2

It just doesn't make any sense, if a reaction occurs because the reactants go into a lower energy state, then there should be no such thing as equilibrium. right? Because that would mean that the products are going back into their higher energy states..... Is it just some sort of random chance that they keep changing form?

HErO
  • 31
  • 2
  • Everything tends to a lower energy state, that's the reason spontaneous reaction occur without absorbing any energy. But when you supply energy to some substances they will show some molecular activity. –  Mar 08 '16 at 18:44
  • So there is equilibrium because the products re-absorb the energy? But why? why don't they just release that energy in some other form besides enthalpy? – HErO Mar 08 '16 at 19:14
  • 4
    @bluebellae I'm afraid your comment is bad, not the question. – Mithoron Mar 08 '16 at 19:22
  • See http://chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/4/gibbs-free-energy-minimum-or-zero – Mithoron Mar 08 '16 at 19:22
  • http://chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/44919/in-equilibrium-if-bonds-are-constantly-being-created-and-broken-where-does-the and http://chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/7260/does-minimizing-any-type-of-energy-always-predict-a-state-of-equilibrium are related – Mithoron Mar 08 '16 at 19:26
  • Going to the lowest free energy state is not the same thing as minimizing potential energy. In classical thermodynamics, the idea that equilibrium can't exist because it isn't the lowest-energy state could be true, but only at zero kelvin. – Curt F. Mar 16 '16 at 22:08

0 Answers0