[Bored chemist]

In my other thread, I concluded that temperature of an object represents its internal kinetic energy

So you made a mistake.

[alancalverd]

My hypothesis which I want to test using the experiment is that the water-ice mixture has dynamic equilibrium, which means that ,conversions occur in both direction at the same rate, instead of static equilibrium, which means that no conversion occurs at all.

That is entirely obvious, since neither body has zero internal kinetic energy. On another thread we discussed the possibility of a block of ice changing shape with no net exchange of mass.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

In my other thread, I concluded that temperature of an object represents its internal kinetic energy

So you made a mistake.

What's the correct conclusion?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

My hypothesis which I want to test using the experiment is that the water-ice mixture has dynamic equilibrium, which means that ,conversions occur in both direction at the same rate, instead of static equilibrium, which means that no conversion occurs at all.

That is entirely obvious, since neither body has zero internal kinetic energy. On another thread we discussed the possibility of a block of ice changing shape with no net exchange of mass.

The fact that there's still disagreements here shows that it's not that obvious yet.

[alancalverd]

The only person expressing any disagreement is yourself, apparently based on a meaningless and irrelevant experiment and a failure to comprehend "average".

[Bored chemist]

What's the correct conclusion?

temperature of an object does not  represent just its internal kinetic energy

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

temperature of an object does not  represent just its internal kinetic energy

What else are there?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The only person expressing any disagreement is yourself, apparently based on a meaningless and irrelevant experiment and a failure to comprehend "average".

Do you have any idea to make the experiment meaningful?
How do you interpret average?

[Bored chemist]

Do you have any idea to make the experiment meaningful?

Yes.
That's why I posted it.

If you have ice and water at equilibrium, in a closed vessel surrounded by ice and water, what other temperature can it be apart from 0C?
Consider the following before you answer.
(1) That if you add heat to the system, you won't change the temperature, you will just met some ice.
(2) That if you remove heat from the system, you won't reduce the temperature, you will just freeze some water
(3) Since the ice and water inside the container is at the same temperature as the ice and water outside it, there is no temperature gradient across the container wall, and therefore no heat transfer.

So, if there was a transfer of heat, the temperature wouldn't change, and there's no mechanism for a transfer of heat anyway.

[alancalverd]

The average of n samples of x is ( x_i)/n. At least it was when I was alive, but this thread seems to be some kind of scientific purgatory.

[Origin]

The average of n samples of x is ( xi)/n. At least it was when I was alive, but this thread seems to be some kind of scientific purgatory.

Agreed.  I think I saw a Twilight Zone where this thread the basic premise of the show.

[Bored chemist]

The average of n samples of x is ( x_i)/n. At least it was when I was alive, but this thread seems to be some kind of scientific purgatory.

It's important, in some cases to remember that there are several sorts of averages- mode, median and at least 3 sorts of mean.
And, even if you are talking about an arithmetic mean (as Alan highlighted) you can still run into problems.
If I mix the meat from one horse and one chicken, is it a 50:50 mixture?
And it's also important to distinguish between averaging over, for example, time, or position.

But when absolutely ****ing well everything under consideration is at 0^oC, the average is zero, regardless of what definition you use.
Any non-stupid definition will give the same answer.

[alancalverd]

But when absolutely ****ing well everything under consideration is at 0oC, the average is zero, regardless of what definition you use.

No, the average is 273 x k_B. It tends to zero at 0K, not 0°C.

But what matters here is that the average is the same for ice and water, or indeed any number of components at the same temperature.

If I mix the meat from one horse and one chicken, is it a 50:50 mixture?

no, but if you mix them well then any sample will be close to the average!

[Bored chemist]

But when absolutely ****ing well everything under consideration is at 0oC, the average is zero, regardless of what definition you use.

To clarify...
But when absolutely ****ing well everything under consideration is at 0^oC, the average is zero ^oC.

[paul cotter]

All you need are the laws of thermodynamics and the phase diagram for water to predict the outcome. The op, in my opinion, thinks the laws of thermodynamics are some sort of scientific 'dogma'. The laws of thermodynamics are probably the most solid and incontrovertible of all the laws of science. They have been tested and tested to the n+1 degree again and again and again(longer than this discussion).

[Bored chemist]

It's not how well tested the laws of thermodynamics are that matters here.
Again, it's Galileo dropping things off a tower.
He did not need to do the experiment.
He knew that the light thing and the heavy thing had to fall at the same speed- because he had considered what would happen if you tied a heavy ball to a light ball and dropped both.
The combined "thing" consisting of the two balls would obviously weigh more than the constituents.
So, if Aristotle had been right, the combination would fall faster than the heavy ball.
And the light ball would fall more slowly.
But how could the combined thing fall faster then the heavy ball when the light ball was trying to fall slower?

It's impossible.
Galileo knew that.

He only did the experiment for the benefit of the local dignitaries who were not clever enough to understand the logic.

Now we are looking at the laws of thermodynamics, rather than falling objects.
But, like Galileo, we have the advantage of a deep understanding.
We have known for a hundred years or so that momentum, angular momentum and energy are conserved.
We don't rely on experiments to know this.
We have a mathematical proof.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem

And yet, we still have hamdani yusuf saying that, because he can't do a proper experiment, he doesn't believe it.
He refuses to learn, or even accept the science.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

He is even less well informed that those local busybodies for whom Galilei had to climb the tower and drop stuff.

[alancalverd]

He knew that the light thing and the heavy thing had to fall at the same speed- because he had considered what would happen if you tied a heavy ball to a light ball and dropped both.

He should have known better, living half a century after da Vinci invented the parachute. Didn't anyone do a literature search?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The average of n samples of x is ( x_i)/n. At least it was when I was alive, but this thread seems to be some kind of scientific purgatory.

What if the particles have different masses?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Do you have any idea to make the experiment meaningful?

Yes.
That's why I posted it.

If you have ice and water at equilibrium, in a closed vessel surrounded by ice and water, what other temperature can it be apart from 0C?
Consider the following before you answer.
(1) That if you add heat to the system, you won't change the temperature, you will just met some ice.
(2) That if you remove heat from the system, you won't reduce the temperature, you will just freeze some water
(3) Since the ice and water inside the container is at the same temperature as the ice and water outside it, there is no temperature gradient across the container wall, and therefore no heat transfer.

So, if there was a transfer of heat, the temperature wouldn't change, and there's no mechanism for a transfer of heat anyway.

That's what I did, and the result was different than your prediction.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

All you need are the laws of thermodynamics and the phase diagram for water to predict the outcome. The op, in my opinion, thinks the laws of thermodynamics are some sort of scientific 'dogma'. The laws of thermodynamics are probably the most solid and incontrovertible of all the laws of science. They have been tested and tested to the n+1 degree again and again and again(longer than this discussion).

Just for fun,