What do you think about this subject? Is a solid truely solid or is it just very slowly moving energy?
(Slow being a comparison relative to our rate of comprehension of time of course)
I lean toward very slowly moving energy, and that solidity is entirely relative.
I even heard one person say that solid matter is very FAST moving energy. This would make sense only if the energy stayed within the pattern and moved back and forth so quickly that it deflected anything that came into contact with it.
Erek
(Yes my knowledge of physics is limited, but I have an aptitude to understand it when explained.)
A solid is a quantity of matter in a state whereby the atoms vibrate around fixed positions. It is the configuration of the atoms, not their fequency of this vibration, which make a solid a solid.
Matter (mass) is not identical to energy. Einstein’s famous equation only shows that each unit of mass has an equivalent energy, and vice versa.
Matter “moves”, energy “propagates”. An ocean wave is a propagation of energy. The matter of the seawater only moves up and down, but the wave moves along. No atoms of seawater actually cross the ocean as the wave does.
Well and plainly put, Sentient. I would add that no energy particle can ever be at rest; otherwise, we would know both its position and its momentum— a metaphysical impossibility.
I think I’m right in saying that when cooled down to near-absolute-zero temperatures where they should stop moving, particles have been observed to ‘smear’ into fuzzy domains of [something else] - which still makes it impossible to determine their position.
Quite so, Mange. Helium “should” be solid at less than 2 Kelvin (-271 C). The uncertainty principleLib mentioned precludes the solid state, since we could measure both the position and momentum of those atoms to greater than the imposed fundamental limit (which is not crossed for solids of bigger atoms). Instead, it enters a superfluid state.
There are also substances that we think of every day as being solids which really are not solids. Things such as asphalt and glass, which we commonly think to be solid, are in fact amorphous solids in which long term order of the atoms does not exist.
If you look at very old panes of glass, you will notice that they tend to be thicker toward the bottom than the top because the glass has actually flowed downward under the effects of gravity. You can also notice on roadways that are often traveled by heavy vehicles that the roadway becomes ‘rutted’. The asphalt (blacktop) roadway is actually pushed around by the heavy vehicles that travel over it, much like cookie dough is changed in shape by a rolling pin.
There are, of course, other amorphous solids, but these are probably the most common things that we think of as solids, but that do actually flow like liquids. Glass and asphalt happen to do so at a very slow rate, such that we don’t notice it happening before our eyes.
Ancient Egyptian glass bowls are not puddles on the tomb floor, nor are they even slightly misshapen. Any differences in thickness in old windows were there in the first place, due to the difficulty in making even windows.
Then I wonder how it is that I’ve seen so many leaded glass windows with the same distortion in them, which I somehow find it hard to believe that they were all made distorted exactly the same way.
I’d guess that if you found you’d made an uneven window, or that you’d made uneven pieces, it would make structural sense to put the thickest edge/pieces at the bottom so as not to put undue stresses on the middle. Maybe they even deliberately made the bottom thicker for structural reasons? That page I linked to gives some good cathedral/colonial house examples.
The Pitch Drop Experiment shows an example of a seemingly solid material that really does flow very slowly over time. Glass, as pointed out, does not flow even over centuries.
It’s the first reference I’ve ever seen that did not refer to glass as an amorphous solid, and because of that I am hard pressed to instantly accept that all my years of education were flat out wrong.
Be thou not afraid! It doesn’t mean metaphysical in the sense you fear, but metaphysical as opposed to epistemic. Something is metaphysically impossible because it cannot logically be possible; something is epistemically impossible merely for all we know, but could be possible if we knew more.
It is perfectly correct to say that glass is an amorphous solid, since it has no crystalline structure and therefore no large-scale order. But saying that glass is a fluid is similar to saying that it’s a conductor: Its viscosity, like its resistivity, is finite, but it’s so incredibly higher than other substances considered liquid or conductive, it’s rather a pointless way to classify it.
It doesn’t mean metaphysical in the sense you fear, but metaphysical as opposed to epistemic. Something is metaphysically impossible because it cannot logically be possible; something is epistemically impossible merely for all we know, but could be possible if we knew more.