Register to reply 
I need some clarifications about the mole, please 
Share this thread: 
#1
Apr1014, 12:10 PM

P: 17

1 mole of a substance equals the amount of grams needed for that substance to have 6.0221413e+23 (Avogadro's number) atoms in it, isn't it?
In order to determine how many grams one mole of a substance is, I've learned that you just need to check the atomic mass number on your periodic table, take that number and put "gram" at the end. The thing I don't understand is, how come it's that simple? The atomic mass number is the number of protons and electrons (nucleons) in the atom, right? So how come 6.0221413e+23 times the mass of all nucleons ALWAYS amounts to the number of nucleons in grams for any substance? For example, carbon has an atomic mass number of 12 so 1 mole of carbon equals 12 grams of carbon. Hydrogen has an atomic mass number of 1 so 1 mole of carbon equals 1 gram of hydrogen. Is this some great coincidence? Or is there a link that I'm not seeing? I'm not sure I understood what a mole is and my research on it just confuses me, so there's why I'm asking. Thank you for reading and (hopefully) helping! 


#3
Apr1014, 03:24 PM

P: 17

1 amu is the mass of 1 nucleon. The mass of a nucleon can't be chosen, it's fixed, it's a fact of nature that we can merely observe. This source explains that scientists couldn't directly measure the mass of a nucleon so they created the relationship: 1 amu = 1/6.0221415 x 10^23 grams I understand that 1 mole of 12 amu equals 12 grams following this relationship 6.0221415 x 10^23 = N = 1 mole 1 amu = 1/N g N x 12 x 1 amu = N x 12 x 1/N g <=> N x 12 x 1 amu = 12 x 1 g <=> N x 12 amu = 12 g But what I still don't get is, how did they know that the mass of a nucleon was equal to 1/6.0221415 x 10^23 grams ? The gram is a fixed quantity too, so they couldn't just arbitrarily choose that relationship to fit their needs, right? 


#4
Apr1014, 03:30 PM

P: 395

I need some clarifications about the mole, please
Welcome to PF You are a critical thinker, and your question is a nice one and it proves that you don't just take knowledge as constant information but a "why" question always pops in your mind Avogadro's is a selected number, it's not a coincidence at all that the mass of Avogadro's number is equal to the mass number, Avogadro's was precisely selected because they certainly knew that the mass of his number for any element atoms will be equal to its mass number, how come? That seems so weird!! But it's actually very simple, let's do some math to get to the bottom of this. But first lets just point to some impotent things Atoms consist of protons, neutrons and electrons 1  protons and neutrons roughly have equal masses 2  electrons' mass is negligible So the mass of an atom = mass of neutrons + mass of protons = a.m.u x Mass number Mass of "n" atoms = a.m.u x mass number x n If n = the reciprocal of a.m.u then Mass of " n " atoms = Mass number bingo !!! That reciprocal is Avogadro's number, Avogadro's number = 1/a.m.u So mass of Avogadro's number of atoms = mass of proton or neutron x mass number x Avogadro's number = a.m.u x mass number x 1/a.m.u = mass number So it's not a coincidence, Avogadro's number was selected to be the mass of one a.m.u reciprocal so that one mole of any substance becomes equal to its mass number, thanks to Avogadro, chemical calculations are very Simple. 


#5
Apr1014, 03:59 PM

P: 395



#6
Apr1014, 04:40 PM

Admin
P: 23,363

Mass of neutron is 1.674927351×10^{27} kg Mass of proton is 1.672621777×10^{27} kg Mass of alpha particle (helium nucleus) is 6.64465675×10^{27} kg Alpha particle is two neutrons and two protons, so its mass should be 2*1.674927351×10^{27} + 2*1.672621777×10^{27} = 6.695098256×10^{27} Where is the missing 0.050441506×10^{27} kg? 


#7
Apr1014, 04:41 PM

P: 17

Having n times the mass of an atom is practical in that it enables us to cancel out the number of nucleons in the equation (they're equal to 1) mass of Avogadro's number of atoms = My only issue now is that this should be correct: Avogadro's number = 1/mass of proton or neutron But it isn't by my calculations mass of proton = 1.6726×10^24 g (according to wiki) avogadro's number = 6.0221413x10^23 (according to google) 6.0221413x10^23 != 1/1.6726×10^24 (the answer to 1/1.6726×10^24 is 5.9787157718...x10^23 , going by my calculator). Did I make a mistake in my calculations? Or did I actually not understand the logic that you explained? 


#9
Apr1014, 04:46 PM

Admin
P: 23,363

What they really did was they defined first 1 mole to be the number of atoms in exactly 12 grams of C12. Selection of C12 and 12 is arbitrary (actually in the past it was O16 and 16 g). That allowed them to determine N_{A}. Once they had N_{A}, they calculated amu value  and this way it was guaranteed to work the way it does. 


#10
Apr1014, 04:52 PM

P: 395




#11
Apr1014, 05:03 PM

Admin
P: 23,363

Simple summation won't work for two reasons, First, mass of the nucleus is lower than the sum of masses of all nucleons by so called binging energy. Second, molar mass is the weighed average of masses of all isotopes present. That's why it was important to choose an isotope (C12) and not an element (C) for the definition.



#12
Apr1014, 05:15 PM

P: 17

So you're contradicting ElmorshedyDr's logic? You're saying that they came up with Avogadro's number first and then calculated the amu value? So the number of Avogadro isn't actually the reciprocal of the mass of a nucleon (chosen to make the mass of the nucleon cancel out in the equations so that the atomic number would remain)? If that's correct, then how come their arbitrary choice (of the number of atoms in 12 grams of C12) causes the mass of the atom to equal the atomic number in grams? I'm sorry, I'm really doing my best, but I'm not sure I understand what you mean... 


#13
Apr1014, 05:23 PM

Admin
P: 23,363

There is a plan to redefine the mole, and express it in terms of N_{A}  that is, to define N_{A} as being equal to some arbitrary value. But so far Avogadro's constant is not defined, but determined. 


#14
Apr1014, 05:31 PM

P: 395



#15
Apr1014, 06:57 PM

HW Helper
P: 1,965

Some of the answer to your queries is in the link below. The thing to realise is scientists had got the mass proportions in which atoms combine and could work with moles about a century before they could get the mass of an atom (and so Avogadro's number). In traditional school courses they used to emphasise these laws of combinations and drilled you with endless calculations concerning them. Telling us really anything known about atoms was left till University. But now they reckon that's boring so they tell it earlier. But it sounds like they haven't told you how things like the mass of the atom are found out. The teachers in my time were instructed not to do that, to be scientific you had to grasp the reason for believing something. Now you can see that dealing with 10^{22}, say, atoms that is something you can see and weigh and so verify these laws of constant proportion in combinations etc. that were in fact the original experimental basis for atomic theory and all chemistry in a school lab. Hence the boring calculations  'chemistry is not all fireworks' was a saying of one of my teachers  which students still have to do  it's called 'stoichoimetry'  and that we get many questions on here and that have an undeserved reputation for difficulty.
You asked, almost, how did they determine the mass of an atom or molecule in grams also opposed to its relative mass I.e. the mass of one relative to another which is what I was just talkng about. There were several ways (all interesting stories) but the most key one historically was this: although the atoms and molecules are too small to see in any ordinary simple setup, these atoms are in constant motion and give kicks to other particles such as the fat globules of milk which are big enough to see by microscope moving as a result of these kicks ('Brownian motion'). Studying that, in brief, they got to Avogadro's number. The theory of it was the work of Einstein. Link http://www.physicsforums.com/showpos...46&postcount=7 


#16
Apr1114, 03:01 AM

P: 17

how come their arbitrary choice (of the number of atoms in 12 grams of C12) causes the mass of the atom to equal the atomic number in grams? How can something arbitrary fit so perfectly? I don't understand how they could "define" the mass of a nucleon and not "know" it, given that grams are a fixed quantity of mass and the mass of a nucleon is a fixed quantity in nature that they could merely observe not choose, too... If you're not seeing my problem, here's an example: I "define" that the ball I'm holding has a mass of 2 kg. But when I lay it on my balance, it says that it weighs 9.81 newton here on earth. If the acceleration on earth equals 9.81 then the ball must have a mass of 1 kg (regardless of what I "defined"/chose earlier), it's not me who "defines" its mass, its mass is a fact of reality which I "know" because I calculated it. 


#17
Apr1114, 03:13 AM

P: 17

And 1g/1amu is the reciprocal of 1 amu, right? And 1 amu is 1/12 of the mass of a C12 atom, so it's the mass of one nucleon. So that definition does say that Avogadro's number is the reciprocal of the mass of 1 amu, right? Ugh, this is so confusing :( 


Register to reply 
Related Discussions  
Process Engineering  Mole Ratio and mole fractions  Biology, Chemistry & Other Homework  4  
Why does 1 mole of NaCl contain 1 mole each of Na and Cl?  Chemistry  5  
Calculating 100ml with a mole vs mole ratio  Biology, Chemistry & Other Homework  0  
Clarifications regarding the reals  Calculus  3  
Some CMB Clarifications  Cosmology  25 