Given enough time in a sealed environment, can a cup of water change temperature

[Fel]

Let me explain the situation

1) You have a cup of water in a perfectly insulated container; this container neither lets energy in nor out.

2) The variance of the individual molecular temperatures is non-zero. (System has chaos)

3) The walls of the glass absorb no energy

Over time, the collisions of molecules will pass energy between them, but this also introduces the possibility to nullify (not destroy) energy. With methodology similar to laser cooling, if two molecules of equal and opposite energies collide with 100% transference of energy, their molecular temperatures will be 0K.

On the other hand, the fallacy of infinite resonance (a system will resonate to the point that the REACTION of the system predicts the ACTING mechanism; only by changing the acting mechanism (adding energy) can you further increase the output energy) means that the highest disorderly energy should decrease over time and the creation of the lowest disorderly energy should also decrease.

So to make things interesting, let's say the water is 0*C (Note: this is a plateau line, neither freezing neither melting); will the water become ICE, LIQUID, or SLUSHY

[TheShadow1138]

Assuming that the air in the container was room temperature, then the only thermal energy in the system would be the air, glass, and water. Unless I'm missing something I believe that thermal equilibrium would be reached over time and with no further thermal energy entering or leaving the system it remain at that temperature. If I'm right, and the air is at room temperature then I believe the water would increase in temperature and become or remain a liquid.

If, on the other hand, all objects and substances in the system were at 0º C then the system should already be in thermal equilibrium since no energy may enter or leave the system. In this case I believe the water would remain liquid, or solid depending on the phase it existed in to begin with, though it may prefer the liquid state, I'm not certain.

[Wesreidau]

I've never heard of this "opposite energies" explanation of temperature before.

So we have a given mass of a homogeneous substance in perfect thermal isolation at 273.15 K. You say that if two molecules of equal and opposite energies collide with 100% transference, both their temperatures become 0 K. But if two molecules of equal and identical energies collide, do their temperatures become 546.3 K? If so there's an equal chance of the glass becoming warmer or colder with each molecular collision, and so I cannot see any change occurring, or an equal chance of warming or cooling.

So who cares.

[pincushionman]

A particle cannot collide with a partner with "opposite" momentum and cancel their momenta out, leaving them motionless in the same location (inelastic collision). Thus says Heisenberg. There is an unknown component of each particle's momentum both before and after the interaction. Furthermore, in a container of water, even an ideal one, there are components of energy in rotational and vibrational modes. Even if large portions of the translational momentum are "lost," they will be transferred to those modes.

[Bill Phil]

Yes, because some random things happen on the subatomic level. But it would be so long before it happens, that no one would pay attention after that much time. Not to mention it might be destroyed in all that time.

[KSK]

No idea what the fallacy of infinite resonance is...

If the cup was open to the environment, the water would evaporate and the cup would cool down. The water molecules in the cup have a distribution of kinetic energies - a small percentage have enough energy to escape from the liquid, taking their energy with them. This is how sweating works - the evaporating sweat draws energy from you in order to keep evaporating and so cools you down.

However, this only works if the molecules can physically escape. In your closed system, there'll be an equilibrium set up between the water in the cup and the water vapour in the container but there'll be no net loss of energy from the liquid and therefore no temperature change.

[ZetaX]

Over time, the collisions of molecules will pass energy between them, but this also introduces the possibility to nullify (not destroy) energy. With methodology similar to laser cooling, if two molecules of equal and opposite energies collide with 100% transference of energy, their molecular temperatures will be 0K.

You are simply violating conservation of energy here. You call it "nullifying" energy, but that's not a thing; where would it go anyway¿

[PB666]

please.

[KSK]

Over time, the collisions of molecules will pass energy between them, but this also introduces the possibility to nullify (not destroy) energy. With methodology similar to laser cooling, if two molecules of equal and opposite energies collide with 100% transference of energy, their molecular temperatures will be 0K.

Nope. Even if there was some mechanism for your molecules to stick together (so you can conserve momentum), their energy has to go somewhere. In most cases the molecules will simply bounce off each other. In some cases, I suppose two water molecules might form an (unstable) transient excited state, which then decays to give your two molecules (and their kinetic energy) back.

[AaronLS]

Yeh, for molecules to behave this way, they'd have to be more like billiard balls, but they simply aren't.

Even when two billiard balls that collide on opposing vectors and come to a stop, they still release that energy as soundwaves, deformation, structural integrity loss(breaking of intermolecular bonds), and heat. This is why such a collision is louder than other deflecting collisions.

There might be some interesting things happen very very rarely on an atomic level. The energy level of molecules varies, imagine one might be bumped into in such a way enough times to get it going extremely fast. It could theoretically gain enough energy for a collisions to break it into hydrogen/oxygen, but it would be extremely rare. I've seen someone do the calculations and the odds of it are extraordinarily rare that a molecule reach that energy level. Usually once a molecule gets going extremely fast it quickly bumps into enough things that the energy is spread out before it can go faster. The distribution of energy among the molecules would be a bell curve because of this.

[YNM]

I'd point out this. Even gasses doesn't heat up nor cool down by itself.

Anyway, being in a liquid state, polarity (or any kind of electrical interaction) also affects how molecules (and particles) move. But I'd believe that the way it works would be similar to gasses, so the temperature is retained. For the poll, I take it liquid, because, least that allows me to enjoy colder drink ! (and then there's this too in clouds)

Edited May 24, 2015 by YNM

[lajoswinkler]

How much time are we talking about? Thousand years? Billion? Billion ages of current universe? One mole of them? A googol years?

Universe would end way before that, so you need to establish more detailed parameters.

Realistically speaking, it will remain liquid. The container is not only closed, it's isolated. Matter or energy - no escape.

[SciMan]

It depends entirely on the temperature of everything ELSE in the sealed and isolated container.

If everything else is at the same temperature, no change.

If everything else is cooler, slushy.

If everything else is much cooler, ice.

If everything else is warmer, water.

If everything else is much warmer, steam.

If everything else is a lot warmer, plasma of ionized oxygen and hydrogen atoms.

But you didn't tell us the temperature of the other stuff in the container, so I can't give you a sensible answer.

[Iskierka]

Slush would be outright impossible anyway, as slush forms from partially melting crushed ice, not as an intermediate between water and ice. It has to form from warming up snow or from intentionally crushing the ice in a slush machine. Others have already pointed out that, if the container is totally sealed, then there is no energy change inside the container, so there will be no change in temperature, assuming its contents are already at uniform temperature.

[Fel]

I realized a fault in this (I forgot that I cannot isolate the water from air pressure and in its absence the physical state of the water would change), so there will be high energy molecules providing energy regardless.

This IS based off of something that exists, laser cooling is used in reality to drive temperatures down to near 0K. There is Kinetic molecular theory, describing temperature as the motion of particles and transfer of momentum. Interesting things DO happen on the quantum level; my insinuations are not 100% accurate, but they are based on physics as we know it.

One final note: This is a problem of probabilities, not absolutes. Newtonian physics uses absolutes, but this deals more with fringe effects.

[ZetaX]

This IS based off of something that exists, laser cooling is used in reality to drive temperatures down to near 0K. There is Kinetic molecular theory, describing temperature as the motion of particles and transfer of momentum. Interesting things DO happen on the quantum level; my insinuations are not 100% accurate, but they are based on physics as we know it.

No, it is based on your misunderstanding of laser cooling. Laser cooling does not violate conservation of energy (the energy is re-emitted) and momentum. What you suggest violates that as the energy would need to go somewhere (laser cooling is not a closed system, your suggestion is). So it's simply not a thing. You also completely ignored my inquiry on what "nullifying energy" is supposed to be.

Next time instead of answering "it violates one of the most fundamental laws we know" with "I have some vague memory of this being related to something else, thus it works", please do some fact checking first. Especially: citation needed (not for laser cooling, but for your claim).

Edited May 25, 2015 by ZetaX

[TheDarkStar]

Given enough time, the heat distribution would go through all possible configurations, so it would spend time (although often a very small time) in every state. Of course, that time is going to be at least a googol years. Probably a lot more, actually.

[AngelLestat]

A particle cannot collide with a partner with "opposite" momentum and cancel their momenta out, leaving them motionless in the same location (inelastic collision). Thus says Heisenberg. There is an unknown component of each particle's momentum both before and after the interaction. Furthermore, in a container of water, even an ideal one, there are components of energy in rotational and vibrational modes. Even if large portions of the translational momentum are "lost," they will be transferred to those modes.

I think this way too.

If the topic said that the container can not let energy escape or in. So I can not imagine any other possibility able to change the temperature.

The change of state of water is never accomplish (and it will take extra energy).

slushy is not an accurate answer neither.. but well, I take it.

Edited May 25, 2015 by AngelLestat

[SelectHalfling0]

Who cares. But for science, because entropy always is increasing (therefore the heat of the object) it will liquefy after many, many, many, many, you get the idea, years.

[YNM]

Who cares. But for science, because entropy always is increasing (therefore the heat of the object) it will liquefy after many, many, many, many, you get the idea, years.

We're talking about an isolated system. Unless the OP wants (truly) a closed system by definiton, which things would rather become colder due to radiative process outside of the container.

[JaredTheDragon]

The premise is false, due to a fundamental misunderstanding of the material involved.

1. Any container must be made of matter. All matter absorbs and emits charge. Not all matter recycles and emits charge in the same way, but there's no evidence of any baryonic matter that isn't charged. Charge is photons.

2. Temperature is thus charge-density, or the amount of photons in a given volume. You aren't applying any physical, mechanical definitions to temperature (heat). Heat is charge density, often given to the infrared photon, but all photons can potentially collide with larger matter (electrons, protons, neutrons) and spin up or down into infrared.

3. The walls of glass, to absorb no energy, would have to exist in an ultimate vaccum with no incoming charge. This has never been shown to be possible. The glass itself emits takes on and emits its own charge, since it is made of matter, and all matter takes on and emits charge photons.

4 Your phrase, "but this also introduces the possibility to nullify (not destroy) energy.", is also false. Nullify and destroy mean the same thing here. Your definitions need to be rigorously examined. You state it almost correctly in the following sentence, but energy is mass in motion, and even in a 1:1 collision the masses are still in motion. Perhaps not relative to each other, but they must still have energy to have mass in the first place. They are still moving with the local system, in the solar system, in the galaxy, in the universe. We have never witnessed a massless, energy-less particle.

5. Infinite resonance is just a catch-all. It requires a resonating mechanism, a waveform outcome of actual moving particles. Without a mechanism, it's just a fun thing to say, with no physics.

6. Given the current, falsified model of hydrogen, oxygen, and water above those, your theory must introduce increasing margins of error. If the configuration of water is unknown, using it as a baseline isn't helpful.

[ZetaX]

While your analysis in general is correct and agrees with the objections I mentioned earlier, the following two are completely missing the point just for the sake of being nitpicky:

The walls of glass, to absorb no energy, would have to exist in an ultimate vaccum with no incoming charge. This has never been shown to be possible.

Ever heard of the term "thought experiment"¿ It is not inherently impossible for such a thing to exist, or for an entire universe filled with water to exist. Even if, then that question would still be well-defined: use classical thermodynamics and such in an universe full of water; or similiar assumptions that are purely of mathematical nature.

they must still have energy to have mass in the first place. [...] We have never witnessed a massless, energy-less particle.

As the OP was not talking about energy becoming zero, but only about temperature, this is simply irrelevant. Also, instead of citing the non-existence of such particles, why ignoring the bigger elephant in the room: conservation of energy¿

Edited May 26, 2015 by ZetaX

[Camacha]

Is this chemistry or physics?

[KSK]

If we're being picky, then photons aren't charged.

[arkie87]

Let me explain the situation

1) You have a cup of water in a perfectly insulated container; this container neither lets energy in nor out.

2) The variance of the individual molecular temperatures is non-zero. (System has chaos)

3) The walls of the glass absorb no energy

Over time, the collisions of molecules will pass energy between them, but this also introduces the possibility to nullify (not destroy) energy. With methodology similar to laser cooling, if two molecules of equal and opposite energies collide with 100% transference of energy, their molecular temperatures will be 0K.

On the other hand, the fallacy of infinite resonance (a system will resonate to the point that the REACTION of the system predicts the ACTING mechanism; only by changing the acting mechanism (adding energy) can you further increase the output energy) means that the highest disorderly energy should decrease over time and the creation of the lowest disorderly energy should also decrease.

So to make things interesting, let's say the water is 0*C (Note: this is a plateau line, neither freezing neither melting); will the water become ICE, LIQUID, or SLUSHY

Molecules follow a Boltzmann Distribution for their energies. Thus, even in thermal equilibrium, molecules are allowed to (and do) have different energies.

Thus, the only solution, is that the water remains at 0C (from the fact you called it water at 0C, i assume its in the liquid state at 0C), and due to the Boltzmann distribution, some ice/slush will form.

- - - Updated - - -

Ever heard of the term "thought experiment"¿ It is not inherently impossible for such a thing to exist, or for an entire universe filled with water to exist.

I'm always surprised by people on these forums who never seemed to hear of the concept of "thought experiment", and would rather nit pick than be helpful.

If the water was held in an infinitely thin membrane (zero thermal mass), which was painted with a surface of emisivity = 0, then this thought experiment is valid in theory.

Of course, emisivity = 0 paint does not exist, but bothering to mention that would be missing the point.

Edited May 27, 2015 by arkie87