Talk:State of matter

500+ states

According to [1] doi:10.1126/science.1227224 there should be more than 500 states. -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 01:25, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

See below. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:FE1:7C:4D00:1A31:BFFF:FE27:3497 (talk) 21:52, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Three or four states

Dear colleagues Spririt and Xantippe, please convene to discuss here before this becomes an edit war.

Can you agree on the following:

(1) For centuries, textbooks talked of three states of matter; this cultural heritage should be properly described.

(2) There are good reasons to consider plasma as a fundamental state of matter on a par with solid/liquid/gas; hence the plasma state should be properly covered.

(3) There is no clear-cut definition of a "fundamental" state of matter. Hence neither three nor four is the sole and full truth.

(4) The introductory sentence "States of matter are the distinct forms that different phases of matter take on" should be reworked to become concise and clear; the relation between state and phase needs to be clarified.

(5) Right now, more than 50% of the introduction is about plasmas; this is an unwanted side effect of the nascent edit war, and needs to be corrected soon.

Hoping for good collaboration, and a happy new year to everyone -- Nsda (talk) 10:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the intro now describes solid, liquid and gas by macroscopic properties only as the molecular (or microscopic) description has recently been remvoed, but plasma is described as a conductor AND in terms of electrons removed from atoms. The microscopic description of the other three states should be removed. [I meant restored Dirac66 (talk) 21:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)]

And I disagree with the claim that there are only four states which normally occur in our environment. In my house I see at least three more states - glass windowpanes, liquid crystal digital clock displays, and refrigerator magnets. Dirac66 (talk) 13:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Nsdal, I agree with all 5 of those statements. Dirac66, your comments also bring up a number of valid points. The description of each state ought to be consistent throughout the article, and the claim "normally occur" does not hold up. I will change normally to "naturally", but if someone else can find a better definition than that then by all means include it. As far as glass (an amorphous solid) and magnets, are not these considered "solid"? The description of "solids" should either focus less on crystalline solids, or should include other forms of solid matter in its description. Or, perhaps we could make additional categories for the substates of solids, liquids, etc. Let me know your thoughts, everyone. Spirit469 (talk) 13:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

A glass is a solid, but it has no well defined melting point; near the glass transition you cannot tell whether it is solid or liquid. Think of butter or honey.

Another point not adequately covered in the article that shows the limitations of the classical concept of three states: at high pressure, there is no more phase transition between a liquid and a gas.

Further examples that defy the classical three-states concept: soft matter like rubber, cell membranes, gels, colloids, ...

In contrast, magnets are just solids. Here I see no problem. Phase transitions within the solid state should be mentioned, but they do not invalidate the concept of a "solid". -- Nsda (talk) 17:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

No, glasses have no well-defined melting temperature, but plasmas also have no well-defined onset temperature. However most authors do consider both glass and plasma to be distinct states of matter. In contrast liquid crystals, magnetic phases and superconductors do have well-defined transition temperatures. So this may not be an accepted criterion for deciding what is a state of matter.

So what is the correct criterion if any? Wikipedia is supposed to be based on sources, especially when informed editors do not agree. I think someone has to start checking some textbooks to find out which states are usually included in their lists. And if there is no consensus on state X, then we should be neutral (see WP:NPOV) and mention sources that include X as a distinct state of matter, and other authors that do not. Dirac66 (talk) 17:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

According to the Amorphous solid page, glass is a special case of an amorphous solid. "In part of the older literature, the term has been used synonymously with glass. Nowadays, "amorphous solid" is considered to be the overarching concept, and "glass" the more special case: A glass is an amorphous solid that transforms into a liquid upon heating through the glass transition.[1] Other types of amorphous solids include gels, thin films, and nanostructured materials." This statement has a source attached to it. Therefore, it seems logical to me to include states that are crystalline solids and noncrystalline(amorphous) solids as substates of solid, and glass as a substate of amorphous solids. Let me know your thoughts. Spirit469 (talk) 01:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Although indeed, there may be sources that say otherwise, so if so then we must include both perspectives. We definitely need more sources.Spirit469 (talk) 02:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

We could group the various amorphous solids together as this source suggests, with glass first as it is the oldest known. Grouping all the solids together is more problematic, as there are not only crystalline and amorphous but also oriented (liquid crystal) phases, magnetically ordered phases, etc. Best to check more sources and see how (and if) they organize the various states. Then suggest a possible new table of contents here on the talk page.

Also I think that if a state is only mentioned in some sources, it can be included in the article. The fact that an author does not discuss state X does not imply that s/he considers that it is not a state, unless s/he explicitly says so. Dirac66 (talk) 02:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. What I had meant was to group amorphous solids together in one category, crystalline solids together in another category, and so on, but still emphasize that all these subcategories could also be generally understood as being solids. Of course, we will need more sources, but that was my general line of thought. Spirit469 (talk) 04:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I have found a source http://www.pharmacy.utah.edu/pharmaceutics/pdf/Crystalline.pdf. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help), from the University of Utah, that lists amorphous and crystalline as two subcategories of a solid. It also sheds some light as to why the chemical and bioengineering wiki project would be interested in this article; it has implications for the creation of pharmaceutical drugs. Spirit469 (talk) 04:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I have found a 2nd source http://www.icdd.com/ppxrd/09/presentations/2010-ppxrd-Newman.pdf. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help) that focuses exclusively on amorphous solids and discusses many of their properties. It appears to be interested in their properties for their pharmaceutical applications.Spirit469 (talk) 04:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I have found a 3rd source http://203.208.166.84/mjrahman/Class%20Note_Jellur.pdf. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help), published by the department of physics of the Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology. It claims that "all matter can be subdivided into two states-solid and fluid". The paper focuses mainly on describing the solid state, and appears to do a very good job of it. It says that solid matter favors the crystalline structure, but other types of solids can form under various conditions. It looks promising. Please let me know your thoughts on these 3 sources. Spirit469 (talk) 04:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

We especially need to find a source that gives a precise definition for what a "state of matter" actually is. But, the idea of only two main categories (solid and fluid), would appear to make sense, with all others being subcategories. But we still need a precise definition. Please let me know your thoughts. Spirit469 (talk) 04:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, we should probably include a section about Colloids(substances with one phase suspended in another), as otherwise it would be impossible to explains substances like whipped cream or jello.Spirit469 (talk) 06:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I fully agree that problems like ours are best resolved by using reputable sources. By which I understand widely used textbooks. I would rather not use PDFs found somewhere in the web - how would you know that the author has done more than just a little theory finding of his own. Maybe he even relied on Wikipedia, so that our reliance on external "sources" would be no more than a circular illusion. So, what we need is a volunteer who is going to spend one hour or two in a decent university library. -- Nsda (talk) 09:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Atkins, Physical Chemistry, since decades a standard textbook devotes just few sentences to the three classical "states of matter" one finds upon "casual inspection", only to lead over to the concept of phases. - This can explain our difficulties: "states of matter" as a scientific concept is outdated, made obsolete by the inconsistencies we stumbled upon; it is an unscientific daily-life notion, and should be described as such. -- Nsda (talk) 09:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Btw, this is one more reason not to use PDFs found by web search: Such a search creates a bias by returning only texts that take the concept of "states of matter" seriously, while ignoring authors that consider this concept obsolete. -- Nsda (talk) 09:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. When I return to University in a few weeks I will search for additional texts in the material science department to hopefully get more information on the subject. If I recall, MIT has recently discovered a new "state of matter"(Quantum spin liquid), so perhaps someone from there might be able to provide a more precise definition.Spirit469 (talk) 09:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

This alternative science is interesting for sci-fi cultural purpose, but if one is looking for fast and reliable information, there are only 3 states of matter, like for H2O: (liquid) WATER, STEAM and ICE. One who reads this entry would think that water could also go into another state just heating, so than that you can guess what is the steam-plasma transition temperature for H2O and so on... Also if the matter is ionized, than it is no more the same matter, because H3O+ and OH- are not equivalent to H2O, and are different substance with different properties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.147.124.138 (talk) 07:27, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I feel obliged to point out an alternative, alchemical, interpretation of the topic, which might inform this discussion. I'm not sure how usefully, but I can hope. There is this old interpretation of the classical "Earth, Water, Air, Fire" separation as the "Elements" believed in by the ancients – though we have since invented a different meaning of "element", that does capture one of the meanings they seemed to imagine their classification could serve, while showing they were wrong about that. It is not hard to see these mapped to "solid, liquid, gas, flame" (with flame the most familiar form of plasma). While the ancients do really seem to have supposed their classification to be more fundamental than we now consider it, their terminology does seem to capture our modern classification of the states of matter (albeit we depart from them in recognising that there are essential differences between substances in the "same" state). In this sense, the classification into four states of matter does (albeit not described that way) predate the modern, even if the early modern rejection of that classification (as "elements", with more baggage than the classification could bear) did lead to cutting back to the solid, liquid and gas that I was taught in school. -- Eddy 2A02:FE1:7C:4D00:1A31:BFFF:FE27:3497 (talk) 21:42, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Merge with Phase (matter)?

I don't see the reason for having two articles about almost the same thing. To me it seems like the only difference between a phase of matter and a state of matter is that a state is something a material is currently in, and is therefore a function of time, whereas a phase is a potential state that the material either is currently in or can be transitioned into, and is not a function of time but is constantly a potential state. Is that correct? If so, we should merge the two articles into one, and we could just explain the difference between the two in a fashion similar to the explanation I just gave. —Kri (talk) 20:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose For a discussion of the differences between the two concepts, please read the second paragraph of the lead of phase (matter). For example, a colloid is in a state of matter that is not a phase. Roughly speaking, states of matter are macroscopically homogenous, whereas phases are microscopically homogenous. Paradoctor (talk) 21:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose A state of matter is a type of organization of the matter, so all liquids are the liquid state. But a phase is a homogeneous region of a system, so there can be two or more liquid phases in the same system. For example, a beaker containing 3 immiscible liquids such as oil, water and mercury has 3 phases but only 1 state of matter. Other examples are given in Phase (matter). Dirac66 (talk) 23:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Ah, okay, thanks for the explanations. I removed the merge tag in both articles. —Kri (talk) 10:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

QGP "discovery"?

"Quark–gluon plasma was discovered at CERN in 2000." That's quite a strong statement. There's been an announcement, but talking about a QGP "discovery" at the SPS seems a bit wrong since even RHIC/ALICE are cautious with such statements (as noted in the QGP article). JocelynMlynarz (talk) 11:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Amended this by copying some text over from quark-gluon plasma. Now there is a distinction between the theoretical prediction and experimental detection. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 15:00, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2017

I would like to request the inclusing of the newly confirmed Time-Crystals as a new state of matter. With the latest scientific issues published, the scientific community starts to recognise and identify Time-Crystal more and more commonly as another state of matter. It has already been included in the List of states of matter, so it should also be incuded here. Asragin 2A02:8071:2388:8300:E1E9:62E:7173:1426 (talk) 08:47, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Do we allow a periodically driven type of matter to qualify as a "state of matter"? Time-crystal has been getting a lot of "hype" in the media, but I'm not sure if it is agreed upon as a state of matter. Further, despite two nice experiments, neither of these is really a "time crystal" in the ideal sense of the word due to various differences between the experiment and the predictions.

References

Rydberg Matter?

Similarly with Rydberg matter. I think a molecule should not count as a "state of matter". Rydberg molecules is just two atoms in a very highly excited bound state. Usually we reserve the term matter to consist of many many particles. If you say, 'yes but you could put together many of these molecules to make matter', I would say, how is this different from a simple gas? --Unsigned user

I have some familiarity with the topic of Rydberg matter and the definition on this Wikipedia article does not seem correct. Rydberg matter is a metastable state of matter reportedly formed by well-ordered, symmetrical clusters (sometimes referred to as "crystals") of atoms or small molecules in a "circular" Rydberg state (l = n-1). It is not a term reserved for molecules in an excited state in a general sense. --Graybeard Timer (talk) 07:09, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

The sources did not identify the Rydberg molecule as a state of matter, so I removed that section completely. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 15:08, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Summary

I think there is a tendency for every research group to declare whatever they are working on to be a new "state of matter". However interesting the things they work on are, we should resist the urge to certify everything as another state of matter

Subhead "non-classical states" shows need for a statement re: "the classical states"

The "three or four" discussion above notwithstanding (much of its concerns have been addressed), an omission remains. Because a section of this article is titled "non-classical states", there should be a statement somewhere of the "classical states". This statement should probably appear in the introduction. Otherwise, the "non-classical" section should be renamed, or, somewhat awkwardly, the "classical states" should be explained in the "non-classical" section. Bob Enyart, Denver KGOV radio host (talk) 17:22, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Supercritical Fluid

Supercritical fluid (SCF) seems to be listed as a subtype of gas. SCF is not a gas, it is its own state of matter. Yes SCF is like a gas but also like a liquid and is neither. SCF should be moved in with the nonclassical states. Jasoninkid (talk) 03:04, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Four or five states

Dear colleagues, please convene to discuss here before this becomes an edit war.

Can you agree on the following:

(1) For decades, textbooks talked of four states of matter; this cultural heritage should be properly described.

(2) There are good reasons to consider ice XVIII as a fundamental state of matter on a par with solid/liquid/gas/plasma; hence the ice xviii state should be properly covered.

(3) There is no clear-cut definition of a "fundamental" state of matter. Hence neither four nor five is the sole and full truth.

(4) The introductory sentence "States of matter are the distinct forms that different phases of matter take on" should be reworked to become concise and clear; the relation between state and phase needs to be clarified.

(5) Right now, more than 0% of the introduction is about ice xviii; this is an unwanted side effect of the nascent edit war, and needs to be corrected. Tks Dr. Loo^{Talk to me} 21:18, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Three. There are three fundamental states of matter. Plasma is a kind of gas. Ice xviii is merely a particular instance of solid oxygen and hydrogen gas. Neither deserves to be called a "fundamental" state of matter is "fundamental" if to mean anything in this context. Criticality (talk)

If plasma is a kind of gas then liquid is a kind of gas as well. "Three" and "four" were in textbooks for a long time, we should cover these four first. Ice XVII belongs somewhere in the long lists of other states, not in a list of "fundamental states" (whatever that might be). It isn't more special than e.g. Bose-Einstein condensates. --mfb (talk) 21:51, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Where should the chain-melted state be added in this article?

Recently, I created an article on the chain-melted state of matter, and I've been thinking about adding it here, as well as in the list of states of matter. But I am having a bit of difficulty of classifying it or at least where I would put it. Considering it can be reached when there is high temperature and pressure, I'm thinking it would be under the high-energy states here, and under the modern states in the list of states of matter. But I'm not sure if that's correct, so I'm asking here about where it should be placed or mentioned? SonOfYoutubers (talk) 16:39, 4 November 2023 (UTC)