snopes.com Post new topic  Post a reply
search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hello snopes.com » Urban Legends » Science » Glass, liquid or solid? (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Glass, liquid or solid?
MarkTwainFan
I'm Dreaming of a White Sale


Icon 1 posted      Profile for MarkTwainFan   E-mail MarkTwainFan   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Can some one tell me if the idea of glass being really a liquid has been discussed here? (Warped or droopy looking windows in old buildings is usually given as a proof of this.)

I did a search on the main site and in a few forums here, but didn't find anything. (using 'glass' and 'liquid' as search terms)

A little googling gives me the impression that most experts agree glass is not a liquid, or a supercooled liquid, but is actually an amporhous (sp?) solid, and the reason that windows look warped in old buildings is because of the old glass making process, not because the windows are melting.

It is possible to find reasonable sounding sources on both sides of the topic though, and some very lively debates.

I was told that glass was a fluid by at least 2 different school teachers.

If this has been discussed here before, and I just can't find it, can someone point me to the thread?

Thanks!

--------------------
Be good and you will be lonesome. -MT

Posts: 33 | From: NewCastle, DE | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
SoToasty
Flock to malls with boughs of cash


Icon 1 posted      Profile for SoToasty   E-mail SoToasty   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Still don't know the answer.

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_120.html

--------------------
Wherever ya go, there ya are.

Posts: 816 | From: Florida | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Vinnichanka
Deck the Malls


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Vinnichanka   Author's Homepage   E-mail Vinnichanka   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
I was told it is an amorphous solid.
http://dwb.unl.edu/Teacher/NSF/C01/C01Links/www.ualberta.ca/~bderksen/florin.html

--------------------
Ladies and gentlemen, chlorinate your gene pools!

Posts: 250 | From: Brooklyn, New York | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
EthanMitchell
Deck the Malls


Icon 1 posted      Profile for EthanMitchell   E-mail EthanMitchell   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
I was always told it was a liquid, but I think that this is a typical "complex question" fallacy. It's probably more accurate to say: "Dude, you've never met a solid like you think solids ought to be. Everything sags and flows, everything can be bent. If you're definition of solid includes 'does not deform,' then they don't exist."

I work in a stone-cutting yard. Marble can sag visibly in less than a century if it isn't well supported. I see no reason why glass couldn't do the same thing, but, of course, this does not mean that the visible curves in old glass are due to sagging. In fact, that rarely makes sense. Some of the windows that have supposedly sagged in churches are only a few hundred years old, and we have glassware that's well over two thousand years old, and keeps its shape fairly well.

Posts: 330 | From: New Haven, VT | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
GenYus
Away in a Manager's Special


Icon 1 posted      Profile for GenYus   E-mail GenYus   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
It is an amorphous solid.

The proof is in it's behavior as it gets hot. True solids like ice go from solid to liquid without any "warm liquid goo phase" in between. An amorphous solid like glass will go from seemingly solid to softer to softer to softer to soft. There is not one temperature where it suddenly becomes liquid.

PS. 5 points for the "warm liquid goo phase" reference.

--------------------
IIRC, it wasn't the shoe bomber's loud prayers that sparked the takedown by the other passengers; it was that he was trying to light his shoe on fire. Very, very different. Canuckistan

Posts: 3694 | From: Arizona | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Arriah
The First USA Noel


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Arriah   E-mail Arriah   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
I'd say none of the above. There's really no such thing as a gas, liquid or solid (or plasma for that matter). What there is, is compounds or mixtures that are in their solid, liquid, gas or plasma at a particular temperature [Smile]

The melting/freezing point of glass is very close to the temperatures at which we humans are comfortable.

--------------------
Conforming meant that everyone liked you except yourself
Rebecca

Posts: 682 | From: Jacksonville, FL | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
00-Saleen
Deck the Malls


Icon 87 posted      Profile for 00-Saleen     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by GenYus:
It is an amorphous solid.

The proof is in it's behavior as it gets hot. True solids like ice go from solid to liquid without any "warm liquid goo phase" in between. An amorphous solid like glass will go from seemingly solid to softer to softer to softer to soft. There is not one temperature where it suddenly becomes liquid.

PS. 5 points for the "warm liquid goo phase" reference.

that would be Austin Powers (the first one) One of my favorite movies.
Posts: 239 | From: Tennessee | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Hero_Mike
Happy Holly Days


Icon 602 posted      Profile for Hero_Mike         Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Arriah:
The melting/freezing point of glass is very close to the temperatures at which we humans are comfortable.

Umm...I beg to differ. Glass does not melt anywhere near the "comfort zone" for humans.

Last time I checked I was human, and I was not comfortable at 1400°C - which is around the low end for a generic temperature for the "melting point" of glass.

Even 50/50 lead/tin solder has a melting point of 214°C, and humans are definitely not comfortable around that level of temperature. I'd have to say that anything over 50°C is above the "comfort" zone and where injury can occur.

The "melting point" of glass is fairly high - not as high as, say, osmium (over 3000°C), tungsten (over 3400°C) or diamond (over 3500°C) - but not to be confused with elements such as mercury or bromium which are liquid at low temperature.

Glass is an amorphous solid, which means that it hardens without crystallizing. It does so at a fairly high temperature - note that the glass bakeware you use remains intact at a temperature high enough to burn human (or animal) flesh.

Note that a good portion of the blame for the precarious state of old stained glass windows lies with how they were made in the first place, and not due to the "flow" of glass under years of gravity. This glass was not very flat to begin with, and until the "float" technique of making glass - pouring a thin layer of molten glass over a tank of molten metal (usually tin) in an oxygen-free atmosphere - one could not get large sheets of flat, flawless glass very easily. Note that this technique was only announced to the world in 1959 - less than 50 years ago. Before this, various techniques used to make glass - both hand-made and mechanized processes - had various limitations and drawbacks - notably in the cost and size of sheet that could be made, not to mention the quality. Glass has been used for windows for over 300 years - for most of that time it was used at great expense and difficulty.

A good reference on the melting point of glass is here.

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2002/SaiLee.shtml

--------------------
"The fate of *billions* depends on you! Hahahahaha....sorry." Lord Raiden - Mortal Kombat

Posts: 1587 | From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Ganzfeld
Let There Be PCs on Earth


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ganzfeld     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Hero_Mike:
Glass is an amorphous solid, which means that it hardens without crystallizing.

This is the abbreviated answer.
Posts: 4922 | From: Kyoto, Japan | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Troberg
Angels Wii Have Heard on High


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Troberg     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
I think one could say that the models of liquids and solids do not fully apply to glass. Neither of these models describe all the properties of glass well.

--------------------
/Troberg

Posts: 4360 | From: Borlänge, Sweden | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Black Belt and Socks
The First USA Noel


Icon 01 posted      Profile for Black Belt and Socks   E-mail Black Belt and Socks       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
I think one could say that the models of liquids and solids do not fully apply to glass. Neither of these models describe all the properties of glass well.
This could be said about a lot of substances.

BB "scrambled eggs anyone?" &S

--------------------
"How dare your reality hinder my ability to believe what I want!" Joe Bentley

Posts: 697 | From: Backwoods of Arkansas | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Hero_Mike
Happy Holly Days


Icon 602 posted      Profile for Hero_Mike         Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ganzfeld:
quote:
Originally posted by Hero_Mike:
Glass is an amorphous solid, which means that it hardens without crystallizing.

This is the abbreviated answer.
It also happens to be correct.

The long answer is available all over the internet, however, I will only point to one source - a fairly long and detailed article on Wikipedia which explains this quite well and has many good cites.

The article is here :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass

Here is a direct quote from the aforementioned page, dealing specifically with the premise that medieval-era glass thinned because of long-term "flow" under gravity:

"Evidence against glass flow
If medieval glass has flowed perceptibly, then ancient Roman and Egyptian objects should have flowed proportionately more—but this is not observed.
If glass flows at a rate that allows changes to be seen with the naked eye after centuries, then changes in optical telescope mirrors should be observable (by interferometry) in a matter of days—but this also is not observed. Similarly, it should not be possible to see Newton's rings between decade-old fragments of window glass—but this can in fact be quite easily done.
Likewise, precision optical lenses and mirrors used in microscopes and telescopes should gradually deform and lose focus. This is also not observed."

Brief, yes, but still correct.

--------------------
"The fate of *billions* depends on you! Hahahahaha....sorry." Lord Raiden - Mortal Kombat

Posts: 1587 | From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
NocturnalGoddess- naughty or nice?
Carol of the Dells


Icon 1 posted      Profile for NocturnalGoddess- naughty or nice?     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
I doubt I'm helping, but it never hurts:

I remember watching Bill Nye, the science guy ( [Big Grin] ) and they had glass classified along with jello.

--------------------
"I saw weird stuff in that place last night. Weird, strange, sick, twisted, eerie, godless, EVIL stuff... and I want in."- Homer Simpson

Posts: 2161 | From: Delaware | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Troberg
Angels Wii Have Heard on High


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Troberg     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
This could be said about a lot of substances.
Yep, and some substances can change their properties rapidly under impact. I've seen some kind of fairly soft rubber which was all bendy and stretchy, but give it a sharp slap and it shatters like a glass pane. The opposite is also true for some substances, I've heard that some tar like substances are solid but goes liquid if given a slap.

There are lots of wierdness out there...

--------------------
/Troberg

Posts: 4360 | From: Borlänge, Sweden | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
dave748
I'm Dreaming of a White Sale


Icon 1 posted      Profile for dave748   E-mail dave748   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
According to Pilkington glass, which I toured through as a year 10 chemistry student, glass is solid. The reason they gave for panes of glass originally being tapered was that the old way of producing glass was to draw it through rollers, as the rollers got hotter as the glass was drawn through they would change diameter slightly. This would produce a tapered pane of glass. Then glaziers would install them thicker side to the bottom. The modern way of producing glass by floating it on molten tin and surveying it with a laser during the manufacturing process prevents any noticeable taper.
Posts: 28 | From: Victoria, Australia | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Rob D / Blackwolf, the yule dodo
Deck the Malls


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Rob D / Blackwolf, the yule dodo   Author's Homepage   E-mail Rob D / Blackwolf, the yule dodo   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Yeah.. Glass is solid.
And the reason why it looks like a "slow flowing liquid" is given here too, so I wont repeat that.
But if it would have been true, then I would have to report, as former glass cleaner who also cleaned some antique glasses, that some frames have a reverse gravitation as I have seen the thicker parts on the top edge of the glass shard, the sides and even the center.

--------------------
~Reality, the refuge of those who fail in RPGs~
aka Darkfist Dragon
-==(UDIC)==-

Posts: 334 | From: Lancaster, Ohio | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
EthanMitchell
Deck the Malls


Icon 1 posted      Profile for EthanMitchell   E-mail EthanMitchell   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Proposal: the phrases "solid, liquid, gas," and "plasma" are only meaningful if we apply them across some definite ammount of space (a single atom is not in one of those states) and across some definite ammount of time (because we can't concieve of temperature or physical properties 'instaneously').

If so physical state is scale-dependent. It could be appropriate to say that glass and marble are a brittle solids over short time scales, but flexible gels over long time scales. Similarly, you can think of an individual soybean as a solid, but if you are wading through a container of soybeans, you think of them as a liquid.

I'm not saying that this matches the scientific definitions of the terms, but I do think this is how laypeople normally think about physical states.

Posts: 330 | From: New Haven, VT | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Hero_Mike
Happy Holly Days


Icon 602 posted      Profile for Hero_Mike         Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by EthanMitchell:
Proposal: the phrases "solid, liquid, gas," and "plasma" are only meaningful if we apply them across some definite ammount of space (a single atom is not in one of those states) and across some definite ammount of time (because we can't concieve of temperature or physical properties 'instaneously').

If so physical state is scale-dependent. It could be appropriate to say that glass and marble are a brittle solids over short time scales, but flexible gels over long time scales. Similarly, you can think of an individual soybean as a solid, but if you are wading through a container of soybeans, you think of them as a liquid.

I'm not saying that this matches the scientific definitions of the terms, but I do think this is how laypeople normally think about physical states.

No, you're wrong. Time is not a factor in determining the state of matter. Primarily this is defined by temperature, but also affected by pressure and other physical properties. If you take an ice cube and leave it on your kitchen counter, it is not because of time that it melts into water - it is because of temperature. If it was below freezing in your kitchen, the ice cube would remain a solid indefinitely.

Please take the time to read this and you'll see that time is *not* a factor in the state of matter, in particular, the physical state of glass at "room temperature".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass#Evidence_against_glass_flow

Your description of a container of soybeans (or sand, for example) is essentially correct but you are using the wrong word. "Liquid" refers to a state of matter. "Fluid" refers to the ability of a substance to flow and take the shape of its container. Gases, liquids, and granular solids (like sands) all exhibit "fluid" behaviour, provided that the size of the container or constricting vessel is much larger than the size of the particles.

--------------------
"The fate of *billions* depends on you! Hahahahaha....sorry." Lord Raiden - Mortal Kombat

Posts: 1587 | From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Electrotiger
Deck the Malls


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Electrotiger   E-mail Electrotiger   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Hero Mike, I sort of see what you're getting at ("taking time" and "requiring time" are different things), except this part:

quote:
If it was below freezing in your kitchen, the ice cube would remain a solid indefinitely.
Sublimation.

Specifically:

quote:
Snow and other water ice also sublimate, though more slowly, at below-freezing temperatures.


--------------------
Mr. Sagan did not go too fars, If you just took the time to scan its,
You'd count billions and billions of stars, And billions and billions of planets.

Posts: 332 | From: Kansas City, MO | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
EthanMitchell
Deck the Malls


Icon 1 posted      Profile for EthanMitchell   E-mail EthanMitchell   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Hero_Mike-

I realize my definition is a hack job, but I want to come back at you...how can you define temperature without reference to time? Temperature is a measure of energy, and you can't describe energy without using time as a variable. If you define temperature in terms of thermodynamics, you need to invoke time, and if you define temperature in terms of particle speed, you also need to invoke time.
Unless I'm missing something, which is likely.

Posts: 330 | From: New Haven, VT | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Finite Fourier Alchemy
Markdown, the Herald Angels Sing


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Finite Fourier Alchemy   E-mail Finite Fourier Alchemy   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by EthanMitchell:
Proposal: the phrases "solid, liquid, gas," and "plasma" are only meaningful if we apply them across some definite ammount of space (a single atom is not in one of those states)

The state of matter is a descriptor of how atoms or molecules interact with each other. So yes, you need "space" because you need many atoms or molecules interacting to define a state of matter, and those atoms or molecules must have some average distance from each other at each point in time. The average distance by itself can define the state of matter: solid atoms are close together, liquid atoms are very very far apart, and gas atoms are very very very very far apart.

quote:
and across some definite ammount of time (because we can't concieve of temperature or physical properties 'instaneously').
...sort of. Thermodynamics can be derived through statistical mechanics, which uses averages of molecular behavior to describe gases and liquids. These averages are done over a timescale, which puts limits on how well thermodynamic models can predict behavior in a system that is changing very fast. But if you magically freeze a liquid in some moment of time, its state should still be obvious due to the interatomic distance. You wouldn't be able to determine its temperature (since, by freezing it in time, you stopped its movement and brought its molecular temperature to absolute zero) but the same is true for anything moving. To say that, at some instant, a moving object is not moving, is a sort of Zeno's paradox, I think.

I've seen some arguments against this using QM: As the shortest amount of time is Planck time, there is no such thing as an "instant," in the sense of an infinitely small amount of time, and thus there is no instant where the runner, or arrow, or molecule, is not moving. I'm not sure I have that exactly right, as I'm not a particle physicist, but it sort of makes sense to me.

I can say with confidence that state is not scale-dependent. A solid is a solid no matter how big or small it is. The fact solids can deform does not mean they are liquid. The fact time is a necessary parameter to describe physical properties does not mean those physical properties must change with time.

--------------------
Thinking about New England / missing old Japan

Posts: 2603 | From: Virginia | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Hero_Mike
Happy Holly Days


Icon 602 posted      Profile for Hero_Mike         Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by EthanMitchell:
Hero_Mike-

I realize my definition is a hack job, but I want to come back at you...how can you define temperature without reference to time? Temperature is a measure of energy, and you can't describe energy without using time as a variable. If you define temperature in terms of thermodynamics, you need to invoke time, and if you define temperature in terms of particle speed, you also need to invoke time.
Unless I'm missing something, which is likely.

As mentioned in another post, the root of temperature is a measure of the average kinetic energy of the particles in a substance. In this you do have to include the passage of time.

However...it is not time alone that defines the state of matter. Consider my previous example - an ice cube shall remain an ice cube if you keep the environment around the ice cube the same. In other words, if you maintain the temperature, pressure, *humidity*, then it remains a ice cube. Forever. Matter does not spontaneously change state without some external influence. It is the addition of energy which causes solids to melt into liquids. You can add the energy quickly or slowly, but that action - and not the passage of time - is the critical event.

For the person who brought up sublimation, this merely illustrates my point. Ice cubes seem to disappear from our freezers even though the temperature remains below freezing, because of the drying action of the freezer. Seal the ice cubes in an air-tight container and they no longer sublimate and will be kept frozen *indefinitely*, provided that the temperature (pressure, humidity, etc.) remains constant.

That said, I go back to my earlier point that if there are long-term effects of gravity upon a state of matter of a substance (in this case, glass), then a more precise method of measurement can be used to determine such effects on a shorter term. Clearly this is not true, because interferometry would find the "gravitational flow" of glass in mere days on precise optical instruments.

Like all substances, there is a thermodynamic coefficient of expansion (with temperature) for glass. In the range of temperatures experienced by glass windows (say from -40°C to +40°C), this is a very small amount, and again, not enough to exhibit the effects in the OP, whereby glass windows must be taken out of service or turned upside-down to negate the centuries of "gravitational flow". My original post here was to illustrate that the "melting point" of glass is indeed quite high, and much higher than humans can tolerate. Glass is thoroughly solid and doesn't even become fluid until about 1000°C - though this varies with the type of glass so I'm just using a round number here. Think of your glass bakeware or laboratory flasks and how well these remains constant and solid even when heated.

--------------------
"The fate of *billions* depends on you! Hahahahaha....sorry." Lord Raiden - Mortal Kombat

Posts: 1587 | From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
bufungla
Let There Be PCs on Earth


Icon 18 posted      Profile for bufungla   Author's Homepage   E-mail bufungla   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by dave748:
According to Pilkington glass, which I toured through as a year 10 chemistry student, glass is solid. The reason they gave for panes of glass originally being tapered was that the old way of producing glass was to draw it through rollers, as the rollers got hotter as the glass was drawn through they would change diameter slightly. This would produce a tapered pane of glass. Then glaziers would install them thicker side to the bottom. The modern way of producing glass by floating it on molten tin and surveying it with a laser during the manufacturing process prevents any noticeable taper.

And even the "old" way you're describing is still relatively modern; the visibly tapered glass observed in buildings that are several hundred years old were made of crown glass, described on Wiki as follows:

quote:
In this process, glass was blown into a "crown" or hollow globe. This was then flattened by reheating and spinning out the bowl-shaped piece of glass (bullion) into a flat disk by centrifugal force, up to 5 or 6 feet (1.5 to 1.8 meters) in diameter. The glass was then cut to the size required. Because of the manufacturing process, the best and thinnest glass is in a band at the edge of the disk, with the glass becoming thicker and more distorting towards the centre.


--------------------
"Pardon him. Theodotus: he is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature."

George Bernard Shaw, Caesar and Cleopatra

Posts: 4847 | From: Washington, DC | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
EthanMitchell
Deck the Malls


Icon 1 posted      Profile for EthanMitchell   E-mail EthanMitchell   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
"However...it is not time alone that defines the state of matter..."

No. But is it reasonable for us to say that certain substances behave like different states of matter depending on what time scale we use? Your steady-state ice cube would not be one of them, of course. But perhaps marble, or other stone? At human times scales, it behaves very much like a solid. If we "speed up" it behaves much more like a liquid.
Maybe the idea of viscosity covers this whole continuum.

Posts: 330 | From: New Haven, VT | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
dave748
I'm Dreaming of a White Sale


Icon 1 posted      Profile for dave748   E-mail dave748   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Bufungla, thanks for the further info, I didn't look into the full history of glass, just remembered something that I learned from school, and the factory tour, which I tell other people when I get told the "glass is actually a liquid" BS'
Posts: 28 | From: Victoria, Australia | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Hero_Mike
Happy Holly Days


Icon 602 posted      Profile for Hero_Mike         Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by EthanMitchell:
"However...it is not time alone that defines the state of matter..."

No. But is it reasonable for us to say that certain substances behave like different states of matter depending on what time scale we use? Your steady-state ice cube would not be one of them, of course. But perhaps marble, or other stone? At human times scales, it behaves very much like a solid. If we "speed up" it behaves much more like a liquid.
Maybe the idea of viscosity covers this whole continuum.

Well, you still keep ignoring the physical factors which make marble (or diamonds, for example) what they are. It takes a long time to form these solids, however, it is the effect of intense heat and pressure *over a long period of time* that causes the transformation.

Even simpler example - concrete. If you mix concrete and do not allow it to cure by moderating the surrounding temperature (curing concrete is exothermic - if it can't give off heat it cannot cure), then it will remain a liquid (actually, a suspension) indefinitely. Your analogy for molten rock is not perfect because it is not a "pure" substance, but you keep ignoring the physical environment that causes these transformations *over time*.

I'll say it again - the passage of time alone does not change the state of matter.

--------------------
"The fate of *billions* depends on you! Hahahahaha....sorry." Lord Raiden - Mortal Kombat

Posts: 1587 | From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
El Camino
We Three Blings


Icon 1 posted      Profile for El Camino   E-mail El Camino   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Alright, this is obviously a long dead topic, but I just read something in my textbook which is relevant.

"We have noncrystalline solids such as glass that behave like liquids if our time scale is sufficiently long."

Hmm. Just thought I'd point that out.

Vogel, Steven. Comparitive Biomechanics: Life's Physical World Princeton University Press, 2003: pp. 40

Posts: 1048 | From: Brunswick, Maine | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
El Camino
We Three Blings


Icon 1 posted      Profile for El Camino   E-mail El Camino   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
So it depends on your definition of solid. Since it's noncrystalline I'd have to assume that means it is not a network solid, and is therefore molecular, which is generally a property of matter that is gas or liquid at room temperature. However, for a normal time frame, it is treated as a solid, held together by intermolecular forces. So time does come into play, but not in the way it seemed most people were thinking here.
Posts: 1048 | From: Brunswick, Maine | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Finite Fourier Alchemy
Markdown, the Herald Angels Sing


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Finite Fourier Alchemy   E-mail Finite Fourier Alchemy   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by El Camino:
Alright, this is obviously a long dead topic, but I just read something in my textbook which is relevant.

"We have noncrystalline solids such as glass that behave like liquids if our time scale is sufficiently long."

Hmm. Just thought I'd point that out.

That statement is not true.

quote:
Originally posted by El Camino:
So it depends on your definition of solid.

Well, yeah. If your definition of a solid is incorrect, then you would think glass is not a solid. There is still nothing liquid-like about room-temperature silica glass.

quote:
Since it's noncrystalline I'd have to assume that means it is not a network solid,
Yes, because that's what that word means.

quote:
and is therefore molecular, which is generally a property of matter that is gas or liquid at room temperature.
No, it means that the molecules are not bonded to each other in any way that promotes long-range order. Silica molecules don't just freely float around in glass. You wouldn't really find a single silica molecule anyway, because it's not stable unless it's connected to other silica groups via Si-O bonds.

quote:
However, for a normal time frame, it is treated as a solid, held together by intermolecular forces.
For any time frame.

quote:
So time does come into play, but not in the way it seemed most people were thinking here.
No it doesn't.

I'm going to bet the author of the above quote does not have experience and degrees in this topic, and I highly doubt that he spends about ten hours a day seven days a week designing, creating, testing, and destroying amorphous silica and silicalites in abusive and naughty ways.

So for that reason I'm going to trust my own knowledge and experience on this one. [Razz]

--------------------
Thinking about New England / missing old Japan

Posts: 2603 | From: Virginia | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
El Camino
We Three Blings


Icon 1 posted      Profile for El Camino   E-mail El Camino   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Ok, then, senor. What is your basis for saying my statement is not true? Show me some experts, multiple, actual experts, supporting your statement that my quote is not true, and maybe we'll discuss. Until then, the statement is true.

And the author is EXTREMELY qualified to make this statement. He is one of the leaders in biomechanics, which is basically the physics of organisms. One of the main topics of this is the FLUID MECHANICS OF ORGANISMS, as well as the structural impact on solid parts like ligaments and bone. He is very qualified to make this statement. He is right. You are wrong. Who the hell are you to disagree with him?

This is probably the worst post I've ever seen. You try to refute my direct quote from an expert with a simple "No it doesn't." You reference nothing, no one. Idiot.

Posts: 1048 | From: Brunswick, Maine | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Damian
We Wish You a Merry Giftmas


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Damian   E-mail Damian   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by El Camino:
This is probably the worst post I've ever seen. You try to refute my direct quote from an expert with a simple "No it doesn't." You reference nothing, no one. Idiot.

What does your source say about rubber and glue ? [fish]

--------------------
"I always tell the truth. Even when I lie." - Tony Montana

Posts: 890 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Richard W
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Richard W   E-mail Richard W   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Hero_Mike said:
Last time I checked I was human, and I was not comfortable at 1400°C

How do you know? I bet you've never experienced 1400°C, have you? Are you one of these "scientific" types? In fact, nobody has ever experienced 1400°C and reported on their comfort levels afterwards. So any statement about this is UNTESTABLE and AN UNSCIENTIFIC LIE! You should be more open-minded - you're going to have to get used to 1400°C temperatures when you BURN IN HELL!

(Ahem) Sorry. I've been following some of the links from the latest Intelligent Design thread.

quote:
El Camino said:
And the author is EXTREMELY qualified to make this statement. He is one of the leaders in biomechanics, which is basically the physics of organisms. One of the main topics of this is the FLUID MECHANICS OF ORGANISMS, as well as the structural impact on solid parts like ligaments and bone.

I don't see how being an expert on fluid mechanics in organisms necessarily means that you know a lot about the properties of glass in particular... Fluid mechanics is a branch of mathematics. I don't see how you'd use the equations to show that glass was a fluid - any analysis of glass in terms of fluid mechanics would have to start by assuming it behaved as a fluid. You could perhaps predict a minimum or maximum flow rate based on the assumption that it behaves as a fluid, but since the actual flow rate (if any) is apparently so small as to be unobservable, that wouldn't help to determine whether you were correct or not.

I'm not sure if the timescale argument was made clear. Finite Fourier Alchemy and Hero_Mike are right, but I wanted to try to explain again:

Temperature does depend on the kinetic energy of the molecules in the substance, as EthanMitchell said. It's a statistical property that depends on the average vibrational kinetic energy of the molecules. In this sense, because the molecules are moving, there's a time component at a very small scale. But the point is that there isn't any net movement of the molecules. You're actually removing the time component by taking the average kinetic energy. Statistically, the molecules are vibrating, or bumping around against each other, on the scale of nanoseconds. If you look on a longer timescale, they stay in the same place as far as the temperature is concerned.

So at any timescale longer than nanoseconds, there isn't a time component to temperature, precisely because it's been averaged out. And for most purposes you can take this temperature as the instantaneous temperature of the substance anyway. You can't take the very small scale statistical fluctuations on a short timescale and extrapolate them to mean anything on a long timescale.

(Obviously the molecules can move from place to place if the object is transported, or if the liquid or gas flows or has currents in it or so on, but the typical kinetic energy associated with the net movement of an actual molecule in these cases is slow compared to the kinetic energy of the random motion that contributes to the temperature, and so (except under special circumstances such as at very low temperatures, or when you're talking about an individual particle in a particle accelerator - in which case it's not statistical and "temperature" is pretty much interchangeable with "energy") this is ignored when calculating the temperature on statistical grounds. And if you assume everything is sitting still, effects of net movement are irrelevant anyway.)

Hmm, that probably didn't add much to the discussion.

Posts: 8725 | From: Ipswich - the UK's 9th Best Place to Sleep! | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
El Camino
We Three Blings


Icon 1 posted      Profile for El Camino   E-mail El Camino   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
I agree that temperature as a property is independent of time. I never disputed that.

Also, the author in question is not an expert on fluid mechanics, but he has to use them regularly in his work, must be very familiar with them. However, this is not the focus of his work, but he must be familiar with a wide range of fields related to the physics of solids, liquids and gases.

Since I doubt you know what biomechanics really is (neither did I till I saw the course), here's a defition I got from google:
Biomechanics - The field of study which makes use of the laws of physics and engineering concepts to describe motion of body segments, and the forces which act upon them during activity.

As you can see, this sort of thing is very relevant to his field. This definiteion is also a little narrow, the field also includes thing such as the feeding habits of filter feeders, forces in flight and swimming, and other stuff.


More importantly, really, no one's disputing that glass is a solid either. Well, maybe someone is, but I'm not and neither does my quote. All I'm saying is that it can ACT as a fluid, not that it is a liquid. And that's acting as a liquid in terms of biomechanics, meaning it is structurally similar to a fluid and, well can act as one on a very long time frame.

And neither did I saw this is responsible for the shape of windows. And everything I said was write. An above link confirms that glass has properties similar to fluids.

I think you're thinking that I'm saying things that I'm not. Everything I said was true.

Posts: 1048 | From: Brunswick, Maine | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Finite Fourier Alchemy
Markdown, the Herald Angels Sing


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Finite Fourier Alchemy   E-mail Finite Fourier Alchemy   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
El Camino, I had some free time today so I exchanged some Emails with Dr. Vogel. He agrees that the line "We have noncrystalline solids such as glass that behave like liquids if our time scale is sufficiently long" is erroneous and he will correct it in the second edition of Comparitive Biomechanics, whenever that comes out.

I asked him if I could post the conversation online and I'll put it here if he says it's okay.

So, yeah, I put in an accepted revision for your biology text on my lunch break. Pretty good for an idiot, I think.

--------------------
Thinking about New England / missing old Japan

Posts: 2603 | From: Virginia | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Hero_Mike
Happy Holly Days


Icon 602 posted      Profile for Hero_Mike         Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Richard W:
quote:
Hero_Mike said:
Last time I checked I was human, and I was not comfortable at 1400°C

How do you know? I bet you've never experienced 1400°C, have you? Are you one of these "scientific" types? In fact, nobody has ever experienced 1400°C and reported on their comfort levels afterwards. So any statement about this is UNTESTABLE and AN UNSCIENTIFIC LIE! You should be more open-minded - you're going to have to get used to 1400°C temperatures when you BURN IN HELL!

(Ahem) Sorry. I've been following some of the links from the latest Intelligent Design thread.

I really thought that this thread was dead.

I'm sure I'm not the only person who has burned themselves on an oxy-acetylene torch, but let me assure you that it is not pleasant. Acetylene burns in oxygen at between 3200°C and 3500°C. Not pleasant.

Nobody has experienced 1400°C and lived to tell the tale?

Take that, smart guy.

--------------------
"The fate of *billions* depends on you! Hahahahaha....sorry." Lord Raiden - Mortal Kombat

Posts: 1587 | From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post new topic  Post a reply Close topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Urban Legends Reference Pages

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2