Do Water Molecules at the Bottom of a Pool Move Faster and Get Closer?

AI Thread Summary
Water molecules at the bottom of a pool do not move faster due to high pressure; instead, they remain close together due to water's incompressibility. The incompressibility is largely attributed to electron degeneracy pressure, which prevents further compression of atoms. Unlike gases, where pressure results from molecular collisions, fluid molecules vibrate in place, leading to a different pressure dynamic. The temperature at the bottom of the pool does not increase, so the molecular motion remains consistent. Overall, the density and pressure at the bottom do not significantly alter the behavior of water molecules compared to those at the surface.
quantum123
Messages
306
Reaction score
1
Since the water pressure at the bottom of the swimming pool is very high, are the water molecules there bouncing faster , or are they closer together?
 
Physics news on Phys.org


quantum123 said:
Since the water pressure at the bottom of the swimming pool is very high, are the water molecules there bouncing faster , or are they closer together?

As you know, water has very little compressibility.

The incompressibility of water is down to the incompressibility of the individual atoms. For atoms, the only way to become bigger is for electrons to transit to higher orbitals, and the only way to become smaller is for electrons to drop down to lower orbitals. When all low orbitals are occupied the atom cannot compress further.

The most extreme state in which compressed matter is still atoms is in extinguished stars. Less and less heat is generated in the core, and subsequently gravity can contract the extinguished star to smaller and smaller volume. The last thing opposing gravity is called 'electron degeneracy pressure'. Quantummechanically it's not possible for two electrons to be in the same quantum state, this is called the 'Pauli exclusion principle'. Electron degeneracy pressure keeps gravity from contracting the extinguished star further.

If the star is so massive that electron degeneracy pressure is not enough then the gravitational contraction changes the composition of the extinguished star. It becomes a neutron star. In a neutron star further contraction is opposed by neutron degeneracy pressure.

Getting back to water and a gas:
Pressure exerted by a compressed gas is different from pressure exerted by a compressed fluid. In the case of a gas the pressure exerted on the walls of the vessel does arise as the sum of many collisions with the walls. The harder the collisions, or the bigger the number of collisions, the higher the pressure.

I'm slightly guessing here, but I think that in the case of a fluid the molecules are hugging the walls of the vessel anyway. I think the fluid molecules are elastically vibrating in roughly one spot, rather than flying in straight lines (in between collisions) as gas molecules do.

The velocity of the vibrating motion is correlated with temperature, and the water at the bottom of a pool isn't warmer. Also the number of collisions cannot be much higher than at the surface. It follows that the incompressiblity of water is mainly due to electron degeneracy pressure.

On the bottom of our oceans the pressure is huge by human standards, but it's still only a tiny, tiny fraction of the total capacity of electron degenaracy pressure.
 


Thanks , it certainly helps. This question suddenly arose out of my mind when I was tutoring my student on pressure in fluids and Archimedes principle, when my student suddenly took the microscopic view of atoms and molecules of a fluid.
 


I would have thought that the molecules in water are close but still free to move about. Perhaps the ratio of molecule size versus the space between molecules is large enough that even a small change in density corresponds to a significant decrease in space between molecules and a significant increase in the rate of collisions between molecules, and in turn the rate of collisions would explain the higher pressure without a higher temperature.
 
Last edited:
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...

Similar threads

Back
Top