Question

Difficulty: HardSuggesting Experiments to Resolve Viewpoints

Three scientists discuss the Mpemba effect, a phenomenon where initially warm water freezes faster than initially cold water under identical cooling conditions.

Scientist 1
The effect is primarily driven by mass loss due to evaporation. As warm water cools, it loses a significant portion of its mass to evaporation. Because less mass requires less heat removal to reach its freezing point, the initially warm water freezes first.

Scientist 2
The effect is caused by dissolved gases. Cold water naturally contains a higher concentration of dissolved gases (such as oxygen and carbon dioxide) than warm water. These gases act as solute impurities, lowering the freezing point of the cold water and inhibiting rapid ice crystallization.

Scientist 3
The effect is due to convection currents. When warm water is placed in a freezer, a steep temperature gradient between the hot core and the cold surface creates rapid, sustained convection currents. This enhances the rate of heat transfer to the environment compared to the weaker convection in initially cold water.

Match each scientist's hypothesis with the corresponding experimental outcome that would invalidate that hypothesis.

  • Scientist 1's hypothesis (evaporation-driven mass loss)Initially warm water freezes faster than initially cold water when both samples are cooled in airtight, sealed containers that prevent mass loss.
  • Scientist 2's hypothesis (dissolved gas concentration)Initially warm water freezes faster than initially cold water when both samples are boiled and thoroughly de-gassed prior to cooling.
  • Scientist 3's hypothesis (convection-enhanced heat transfer)Initially warm water freezes faster than initially cold water when both samples are cooled in a microgravity environment that suppresses buoyancy-driven convection.

Answer

Scientist 1's hypothesis is invalidated if the Mpemba effect occurs in airtight, sealed containers; Scientist 2's hypothesis is invalidated if the Mpemba effect occurs when both samples are de-gassed; Scientist 3's hypothesis is invalidated if the Mpemba effect occurs in a microgravity environment.
Each hypothesis is invalidated when its proposed driving mechanism is experimentally blocked or removed, yet the Mpemba effect (warm water freezing faster) is still observed. Preventing evaporation via sealed containers tests Scientist 1; eliminating dissolved gases via de-gassing tests Scientist 2; and suppressing convection via microgravity tests Scientist 3.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the independent variable or physical mechanism proposed by each scientist.
Scientist 1 proposes evaporation (mass loss); Scientist 2 proposes dissolved gases (freezing point depression); Scientist 3 proposes convection currents (buoyancy-driven heat transfer).
Resolving a scientific conflict requires identifying the unique variable or mechanism suggested by each viewpoint.
2
Determine the experimental setup that isolates and eliminates or controls each proposed variable.
Sealing containers eliminates mass loss (evaporation); boiling/de-gassing eliminates dissolved gases; microgravity eliminates buoyancy-driven convection.
To test if a specific factor is necessary for the Mpemba effect, the experiment must remove that factor while keeping other conditions identical.
3
Analyze the consequences of observing the Mpemba effect despite the removal of each factor.
If the warm water still freezes faster after removing a factor, that factor cannot be the primary cause of the effect, thereby invalidating the corresponding hypothesis.
An observation that contradicts the necessary prediction of a hypothesis invalidates that hypothesis.

Key Concept

Suggesting Experiments to Resolve Viewpoints
Rate this question