Is it easier to heat something up or to cool it down?

Depends on many variables. Heat moves from hot to cold so assuming you had something like a fire to heat an object up, but only air to cool it down then it will heat up faster.

What do you mean easier? It requires the same amount of energy.

>>7755708
Pretty sure lack of heat is a universal constant where there aren't suns providing heat

Cooling it.
The natural progression of the universe is for objects to cool, do nothing and an object will cool down.

>>7755738
>What is CMBR

>>7755795
Yes. What is cmbr?

>>7755791
>hello i failed thermodynamics and dont even know what equilibrium means

>>7755855
>expansion of universe is accelerating
don't come back

>>7755857
>do nothing and an object will cool down

only an autist would claim this statement is true by resorting to the heat-death of the universe.

and even then you are not necessarily correct, as the theories involving the end of time are unsubstantiated and contain a great deal of debate.

>>7755859
That's the answer to the question though.
What's the easiest thing to do? Do nothing.
What happens when you do nothing? It cools.

>>7755855
>objects will heat up on their own

>>7755864
That happens every day dipshit. It gets cool at night, then the sun comes out and warms stuff.

>>7755891
>on their own
>the sun warms
science and language not your strong point eh

>>7755862
no. when you do nothing, the object comes into equilibrium with its surroundings.

if the object is colder than its surroundings, it fucking heats up, or what the fuck does your icecream do if not melt on a summer day?

jesus christ you are fucking hopeless.

>>7755864
>what is equilibrium

it is worse than highschool in this thread i swear to god

>>7755902
>do nothing
>universe expands
>unvierse tends to equilibrium
>heat in objects decreases

hurr

>>7755846
Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation. Seriously? Google is too hard to reach, isn't it?

>>7755902
Why the fuck are you on this board?

File: 1451432425629.gif (3MB, 450x331px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 450x331px

>>7755891
>>7755855
Life must be terrible at that level of intelligence.

>>7755919
But any heat gain from that would be lost in an instant though

>>7755708
You're technically working against a gradient cooling something down. That's why it's so difficult to make things approach zero Kelvin

>>7755950
yeah. it sucks to have a phd in nanotech, live in europe and travel the world, and bed hundreds of women because you are smart enough to understand them and understand why they are attracted to intelligence.

my life is so hard, hows yours been?

>>7756431
no. you are wrong. its only harder to get things to approach zero kelvin because everything in the immediate environment is so much hotter than that.

As it is, you can still create an environment that goes to microKelvin using equipment that would fit in a small kitchen.

>>7755704
It depends what the starting temperature is and the temperature of the surroundings.

At room temperature, heating generally requires energy. A relatively more hot thing will cool down naturally to reach equilibrium.

If you want something to be cooler than ambient temperature, that requires energy as well.

>>7756500
Don't fuck with this guy. Probably a Navy SEAL too.

File: Fuck you.gif (1MB, 460x294px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 460x294px

>>7756500
How do you find the time to shitpost on 4chan?

Is it easier to be more vague, or to be less vague?

>>7755704
heat is just energy. the lack of heat is the lack of energy. being that getting energy at all is annoying and storing is a nightmare, it is easier to cool something down than heat it up. you don't even have to do anything. just leave it alone.

>>7756721
pic made me kek

File: 1197 - BWc5dhB.jpg (165KB, 667x782px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 667x782px

>>7756515
Thank god someone in this thread gets it.
The rest of you should probably kill yourselves.

File: 1446523777134.jpg (10KB, 206x200px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 206x200px

>>7757049
Can you even observe an object at 0K? Or does the very fact that you're able to observe it imply that it's emitting something observable, and therefore not in a zero-energy state?

File: images.png (2KB, 150x150px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 150x150px

Stop replying, this thread must die.

>>7757265
Wait for a few more hours and it'll 404

>>7755704
it is easier to heat up your mom.

>>7757174
It's not even that observing it makes it impossible. The Third law of thermo explains that it's just literally impossible to ever reach 0K. Asking why we can't reach 0K is like asking why the gravitational constant is what it is. It's just part of the universe.

>>7757386
why can't we reach 0k

>>7757049
all ur kelvins are belong to us

>>7757396
To quote Nernst: "It is impossible for any procedure to lead to the isotherm T = 0 in a finite number of steps." To get a temperature down to 0K with say magnetic refrigeration you would wind up having to remove an infinite amount of heat from a system, which is clearly impossible. It's impossible in the same sense as to why we can't go faster than the speed of light, which would require an infinite amount of energy. Honestly the wikipedia page on the third law is pretty good. Same with the chapter in "Concepts in Thermal Physics" by Blundell. A lot of neat shit happens at super low temperatures for statistical physics, but we'll never be able to reach 0K.

both are pretty easy - to heat something, just use the microwave. To cool something down, put it in the refrigerator.

Question: do things "cool down" on their own?
My knowledge of heat transfer is quite limited, but as far as I'm consider there needs to be some sort of gradient for heat exchange to take place.

File: fucking idiots.jpg (17KB, 194x259px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 194x259px

ITT: high school freshman who haven't taken basic chem yet