Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Can "mole" unit only be integer values?

  1. Nov 26, 2015 #1
    I am confused about the concept of a mole. Avogadro's # says that 1 mole has 6.023*10^23 particles.
    Does it make sense to talk about moles in a non-integer sense?
    For example, can you say that 1/2 mole has 1/2*(6.023*10^23) particles?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 26, 2015 #2

    phyzguy

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Yes, you can certainly talk about 1/2 mole, which has 3.0115*10^23 particles, or 1/10 mole, which has 6.023*10^22 particles, or 1/1000 mole, which has 6.023*10^20 particles. Perhaps your confusion lies in the fact that you must have an integer number of particles. But Avogadro's number is so huge, that you cannot resolve it down to the level of individual atoms. To do this, you would have to tell the difference between the number:
    602,300,000,000,000,000,000,000
    and the number:
    602,300,000,000,000,000,000,001
    No measuring device is that precise. So you are always talking about an approximate number of particles.
     
  4. Nov 26, 2015 #3

    Borek

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Actually there is a proposal to redefine mole to be an integer number.

    Technically it IS an integer number even now, as it is "number of atoms in exactly 12 g of C-12". We are just limited by the accuracy with which we can define and measure mass.
     
  5. Nov 26, 2015 #4

    SteamKing

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Now, if you'd like to volunteer to count the number of atoms in 12 g of carbon ...
     
  6. Nov 26, 2015 #5

    fresh_42

    Staff: Mentor

    Didn't they try to redefine 1kg as a certain and exact amount of atoms?
     
  7. Nov 26, 2015 #6

    SteamKing

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    That's just one proposed method for defining the kilogram:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilogram

    See the section on "Atom Counting"

    There are other proposals for defining the kilogram in terms of certain fundamental constants, like Planck's Constant, but no agreement has yet been reached by the international body in charge.
     
  8. Nov 26, 2015 #7

    fresh_42

    Staff: Mentor

    Thank you. I thought they were closer.
     
  9. Nov 26, 2015 #8

    James Pelezo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Well, by NIST standards Na = (6.0221415 ± 0.0000010) × 1023 units, provided that atomic mass of C-12 remains constant over time... but, of course it does not ... Interesting challenge.
     
  10. Nov 27, 2015 #9

    DrClaude

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    What do you mean by that? If you are talking about the fact that the mass of the International Prototype Kilogram in Paris changes with time, this has nothing to do with the properties of 12C changing, but is simply related to the imperfections of an actual artifact.
     
  11. Nov 27, 2015 #10

    DrDu

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Even the number of particles can be non-integer, e.g. when you talk about statistics, so there is even less problem with the number of moles being non-integer.
     
  12. Nov 27, 2015 #11

    James Pelezo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    In this case, I can only reply to what I have read. The note specifically postulates that C-12 has changed with time, but, granted, it does not specify anything relating to properties of C-12 ... Here's the excerpt and reference...

    These changes cannot be measured exactly, simply because there is no "perfect" reference against which to measure them—Le Gran K is always exactly one kilogram, by definition. It is estimated that Le Gran K may have changed about 50 micrograms—that is, roughly by about 150 quadrillion (1.5 × 1017) atoms—since it was constructed. This implies that by current measurement conventions, the mass of a single atom of carbon-12 is changing in time, whereas modern theory postulates that it remain constant.
    http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/id.368,y.0,no.,content.true,page.1,css.print/issue.aspx

    My apologies if I've misunderstood your point of issue.
     
  13. Nov 28, 2015 #12

    DrClaude

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    The key part of the quote is
    The mass is apparently changing because the standard keeps changing as the IPK loses or gain some atoms as it is manipulated.
     
  14. Nov 28, 2015 #13

    Dale

    Staff: Mentor

    This is poorly worded. The mass of an atom is not changing over time. The mass of the kilogram prototype is changing over time. So as the mass of the kilogram changes the number of atoms per kilograms must change in order for the mass to remain constant.
     
  15. Dec 6, 2015 #14

    James Pelezo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I'm confused by the wording of the underlined statement... 'as the mass of the kilogram changes the number of atoms per Kg must change => constant mass'? This sounds like a 'Yogi-ism'... 'If ya come to a fork in the road, take it' ... confusing, huh? That is, how does the number of atoms changing result in a constant mass?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 7, 2015
  16. Dec 7, 2015 #15

    DrClaude

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    He means "as the mass of the kilogram prototype changes".
     
  17. Dec 8, 2015 #16

    James Pelezo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    OK, thanks... that makes more sense.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Can "mole" unit only be integer values?
  1. Mole Concept (Replies: 1)

  2. Help with moles (Replies: 5)

  3. The concept of mole (Replies: 4)

Loading...