Live data from Hacker News

Scientists find molecular-level evidence for two structures in liquid water

phys.org

91–98 of 98 posts

Re: Scientists find molecular-level evidence for two structures in liquid water

#91

Could someone explain why raising standing water temperature to boiling, I see a constant stream of bubbles forming at the bottom of pan and floating up? Was there air between the water molecules to begin with? Any articles to help explain? I understand the obvious phase transition to gas which would escape at the top, but cannot quite grasp how we get the trapped air at the bottom.

Disclaimer: I am not a physicist and this is merely semi-informed speculation by an amateur enthusiast of understanding physical phenomena.

I had assumed that those were steam bubbles, not air bubbles. At high enough temperatures water becomes a gas. In a boiling pot, the highest temperatures are at the bottom. Temperature fluctuations on the bottom would lead to more steam production in some areas than others.

Any point at the bottom of the pot that did form a steam bubble would immediately lose energy to the steam and cool down. Now we likely are thinking of metal pots in this exercise, and metal conducts heat very well, so that cooled down point in the metal would draw nearby heat from the pan towards it, decreasing the chances of bubbles nearby. This would presumably lead to bubbles forming at some reasonable distance from each other, as any bubble formation causes the nearby pot metal to cool down.

Once in steam form, the steam bubble has a harder time losing energy. The energy was gained through direct contact of water with metal, but steam is much less dense, and it seems like the high-density shell of water around the steam bubble would act more like a mirror - reflecting the kinetic energy back into the bubble. This would keep the bubble stable as it travels up.

That's been my mental model of it for a while. It would be cool if someone who studied this stuff for real opined on it though.

Re: Scientists find molecular-level evidence for two structures in liquid water

#92

"Density is greatest at 39F, not 32F" But density at "greatest" would mean volume shrinking...right? I don't understand the article's logic.

Yes, exactly. Water occupies the least volume per unit mass (equally, per unit molecule) at 39F. As it cools further, it paradoxically begins expanding in volume (as the polar ends seeking out their opposites in other molecules introduce a loose order to the liquid randomness).

Then, suddenly, at 32F/0C, water's real miracle happens. All the loose molecules click into place with other molecules - well, nearly all, because ice cubes aren't monocrystalline, typically, but those spare unmatched ends of molecules at crystal interfaces are still trapped by their other ends, and any single molecule unable to "find" a match for either strongly attractive end will still be trapped as well into solid-matrix mechanics. At most, those solo unmatched molecules become slight diffaction points for phonons (sound-energy propagation), but they are in fact so rare and so slight that they are generally undetectable. (The crystal faces are made of millions of unmatched molecule ends, and have therefore much more effect.)

Other polar molecules can act similarly, but water is astoundingly smaller than most others - so its molecules "find" their matches more easily, as they don't need to "rotate" much mass to line up - and is much less flexible as a result (so the alignment on the two-molecule level forms a more rigid body than, say, a polar sugar, and the volumetric effect is more pronounced).

Re: Scientists find molecular-level evidence for two structures in liquid water

#93

It would be hilarious if homeopathy turned out to be right! (To be clear, I don't think that will actually happen, but it would be hilarious if it did!)

Your comment is in violation of the rule (applicable to comments):

> Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents.

Avoid commenting with tangents that have nothing to do with the article. If you don't agree, the site moderator dang can explain to you with administrative action.

Re: Scientists find molecular-level evidence for two structures in liquid water

#94
post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps some very traditional ones would. Most people are just concerned with addressing their symptoms. Rightly or wrongly, homeopathic products are considered medicines, not supplements, and people in general are very mindful of spending money on medicines that don't work.

> Rightly or wrongly, homeopathic products are considered medicines, not supplements, and people in general are very mindful of spending money on medicines that don't work. [Citation needed]. People spend enormous amounts of money on junk "cures" and have done for centuries. Homeopathy is just one of the many current such scams.

> [Citation needed]

Just what the hell are you arguing? They're not condiments or decorations or supplements or foods. Medicine is the word we use for drugs that are intended to address an active medical concern whether they work or not.

Also for the record, standard pharma medicines often try to pass off seriously toxic ingredients in their products, e.g. benzalkonium chloride, which is a quarternary ammonium compound, a notable tissue irritant causing significant tissue injury, such as to the nose and throat. The FDA doesn't care about you; they exist to protect the vendors.

Re: Scientists find molecular-level evidence for two structures in liquid water

#95

>The boundary between them is thought to terminate at a "second critical point." This deeply supercooled region is so hard to study experimentally because water crystallizes rapidly This sounds like the type of thing that could be used for some future technology that doesn’t exist yet and I can’t comprehend. Some sort of process that takes advantage of being in this second critical state.

> some future technology that doesn’t exist yet

This is not usually how technology progression works when you see it play out.

More likely, it would be something like a 2% more efficient refrigerator. These advances stack up for a hundred years and build into something that looks like magical future technology.

There were very very few exceptions to this in history.

Re: Scientists find molecular-level evidence for two structures in liquid water

#96
post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with making claims about the chiropractic practices is that it spans such a huge range of "absolute bullshit" to "physically grounded adjustments". Joints and vertebrae (especially) really can be out of alignment, and you can absolutely see that on imaging. Muscles in constant tension can be self-reinforcing in ways that don't easily correct themselves without an external force. My wife has significant ba…

Your understanding of modern homeopathy is rooted in misconceptions. Many homeopathic products actually contain a sufficient amount of the active ingredient that they absolutely can conceivably have a significant biological effect.

In my country in the EU it's illegal to market homeopathic remedies if they contain active ingredients in quantities that could have an effect. Otherwise they become regular medicine with different marketing requirements.

Re: Scientists find molecular-level evidence for two structures in liquid water

#97

This is a molecular dynamics (with a specific TIP4 water model) and AI. I would characterize this paper (and basically most MD/AI simulation) as "guided hypothesis generation". I am skeptical that this result will hold up to experimental validation. It is incredibly easy to generate molecular dynamics results that look perfectly reasonable but have nothing to do with "reality" (i.e., how a lab experiment with the sam…

There's plenty of experimental evidence for similar things. That's why I made a comment on this earlier about how it relates to it. Check my comment or https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aec0018 or https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms3401

Re: Scientists find molecular-level evidence for two structures in liquid water

#98
post #45
post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine the number of citations you could get for a solid double blind study that showed homeopathy to beat placebo. The only better impact I could imagine would be showing that climate change doesn’t actually exist.

Mmmm..the question is..who would fund it. And if someone funded it, who would publish it...

I think you should look into NCCAM funding[1], how much that was, and how many useful treatments came out of it, before speculating that 'funding for the research to be undertaken' is the issue stalling clinical acceptance of complementary/alternative treatments like homeopathy. I do believe the amount was about 2 billion US dollars.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Center_for_Complement...

Post reply on HN