Talk:State of matter

Monkey

someone posted "LOOK A FLYING MONKEY!!! Where's the thump-thump? I've got a jar of dirt!" in here, I tried to remove it but somehow this sentence is not showing up in the edit boxes? --77.160.68.32 00:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I took care of that. We probably had an "edit conflict", that is, we both tried to edit the article at the same time and I was quicker on the draw. --Art Carlson 09:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I'm still seeing the flying monkey thing... --69.132.197.43 23:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It probably got stuck in your cache. Try going to the page and then reloading it. --Art Carlson 08:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

States of Matter

The following sentence seems rediculous to me: "While intuitive and useful for simple classification, this distinction fails to provide a definitive answer in many cases – for instance, sand (solid or liquid?) and sulfur hexafluoride (gas or liquid?).[1]" Sand is a solid (the composition of which is highly variable). While en masse it may flow (but then depending on weight and friction so can many solids...) individual grains are solid. Sulfur hexaflouride is a gas which can be liquified for storage purposes: as I understand it liquified gasses are not a different state of matter but simply substances which normally exist on earth as gasses (oxygen, helium etc) which have been changed to a liquid state for ease of transportation/storage by cooling and/or pressurization. The cherry on top for the sentence is the citation, which is a video on youtube! Please educate me if I'm wrong - not done chemistry since I was 16 so could be wrong. Otherwise I'll take this off. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bemischen (talk • contribs) 09:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm still confused with the states of matter. in gradeschool, I learned that solid, liquid, & gas are the states of matter... then came the plasma, and the Bose-Einstein Condensate... what then are the states of matter? I think I've been confusing it with the phases of matter... how many states of matter are there? the list made it even confusing.... --125.212.69.146 14:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The distinction between states of matter and phases of matter must be made. This article is misleading. Furthermore plasma is not a phase of matter, it is a state. --68.81.110.224 20:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Strange matter and especially the Quark-gluon plasma are not really a state of matter (not in the same sense as, liquids, gases, solids, and Bose-Einstein Condensates)

Shouldn't superfluids and "supersolids" classify as a type of Bose-Einstein Condensate? --74.15.1.123 01:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Gels are colloids, so they are mixture and don't belong here. --209.62.171.141 (talk) 23:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

But wait! then aren't there seven states of matter?

• BEC (Near absolute zero)
• solid
• liquid
• gas
• plasma (borderline between energy and matter)
• Light (energy)
• Beams (anything faster than the speed of light)

And then there would also have to be a state below absolute zero I have no idea what do you think. --65.5.179.67 (UTC)

Then try reading the article.Art Carlson 19:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Aren't we missing supercritical fluids? Granted its something of an amalgam of liquid and gas phases, but it is a stable state given environmental conditions. TheDecaf (talk) 18:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

In Sec.1.3 Gas, the third paragraph describes supercritical fluids. (And even mentions the use of SCF CO₂ to decaf coffee for you :-)) --Dirac66 (talk) 19:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I remember doing that experiment (actually I think that's what led to me picking this username years ago). I suppose I should have rephrased what I said as "Shouldn't SCFs be considered a state as well?" On thinking about it I agree that doing so isn't exactly useful to the purpose of the article, but on an academic level I feel like the properties change significantly enough to warrant its consideration. As I said it doesn't appear to be useful, so just pretend I wasn't here ;) TheDecaf (talk) 19:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Links to other languages

This article is written in many more --84.188.91.165 08:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I added [[de:Aggregatzustand]], which already had a back-link to this article. Is there any way to search for inter-wiki links to a particular article? --Art Carlson 09:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Dark matter

The article asserts "the most common state of matter in the universe is plasma", but shouldn't this be qualified somehow since we don't know what state dark matter is in? --TotoBaggins 20:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Question

Anyone know the temperature in which everything is a liquid or gas when warmer than? (In other words, all solids are colder than that temperature.) --Georgia guy 18:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Question

A common question is how many states of matter are there. Well, can anyone put the answer in the article? --Mfbabcock 22:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is any definite answer, because there is no definite criterion as to what constitutes a new state of matter. Centuries ago only three were recognized, but now every few years someone decides that his/her favorite system has novel enough properties to be called a new state. Almost as bad as asking how many biological species exist. --Dirac66 23:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

there is nothin like that —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.123.32.233 (talk) 09:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Flansburgh vandalism

Obviously we need to get the John Flansburgh references out of this article if we want anyone to take it seriously at all. --69.91.158.136 21:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Dirac66 23:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Odd article

This feels like someone's taken up most of the article with the results of their own phD project. Am I missing something or would this information not be better organised by demerging the 'State-of-matter as a method of classifying musical instruments' section to its own article and creating something more meaningful out of combining the remnants of this one with the 'List of states of matter' article?

I'm not anything close to a physicist so I can't edit it myself, but as a casual reader it seems to be a very odd article indeed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrcakey (talk • contribs) 20:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I second your proposal. At the moment List of states of matter is a list with explanations and is in fact a better article on "States of matter" than this one. --Dirac66 (talk) 01:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I tried to clean up the article from a Chemistry Professor's perspective. I personally feel that talking about ones favorite phase as a new state of matter does a diservice to the field. -- DJDahm (talk) 15:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you reword this to avoid first-person pronouns? Also, you introduced a plastic state doesn't appear on List of states of matter, adding to the confusion, and linked to a dab page rather than like so: plasticity. However the description of heating a solid to make it flow sounds more like it would be better to link to glass transition temperature to me. Or maybe it would just be better to pick a different example that already appears in the list of states of matter, like liquid crystals? (I'm being critical here, but your edit is an improvement) Bazzargh (talk) 17:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The Plastic State

A problem is that the "List of Chemical States" article tends to be written as a Physicist sees things, and I have written things from a Chemist's perspective. The "plastic state" is a widely used term, but I don't have any "official" reference right now. You certainly get a lot of hits on Google. I don't want to mess with the "List" article site because its focus is quite different than this one. I could include in the description of the plastic state that there are two transitions: one which is between a solid (or glass) and a plastic, and the other a true melting state. Of course, many thermosetting plastics don't ever melt, they decompose. I just thought we needed an article that describes the "states of matter" in simple terms, and prepared the reader for the fact that they would sometimes see others, and to not make too much ot that. Should the title of the article be changed to read "States" instead of "State"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DJDahm (talk • contribs) 18:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree with any of this. The problem with plastic state is just that the audience you've aimed this at will be surprised when they find that plastic state isn't mentioned anywhere else on wikipedia, and why the plasticity article doesn't match the description here. I agree that something like this would be good though. That's why I'm suggesting using a different example, one for which we do have followup information to lead the reader in. Anyway I'm going to jump in and fix up the grammar/link issues, I'll leave the content alone for now. Bazzargh (talk) 21:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, done for now. The 'most important' and 'very weak' lines are somewhat questionable, but I wanted to leave the meaning as you wrote it. See WP:APT for some discussion about phrases like this in articles. A state of matter is just a name given to a behavioural approximation that works for many materials; solid, liquid, gas just happen to be the most useful at STP. Its worth pointing out that the nature of the plasma transition is different, though. Bazzargh (talk) 23:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Much Better. I've been looking through the literature for definitions of the "plastic state", and while the term is used, the definitions given tend to be for "plastics" (usually centering around something being "moldable"), and "plasticity". Rather frustrating.

Do we need to go into glass transition temperatures and such? --DJDahm (talk) 06:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Not in detail, it would make the article too technical. But its difficult not to mention it in relation to this state, while still providing links to further detail. You could either avoid it by using a different example, or just use the phrase to link to the in-depth article. e.g.: Some solids have what is known as a glass transition temperature, similar to a melting point. When heated beyond this temperature they soften, and to some degree, flow, but don't seem to really take on the shape of their container like a liquid. Bazzargh (talk) 10:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Distribution diagram

Can you use this diagram in your article? :-) --81.27.125.210 (talk) 11:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC) (RokerHRO)

"At temperatures slightly closer to absolute zero, it will attempt to 'climb' out of its container."

Is this because of superfluidity? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.111.77.24 (talk) 00:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. This applies however to superfluid helium-4 and not to the gaseous Bose-Einstein condensate of rubidium made by Ketterle et al. I have revised this section to make the distinction between the two types of BE condensates. --Dirac66 (talk) 16:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

States of matter vs. Thermodynamic state

In the Wiki article about Matter the following clarification is made:

"Phases are sometimes called states of matter, but this term can lead to confusion with thermodynamic states. For example, two gases maintained at different pressures are in different thermodynamic states, but the same "state of matter"."

I think this paragraph should be inserted in this article too. --Aldo L (talk) 18:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the definitions as they presently appear are wrong. A phase is a region of a system throughout which all properties are uniform. (Ref. Modell & Reid, Thermodynamics and its Applications (1974) - Maybe not the latest, but an esteemed classic.) But naming the phase and identifying its type does not tell you all the properties of matter in that phase (specific heat, density, etc.). For that, you need to specify temperature, pressure, composition, and anything else that is independently required to reproduce whatever state of matter you are taking about. See thermodynamic state. That's why you need to define "state of matter", which is something more and quite different from simply "phase". I do not see any reference on either page that points towards a different usage of the term "state of matter" from the one I propose. If I change the pages to match these definitions, is anyone going to protest?

Reading some of the talk, it occured to me that the original intent may have been to use the "state of matter" page to talk about organizations of matter in systems that can be multi-phase. For example, perhaps there was some desire to talk about emulsions versus separated liquid phases or suspensions versus solutions. But I do not see any use for such a definition for "state of matter". What would be the gain in talking about suspensions, colloids, and water-ice systems all on the same page? On the other hand, I can see separate pages for phase behavior (the ways in which matter in equilibrium organizes into one or more phases), phase distribution (possibly a subset of the last, but optionally focusing more on how matter distributes in multi-phase systems, interfacial phenomena, emulsions, colloids, suspensions, liquid crystals, saturation, and solutions. (some of these present already, and some not).

The long and short of it is I cannot think of a situation in which someone would come across the term "state of matter" and want to read about oil-water two-phase systems and solid suspensions on one page. On the other hand, any information about various kinds of phases fits better in the "phase" pagePaul V. Keller (talk) 16:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The word "state" has several meanings in different scientific contexts, including:

1. Different forms of matter, as in this article
2. Thermodynamic state, which is a complete macroscopic description of a system
3. Quantum state, which is a complete microscopic description

If it is not clear whether the first or second meaning is implicit in this article, a simple solution would be to rename ("move" in Wikispeak) the article "Forms of matter", which cannot be confused with thermodynamic states. Since many books and articles do speak of "solid state", "liquid crystalline state" etc., the term "States of matter" can be mentioned as a synonym in the introduction, perhaps with a note that it is not the same as "thermodynamic states" (or "quantum states").

I am however opposed to renaming this article "Phases of matter" since we already have an article Phase (matter) which is more technical and concerned with definitions. This article on the other hand is more descriptive so I prefer "Forms of matter" which is a less technical term, and can be better understood without a formal definition. The general chemistry and also physical chemistry books which I have consulted seem to just use "States of matter" without a definition.

Finally note that this article is mainly concerned with pure systems and not suspensions, emulsions, etc. The single mention of salad dressing in the intro is just an example to clarify the distinction between number of phases and number of states (or better, forms). --Dirac66 (talk) 22:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I think we should discuss types (solid, liquid crystal, etc.) under phase, where it is clear the scope is limited to single phase arrangements. The alternative seems to be having one discussion of "solid state" and another of "solid phase". Regardless of which topic "solid" is placed under, the points seem to be the same, e.g., solids are characterized by fixed relative positions of the molecules that result from intermolecular attraction and bonding, ordered solids are crystals, glass appears to be a solid material, but is actually a liquid and as a consequence flows as can be seen in old glass window panes, etc.

Glass is not a liquid. Old window panes are indeed sometimes thicker in the bottom part, but it's a consequence of manufacturing method that resulted in non-uniform thickness, and not of a flow as many people think. 83.24.131.176 (talk) 22:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with having separate pages and page headings for descriptive and technical treatment of phases. We should just draft the pages to be accurate, yet accessible to readers with varying technical background. In any event, we cannot assume that a reader looking up "solid state" wants a light descriptive treatment and one looking up "solid phase" wants a precise technical treatment.

To avoid redundancy, we could use this page to explain the different usages of state provided by your list and link to the relevant entries for each. If state of matter means form, the reference is to phase. If state of matter means local thermodynamic state, we define that and reference thermodynamic state.Paul V. Keller (talk) 23:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Fall 2008 Revisions

The core definition appears to be wrong and is at least too unclear to be of any use. A state is a "physical property that matter can exist as"? That definition would be circular if it actually made sense.

The term "state" is associated with thermodynamic state. If that is meant, than intrinsic properties such as temperature and pressure in addition to the phase must be specified to identify the state.

The author appears to be using state for something that is like phase but somehow broader. For example, instead of describing salad dressing as having an oil phase and a water phase, the author describes it as a one state (liquid) system. If you shook it to form an emulsion, would that be a new state? Who knows without a working definition.

The article mentions that solid state water has many possible structures depending on the temperature and pressure, but for unknown reasons does not refer to them as different phases, which they are. .

The author proceeds with a very loose and and sometimes wrong description of some particular phases (read states) in which matter may be found. For example, it is not very meaningful to say the temperature and kinetic energy of a solid are low: solids can be very hot. As a solid is heated, the kinetic energy of its atoms increases: that is where the heat goes, but the melting process itself reduces kinetic energy: energy is taken up breaking the chemical bonds.Pvkeller (talk) 23:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

First note that there is no one "The author" responsible for the whole article. As shown in the article history, this article is a collective effort. This results in uneven quality and is sometimes frustrating, but that is the nature of Wikipedia.

I have removed the unclear and circular definition (edit 03:50 11 Nov 2008). A more satisfactory definition is hard to formulate, and the general chemistry and physical chemistry books I consulted just use the term without a definition, so I finally rewrote the sentence to avoid the problem. Perhaps you can do better.

As noted in my comment on the previous section, "state of matter" in this article does not mean "thermodynamic state". Perhaps a less ambiguous title would be "Forms of matter".

Your section title alarms me, as I think the article as a whole should be retained because it provides a useful overview of the various states (read forms) of matter, with links to more detailed articles on each form. This information is quite distinct from that in the article Phase (matter).

Also the article has been extensively revised and re-organized recently. Compare the present article with that in mid-September. Yes, there are still errors and I agree about the temperature of solids. Also the last section (Other proposed states) is very weak. But I think our collective response should be to improve the article and not abandon it. --Dirac66 (talk) 22:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I have just incorporated two of your suggestions. I have deleted the incorrect statements about kinetic energy, and specified that different structures of the same solid substance are different phases. --Dirac66 (talk) 23:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I just reread the page and I see it is very much improved. I would still like to move it under phases, with the explanation that more than one phase of a given type can co-exist in a stable multi-phase system.

The real problem is now the phase page. It is not so much that it is technical, it is the organization and wording, not to mention the accuracy (the definition is wrong).

What I can do for now that should be safe is improve the phase page, making edits consistent with the distintion you have made. Where a desription of types of phases belongs, I'll just reference this page.Paul V. Keller (talk) 00:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that it is best to retain two articles, and add a reference to this article in the article on phases. --Dirac66 (talk) 03:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I corrected the title. I think the definition of type of phase or state should be based on the intermolecular forces. In a solid, the intermolecular forces keep the atoms in fixed relationships (although they vibrate). In a liquid, the forces keep the molecules in close proximity, but the molecules move about relative to eachother, giving a mobile structure. In a gas, the molecules are widely separated and move with little restriction from each other. (In the ideal gas approximation, which a good approximation of gas behavior under many conditions, the intermolecular forces are assumed to be zero). A plasma is sometimes considered a gas formed of highly ionized particles, but the powerful ionic forces can cause some types of significant molecular interactions, which is why it may be though of as a different phase.Paul V. Keller (talk) 00:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the role of intermolecular forces is an important omission. I have just modified the sections on solid, liquid, gas and plasma based on your comments with a few revisions. I also noted that the energy increases compared to the intermolecular forces, but I was careful this time to just say (total) energy and not kinetic energy. --Dirac66 (talk) 03:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Bioplasmic energy

Someone put under plasma a bunch of nonsense about bioplasmic energy as a fifth state of matter. For example, it said "a bioplasmic energy field composed of ions, free protons, and free electrons." While ions, free protons, and free electrons will generate fields, nobody would call them an "energy field". States of matter are types of phases. See phases. By definition, they occupy separate volumes from other phases. For this plasma of ions, free protons, and free electrons to be a phase, it would need to be in its own space. Plasmas are incompatable with bodily fluids because they require enormous thermal energy to maintain and are highly reactive. Free protons have positive charges and free electrons have negative charges, giving them a powerful tendancy to join. The problems go on, but the point is that the entry was science babble from someone who is using a lot of science words without knowing what they mean.Paul V. Keller (talk) 02:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Self-reference

The last edit summary by Jayron32 (18:07 22 Nov 2008) reads: removed self-reference... The MOS counsels against phrases such as "This article..."

What section of WP:MOS contains this counsel please? I could not find it, but did note that the second sentence of the manual reads "This article contains basic principles." This sentence in the manual seems similar in spirit to the sentence which you removed from "State of matter" as both describe very briefly the orientation of the article. So I am wondering why you removed it. --Dirac66 (talk) 03:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Transparent Aluminum

German researchers at the FLASH facility in Hamburg decided to roast a piece of aluminum foil with a 10-million-gigawatt X-ray laser. They heated the foil so hot that it became a new matter state: transparent aluminum. It's also believed to be the same state of matter that comprises the core of planets, such as Jupiter.First reported in the Nature Physics journal, this new state, wherein X-ray photons can pass right through the metal, instead of being stopped as usual, can only last for a fraction of a nanosecond before burning up, and is attained by using the laser beam to knock an electron out of each aluminum ion, forcing the element to reconfigure into a new, tighter state. --69.204.105.130 16:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I have found a reference at http://www.physorg.com/news167925273.html

Before adding this new state to the article, I would like to understand its relation to the plasma state. Is this an ordinary plasma (a highly ionized gas), a new type of plasma (perhaps a solid-state plasma), or something new which should not be classified as a plasma (but why not)? --Dirac66 (talk) 22:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Bose-Einstein Condensate

In the article, only four states of matter are mentioned in the heading, but on the Bose-Einstein Condensate page, it is also referred to as a state of matter and even near the bottom of this page, it clearly states that (the?) Bose-Einstein Condensate is often referred to as the fifth state of matter. Shouldn't this be mentioned at least in the opening? --216.137.230.118 (talk) 00:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually there are many more than five states of matter, and there is no agreed order for counting them. The table of contents of this article now lists 12 sections on known states plus 4 sections on proposed states. And some of these sections actually cover several states each - e.g. the liquid crystal section links to the liquid crystal article which mentions several liquid crystal states - nematic, smectic, etc. The first three states are clearly solid, liquid and gas since they were known in the pre-scientific age, but I have never understood why plasma is called the 4th and BE condensate the 5th. Certainly BE condensate was proposed AFTER the discovery of liquid crystals and superconductors. My own preference would be eliminate all mention of the "fourth" and "fifth" state of matter. --Dirac66 (talk) 01:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Superconductors

I'm not a specialist in this topic, but i'm sure that superconductor is not a state of matter, superconductivity is a property that some materials may have.--Folkleo (talk) 23:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Removed. Materialscientist (talk) 23:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Whoa! Why then do we speak of the superconducting-to-normal phase transition, critical temperature and critical magnetic field? These refer to abrupt property changes which are usually taken as sufficient to define a new state of matter. Some authors do use the words "superconducting state"; a quick glance at my bookshelf finds M.A.White "Properties of Materials" (Oxford Univ Press 1999) p.254 and P.A.Rock "Chemical Thermodynamics" (MacMillan 1969) p.193. And a Google search for "superconducting state" gives 208,000 hits.

In general there is no agreed criterion for defining states, and one could eliminate most of the states listed on similar grounds. Plasma for example is not even separated from gas by an abrupt transition - why not say that electrical conductivity is just a property of gases at high temparature? Unless we return to the Greek list of solid/liquid/gas, I think we need to include most systems which are commonly considered as distinct states/phases of matter. There will be never unanimity on every state. Dirac66 (talk) 03:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Electronic system in superconducting material exhibit a phase transition, but not the materials themselves - nothing special happens to them at Tc. If superconductors are another "state of matter" then the list should be stretched to many other phase transitions in solids/liquids, which is hardly reasonable. Materialscientist (talk) 03:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Are the electrons, or the conduction electrons, then not part of "the materials themselves", whatever that means? Most scientists consider that materials include all the nuclei and all the electrons that are in the (pure) materials.

If you consider superconductors to be the same "state" above and below Tc because the nuclei remain in the same positions, then why not consider plasma to be in the same "state" as gas because the nuclei are in the same state of thermal motion? Only electrons have been removed and are responsible for the characteristic properties of the state, namely the electrical conductivity and associated magnetic properties. Just as for superconductivity (except of course that the electrons are not actually removed).

Do others agree with me that this article should have a section on Superconductors? (or perhaps Superconducting state)? Dirac66 (talk) 15:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

What about non-molecular states of matter? For instance, granular bulk materials like sand, grain, sugar, etc., flow and take the shape of their container like a liquid, but are made of solids.

Other interesting states (all mechanical mixtures) include gels, colloids, emulsions, suspensions, foams, clouds, and non-newtonian fluids like starch/water. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.158.1.73 (talk) 22:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed merge from List of states of matter

I suggest merging the content of List of states of matter into this article for a few reasons:

1. This article is mostly just a list, with fairly brief summaries. The other article is basically the same idea, just formatted differently and with even briefer summaries. so they seem to serve the same purpose.
   • As does Category:Phases of matter more or less, despite the naming difference
2. The Template:States of matter is more concise and more accesible than the "list of" article
3. "List of" has fairly few incoming links anyway.
4. Keeping all threefour articles (this one, "list of", the category, and the template) synchronized will inevitably be problematic; fewer are more likely to be maintained

Clarification: I am not suggesting to merge the category or template; only the two articles. The others were mentioned just to emphasize the redundancy of the list article. David Hollman (Talk) 22:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

David Hollman (Talk) 11:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with merging "List of states of matter" into this article, as it has no real reason to be separate. Merging will involve adding to this article the new (mostly exotic) states from the other list, and perhaps expanding those summaries which are too brief.

On the other hand I would leave alone the "template" and the "category", since they are not really articles but rather navigation tools to help readers find other related articles.Dirac66 (talk) 22:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I did not mean to imply that the template or category should be merged. Only the list and this article. Sorry for any confusion. David Hollman (Talk) 22:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Y Done -- I have merged the contents of "list of states of matter" into this article. David Hollman (Talk) 22:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. A definite improvement. Dirac66 (talk) 01:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Changing "Glass" section to "Amorphous solid"?

I have read (from quite a good book) that glass is an amorphous solid. Should the "Glass" section have this name? N4m3 (talk) 21:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. The article on Amorphous solid says that is the more general term, and that "A glass is an amorphous solid that transforms into a liquid upon heating through the glass transition." So the section could be named "Amorphous solid", with this sentence inserted very near the beginning.

Actually the section was named "Amorphous solid" until 1 year ago, when it was expanded into a more complete section originally renamed "Crystalline vs. glassy state" (see edit by Logger9 21:41 24 Nov 2009), and sometime later just named "Glass". Dirac66 (talk) 22:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Gravitational Singularity

It seems this section on gravitational singularities needs to A) be at the end of the list as, perhaps, an example of something that is not a state of matter or commonly mistaken for a state of matter, and B) cited. It also has several errors. Gravity in a black hole is actually less than the gravity of the star that became that black hole - the star ran out of fuel and ejected much of its matter away from it. Since gravity is directly dependent on mass, logic tells us that a black hole has less gravity than the corresponding Class I supergiant. Extended this logic to the article, all large stars have created a singularity within them, which is just not so. This also does not account for the possibility of micro-black holes which were created in the Big Bang.

There are several things which may create a black hole, and gravitational pull is not strictly one of them. There is the possibility for a black hole to gain incredible mass, such as an accretion disk or a supermassive black hole at the center of a galaxy. But this is irrelevant, since there are black holes (and thus singularities) that do not have great mass. Black holes are instead created by force, be it from gravity or from the force of the supernova which ejected much of the matter from the star.

Likewise, they do not pull things in to them with incredible gravity. They are merely so dense that space-time curves around them, so there is no way out.

In short, this section should be updated or removed so that it does not reflect ignorance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.127.255.230 (talk) 19:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Needs more information!

The current article says "The forces between particles are strong enough so that the particles cannot move freely but can only vibrate." and talks about forces between particles. But nowhere that I can see does it mention or link to what these forces are! So I can't find out anything else. Could somebody please add what these forces are and/or link to the right page? Superomelette (talk) 08:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I have now added a link to Bonding in solids which lists the various types of bonds (or forces).Dirac66 (talk) 12:13, 10 July 2011 (UTC)