Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Tuesday, July 10, 2007 | Science : Physics and Chemistry | print version Print | Comments

Document Small, Yes, but Mighty: The Molecule Called Water

by Natalie Angier

Reposted from:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/10/science/10angi.html?ref=science

Some 380 million years ago, a few pioneering vertebrates first made the leap from water to land. And today, tens of millions of their human descendants seek summer amusement by leaping the other way. According to the travel industry, close to 90 percent of vacationers choose as their holiday destination an ocean, lake or other scenic body of water.

We may have lungs rather than gills, and the weaker swimmers among us may be perfectly capable of drowning in anything deeper than a bathtub, yet still we feel the primal tug of the tide. Consciously or otherwise, we know we're really all wet.

As fetuses, we gestate in bags of water. As adults, we are bags of water: roughly 60 percent of our body weight comes from water, the fluidic equivalent of 45 quarts. Our cells need water to operate, and because we lose traces of our internal stores with every sweat we break, every breath and excretion we out-take, we must constantly consume more water, or we will die in three days.

Thirstiness is a universal hallmark of life. Sure, camels can forgo drinking water for five or six months and desert tortoises for that many years, and some bacterial and plant spores seem able to survive for centuries in a state of dehydrated, suspended animation. Yet sooner or later, if an organism plans to move, eat or multiply, it must find a solution of the aqueous kind.

Life on Earth arose in water, and scientists cannot imagine life arising elsewhere except by water's limpid grace. In the view of Geraldine Richmond, a chemistry professor at the University of Oregon who often talks to the public on the wonders of water, Mark Twain put it neatest: "Whiskey is for drinking; water is for fighting over."

Behind water's peerless punch, and the reason it rather than alcohol or any other lubricant serves as the elixir of life, is the three-headed character whose chemical name we all know: H2O. Scientists observe that when two atoms of hydrogen conjoin with one of oxygen, the resulting molecule displays a spectacular range of powers, gaining the mightiness of a molecular giant while retaining the speed and convenience of a molecular mite.

"Water behaves very differently from other small molecules," said Jill Granger, a professor of chemistry at Sweet Briar College in Virginia. "If you want something else with similar properties, you'd end up with something much bigger and more complex, and then you'd lose the advantages that water has in being small."

Because of water's atomic architecture, the tendency of its comparatively forceful oxygen centerpiece to cling greedily to electrons as it consorts with its two meeker hydrogen mates, the entire molecule ends up polarized, with slight electromagnetic charges on its foreside and aft. Those mild charges in turn allow water molecules to engage in mild mass communion, linking up with one another and with other molecules, too, through an essential connection called a hydrogen bond. The hydrogen bond that attracts water to water and to other like-minded players is subtler than the bond that ties each water molecule's atoms together. But subtlety breeds opportunity, and from hydrogen bonds many of water's major and minor properties flow.

With their hydrogen bonds, water molecules become sticky, cohering as a liquid into droplets and rivulets and following each other around like a jiggling conga line. Such stickiness means that water is drawn to the inner plumbing of plants and will crawl up the fibrous conduits to hydrate even the crowns of redwood trees towering hundreds of feet above ground.

Pulled together by hydrogen bonds, water molecules become mature and stable, able to absorb huge amounts of energy before pulling a radical phase shift and changing from ice to liquid or liquid to gas. As a result, water has surprisingly high boiling and freezing points, and a strikingly generous gap between the two. For a substance with only three atoms, and two of them tiny little hydrogens, Dr. Richmond said, you'd expect water to vaporize into a gas at something like minus 90 degrees Fahrenheit, to freeze a mere 40 degrees below its boiling point, and to show scant inclination to linger in a liquid phase.

That's what happens to hydrogen sulfide, a similarly sized molecule but with its two hydrogen atoms fastened to sulfur rather than to oxygen; on our temperate world, hydrogen sulfide has long since reached its boiling point and exists as a foul-smelling gas. Same for the tidy troika of carbon dioxide: low freezing point, low boiling point, and, poof, it's up in the air. But given its vivid power of hydrogen bonding, water proves less flighty and fickle, with a boiling point at sea level of 212 degrees Fahrenheit, and a full 180 degrees lying between the tempest of a teapot and the tinkling of an ice cube at 32 degrees. A vast temperature span over which water molecules can pool and cling as the liquid assets we love best.

We rely in myriad ways on water's fluid forbearance, its willingness to take the heat without blinking. Earth's oceans and lakes soak up huge quantities of solar radiation and help moderate the climate. As sweat evaporates from our skin, it wicks away large amounts of excess heat.

Water also serves as a nearly universal solvent, able to dissolve more substances than any other liquid. It can act as an acid, it can act as a base, with a pinch of salt it is the solution in which the cell's thousands of chemical reactions take place.

At the same time, water's gregariousness, its hydrogen-bonded viscosity, helps lend the cell a sense of community.

"Water acts as the contact between biological molecules, not just separating them, but imparting information among them," said Martin Chaplin, a professor of applied science who studies the structure of water at London South Bank University. "In an aqueous environment, all the molecules are able to feel the structure of all the other molecules that are present, so they can work as whole rather than as individuals."

There's no end to water's chemical kinkiness, including the way it freezes from the top down and becomes buoyant as it chills. Most substances shrink and get denser and heavier as they cool, and expand and lighten as they melt. Water bucks the norm, and is lighter and airier as ice than when liquid, and so in winter marine life can find liquid haven beneath the floating blanket of ice, and so in summer ice cubes bob and clink in your glass of lemonade. Bottoms up.

Comments 1 - 27 of 27 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #55179 by Kervinator on July 10, 2007 at 7:50 am

 avatarI'm going to the fridge right now to get some!

Other Comments by Kervinator

2. Comment #55182 by A.Lex on July 10, 2007 at 7:54 am

"...boiling point at sea level of 212 degrees Fahrenheit (100 degrees Celsius), and a full 180 degrees (100 degrees Celsius) lying between the tempest of a teapot and the tinkling of an ice cube at 32 degrees (0 degrees Celsius)."


I like Natalie's writing and her passion for science. Her recent book "The Canon: A Whirligig Tour of the Beautiful Basics of Science" should be an obligatory lecture for any kid leaving the high school (especially American one). It puzzles me, though, why she does not make any effort to make her books and articles more understandable by the majority of the world, which is everything outside the U.S.of A. The "quarts", "Fahrenheits", etc. are long forgotten there (outside USA). Converted values into commonly used liters (or litres) and degrees Celsius would really help to spread the message.

Other Comments by A.Lex

3. Comment #55197 by Kakashi_monkey on July 10, 2007 at 8:30 am

 avatarWater. Can't go without it.

The human fetus is proof we came from water creatures. At some point in de development, the fetus has a tail and finlike parts, which vanish as it further grows. Can't say that was God's will or anything; it's evolution's legacy in action!

Other Comments by Kakashi_monkey

4. Comment #55206 by Rtambree on July 10, 2007 at 8:46 am

Question:

Does anyone know why the transition points between the three states of water are commonly given as 0 degrees Celsius (solid to liquid) and 100 degrees Celsius (liquid to gas), when water evaporates to a gas on quite mild days? Leave a bowl of water out on a cool cloudy day, and it's soon gone, even though the temperature is nowhere near 100 degrees Celsius. Clouds form over the the ocean and the ocean is quite cool. Most textbooks don't clarify why water changes to a gas well below boiling point.

Other Comments by Rtambree

5. Comment #55216 by DC_Runner on July 10, 2007 at 9:13 am

Speaking of water ....

When God flooded the entire Earth and killed all of its inhabitants - except Noah, of course -- where did the water drain after it stopped raining?

And if you can answer that, please clarify what an atheist is to do when someone sneezes.

Thanks in advance.

Other Comments by DC_Runner

6. Comment #55221 by Rtambree on July 10, 2007 at 9:21 am

5. Comment #55216 by DC_Runner

>please clarify what an atheist is to do when someone sneezes

The German says "Gesundheit" i.e. "Health"

Seinfeld says "You're so good looking"

The atheist says... "This is your life and it's ending one sneeze at a time"


Other Comments by Rtambree

7. Comment #55225 by ab_initio on July 10, 2007 at 9:42 am

Rtambree,

Temperature relates to the average kinetic energy of a body's substituent particles (water molecules in this case). So at 100 degrees C, the average kinetic energy of the water molecules is equal to that which is needed for the molecules to break away from the attractive forces between other molecules and leave the liquid.

At 100 degrees C most of the molecules will have sufficient energy to escape (the liquid is desribed as boiling). At a room temperature of 25 degrees C, the average molecule will not have near enough energy. However, there will be a distribution of kinetic energies; some molecules will have less and some more than the average. Of those which have more, some will have enough to escape from the liquid...which is how water dries up below its boiling point (evaporates).

-Greg.

Other Comments by ab_initio

8. Comment #55228 by Rtambree on July 10, 2007 at 9:48 am

Thanks Greg - that's a concise clear explanation that would have taken Alistair McGrath 14 unabridged volumes to totally obfuscate.

Other Comments by Rtambree

9. Comment #55229 by robert s on July 10, 2007 at 9:48 am

The boiling point is the temperature at which the liquid and gaseous phases are in equilibrium.

The situation of water evaporating in cool air results from the fact that because the molecules in the liquid have a spread of energies, some of them at the surface have enough to break free and enter the atmosphere. In a closed vessel, eventually the concentration of water vapour would rise to the point where molecules from the gas would re-enter the liquid at the same rate as liquid molecules evaporate.

In the open, though, the loose molecules blow away, so the rate of condensation is always lower than the rate of evaporation.

With water at boiling point, the average molecules have enough energy to break free, but evaporation removes energy from the liquid (the latent heat of vapourisation), therefore once some water has boiled off, the temperature drops and boiling ceases.

You have to keep the burner on under a pan to keep the water boiling, but the heat does not increase the temperature of the liquid, instead, that energy is carried away in the steam.

Edit - Must type faster! Well done Greg

Other Comments by robert s

10. Comment #55233 by Smith on July 10, 2007 at 9:58 am

 avatarFor your information, Angier had an interview with Point of Inquiry two weeks ago, promoting her new book "The Canon: A Whirligig Tour of the Beautiful Basics of Science".


Also, here is an article she wrote in 2004 titled "My God Problem," criticizing those scientists standing on the sidewalks. If you like Sam Harris' writing, I think you will like it, too.

Other Comments by Smith

11. Comment #55236 by Friend Giskard on July 10, 2007 at 10:06 am

 avatarRtambree

Evaporation occurs because some molecules near the surface have enough speed to escape from the liquid. This can happen at any temperature.

Boiling is more than this. Consider a bubble of vapour that chances to form inside a liquid. At the surface boundary between the vapour phase an the liquid phase you have molecules from the vapour colliding inelastically with the liquid surface and becoming part of it, and molecules escaping from the liquid phase into the vapour. If the former process is happening faster than the latter, the bubble will shrink and disappear. In this case the liquid is below boiling point. If the latter process is happening faster then the bubble will grow, and the liquid is boiling. Adding further heat at this point will not increase the temperature, but only cause the production of more vapour and bubbles.

The temperature at which this change in behaviour occurs depends on the ambient pressure. Up a mountain the boiling point of water is less than it is at sea level. (In the past this was a way of measuring your altitude. I got this nugget from the film "Mountains of the Moon.")

Other Comments by Friend Giskard

12. Comment #55238 by HarryHUK on July 10, 2007 at 10:14 am

Rtambree

Evaporation as already identified will also be affected by atmospheric pressure.
The higher the atmospheric pressure the lower the rate of evaporation and vice versa.
Barometers predict weather patterns based on this fact.

HarryHUK

Other Comments by HarryHUK

13. Comment #55245 by melisande on July 10, 2007 at 10:42 am

 avatarThis makes me recall the dangers of Di-hydrogen monoxide!!!111

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Di-hydrogen_monoxide
tee hee.
;^P

Other Comments by melisande

14. Comment #55258 by Kervinator on July 10, 2007 at 11:26 am

 avatar
When God flooded the entire Earth and killed all of its inhabitants - except Noah, of course -- where did the water drain after it stopped raining?

As everyone knows, this is just a story but some people do take it literally. There are more problems with the flood story as outlined here.

Other Comments by Kervinator

15. Comment #55263 by Alkal on July 10, 2007 at 11:28 am

This is sheer poetry...

About the ark, even if ALL the water on earth were to be taken, seas etc etc, it would not flood the entire earth, someone had proven it mathematically

Other Comments by Alkal

16. Comment #55313 by ridelo on July 10, 2007 at 2:32 pm

All those special properties like those from water and the carbon atom. Looks alot as if some god designed them to make life possible. But if those properties weren't there we wouldn't be here to ask the question. Always that anthropic principle gets in the way of god! A very compelling thought: what if nature was as it is except that only water or the C-atom where slightly different? But that amounts to the same question as what would happen if the charge of the electron would be a little bit different.
Nevertheless...

Other Comments by ridelo

17. Comment #55324 by steveroot on July 10, 2007 at 3:34 pm

 avatarI still remember the definition of "boiling point" from my general chemistry professor in 1969:
"the temperature at which the vapor pressure of a liquid equals the external confining pressure."
This explains why water boils at a lower temperature at higher altitudes.
Steve

Other Comments by steveroot

18. Comment #55326 by HarryHUK on July 10, 2007 at 3:52 pm

A very interesting thought,ridelo,it all seems highhly improbable,but there is something more improbable than that.

Other Comments by HarryHUK

19. Comment #55339 by Rtambree on July 10, 2007 at 5:00 pm

16. Comment #55313 by ridelo

>Always that anthropic principle gets in the way of god!

And what if there were only two physical dimensions?

And what if the Earth was smaller or larger or more distant or closer to the Sun or didn't have a large moon to stabilise it?

What if the Earth didn't rotate to equalise temperature or have a molten iron core to generate a magnetic field to block from harmful radiation?

What if there wasn't a Jupiter to guard against asteroids. What if comets hadn't delivered water after the formation of the Earth?

What if the sun was too short lived or had a binary or passed through a galactic turbulent zone?

What if the dinosaurs had survived the K/T impact? What if the climate hadn't momentarily stabilised to allow agriculture? What if the carbon cycle that stabilises temperature didn't occur because there was no continental drift?

What if early hominids didn't develop language? What if a supernova exploded nearby anytime in the last 3 billion years? What if there wasn't any metal in the crust?

All this points to just one possible conclusion - only the Flying Spaghetti Monster could have designed it that way, and if you don't renounce your gluttony and accept his meatball sauce, you're all going to be tortured forever by being forcefed brocolli and spinach. Amen.

Other Comments by Rtambree

20. Comment #55352 by rthille on July 10, 2007 at 5:57 pm

but I like brocolli and spinach.

Other Comments by rthille

21. Comment #55397 by ridelo on July 11, 2007 at 2:15 am

Interesting comment, Rtambree, but all your examples are accidental (the dimensions perhaps not). If elsewhere the conditions were about the same then there could be life too. Maybe not intelligent life but all the same life that might develop intelligence. But it takes a different set of natural laws tot change the C-atom or the polarity of the water molecule, I suppose.
Without a polar H2O no spaghetti sauce would stick to the spaghetti! But then even spaghetti wouldn't be possible as it contains polar -OH groups. Strong argument for FSM!

Other Comments by ridelo

22. Comment #55406 by Rtambree on July 11, 2007 at 3:13 am

Ridelo,

Maybe the goldilocks/anthropic principle is the same analogy to use when thinking about both the life-friendly laws of our Hubble Bubble within the multiverse, and the convenient location of Earth from the sun, etc.

An eternal multiverse solves both the questions of creation ex nihilo and the fine-tuning problem.

There's no evidence for this of course, but it has the best "answers : more questions ratio" compared to other theories.

The eternal multiverse also carries on the tradition of the principle of mediocrity - i.e. we are not a special species, and we live in no special place, in no special time, and in no special universe.

Other Comments by Rtambree

23. Comment #55434 by ridelo on July 11, 2007 at 4:55 am

Rtambree,

With other words: better to realize that there still is a lot we don't know. There's the god of the gaps again!
Let's all be humble. And that counts for you too, faith heads, who always seem to have the answers in advance to any evidence!

Other Comments by ridelo

24. Comment #55497 by rthille on July 11, 2007 at 9:55 am

I don't know enough physics, but I distrust statements like, "if this or that physical constant was just slightly different, the universe as we know it would have collapsed or been a desert." Maybe that physical constant is the result of some far more fundamental particle/constant interactions, and any changes at that level to introduce the physical constant change would still result in a universe conducive to life, since other particles/constants would change in unexpected/unpredictable (at this time) ways.
In short, I think we lack the imagination and science to truely predict the form of a universe where any physical constant was different than our own. Therefore to say that a universe that supports intelligent life is extremely unlikely is not very well supported.

Other Comments by rthille

25. Comment #55501 by Rtambree on July 11, 2007 at 10:20 am

>Therefore to say that a universe that supports intelligent life is extremely unlikely is not very well supported.

There's many more ways an egg can be disassembled than assembled.

Look at own universe - even in this one example, life took 10 billion years to start and almost got knocked out several times in mass extinctions. It only exists on a thin film several kilometres thick on one planet around one star in one galaxy. We can find no evidence of it anywhere else. Intelligence only arose in the last blink of a geological eye and is precarious at that.

It's not conclusive, but it's safe to assume that universes conducive to life would be a lot rarer than universes not conducive. But you're right, we'll probably never know either way.

Other Comments by Rtambree

26. Comment #76672 by Smith on October 6, 2007 at 4:12 pm

 avatarShe gave an interesting talk recently. Check it out on google video.

Other Comments by Smith

27. Comment #109878 by the_ultimate_samurai on January 10, 2008 at 1:46 am

i think life would have still formed if constants were different, i think it just wouldnt be life as we know it. i think one thing with the anthopic principal is that is looks at the universe in an egocentric means, much the same way the religious people do, they think only about themselves, it goes on the idea that everything in the universe is made perfect to support us. but it doesnt look the other way, we are made perfect to exist in the universe. its not a marvel of creation, its a marvel of evolution. given an environment life will tend to go to be best fit for that environment.

did life only form recently? or did life only form recently here? consider the very lasting nature of life, extremophiles for instance, capable of living in places we never considered life could thrive, it doesnt seem totaly improbable that life could form elsewhere, and live on planets or even satalites or asteroids where it might be thought life couldnt exist.
now there isnt proof for life on other planets, there isnt proof against, but there is a high probability (more than we can say for god) that life could form on other planets, that it could evolve, and that there could be creatures stranger than we can imagine, adapted to environments we know nothing about.

if the moon wasnt where it is, life as we know it may not exist, but this doesnt mean life wouldnt exist, it just wouldnt be "as we know it" and i think this goes for all those little things people say for "if this was different" or "if that was different" if it was different life may not exist, but this doesnt mean life itself is improbable, and life as we know it, including us, would not be alive, but somewhere on another planet (or if the constants go against the formation of planets, some form of system) some life would form, maybe even intellegence, and think "wow, this world was very well created to support me, there must be a divinity behind it"

Other Comments by the_ultimate_samurai
Reload Comments | Back to Top

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password:

Send a letter to the editor of the original media outlet.
letters@nytimes.com