
Plasma, the Mysterious and Powerful Fourth Phase of Matter - nmat
https://aeon.co/ideas/plasma-the-mysterious-and-powerful-fourth-phase-of-matter
======
georgecmu
_We rarely encounter natural plasma, unless we’re lucky enough to see the
Northern lights, or if we look at the Sun through a special filter, or if we
poke our head out the window during a lightning storm, as I liked to do when I
was a kid._

Right. Anyone who ever struck a match has produced a natural plasma right then
and there. Neon lights and plasma [!] TVs are pretty common this side of the
Atlantic. A fun way to create a microwave plasma is to microwave half a grape
[1]. An even more fun way is to leave a fork in the microwave oven.

[1] [https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/37836/why-do-
gra...](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/37836/why-do-grapes-in-a-
microwave-oven-produce-plasma)

~~~
mockingbirdy
In the comments of the Q&A you've linked they say it's not plasma, it's just
normal flames with ions.

~~~
ta78885578
Yeah it seems plasma gets used a bit lightly. I was under the impression you
need stonking amounts of pressure or heat.

------
zyxzevn
What is the difference between the Zeeman effect and the Stark effect?

~~~
ridgeguy
Zeeman effect - spectrum line splitting by a magnetic field

Stark effect - spectrum line splitting by an electric field

------
flatfilefan
So what about the Russian Avantgarde hypersonic warhead that should fly
covered in a plasma fireball? Do you guys care about this stuff? Is it even
feasible?

~~~
gpm
> hypersonic warhead that should fly covered in a plasma fireball

s/warhead/capsule/ and you've just described "normal" for returning from
space. I imagine that a warhead is designed to slow down slower, and thus to
remain hypersonic farther into the atmosphere, but of course it's possible,
it's just a question of how good you can make it.

~~~
flatfilefan
It should be able to get to 40km altitude and maneuver at 6 mach while
sustaining a horizontal flight making it impossible to intercept by a missile
defense. So I wonder whether plasma research is suddenly again in vogue
because of it?

~~~
jjoonathan
Here is a US missile maneuvering at mach 10 to intercept a RV going at mach
30. In 1972.

[https://youtu.be/msXtgTVMcuA?t=60](https://youtu.be/msXtgTVMcuA?t=60)

Russia loves to brag about weapons that can overcome US defenses because
people for some reason have forgotten that the top-level strategic "defense"
is not an impenetrable wall of interception systems -- which literally no
nation on earth has the budget to effectively maintain, even the US, because
the economics of intercept are terrible -- but rather the policy of mutually
assured destruction. This has been the case throughout the entire planning
cycle of nearly every piece of hardware in use by the US armed forces and it
will continue to be the case for the foreseeable future.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Russia loves to brag about weapons that can overcome US defenses because
> people for some reason have forgotten that the top-level strategic "defense"
> is not an impenetrable wall of interception systems -- which literally no
> nation on earth has the budget to effectively maintain, even the US, because
> the economics of intercept are terrible -- but rather the policy of mutually
> assured destruction.

No, Russia likes to heavily advertise weapons that can penetrate US missile
defenses as a means of reinforcing MAD; any power’s decision-makers gaining
(justified or not) confidence in even limited survivability due to workable
defenses undermines MAD.

This is also the same reason all parties want to project an air of confidence
in their defenses; they want to appear unconstrained by MAD (so that they can
use nuclear threat, implicit or explicit, to influence rival powers non-
nuclear-attack actions) while the other side remains constrained (so that the
assured destruction, at least in political effect, is not _mutual_.)

~~~
jjoonathan
> No, Russia likes to heavily advertise weapons that can penetrate US missile
> defenses as a means of reinforcing MAD

We agree. I'm not sure why you opened with "no." I'd add that I suspect the
primary motivation is arms salesmanship, but that hardly excludes reinforcing
MAD.

> all parties ... want to appear unconstrained by MAD

I haven't seen any such (ridiculous) claims, but I don't have trouble
imagining that they exist.

~~~
dragonwriter
> I haven't seen any such (ridiculous) claims

It's pretty nuclear deterrence theory; the major powers both want (1) to
actually be survivable and thus free to use any means at their disposal
knowing that the other side cannot impose unacceptable costs in return, (2)
failing that, _appear to the opponent_ to believe that they are in such a
condition, so that the opponent must act as if they will feel free to escalate
unbound by fear of retribution even if they rationally should not, and, in any
case, (3) prevent the opponent from perceiving (whether or not it is correct)
themselves safe from retribution, so the opponent cannot escalate unchecked.

MAD is just the state where both powers acheive #3; it is consistent with
either or both powers also acheiving limited success at #2 (which means that
policy which doesn't involve nuclear provocation or similar existential threat
must be constrained by the risk of nuclear escalation by the other side—if
neither side has any success at #2, that concern does not exist.)

~~~
jjoonathan
It is obvious why the US would want to appear invulnerable. You claimed it
tried to. I asked for proof. You didn't provide it.

------
dang
Url changed from [https://singularityhub.com/2018/06/30/plasma-the-
mysterious-...](https://singularityhub.com/2018/06/30/plasma-the-mysterious-
and-powerful-fourth-phase-of-matter/), which points to this.

