States of Matter - particles or atoms?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the terminology used to describe the states of matter, specifically whether the term "particles" is appropriate or if it should be more accurately defined as "atoms" or "molecules." Participants explore the implications of these terms in the context of how closely these entities are held together in different states of matter.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that referring to "particles" may imply an exchange between them, questioning if the focus should instead be on "atoms" or "molecules."
  • Others argue that the term "particles" is inclusive of molecules and does not necessarily imply exchange.
  • One participant points out that "particles" can refer to a wide range of entities, including ions, and that using "particles" is a more convenient term than specifying "atoms, molecules, and ions."
  • There is a discussion about the nature of particles, with some participants expressing confusion about how something can be made of particles and still be classified as a particle itself.
  • Clarifications are offered regarding the generic use of the term "particle," which can encompass everything from quarks to larger entities.
  • One participant acknowledges a misunderstanding regarding the specificity of the term "particle" in a physics context, noting that it is often used as a catch-all term in discussions of kinetic theory.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the appropriateness of the term "particles" versus "atoms" or "molecules." There are multiple competing views regarding the implications of these terms and their usage in scientific literature.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty about the definitions and implications of the terms used, highlighting the need for clarity in scientific communication. The discussion reflects varying interpretations of terminology in the context of states of matter.

Cyberspace
Messages
7
Reaction score
2
TL;DR
In distinguishing between states of matter why do books refer to how closely particles are held together, rather than atoms or molecules?
Resources I have looked at distinguish between the three basic states of matter in terms of how closely particles are held together; i.e. in solids they are bound most closely, in liquids less so and in gases they're much freer. Would it not be more correct to refer to how closely atoms or molecules are held together rather than particles? Referring to particles suggests to me that particles are being exchanged between the atoms, is that the case? (If particles are not being exchanged then I would have thought the unit under consideration is the atom or molecule.)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think the word particles is inclusive of molecules.

Your inference about particle exchange is not warranted.
 
Cyberspace said:
Summary:: In distinguishing between states of matter why do books refer to how closely particles are held together, rather than atoms or molecules?

Resources I have looked at distinguish between the three basic states of matter in terms of how closely particles are held together; i.e. in solids they are bound most closely, in liquids less so and in gases they're much freer. Would it not be more correct to refer to how closely atoms or molecules are held together rather than particles? Referring to particles suggests to me that particles are being exchanged between the atoms, is that the case? (If particles are not being exchanged then I would have thought the unit under consideration is the atom or molecule.)
You would have to include ions. Atoms, molecules, and ions are all particles, but it is far easier to write “particles”’than it is to write “atoms, molecules, and ions”.
 
But I thought that atoms were made from particles? In the way that a house is made from bricks. Eg an electron is a particle. I thought that a particle was a lower level entity. How can it be both made from particles and be a particle?
 
Cyberspace said:
How can it be both made from particles and be a particle?
”Particle” is a pretty generic term. It can apply to everything from quarks to dust. There is nothing that prevents a particle from being made from other particles.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: ohwilleke
Ah ok. I thought the term particle was specific to sub-atomic 'stuff' when used in a physics context, so that's the root of my misapprehension.

Many thanks for clarifying.
 
Cyberspace said:
Ah ok. I thought the term particle was specific to sub-atomic 'stuff' when used in a physics context, so that's the root of my misapprehension.

Many thanks for clarifying.
Just read stuff on the kinetic theory of gases and you are bound to find the word "particle' used as a catch-all for atoms and molecules. The thing to do when you have doubt about the use of terms is to read around a lot and the answer will appear.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 49 ·
2
Replies
49
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
15K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 108 ·
4
Replies
108
Views
21K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
8K