what is water the manifestion of?

we know these things;

  1. hydrogen becomes a liquid at, i think, at -256 degrees C

  2. oxygen becomes a liquid at -236 degrees C

  3. when both bond together they “burn” so i’m told by a chemist.

  4. when they bond they “PRODUCE” manufacture liquid water. at now room tempurature.

so my question is why is it now possible that two elements, that on there own must be extremely cold to be in a liquid state and yet when brought together can now have this liquid state at room temperature? and what “burns”?

i have one year of universtity chemistry, many years ago so i’m familar somewhat with molecular bonding. but to my mind this does not explain what water is.

my view at the moment is that there is a form of plasma present in each and every atom. and it is this plasma which formed into a liquid NOT the atoms themselves. since the atoms never seem to loose there nature.

it’s probably time to do some physics my friend


can you recommend any book(s) that i could read. i’ve tried the internet for info none seem to address my question directly.

any help would be appreciated.

It’s just a result of molecular interaction :slight_smile:
Every element has it’s own property and can interact with another element or class of elements. Look into the Periodic Table- it’s strictly well-arranged and you can get all of it.
You have to take a textbook from my school, it’s so well explained ;')

is not the arrangement about molecules of water? been there done that.

this is my point. we have two atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygen and each has on their own the ability to become liquid, at a certain temperature.

we have bonding, the building glue of water to hold hydrogen and oxygen together. electrics. picture this bonding. in some sense it is much like building a house. but the difference is that the house does not manifest something beyond its construct. but the bonding of hydrogen and oxygen does. it produces water. is it not plausable that water is actually not only the result of this bonding but releases an energy within these atoms that is always there? a liquid substance or state of energy.

north, it’s simple :

the state of aggregation of matter depends on it’s internal energy as compared to it’s phase change points.

hydrogen, all by itself, attracts other hydrogen molecules relatively little, and so it’s a gas with very little energy (-256 is very close to absolute zero). oxygen by itself attracts other oxygen molecules a bit more, but still not very much. thus, it is a gas with a little more energy.

when the two combine, they form a molecule that attracts other molecules just like it with respectively alot more force, and thus, in order for them to be a gas, they need alot more energy.

so, although the energy a water molecule has would be enough to turn either hydrogen or oxygen into a gas, because they are bound together they need alot more.

lets consider this example : if you are alone, and go camping, you need about 200 bucks. if suzy is alone and she goes camping, she needs maybe 220, the 20 extra to buy tampons. if you two get married however, you will need 1k between the two of you to go camping, because now you have a SUV and baby chairs and whatnot.

happy ?

Water is the manifestation of universal flux. Matter being the nexus of time/space.
What is in a state of slow flux, in relation to the observer, appears as more solid and unchanging.
What is in quicker flux, in relation to the observer, appears fluid or airy.

i understand what your saying. but does that mean that each molecule of water presents the minuteness of a liquid state? and if so how would this molecule look if we could take one molecule and look at it with depth?

im affraid i don;t understand your questions.

what precisely do you mean by the minuteness of a liquid state ? the liquid state is a macroscopic phenomena. how is it minute ? is the flavour of your pie the manifestation of the minuteness of flavour ? or pepper ? or matter ? i don’t see what you mean.

also, how do you mean look at a molecule “with depth” ? you mean reconstructing it out of styrofoam in a 3d model ? or using the funny glasses with different colored lenses ? or what ? unfortunately, what would a molecule look like if it were macroscopic is not an answeable question, it couldn’t exist if it were much bigger. it’s like asking what would the sun look like if it was really made of 12 molecules. it would look like 12 molecules.

i have found that it is difficult too convey what i mean. since there is confusion of my question. althougth i don't myself. i can see this reaction.

therefore, picture the reaction, right down  to the bonding of hydrogen and oxygen. and this bonding has a geometry. and as well neither hydrogen or oxygen changes it form.  

picture and think of the geometry of the water molecule. and go beyond this. we have a geometry of water. it is the geometry that “produces water” and yet neither the atom of hydrogen or oxygen change shape but they produce a form. so the texture of water is not about the atoms themselves or geometry, although they are of course are essential to water existence. but the resultant of this molecular combination is water, a liquid. why?? my look is that the geometry of the molecule releases an energy(plasma) that forms the texture and dimension of water(three dimensional).


(Hope you don’t mind me butting in here zeno)

Here’s another way you can think about it. A liquid forms when atoms or molecules ‘clump’ together, but not rigidly so, as this will form a solid. So what you could be asking is that, why do water molecules clump together at high temperatures (i.e. above 0 degrees C), but their constituent atoms do not?

Temperature is an important issue here. Every atom vibrates, and this level of vibration or energy is directly proportional to the temperature in Kelvins. Now, hydrogen and oxygen atoms attract each other very weakly, and at high temperatures, the thermal vibrations are much more forceful then the small force of attraction between these singular atoms. So therefore, they don’t ‘clump’ together and they form a gas.

It is also important to realise that the force of attraction between the atoms are electrostatic in nature, meaning that the attraction is due to positive and negative charges being attracted to each other. If we take two hydrogen atoms say, and place them close together, the positive nucleus of one atom will ‘see’ the orbiting electron and be attracted to it. However this type of attraction is very weak, due to the fact that there is also a competing repulsion from the two positive nuclei.

Now, when two hyrodgen atoms and an oxygen atom bond at high temperatures (above 0 degrees C), they form water, and what is called a ‘dipolar’ molecule. This dipolar molecule forms because of the geometry of the bonds. One end of the molecule is positively charged, while the other end is negatively charged. Therefore, the positive ends of other water molecules are strongly attracted to the negative ends of other water molecules and vice-versa. This attraction is relatively quite powerful (thankfully) and therefore the water molecules clump together to form liquid water. However, at temperatures above 0 degrees C, the thermal vibrations are still strong enough to keep the water molecules from locking together rigidly to form ice. Also, when the temperature is above 100 degrees C, the thermal vibrations are strong enough to stop the water molecules clumping together and therefore the gaseous state of water arises.

So the ‘texture’ of water which you mention is an emergent macroscopic property of these microscopic processes.

Hope this explanation helps

north friend, i was just trying to offer a broader thinking horizen for your question. if you tell me that chemistry can no longer explain a certain stuff, then i respond: try physics, which is the twin subject and perhaps the elder twin who would tell you more fundamental stuff

certianly noely. i will undersign your explanation, as i find it correct.

now, north, you seem to think that the properties of the macroscopic substance are a result of the “geometry” of it’s respective microscopic components. that is not so. the macroscopic properties of a substance are most oftenly the result of INTERACTIONS or patterns of interractions of it’s microscopic components.

think of the related problem of bacteria. this is the anthrax bacteria :

srs.dl.ac.uk/Annual_Reports/AnRe … cteria.jpg

look closely at it’s geometry. now, how does that geometry explain the symptoms ?


also, your contention about how plasma would be found in something like water on earth has went unadressed unfortunately, maybe because it is so ludicrous.

plasma does not exist on earth outside of specialised laboratories. a fire is not plasma in itself, unless it manages to get very very hot indeed (nuclear explosion sort of hot). while it is true that most matter in the universe is found in that state, it is also true that virtually none of the matter on earth/you’d come to interact with is.

from what i understand is that Cosmic Plasma when cooled is the essence of ALL matter. so in effect and affect, plasmas are present in all things around you.

now you have reminded that apparently it takes 6 molecules of water too manifest water.

fine. but if the electrons don’t change( or is it a cloud? so is the electron cloud that shows the result of the molecules of water?) and the proton does not change its properties, its still a particle.

then what is water a manifestation of? if not energy(plasma).

i’m not looking for the “WHY” for this is because of bonds.

i’m not looking for the essence of the result of the why.( existence of water). rather, the essence of the what “IS” water.

plasma is a state of aggregation dude. it’s nothing above that.

sure, if you want to say ice heated is in all water, so really ice is the alfa and omega of everything, you are welcome to. but it doesnt make sense.

explain further

ice is in water,potentially, is it not? since when isn’t it?

ice is not the alpha-omega of, everything. water is. since water provides the flexibility that life needs to exist. whereas ice is far to ridged.

therefore your right. ice is not the alpha-omega of everything(life).

but water is(life). water allows life, at least on this planet, to exist. water is malleable and allows the malleability of Earthly elements to form potential molecules, of life. which of course water has.

gee north, that’s pretty basic…
plasma is the ionised state of a substance

for example: a load of protons together - hydrogen plasma

of course electrons can be apart of plasma as well. and actually from what i understand can get to a higher acceleration because they are lighter than protons.

however lets get back to the question of water.

it would be interesting to find out from those who study quantum mechanics have to say about water. are there any that do? have any thoughts on the subject of liquid water?

you heard of the schrödinger equation? it’s a fundament of modern chemistry… it’s consequences explain how water can have such an odd structure