Is it possible for liquid hydrogen to exist in space?

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter rikishah
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Hydrogen Liquid Space
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the conditions necessary for liquid hydrogen to exist in space, exploring the roles of temperature and pressure in phase transitions. Participants consider both the vacuum of space and the conditions in interstellar clouds.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that while space is very cold, the extremely low pressure prevents hydrogen from existing in a liquid state.
  • Others emphasize that in the vacuum of space, the lack of pressure causes the boiling point of hydrogen to drop, making it difficult for hydrogen to remain liquid.
  • A participant questions whether the conditions in interstellar clouds, which may have some pressure, could allow hydrogen to liquefy, suggesting that increased pressure could also raise temperature, complicating the liquefaction process.
  • Another participant points out that even in interstellar clouds, the pressures and densities are still very low compared to Earth, which may inhibit liquefaction.
  • One participant raises the idea of gases potentially solidifying in space without liquefying, questioning the pressure requirements for such a phase change.
  • Some participants reference science fiction scenarios involving solid or metallic hydrogen, discussing the plausibility of such concepts in light of physical principles.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that both pressure and temperature are critical for hydrogen to liquefy, but there are competing views regarding the conditions in interstellar clouds and the possibility of solidification without liquefaction. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the specifics of these conditions.

Contextual Notes

Participants mention the extremely low densities in interstellar clouds and the implications for phase changes, but do not resolve the complexities of these conditions or their effects on hydrogen's state.

rikishah
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Hi,
I was wondering why there is no liquid hydrogen in space? Space is very cold, more cold then the temperature that is required to convert gas hydrogen to liquid here on earth? Therefore, why is hydrogen in space in gas form and not liquid?
Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
While it is very cold in space, the pressure is also extremely low. As I'm sure you know, both pressure and temperature dictate the phase of matter.
 
hi there
welcome to PF

In the vacuum of space, there is no pressure. This is critical for most liquids to remain in a liquid state because with no pressure, the temperature at which they start to boil drops.
so hence Hydrogen and pretty much any other gas ( at Earth's atmospheric pressure) cannot become a liquid in the vacuum of space

cheers
Dave
 
Last edited:
Thanks davenn. Just a sub-question here. What about interstellar cloud, when there is a pressure? Would a mix of helium and dust in a cloud be an obstacle for hydrogen to liquefy? I suppose that even the pressure in the interstellar could would increase, so would temperature, preventing hydrogen to liquefy?
Thanks
 
The pressures and densities even in interstellar clouds are extremely low. In cold, 'dense' regions, the density is around 10^6 molecules per cubic meter, compared to around 10^19 for air on earth!

Yes, when you increase the pressure, you increase the temperature, hence the ionized regions. But in the hot regions, the matter is incredibly diffuse - 10^-4 ions/m^3 !
 
Thanks
 
Like the others said. You must have pressure and temperature for it to liquify. My question is. Would it be possible for any gas to solidify is space and skip liquefying?, Or would that need more pressure to bring the particles together?
 
samsam18200 said:
Like the others said. You must have pressure and temperature for it to liquify. My question is. Would it be possible for any gas to solidify is space and skip liquefying?, Or would that need more pressure to bring the particles together?

what do you think ?

if there isn't enough pressure to liquefy, then ...

Dave
 
I remember reading a SF story in which people were mining (with robot machines) on a cold planet, with solid, 'metallic hydrogen' near the surface. I don't remember finding that idea too unthinkable at the time. Now, I would give the idea a bit more scrutiny, perhaps. (But it was a very good tale, as I remember.)
 
  • #10
sophiecentaur said:
I remember reading a SF story in which people were mining (with robot machines) on a cold planet, with solid, 'metallic hydrogen' near the surface. I don't remember finding that idea too unthinkable at the time. Now, I would give the idea a bit more scrutiny, perhaps. (But it was a very good tale, as I remember.)

LOL yup ... you have to watch SciFi for what it is ... fiction
the moment we try to analyse it with physics ... the story is destroyed :smile:


Dave
 
  • #11
davenn said:
LOL yup ... you have to watch SciFi for what it is ... fiction
the moment we try to analyse it with physics ... the story is destroyed :smile:


Dave

Just intuitively the story, for instance in the Gravity movie,
when the main character is flung at the end of a rope attached to the satellite, you would expect the rope to go taught and recoil back the way it came, but NOOO. The main character was stretched out at the end of a taught rope, holding onto another astronaut for several seconds as if holding his hand off a cliff. As soon as the main character let go of the other astronaut, the main character floated safely back to the satellite. Bam. The main turning point in the story absolutely soiled by this blatantly obvious error.

It was awful. Other than that it was a good movie.
 
  • #12
Afaic, Sandra Bullock can get as much Science wrong as she likes.
 
  • #13
TheDemx27 said:
Just intuitively the story, for instance in the Gravity movie,
when the main character is flung at the end of a rope attached to the satellite, you would expect the rope to go taught and recoil back the way it came, but NOOO. The main character was stretched out at the end of a taught rope, holding onto another astronaut for several seconds as if holding his hand off a cliff. As soon as the main character let go of the other astronaut, the main character floated safely back to the satellite. Bam. The main turning point in the story absolutely soiled by this blatantly obvious error.

It was awful. Other than that it was a good movie.

I never understood this complaint. When I was watching the movie, I just assumed:

that the rope was elastic, like a bungee cord, but the character's combined weight would have been too much and caused the rope to break if they both held on.

Although admittedly, a better idea for that scene would have been if they had both just missed the station, and Clooney simply pushed Bullock back, thereby pushing himself away due to conservation of momentum. That would have made more sense visually and be more of an active act of self-sacrifice I think.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
12K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K