Thermodynamics of Hell

[Mimi]

The following is an actual question given on a
University of Washington chemistry mid-term. The
answer by one student was so "profound" that the
professor shared it with colleagues, via the Internet,
which is, of course why we now have the pleasure of
enjoying it as well.

Bonus Question: Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat) or
endothermic (absorbs heat)?
Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs
using Boyle's Law (gas cools off when it expands and
heats up when it is compressed), or some variant.

One student, however, wrote the following:

First we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing
in time. So we need to know the rate that souls are
moving into Hell and the rate they are leaving. I
think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets
to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are
leaving.

As for how many souls are entering Hell, let's look at
the different religions that exist in the world
today. Some of these religions state that if you are
not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell.
Since there are more than one of these religions, and
since people do not belong to more than one religion,
we can project that all souls will go to Hell.

With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect
the number of souls in Hell to increase
exponentially. Now, we look at the rate of change of
the volume in Hell, because Boyle's law
states in order for the temperature and pressure in
Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to
expand proportionately as souls are added.

This gives two possibilities:
(1) If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the
rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature
and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell
breaks loose.

(2) If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the
increase of souls in Hell, then the temperature and
pressure will drop until Hell freezes over.

So which is it?
If we accept the postulate given me by Theresa during
my Freshman year, "It will be a cold day in
Hell before I sleep with you !" and take into account
the fact that I still have not succeeded in having
sexual relations with her, then #2 cannot be true, and
thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and will not
freeze.

The Student received the only "A" given.

 

[Prime]

You kinda Have to like the creativity of the answer. 🙂

 

[maverick83]

Truly an excellent response, but what possessed whoever was responsible for creating the test to ask a question like that? There is no evidence that hell exists. But, assuming that it does, we have no clue what it actually is. Any answer given would be speculation, complicated by more speculation.

By the way, that guy who challenged the pledge of allegiance would have had a field day with this!😛

 

[Myriads]

In my days as a Professor, I'd often drop a question onto a test just for the fun of it. Often the answers were fun to read, and made me smile and stay sane during the grading part of the test.

Myriads

 

[Ticklish9's]

The nature of hell...on a tickling forum? 🙂

Well, Hell is neatly explained by superstring theory...it's just one of several extra spatial dimensions that folded early in the universe's history into a very small layer around "normal" 4-D space. Just in case anyone was curious. 🙂


Note: The above has no scientific accuracy whatsoever.

 

[Dave2112]

I like that answer. It wasn't supposed to be valid scientifically, but it gives an insight into the problem-solving abilities of your students. Even though questions like this are off the wall, I think that they're important from time to time. Science has to be more than just nonvariable equations now and then. Problems like this can show how adept at "thinking outside the box" a student is. The greatest scientific discoveries have taken place when all of the hard data has been exhausted and a "leap of faith" has to be taken to make new scientifically accepted data.

When I was in 9th Grade, I was in an advanced school and was taking an introductory philosophy class. (No bragging, just pertinent to the thread...) My teacher used a science question to test our grasp of what he called "wide-angle thinking". Before any of us had been exposed to any of Zeno's Paradoxes, the question was put before us;

"What would actually happen if an irresistable force met an immovable object?"

Some actually had three pages worth of data, believe it or not. Three of us got it right (or at least right according to our teacher) that the question was paradoxical in that a true irresistible force and a true immovable object could not exist in the same Universe without redefining their parameters.

Using a science question in a philosophy class proved the same thing as using the posted "philosophical" question in a science class. Sometimes you have to be forced out of your way of thinking to advance.

😎

 

[Haltickling]

The student's handling of the topic was excellent, but with a major logical flaw (at least from a scientific POV): In the last paragraph, an invalid parameter was involved in the otherwise logical abstract. Quoting an individual's statement as a preliminary fact is a big no-no in science, especially as this lady could neither predict the future nor possibly have any first-hand experience with the 'subject matter' hell. So her statement is simply irrelevant, based only on a language idiom (which only makes sense in English).

But the absurd nature of the question itself required an absurd answer, and (like Dave said) the prof probably wanted it to be answered like that.

I would probably have replied that there are not enough scientific facts on the subject matter. Neither its temperature nor its mere existence could be proven, so any discussion of its thermodymical state will remain utterly speculative and completely out of scientific grasp... 🙄

 

[venray]

I dont know , Hal...

I think Theresa's "postulate" was significantly relevant to this student's "proof"! LOL

Ven (who's ideas on Heaven & Hell best be left for another thread)

<center>

</center>

 

[Ticklish9's]

The nature of women...

Theresa, being a woman and therefore prescient, is easily able to determine the future in this case, as there is no real circumstance in which she could relinquish control of the variable. Thus, by retaining control of the variable, she removes uncertainty and allows for completly accurate predictions. And women will ALWAYS have control over this particular variable.

And thus, Hell is exothermic!

 

[JoBelle]

MIMI!

LOVE THIS piece! Thanks for posting it.
THERMODYNAMICS *shiver* The class that made me change my major! 😛

Joby