Comment on 2hot2handle
Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
developing or occurring without apparent external influence, force, cause, or treatment
Pretty much the definition of spontaneous if you ask me.
Eh, it definitely has a cause. A known one. The fact water will boil isn’t spontaneous. “Spontaneous” still works for the sole reason which specific molecules is nigh impossible to predict.
So, who is correct depends entirely on the mental framing of what someone thinks of when they read “water”.
This post isn’t showcasing mansplaining. It’s showcasing pedantry.
“Spontaneous” is actually the correct word to use here, using its definition in statistical mechanics.
Here’s an example: …pressbooks.tru.ca/…/5-6/
This should have been the correct answer to Kev, and not that thing about mansplaining.
I think would’ve even worked in a reference to “it is Kev’s turn to study statistical mechanics.”
Yes, I already said it is correct when viewing it as spwcific water boiling.
This post isn’t showcasing mansplaining. It’s showcasing pedantry.
Just like this comment!
Yes, that’s the point. I’m explaining a very pedanticpoint, ofc that requires ample amounts of pedantry.
Spontaneous doesn’t mean “happens suddenly without explanation” what are you on about?
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Eh, it definitely has a cause. A known one.
Nothing to do with the physical definition of spontaneity. Spontaneity of a process just means that the ∆G is negative or total energy of the system is lower after the process, and additional energy isn’t required for the process to be thermodynamically allowed.
for the sole reason which specific molecules is nigh impossible to predict
Also unrelated, but it is fully impossible to predict, since in trying to predict it well enough you reach quantum scales where everything is probabilistic. That doesn’t at all mean everything is spontaneous.
So, who is correct depends entirely on the mental framing of what someone thinks of when they read “water”.
Nope, the first person is strictly correct and the second is strictly incorrect, as described above.
Water as an abstract idea of a specific type of fluid? Not spontaneous.
Nope, exactly spontaneous. You could even forget about water entirely and model this just as a bunch of nuclei and electrons in a box and derive that the lowest energy state has them being in a gas of atoms, and the initial state doesn’t, which is enough to demonstrate by our earlier statements that boiling is spontaneous.
Water as in what will literally happen to the bottle of water in the picture?
This is “not even wrong” territory.
This post isn’t showcasing mansplaining.
It absolutely is. We will define mansplaining here as the confidently correct dismissal of statements of women by men where we suspect that the genders of the participants may play a role.
The first part has been demonstrated above. It is also reasonable to assume the second given that we observe this happening to women at a far greater frequency than to men. Although, like with atoms, we cannot prove that this individual instance is a direct result, it is consistent with the probabilistic data and we would need additional evidence to conclude that this particular guy just goes around wrongly correcting everyone equally.
Nearly valid pedantry at that.
Once again, not remotely.
Well said.
I think you may have meant to say “confidently incorrect dismissal” in your definition of mansplaining.
Oh, good catch, thanks
Everything has a cause.
Even your face
While you are technically correct, you also misunderstand who the target audience is and what language is required to actually make people understand.
When speaking to a normal person you don’t want to slap random jargon and care too much about precise definitions. So in that context spontaneous is a great word to describe what is happening. People without deep backgrounds in the field will not understand technical jargon and it will only make them not pay attention.
Spontaneous is actually the thermodynamic jargon in this case though :)
No, I’m explaining the pedantry, not agreeing with it.
I'd still say it's spontaneous because when you reduce pressure you're removing a factor rather than adding one. It's like saying "when you compress a spring and then remove the compression force, it will spontaneously return to its previous length." Water vapor can be seen as water's "natural" state when thero no pressure forcing it to be a liquid. Also saying "simple thermo" to an astronaut is definitely mansplaining, because it implies the other person doesn't know that simple thermo.
Hahaha, under that definition not spontaneous can ever occur
No, many things in chemistry are functionally spontaneous.
I agree, it really is showcasing pedantry. That man is just an asshole, not a misogynistic asshole. To me, this thread is full of confirmation bias. People who want to see what they personally believe, not objective reality.
no
Yes. Pedantry doesn’t make the guy more correct. He’s still being an ass. I’m not agreeing with him. So the fact you still don’t understand is a bit… sad for you. Do you treat autistic people like shit because they don’t operate on social norms and the most common understandings of statements?
words have meanings. thats not what spontaneous means in this context. the definition of spontaneous in this context is independent of the nature of water. and i frankly don’t give a shit if you struggle with social norms. i care that the word has a meaning and you are abusing it.
It’s not an external cause. It boils on its own, because the molecules don’t want to be close together.
Pressure almost by definition is external influence…
There’s no pressure in space
You should be an astronaut
In addition to what MotoAsh said, it also has a definite external influence and a well defined force acting upon it. It boiled because it underwent a change in pressure.
Without apparent external influence. Relative pressure is something humans have a hard time judging. As well as it just exists everyone in that zone vice something easy to perceive, like a fire under a pot boiling water.
Idk man, my ears are pretty good at estimating quick relative pressure changes.
Also, were I in a spavesuit, I’d probably have trouble judging temperature changed as well.
You are telling me the vacuum pump makes it not an apparent external influence? It is kinda loud?
She wasn’t saying that water was spontaneously boiling in this chamber. She was saying that they were in a space-equivalent chamber with a pressure such that water would spontaneously boil. If you found yourself in the environment that is being simulated here (outer space), you would be able to observe water spontaneously boiling workout the vacuum pumps.
Evil_Shrubbery@thelemmy.club 21 hours ago
Yes, afaik in science community that is in fact the correct use of the word, meaning from “environmental” conditions (well, it’s test conditions for the environment in this case) and not from an active, localised influence.
Dasus@lemmy.world 18 hours ago
I mean, if you put some stuff in a room, then slowly start to heat the room up, would you describe the things — which will at one point or another catch fire —as “spontaneously” combusting?
I’m not arguing the use is wrong here, just a thought I had.
SparroHawc@lemmy.zip 8 hours ago
Yes, actually. The autoignition point is the temperature at which a given material will spontaneously (as in, without a spark or the like) catch fire, given a source of oxygen.
Dasus@lemmy.world 7 hours ago
Image
Evil_Shrubbery@thelemmy.club 17 hours ago
Yes, that is why I used the quotation marks & explained that the “head up the room” in your case would be a simulation of environment.
Eg, a tree at 20°C has an extremely low chance of spontaneously combusting into a self-fueling oxidation event (lol) in your average environment, but those chances at 200°C are much higher.
In order to test that spontaneous combustion theory (whilst having no regard for the life of the tree) you would need to simulate that 200°C environment conditions. By heating the air around the tree.
In that case you would heat up a chamber or whatever and in turn eventually maybe burn the tree.
This wound still test/prove the spontaneous combustibility thing.
You bringing open flame in contact with the tree however would not* be that - that is just actively starting a reaction.
*unless the environmental conditions you were testing/simulating was “open 1000° flames completely everywhere” … but you may not get a grant for testing if wood added to fire also burns
rumba@lemmy.zip 15 hours ago
“Spontaneous” in this usage is highly dependent on frame of reference.
Dasus@lemmy.world 15 hours ago
Image