Talk:List of states of matter/Archive 1

Misc Old Stuff
Finally, a place for that list of wierd states of matter! I'm pretty sure there are some more states out there, I'm just not sure what they are.RJFJR 01:38, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

The article degenerate star lists baryon degenerate matter for what I call Neutron matter and electron degenerate matter for what I term degenerate matter, but those articles don't exist either. RJFJR 01:38, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

The description of supersolid may not be particularly accurate, but the article supersolid says little about it. RJFJR 01:38, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

Is Fermions and Baryons proper nouns deserving capitalization? RJFJR 23:25, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * No. (See, for example, fermion and baryon.) --Korath&#20250;&#35441; 02:39, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It would help if examples of everyday/common items were listed next to each state of matter. EC Chameleon (talk) 13:02, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Categorize
Perhaps this page should be categorized into 1) Phases that have been observered, and 2) Phases that are theoretical -- Colonel Panic

I agree with Colonel Panic about the known vs. theoretical split. --Plumbago 16:44, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, this would be a good idea. Note that it has already done for the companion article States of matter, for which the last section contains Other proposed states. Of course the split must be kept current; whenever a proposed state is observed for the first time, it has to be moved to the known section. Dirac66 (talk) 21:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

There are only 5 observed states of matter:
 * Solid
 * Liquid
 * Gas
 * Plasma
 * Bose-Einstein condensate Wiki74o (talk) 19:21, 5 January 2018 (UTC)Wiki47o

Black holes
Forgive my ignorance, but should there be an entry for the sort of matter than exists in black holes? Perhaps it's no longer fair to describe it as matter, but I can't see why not. It does appear to be an omission from the list. But as I know next to nothing about black holes ... --Plumbago 16:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

No. There's no difference expected until the matter reaches the singularity. In any case, its unobservable... that's its state! Jason Quinn (talk) 19:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

"The known laws of physics cease to apply"... seems to me highly controversial if not simply untrue. Conservation laws are believed to apply, for instance. What laws, exactly, are not supposed to apply?

Maybe what is really meant is something like: "... a black hole is a region in which the known laws of physics may be inadequate." But that brings up another point: is the singularity a region? Certainly, the event horizon is a region, but a singularity is, I believe, posited to be point-like. Maybe best to say something like: "The known laws of physics are inadequate to completely describe singularities." Shauncutts (talk) 07:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think you are right that the known laws of physics are inadequate here rather than invalid, and I have changed the text accordingly. I am not sure if the rest of the paragraph is accurate, but this is an improvement anyway. Dirac66 (talk) 18:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

[Begin entry] I think you are all correct about the fact that our laws of physics shouldn't be applied in the same way while acting in the vicinity of a singularity or within a black hole, and that if there is a state of matter inside a singularity it should be included in this list. Now, on the other hand, what if there is no state of matter in a singularity? What if a singularity pulls all of the matter, dark matter, light, heat, magnetism, speed, raw energy, (Electricity, Radiation, Potential/Kinetic.)dark energy, and condensed energy; (Energy that is barely hot enough to stay energy, not matter, but not hot enough to be used practically.)then turns it into refined energy. (This is where the Bose-Einstein property first changes all other forms of energy (Matter mostly) into its most basic form. (Pure-energy particles) Then these particles are stretched into a paste or soup, which is spread into its' neighboring stretched-energy particle. (These are considered energy-field-patches, but for the sake of typing, I'm just calling them Fields.) The field allows the energy to be in any and every place at once. Finally the fields combine into an energy sheet. This is where things may become confusing. (If your not already confuzzled.) There is a theory, where Einstein's theory of relativity, and quantum-particle physics coalesce. This is the quantum foam theory. (This theory was devised because The Relativity Theory needs a completely smooth space-time grid and Particle Theory requires a never endingly divisible object. Put it together and you get something like the foam on a latté. (It's smooth but made of bubbles.)) So now, you're probably wondering, how does quantum foam relate to black holes? That is that, I think, after the energy sheet is made large enough, it is condensed into another bubble in the foam and, BooM BaNg KApoW! another big bang creating another bubble. (Each bubble represents a universe, and this is happening in dimensions higher then our own.)Well, if you don't understand, write a question and someone will probably answer it. By, Gcrusher9000 (12 years old)This data has been remembered from a number of scientific programs most of which by NOVA and/or theorized by ME! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.11.7 (talk) 20:57, 24 July 2014 (UTC)  [End Entry]

Sure seems like matter in a black hole is a different state of matter than the others listed. I like "unobservable"... that's a great name. :-) As for "point like" I understood that the Plank constant put a lower range on size. So, the stuff at the center of a black hole, whatever it is, must be at least one Plank unit across, no? Kellycoinguy (talk) 20:19, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Extra States
Should the Efimov state be added? ( http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-03/uoc-ain031506.php )

I think the Filament state should be included here. i have added it before but somebody removed it. (http://www.the-electric-universe.info/Scripts/six_states.html)
 * Looks like WP:OR to me. Come back when there's a properly referenced Wikipedia article about it. EdC 20:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This is crank physics. See http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Electric_Universe (not that it's an encyclopedic, neutral, or well-written article, but if you read the talk page and follow the links, there's plenty of information). --70.36.140.230 (talk) 20:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Rewrite ?
I would categorize the main phases of matter more like this:

Crystals Fluids Amorphous solids Liquids Gases

Note that I consider amorphous solids to be fluids, since they are deformable (over a long time period when cold and a small time period when hot). I also think we should include other phases of matter, like gels and aerogels, which are currently absent. StuRat 03:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Nah, amorphous solids are solid: Glass. There's a thermodynamic difference between amorphous solids and fluids; the atoms in a glass have insufficient energy to break and reform their bonds. Gels and aerogels (etc.) are all colloids. EdC 09:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Graph
This might benefit from a graph or two, showing which states are associated with higher or lower levels of temperature and pressure. jnestorius(talk) 00:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Title is misleading
I believe this article would be better titled "States of Matter". Here and in the Phase (matter) article there is confusion between the usage of 'phase' to denote the difference of liquid vs. solid as opposed to the the difference between diamond and graphite. The liquid vs. solid distinction is properly a difference in 'state of matter' -- yes they are necessarily different phases, too. However, in the diamond vs. graphite case, both ate the same state of matter (solid) but different phases. Olof
 * This list should follow Phase (matter), so best discussed there.–EdC 13:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Candidate for history merge?
After disabiguating the Phase (matter) and States of matter pages, I moved List of phases of matter to List of states of matter, not knowing of the procedure for moving pages. 'List of states of matter' is the right title for the content on the page. -- Olof
 * It should be done now. Let me know if I screwed it up. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 06:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks right to me -- Olof

You have alot of good information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.112.120 (talk) 23:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

new state
quotes a scientist as saying it is a new state of matter. Doesn't seem to have a name yet. RJFJR (talk) 16:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, transparent aluminium was also mentioned at Talk: State of matter which overlaps this page somewhat. As I said there, we should understand the relationship of the new state to the plasma state before adding it to Wikipedia. Dirac66 (talk) 17:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Although the link above doesn't seem to work anymore, also talks about a "new state of matter" (possibly the same one) and calls it the "chain-melted" state.NoJoy (talk) 18:38, 18 April 2019 (UTC)