mind, after
you took your certainties from us (i.e. the senses) you reject us? Our rejection is your
collapse.
7. [Aetius, Αυτόθι, IV 9,8] ...Others say that the sensed are physical, but Leucippos and
Democritus that we think them as such, from our personal opinion and our impressions.
Nothing is true or perceivable, except from the first elements, the atoms and the void. For
only these exist physically, and all the rest happen from differences in position, in class
and in shape.
8. [Simplicius, Υπόμνημα εις την Αριστοτέλους «Φυσική Ακρόασιν» 28,4. Λ.] ...Leucippos
hypothesized that there is an infinite number of evermoving elements, the atoms... For,
supposing that the essence of atoms is solid and compact, he said that this essence is the
being and that it moves in the void, called non-being, and he alleged that its existence is
no less real than the existence of the being. Similarly, his follower Democritus from
Avdera also posited as basis the full and the void, calling the one being and the other
non-being.
At this point, an interesting observation should be made, which follows from all the
previous passages. As mentioned, since the full and the void, that is the atoms and space,
are true and objective realities according to the atomic philosophers (passage 7), they
must be outside the field of human senses, because in their view the products of the
senses consist mere illusions, separated from the truth and the objective reality. This
thesis is confirmed by the following quotation 11, that claims the atoms are «naked of
perceivable quality».
9. [Galenos, Περί των καθ’ Ιπποκράτην στοιχείων, I,2] ...By convention there is colour,
by convention there is sweet or bitter; in reality, there are only the atoms and the void,
says Democritus, believing that all sensed properties result from the engagement of the
atoms and depend on us who sense these. In nature the white, the black, the yellow, the
red, the sweet, the bitter, etc. do not exist. And the term «νόμω» means exactly that «we
think that it is so», without this being the nature of things, which he calls again «ετεή»
from the adjective «ετεόν», meaning true.
10. [Sextus, Προς Φυσικούς, VII 137] In the book «Peri Ideon» he writes: «man should
know according to the rule that he is far away from the true reality».
11. [Sextus, Προς Φυσικούς, VII 6] The Platonic and the Democriteans understood that
only the mentally conceived is true. But Democritus thinks so because no physical sensed
thing exists, since the atoms composing all bodies are naked of perceivable quality, while
Plato because the sensed change continually...
Here it should be noted that Democritus considered the atoms, i.e. the basic structural
unit of what we call today matter, «naked of any notion of perceivable quality». In a few
words, atoms, being real, consist imperceivable entities, hence mental. This idea agrees
with the theories of modern physics, considering the elementary particles as a kind of
whirl transmitted through the field (Relativity) or as an energy wave (Quantum
Mechanics). That is, their nature is imperceivable by the human senses.
12. (Aetius, Συναγωγή των αρεσκόντων, IV 8, 10.Λ.) ...Leucippos, Democritus and
Epicurus say that sensing and thinking are caused by images of external origin, neither
sensing nor thinking occuring without the knocking of an image against the being that
[then, after the stumbling has the feeling that...] senses or thinks.
As we realize from this passage, Democritus considers that the senses are just the result
being caused when «images», radiations as we could say today, of external origin (from
the field of the real world of thinking) stimulate the organs of our senses. The result of
these stimuli (the senses) does not, according to Democritus, consist an objective reality.
This view coincides with the modern scientific view*.
An interesting view, however, is expressed in the following quote:
(Aristotle, Fys. A 3, 187 α1, DK29 a22) «...Some accepted both arguments, the argument
that everything is one, if being (ον) means an object, stating that the non-being (μη ον)
exists as a result of the bisection...»
Most probably, as the previous thesis evidences, Democritus had moreover understood
that the field where our senses operate is but a subjective arbitrary division our senses
create out of the empty space of «μη ον», in order to perceive as sensed beings some
interpretations (projections) of the properties of the «μη όντα». This view is supported by
the fact that Democritus believed, as we will see, that one (out of many) sensed world is
created when in the total «void» space of the Universe (μη ον) is formed a partial «great
void» (a section of a more general space of the Universe), within which many bodies
concentrate (Leuc. A 10)* .
This view apparently agrees with the modern scientific theories, as expressed in the
words of the father of the General System Theory, Ludwig von Bertalanffy, reported
previously**. Another interesting point that deserves attention is the following view of
Democritus:
[Diogenes Laertius, Φιλοσόφων βίων και δογμάτων συναγωγή, IX, 40] «...There is an
infinite number of words being created and destroyed. Nothing is generated from the μη
ον, neither is destroyed to become μη ον.»
This view, under the aspect of all things said about the μη ον, is extremely interesting,
since it clearly supports that the μη ον, or else the void or the infinity, that is the non-
sensed world by itself cannot generate worlds, as for this the contribution of the ον (the
atoms) is needed. And the opposite, a world cannot be disintegrated and converted simply
into μη ον (space); i.e. matter cannot be converted into void space, since in essence it
includes not only void, but also atoms.

Some other interesting views

It is interesting to mention the Democritean view about «time»:
[Sextus, Προς Φυσικούς X 181] «...To the natural philosophers who were followers of
Epicurus and Democritus they attribute this saying about time: time (the time measured
by humans) is a ghost similar to the day and the night.»
This view is not contrary to the view of physics, because the notion of time as perceived
by Democritus is identical with what we call today «Newtonian time» and is measured
with our clocks and calendars. But the Newtonian time, as we now know, constitutes only
the projection of the Riemannian relativistic dimension «time» inside and over a
Euclidean space or a Minkowski space, i.e. a ghost of what is time in reality.
Let us examine the topic more specifically. According to Einstein the three-dimensional space and the
dimension «time» consist two inseparably interconnected entities and construct a unified reality of the
Universe, the reality of spacetime. From this unity we cannot separate time facing it independently from the
other three (spatial) dimensions, because the dimension «time» loses its identity and also the system of the
independent entities «space, time» cannot describe the reality of the Universe any more.

But even if we could separate time from the structure of spacetime, in order to comprehend it through our
senses the four-dimensional spacetime of the Universe should be describable through Euclidean geometry,
while it is expressed through Riemannian geometry. This means that we cannot perceive with our senses
the real essence of the time dimension.

Our senses, however, can perceive infinitesimal parts of the Universe, that with good approximation can be
described by Euclidean geometry. Inside these small parts of the Universe we perceive what humans call
Newtonian time and they measure it with their clocks and calendars. As it is evident, this time has no
relation with the dimension «time»9.

Another question answered by Democritus, but proved with the use of scientific
instruments many centuries later, was the problem of the structure of our Galaxy. As
Democritus believed [Achilles Tatios, Των Αράτου φαινομένων προς εισαγωγήν εκ των
Αχιλλέως περί του παντός, 24, εκδ. Maas, 55,24. Περί γαλαξίου): «...Others say that the
Galaxy consists of very small and dense stars, that to us appear united due to the large
distance from heaven to Earth, as an object powdered with many grains of salt...»
The first scientific verification of these views of Democritus about the nature of Galaxy
was obtained by Galileo circa 1610 A.D. when, turning his small telescope towards it, he
realized that, as he reports in his book Nuntius Sidereus, «...[the Galaxy] consists of a
mass of innumerable stars, being placed one close to the other by swarms...»9.

The cosmology of Democritus

Although everyone today considers Democritus along with Leucippos the fathers of the
Atomic Theory, not many know that the two atomic philosophers are the forefathers of a
cosmological proposition, which has not been analyzed in depth, as it should, nor it has
been placed under the judgement of the modern scientific knowledge, as it happened in
the case of their views about atoms.
In what follows, we try to concisely comment and study these cosmological views, under
the light of the observations and comments stated earlier. Let us see what Diogenes
Laertius writes about the views of Leucippos, that had been also accepted by Democritus.
[Diogenes Laertius, Φιλοσόφων βίων και δογμάτων συναγωγή, IX, 30-33] ...Leucippos
believed that... ...the worlds are created when bodies fall in some void and engage with
each other, and from their motion and accumulation the nature of stars comes into
being... (31) And the worlds are created as follows. Many bodies, with a great variety of
shapes, are being detached from the infinity and brought to a great void where, being
accumulated, form a whirl. Colliding and twirling due to this whirl, they become
separated according to their shape. When they come to an equilibrium due to their large
number and cannot whirl any more, the thin [bodies] advance towards the external void,
as if being hurled, while the rest become entangled and approaching to each other form
initially a spheroidal subsystem. (32) From this, a membrane is detached containing
various bodies inside it. As they whirl due to the centrifugal force, the membrane
becomes thin, because the elements being close accumulate always towards the center
entangled in the whirl. This way the earth (= the sensed matter) was created, when all
that was accumulated at the center united. Now this external membrane grew due to the
accumulation of bodies coming from outside, because as it is carried away by the whirl it
encorporates the bodies with which it comes into contact. From these, some get
entangled and form initially a system very wet and muddy. After they dry and follow the
general whirl, they are heated and constitute the nature of stars...
With this quotation as a basis, the main steps of the cosmic creation, according to
Leucippos and Democritus were the following.
1. In the beginning there was the full and the void
Prior to the events described in the previous quotation, as already has been mentioned,
initially there was the total creation (μη ον = void = infinity), inside which were floating
the atoms (ον). The system ον + μη ον was beyond the perceptual capabilities of the
human senses, since (as already has been mentioned) the atomic philosophers were
supposing that «the full and the void, i.e. the atoms and space, are true and objective
realities outside of the field of the human senses».
As can be seen, with the unified system full + void (= atoms + space) Democritus
replaces a previous system, that of the Orphic Chaos and Erebos, without of course
suggesting the identification of the respective partial components of the system.
2. Creation of the «great voids»
[Diogenes Laertius, Φιλοσόφων βίων και δογμάτων συναγωγή, IX, 31] ...The worlds are
created as follows. Many bodies are being detached from the infinity (the void) and
brought to the «great void».
In this phase, in the frame of the total original space of the Universe (μη ον = void =
infinity) many partial «great voids» (μεγάλα κενά), i.e. smaller sub-spaces of the total
space, are created. This could be expressed in the modern scientific terminology as
creation (inside the total non-perceivable and non-Euclidean space of the Universe) of
partial sub-spaces with different density and curvature, a fact that also caused different
geometries of the created sub-spaces.
This cosmological procedure described by Democritus constitutes, as we shall see, the
basic principle of the quantum cosmological theory of Andrei Linde, that predicts and
tries to explain the creation of these voids, which calls bubbles, via the inflation field.
It is an interesting fact that Democritus seems to be especially intrigued about the
«cause» (the great voids) that, as we shall see, forced the atoms to accumulate into small
regions, and not about the cause that created the great voids themselves. For this reason
he fashions the notion of the partial voids-spaces as the cause for the subsequent
accumulation of the atoms, but without explaining the physical process of their
formation.
3. Local collapse of «atoms» in the «great voids», formation of the «whirl»
In this phase, non-perceivable parts of the ον (atoms), originated from the total non-
perceivable creation of the Universe (infinity + atoms = void + full = μη ον + ον), tend to
occupy the created «great voids», generating for each one of them a corresponding
«whirl» («δίνη»)*. With the entry of atoms inside the sub-spaces of the «great voids» are
created the perceivable through the senses «worlds», perhaps infinite in number and
contained in the total non-perceivable set «ον + μη ον» (atoms + void = Universe).
The cosmological whirl
A first reference to the notion of whirl is made in the Orphic Cosmology. The primaeval
cosmological egg, the natural creation and composition of which is remarkably and
scientifically related by Democritus, generates a whirlwind, described by the atomic
philosophers as a secondary whirl and by the Orphic texts as «Ερως»:
[Aristophanes Ornithes 693] ...the black-winged Night begets first a windbeaten egg;
from where, when the time came, flaming Eros came out, golden wings glittering on his
back, the like of a whirlwind...
The notions of whirl and whirlwind occurs also in the cosmological view of Empedocles:

[Simplicius, Peri Ouranou 529, 1 (verses 1-15), in Fysika 32, 13 (verses 3-17)] ...When the dispute arrived
in the depths of the whirl and the amity came in the midst of the whirlwind, all these began to come
together and become one...

[Aristotle, Peri Ouranou B 13, 259α 29] ...Besides, it is strange that [Empedocles] did not
realize that, if initially the molecules of earth accumulated towards the center due to the
whirl, he should explain why all things carrying weight tend now to go towards the
center. Because the whirl cannot be what brings them close to us...
[Aetius II, 6, 3 (DK 31a 49)] ...Empedocles suggests that the first to separate was the
aether, second came the fire and next the earth (matter). From the earth being intensely
tighten round due to the force of rotation came out the water...
However, to the notion of «whirl» is assigned a specific physical meaning by Democritus, that assumes
today a special cosmological interest. Initially, the Democritean «whirl» forms within the framework of the
original non-perceivable system «void + non-void» ( ον + μη ον = atoms + space = Riemannian
space of the Universe). As Diogenes Laertius describes:
[Diogenes, Φιλοσόφων βίων και δογμάτων συναγωγή, IX 30-33] ...And the worlds are
created as follows. Many bodies, of various shape, detach from the infinity and are
brought to a great void...
In a second phase the «whirl» evolves inside a small region of the «great voids»
(Euclidean sub-spaces).
[Diogenes IX 30 (Leuc. A 1)] ... are brought to a great void forming a whirl ...
That the whirl initially occupies a small part of a great void is evident from the fact that:
[Diogenes IX 30 (Leuc. A 1)] ...When [the bodies] come to an equilibrium due to their
large number and cannot whirl any more, the thin [bodies] advance towards the external
void, as if being hurled, while the rest become entangled and approaching to each other
form initially a spheroidal subsystem...
This means that the whirl was initially occupying a small part of the great void, since it could advance
towards the exterior.

But returning to the notion of the whirl, as described by Leucippos and Democritus, the question of how it
evolves is open. Where is placed its funnel and where its «cord». It is difficult to answer, because the
presocratics acknowledged two kinds of whirls. The first appeared in the case of liquids, e.g. in rivers, lakes
and the sea, when through whirls the water disappears in underground cesspools. In this case the material
falling in the whirl is directed from the funnel to the cord (vortices). In the second case, e.g. in the
phenomenon of the whirlwind or the tornado, materials from the surface of the earth, where the base of the
whirl, are directed through the cord towards the funnel of the whirl, being elevated from the earth. In the
case of Democritean Cosmology the material should be lead from the funnel to the edge of the cord, since
as we shall see the final result of the whirl is a sphere of limited dimensions.

All the previous thoughts, as in the Cosmology of Alkman 4, lead us to the conclusion that, if we want to
describe using modern scientific terminology the views of Leucippos and Democritus in respect to what
existed before the perceivable Universe was created and to how we were led to the starting point of the
cosmic creation, we come to the conclusion that the atomic philosophers, in addition to Alkman,
describe the creation of the Universe through a white hole. The difference between the cosmological
system of Alkman and the one of Leucippos / Democritus is that the atomic philosophers, being experts on
the scientific knowledge of their time, expose in greater detail their views attaching to them a series of
scientific (for their era) explanations. The notion of whirl in particular renders the cord of Alkman easier to
understand, while the spherical condensation of «not thin» materials makes more concrete the notion of the
Alkmanian «τέκμωρ».

The coincidence of the views of Leucippos and Democritus about the creation of the
Universe with those of Alkman leads to questions, such as whether the atomic
philosophers knew the Alkmanian Cosmology and, moreover, whether their views consist
the lost or destroyed continuation of the text of Alkman, wherein he continued the
exposition of his cosmological proposal.
The infinite worlds and the «great voids»
In the context of Democritean Cosmology appears, with a physical etiology, the idea of
the existence of many perceivable worlds like ours within the frames of the created «great
voids». The idea of the existence of many «worlds» inside successive «heavens» consists
an older presocratic view. As reported by Simplicius and St.Augustine, Anaximander was
stating the same view:
[Simplicius, in Fysika 24, 17] ...[Anaximander believed that]...some other substance is the infinity, from
which all heavens were made, and the worlds existing in them...

[Augustine, De civ.Dei VIII, 2] ... [Anaximander] believed that these origins of the partial things are
infinite, and that they produce innumerable worlds, and all that appear inside them, and the worlds
themselves, as he believed, get destructed and reborn from time to time...

The view of Anaxagoras was also similar:

[Simplicius, in Fysika 157, 9] ...That he[Anaxagoras] hints at another world besides ours, is evident from
the phrase «exactly as we», that he uses many times. And that he does not consider this other world a
perceivable world that preceded ours is evident from the phrase «from which they gather the best in his
houses and use them». For he didn’t say «used» but «use»...

But the complete physical etiology and description of a Universe including an infinite number of
perceivable worlds was given by the atomic philosophers and in particular Democritus. D. Makriyannes 10
writes in his 1999 book Cosmology and Ethics of Democritus (award of the Academy of Athens) about the
structure of this Democritean Universe:

« ...Since there are infinite worlds, there are infinite empty spaces. So we can simulate the Democritean
Universe with a sponge. The material of the sponge corresponds to the compact more or less structuring of
the atoms comprising the medium that includes, while the spheroidal voids in the volume of the sponge are
the spaces where the worlds are created and evolve. The cosmological sponge model is not static, neither
with respect to the structure of the including medium, nor with respect to the shape and size of the voids. As
inside the voids take place continuous reactions among the atoms, similarly the total including medium
undergoes continuous mutations, the principal among them being the emission from it of all kinds of bodies
to the interior of the voids, and the reabsorption of the bodies resulting from the destruction of the worlds.»

Thus Democritus documents logically in a natural way the possibility of the simultaneous existence of
many perceivable worlds, which may nevertheless be imperceivable by us, since between them and our
world intervenes the non-perceivable unified system of «ον» + «μη ον» (atoms + void)9.

As reported by Hippolytos:
Σύνταγμα κατά Αιρέσεων, Ι, 13, 2] ...Democritus supports the same as
[Ippolitus,
Leucippos, that there is an infinite number of worlds with different sizes. In some of
them there is no Sun, nor Moon, in others these two celestial objects are larger than in
our world, and in others more numerous. The distances among the worlds are unequal,
in some regions there are more worlds and in others fewer; some worlds are developing,
some are in the apex of their development and some are declining.In other places worlds
are forming and in other disintegrate. Their destruction is caused by their mutual
collisions.
In this passage, as in several previous ones, one can clearly discern the view that the
natural laws can be different in the various worlds and hence totally different events can
be generated. Even after Democritus, this same idea about many worlds is repeated by
Diogenes Apolloniates:
[Pseudoplutarch, Stromateis 12] ...Diogenes Apolloniates hypothesizes that air is the element and that
everything moves and the worlds are infinite in number...

But let us see what the modern cosmological theories have to say about the existence of many worlds 9.
According to the quantum cosmological proposal of Linde, in the original non-Euclidean, hence non-
perceivable, Universe there were two known scalar fields: The «inflation field» and the «Higgs field». The
inflation field and the associated phenomena are the reason for the expansion of space (void, μη ον),
while the Higgs field is responsible for the kind of natural laws establishing themselves
inside the expanding space. These two fields, as it has been proved, exist everywhere in
the Universe, and their presence is betrayed from their influence on the elementary
particles.
However, the scalar fields are not constant and, as proved by quantum physics, undergo
unexpected fluctuations and variations. If the fluctuations cause a large increase in the
intensity of the inflation field, then in this region the Universe begins to expand much
faster, creating a bubble (generation of a great void). This effect can be produced
continuously in different regions of the original non-perceivable Universe (creation of an
infinite number of great voids). This implies that if we conceive the Universe as a
homogeneous bubble, every new perturbation in it will create a new bubble of the
universe (great void). In this way A. Linde answered the question that Leucippos and
Democritus could not answer: how the great voids are created*.
The bubble spaces are initially limited by irregular limits that continually smooth down,
and tend to expand with velocities approaching the speed of light. Later on, the limits of
the bubbles can possibly shrink with much lower velocities. On this basis, the Big Bang
Theory describes the creation of just one bubble, inside which we find ourselves, and not
of the total Universe of the infinite bubbles.
It should be noted that, if in the original non-perceivable Universe there was a set of
specific natural laws, the Higgs field would have changed it in the produced bubbles
(great voids). This means that every bubble (great void) will eventually have its own set
of natural laws, i.e. exactly what Leucippos and Democritos had already said.
It should be mentioned that A. Linde’s model consists an elaboration of the inflation
theory (A.H. Guth 1981), which predicts the existence of a Universe with many bubbles
in spacetime, perhaps ruled by different natural laws. In 1982 American researchers
Albrecht and Steinhardt announced similar results. The entire cosmological model of A.
Linde we believe that does not need any further comments in order to be identified with
the views of the atomic philosophers Leucippos and Democritus.
As it can be seen, the thoughts of the philosophers of the past can probably consist a
source of inspiration for the formulation of modern theories in physics9.
4. Formation of spheroidal system of perceivable matter with simultaneous ejection
of material in the external void
Due to the rotating «whirl», there is first a separation of the «similar» from the
«dissimilar». Next the rotation ceases and a system is created consisting of «thin bodies»
(not small in dimensions, nor atoms) that advance towards the external void (space) as if
being hurled, while the rest, the «non-thin» (thick = hadra), remain united and becoming
entangled approach each other and form initially a spheroidal system.
It is interesting to note that the new term «thin bodies» is used in order to set these bodies
apart from all the others that have already been mentioned.
With a superficial reading of the corresponding text one could find apparent coincidences
between the views of the atomic philosophers and the modern cosmological theory of Big
Bang. The spherical condensation could superficially be thought as Lemaitre’s primaeval
atom and the described explosion as the Big Bang. However, things are not that simple.
The hurling and the expansion of the «thin» material according to Leucippos and
Democritus is not a result of the explosion of the spheroidal system formed by the «non-
thin» materials, but instead they occur together with the creation of the spherical
condensation, as a result of events taking place at the edge of the «whirl», since there the
«similar» have separated from the «dissimilar» and equilibrated, and the bodies cannot
rotate anymore.
In a few words, Leucippos and Democritus support that from a mixture of «thin» and
«non-thin» bodies that is in equilibrium and does not rotate, the hurling of the thin ones
towards the exterior creates an opposite motion, a contraction, of the «non-thin» ones,
that tend to form a small but dense spheroidal structure of matter.
As is evident from the respective quotation, at the end of the whirl, where it meets the
great void, there is a limited in space, momentarily non-rotating and in equilibrium,
spherical condensation of «non-thin» (not small in dimensions, nor atoms) material. The
sphere occupies a very small space of the «great void», because how else could be the
described «thin» material hurled into the external space if this space were occupied by the
initial sphere? It is interesting that at the limits of the whirl, towards the region of the
«great void», and before the formation of the spherical condensation, the material of the
non-perceivable Universe (space + atoms) consists of an «exotic» for our senses
«matter», indescribable by the atomic philosophers, that later on it separates into two
constituents, the «thin» and the «non-thin» (thick = hadra), which in a later phase were to
form the «matter» that is known today to our senses, according to the atomic
philosophers.
In relation to the previous, it should be mentioned that in accordance with the modern
cosmological views we can discern two cosmological periods, the Planck era and the
inflationary expansion era. These precede the hypothetical creation of the initial
spheroidal condensation of matter, the primaeval atom of Lemaitre, from which the Big
Bang began. The matter under the extreme conditions prevailing during these periods was
truly «exotic» for the modern scientific reality. During the inflationary expansion in
particular, the conditions were such that they favored the creation of successive bubbles
(great voids) and most probably the creation of «exotic» Higgs particles (Higgs bosons)
that consist the hypothetical mediators assigning to the particles the property of their
mass after the Big Bang.
Similarly, after the moment of the Big Bang modern cosmology adopts the view that
there were two phases, during which two respective kinds of subatomic particles were
formed, the hadrons (thick, non-thin) and the leptons (thin). As «hadrons» are classified
the protons, the neutrons, the hyperons and the mesons. The «leptons» include the
electrons and the neutrinos. The respective cosmological phases of creation were given
the name of the particles being created. The correlation of the names of these elementary
particle classes with the terminology of the atomic philosophers is characteristic.
5. Formation of a thin membrane. Onset of a rotational motion of the Universe
At this stage, from the central spheroidal condensation of «non-thin» material detaches a
membrane, i.e. a thin shell of «non-thin» matter. This membrane starts rotating, while
material from it is carried towards the central spheroidal condensation «due to the whirl».
But which whirl? The original «whirl» was carrying material from the non-perceivable
Universe of the «ον» + «μη ον» to the world of the «great void», that is the spherical
accumulation of «non-thin» material we mentioned. On the contrary, the whirl referred
here leads from the «world» of the «great void» to the original spherical accumulation of
«non-thin». This means that the whirl mentioned here is of opposite direction in respect
to the first. In other words, the atomic philosophers propose a cosmological system of
two whirls of opposite polarity (+ and -). The first evolves outside the world of the «great
void» and the second inside.* But both lead to a common region, which forms the
beginning and the end of the world of the «great void».

Conclusions
If we summarize the views of Leucippos and Democritus about the structuring of the
Universe using the corresponding modern scientific terminology, we can generally
discern two periods:
1. The process before the creation of the spherical condensation and of the great voids, when the Universe (ον
+ μη ον = void + atoms) consisted a non-perceivable entity (logos), a situation Hesiod describes as Chaos
and Erevos. This process can be compared with the process of the creation of the Universe through a white
hole, which in turn is analogous to the processes described in Alkman’s cosmology.
_____________________________________________________________________________
* That is, the Universe evolves on the surface of a pseudosphere, on which the hyperbolic geometry is applied
(negative curvature.
1. The process after the creation of the great voids and of the spherical condensation, which is interesting to
analyze by phases:
a. Originally there is an initial spheroidal condensation in a small space of a very large
quantity of «thin» and «non-thin» material. The violent hurling of the «thin» material
forces as a reaction the «non-thin» material to contract and to rotate violently. This
process is known and accepted today in the cases of stars with large masses that are in a
late stage of their evolution.
b. The violent contraction of a very large mass of material creates internal energetic
processes that generate and propagate outwards a shock wave, resulting to the ejection
through an explosion of a large quantity of matter from the surface of the spherical
condensation, i.e. of a material membrane that starts to rotate rapidly. This phenomenon
is known to happen, according to modern astrophysics, when a star reaches the
evolutionary phase of a nova or of a supernova. The violent ejection of material from a
surface crust of the star during this stellar phase forces its central regions to contract
violently, a process that leads the star to become, according to its mass, a white dwarf, a
neutron star, or a black hole.
c. After the ejection of the membrane’s material, the remaining spherical condensation,
which should be enormous (the entire mass of the local Universe), continues to contract
as a reaction, creating a black hole. The material of the membrane of the surface layers
 that had been ejected revolves now around the black hole as an accretion disk, being led
towards the singularity of the black hole.
d. More generally, Leucippos and Democritus propose a cosmological model in which
space is described in terms of a system of two whirls, i.e. the surface of a pseudosphere
on which Lobatschewski’s geometry is applied, i.e. with negative curvature. More
specifically, after the ejection of the thin membrane, the expansion is initially spherical,
hence the geometry is initially Riemannian. However, after the appearance of the whirl,
the material of the Universe tends to concentrate on the surface of the whirl, so the
geometry of the space tends to become Lobatschewskian.
This discussion leads to the conclusion that, back in the 5th century B.C., Leucippos and
Democritus had formulated a very pioneering view about the creation and evolution of
the Universe. The Universe, according to the views of the two atomic philosophers, was
generated through the processes of a white hole, while after its creation it evolves within
the framework of a black hole, in the singularity of which will sometime be compressed
to its dissolution.
REFERENCES
1. A.D. Aleksandrov: «Μη Ευκλείδειες Γεωμετρίες», Εκδόσεις της Ελληνικής Μαθηματικής Εταιρείας,
Μαθηματική Επιθεώρηση, Ιούλιος-Αύγουστος-Σεπτέμβριος 1976.
2. Bohm, D. and Hiley, B.: On the Intuitive Understanding of Non-Locality as Implied by Quantum Theory,
Gordon and Breach, London February 1974.
3. Charles Muses and Arthur M. Young: Consciousness and Reality, Outerbridge and Lazard, N.Y., 1972.
4. Danezis, E., Theodossiou, E., Stathopoulou, M., and Grammenos, Th.: «A Presocratic Cosmological
proposal». History and Heritage of Astronomy, 2(2):125-130.1999.
5. G.S. Kirk, J.E. Raven and M. Schofield: «Οι προσωκρατικοί Φιλόσοφοι», εκδόσεις του Μορφωτικού
Ιδρύματος της Εθνικής Τράπεζας, Αθήνα 1990.
6. Ludwig von Bertalanffy: General System Theory, George Braziller, N.Y., 1968.
7. Michael Talbot
8. Βελισσαρόπουλος, Δ.: «Η Ιστορία της Ινδικής Φιλοσοφίας»,Εκδόσεις Δωδώνη, Αθήνα 1975.
9. M. Δανέζη και Σ. Θεοδοσίου: «Το Σύμπαν που αγάπησα - Εισαγωγή στην Αστροφυσική», Diavlos publ.
Αθήνα 1999.
10. Δ. Μακρυγιάννη: «Κοσμολογία και Ηθική του Δημόκριτου», Εκδόσεις Γεωργιάδη, Αθήνα 1999.
11. Λεύκιππος-Δημόκριτος: «Η Ατομική Θεωρία». Εκδόσεις Εξάντας, από την σειρά Αρχαίοι Συγγραφείς,
Αθήνα 1995.
The translations of the ancient texts have been taken from the books of:
1. G.S. Kirk, J.E. Raven and M. Schofield: «Οι προσωκρατικοί Φιλόσοφοι», εκδόσεις του Μορφωτικού
Ιδρύματος της Εθνικής Τράπεζας, Αθήνα 1990.
2. Δ. Μακρυγιάννη: «Κοσμολογία και Ηθική του Δημόκριτου», Εκδόσεις Γεωργιάδη, Αθήνα 1999.
ΑΤΤΕΝΤΙΟΝ
As for as the work of SEXTUS EMPIRICUS, in which the above writers reffered, exists
only the book «ΠΡΟΣ ΦΥΣΙΚΟΥΣ» (Against the Phycistes) and not «ΠΡΟΣ
ΜΑΘΗΜΑΤΙΚΟΥΣ» (Against the Mathematicians).