View previous topic | View next topic

States of matter

Page 1 of 8
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

Matt_man
13953.  Mon Jan 17, 2005 4:12 pm Reply with quote

i heard on QI the other week that there are 5 states of matter only i can't remember wat the 5th one was does anypne know

 
raindancer
13956.  Mon Jan 17, 2005 4:53 pm Reply with quote

Matt_man

The three main states are: solid, liquid, and gas, with plasma as the fourth. The fifth is detailed below:

'Bose-Einstein Condensates represent a fifth state of matter only seen for the first time in 1995. The state is named after Satyendra Nath Bose and Albert Einstein who predicted its existence in the 1920’s. B-E condensates are gaseous superfluids cooled to temperatures very near absolute zero. In this weird state, all the atoms of the condensate attain the same quantum-mechanical state and can flow past one another without friction. Even more strangely, B-E condensates can actually “trap” light, releasing it when the state breaks down. '

Several other less common states of matter have also either been described or actually seen. Some of these states include liquid crystals, fermionic condensates, superfluids, supersolids and the aptly named strange matter.

For more on strange matter, vist: http://www.indexlistus.de/keyword/Strange_matter.php

 
Flash
13969.  Mon Jan 17, 2005 6:46 pm Reply with quote

Coincidentally, we have just been sent a note by a Mr Mike Richards which says:
Quote:
On the Christmas special episode Alan Davis asked Stephen Fry how many states of matter are there. Alan revealed the answer as 6, however the answer is 7. Solid, Liquid, gas, plasma, bose-einstein condensate, fermionic condensate and quark-gluon plasma. Physicists believe that RHIC collisions will compress and heat the gold nuclei so much that their individual protons and neutrons will overlap, creating an enormously energetic area where, for a brief time, a relatively large number of free quarks and gluons can exist. This is the quark-gluon plasma.

 
Caradoc
13976.  Mon Jan 17, 2005 8:09 pm Reply with quote

Where does gravy fit in?




I'll get me coat.

 
Frances
13977.  Mon Jan 17, 2005 8:10 pm Reply with quote

What can you use quark-gluon plasma for? Sticking wounds together instead of elastoplast? Thinckening gravy? Stopping ducks quacking? It sounds a kind of useful thing to have about the house; 'The telly's on the blink, dear, where did I put the quark-gluon plasma to refill the tube?'

 
Jenny
13980.  Mon Jan 17, 2005 9:03 pm Reply with quote

But does a duck's quark echo?

 
Flash
13991.  Tue Jan 18, 2005 7:13 am Reply with quote

Quote:
There is a revolution just beginning in astronomy/cosmology that will rival the one set off by Copernicus and Galileo. This revolution is based on the growing realization that the cosmos is highly electrical in nature. It is becoming clear that 99% of the universe is made up not of "invisible matter", but rather, of matter in the plasma state. Electrodynamic forces in electric plasmas are much stronger than the gravitational force.

When confronted by observations that cast doubt on the validity of their theories, astrophysicistss have conjured up pseudo-scientific invisible entities such as neutron stars, weakly interacting massive particles, strange energy, and black holes. When confronted by solid evidence such as Halton Arp's photographs that contradict the Big Bang Theory, their response is to refuse him access to any major telescope in the U.S.

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/
Personally I have no idea whether any of this makes any sense or not.

 
Gray
13997.  Tue Jan 18, 2005 9:08 am Reply with quote

Neutron stars and black holes definitely exist - we've seen the gravitational lensing that they produce, without being able to see the bodies themselves. Black holes are quite hard to see as they don't emit any light.

I've not heard of Arp, but I'd be immediately suspicious of anyone attempting to 'prove' something from photographs. Not because they faked them, but because they're almost completely open to interpretation.

It seems what he's done is to photograph lots of quasars (huge, far away objects with enormous redshifts, which means they are moving away from us), and said that they have a physical proximity with another non-redshifted star in the same picture, and therefore that the redshift of the quasar is caused by electric effects in its plasma, not by its huge velocity away from us (which causes redshift).

He's therefore amassed lots of photographs that illustrate his theory, but none that don't... Here's a telling quotation from NASA:
Quote:
The official explanation of the NASA image states, "Appearances can be deceiving. In this NASA Hubble Space Telescope image, an odd celestial duo, the spiral galaxy NGC 4319 [center] and a quasar called Markarian 205 [upper right], appear to be neighbors. In reality, the two objects don't even live in the same city. They are separated by time and space. NGC 4319 is 80 million light-years from Earth. Markarian 205 (Mrk 205) is more than 14 times farther away, residing 1 billion light-years from Earth. The apparent close alignment of Mrk 205 and NGC 4319 is simply a matter of chance."  Professional astronomers seem to be so enamored of their "redshift equals distance" theory that it damages their eyesight.


There are lots of other theories unconnected with quasars or redshifts that allow astronomers to judge distances to galaxies...

He's almost certainly been denied access to the telescopes for the same reason I would be - wasting valuable and very expensive resource time. All he has to do is submit a properly tested theory to Nature, like all these other scientists who have a theory they want to expound.

 
Natalie
14003.  Tue Jan 18, 2005 12:54 pm Reply with quote

Jenny wrote:
But does a duck's quark echo?


Ha! That's clever - you nearly had me referring you to the post which addresses this issue. But you ain't fooling me no more.

 
Flash
14027.  Tue Jan 18, 2005 4:46 pm Reply with quote

Gray - your post has the Ring of Truth to me. However, try telling this:
Quote:
black holes definitely exist

to JumpingJack in a production meeting and see what happens to the rest of the agenda.

 
Gray
14035.  Tue Jan 18, 2005 5:05 pm Reply with quote

Heh - yes, it's a hard one to get the old noggin around. Not that we should expect to be able to encompass a concept like that in our funny little monkey heads. J B S Haldane can be freely quoted here: "The universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it's stranger than we can imagine."

Of course, by 'definitely' I mean 'as far as I'm aware the theory hasn't been disproved' and by 'exist' I mean there's a good chunk of mathematics and observational evidence that says that's what happens when big stars collapse. What's really going on is anyone's guess...

 
Jenny
14039.  Tue Jan 18, 2005 5:08 pm Reply with quote

I had a look at that electric cosmos site, but I'm afraid my eyes kind of glazed over...

 
Caradoc
14071.  Tue Jan 18, 2005 6:46 pm Reply with quote

Flash wrote:
Gray - your post has the Ring of Truth to me. However, try telling this:
Quote:
black holes definitely exist

to JumpingJack in a production meeting and see what happens to the rest of the agenda.


Try telling him about making your own black holes

http://cerncourier.com/main/article/40/4/10/1

 
Flash
14078.  Wed Jan 19, 2005 4:55 am Reply with quote

I was interested by this:
Quote:
to see effects as dramatic as a black hole, the velocity of light in the medium must be low compared with the velocity of the medium.
Recent results from US physicists working with Bose-Einstein condensates (BEC) suggest that this is feasible: quantized vortices have been generated in a BEC of rubidium atoms, while light has been slowed down inside a BEC to a mere 50 cm/s, and even 1 cm/s may soon be achieved.

I thought it was axiomatic that the speed of light is constant.

 
Gray
14080.  Wed Jan 19, 2005 5:15 am Reply with quote

No, apparently even that is up for grabs by some theoretical cosmologists. I have absolutely no idea what the consequences/causes are of this being the case... I've read that they can slow it down, but then I don't understand how they measured it.

Basically, any set of axioms that can be thought up seems to support some observations and predictions, but not all, but most things go against our 'intuition' at this level. All science should have a "Work in Progress" sticker on it!

Of course, if you want to have a look at string theory as a model, then you're also going to have to accept that there's 11 dimensions. At this level, science to the layman is indistinguishable from faith. And if it is distinguishable, then it's not far enough off the wall!

 

Page 1 of 8
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group