Always more to explore

Does light have a phase, gas?

No, light exists as bosons, the term “matter” only really applies to things that make up atoms (protons, neutrons, electrons, and maybe positrons and neutrinos too). Therefore, the phases of matter don’t apply to photons, W and Z particles, or gluons.

Plasma, what would fusion be? A plasma?

Fusion is a process, not a state. A Tokamak fusion reactor will contain a plasma when it is operating, and the core of a hydrogen-bomb explosion will be a mixture of plasma and radiation.

If I take water to its boiling point or to its freezing point, surely heat has entered and exited the system respectively and thus resulting in a temperature change in the water itself?. . .

If you cool water to its freezing point (0 °C), the water changes temperature i>until it gets to 0 °C. As you extract more heat from it, it freezes, but maintains the same temperature until it has frozen. Then it can cool down some more.

The converse is true for heating it to its boiling point. You generally don’t get pure liquid water at one atmosphere of pressure above 100 °C. The water stays at 100 °C until it has turned into a vapour, then it can increase in temperature some more.

The exceptions are supercooling and superheating.

Would 1 kilogram of ice, one kilogram of water, one kilogram of steam would all contain the exact same amount of energy??? obviously right?

No.

First off, if you could annihilate the matter with an identical quantity of antimatter, you’d get the same amount of energy in each case (from E = mc^2), but the rest thermal energy of each is different, and then there’s the enrgy associated with the phase changes.

Stream, BTW, is an ambiguous term, because what you can see coming off a boiling pan of water is water liquid condesing as small droplets in the air. This is commonly called steam but is a liquid form of water. “Steam” is also often used to refer to water vapour, i.e. water in its gaseous state.

So, 1 kg of ice at 0°C has less energy than 1 kg of liquid water at the same temperature. There is energy associated with the phase change, because it takes eneryg to break the intermolecular bonds (in the case of water these are hydrogen bonds) that hold the molecules in place in the crystal lattice. The same applies for the liquid / gas phase change, but the intermolecular bonds in a liquid are not fixed, they are – well – fluid, constantly breaking and re-forming and certainly not forming any lasting or large-scale structure.

For a substance such as glass, the molecules are very large and the intermolecular bonds are very weak, so the solid / liquid phase change is far less obvious than it is for something like water.

AFAICT it doesn’t really matter. (Heh, matter, geddit? I’ll get me coat . . .)

Really on a quantum level I am thinking nothing is “in a static unmoving, state”, there is always underlying dynamics in motion at the molecular level and smaller . . .

This is more or less true (I think it is not for a Bose-Einstein condensate, but that’s a fifth phase of matter), but I don’t think it’s anything particularly surprising. For example, electrical resistance in a wire arises through the thermal (random) motion (vibration) of atoms in the conductor.

I believe the correct term for glass is a viscous fluid because the glass never undergoes a phase change as it cools. Phase changes are the hallmarks of a change in physical state.

But, in case you missed some of the above, it is equally valid to call glass an amorphous solid.

In any case, if you prefer to term it a liquid, you must acknowledge that it is so viscous that it does not perceptibly flow over even several hundred years. What is certainly a myth is the claim that old window glass is thicker at the bottom because it has flowed over time. Old window glass is thicker at the bottom because, when you cannot make flat glass, it only makes sense to install glass panes with their thick edge at the bottom.

Phase changes are overrated.

The membranes of living cells mainly comprise phospholipids, which mostly would be solid at temperatures in the range of 0 – 20 °C were it not for the presence of membrane sterols such as cholesterol, ergosterol, stigmasterol and sitosterol. The presence of these sterols smooths out the liquid-solid phase transition, to the extent that above a certain concentration (I cannot recall what the concentration is) the phase transition ceases to be detectable.

if we were to put every scrap of glass under observation for the next 200 years I am sure certain conditions could arise as to possibly observe a flowing glass structure of some type.

Given that the expert consensus seems to be that glass does not flow perceptibly over several hundred years, how do you arrive at this conclusion?

to me indicate that perhaps the “old windows” were of a very particular sort. Without doing any research I am assuming there is some huge plate glass widow in a church somewhere which has probably started the debate, or perhaps all the famous “old windows” for that matter, but certainly not all glass in all the world.

Mostly this would be stained-glass window panels from old churches. For example, some of the glass in the windows of York Minster is roughly 800 years old.

Plate glass is only a recent invention.

@Renee Marie Jones

This is not really supercooling. It is an example of how the freezing point changes when the pressure changes.

Uh, looking at a phase diagram of water, the ice point is pretty much flat over the range of about 0.01-10 atmospheres, which covers anything you’d see inside a beer bottle. If there’s a change in the freezing point due to opening the bottle, it’s because of something else, probably dissolved CO2 coming out of solution.

Also, beer is not water. American (mass-produced) beer is typically at least 2% alcohol by volume, and may be as much as 3%. So, the ice point curve for water is not wholly applicable.

Having said that, I agree that the change is most probably caused by CO2 coming out of solution causing a rise in freezing point. I also am not convinced that the phenomenon here is supercooling.

In Every Picture Glass, In every Window-Frame, the glass is THICKER AT THE BOTTOM.
Clearly the old time Framers and Glaziers were all in cahoots?

Until you have detected glass actually flowing, your comment proves nothing. Unless a glazier is clinically thick, he/she will always install uneven glass with its thickest edge downward, for strength and stability. The thick edge of the piece of glass is more able to support its weight than is its thin edge.

That is mind blowing.

Continents change shape, stars are born and come to new beginnings, planets form, galaxies form and are changed and consumed, light/energy travels for billions years creating reference for times/ages long past and we can only guess what else but if you stick a particular piece of glass in a particular window in a particular location and hypothetically observe this ultimately controlled 10 billion year Life-span windowed room experiment that after 10 plus billion years (we will the say the most famous pane glass “flowing” debunked piece of wider at the bottom than top) the glass will not have succumbed to the Earths gravity or the suns rays or the basic human living conditions of said “relatively normal climate and weather? due to the structure of said glass’s ability to resist all natural phenomenon . . . for the Age of the Universe?!

Ok, maybe a lot of things could survive in a controlled 10 billion year long room which is only subject to normal Earth conditions today. But then again, I would think that especially amorphous substances such as glass just might droop or flow over a billion years…but I am not sure how relevant all this is.

Iam being moderated, should probably “chill” or super cool a corona or super heat some coffee for a bit, have a change of phase..i mean scenery So many questions, so many things that sometimes I am not sure how to even correctly phrase a question.

Its tough to think out of the box when you don’t understand the instructions on how to get into the box in the first place. But the cat was alive last I checked not that it helps with your next guess or can it?

Is it incorrect to refer to solid, gas, liquid and plasma as “phases of matter”, or would “states of matter” be more appropriate”? Really on a quantum level I am thinking nothing is “in a static unmoving, state”, there is always underlying dynamics in motion at the molecular level and smaller (you could say all of nature is seriously hyper-active, matter never truly rests (does it), nothing at the quantum level rest for that matter

But I do recall the science of phase transitions has a pragmatic explanation for all of this.

I suppose for a philosophical/contemplation point of view this builds another small bridge in my attempt at understanding even further just how matter and energy are related to one another. All matter can be thought of as a form of energy and vice versa and I am guessing when defining energy it could be thought of something which never rests (among other things)???

Thus no matter can ever rest and utlimately despite our complex definitions for gas, liquid, solid, plasma and any other possible states of matter yet discovered can and should all fall under discretion for our definitions of such states depending on what is being referenced and at that particular time for that particular circumstance. (blatantly middle age description its the best I could comprehend).

I would also point out that Energy as compared to matter in the understanding that “neither appear to ever be at rest, molecularly” you still have to multiply matter times the speed of light squared to catch up to the freedom/speed/phase of what pure energy is. Does energy warrant a phase?

Is this to be said that Energy exists entirely independent of the phase of a substance.

Would 1 kilogram of ice, one kilogram of water, one kilogram of steam would all contain the exact same amount of energy??? obviously right?

Although I do understand for day to day clarification the definitions for gas, liquid, solid and plasma are generally reasonable and most definitely useful.

“For those not familiar, a phase change is critical temperature at which a material is cooling (or heating) but the temperature of the material does not change. Heat is entering or leaving the system but the material does not change temperature because the heat differential is supplied by a physical reorganization of the material itself.
The classic example is that of water freezing or boiling.”

If I take water to its boiling point or to its freezing point, surely heat has entered and exited the system respectively and thus resulting in a temperature change in the water itself?. . .

Although you say
“the material does not change temperature because the heat differential is supplied by a physical reorganization of the material itself.”

I would guess that the material must change temperature somewhat, proportianal to the redistribution of heat in regards to the materials ability to adapt and change or as you said physically reorganize itself resulting in possible phase or state changes.

I think i might have a classic misunderstanding here pertaining to , or hopefully not a less-than classical misunderstanding of some simple high school chemistry.

*facepalm*

Does light have a phase, gas? Plasma, what would fusion be? A plasma?

I am thinking in the movies how you see the “alien” or “godly” ancient treasure which contains endless energy. Does electricity have a state of matter? Surely electricity and light can be thought of as energy. Ok this all gets so complicated.

I found this, not sure if the link came up, maybe I have to type some stuff before and after to enter it? symbols, computer code, which I am unaware of… at least thats a straightforward question i suppose.

http://www.ccl.net/cca/documents/dyoung/topics-orig/states.html

For those not familiar, a phase change is critical temperature at which a material is cooling (or heating) but the temperature of the material does not change. Heat is entering or leaving the system but the material does not change temperature because the heat differential is supplied by a physical reorganization of the material itself.

The classic example is that of water freezing or boiling.

#12 “No, glass is a non-crystalline solid, not a “slow flowing supercool liquid”.
The story of old panes of glass thicker at the bottom is a myth. Old panes were originally formed without uniform thickness and simply assembled with the thicker part on the bottom. It is NOT due to the glass “flowing” over the centuries.”

#16 “the ‘Glass as a super-cooled liquid’ theory has been disproven, or at least highly discredited: panes of glass that come from windows made over a thousand years ago show no evidence of flow. So, either glass does not flow, and is therefore not a liquid, or its flow characteristics are not measurable in time scales less than geologic in extent. Current understanding is that it is more properly considered an ‘amorphous solid’.”

#17: (cut and chopped for fluidity )

“”The idea that glass is a fluid is a very widespread myth,””

“If you want to talk microscopically, then you can call glass a fluid.”

“But people understandably tend to think that if it’s a fluid, it flows. It’s that notion that’s false.”Stokes has recently proved with detailed calculations that old windows could not have flowed perceptibly.”

” glass is a confusing kind of matter, quite unlike the three ordinary kinds. A gas is an anarchy of molecules going every which way; a liquid is a tighter but still disorderly society in which molecules constantly dissolve and reestablish weak bonds; a solid is a molecular army in rigid formation.But glass is … none of the above. It is rigid like a solid, but its molecules are not arranged in repeating crystals. It is amorphous like a liquid.”

“There is no clear answer to the question “Is glass solid or liquid?”. In terms of molecular dynamics and thermodynamics it is possible to justify various different views that it is a highly viscous liquid, an amorphous solid, or simply that glass is another state of matter that is neither liquid nor solid. The difference is semantic”

” In terms of its material properties we can do little better. There is no clear definition of the distinction between solids and highly viscous liquids. All such phases or states of matter are idealisations of real material properties. Nevertheless, from a more common sense point of view, glass should be considered a solid since it is rigid according to everyday experience.”

#31 It would seem logical to place them thick part down, for stability reasons. Thus the impression that the glass has flowed.”

#46
“Glass Is a Liquid.
I have very old glassed pictures, which show deformities.
I might have been amenable to the ” old imperfect float glass” idea, save for one very significant measurement.
In Every Picture Glass, In every Window-Frame, the glass is THICKER AT THE BOTTOM.
Clearly the old time Framers and Glaziers were all in cahoots?
Kilroy”

#49 “@ KilroyofAus
Clearly the old time Framers and Glaziers were all in cahoots?
They were. In the sense that putting the glass in thickest side down gives a better balance than putting the glass in thickest side up.
But since you won’t believe the science involved but only what you can see with your own eyes: look at ancient glass artifacts. If glass is so liquid that young glass no more than one or two hundred years old (from your description of “picture glass”, I’m assuming your examples are no older than the 19th century) has visibly drooped, then just imagine how deformed e.g. Roman or Phoenician glass, which is 10 times older, must be today! Only… it isn’t. Artifacts from that period look just like hand-made glass made today with similar technology.”

Ok, this is all very interesting

Namely, that obviously different materials act differently under different conditions. Glass preserved in an air tight cave should not behave as glass which is exposed to 12 hours of sunlight and 100% humidity, I am not saying that is always the case, but if we were to put every scrap of glass under observation for the next 200 years I am sure certain conditions could arise as to possibly observe a flowing glass structure of some type.

Which hardly discredits the question of whether glass is a solid or not because that question is pretty much a loaded question. Now, to a 4 year old the states of matter carry a more simple meaning, ie I can shatter glass so it is a solid. Water and syrup are liquids, and gas is not like the gasoline but like the smell of gasoline, or what you breathe at the dentist or what comes out of the back of your. . . car
But really, any substance can show many properties under many different conditions.

I hope I am not confusing this, I am not saying that maybe the panes in question have “flowed over time to the naked eye” or that “being thicker at the bottom is proof”(seems to be basic engineering to make them thicker at the bottom).

I am just thinking about the possibilities and how supercool the chemistry and physics is behind this, the quantum chemistry of a particular piece of glass seems fuzzy, maybe a bit out of focus, as is everything when deeply explored . . . which is an interesting and hopeful position, there is plenty left to fathom.

The studies talked about in #14

“”Stokes has recently proved with detailed calculations that old windows could not have flowed perceptibly.”"

…
to me indicate that perhaps the “old windows” were of a very particular sort. Without doing any research I am assuming there is some huge plate glass widow in a church somewhere which has probably started the debate, or perhaps all the famous “old windows” for that matter, but certainly not all glass in all the world.

What has already been said is

“If you want to talk microscopically, then you can call glass a fluid.”

“There is no clear answer to the question “Is glass solid or liquid?”.”

This to me says that the phases of matter are an exciting and conceptually striking amalgamation of scientific inquiry and in describing such physical realities I can only think of words used to describe such states as a type of poetry. Nature demonstrates little regard for how logical and beautiful the words and sentences and paragraphs and books and notes and papers and explanations have been put forth together by people in attempting to describe the laws of nature and by necessarily confining observations to the all mighty word .

Mass, energy, collisions, the states of matter, when do solids behave like liquids, phase changes . . . its all super cool! I mean super awesome.

At first something seems simple and so it is named. That name portends greater meaning and interest. Other names are used to describe the original name. The new describing names are then detailed further and further with new names and describers until, until, so much explanation has been accounted that some still debate over whether glass is a solid or a liquid or both or neither or almost or seemingly or or or or, doh!

I just dropped my glass and it shattered into a bunch of little pieces.

Ah well, the discussions about impact sites are as of definite intrigue as well when it comes to the states of matter. I am enjoying the comments pertaining to the phases of matter at high speeds in Peering down onto an Australian impact.

This is not really supercooling. It is an example of how the freezing point changes when the pressure changes.

Uh, looking at a phase diagram of water, the ice point is pretty much flat over the range of about 0.01-10 atmospheres, which covers anything you’d see inside a beer bottle. If there’s a change in the freezing point due to opening the bottle, it’s because of something else, probably dissolved CO2 coming out of solution.

Clearly the old time Framers and Glaziers were all in cahoots?

They were. In the sense that putting the glass in thickest side down gives a better balance than putting the glass in thickest side up.

But since you won’t believe the science involved but only what you can see with your own eyes: look at ancient glass artifacts. If glass is so liquid that young glass no more than one or two hundred years old (from your description of “picture glass”, I’m assuming your examples are no older than the 19th century) has visibly drooped, then just imagine how deformed e.g. Roman or Phoenician glass, which is 10 times older, must be today! Only… it isn’t. Artifacts from that period look just like hand-made glass made today with similar technology.

Pour one cup of boiling water into a mug. Standing well away from the house and living things throw toss the water into the air in a single motion. As Emeril would say “BAM” You then get a cloud of ice crystals. Quite a stunning trick.

People laughed at me when I told them that I did that. And I was not eager to repeat it – I got some f*ing burns back then.

All I did was to put some water in a cup and heat it in the microwave. When I then put the teabag into the cup, the water more or less exploded and burned my hand. There was not much water left in the cup.

“where I’ve had needles bent when trying to take a blood test and not penetrate my skin”

Pull the other one Clarke it’s got bells on…

None of my family believed me!

It wasn’t until college that I heard about super-cooling and instantly realized that was what I had experienced all those years before.