Probably, by considering how there are several ways to “create” heat (burning, rubbing things together, as Oscar says), but none of “creating” cold. That makes more sense in a model where heat is a substance that can be transmitted from object to object, and cold is merely the absence of such a substance.
They did well enough to figure out or intuit or guess that a simpler explanation was better: You’re not giving them enough credit, as some went beyond that chemistry.
“For it is necessary that there be some nature (φύσις), either one or more than one, from which become the other things of the object being saved… Thales the founder of this type of philosophy says that it is water.”
So granted that they could narrow it down to one “element”, was it possible for them to do better than to guess as to the nature of thermodynamics? To guess which is the absence of the other?
As my reply to your original comment indicates I give them plenty of credit—I’m not sure they didn’t guess that cold was the absence of heat.
You have the pre-socratics a bit mixed up. Heracletus and Thales are before the five element system of Aristotle. Heracletus only had three elements in his cosmology and fire was the most important. Some ancient cosmologies made one element central...I’m not sure what that has to do with the question?
But certainly it is possible some of them surmised that cold was the absence of fire or something like that.
A number of substances have high enthalpy heats of solution, and appear to “create” cold when added to water. Some, like calcium chloride, would likely have been known in Classical Greece.
Edit: My mistake. Dissolution of calcium chloride is actually exothermic. I’m not sure if any salts which have high endothermic dissolution occur in a naturally pure state.
Probably, by considering how there are several ways to “create” heat (burning, rubbing things together, as Oscar says), but none of “creating” cold. That makes more sense in a model where heat is a substance that can be transmitted from object to object, and cold is merely the absence of such a substance.
What if they built a building or found a cave where wind ran over a bucket or pool of water, cooling the air?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evaporative_cooler#Physical_principles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windcatcher
“Water produces cold” is a plausible hypothesis for someone using Earth/Air/Water/Fire chemistry.
They did well enough to figure out or intuit or guess that a simpler explanation was better: You’re not giving them enough credit, as some went beyond that chemistry.
Heracletus:
Aristotle speaking about Thales:
See also here.
So granted that they could narrow it down to one “element”, was it possible for them to do better than to guess as to the nature of thermodynamics? To guess which is the absence of the other?
As my reply to your original comment indicates I give them plenty of credit—I’m not sure they didn’t guess that cold was the absence of heat.
You have the pre-socratics a bit mixed up. Heracletus and Thales are before the five element system of Aristotle. Heracletus only had three elements in his cosmology and fire was the most important. Some ancient cosmologies made one element central...I’m not sure what that has to do with the question?
But certainly it is possible some of them surmised that cold was the absence of fire or something like that.
A number of substances have high enthalpy heats of solution, and appear to “create” cold when added to water. Some, like calcium chloride, would likely have been known in Classical Greece.
Edit: My mistake. Dissolution of calcium chloride is actually exothermic. I’m not sure if any salts which have high endothermic dissolution occur in a naturally pure state.
How do I know those processes are actually producing creating heat and not just destroying cold?
ETA: And to be clear, where by “I” I mean someone with roughly ancient Greek knowledge levels.