Timeline for How many molecules does it take to have a phase?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 12, 2016 at 20:29 | history | edited | Mithoron | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 2 characters in body
|
| Sep 24, 2014 at 20:19 | comment | added | matt_black | @WillihamTotland Disagree. It's chemistry (perhaps physical chemistry but still chemistry). And it is not just not philosophy but can be studied and produce real answers (like how many gold atoms do you need before a cluster behaves just like bulk gold metal?) | |
| Sep 24, 2014 at 20:14 | comment | added | Geoff Hutchison | @WillihamTotland I disagree, as seen by my answer below. By comparing different sized clusters to the bulk, you can exactly answer this, much like comparing nanoparticle $\ce{Au}_n$ to bulk gold. | |
| Sep 24, 2014 at 20:06 | comment | added | Williham Totland | @matt_black: Phase is still a question of physics, not of chemistry, and when it comes to how many molecules you need to have a phase, that's not even science, that's philosophy. The question has no answer, because it's asking for the bulk properties of individual items, which, again, makes no sense. | |
| Sep 24, 2014 at 20:03 | comment | added | matt_black | Sorry, this is a very silly objection the the question. Some chemicals don't have clear definitions of a "molecule" (e.g. ionic solids) but this is irrelevant to the very large class of chemicals where the molecule is well defined. For this (large) class, the question is perfectly well sensible. | |
| Sep 24, 2014 at 14:16 | history | edited | Williham Totland | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 5 characters in body
|
| Sep 24, 2014 at 14:12 | comment | added | Williham Totland | @terdon Typically, phases and whatnot is more about physics than it is about chemistry, meaning that the exact number of bits of stuff and microscopic properties tends to be meaningless, unless you're studying the microscopic properties themselves, in which case you concern yourself with a tiny number of species, so phase becomes irrelevant. | |
| Sep 24, 2014 at 14:04 | comment | added | terdon | I know, and it was kind of tongue-in cheek. I was indeed thinking of the sorites paradox. Still, I was hoping that there may be a more formal definition used in the field or that, at least for gases, it may even be definable to a given number of molecules. | |
| Sep 24, 2014 at 13:38 | history | answered | Williham Totland | CC BY-SA 3.0 |