What's new
What's new

Glass a liquid at room temperature?

To the best of your knowledge, is glass a liquid at room temperature?

  • Yep

    Votes: 32 33.7%
  • Nope

    Votes: 38 40.0%
  • That's what I been tole since I were a little baby

    Votes: 8 8.4%
  • I'm staying out of this

    Votes: 7 7.4%
  • I'm keeping my bottled beer in the fridge, just in case

    Votes: 16 16.8%

  • Total voters
    95
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/Glass/glass.html

Conclusion

There is no clear answer to the question "Is glass solid or liquid?". In terms of molecular dynamics and thermodynamics it is possible to justify various different views that it is a highly viscous liquid, an amorphous solid, or simply that glass is another state of matter which is neither liquid nor solid. The difference is semantic.
Philip Gibbs

I was taught that it is a fluid you just have to wait 10,000 years to see it move.
Tim


I do believe that's the same link I gave as the first response in this thread.:willy_nilly: Talk about going in circles... :popcorn: I'll just have a snack while watching the show... :crazy:
 
Much as I care to read the above reference,it says that they cannot be certain if ALL types of glasses do not flow. I've read it twice now. What posting came up recently where someone said that glass scales shrink some? Or did I get that wrong? Is it possible that like different alloys of metal,different alloys of glass behave differently?
 
Just to add to endless dabate, when cutting glass with a glass cutter, does the glass break along the score line because of the stress concentration, or because of the interuption of the surface tension of the glass? The professor I worked for (who studied the rheological properties of materials (fluids, solids, liquid crystals, etc), and also made stained glass on the side, among other hobbies) insisted it was because of the interuption of surface tension. Good enough for me.

And I apologize of this was covered in some of the links previously cited.
 
Just to add to endless dabate, when cutting glass with a glass cutter, does the glass break along the score line because of the stress concentration, or because of the interuption of the surface tension of the glass? The professor I worked for (who studied the rheological properties of materials (fluids, solids, liquid crystals, etc), and also made stained glass on the side, among other hobbies) insisted it was because of the interuption of surface tension. Good enough for me.

And I apologize of this was covered in some of the links previously cited.

They amount to the same thing. Saying it is due to the "interruption in surface tension" is the the same thing as saying it is due to the "introduction of a stress concentration" along the line of the scratch. Same thing... just different words. Kinda like saying the glass (no pun intended) is half full or saying it is twice the size it needs to be.

-DU-
 
Much as I care to read the above reference,it says that they cannot be certain if ALL types of glasses do not flow. I've read it twice now. What posting came up recently where someone said that glass scales shrink some? Or did I get that wrong? Is it possible that like different alloys of metal,different alloys of glass behave differently?

I believe that's exactly what the article states... No?
 
Wikipedia, as is often the case, has not got it quite right again;

Because of entropy considerations, many polymers can be made amorphous solids by cooling even at slow rates.

Actually the reverse is true. Polymers in the solid state are either amorphous or semi-crystalline, but in the molten state all polymers (apart from LCP) change to an amorphous structure.
If you cool them quickly, the crystalline polymers will lock-in the amorphous structure, if you cool them slowly, they will re-crystallise.


Note that little word even in the wiki article, Peter. The author is saying that many polymers won't be crystalline whatever the cooling rate:dopeslap:

regards
Mark
 
The professor I worked for (who studied the rheological properties of materials (fluids, solids, liquid crystals, etc), and also made stained glass on the side, among other hobbies) insisted it was because of the interuption of surface tension. Good enough for me.


Did he have a good explanation for the identical behavior of tungsten carbide, high speed steel and house bricks?
 
Un-warranted dopeslap there Mark. By the authors use of the term can be made, he is implying that this is the case, which it isn't.

If he meant what you thought, then he would have done far better to state that some polymer materials will retain their amorphous structure whatever the rate of cooling (or heating).

Peter
 
If you pile a loads of drops of a liquid together under pressure they normally form a big drop. As glass is mainly silica (sand) why does not a sandy beach which has been there for a million years have great globs of glass in its base?
I go for solid.
Frank
 
Despite my polling that I'd keep out of this, I can't!

The evidence that glass gets thicker at the bottom over is in front of your eyes! Who here has had their eyesight appear to change over the years and may even wear bi/trifocal lenses in their specs.

The reason for this is not that your eyes find it harder to focus as you age, but that your original glasses have sagged since you first bought them as a trend setter in the seventies/eighties and are not the correct prescription anymore. Optometrists obviously won't admit to selling glasses that are lifed so have instigated the myth that your eyesight changes.

Seriously, how long has float glass been in existence and how long is it supposed to take for the thickening at the base to occur? I'd measure the thickness of a oldest piece of float glass available and continue over a period of time and see if any deviation occured. If it does sag, would not a piece of glass horizontally suspended over a beam on either side bow over time?
 
Despite my polling that I'd keep out of this, I can't!

The evidence that glass gets thicker at the bottom over is in front of your eyes! Who here has had their eyesight appear to change over the years and may even wear bi/trifocal lenses in their specs.

The reason for this is not that your eyes find it harder to focus as you age, but that your original glasses have sagged since you first bought them as a trend setter in the seventies/eighties and are not the correct prescription anymore. Optometrists obviously won't admit to selling glasses that are lifed so have instigated the myth that your eyesight changes.

Are you suggesting that a person's eyesight only has one level of "gone wrong", and cannot degrade further after you fit your first pair of spectacles? How do you explain a person who previously never needed spectacles having to use them to see later in life? Perhaps they spend all day staring out of a particular window?
 
A little test you skeptics can make to help decide if glass is a solid, "high viscocity fluid", or a liquid;

Fill a pail with water, slam your fist into the surface of the water.
Stack up panes of glass as high as the water was deep, slam your fist into it.

what did you decide?
 
I think I'm getting the logic.
For example,
If:
A. Liquids don't shatter.
And:
B. Glass shatters.
Except:
C. Safety glass doesn't shatter
Then,
D. Only safety glass is a liquid.

:crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::willy_nilly::stirthepot:
 
ANd while slamming your fist into things, explore "thixotropic" fluids. Those
are fluids with non-linear viscosities.

For example, mix up a paste of corn starch and water, in a bowl big enought to
slam your fist into.

The stuff pours just fine - but when it is sheared hard, it becomes a solid.

Jim
 
Don't forgert phlogiston. Glass is a phlogiston concentrator otherwise you couldn't use it to start fires by focusing sunlight through a magnifier.

Hm. If you use a plano concave lens will it make stuff colder? Sound like a topic for a PHD dissertation. I know a couple of grad students smart enough to take it on.
 
Its a freak'n solid at room temp.

All of those that think otherwise, I have bad news, there is something else that's sagging, and its your IQ.
 
I think I'm getting the logic.
For example,
If:
A. Liquids don't shatter.
And:
B. Glass shatters.
Except:
C. Safety glass doesn't shatter
Then,
D. Only safety glass is a liquid.

:crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::willy_nilly::stirthepot:

Nice. I love logical fallacies.

That one I think is called dicto simpliciti, or applying specific conclusions to general determinations. I think there's a better name for this particular type of fallacy but I can't think of it.

I think the best version of a fallacy for this thread is argumentam ad ignoratiam (argument from ignorance):

"I've never seen glass flow like a liquid, therefore it must not be a liquid."

That being said, though, I actually agree with Tims that the difference is entirely semantic. By the conventional definition it may not be a solid, but since there is no evidence forthcoming that anyone has demonstrated metrologically that glass flows at room temperature I think it can safely be said that, for all intents and purposes, it is not a liquid. It may not be a solid, but it is not a liquid.

If applying a shear force will deflect any liquid (even if very very slowly) supposing that it's too slow to see means that one would merely have to increase the force until it started to move in the timeframe we can perceive. I would think this would be easy to prove experimentally with a large thick piece of glass and a heavy weight. Put it in enough compression without fracture and we should see it move.

So Tims is right, it's a semantic difference. Glass is glass, and may not be a solid, but can't rightly be called a liquid either.

I too believed it was liquid before because that was what I was tole since I were a chile, but that doesn't make it right, and the "sagging" windows surely are the origin of this false conclusion.

I don't assert that I'm qualified to say that glass is not a liquid but it does not meet several of the criteria for liquids and if that is still the case over several hundred years I think it can safely be said that the difference is semantic, at best, and almost certainly "liquid" is an entirely improper way to think of glass.
 
Don't forgert phlogiston. Glass is a phlogiston concentrator otherwise you couldn't use it to start fires by focusing sunlight through a magnifier.

Hm. If you use a plano concave lens will it make stuff colder? Sound like a topic for a PHD dissertation. I know a couple of grad students smart enough to take it on.

But will that lens then tear the aether? I think that might be a postdoctoral effort for aforementioned students.

Also air pressure keeps the electricity in the sockets at my house. I'd write more but I have an appointment at the sanatorium with my phrenologist.
 








 
Back
Top