3 ms·
As a layman, I've grown to associate "new phase of matter" with concepts that I'll never hear about again. It sounds like "there's a hole here, but we made a co
by BoppreH 16y ago
As a layman, I've grown to associate "new phase of matter" with concepts that I'll never hear about again. It sounds like "there's a hole here, but we made a cork for it, and guess what, it fits!", aka too much model rearranging.
Said that, I hope they are right this time.
- jerf 16y agoPhases or states of matter at the higher end of physics do not necessarily entirely correspond to the ones you learned in school. For instance, look at this state chart of water, and note how many entries there are: http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/phase.html http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/phase.html It seems likely to me that this new state would be a subset of what you'd call a "solid", just as you'd call both water II and water III "ice" without worrying about it. You can say the same thing about plasma and how it is a subset of what you would call a gas, if you don't care about the electrical differences.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- electromagnetic 16y agoI believe why they're calling it a "new phase of matter" is because the electron-pairing is remaining at temperatures it is not known to have. IMO this sounds more like there is a required energy level for electrons to actually be singular in their orbits and that at superconducting temperatures the electrons degenerate into electron-pairs. The structure of the cuperates must increase the energy required for the electrons to sustain being singular. I don't think it's likely to be a new phase of matter, but rather an exploited special circumstance.