PDA

View Full Version : Is Plasma the 1st State of Matter in a Vacuum?



coliver
2007-Sep-29, 12:31 PM
In relationship to String Theory and the Boson/Fermion relationship could it be possible that Plasma is the first state of matter and that in a vacuum it remains without an opposing potential until acted upon by temperature? In other words if a Boson or a Fermion are above Absolute 0 and below the flashpoint of the matter or particle it would exist by acting upon the opposing potential? A transfer of Energy to Kinetic or possibly creating a magnetic field? And if Im correct in my assumption then would it be possible for energy to move in one direction by cooling one side of magnet to zero? The title should read 1st stage of MATTER. My mistake:)

01101001
2007-Sep-29, 02:07 PM
In relationship to String Theory and the Boson/Fermion relationship could it be possible that Plasma is the first state of matter rather than the 4th [...]

Depends on how you want to order them. What does number one state mean to you?

I like alphabetical, in English: (1) gas (2) liquid (3) plasma (4) solid

Edit: Oh, I noticed your title revision. Do you mean "first stage" or "first state"? Of matter, I'm sure. I'd still like to know what you mean by first. With respect to what? Temperature? Energy? Probably not hardness. Nor alphabetical, huh? What?

coliver
2007-Sep-29, 09:19 PM
I guess state would be more appropriate. I think what Im suggesting is that Plasma when not in Thermal Equilibrium creates the fermions which obey the Pauli exclusion principle?

01101001
2007-Sep-29, 09:33 PM
I think what Im suggesting is that Plasma when not in Thermal Equilibrium creates the fermions which obey the Pauli exclusion principle?

More questions. I don't understand at all what you're asking.

What do you mean by "plasma... creates the fermions"? What is the plasma composed of if not fermions?
What do you mean by "fermions which obey the Pauli exclusion principle" -- are there fermions which do not?

coliver
2007-Sep-29, 10:35 PM
What is the plasma composed of if not fermions?
Bosons?
You know more about how it works than I do, Im just thinking that temperature is the key to whether something is in a matter state or not. Plasma holds only electrons in a vacuum right? So my suggestion is that if it is acted upon by some form of heat or energy then it would create the opposing potential? Thereby allowing the EM process to begin? After the electrical field is produced the EM field would follow so to speak?

The same thing they are looking for in a particle accelerator. But if Im correct the key is cooling the particle to 0 degrees.

Lightning is an example of Hot and Cool coming together to form a charge. There is no charge release until the two come together. Because the cool molecules only hold only a negative potential until acted upon by the heat releasing kinetic energy? Something to that effect.

antoniseb
2007-Sep-29, 10:47 PM
Plasma holds only electrons in a vacuum right? So if it is acted upon by raising or lowering the temperature then it creates the opposing potential?

Plasma has both positive and negatively charged particles, and will be as neutral over-all as can be. We use highly charged situations to create lower temperature plasmas in the laboratory, but simply heating something doesn't charge it or create new electrons.

coliver
2007-Sep-29, 11:17 PM
My thinking is that energy exists throughout the universe like Plasma but it is not formed into matter until it has an opposing charge? And that matter exists as long as its between absolute zero and its flashpoint, at which time it would be converted back into Kinetic Energy? Also possibly that Radiation slowly eats away at matter with a faster effect as temperature rises. The same as skin cancer has an effect due to the Sun? But with more radiation like fire you would reach the flashpoint and the matter or object be converted back into kinetic energy. If energy cant be made or destroyed then it has to revert to another state right? Space is about 3 degrees above 0 but when a heat source excites the plasma it reacts right? Like a Supernovae?


In astrophysical plasmas, Debye screening prevents electric fields from directly affecting the plasma over large distances (ie. greater than the Debye length). But the existence of charged particles causes the plasma to generate and be affected by magnetic fields. This can and does cause extremely complex behavior, such as the generation of plasma double layers, an object that separates charge over a few tens of Debye lengths.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_(physics)

Perhaps this might have something to do with it as well? Im not sure if its the temperature or a combination of temperature and particle/wave duality but Im suggesting something happens at the Boson/Fermion level that creates an opposite charge or particle? Provided the temperature is above 0 but below the object or elements flashpoint, or ignition temperature? Does this make any sense scientifically from what we know? I think it conforms to the mainstraem thinking, only that temperature is a factor?

coliver
2007-Sep-30, 02:04 AM
Plasma has both positive and negatively charged particles, and will be as neutral over-all as can be. We use highly charged situations to create lower temperature plasmas in the laboratory, but simply heating something doesn't charge it or create new electrons.

I think the low temperature plasmas are related? Im not really trying to say to heat it but rather just that it falls between 0' and the flashpoint of the matter to exist? The temperature is simply allowing the EM process to go into motion which it cannot at below 0?

Kaptain K
2007-Sep-30, 02:11 AM
What do you mean by "the flashpoint of the matter to exist"?

coliver
2007-Sep-30, 02:34 AM
Just the point of ignition of a particular object or the temperature at which it burns up or disinigrates. Just like a tree will burn at a certain flashpoint. As long as its temperature is somewhere below that flashpoint it exists as matter. When it burns up then I suggest the energy expeled reverts back to kinetic energy in the atmosphere? Not the wood itself but the energy created or dissapated by the fuel.

Kaptain K
2007-Sep-30, 03:41 AM
When a tree burns, no matter is destroyed. It is merely converted from one form of matter to another. The fire is merely one form of energy (binding energy) being converted to another (heat).

blueshift
2007-Sep-30, 04:53 AM
My thinking is that energy exists throughout the universe like Plasma but it is not formed into matter until it has an opposing charge?Right here you need to stop for a moment. Energy does not form into matter because energy is matter. Secondly, you need to reason what you mean by an "opposing" charge and what that has to do with forming matter. Nuclei of the same charge fuse within the sun to form Helium nuclei.
And that matter exists as long as its between absolute zero and its flashpoint, at which time it would be converted back into Kinetic Energy? This is another sentence that needs some reworking. It is unclear.


Also possibly that Radiation slowly eats away at matter with a faster effect as temperature rises. Again this contradicts what occurs within the sun where high temperature and density allows fusion to occur.


The same as skin cancer has an effect due to the Sun? But with more radiation like fire you would reach the flashpoint and the matter or object be converted back into kinetic energy. If energy cant be made or destroyed then it has to revert to another state right?No. Are you insisting that phase changes are the only changes that take place?
Space is about 3 degrees above 0 So you think space does not exist at 2.726K? Are you trying to tell me that the cosmic microwave background does not exist in space?


but when a heat source excites the plasma it reacts right? Like a Supernovae?You are not describing the physics of SN very well nor the physics of plasma very well.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_(physics)

Perhaps this might have something to do with it as well? Im not sure if its the temperature or a combination of temperature and particle/wave duality but Im suggesting something happens at the Boson/Fermion level that creates an opposite charge or particle? Provided the temperature is above 0 but below the object or elements flashpoint, or ignition temperature? Does this make any sense scientifically from what we know? I think it conforms to the mainstraem thinking, only that temperature is a factor?I would study up on this matter a little more carefully before burning up a lot of time throwing terms around that sound like physics to you.

I think I would start with motion; what constitutes motion; what constitutes "rest"; what constitutes shared motions; what constitutes a change in motion and how have experiments over several centuries changed our views concerning the laws of motion. I would then be concerned with the mathematics that allow one to make predictions concerning the laws of motion and that describe the motions we experience.

I would then study waves and ask what it is that waves move with respect to. Water waves move with respect to water. Sound waves move with respect to the air. What do light waves move with respect to? Can one make a part of a wave? What experiments with waves are possible and what is the equipment and the mathematical description that accompanies that equipment and those experiments?

Then I suggest thinking about how many times one can subdivide an object. Can that be done an infinite amount of times? Are there experiments that exist that answer this?

I am not asking for a response. This is not a physics crash course attempt on my part. If anything I am asking you to slow your mental wheels down until you know how to make them stick to the road. You might open up your own eyes first and possibly the rest of us as well if your pursuit continues long enough.

Kaptain K
2007-Sep-30, 06:22 AM
coliver ,
I am not trying to be rude, but I have to be blunt here. It becomes more obvious with every post that you really need to study some basic physics. For instance, plasma is matter. It is just matter in which the electrons (negatively charged particles) are not bound to their corresponding nuclei (positively charged particles). The light you see in a lightning bolt is just the result of the ions in a plasma recombining to (re)form neutral atoms.

tusenfem
2007-Sep-30, 09:21 AM
In astrophysical plasmas, Debye screening prevents electric fields from directly affecting the plasma over large distances (ie. greater than the Debye length). But the existence of charged particles causes the plasma to generate and be affected by magnetic fields. This can and does cause extremely complex behavior, such as the generation of plasma double layers, an object that separates charge over a few tens of Debye lengths.



Guess I will have to correct that plasma physics pages. Magnetic fields do not create Double Layers, they do create complex behaviour of plasmas though.

For the rest the messages from Coliver read as a string of scientific terms joined together into a meaningless set of paragraphs.
1. plasma creating fermions
2. plasma only holding electrons in vacuum
3. flashpoint
4. opposing charge to energy creating matter
5. radiation eating away matter
6. matter burning up at a certain temperature, desintegrating
7. (after a totally unrelated quote from Wiki about magnetic fields) something at the boson/fermion level creates an opposite charge or particle

I think you need to read up in some introductory physics books. Wikipedia may be a good start for looking at something, but it is certainly not to be used for "advanced studies". And please, pre-read what you wrote before you post it, a lot of senteces don't make any sense, like "but when a heat source excites the plasma it reacts right? Like a Supernovae?"

Proposing a new theory is fine, even if it is ATM. But to present something that is new, you have to think it through carefully and express yourself carefully and intelligently.

coliver
2007-Sep-30, 10:59 AM
ok guys, stop beating up on me:) I know I need to study more, thats why I just posted as Q&A instead of ATM. BlueShift gave me some good questions to answer, Im going to see what I come up with. I know what I want to say but dont always know how to say it. I commonly get the terms jumbled because I dont understand some of the science that well. I need to pin it down better but I think there is something to what Im suggesting. Im going to try a simple experiment with an electric motor and see if I can get current to move in one direction without switching fields. If Im correct by cooling one pole of the magnet to 0 degrees it will turn the armature in one direction and still produce a positive current. Does that sound logical? Would that prove what I am suggesting? If you can figure out what I am suggesting?:)

Basically an Anode/Cathode type interaction I think is how best to describe it. Blueshift asked me if I thought space exists at 2.726K, yes but that depends on what you mean by exists? The whole idea that Im doing a poor job of explaining is that the universe is a projection of sorts and everything in it is energy in one form or another. The Plasma would work i the same way that a Cathode Ray Tube works in a TV set, interacting with photons and EM in some way. I call it the Grand Illusion. Im not saying that matter doesnt exist or the universe. Just that what we call heavy elements or material objects exist within the temperatures that I stated and that Plasma is the 1st stage of that creation. The Supernova statement was simply relating it to the accretion process that takes place afterwards and creates these heavy elements or even planets, if Im not mistaken? Not sure about the planets?

blueshift
2007-Sep-30, 04:54 PM
Colliver,

I hope you do not think that people are beating up on you here. I think that your intentions are quite good. You are showing an interest in physics without anyone sticking a gun to your head and you are trying to communicate what you feel is a finding to others. The wall you are running into each of us ran into in our own pasts and many of us do not want to see you lose your interest.

Conjectures would give me comfort to explain things that seemed a mile over my head. Metaphors are still used but scientists know that the metaphors and similes used will be replaced by reasoning. Poetry often knocks at the door of science with a question it cannot answer and invites the scientist to shatter the metaphor and bring more comforting sense and that should be distinguished from having one's ego being massaged. Insisting that MY conjecture is right and something to defend is not the same thing as taking the responsibility for what experimental results within the framework of a controlled risk environment have answered which puzzles we were trying to resolve.

The more I dove into mathematics of the forces, the more I found comfort with the components that make up the forces and you will likely take the same journey if you pursue this area. Realizing those components allowed me to raise better and more realistic possibilities than can be predicted with conjecture. Imagination found more building materials that have more applications in everyday life.

Even your view about "opposite charges attracting" to describe "anode/cathode" interaction needs some serious review. Electricity does not quite do that. If there are two given battery terminals and one has two billion positive ions at one terminal while there are only two million positive ions at the other terminal, then there will be a voltage potential between the two and electron current can flow along a circuit and load hooked up to such a battery. So do not look for "opposites" when studying electrical pressure. Look for "differences" of potential.

And, most important, look more slowly. It might not make sense to hear this but the slower you go, the faster you will catch up and that catching up should take a few years at the least. That is not a very long time at all.

coliver
2007-Sep-30, 08:58 PM
I hope you do not think that people are beating up on you here.
Not at all Blueshift, just joking, Most of my ranting on Baut gets me pointed to the learning tree:) I do have an insatiable thirst for knowledege and I just like to throw my brainwaves up on the screen and see if anything makes sense to people more knowledgeable than myself. I've been thinking about this since seeing a superconductor levitate after being frozen. I do have about 20 years as an electrician but dont have a lot in the way of physics or magnetism. I do know that I am talking about canceling out one side of the EM field by cooling it to 0 degrees to allow the Electrical Field to flow unchallenged. Now whether its going to work or not is what I was hoping some of you could tell me if it could work or why it cant? Im basing it on the idea that an Electrical Field produces a Magnetic Field to counter it. Heres a jpg of what I am suggesting as an experiment. If Im correct the Commutator would simply move in one direction rather than reversing the field on each revolution. I would do this by cooling one pole of the magnets in the armature to 0?

http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/motor5.htm

I know its all conjecture at the moment but can you or anyone give me some ideas as to what I should look at in particular to perhaps gather further evidence or disprove it?

blueshift
2007-Oct-01, 01:28 AM
colliver,

Two ways exist to produce an electric field:

1. A changing electric field produces a magnetic field and a changing magnetic field that produces an electric field.

2. An electric field can be created by an isolated electric charge, in which case the field strength at a distance r from a point charge Q is given by
E= Q/4pi (r^2)e, where e is the permittivity of the intervening medium.

As for the commutator in any experiment, it will only move in one direction unless you reverse the leads to the motor or generator. You might be suggesting that there is some way to avoid the rotating conductor from crossing both sets of field lines but that is only possible by not having rotation of the shaft in the first place. Even with the removal of some field poles in a motor or generator one will only get bearings becoming overheated from the resulting uneven acceleration. It would be like someone playing tetherball by himself.

Cooling substances near zero only reults in a superconductor being formed, increasing the ease of making EM fields. Nothing has ever reached zero Kelvins.

mugaliens
2007-Oct-02, 06:01 PM
Just the point of ignition of a particular object or the temperature at which it burns up or disinigrates. Just like a tree will burn at a certain flashpoint. As long as its temperature is somewhere below that flashpoint it exists as matter. When it burns up then I suggest the energy expeled reverts back to kinetic energy in the atmosphere? Not the wood itself but the energy created or dissapated by the fuel.

Combustion produces heat, which is energy, and the results of the combustion have an extremely slightly lower mass that the inputs to combustion, and yes, that's equal via E=MC^2 to the energy released in the combusition.

Again, the amount of mass reduction is so ridiculously slight it's almost not even measurable.

However, combustion is the combination of a fuel source with an oxidizer, which isn't the same as lightening, which heats the air, charages it, turning it to plasma, for a brief moment in time. The air doesn't actually combust.

coliver
2007-Oct-03, 10:47 PM
Two ways exist to produce an electric field:

1. A changing electric field produces a magnetic field and a changing magnetic field that produces an electric field.

2. An electric field can be created by an isolated electric charge, in which case the field strength at a distance r from a point charge Q is given by
E= Q/4pi (r^2)e, where e is the permittivity of the intervening medium.

How does the process of a supernova work after it has turned into a Red Giant or White Dwarf or whatever, and it begins the rebirth process? Or accretion process? If Im correct Plasma is all thats left right? Just wondering if either of the two methods you mentioned could be at work?

blueshift
2007-Oct-03, 11:53 PM
How does the process of a supernova work after it has turned into a Red Giant or White Dwarf or whatever, and it begins the rebirth process? Or accretion process? If Im correct Plasma is all thats left right? Just wondering if either of the two methods you mentioned could be at work?Supernovae do not turn into Red Giants or White Dwarfs. You have things a bit backwards.

What holds a White Dwarf together is something called "electron degeneracy". This does not mean that they lost their morals. What it means is that as gravity overwhelms a Red Giant and compresses it, it fails to make enough density to create any heavier nuclei and the spaces between the atoms have been reduced to zero.

However, electrons do not like getting that close to one another and they put up a fight, having enough strength to hold the carbon and oxygen nuclei into a stable state. At this point the electrons cannot go up or down in energy levels and they fail to absorb or emit any energy..They are "locked" into such a state.

If more mass is dumped on the white dwarf the electrons react by vibrating at a higher and higher frequency. With more and more mass being added (by either some binary red giant companion that has expanded beyond its Roche Lobe limit or by some dense star dust field within a galaxy or 2 dwarfs merging) the electrons reach a limit.

Special Relativity sets a limit to the amount of vibration for the electrons. They cannot reach or exceed speed c. Once the white dwarf reaches a limiting mass of 1.4 solar masses, the electrons give up and runaway nuclear reactions are set off as the star becomes unstable. Fusion starts taking place all over the star and neutrinos are created in enormous numbers, enough to create collision events with practically all falling gases and any gas envelopes. Half of the star's mass fuses to a radioactive isotope of nickel, Ni56 which decays into unstable Cobalt-56, then into Fe-56. These decay processes emit gamma rays that bounce around inside the exploding star and are converted to optical light.

Basically the supernovae (Type 1 in this case) is a neutrino event and not a plasma event. Even the plasma gets blown away by the neutrinos AFAIK.

coliver
2007-Oct-04, 05:20 AM
I dont know what mechanisms might be taking place at the molecular level but my assumption is that the workings of our universe and our reality is a carbon copy of the Cathode Ray Tube and how it works. Imagine ourselves inside the Television in a 3 dimensional world of pixels or atoms in our case. Each atom depending on its absorption of frequencies of light according to the strings length or code in string theory or its density and displaying the related color temperature. Plasma in the universe takes the place of the Cathode and provides the electrical charge. Now my assumption is that when Plasma comes in contact with a positive charge the EM field is produced perhaps to bind molecules together? But Im not sure how that would work either. Also a CRT has one vertical and one horizontal magnetic field that positions the pixel in space. Any ideas of a similiar function in atoms? If you look at how aCRT works at this link perhaps someone can shed some light so to speak on how it could work or couldnt?

http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/tv3.htm

Kaptain K
2007-Oct-04, 05:43 AM
Now my assumption is that when Plasma comes in contact with a positive charge the EM field is produced but Im not sure how.
You got that part right!
Plasma is not some magical mystery [stuff] that somehow ignores the laws of physics. Plasma is simply ionized matter. It consists of negative ions (electrons) and positive ions (atomic nuclei and/or partially ionized atoms). In the presence of a positive charge, the positive ions of the plasma are repelled and the negative ions are attracted.

coliver
2007-Oct-04, 07:22 AM
You got that part right!
Plasma is not some magical mystery [stuff] that somehow ignores the laws of physics. Plasma is simply ionized matter. It consists of negative ions (electrons) and positive ions (atomic nuclei and/or partially ionized atoms). In the presence of a positive charge, the positive ions of the plasma are repelled and the negative ions are attracted.

ok, so basically Im talking about ionization or electrolysis maybe? Like when Gold is applied to nickel etc? Say this negative electron Plasma is floating around in space at a temperature around zero degrees. Then some form of energy or heat source collides with it, heating it up above zero and triggering an EM field? Or is that what happens that we know already? If this is the case then matter would be formed from the process right? Im trying to figure out what the anode is in relation to what I was saying about a CRT? I know the Cathode would be the Plasma.

tusenfem
2007-Oct-04, 11:16 AM
ok, so basically Im talking about ionization or electrolysis maybe? Like when Gold is applied to nickel etc? Say this negative electron Plasma is floating around in space at a temperature around zero degrees. Then some form of energy or heat source collides with it, heating it up above zero and triggering an EM field? Or is that what happens that we know already? If this is the case then matter would be formed from the process right? Im trying to figure out what the anode is in relation to what I was saying about a CRT? I know the Cathode would be the Plasma.

No, coliver you are mixing up stuff again.

First of all:
Ionization is the taking away of an electron from an atom, leaving a positive ion and an negative electron.
Electrolysis is using electricity to split up molecules, like in water you will split the H2O into H2 at the cathode and O2 at the anode
The third example you quote is connecting a lesser noble metal to a nobler one. In this case the oxydation (rusting) of the combined object will take place in the lesser noble metal. I cannot come up with the name of this process at the moment.

Then the next part. There is no negative electron plasma in the universe. All plasmas are neutral, which means there is an equal amount of free floating negative and positive particles in the plasma.
There is also no "energy or heat source that can collide with it". You can have that the plasma cloud collides with another plasma or gas cloud, or is acted upon by a radiation source like a nearby star. And then I have not even addressed the fact that the plasmas in the universe usually have a temperature much much higher than the 2.7K background temperature.

And then the part about creating EM field, the plasma being the cathode, I am sorry, but that does not make sense. It only makes sense if you assume that there is a pure electron plasma (which does not exist in the universe), but electrons are matter too. There is no way that electrons together with some heat and an EM field will create protons, neutrons and large ions.

Kaptain K
2007-Oct-04, 03:38 PM
coliver, you really need to learn some physics before you throw scientific-sounding words around in ways that don't come close to making sense.
Knowing the words does not make you a physicist, any more than knowing how to hit the keys on a piano makes you a musician!

blueshift
2007-Oct-04, 03:53 PM
Colliver,

If the universe operated like a CRT as you suggest, then the electrical forces would overwhelm the gravitational forces everywhere and planets and stars would never have spherical shapes at all. The mass of your body is too low for its gravitational forces to form it into a sphere. If your mass became great enough or your density skyrocketed you would form into a sphere. This is why astronauts planning to land on asteroids are going to need tether apparati in order to stand on them. Their gravitational fields are too low for them to fall and their spins will throw them right off like a catapult hurls rock great distances.

coliver
2007-Oct-05, 03:11 AM
ok so it must be wrong then. But you have to admit there are some similiarities? I do still however think photons may have a very important interaction going on at the atomic level. But as you all say I will have to learn more before I can approach that one:) For instance subtractive color, why does an object just absorb certain wavelengths and reflect others? The Black Body shows some relationship between temperature and the absorption of wavelengths? Why would a photon carry both a wave and a particle unless they were both connected somehow? Perhaps the frequencies of light interact with the Boson/Fermion particles rather than Plasma?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body

tusenfem
2007-Oct-05, 07:09 AM
ok so it must be wrong then. But you have to admit there are some similiarities?


to be blunt, NO!



The Black Body shows some relationship between temperature and the absorption of wavelengths? Why would a photon carry both a wave and a particle unless they were both connected somehow? Perhaps the frequencies of light interact with the Boson/Fermion particles rather than Plasma?


No not absorption, EMISSION of radiation by the black body.
Photons do not carry "a wave and a particle", photons ARE a wave AND a particle.
A plasma CONSISTS of bosons (particles with interger spin) and fermions (particles with half-integer spin).

CodeSlinger
2007-Oct-05, 02:25 PM
If you're serious about learning science, coliver, I think you need to do more than read Wikipedia and throwing together random scientific terms on internet fora. I highly recommend buying, reading, and working through the problems in an introductory physics text. "Fundamentals of Physics" (now up to its 8th edition) by Halliday, Resnick & Walker is the one we used in school, and may be a good one to start with.