Talk:State of matter

message: According to   there should be more than 500 states. -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 01:25, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  500+ states 

message: I don't see the reason for having two articles about almost the same thing. To me it seems like the only difference between a phase of matter and a state of matter is that a state is something a material is currently in, and is therefore a function of time, whereas a phase is a potential state that the material either is currently in or can be transitioned into, and is not a function of time but is constantly a potential state. Is that correct? If so, we should merge the two articles into one, and we could just explain the difference between the two in a fashion similar to the explanation I just gave. —Kri (talk) 20:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, okay, thanks for the explanations. I removed the merge tag in both articles. —Kri (talk) 10:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with ''Phase (matter)''? 

message: "Quark–gluon plasma was discovered at CERN in 2000."  That's quite a strong statement. There's been an announcement, but talking about a QGP "discovery" at the SPS seems a bit wrong since even RHIC/ALICE are cautious with such statements (as noted in the QGP article). JocelynMlynarz (talk) 11:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Amended this by copying some text over from quark-gluon plasma. Now there is a distinction between the theoretical prediction and experimental detection. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 15:00, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  QGP "discovery"? 

message: I would like to request the inclusing of the newly confirmed Time-Crystals as a new state of matter. With the latest scientific issues published, the scientific community starts to recognise and identify Time-Crystal more and more commonly as another state of matter.
http://news.berkeley.edu/2017/01/26/scientists-unveil-new-form-of-matter-time-crystals/
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/time-crystals-new-matter-atoms-law-physics-break-perpetual-motion-theory-electrons-snowflakes-a7618041.html
https://www.inverse.com/article/28949-what-are-time-crystals
http://www.iflscience.com/physics/time-crystals-how-scientists-created-a-new-state-of-matter/page-3/
https://cosmosmagazine.com/physics/time-crystals-latest-quantum-weirdness
http://www.sciencealert.com/it-s-official-time-crystals-are-a-new-crazy-state-of-matter-and-now-we-can-create-them
http://www.livescience.com/58171-time-crystals-created-in-the-lab.html
It has already been included in the List of states of matter, so it should also be incuded here. Asragin 2A02:8071:2388:8300:E1E9:62E:7173:1426 (talk) 08:47, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2017 

message: Similarly with Rydberg matter.  I think a molecule should not count as a "state of matter".   Rydberg molecules is just two atoms in a very highly excited bound state.      Usually we reserve the term matter to consist of many many particles.  If you say, 'yes but you could put together many of these molecules to make matter', I would say, how is this different from a simple gas? --Unsigned user
I have some familiarity with the topic of Rydberg matter and the definition on this Wikipedia article does not seem correct. Rydberg matter is a metastable state of matter reportedly formed by well-ordered, symmetrical clusters (sometimes referred to as "crystals") of atoms or small molecules in a "circular" Rydberg state (l = n-1). It is not a term reserved for molecules in an excited state in a general sense. --Graybeard Timer (talk) 07:09, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The sources did not identify the Rydberg molecule as a state of matter, so I removed that section completely. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 15:08, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rydberg Matter? 

message: The "three or four" discussion above notwithstanding (much of its concerns have been addressed), an omission remains. Because a section of this article is titled "non-classical states", there should be a statement somewhere of the "classical states". This statement should probably appear in the introduction. Otherwise, the "non-classical" section should be renamed, or, somewhat awkwardly, the "classical states" should be explained in the "non-classical" section. Bob Enyart, Denver KGOV radio host  (talk) 17:22, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subhead "non-classical states" shows need for a statement re: "the classical states" 

message: Supercritical fluid (SCF) seems to be listed as a subtype of gas.  SCF is not a gas, it is its own state of matter. Yes SCF is like a gas but also like a liquid and is neither.  SCF should be moved in with the nonclassical states. Jasoninkid (talk) 03:04, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:   Supercritical Fluid 

message: Recently, I created an article on the chain-melted state of matter, and I've been thinking about adding it here, as well as in the list of states of matter. But I am having a bit of difficulty of classifying it or at least where I would put it. Considering it can be reached when there is high temperature and pressure, I'm thinking it would be under the high-energy states here, and under the modern states in the list of states of matter. But I'm not sure if that's correct, so I'm asking here about where it should be placed or mentioned? SonOfYoutubers (talk) 16:39, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where should the chain-melted state be added in this article?