What is the evidence for particulate matter in both liquids and solids?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Elsa1234
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Matter
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the evidence for the particulate nature of matter in both liquids and solids, exploring examples such as dissolving sugar in water and the implications of saturation. Participants examine the validity of various arguments and examples while questioning the nature of matter at fundamental levels.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that the dissolution of a sugar cube in water demonstrates the particulate nature of liquids, as the water level does not rise.
  • Another participant argues that while stoichiometry provides a good argument, it does not serve as real proof of particulate matter.
  • Some participants express skepticism about the existence of proofs in science, indicating a philosophical stance on scientific evidence.
  • One participant notes that while dissolving sugar does not increase the volume of coffee, it does increase the mass, raising questions about saturation and absorption limits.
  • Another participant challenges the example of sugar in coffee as misleading, suggesting that everything may be fundamentally particulate down to the Planck scale, questioning if any state of matter is non-particulate.
  • A participant introduces the concept of light, discussing whether it can be considered particulate due to its composition of photons, while also addressing the nature of particles like electrons.
  • There is a discussion about the implications of a triangular prism dispersing light and whether this qualifies white light as particulate.
  • One participant emphasizes the need for clarity in the terms "particulate" and "singularity," indicating potential misunderstandings in the discussion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views regarding the particulate nature of matter, with no consensus reached on the validity of specific examples or the philosophical implications of proofs in science.

Contextual Notes

Some arguments rely on assumptions about the definitions of "particulate" and "singularity," and there are unresolved questions regarding the nature of light and its classification as particulate.

Elsa1234
Messages
47
Reaction score
2
Teachers teach us that matter is particulate because on dissolving a sugar cube into water it dissolves completely without raising the level of water. The level does not rise because water has spaces between itself. This proves that water or simply a liquid is particulate. But how do we prove that the solute or a solid is particulate as well?
 
Chemistry news on Phys.org
With other experiments like stoichiometry in reactions. It is not a real proof anyway, just a good argument. Physics has more powerful tools for that.
 
mfb said:
With other experiments like stoichiometry in reactions. It is not a real proof anyway, just a good argument. Physics has more powerful tools for that.
Could you give me some real proofs?
 
There are no proofs in science.
 
Seems to me that dissolving a sugar cube in a cup of coffee may not increase the volume but it certainly increases the mass (and flavor) of the coffee.
But drop a cup of sugar in a full cup of coffee, I guarantee the coffee will spill over the rim I believe the term is *saturation* which limits the ability to absorb.
 
write4u said:
Seems to me that dissolving a sugar cube in a cup of coffee may not increase the volume but it certainly increases the mass (and flavor) of the coffee.
But drop a cup of sugar in a full cup of coffee, I guarantee the coffee will spill over the rim I believe the term is *saturation* which limits the ability to absorb.
All true. What's your point?
 
phinds said:
All true. What's your point?
I just wanted to address the example of a sugar cube in the coffee, which I believe to be incorrect or at least misleading as it deals with ability to absorb until saturated. But even then, a saturated medium is still particulate.

Perhaps I misunderstood the OP question, but it seems to me that everything is fundamentally particulate down to Planck scale. Is there any state of matter that is not particulate? A singularity?
 
Last edited:
write4u said:
I just wanted to address the example of a sugar cube in the coffee, which I believe to be incorrect or at least incomplete.

Perhaps I misunderstood the OP question, but it seems to me that everything is fundamentally particulate down to Planck scale. Is there any state of matter that is not particulate? A singularity?
A light beam isn't particulate. It has "photons" but they are really only exhibited when the beam hits something. Also, you need to be careful about "particulate" since electrons, for example, are particles but "point particles" not little tiny pool balls which is what I always think of with "particulate"
 
I tried to answer in context of solutes or solids, and I did consider the properties of elementary particles such as photons or bosons.
But I have a few questions in regards to light which is not a solid or a liquid, but it does consist of photons with different frequencies. Would that make it particulate in principle? Then bosons (Higgs) are the glue that holds everything together and must be a particle existing in all things, which would make everything particulate, IMHO.
266px-Light_dispersion_conceptual_waves350px.gif


A triangular prism dispersing a beam of white light. The longer wavelengths (red) and the shorter wavelengths (blue) get separated
Does that qualify white light as being particulate in and of itself?

This is why I closed my response with the question about singularities, like a single photon or a single boson. I may be way off track here in my interpretation of the terms *particulate* and *singularity*
 
Last edited:
  • #10
write4u said:
I just wanted to address the example of a sugar cube in the coffee, which I believe to be incorrect or at least misleading as it deals with ability to absorb until saturated. But even then, a saturated medium is still particulate.
A=>B does not imply B=>A.
"X shows us Y" does not mean that "not X shows Y cannot be true".

You can have an experiment where the argument cannot be used, but as long as you have an experiment where it works the argument works.
write4u said:
But I have a few questions in regards to light
Please open a separate thread for them, this thread is not about light.
write4u said:
I may be way off track here in my interpretation of the terms *particulate* and *singularity*
You are.
 

Similar threads

Liquid Na2O3Si: what causes solidification at temperature?
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Pressure & Force: Gases, Liquids, Solids
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
What is the Tidal Bulge Theory and its Controversies?
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
Affect of volume on the rate of diffusion?
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
Undergrad Plasma Condensation: Can Gas Be Turned Back Into Liquid/Solid?
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
5K
What caused the spontaneous ice slush in my carbonated drink?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
Chemically regenerating my auto's catalytic converter?
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
10K
Methods used to measure the density of solid materials and liquids.
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
52K
My E&M textbook claims that fields are a form of matter
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
Why are liquids generally less dense than solids?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
16K