£1000 Prize; Hot Water v Cold Water: Freezing

[R300will]

Gene Vincent said:

My guess is that your A-level is over 20 years old... things move on at a huge pace.

The same with a Degree, if you attained the degree even as recently as 2005/6 and had no more than a passing interest in Fundamental Physics since, you are in possession of dead information.

Educational attainment is static, frozen in time, science moves on relentlessly.

In answer to your post, what I have written here is unambiguous and correct as of today 12/07/2012, what you learned 'back in the day' is of little or no consequence if you use that as a basis to argue against.

I'm 21 so it's only 3 years old. Interesting how quickly science moves on nowadays though. I experience similar levels of speed in medical advances but was unaware this happens at the same speed across the whole sector.

[simonrockman]

I think it's to do with the shape of the H2O molecules. Heat is all about movement of molecules. The faster they move the hotter the substance. What we measure as heat is the average velocity, some molecules are movine very fast even in a cool liquid and some slowly in a hot one.

To make ice the molecules have to form into a lattice formation, with four oxygen bonds to each hydrogen atom.



When water freezes it has to move from the atoms all swilling around to this fixed shape.

I conjecture that hot water moves into the shape more readily than cold water, because the atoms are already swirling around faster.


Simon

[hairykrishna]

Gene Vincent said:

NorthernBoy said:

Gene Vincent said:

E=Mc^2 is responsible for so many misconceptions it is staggering.

But the simplest way to convey the correct message is to ask one simple question... did the process you describe involve any Nuclear process?

If yes, then indeed Energy can become mass and vice versa
.

I have to ask, why do you pretend to be an authority on science yet post rubbish like that?

Energy/mass equivalence is not restricted to nuclear interactions only. There is no subtext in there putting a limit on where it applies; it's a pretty general rule of nature.

You do this quite often, post in a lofty manner, pretending to be an expert, but to anyone who's actually done a few degrees in the subject, well, you just seem to make an arse of yourself.

In the specific case above, even Wikipeia offer a better explanation than you do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass–energy_equ...

E=Mc^2 expresses how much energy a given amount of mass is equivalent to. Not that matter is made of energy.

Energy/Mass equivalence is not at issue here, they are simply equivalents.

What is at issue is turning Energy into Mass. You can't condense energy and make it become matter. Energy is 'work'... furthermore there is no theory in physics where matter's made of energy. The reverse is equally true.

Energy/Mass equivalence is the relation of two properties of matter to each other.

Finally I can't think of a better way for you to make yourself look 'intelligent' than to tell a practising Theoretical Physicist and Mathetician to look up physics topics on Wikipedia... priceless

Errr... where did your post go?

Edited by Gene Vincent on Thursday 12th July 00:16

You can go in the energy->mass direction just as easily as mass->energy which seems to be the argument. Pair production?

[don4l]

Yesterday evening I did an experiment to see if hot water froze quicker than cold water.

The cold water froze first.

Perhaps some of you should try this yourselves.


It would be interesting to see if anybody can get the hot water to freeze first.


Don
--