0
$\begingroup$

Is the phrase "States of matter" a misnomer?

A "state of matter" describes the configuration/structure of atoms and molecules in an object, correct? It would not make sense to describe a single atom (which is considered matter?) as a solid/liquid/gas/etc.

Wouldn't "States of molecules" be more accurate?

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

The key point here is that in the traditional sense, "states of matter" refers to solid, liquid, gaseous, or plasma states- that is, it assumes a large number of atoms or molecules, yielding a macroscopic ensemble of them.

Now, how big is "large"? Note that a solid cluster of gold atoms consisting of ~tens to hundreds of atoms will exhibit some types of quantum behavior that a cluster of ~billions of gold atoms will not. Note also that a liquid cluster of water molecules consisting of ~tens of molecules will not have a well-defined surface energy, something that a cubic centimeter of water in a test tube will definitely possess.

This means that "large" means "macroscopic".

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.