Why is Carbon-12 used as the measurement of relative masses?


by Count Duckula
Tags: carbon12, masses, measurement, relative
Count Duckula
Count Duckula is offline
#1
Dec27-12, 11:39 AM
P: 8
Hi everyone,

This is really annoying me, so, I am aware of the story why oxygen was replaced with carbon-12, (because chemists were using natural occurring oxygen which was a mix of oxygen-16,17,18 and therefor was an avg?, but physicists wanted pure, isolated oxygen-16 so there was two tables with two different atomic masses). But, why was carbon-12 agreed to be the new element to which all other elements masses would be compared to?
-Is it because carbon-12 is the most abundant isotope (I think 98.9%?) therefore both parties (chemists, physicists) can use natural occurring carbon and get an accurate measurement without using an isolated carbon atom?

Also, is how the discovery of how many nucleons there was in an atom, by comparing masses?
Phys.Org News Partner Physics news on Phys.org
Researchers develop scalable methods for manufacturing metamaterials
Researchers find tin selenide shows promise for efficiently converting waste heat into electrical energy
After 13 years, progress in pitch-drop experiment (w/ video)
D H
D H is offline
#2
Dec27-12, 12:51 PM
Mentor
P: 14,456
There were two oxygen standards. Physicists wanted a standard based on a specific isotope; a 16O atom had an atomic mass of 16 per the physicists' oxygen standard. Chemists wanted a standard based on something they could weigh; a mole of oxygen atoms had a mass of 16 grams per the chemists' oxygen standard. Attempts to get physicists and chemists to agree went nowhere. Making 12C the basis for a new standard was a political compromise that satisfied both sides. Physicists got their way by making the standard based on a specific isotope. Chemists got their way in the sense that the new carbon standard changed the definition of the mole (and hence atomic mass) by but a tiny, tiny amount.
mfb
mfb is offline
#3
Dec27-12, 12:53 PM
Mentor
P: 10,813
Also, is how the discovery of how many nucleons there was in an atom, by comparing masses?
That is a very practical way, indeed.

I would guess that C12 was chosen to avoid oxygen in the reference, and to get a new value which is close to the old one (otherwise gold would be better, it has just a single natural isotope).

In 1-3 years, the current definition might get replaced by a fixed value of the avogadro constant.

Count Duckula
Count Duckula is offline
#4
Dec27-12, 01:09 PM
P: 8

Why is Carbon-12 used as the measurement of relative masses?


Hmm, but what is the need for comparison at all, if 1.67x10^-27 is agreed to be 1U of relative mass, and you know the atomic mass of an atom, that is the mass, right?

Sorry, I think I'm confusing myself by over thinking this! :(

Maybe C is used simply because it's easier to weigh as its a solid rather than the O and H used before it.
mfb
mfb is offline
#5
Dec27-12, 01:23 PM
Mentor
P: 10,813
Quote Quote by Count Duckula View Post
Hmm, but what is the need for comparison at all, if 1.67x10^-27 is agreed to be 1U of relative mass, and you know the atomic mass of an atom, that is the mass, right?
That (some kg value) is not the definition of 1u - but it might become the new definition soon.
It is not easy to measure the avogadro constant, comparisons between different isotopes are easier.

Maybe C is used simply because it's easier to weigh as its a solid rather than the O and H used before it.
For masses of single atoms, this is not so important.
D H
D H is offline
#6
Dec27-12, 01:43 PM
Mentor
P: 14,456
Quote Quote by Count Duckula View Post
Hmm, but what is the need for comparison at all, if 1.67x10^-27 is agreed to be 1U of relative mass, and you know the atomic mass of an atom, that is the mass, right?
If all you care about is three decimal places of accuracy, all you need to know is the atomic mass. There's a problem here. Physicists and chemists often measure things to much more than three places of accuracy. For example, per the 12C=12 standard, an 16O atom has an atomic mass of 15.9949146196, not 16.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Carbon Aramid vs Carbon fiber honeycomb core Materials & Chemical Engineering 0
Carbon nanotube reinforced carbon fibre composites Materials & Chemical Engineering 1
Finding rafts velocity relative to the water using 2 masses and one velocity Introductory Physics Homework 2
Carbon-Carbon Bond Energies: Primary vs. Tertiary Carbon Atomic, Solid State, Comp. Physics 0