Is there only one state of matter?

[White Rabbit]

Someone on Yahoo Answers who claims (s)he has a physics background wrote that solidity is only an illusion, because there are so many atoms, and we would see that atoms are mostly space at the sub-nanometric scale. (S)he also wrote that there is 'no solid, no liquid and no gas. There are only atoms and atoms are mostly empty space with nucleus of protons and neutrons and electron clouds.'

 

It's just that I thought that the bonds between atoms/molecules determine whether they are solids, liquids, or gases: independent atoms/molecules with no bonds for gases, Van der Waals or weaker interactions to keep atoms/molecules together for liquids, and stronger, cohesive bonds in solids.

 

Who's right?

[swansont]

Atoms can form bound states or not form bound states, have collective behavior or not have collective behavior. "There are only atoms and atoms are mostly empty space with nucleus of protons and neutrons and electron clouds" is a true statement that doesn't really address the question. I think the poster was evading the issue (or playing semantic games) by looking only at a particular scale; "states of matter" is necessarily a macroscopic view. And from that view, there are different states.

[insane_alien]

if you have a collection of say, 100 atoms. there isn't going to be any real indication of state. if you have a 100 moles of a substance then state is going to e obvious. the states are just (very)general descriptions of how a substance will behave when it is in large quantities.

 

you can also bring in the fact that the heat capacity usually has a discontinuity when changing state.

 

to sum up. macroscopically, states exist and are very well defined.

 

on the scale of molecules, states are ambiguous to the level that they don't exist.

[Sisyphus]

I would say that states are even defined on a scale of even 100 atoms. If they're bonded in such a way as to be in fixed positions relative to one another, that's solid. If they're bonded such that they're all one mass, but freely circulate, that's liquid. If they're not bonded all and move independently except for random collisions, that's a gas.

[someguy]

ya to say that there is no such thing as gas or liquid or solid doesn't make sense because we named something and categorized it and they are things by their definition. they are defined by the relative motion of atoms inside them. but i understand where they are coming from that solidity is an illusion. the atoms of a solid object are still moving and there is empty space between them. if we shrank down to atom size we wouldn't say that solid objects are solid, and in that way it is an illusion. you could probably also say if we grew huge enough the universe is solid. but we are humans and we are the size we are and we perceive things a certain way and based on that we defined something to be solid and so by definition it is solid. we get to decide what solid is and we can even change our minds of what it is as we learn more about the universe. color is an illusion, it exists only in our minds, but it still exists, it is still something, we named it, and defined it differently over generations as we got to know it better.

[foodchain]

ya to say that there is no such thing as gas or liquid or solid doesn't make sense because we named something and categorized it and they are things by their definition. they are defined by the relative motion of atoms inside them. but i understand where they are coming from that solidity is an illusion. the atoms of a solid object are still moving and there is empty space between them. if we shrank down to atom size we wouldn't say that solid objects are solid, and in that way it is an illusion. you could probably also say if we grew huge enough the universe is solid. but we are humans and we are the size we are and we perceive things a certain way and based on that we defined something to be solid and so by definition it is solid. we get to decide what solid is and we can even change our minds of what it is as we learn more about the universe. color is an illusion, it exists only in our minds, but it still exists, it is still something, we named it, and defined it differently over generations as we got to know it better.

 

Not to disagree with you but I think states of matter go outside of some phenomenological experience. I mean on earth I dint think encountering solid hydrogen is a norm, but in any of the states its still just hydrogen, but they do take on an objective difference in regards to physical properties. Example, as a human being using my bear hands on a typical mid afternoon day on earth most likely could never hold say liquid steel, but I could hold the solid, as long as it did not weigh to much. I don’t know how these states are exactly defined on the level of say one atom alone, but the physical reality to me would have it as some objective process, similar to what allows for say three atoms to bond together, or two atoms to bond together, simply put if nothing actually happened, why would any observable change come about?