Template talk:States of matter

Phase vs matter
I've disambiguated 'phase of matter' and 'state of matter', but not sure what to do with templates. I'll let someone else do that who knows what they're doing. -- Olof

Ascending order
moved B-E condensate to the start of the list to match the ascending order of particulate kinetic energy states in the other 4 states of matter.

-- MNajmon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.222.45.234 (talk) 19:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

"deionization" or "recombination" ?
Who put "deionization" in there (nd also in the ). The link to Gas-filled tube is a bit strange, too. I am a plasma physicist and would have called it "recombination", as in Plasma recombination and Recombination (cosmology). Art Carlson (talk) 09:31, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no definitive source, and I am not in this science. I found this: the page Deionization does not give a connection with this topic, while we do have Plasma recombination (a stub). I have changed the link in the template, and also changed the text in the diagram used. (I have also cleaned up the layout of the graph). If this discussion would end up different (to accept deinoization), we can always change. -DePiep (talk) 15:43, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Supercritical Fluid - A high energy phase?
The other two phases given as "high energy" are QCD matter and Quark-gluon plasma, both of which occur at temperatures exceeding 10^12 Kelvins, while the critical temperature of most substances occur between 10^1 to 10^4 Kelvins. In my opinion, it should be moved to the same box as the classical phases of matter, but I don't want to make a change in such a visible template until we get a second opinion. --Alx xlA (talk) 06:57, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Agreed and done. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 14:01, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Black hole
In french, we have black hole in this list, in "other states". Is it under an other name (i don't know all technical word especially in english), or is it missing ?

2A01:CB08:AB5:E300:61B0:5A24:5FF9:D9E6 (talk) 04:25, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Rydberg polaron
The <> is listed as a "state of matter"; however, it seems to me more of a (particular type of) quasiparticle? On the page for the <> itself, I notice a recent edit from Jähmefyysikko, saying "Despite the press release, they don't call this a state of matter but a quasiparticle in the actual research article" - this seems to accord well with my experience from basic solid state/condensed matter courses and books. Thus, should the Rydberg polaron be removed from this specific template? Josephtheseal (talk) 01:52, 2 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I agree that it should be removed. The first paragraph in the introduction of https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.083401 is quite explicit on it being a quasiparticle. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 06:20, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reference and the reply! I've deleted this (and the one below). Josephtheseal (talk) 07:33, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Lattice QCD
Also, less sure about this one, but wouldn't <> count more as a computational method than a different physical state of matter? Josephtheseal (talk) 02:04, 2 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I agree. I don't think anybody thinks of it as an actual crystallized form of quark matter. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 06:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)