Talk:Horror vacui (physics)

Really discounted?
It is my impression that the general principle is still considered valid (and in perfect accordance with observational evidence). The one point of critique would be a fundamental misunderstanding of how sucking works. (Namely, not an active effort by a vacuum, a vacuum cleaner, a straw drinker, ..., but a passive lack of counter-pressure.)

While the interpretation may be less literal today than in ancient Greece, it is still, IMO, a valid principle.

(Unless the article has skipped over some parts of the theory not present in the "common knowledge" interpretation of the phrase.) 188.100.201.34 (talk) 05:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Source of Term Horror Vacui
As far as the attribution of the source for 'horror vacui' (or "nature abhors a vacuum") being Aristotle's Physica Book IV, I have been unable to find it stated anywhere in that book, even as a paraphrase. Book IV does indeed talk about the "void" (i.e. vacuum). But for that matter De Universa Book IV also speaks of the void.

I can only conclude that the term 'horror vacui' and the phrase 'nature abhors a vacuum' are later attributions to Aristotle based on the general topic of void/vacuum, not pulled from the text directly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwardpiercy (talk • contribs) 17:52, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Current state of this theory?
Was it confirmed? By whom? Disproved? By whom? Rendered irrelevant? By what developments? Clearly, modern subatomic theory holds that the vast majority of the volume of everything is void, from single atoms to large structures. So in that sense the theory has been disproved. But what was the history of its disproof? Gnuish (talk) 07:41, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposed merge to Horror vacui
There is currently a move discussion at. One contributor has proposed merging this article there, so you might want to add your voice. Paradoctor (talk) 11:42, 6 December 2021 (UTC)