Can a liquid or solid plasma exist?

[Eagle9]

Excuse me if this is naive question

Plasma is gas where all atoms are ionized. I would like to know if liquid or solid plasma can exist. Let’s take chemical element Lithium, its atom has got 3 electrons and Lithium’s crystal lattice is arranged like this:

https://winter.group.shef.ac.uk/talks/csa-97/Li/Li-cmdf.html
So, if we somehow (but not with high temperature, otherwise this element will be melted) remove all 3 electrons from Lithium’s atom (under normal temperature 1 electron is removed as I am aware) we will receive solid plasma, right? Or if we do the same with Mercury (however removing 80 electrons would be much more difficult compare to Lithium) we will receive liquid plasma, right?

 

[Bandersnatch]

The crystal lattice exists, because there are electrons on those shells. The moment you strip the Lithium atoms of all electrons, the nuclei start repelling each other with full might of their three protons, and the lattice breaks down.
Asking for a solid plasma is like asking for a solid gas. If it's a solid, it's no longer a gas, no?

 

[Drakkith]

Plasma is gas where all atoms are ionized.

If you ionize a gas, then it is no longer a gas. It is now a plasma. It's not a gas that has been ionized in the sense that it is still a gas with just some different properties. It is an entirely different state of matter. It's like saying gas is just a liquid that has evaporated. It's true that a liquid evaporates to become a gas, but gases and liquids are different states of matter for a reason, just like gases and plasma.

The main difference between plasma and gases is that plasma interacts strongly with electric and magnetic fields, while a gas does not. This leads to drastically different behavior in many situations, which is why we separate plasma from gases.

So, if we somehow (but not with high temperature, otherwise this element will be melted) remove all 3 electrons from Lithium’s atom (under normal temperature 1 electron is removed as I am aware) we will receive solid plasma, right?

No, the entire lattice falls apart and you end up with a plasma. The substance is no longer capable of maintaining its shape, which is one of the defining properties of a solid.

Or if we do the same with Mercury (however removing 80 electrons would be much more difficult compare to Lithium) we will receive liquid plasma, right?

Again, no. Removing the electrons turns the liquid into a plasma. It gains the properties that all plasmas share and loses the weak inter-atomic/inter-molecular bonds that liquids possess.

 

[Droidriven]

Excuse me if this is naive question

Plasma is gas where all atoms are ionized. I would like to know if liquid or solid plasma can exist. Let’s take chemical element Lithium, its atom has got 3 electrons and Lithium’s crystal lattice is arranged like this:
View attachment 232894
https://winter.group.shef.ac.uk/talks/csa-97/Li/Li-cmdf.html
So, if we somehow (but not with high temperature, otherwise this element will be melted) remove all 3 electrons from Lithium’s atom (under normal temperature 1 electron is removed as I am aware) we will receive solid plasma, right? Or if we do the same with Mercury (however removing 80 electrons would be much more difficult compare to Lithium) we will receive liquid plasma, right?

This has already been stated in simpler form, but...

Gas is gas

Liquid is liquid

Solid is solid

Plasma is plasma

These states can't be mixed, matter can only be in one form at a time, it can't be a combination of two or more forms.

Although, matter in a certain state can "appear" to be in one of the other states or acting "as if" it is in another state, due to external forces or energies(even though it isn't) as long as the force or energy is maintained, such as a liquid under extreme pressures is "solid-like" or a gas that has been compressed to the point that the molecules are so close together that the volume acts "as if" it were a liquid, also known as supercritical fluids(but, I guess that could be argued that the state actually changes, instead of "appears" to change)

 

[Mister T]

So, if we somehow (but not with high temperature, otherwise this element will be melted) remove all 3 electrons from Lithium’s atom [...] we will receive solid plasma, right?

A solid is a collection of atoms, so in your scenario you'd have to remove the electrons from a collection of lithium atoms. Temperature is not a property of a single atom, it's a property of collections of them. This collection of lithium ions has a high temperature if all of its electrons are missing. Moreover, without electrons there is no way for that collection to form a solid. Inter-atomic bonds are responsible for solidity, and electrons form those bonds.

 

[DrStupid]

If you ionize a gas, then it is no longer a gas.

Is there a clearly defined phase boundary between gas and plasma?

 

[Drakkith]

Is there a clearly defined phase boundary between gas and plasma?

Not as far as I know.

 

[jasonRF]

There are certainly condensed matter plasmas (solid/liquid metals; semiconductors; etc), which is probably what you are interested in. An example book covering some of the physics is Statistical Plasma Physics volume 2 by Ichimaru:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0813341795/?tag=pfamazon01-20

You should be able to read the first few pages on amazon, which provides an overview of the subject and some examples. I don't really know this book (or condensed matter plasma physics, for that matter) so would never recommend it; I just knew it existed because I had to use volume 1 for a class I took. I wouldn't recommend volume 1 either, by the way.

Jason

 

[Drakkith]

There are certainly condensed matter plasmas (solid/liquid metals; semiconductors; etc), which is probably what you are interested in.

How are they defining 'plasma' in condensed matter physics? I couldn't seem to find a definition using google. From the little I've read on the subject these plasmas are not plasmas in the sense they are another phase of matter, they are plasmas in the sense that inside a solid/liquid you can sometimes treat the electrons as an electrically conductive fluid.

 

[Andy Resnick]

Excuse me if this is naive question

Plasma is gas where all atoms are ionized. I would like to know if liquid or solid plasma can exist.

Sort of- dusty plasmas:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dusty_plasma

 

[nasu]

According to the book quoted by @jasonRF: "Plasmas are any statistical systems containing mobile charged particles".
(vol II, section 1.1) According to this definition metals and semiconductors are plasmas.
This is again a matter of accepted definition rather than some actual physics. I think that a book on plasma may be considered sort of "accepted definition".

You don't need to go to some exotic states to realize that the boundaries between "states" are not so rigid. There are "solids" that have some properties of liquids, like glasses and amorphous solids, "liquids" that may show properties usually associated with solids and of course, there are liquid crystals. So the nature is more imaginative than just "solid, liquid and gas".

 

[DrStupid]

Not as far as I know.

How do you decide when the gas stops beeing a gas and turns into plasma without such a phase boundary? In contrast to the transition between solid and liquid or liquid and gas there is no phase transtion between gas and plasma. There is a continuous increase of the degree of ionisation with rising temperature but not the sudden change of physical properties that characterises a phase transition. A classification of plasma as a state of matter is therefore at least questionable. It makes sense to refer to gas as a plasma if the ionisation is relevant. But that doesn't mean that it is not a gas anymore.

 

[russ_watters]

How do you decide when the gas stops beeing a gas and turns into plasma without such a phase boundary? In contrast to the transition between solid and liquid or liquid and gas there is no phase transtion between gas and plasma. There is a continuous increase of the degree of ionisation with rising temperature but not the sudden change of physical properties that characterises a phase transition. A classification of plasma as a state of matter is therefore at least questionable. It makes sense to refer to gas as a plasma if the ionisation is relevant. But that doesn't mean that it is not a gas anymore.

Amorphous (non crystalline) solids do not have well defined melting points either, so this isn't unique to plasma.

 

[Drakkith]

How do you decide when the gas stops beeing a gas and turns into plasma without such a phase boundary? In contrast to the transition between solid and liquid or liquid and gas there is no phase transtion between gas and plasma. There is a continuous increase of the degree of ionisation with rising temperature but not the sudden change of physical properties that characterises a phase transition.

I believe they call this a second order phase transition, whereas melting and evaporation are both first order phase transitions.

. A classification of plasma as a state of matter is therefore at least questionable. It makes sense to refer to gas as a plasma if the ionisation is relevant. But that doesn't mean that it is not a gas anymore.

Okay. Then you go around and tell all the scientists that they're all wrong and plasma shouldn't be another phase of matter. Or you can make an effort to actually look into the subject a bit and figure out why it's classified as a separate phase instead of just being classified as an ionized gas.

 

[nasu]

why it's classified as a separate phase instead of just being classified as an ionized gas.

Do you have any source describing the gas-plasma phase transition (or even mentioning it)?

The plasma as the 4-th (or n-th) state of the matter is more likely a pop-science product.
If there really is a real phase transition between gas and plasma, then plasma should be another phase rather than another state. Similar to solids having several crystalline phases while they are still in the solid state.

 

[Droidriven]

Do you have any source describing the gas-plasma phase transition (or even mentioning it)?

The plasma as the 4-th (or n-th) state of the matter is more likely a pop-science product.
If there really is a real phase transition between gas and plasma, then plasma should be another phase rather than another state. Similar to solids having several crystalline phases while they are still in the solid state.

This is to see if I'm understanding other things that have been mentioned in this thread...

Differences in crystalline phases of solids are caused by the arrangement of atoms/molecules being different, but the atoms/molecules are still bonded in the traditional manner. Plasma atoms are ionized and lack electrons to form bonds, changing the arrangement of atoms and molecules or even density in the plasma doesn't really change anything about it's state or phase does it?

That's a question, not a statement.

 

[Drakkith]

Do you have any source describing the gas-plasma phase transition (or even mentioning it)?

The plasma as the 4-th (or n-th) state of the matter is more likely a pop-science product.

About the gas-plasma phase transition:
http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=3257

Any textbook on plasma physics should have a detailed analysis of this phase transition.

References to plasma as a state of matter:

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/mssl/space-plasma-physics/plasma-science
https://www.livescience.com/46506-states-of-matter.html
Introduction to Plasma Physics, page 1.
https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/state.html
http://pluto.space.swri.edu/image/glossary/plasma.html
https://education.jlab.org/qa/plasma_01.html
http://www.qrg.northwestern.edu/projects/vss/docs/propulsion/2-what-is-plasma.html

If there really is a real phase transition between gas and plasma, then plasma should be another phase rather than another state.

There is also a phase transition between solid and liquid form, liquid and gas, and other state transitions. Just because it's not named 'state transition' doesn't mean that it doesn't result in a change in the state of the matter. 'Phase' and 'state' are used quite interchangeably in many places, so it's not surprising that there is some confusion.

 

[Drakkith]

Plasma atoms are ionized and lack electrons to form bonds, changing the arrangement of atoms and molecules or even density in the plasma doesn't really change anything about it's state or phase does it?

I'd like to say that no, it doesn't, but there may be some subtleties about plasmas that I don't understand.

 

[nasu]

About the gas-plasma phase transition:
http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=3257

Yeah, I hoped you have a paper or a book as a reference. I should have specified this.

Any textbook on plasma physics should have a detailed analysis of this phase transition.

I looked in at least 4 books on plasma physics and the "phase transition" is not even mentioned.
I hoped you have knowledge about some serious reference about this. It was not a challenging you, I just hoped you have some source that discuss explicitly this problem.

There is also a phase transition between solid and liquid form, liquid and gas, and other state transitions. Just because it's not named 'state transition' doesn't mean that it doesn't result in a change in the state of the matter. 'Phase' and 'state' are used quite interchangeably in many places, so it's not surprising that there is some confusion.

Phase transition have a specific meaning in the thermodynamics of phase transitions. "State" is more like a common language term and is not equivalent to "phase". Solid state physics studies a lot of different phases that are all, well, solid state.

Not every change in properties qualifies as a phase transition. And a second order phase transition is sometime called continuous but this means that the first derivative of the free energy is continuous at the transition and only the second derivative is discontinuous. It still have a specific transition temperature (like the Curie temperature for ferromagnetic-paramagnetic phase transition in solid state).
If you heat up hydrogen gas, at what temperature the gas becomes plasma? Are the transition temperatures listed in plasma textbooks? Isn't the ionization of plasma more like the change in the viscosity of a glassy or waxy material?

 

[nasu]

This is to see if I'm understanding other things that have been mentioned in this thread...

Differences in crystalline phases of solids are caused by the arrangement of atoms/molecules being different, but the atoms/molecules are still bonded in the traditional manner. Plasma atoms are ionized and lack electrons to form bonds, changing the arrangement of atoms and molecules or even density in the plasma doesn't really change anything about it's state or phase does it?

That's a question, not a statement.

Well, in a gas the atoms are not bonded either. Or not significantly. But I am not sure I understand your question. What is the "traditional" manner of bonding? There are several different ways of bonding atoms in crystals, in terms of the bonding forces. Are these all "traditional"?

 

[Droidriven]

Well, in a gas the atoms are not bonded either. Or not significantly. But I am not sure I understand your question. What is the "traditional" manner of bonding? There are several different ways of bonding atoms in crystals, in terms of the bonding forces. Are these all "traditional"?

Traditional manner meaning electron bonding

I only mention bonding because bonding requires electrons, a previous post in this thread mentions that plasma lacks electrons or has no electrons...which would mean no bonding possible for atoms in a plasma. My question was aimed at the statement that plasma should be considered a different phase of solid, liquid or gas, instead of being labeled as another state of matter. Solids, liquids and gases have electrons available to form bonds(whether they are bonded or not isn't the point, they are still at least "capable" of bonding), if plasma is comprised of ionized nuclei and has no electrons, it isn't even capable of forming bonds is it? That seems to me to be enough to define it as a different state of matter instead of a phase of the previously defined states of matter.

It was mentioned that solids have varying phases of crystalline structure, but they are all still considered solids, structure is formed by the arrangement of atoms, the arrangement is decided by how the atoms are bonded, which is a function of the electrons in the atoms. I was, more or less, saying that plasma couldn't be considered a different phase of solid because solids have bonds between the atoms, whereas, a plasma can't(if the statement about plasma lacking electrons is true).

 

[Drakkith]

I hoped you have knowledge about some serious reference about this. It was not a challenging you, I just hoped you have some source that discuss explicitly this problem.

I'm afraid I do not. If I find anything I'll let you know.

 

[Charles Link]

The degree of ionization of a gas increases steadily with the temperature. There is no specific temperature where one can say that there is sufficient ionization that we will call it a plasma at that point. The change from being mostly non-ionized to being somewhat ionized or having a high degree of ionization is continuous with temperature and is not like any other phase transitions. Thereby, I think it would be incorrect to call this a phase transition. $\\$ To refer to a plasma as "another phase" or "another state of matter" seems to be terminology that gets used on occasion, but such generalizations are very lacking in any kind of detail.

 

[jasonRF]

How are they defining 'plasma' in condensed matter physics? I couldn't seem to find a definition using google. From the little I've read on the subject these plasmas are not plasmas in the sense they are another phase of matter, they are plasmas in the sense that inside a solid/liquid you can sometimes treat the electrons as an electrically conductive fluid.

I believe that is basically correct, but again i am not an expert on condensed matter.

I do know about the ionosphere since i did my grad work in space plasmas, and even though it is less than 1% ionized we talk about the ionospheric plasma. Electromagnetic forces are so strong that it doesn't take much ionization to really matter for the overall dynamics as long as the collision frequencies of the ionized species are low enough. Ignore the plasma physics and you will never understand the ionosphere

 

[DrStupid]

I only mention bonding because bonding requires electrons, a previous post in this thread mentions that plasma lacks electrons or has no electrons...which would mean no bonding possible for atoms in a plasma.

Plasma is electrically neutral. That means that plasma has as many electrons as a corresponding neutral gas. Even the ions in the plasma may have electrons. There are chemical bonds possible within these ions and chemical reactions between them.

 

[DrStupid]

Electromagnetic forces are so strong that it doesn't take much ionization to really matter for the overall dynamics as long as the collision frequencies of the ionized species are low enough. Ignore the plasma physics and you will never understand the ionosphere

Nobody talks about ignoring plasma physics. Of course it must be considered if the ionisation is relevant. But that doesn't mean that the plasma is not a gas.
Melts or solutions of salts also behave different compared to a non-polar medium and you will never understand their properties if you ignore the presence of free charge carriers. But that doesn't mean that they are no liquids.

 

[Eagle9]

So many answers

The moment you strip the Lithium atoms of all electrons, the nuclei start repelling each other with full might of their three protons, and the lattice breaks down

No, the entire lattice falls apart and you end up with a plasma

Thanks

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dusty_plasma

Thanks, this I did not know