Cecil says glass is a liquid. Albiet just really slow. Alright…so, if you launch a baseball really fast can you shatter water?
Really though…the fact that you can destroy the form of an object lends me to believe it’s a solid no matter how long it takes to ‘flow’.
Sure you can shatter water…it just flows a lot faster and so forms those little droplets really quickly. Also you need really good reflexes and a fast baseball to get it there before the water flows into a puddle below the window frame. And yeah, the fact that you can break the form (assuming this to mean definite dimensions, Length, Width, Height, etc) of an object does mean that is is a solid. The point is that glass doesn’t have a form…it just moves really slowly, and hence looks like it has a form, when actually it just has volume.
This was covered a couple of months ago in the Comments on Mailbag Answers Board (IIRC). I don’t have the link.
Final answer: glass is an amorphous solid. Like most solids, it can deform under gravity over significant time. It does not have a crystallization point like water/ice or CO[sub]2[/sub]/dry ice, since it does not crystallize. But it definitely converts from a liquid to a solid, albeit over a range.
http://www.straightdope.com/ubb/Forum6/HTML/000170.html
Yeah, I sent that letter to cecil a long time ago. then i posted the question here. In the link, you can see where I was approached with a little less diplomacy than cecil’s response. anyway, no hard feelings, but in the link are more links to where Cecil admits he was wrong and david B. was right that glass was a amorphous solid (as in not liquid AT ALL).
Unless, I’m reading this wrong, now Cecil is saying the important part of the question is if glass flows, as if flowing would prove it was liquid. I guess i still don’t understand, I’m not that good at chemistry.
Actually, I’m quite surprised when i saw the letter printed especially after the the above incident.
We live in an age that reads too much to be wise, and thinks too much to be beautiful–Oscar Wilde
Well Cecil says the important thing is whether glass flows. He says it does. Others seem to disagree.
Here is a link for the doesn’t flow camp: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/glass.html
They seem to have some good evidence that it doesn’t flow. But I guess we gotta wait a few million years to be sure.
I went straight to the referrences section of the above link and noticed that none of the dates were after 1998, and some as old as 1980 (twenty years, doesn’t really seem like it does it?).
Cecil says the latest report came out in nov 1999.
What concerns me is that most people are so strongly for one or the other
We live in an age that reads too much to be wise, and thinks too much to be beautiful–Oscar Wilde
[[What concerns me is that most people are so strongly for one or the other]]
Are you kidding? That’s what I love about this forum.
Jill
Robert Ripley commented on this in a column he wrote about 60 years ago.
GLASS IS NOT A SOLID
Glass is not a solid; it is a liquid. It has not one of the properties of solid. It flows with gravity; it shows no crystals with definite form; and it has no melting point.
I dont think that it takes THAT long for glass to flow. In my science book at school, it talks about how in older houses you can see how the windowpanes are thicker at the bottom, because glass is an amorphus solid. I dont know at what extent the thickness is, but it must be enough to see it.
When life throws me a curve ball, my first reaction is to throw
it back. And then I realize, “Hey, I caught it!”
~ Jack Handey
My former wife, a zoologist, used a microtome to section tissue for examination under the microscope. She would break the glass blade of this knife in order to create a sharp cutting edge. She said that if the tool was not used within an hour or so, the glass molecules on the edge would rearrange themselves enough to dull the blade. Glass flows!
jill, i guess you’re right. I still don’t know the answer.
and to the most recent posters, you may want to take cover b/c if you read the links (i know there is a lot there) many people have said the same thing and suffered the consequences.
forget all the different theories and observances, if Regis asks me this question on “who wants to be a millionaire”, I want to know how to answer.
We live in an age that reads too much to be wise, and thinks too much to be beautiful–Oscar Wilde
This has really been covered on the linked threads (one of which I ruthlessly hijacked many months ago; mea culpa). But I’ll respond to the point posted by dougie monty:
Glass flows with gravity vastly slower than people think. Panes of glass flow when they are being cooled down from the liquid state as part of manufacture; they don’t flow when they are in the church window at room temperature. Sure, over a million years, some molecules may move, but does anyone know if this is true for concrete? Plastics? Bones?
I think Mr. Ripley is confusing “solid” with “crystal”. Neither plastic, nor bones, nor wood have definite crystalline structures. In geology, we learned to describe pumice and other non-crystalline rock as “glassy”.
Ditto for the melting point thing. Eventually, viscous stuff is going to get solid. You know that little bit of honey at the bottom of the bear? You turn it over and by the time your toast is done it hasn’t moved at all? That’s a solid. If you scraped it out and put it in a teacup, it would not conform to the shape of the cup. That is part of the definition of a solid. A pane of glass, or a bunch of shards of glass, stuck into a cubic container, will not form a uniform cube.
Yeah, and, 'cause, like, you know, she told me it was really warm, and, it was like, only 75, and like, I told her, you know, like that isn’t really warm, 'cause, like, really warm means, like, 80, you know? And anyway, like, she’s from Maine or some junk, so, like, it’s almost never warm there, so, like, that’s what they call warm, you know?
Rosethorn said:
Apparently you didn’t read the links. Understandable, given how many there were going all over the place. Here is the answer about the window panes in old buildings.
http://www.heimbaugh.com/science/glass.flow/
Whoa! I guess we’re talking about this latest column:
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/000211.html
The link to Phil Gibbs article was given as one of the anti-flow arguments, but I’m not sure that his writeup disagrees with Cecil’s.
<font color=#ECECEC>----------------
rocks</font>
Acording to my college physics teacher glass is a supercooled liquid. At least it was 30 years ago.
OH FOR GOD’S SAKE!!!
BEFORE YOU POST ANOTHER ANSWER TO THIS THREAD, READ THE LINKS REGARDING THE
EXTENSIVE DISCUSSION ON THIS A FEW MONTHS AGO. ::heavy breathing and wild eyes::
And John, that was pretty damn funny! 
Again, what really matters is what Regis Philbin thinks it is.
We live in an age that reads too much to be wise, and thinks too much to be beautiful–Oscar Wilde
oh yeah, does it seem wierd to anyone that cecil makes a personal appearance on the board saying he was wrong the first time (deep in the threads, it’s there) and now in a recent article he says he was mostly right?
Cecil is for the most part corrcet in that glass is truly a solid just that the molecules of glass move so slowly that we cannot detect them. This topic was discussed in the Oct 99 issue of Discover in which chemist Mark Ediger of the University of Wisconsin states glass really does flow just not at a human timescale. If we could infinitley preserve glass it could become a rigid puddle or a crystal if it had enough time because glass is always trying to reach equilibrium at one of these two states. Yvonne Stokes a mathematician from the University of Adelaide in Austrailia calculated that it would take roughly 10 million years for a glass pane to thicken by 5% at the bottom and this is a rough estimate.