Whats the most common state of matter in the universe?

Comments

• And what's the problem with dark matter? If it's dark, it don't matter?

  • Report
  

  by Stableboy on November 27th, 2006

• No. The reason scientists think dark matter exists is because when examining properties that depend on mass in the universe they find that some of these don't match what they would expect for all the matter they could see. There is a huge mass deficit in these cases. So they came up with Dark Matter to solve it. This would be a theoretical form of matter that is undetectable and doesn't interact physically but only gravitationally.

  • Report
  

  by Carnivalius on July 8th, 2007

• Im Alec, you haven't answered the question though. You've said Dark Matter and for visible matter you've said either plasma/gas. Which one for visible matter?

  • Report
  

  by Farino on September 9th, 2007

• Plasma would be visible matter. Because of their high temperatures, plasmas give off light.

  • Report
  

  by Glenn Blaylock on May 12th, 2008

• plasma is gas (for farino)

  • Report
  

  by phibins on May 18th, 2008

• No, plasma is heated gas as gas is heated liquid. It is another state entirely.

  • Report
  

  by Farino on May 18th, 2008

• Yes, a plasma is a gas that is so hot that the atoms can't hold onto all of their electrons.

  • Report
  

  by Glenn Blaylock on May 18th, 2008

• NO, plasma is gas, its is when the electrons of the gas are 'exited' by energy and emit light (just like thouse neon light signs).
  
  it is another state OF GAS, not "another state entirely"

  • Report
  

  by phibins on May 18th, 2008

• this is first year chemistry.....

  • Report
  

  by phibins on May 18th, 2008

• This is something that is actually rather debatable. There are people who take both sides in argument.

  • Report
  

  by Glenn Blaylock on May 18th, 2008

• well, i dont know about that.
  but im just saying what i've learnt, and what is in my textbooks.
  
  this is what i learnt, when energy (lets say electricity, or extreme heat) is put into the atom its electrons are exited to a valance of higher energy then its natural state, when it comes down from that state it releases energy back into the environment until it reaches its natural valance position. or something like that.....
  
  
  so once no more energy is being fed into the atom it returns to its natural state, therefore, IN MY OPINION of coerce it is just a different state of gas.... meaning it IS GAS.

  • Report
  

  by phibins on May 18th, 2008

• If a plasma loses energy, it becomes a gas. If a gas loses energy, it becomes a liquid. If a liquid loses energy, it becomes a solid. The physics of plasmas is very different from the physics of gasses - though not as different as the physics of solids. Therefore my call is that plasma is a different state from gas. Just the fact that we put work into making plasmas out of gases says that the states are different. Also, the moment at which the univers cooled enough for hydrogen atoms to form, and the universe therefore became transparent to radiation, is one of the most significant instants in cosmology. I see that as a state transition.

  • Report
  

  by Im Alec has abandoned this account on May 18th, 2008

• phibins, I would also point out that what you are describing there is not necessarily a plasma. Just because the electrons are in an excited state does not mean that you have a plasma. A plasma is a state in which electrons are torn completely away from the atoms. Thus, the gas is made up of ionized atoms and free electrons in a plasma.

  • Report
  

  by Glenn Blaylock on May 18th, 2008

• your right, but i still disagree that plasma is a different state...
  its just a gas, but the gases properties are so different (in that state) that they give it a new name.
  even if you dont agree with me.
  its like giving glass a new state because its properties are very different from liquid...ie.. EXTREAMELY viscous.
  
  but i guess you are right, it can be considered a different state entirely...(But not by me :)... too me its a different state of gas)...
  
  but i wont be arguing this, cuz you are right.

  • Report
  

  by phibins on May 19th, 2008

• I would argue plasma is a state because of its differing properties. States of matter are classes that objects fall into, with solids, liquids, gases and plasma having their own unique properties that the others don't have. As such plasma should (and is in virtually and plasma textbook) be called a separate state of matter. The physics involved with plasmas is very distinct than those of a normal non ionised gas.

  • Report
  

  by Carnivalius on May 26th, 2008

• I'm not disagreeing with you here but did you know that the mathematics governing flames (plasmas) is almost identical to that of liquids?
  http://www.erc.wisc.edu/modeling/multi_dimensional/ModelingMtng2001/AVL-paper.pdf

  • Report
  

  by Farino on May 26th, 2008

• If this is the case then maybe we should call plasma a liquid. So, as the temperature rises, matter changes from liquid to gas to liquid again. The fact that the math of plasma resembles something other than that of a gas indicates that it is a separate phase than a gas.

  • Report
  

  by Glenn Blaylock on May 26th, 2008

• As I stated, I wasn't disagreeing - merely making a side note.

  • Report
  

  by Farino on May 29th, 2008

Comments

• "most common state of matter in the visible universe is plasma."
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_matter

  • Report
  

  by Farino on September 9th, 2007

• 1) Antimatter is not matter. So, what ever state it is in is a state of antimatter.
  -
  2) There is no indications of there being any significant amounts of antimatter with in our universe. So, even if antimatter were a state of matter, it could not be the most abundant state.

  • Report
  

  by Glenn Blaylock on May 12th, 2008

• Add to the fact that Dark Matter may not even be matter, we infer its existence because of its gravity. However the gravity it posesses may not be home to matter.
  
  Glenn, didn't Dirac prove that for all matter there is antimatter?

  • Report
  

  by Farino on May 13th, 2008

• This is something strange about our universe. Theory says that, when particles condense out of energy (as would have happened in the very early universe), equal amounts of matter and antimatter should be created. However, had this been the case, then when the universe got too cool for energy to condense to produce these particles, the matter-antimatter particle pares should have completely annihilated each other leaving nothing but energy. However, this did not happen. It appears that in the early universe there was slightly more matter created than antimatter. So, when this period of annihilation occurred, the universe was left with this residual of matter that makes up everything that we see. Thus we have a universe made up primarily of matter with no sign of any significant quantities of antimatter.

  • Report
  

  by Glenn Blaylock on May 13th, 2008

• Well, matter antimatter annihilations would only occur when they are 'touching'. So could it be that all of the matter left was simply not touching the antimatter that was/is around? Besides, why would we be able to tell what is antimatter without testing it for annihilations? Surely those reactions that occur in matter will also occur in antimatter and seeing as an antiphoton is a photon then antimatter won't look any different?

  • Report
  

  by Farino on May 13th, 2008

• The thing is that this period of annihilation occurred very early in the universe' life, when it was about 0.001 seconds old for protons and antiproton and about 1 second after birth for electrons and positrons). So, the universe was still very compact and the particles in very close proximity to each other. Thus the periods of annihilation when the universe cooled to those points.
  -
  Now, I must admit that I am not an expert in this. So, I am relying on the information that was given in the textbook from which I used to teach an astronomy class. I am trusting that the authors of that textbook knew whereof they wrote. You can find an outline of the relevant chapter here (http://research.uvsc.edu/bulger/Astr1010/chapters/Chapt_27.htm). The information in question is about halfway down the page.

  • Report
  

  by Glenn Blaylock on May 13th, 2008

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

• TAKE COVER! And nobody light a match for, oh, I'd say, five minutes.

  • Report
  

  by P. W. Pasobrio loves Marines on October 8th, 2007

• LOL!

  • Report
  

  by Barcaluv on October 8th, 2007

• :) I now take my bow.

  • Report
  

  by P. W. Pasobrio loves Marines on October 8th, 2007

Comments

Comments

• I think they meant solid, liquid or gas

  • Report
  

  by BobSaccamano-is-back on November 27th, 2006

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments