Can You Have Water In A Vacuum A very annoying mini debate

[Jimmy 0]

OK, myself and a few friends have had some pretty annoying debates in our time, all very amusing, such as which is heavier a horse or a cow, but there is one that just keeps coming up and is ridiculously annoying!The question is can you have water in a vacuum???!I expect we are arguing about the liquid form although if it is a solid, or a gas, I expect the same rules to apply as the pressure may make it take a single form before whatever happens. (please correct me if I'm wrong!) But for all intensive purposes it involves the liquid water! (H2O, pure)I do not believe it is possible. My reasoning is that if water is in there, then by definition it is no longer a vacuum, so this is not possible. Or the pressure may cause it to split into hydrogen and Oxygen, which would be expelled as the vacuum is formed!.On the other side, his argument, ridiculous if I may say so, is that if you can have pure gold in a vacuum you can have water in it too. LOL. (he does not know if you can, but i would be interested to know if that is possible also!!)Please speak up for however you think the theoretical situation would play up and whether you think it is possible!cheers.

[Plenoptic 0]

Considering the fact that a perfect vacuum must be completely empty for it to be perfectly empty. A perfect vacuum has nothing at all in it, not one atom of any kind. As far as anyone knows, there is no such thing. A vacuum must have no matter and or pressure. A partial vacuum may contain some water because it isn't perfect and it is expected to have the tiniest bit of gas of some sort. But a vacuum is supposed to be a vacuum, it's not a vacuum if it has matter in it like water.

[inky-blue-white 0]

Yep, I was going to say more or less what was said above. A vacuum is defined as space without matter. And since water is matter afterall...the vacuum would not be a vacuum. However, if the water is already inside a certain space which then is put under vacuum conditions, with the water trapped inside, I would imagine [although I am not definite] that the water would be reduced to it's minimum volume, which normally would be solid but in water's case [with patterns of hydrogen bonding] it would remain liquid. I don't really know actually...but that's what I'm guessing at.

[Avalon 1]

Yep, I was going to say more or less what was said above. A vacuum is defined as space without matter. And since water is matter afterall...the vacuum would not be a vacuum. However, if the water is already inside a certain space which then is put under vacuum conditions, with the water trapped inside, I would imagine [although I am not definite] that the water would be reduced to it's minimum volume, which normally would be solid but in water's case [with patterns of hydrogen bonding] it would remain liquid. I don't really know actually...but that's what I'm guessing at.

 

The red text says it all, a vacuum is a space devoid of matter. Therefore, if there was any water molecules in there at all, i.e. trapped water, then it is not a vacuum. So I would conclude that it is not possible to have water in a vacuum.

[biscuitrat 0]

I agree with the above. A vacuum, for me, implies a space that is completely empty and devoid of something. Dictionary.com merely refines this definition. Because water is matter, there's really no way that it could exist in a vacuum where nothing can exist, least of all matter. The idea of a vacuum is strange by itself - something that contains nothing - but I'll have to stick with the above.

[midnightvamp 1]

Yea, my thoughts on it too would have to be that it can't have water in it to be a vacuum, since from what I know (very little) about the subject, I thought that nothing at all was in it, and that's why it was a vacuum. From what I'm reading above, that seems to be the definition that other people are finding for it too.Now, I hadn't heard that gold, pure or not, could be in a vacuum, if it was a true vacuum, but if this is true, then that would be something new and very interesting to consider, but I just can't bring myself to think that a vacuum could have something in it, as it goes against all that I learned on the subject. (Again, very little).

[BuffaloHelp 24]

Gees...and I thought you guys might be discussing about a water vacuum cleaner, or water in a vacuum cleaner I'm thinking about getting one.Anyway, it looks like the debate is almost coming to an end--in a perfect vacuum any presence of a matter equals imperfect vacuum. But since a perfect vacuum is a theory, it means that the opposit should exist as well--a very dense object that exerts massive force outward.So water cannot exist in vacuum if you want to achieve the perfect vacuum state. And probably if water (let's say the molecule) did exist it will be repelled by internal force that it could break itself apart and continue to move away from its origin. And if this vacuum was limitless, it will continue to travel away from the split point. But since this vacuum is limitless and the molecules are still traveling within the vacuum "space", this vacuum place will never be the perfect vacuum--still contains molecules.

[caos dreamer 0]

just tell you frend that if there is anything in that vaccuum - a water molecule or anything else, the vaccum does not longer exists by defenition

[Jimmy 0]

Thanks everyone for the replies! really interesting.can't say that I'm disappointed with the result though...! I WIN :P it appears that you cannot have water in a perfect vacuum.I wonder if water could exist in a near vacuum like in space...? (oustide of a spacecraft of course!)

Edited March 10, 2007 by Jimmy (see edit history)

[arnz 0]

And to think I thought this discussion was about a water-powered vaccuum cleaner lol.. and theres the debate about natural gas powered v diesel powered Public Transport buses elsewhere on the internet.Getting back on topic, the others have already covered it, but still water gets sucked up by air/condensation/etc eventually.

[Sentress 0]

I once saw a film of a demonstration of this phenomenon... a pan ofwater was placed in a large vacuum chamber (run by NASA in the 60s, I think). The air was pumped out. At some point the water began to boil. When water turns to a gas there is a "heat of vaporization" that must be supplied (which is why sweating cools you), in this case by the remaining water. Eventually the water cooled enough to freeze, but it was still boiling! (Which made a really big mess--ice chunks flyingeverywhere.)Anyway, I have no idea whether this film has been digitized and placed on the Net, or where to find it otherwise (you might try asking the people in charge of freshman physics at a local university), but it is well worth seeing.

[matak 2]

I didn't even notice the Sentress answer to this question before, but now i can concure with it. water or any other kind of liquid is in liquid form beacouse of pressure surrounding it. when pressure begins to drop the boiling point of water begins to lower.

 

at normal atmosphere pressure water boiling point is 100?C, and when we lower that pressure (let's say that we are on Himalayas) the boiling point of water would be at about 60?C, beacouse there is less pressure on water than on lower altitudes. so when we try to "pump out air" from water container in order to create vacuum water would just start to boil until it vaporates into thin air, and finally a vacuum is created.

 

this is just one of the amazing water (H₂0) characteristics. I have a subject on college in which we learn about liquids, and i must say water is really fascinating, and when you study it a bit more, you can really understand better how it really deserved that expression "Water is Life"

[greenyb118 0]

Hello Jim -.-Anyways as it turns out you're all wrong. Yet intriguingly, you're also all right...A vacuum means not air NOT no matter. Space is a vacuum, yet it's full of these funny planety things. So first off the arguement that water could not exist in a vacuum because it is matter and would therefore make the vacuum imperfect is flawed. Flawed as in wrong.But nevertheless water in the state that we know it could not exist in a vacuum as there is nothing to hold particles together, none of that gravity nonsense. So, water could exist - but only in the form of H2O molecules.So you lose Jim.Oh yeah, you lose.Now I come to think about it I should have chosen the third poll option...ah well.

[saga 0]

out of topic:what about a container in a state of vacuum but holds an anti-matter in the center?..........well... if vacuum is define as void of matter so i guess its ok for a vacuum to have anti-matter in it...

[Unregistered 012 0]

Well, i voted that water can exist in vacuums. Mostly because a perfect vacuum like somebody else here had said is completely empty. But if you are to put the water into a perfect vacuum it obviously isn't a perfect vacuum anymore. It would now have matter. But i believe that you can have water in a vacuum because a vacuum has matter in it still (i think), and water is matter. But i am not a scientist so i am not entirely sure on this. But i do believe that water can be in a vacuum.

Edited March 10, 2007 by savagemonkeyz14 (see edit history)