The 4th and 5th states of matter. Where can they be found?
401078
The 4th state:\nThe 4th state of matter is called the plasma state, which is (in simple words) made of charged particles like electrons and ions. All ordinary stars are in the plasma state.\nThe 5th state:\nBeautiful filament-systems are often shown by the astonishing development of the modern astronomy. Most of these filaments have an exact circular cross section. Filaments have the same interesting characteristics from a diameter of 0.01 mm to that of many 1000 of light-years. Filaments are incorrectly seen to be of plasma, however, particles move in only one direction in them, often against gravity. In this non-thermal (fifth-) state of matter, particles have up to (10 to the power 16) -times higher energy than those in the hottest stellar plasma. The corona-problem and hundreds of other problems of astrophysics are solved at once.\nOnly six states of matter are possible (the zeroth state is of course the Bose-Einstein condensate state)!
148525
Do you mean what where are the d sublevels? If you do they are the transition metals.  But i do not think that is your question. Do you mean the fourth row? That would be the latest last noble gas configuration then s2 of next level up then d2 of same level of last noble gas. I hope it helped. Maybe you should clarify your question.
62096
There is actualy 4 main states of matter. Gas, Liquid, Solid and Plasma\n\nOther states of matter that exsists but not normaly dealt with at an elementry level:\nSuperfluid, Supersolid, Degenerate matter, Neutronium, Strongly symmetric matter, Weakly symmetric matter, Bose-Einstein condensate, Fermionic condensate, Quark-gluon plasma, Strange matter (Quark matter).
1173586
The new matter is the sixth known form of matter after solids, liquids, gases, plasma and a Bose-Einstein condensate, created only in 1995.\n\nThis sixth state of matter was first created on December 16, 2003 by physicist Deborah S. Jin and is called Fermionic Condensate.  \n\nIt is a fermionic condensate which is a cloud of cold potassium atoms forced into a state where they behave strangely.\n\nEditted:  Although Quarks are interesting, they are not referred to as the "Sixth state of matter".   :-)
1116618
It has a 2 microsecond half life, so it is not abundant anywhere. You can hardly keep it in a jar.\n\nIt is made at supercolliders, such as CERN.
542537
I would think there may be as many as six. I asked a question on here a few months ago, trying to find out if it were possible for matter to have mass but not take up space and vice versa. I think it's completely possible and if it is, I like to call it inverse matter. That would be the 6th state of matter and might be descriptive of "black holes".
14668
There is not an equal amount, despite what the first responder said. The question of why there is so little antimatter is a key problem for cosmologists today. There is, as yet, no completely satisfactory solution to the problem. The weak nuclear force clearly affects antimatter differently than matter, in a way that has caused the symmetry to fail. This only accounts of a miniscule fraction of the extra matter in the universe.
566127
There are many branches of physics.  It depends on exactly what branch you are interested in.  For a very comprehensive guide, check out Wikipedia:\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics#Major_fields_of_physics\n\nI am personally interested in theoretical astrophysics and particle physics.  These two are extremely hot right now in the physics world, with enourmous academic resources being devoted to the study of String Theory.  This is because String Theory purports to unify two branches of physics that are widely accepted as true, and yet conflict with each other.  These conflicting branches of physics are:\n\n1.  Quantum Physics\nThis is the study of the very small (molecules / atoms / quarks etc.), and it has been experimentally verified and widely accepted.  But it only accurately describes things on very small scales.\n\n2.  General Relativity\nThis is the study of the very large (planets, stars, galaxies), and it too has been repeatedly verified.  But it only describes things on non-microscopic scales.\n\nWhy should nature be divided between two totally different theories of matter?  This seems to indicate a problem, that our knowledge of the world is still far from complete.  A single "unified" theory should be found which unites the two, and this Unified Field Theory has been the "holy grail" of physicists ever since Einstein began the search years ago.  One leading theory is widely believed to meet this challenge:  String Theory.  It unifies the theories of the very large and the very small, mathematically anyway.  Its only weakness is that it lacks direct experimental confirmation.  But there are indirect observations, such as the distribution of stars throughout space being an interpretation of quantum processes (the theory being that all matter everywhere was once compacted into a microscopic region and then expanded during the Big Bang, retaining in some way at least some of the properties it had when it was extremely small).\n\nThe most influential physicists can be found here:\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-index\n\n..."influential" meaning that their research is extensively cited in academic papers and journals.\n\nIf you want to get a head start, you should start reading books targeted for common people (as opposed to mathematical professionals).  There are many, many books like this.  But I would point you to the following ones to get you started:\n\n1.  The Fabric of the Cosmos (by Brian Greene)\n2.  The Elegant Universe (by Brian Greene)\n3.  A Brief History of Time (by Stephen Hawking)\n4.  Six Easy Pieces (by Richard Feynman)\n5.  Parallel Worlds (by Michio Kaku)\n\nI recommend that you start with #1 above, if theoretical particle and astro physics are your thing.  Greene has a keen ability to explain complex subjects to non-physics majors in a way that most people can understand.\n\nA search on Amazon.com for any of the above titles will allow you to buy the book (new or used); also, you will likely find Hawking's and Feynman's books in any library, where you can read it for free.\n\nOne thing to remember is that the above books do not need to be read or understood in their entirety.  If you feel like you do not understand something, skip past it until you get to something you do understand.  There is a wealth of fascinating information that will blow your mind if you just invest the time, so don't get intimidated from reading if you run into a road block.\n\nGood luck!  And don't give up until your mind is dizzy with amazement about the nature of the universe around you -- it must have that effect, or you haven't gotten it yet.
658260
A bose-einstein condensate occurs a very low temperatures, about 4K in Helium.  When helium forms a condensate it stops following many physical rules.  For example, a bose-einstein condensate can go up the side of the container that it is in against the force of gravity.  The paulli exclusion principle, one molecule per quantum state, breaks down as well. It is found in very few laboritories, and as of yet has no uses, but it probably will eventually.
727800
Those are states of matter (but there's also plasma).  Light isn't matter, it's a wave, like sound.
125436
Hey check this out, I guess there are 7 states.\n\nThese phases include gases, plasmas, liquids, fluids, superfluids, solids, and Bose-Einstein condensates.\n\nSorry about all the rephrasing.
258115
Basic Physics Questions\n\nI am a student, and I have a basic physics question about...\nThis question would be better covered by a physics teacher in your school that you can interact with for better understanding. You might get a science fair project out of it, too.\n\nDr. Louis Barbier and Beth Jacob\n(October 2002)\n\n\nParticle Physics\n\nI am trying to learn some physics on my own, but I find the descriptions of particles either too technical or too vague. I want a description of the structure of a nucleus and how particles are classified. I need a text that's not too hard, but without sacrificing rigor.\nI'm afraid you can't have a text that's not too hard without sacrificing rigor. If you have a background in physics, a standard undergraduate text book that I would recommend is Nuclei and Particles by Emilio Segre.\n\nDr. Louis Barbier\n\n\nSub-divide Electrons?\n\nCan electrons be divided into sub-particles or are they pure energy?\nThere is no evidence that electrons can be sub-divided. They appear to be pure, primary particles. Although matter and energy are in some ways different forms of the same thing, electrons have a rest mass and so are considered matter and not pure energy.\n\nDr. Eric Christian\n(May 2000)
183005
Alot of people pinned down 4 dimensions pretty good, but nobody has explained the dimensions beyond 4 very well, except to say that they exist. Let me take a shot:\n\nOPE did the best job of explaining the first 4 dimensions, I'll summarize and then move into the other ones.\n\n0D: Imagine a point, the smallest little dot with no length. There is only one point in this dimension, 0.\n1D: Imagine a line that can have any length in 1 direction but no length in any other direction. We can describe a point on this line with one coordinate, x.\n2D: Imagine a sheet of paper that is infinitely thin (you hold it sideways you see nothing). We can locate a point on this plane by (x,y).\n3D: This one's easy. You find a point in 3D space by (x,y,z)\n4D: Harder. In 3D, your point cannot change. You cannot move around because in order to change position you need one more dimension, time. For a point to move from one place to another (dx,dy,dz) it requires a change in time (dt). To locate this point now you need to define its position as (x,y,z,t) or else you won't find it. If you imagine your point is a person you want to meet, you would have to be told where in space (x,y,z) they will be and when (t) they will be there, or else you are not guaranteed to find them (unless you both have cell phones).\n5D: The hardest. Go back to 0D (a single point). If we were able to shrink down to the size of this point, instead of seeing a point, we would see a tiny circle. So if you were trying to locate a point in 5D, you could not locate it exactly unless you placed it in (x,y,z,t) and w, it's location on that circle. So you now have (w,x,y,z,t). The radius of this 5th dimension is so small that we can't see it, but we should be able to perceive its effects when our technology improves. It makes a lot of sense mathematically because it explains why we can't explain gravity at tiny (quantum) levels. The math doesn't work unless we add dimensions and wrap strings around them. Note that dimensions 5 and up have a property called compactification. That means that anything operating on the compactified radii of these dimensions moves in a complete circle, always returning to its original position. The radii are so small that we cannot percieve a change in position at all; a particle changing position along one of these dimensions seems to not move to us.\n6D and up: Very hard to imagine. Your point can now be found on two circles. The easier way to think of this is a point on the surface of a sphere, which will give it two coordinates on a tiny round surface (like longitude and latitude on the Earth's surface). Now you can add as many compactified dimensions as mathematics permits given whatever theories you are trying to incorporate. Your compactified radii can be given upper and lower limits to allow them to be plausible.\n\nI saw some people say infinite dimensions and another say 27. The reigning theory has 11 dimensions. 27 dimensions comes from a part of string theory that claims that matter does not exist and that there exists a fantasy particle with very strange properties, called a tachyon. This theory ties in to the most prominent theory, M-theory, which says only 11 dimensions is needed to explain everything.
159775
The simple answer is solid, liquid and gaseous, the same as all other materials. However, if one wants to probe a bit deeper:\n\n1. One can imagine that if the water were subjected to extreme conditions, that it could form a plasma, the fourth state of matter. \n\n2. There are many forms of the solid version of water, ice:\n\na. the simplest crystalline phase of ice is hexagonal, also known as Ih\n\nb. under different conditions, other crystalline phases exist, known as II, III, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX and X. \n\nc. ice can also exist in amorphous states, amorphous solid water (ASW), low density amorphous ice (LDA), high density amorphous ice (HDA), very high density amorphous ice (VHDA) and hyperquenched glassy water (HGW).\n\nd. ice can also form a clathrate hydrate, in which gas molecules are trapped in an ice crystal lattice (deep on the ocean floor, on the outer planets in the solar system possibly, inside arctic gas pipelines).\n\nAnd these are just the ones we have found so far. Depending on what you call a "phase", there are many, many phases of water.
130701
there are infinite many states of matter but scientists have discovered a few of them. . .
274862
Most substances actually have a "critical point," where at a specific temperature and pressure, they exist in all three states in a tri-equilibrium. For a more practical example, a snowcone sitting in the hot sun would probably qualify as a mixture of all three, though not an even mixture, and not at any real sort of equilibrium. Matter as plasma exists as high energy charged ions, so you're probably not going get that mixed in with the other three, though you can get a mixture of plasma and one other, most likely. But then, it's not like we run into plasma very often anyway.\n\nEDIT: Plasma has to change from something, so you're going to get a mixture at least while the matter changes to plasma from its earlier state, for however long that transition lasts. A stable mixture would be a lot more rare, but more likely to succeed as a gas/plasma mix than anything else.
1159688
The density, the atomic structure, and the state of matter it is in.