What does it mean to 'decompose a problem to its atomic level'?

Here's how you can understand it:

Imagine you have an exquisitely built sports car model made of LEGOs in front of you.

Most people would see "a sports car." If you wanted to improve it, you might think, "add a spoiler" or "change the color of the wheels." These are all minor adjustments within the existing concept of "a sports car."

However, "breaking a problem down to its atomic level" means ignoring the overall image of "a sports car" and instead seeing it as a pile of basic, colorful, different-shaped plastic bricks. These plastic bricks are the "atoms" of the problem. They are the smallest units that make up this model and cannot be further disassembled (in the world of LEGOs).

When you no longer see "a sports car" but a pile of basic parts, your mind is freed. You'll realize that these parts can be assembled not only into a sports car but also into airplanes, castles, robots... You might even start thinking: "Why do I have to use these square blocks? Can I make my own round or triangular parts to combine?"

In essence, it means peeling back a complex problem or thing, layer by layer, stripping away all preconceived assumptions, ready-made conclusions, and traditional approaches, until you reach its most core, most fundamental components (those facts you are absolutely certain of).

Take a classic example: Elon Musk wanted to build rockets.

• Traditional thinking (without deconstruction): "Building rockets is too expensive; a single rocket costs tens of millions or even hundreds of millions of dollars." This is a ready-made conclusion. Based on this conclusion, the only thing one could do is try to save some money, for example, by using cheaper materials, but the cost would still remain high.
• Deconstructing to the atomic level: "What exactly is a rocket made of?" He analyzed the raw materials that constitute a rocket: aerospace-grade aluminum alloy, titanium, copper, carbon fiber, etc. Then he looked up the prices of these raw materials on the international market and found that the cost of buying all these materials only accounted for about 2% of the rocket's total price.

This "raw material cost" is one of the "atoms" of the problem.

When he broke the problem down to this level, the real question changed. It was no longer "rockets are expensive," but "why do raw materials that account for 2% of the total cost end up becoming 100% of the price?" The answer pointed to the intermediate stages of manufacturing, processing, labor, and "single-use" aspects. Consequently, his direction for innovation shifted to "how to combine these inexpensive raw materials more efficiently" and "how to make rockets reusable," instead of being stuck in the mindset that "rockets are just expensive."

Therefore, the power of this method lies in this: it helps you bypass fixed mindsets and path dependencies, allowing you to think from the essence of things, thereby finding disruptive, truly innovative solutions, rather than merely making minor adjustments to existing frameworks.