Has the Mystery of the Mpemba Effect Been Solved?

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Faiq
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the Mpemba effect, specifically whether an explanation for it has been found and if it is accepted within the scientific community. Participants explore definitions, interpretations, and the validity of various sources related to the effect.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that there is no unambiguous and generally accepted definition of the Mpemba effect, leading to confusion about its explanation.
  • Concerns are raised about the reliability of sources, particularly criticizing the Daily Mail for not providing competent scientific reporting.
  • One participant suggests that the Mpemba effect might be an experimental artifact, implying that when it occurs, it is due to factors beyond just starting temperature.
  • Another participant argues that the hotter water must cool to the temperature of the cooler water before freezing, suggesting that it cannot freeze faster under equal conditions.
  • A later reply mentions that the temperature/time graph shows cold water sub-cooling, which could explain differences in freezing times, indicating that other variables may be at play.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express disagreement regarding the existence and definition of the Mpemba effect, with no consensus on whether it is a real phenomenon or merely an artifact of experimental conditions.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations in the discussion regarding the assumptions made about the Mpemba effect, the definitions used, and the conditions under which the effect is observed.

Science news on Phys.org
That depends on exactly what you consider the "Mpemba effect" to be; there is no unambiguous and generally accepted definition of what it is. The wikipedia article on the Mpemba effect, along with its talk page (it is always wise to look at the talk page!) explains some of the issues here.

The original paper is here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1310.6514, and it's interesting in its own right.

As an aside, the Daily Mail is not in general an acceptable source here, and this article is an example of why. It's not even first-hand reporting; it's digesting without understanding (no competent science journalist could write a sentence that starts "The Mpemba Effect is the theory that...") a blog that in turn is trying to summarize the paper for a lay audience.
 
Nugatory said:
That depends on exactly what you consider the "Mpemba effect" to be; there is no unambiguous and generally accepted definition of what it is. The wikipedia article on the Mpemba effect, along with its talk page (it is always wise to look at the talk page!) explains some of the issues here.

The original paper is here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1310.6514, and it's interesting in its own right.

As an aside, the Daily Mail is not in general an acceptable source here, and this article is an example of why. It's not even first-hand reporting; it's digesting without understanding (no competent science journalist could write a sentence that starts "The Mpemba Effect is the theory that...") a blog that in turn is trying to summarize the paper for a lay audience.
So according to the paper you gave reference to, is the paradox resolved? Is the explanation accepted by scientists ?
 
Faiq said:
So according to the paper you gave reference to, is the paradox resolved? Is the explanation accepted by scientists ?
Did you read the first two words in Nugatory's response?
 
Faiq said:
So according to the paper you gave reference to, is the paradox resolved? Is the explanation accepted by scientists ?
Since there is no general agreement on if the effect even exists or if so, what it is, the closest you can get to a scientific community consensus is that when it occurs, it is probably an experimental artefact. In other word, it is something that shouldn't happen if starting temperature is the only difference, so when it happens it is because starting temperature isn't the only difference.
 
Last edited:
This concept has never made sense to me.
The water which is originally hotter must at some stage cool to be at the same temperature as the originally cooler water.
From that point it would then continue to cool in the same manner as the originally cooler water had done.
So given that all other conditions are the same, the time taken for the hotter water to cool to some given temperature cannot possibly be less than the cooler water.
It can only be longer because it first has to cool to the temperature that the originally cooler water started at.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: binis
rootone said:
This concept has never made sense to me.
The water which is originally hotter must at some stage cool to be at the same temperature as the originally cooler water.
From that point it would then continue to cool in the same manner as the originally cooler water had done.
So given that all other conditions are the same, the time taken for the hotter water to cool to some given temperature cannot possibly be less than the cooler water.
It can only be longer because it first has to cool to the temperature that the originally cooler water started at.
Right. The link in the OP shows a temperature/time graph that clearly shows the cold water sub-cooling, which delays and slows the freezing. In order for the cold water to experience sub-cooling and the heated water not, something else must be different. For example, maybe heating the water drives off dissolved gases that interfere with the crystallization. In either case, if both are treated the same, ie, boiled first, and then stuck in the freezer at different temperatures, the effect would not occur.

But that is just one example of a certain scenario (others don't heat the water to a boil first, for example).
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Bystander
russ_watters said:
Since there is no general agreement on if the effect even exists or if so, what it is, the closest you can get to a scientific community consensus is that when it occurs, it is probably an experimental artefact. In other word, it is something that shouldn't happen if starting temperature is the only difference, so when it happens it is because starting temperature isn't the only difference.
Thank you, that was very helpful
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: russ_watters

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
9K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
9K
  • · Replies 191 ·
7
Replies
191
Views
82K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
11K
  • · Replies 152 ·
6
Replies
152
Views
11K