The reality of atoms, put into evidence, by John Dalton (1766-1844), and then, by Amadeus Avogadro (1776-1856), proceeding up to the last theories on the constitution of atoms, does not rely at all on the philosophic atomism that has its starters in Democritus (460 BC - 360 BC) and Leucippus (beginning of the V century BC). Many critics have put into doubt his real existence. For others, his thought would be included in the corpus collecting Democritus' concept, even if it is difficult their distinction. These philosophers supported that there are some inseparable particles, atoms, that are infinite in number and with infinite varieties of shapes, weight and size, that shift about in the space and give origin to bodies by bumping against each other.

Leucippus stated that the being is the being, and the non-being is the non-being, but the non-being  exists as well as the being: it's the vacuum while the being is the plenum.

Democritus said the same thing: “The being doesn't exist with more reason than the non-being”  Democritus and Leucippus thought that between the atoms there was the vacuum and that the  space, was endless. Atoms were compact because they severed the space from themselves. Atoms moved into all directions in the vacuum. While moving they bump against each other and, joining by contact, give origin to things. So, the process takes place happens through mechanic and quantitative relations. The vacuum, “the non-being”, then, succeeds in resulting the principle of things no less than “the being” formed by atoms.

At the same time Leucippus, supported that “Nothing happens by chance, but everything happens according to reason and necessity.”

This statement of his, so understandable in itself, doesn't, however, logically collimate with his system being presented as true reality, beyond sensitivity.

Leucippus' statement, therefore, is contradictory just inside his own system, which, foresees of necessity the case with its mechanism.

Aristotle (384 BC-322 BC) pointed out that the vacuum was, thanks to the same statement of the two founders of philosophic atomism, the non-being, the nothing, but, however, in the formation of things also the nothing was to enter into action, so that the form might be shaped, though, the nothing, by definition, is inoperative. Without the form it's impossible to get the being of the ens. So, only atoms result to be beings and no other ens exists, there exist only temporary geometric vicinities of atoms, but never aggregations, because they suppose an aggregative which the nothing can't be.

Epicure (341 BC-271 BC) regained the ideas of Leucippus and Democritus, to support his conception of life based on a moral relativity whose aim is pleasure. He distinguishes three kinds of motion: natural, forced, free. He presents motion as a consequence between the plenum and the vacuum.

The first motion is the vertical freefall. But, with it there's the contradiction with the conception of infinite space where there isn't an up and a down. The atoms falling at equal speed may however modify the trajectory (the clinamen of Titus Lucretius Caro: 98/96 BC-55/53 BC), it's the second form of motion, whose causality, however, isn't indicated. The third form of motion is that given by the bump; a motion defined necessary, but in the same time casual.

The bump however supposes a contact and therefore implies the victory over the nothingness separating the atoms, and so, there is contradiction. Epicure, then stated, against Democritus and Leucippus, that the number of atomic forms is limited in order to explain the quality of things.

Chemistry agrees with Epicure that the number of atoms is limited. Physics doesn't agree on the statement that the atom is indivisible. Both physics and chemistry don't support the conception of vacuum as non-being, because between atom and atom there isn't at all the non-being, but a concrete relation; and therefore, not geometric contiguity of atoms adjacent because of their form. The vacuum is “a plenum”.

Some data to realize how far is, from the reality of atoms, philosophic atomism and each of its suggestions that have come up again.

1)    Forces linking atoms among them proceed from themselves. Among atoms the non-being doesn't exist. On the contrary there exist energetic fields that, they themselves, are matter. It's the same for molecules.

2)    The recognition of atoms and molecules through atomic spectroscopy results much simpler in a gas, where, first, it's approximately assumed that the atom or the molecule be free, rather than in a liquid or in a body, because, interactions between molecules and atoms in a solid body or liquid, modify deeply the structures of the energetic levels of single atoms or molecules.

3)    Atoms that are the fundamental elements of chemistry, entering into composition between them, form molecules that own a deep unity.

4)    Molecules have physical and chemical characters distinct from the chemical elements constituting them at the start.

The intermolecular bonds uniting the atoms of a molecule are called: “chemical bonds” or “strong bonds”

Intermolecular bonds are called “weak bonds” or “secondary chemical bonds”. As experience attests, “weak bonds” may come up very resistant to mechanical actions.

5)    Not only in a liquid, but also in a solid body there exists a tension of surface showing an inter-atomic or intermolecular coalition in the formation of the body.

The atom is a deeply unitary reality, even if it is divisible. In the atom there exists a nucleus (protons, neutrons) and an electronic cortex with electrons at varied distances from the nucleus.

Between the nucleus and electrons, placed in electronic shells, designating their different energetic levels, there isn't at all the vacuum but there are energetic fields, in which, in fact, electrons are found. The ratio between the diameter of the nucleus and the diameter of the entire atom is about 10,000 according to a calculation of Rutheford (1911).

The atomic planetary model of Rutheford and also of Bohr, who, however knew its inexactitude because the electron imagined turning round the nucleus should have fallen on the nucleus. But this never happens, which means that what hinders the strength of attraction of the nucleus (the proton's positive charge opposite to the electron's negative one), isn't precisely the centrifugal strength of the electron. Therefore, the planetary model is only a graphic conventional image.

The electron in state of excitation due to the radiation hitting the atom, shifts from an energetic level to another, so producing its complex motion.

The incident radiation is then let out again by the atom according to various wave lengths, whence the colour of a determined substance under the light. Quantum physics (or quantum mechanics) has overwhelmed the problem that the electron come to fall on the nucleus with the idea that an electron is associated to a wave, so as the light, has a corpuscular and wavy nature

(It must be pointed out that the quantum mechanics has in itself, criticizable sides, as Einstein, himself, had already signalled. It's not, after all, a conclusive theory and it's bound to solve mathematically in agreement with experimental observations, various problems of physics, without giving their explanation. It proceeds with concepts against intuition leaning on the mathematical interpretation of experience.

Therefore, pretending to ask the quantum mechanics to reveal the mysteries of the atom, is asking what it can't give).

Orbitals have substituted electronic orbits of the inadequate planetary model. In molecules atoms share many orbitals.

Orbitals aren't a physical reality, but only mathematical constructs, obtained from equations (Shrodinger, Fourier) based on experimental data: the ones of spectroscopy.

Recently, spectroscopy for tunnel effect, has been used by means of the Scanning tunnelling microscope (STM) and it has been elaborated by powerful IBM calculators. The tunnel effect spectroscopy is based on the passage of a light electric current (tunnel electrons) between an atom of the surface in exam and the cantilever of the atomic power microscope.

All these operations, however, don't furnish the intrinsic explanation of reality. There are theories, but mystery remains.

Orbitals, also called electronic clouds, to render the image of a space around the nucleus of atom, give probabilistic pieces of information on the position of an electron in a given moment of observation (obviously not direct), in agreement with the spectres of atomic spectrography.

The principle of indeterminacy of Heisenberg doesn't allow anything else, because it is not possible to determine, with precision, contemporaneously the position and the state of motion (energy) of an electron. This depends on the ineliminable perturbation, produced by the instruments of observation, on the phenomenon.

In an atom, the behaviour of the electron is linked to the atom system, of which it's an integral part.

6)    The subatomic physics tries to explain the constitution of atom base particles   (electrons, protons, neutrons), emerging from the bumps procured by the accelerators of particles where velocities equal to the light's ones are reached. But, with all this, the rigorous notion that the mass is only a peculiarity of the matter, always remains. Therefore energy isn't at all an accident without substance.

7)    The subatomic physics tries to explain the constitution of atom base particles (electrons, protons, neutrons), emerging from the bumps procured by the accelerators of particles where velocities equal to the light's ones are reached. But, with all this, the rigorous notion that the mass is only a peculiarity of the matter, always remains. Therefore energy isn't at all an accident without substance.

8)    The particle physics knows the phenomenon of transformation of one gamma ray of great power entering into contact with an atomic nucleus, in a symmetric couple of particles: one electron (negative charge) and one positron (positive charge), in other words, in one electron and in one anti-electron (antimatter). If one anti-electron, formed by the above seen process, bangs into an electron, two gamma rays are formed, because the wave associated to the electron and the wave associated to the anti-electron, don't get lost.

Gamma rays with bigger energy can give, always through the same process, one proton and one anti-proton and in the same way, one neutron and one anti neutron, one atom of hydrogen and one anti-atom of hydrogen (for the atom of hydrogen, the particles: proton with electron and anti-proton and anti-electron, after being produced, combine.)

The antimatter has got an existence, at all, ephemeral. The hydrogen anti-atom, in 1969, was produced bombarding with protons some nuclei of aluminium. It's about complex operations.

It must be noticed that the bang of two gamma rays don't give a couple of particles (electron, anti-electron, etc.), but it is rigorously necessary an atomic nucleus; besides, the bang of an electron into an anti-electron don't produce one only gamma ray, but two gamma rays.

The reason of such mysteries must be attributed to the complexity of the nuclear reactions of stars and to the many mysteries of cosmos.

It must be recognized that this research has given great opportunities to the medical diagnostics. The PET (Tomography and emission of positrons) uses just the seen process.

An isotope radioactive is injected in the body. The isotope lets out positrons (anti-electrons) that, after a course of few millimetres collide with some electrons generating two gamma rays. The gamma rays reach a scintillator and the consequent shimmer is then relieved, thus furnishing the wanted indications.

Cartesius (René Descartes 1596-1650) launched again the philosophic atomism. Though, on the atom, he didn't insist that great, because he confounded extension with extent. That is, he made the mathematical extension prevail against the extent, which meant to deny the reality of extents, that is, of bodies, to support that reality is only res extensa, that is, mere extension animated by movement.

At the moment, some want to think that the final elements constitutive of bodies aren't any more  extents, bur pure energy, and this is only to want to go out of reality. In fact the mass developing energy, according to the equation of Einstein, is only a property of the matter, it isn't the matter.

Energy always presupposes the matter; and also the electromagnetic radiation (photons associated with a wave) is matter. The wave nature of radiation is strictly linked to the concomitant corpuscular reality (photon) constitutive of the same radiation. (Mario Viganò; voice: “Materia” in “Enciclopedia filosofica”. Ed. Sansoni, 1957 Firenze, p.399): “In this field we notice how easily the contraposition usually made in Physics, between matter and radiation presents an equivocation; in a philosophical language, one ought rather to speak of ponderable and imponderable matter, meaning for matter, juxtaposed with spirit, a substance endowed with extension, independently from the fact of having or not a mass at rest.” To support that the matter doesn't exist and that there exists only energy, means to want to annul reality reducing it to pure appearance.

The transformation of two particles (electrons) flung against each other, in a quantum (photon), and vice versa, the production of two particles, when a photon is thrown against an atomic nucleus, doesn't allow to call such transformations, the former “annihilation” and the latter materialization.

The basic mistake is that of confusing mass with matter; a mistake that Einstein has never made.

One might still say that at the base of all reality there exists the energy of particles; but particles are entia and their energy derives from the reality of matter itself in its phenomena of collision, of impact, of explosion, of nuclear reaction. Besides, one must recognize the aptitude for forming unitary body realities in particles both subatomic and elementary or composite, to which quantum mechanics associates a wave. Subatomic particles are the electron, the proton, the neutron. For elementary particles, that is, indivisible ones, there are six types of quark, the anti-quark, six types of leptons, the anti-leptons, twelve types of bosons of gauge. Then, there are compounded particles: barions, nucleons, proton , neutron, pentaquark etc.

In the theory of Big Bang people speak of nuclear synthesis due to auto-evolution, but this, should have had some rhythmic barriers of braking in the expansion of the universe, so as to form the nuclear synthesis. But what's the cause of these barriers of braking, that would be resisting forces giving origin to the form? If the explosive image of the Big Bang is intuitive, the image of an anti Big Bang isn't any more so, pointing out that it could not boast of having a cause. Then it's necessary to say that the elements have already from the start the attitude to the nuclear synthesis and that this has happened and happens within a reality much more complex than that of a mere sketch of the Big Bang. What can we say before all this complexity, that remains such before a man's eye? I say “GOD!”

The exam under the atomic force microscope (AFM) based on a microscopic cantilever brushing the surface to examine, reveals the atomic structure of the body. The image, obtained through the elaboration of a computer, traces the surface of atoms, but not inter-atomic forces, that is those which constitute the imponderable matter. There follows, for some, the suggestion that at microscopic level the reality of the surface of bodies ceases while there remains that of atoms; but, these last, are in intrinsic relation between them, with forces proceeding from themselves and it's at all inadmissible to think of inter-atomic forces as being accidental, that is, added from outside, like glue, between the atoms.

The extent and qualities

Sofia Vanni Rovighi (1908 – 1990), professor of theoretic philosophy, morals and history of philosophy at the “Sacred Heart” Catholic University of Milan; authoress of noteworthy issues. In 1980 she received the “Antonio Feltrinelli” award for philosophic sciences from the National Academy of the Lincei. The philosopher Sofia Vanni Rovighi is undoubtedly a great teacher for the limpidity of her teaching. I quote some of her passages: (“Elementi di filosofia” ed. 197, Brescia. By courtesy of the publishing house “La Scuola”)

The extent:

(III Vol, from p. 15-17).” Granted that there exist extended entia, let's see to explain what the extent is.

Extension is an immediate datum, but it's indefinable: each of us has the experience of the extent and, from it, the concept of extension is immediately formed. Therefore, to make one understand what is meant for extent, it's only possible by showing him some examples as Aristotle did in his book “Categories” when he says: “ expanded is this sheet I'm writing on, the floor I'm leaning my feet on, the road running under my window, the sky I'm looking at, and so on.

We can however try to describe the extent. Extension is a certain multiplicity; extent is what in which I can indicate a “here” distinguished from a “there”, in which there are therefore many (plures) parts. And as I can indicate, distinguish such parts, the extent is distinguishable in parts. But not every multiplicity is extension. Even in the character of a man I can distinguish virtues from vices, which can be defined, in some sense, parts of that character, but, nevertheless, not for this the character of a man is an extent. The extent isn't only distinguishable in parts, but actually divisible: the parts constituting it, can, each, keep to itself: this road could be divided into various stretches, and, each of these, with due technical devices, could be carried in different parts of the world, and continue to be as such. This sheet of paper, could be cut into many pieces, each of which would go on existing on its own; that tree could be divided into various parts (roots, trunk, branches, leaves); that animal could be dismembered.

However also divisibility isn't a concept to be converted into that of extension, and therefore, doesn't properly define the extension, because the characteristic of extents is that of being divisible in parts that are, in their turn, extended. In fact, one pure temporal succession, for instance a series of equal sounds, can be divided into parts each of which could subsist alone, but which isn't extended. The concept of extent shows to be irreducible to others, one can try to describe it in some way, but it can't rigorously be defined.

To clarify, in a better way, which multiplicity be implicit in the extent, Aristotle distinguishes the quantified ens in three types: the one whose parts are one after the other, the contiguous and the continuum (Physic.Z, chap.I, 231a.21). An example of the first type might be the fog: one multiplicity of parts, (of droplets of water), spread in the air, severed, therefore, from each other, and nevertheless consecutive, that is, to create a certain, though labile, totality. Contiguous is that whose parts touch each other; for instance, a cube made of many superimposed tiny cubes; finally, continuum is that whose parts haven't precise limits to separate them from each other; the limits of the parts of the continuum become confused (quorum extrema sunt unum), and this is just the extent. The characteristic of the extent is therefore this one: to be divisible, but not actually divided.

The contiguous and the consecutive aren't, each of them, one ens, but a sum of entia. The one existent is the part that remains alone. Only the continuum, the extent, can be considered one ens, just because parts don't exist, in it, yet, they aren't put into action, but they can be, when the extent is really divided and stops to be a continuum to become a consecutive or a contiguous.

The extent is divisible, but not effectively divided, or, in other words, the parts of the extent aren't entia put into action, but only potential entia. If in fact, the extent were actually divided into parts wouldn't be any more an ens but an aggregation of entia. However, in their turn, the entia of which the extent is an aggregation, must be extents, because a multiplicity of not-extents can't constitute an extent. (...) Don't object therefore that the macroscopic bodies are only an aggregation of atoms, that in their turn are aggregations of minor particles (electron, atomic nucleus with its various elements)”.

(III Volume, from p.22) “The extent isn't the extension. It's an ens , a quid, having extension.

Qualities:

(III Vol., from p.45/46): “The extent is always given us as a qualified extent, therefore also the body's qualities are real data, so, when we say:there exist some bodies, we mean  qualified, extended entia, and such existence is immediately apparent (…).The affirmation that there exist some qualities doesn't take away anything from the value of mathematical physics because it doesn't deny anything of what science states, but denies only that mathematical science may exhaust all the aspects of the real (…).

The modern thought tends to oscillate between these two extremes: positive evaluation of experimental science and acceptance of a mechanistic philosophy, which would be the only one compatible with science, and consequent contempt towards all the conceptions respecting the qualitative moment of reality. On the opposite pole there is positive evaluation of the qualitative aspect of reality and contempt of experimental sciences. In the former extreme, line up materialism, the previous century's positivism (1800); today's new positivism. In the latter, line up those idealistic movements that are connected with classic idealism. The Italian new followers of Hegel liquidated mathematics and experimental sciences as pseudo-sciences and despised as a puerile waste of time, the highest research of mathematical logic. The new positivists label, as romantic, every speech on quality. At this point it would be even possible to say that both parts are right about what they affirm and are wrong about what they deny, because if it is not possible to eliminate from reality the qualitative aspect, it's as well true that the only scientific knowledge (which means, rigorously demonstrated) that we can have of the corporeal world, is mathematical knowledge.

The human intellect works on that aspect of reality which can be better grasped and of this, it elaborates the science, it transforms qualities into quantities to be able to put them into exact formulas. But this doesn't cancel at all the universe of qualities.”

However also qualities have a quantity that the scholastics call “intensio”.

Perception:

(III Vol. From pg. 49/50) Sometimes, to demonstrate the subjectivity of qualities they are compared with the aesthetic qualities of objects. “If the man didn't exist - says Lecomte de Nouy – the universe wouldn't have either form or colour; as well as if there weren't an accorded receiving station Beethoven's radio-diffused greatest symphony would be lost in the space, without being heard and without provoking an echo, outside the hall where it's played.

The photons emitted by the sun and that, being reflected on objects, living beings, trees, rocks, arouse, at the back of our eye, what we call a landscape, are nothing but wave trains, quanta of energy. The phenomena of our world, the objects of our knowledge, disappear. There remains only a grey, silent, dark universe.” (“L'homme devant la science.” Paris, Flammarion, page 51).

Now it seems to us that the comparison between qualities and symphony, leans on our thesis instead of the author's one. Certainly, one of Beethoven's symphonies, isn't transmitted from the instruments, to me, while listening to it, if not through vibrations of the air (for the sake of simplicity let's now take into consideration one direct audition instead of a radio-phonic one), and those vibrations aren't heard as being a symphony, if not by an animated ear; but what does this mean? Perhaps that the symphony there isn't? That doesn't exist a centre collecting and ordering those vibrations in such a way that, at the encounter of an ear animated (by an intelligent soul; - editor's note -: the rational, spiritual soul of man), give rise to the audition of a symphony?

People say: if there weren't ear, there wouldn't be sound; if there weren't intelligence, there wouldn't be symphony (because it doesn't seem that a dog's ear is enough to perceive a symphony as being such). Wouldn't it be better to say, instead: if there weren't an animated ear there wouldn't be any perception of the sound and if there weren't intelligence there wouldn't be any aesthetic apprehension of a symphony? And one mustn't say that the sound is perception and the symphony, aesthetic feeling, because there are neither feeling nor aesthetic intuition if not in the soul of a man who apprehends, in the moment when he apprehends; while a symphony is an objective unity, which might arouse different feelings in Tom and Dick, but which is an object independent from such feelings. In fact, if the Fifth symphony of Beethoven, for instance, identified itself with the sentiment I feel when I listen to it, why should I give Beethoven the credit for creating it, instead of myself?

Light, obviously, isn't only a physic - psychic product, but it's a product that there is. Light is, and the same must also be said of colours.

(III Vol., from p 108/109): Modern psychology has been for a long time dominated by the theory of associationism, that might be so formulated: cognition is primarily and originally sensation (idea, in Locke's terminology; impression, in Hume's one; sensation in the XIX century's psychology of associationism); all our cognitions derive from a combination of sensations, from a mental chemistry regulated by determined psychological laws (See Fabro: “La fenomenologia della percesione” Milano, Vita e Pensiero, 1941, p.84s). For sensation one understands the elementary cognition, the one having for object, for instance, this white spot which hasn't been interpreted, yet, as the surface of a paper sheet; this sound (not interpreted as a bell's sound, yet, but as pure and simple resonance), etc. A reaction to this theory came out already at the end of the XIX century (Brentano, Stumpf) and was then continued by the “psychology of the form”. Not all of this last school can be accepted, as Fabro shows: but a merit must be recognized to it: the one of affirming that the prius in our conscious life isn't sensation, but perception. I'm at the window and see a house, some trees, the sky. Theoretically could I try to count and say that there are 327 luminosities and tonalities of colour before me? Not at all. Before my sight I've the sky, the house, the trees and nobody can succeed in having these 327 luminosities before him.

And even if such a funny calculation were possible and would imply 120 luminosities for the house, 90 for the trees and 117 for the sky, I'd have, at least, this combination and division of the whole, and not the other 127+100+100, or another again 150+177 (M. Wethimer quoted by C. Fabro in: “La fenomenologia della percezione”, p, 2); and this means that the sensations of luminosity and colour are presented to me already preordained and grouped in certain unities that are the perceptions of the house, of trees, etc.

The mistake of associationism derives from wanting to find, separated in our cognition, the elements that science teaches us to distinguish in objects. It would be like to claim that our cognition of a little table could be constituted by the knowledge of its molecules and atoms because we know that the little table is constituted of molecules and of atoms. (See M. Merleau-Ponty. “Phenomenologie de la perception”, Paris, Gallimard, 1945, p. 11 and 17)

Reflection:

The atomistic philosophic system must necessarily sacrifice the form of a material ens (spiritual entia are angels and souls, as well as the infinite ens: God) by dissolving the ens into a temporary and casual aggregate of atoms.

The particle disintegration of entia is contradicted by reality.

The disintegration of the ens arrives also to touch the atom, conceived mechanistically as a discontinuous reality, which isn't true even if it is a divisible reality. The atom is a deeply unitary reality.

The particle disintegration of reality leads to the idea that the ens is created by the man's

imagination. But  the ens, the extent is immediately apparent, it isn't the fruit of imagination. If imagination creates the ens then all becomes appearance, but, as a consequence, also man is appearance.

At this point it would be easy to say that if one is beaten with a stick, certainly wouldn't say that he's beaten by a particle aggregate, but by a stick, which briefly shows all its corporeal truth.

Philosophic atomism doesn't have as scientific ground. Atomic theories, that is what one knows and supposes about the atom and about its components, don't give any hold to it.

Today, the particle disintegration turned to deny the unity of entia, typical of atomism in all its reissues, binds itself to the even more apparent aberration of reducing the matter to energy and this is precisely the background on which the Dalai Lama has speculated, presenting the Buddhism as  conforming to the data of science, so, reviving conceptions already brought into the West by the esoteric, orientalising currents (Edouard Schuré). But science contradicts the Buddhist conception of reality.

For Buddhism reality is marked by pantheism and therefore the reality of the matter doesn't have its own being because its true being is Brahman. Reality is downgraded to appearance. Also the man's corporeity isn't considered a true reality, belonging to him; therefore it is only by migrating from body to body (reincarnation, metempsychosis) to the extinction of karma (act, obligation, action), which might be called “debt of reincarnation”, that frees us from the slavery of appearance and leads us to melt in a pantheistic manner, into the Brahman, the soul of the world.

But, against the pretension of Buddhism, of being at the height of science, it must be said that all the western civilization built itself just on the possibilities that man has, of domineering reality, not of moving away from it, as from an appearance against which action is useless. The conquests of science that have their cradle in the West, were realized just starting from the being of reality. A being given by God and maintained in its being by God who transcends any reality just by Him created, and created out of nothing.

The conquests of science and of technique were performed very far from pantheism that, as such, delays, hinders the exercise of the dominion of man on things, because they would be corporeity of  divinity and their being would be the divinity.

The pantheistic conception, coherently, can't present things dominated by the action of man, because it would mean to modify the reality of divinity.

But, indeed, reality equally proceeds, and the scientific progress that was realized also in the East, happened just by forgetting pantheism.

Near technique and science, however, don't let's forget Saint Francis, the singer of creation.

The great physic Enrico Medi (1911-1974) didn't forget St.Francis. He left us  a message:

Holy Francis who, while singing, prayed: “praised be you, my Lord, through sister water and brother fire, add to the Canticle of all Creatures: praised be you, my Lord, through brother electron, proton, neutron...through sisters molecules” (“Il mondo come io lo vedo” ed. Marietti, Genova - Milan, 2005)

And I say:

“Praised be you, my Lord through brother electron that is so useful to us, that is prime mover and possibility of communicating far away. Praised be you my Lord through brother atom and sister molecule whence we get, with our work, useful materials and also medicines to cure our diseases and alleviate our grieves”.