Why Are Factors in the Law of Mass Action Multiplied Rather Than Added?

  • Thread starter Thread starter henxan
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Law Mass
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the Law of Mass Action, explaining why the concentrations of reactants are multiplied rather than added in equilibrium expressions. It highlights that the probability of finding multiple moles of a substance simultaneously is calculated by raising the concentration to the power of the number of moles required. For example, if three moles of A are needed, and each has a certain probability of being present, the overall probability is represented as (concentration)^n. This multiplication reflects the necessity for all reactants to be present at the same time for the reaction to occur. The explanation clarifies a common misunderstanding about the mathematical representation of chemical reactions.
henxan
Messages
46
Reaction score
2
Hi!

I wondered if there is possible to get an explanation of the "Law of mass action." Here is a simple derivation:

eq.1 aA + bB = cC + dD
eq.2 R(f)= k(f)[A]^a*^b
eq.3 R(b)= k(b)[C]^c*[D]^d
eq.4 At equilibrium R(f)=R(b)
eq.5 k(e)=k(f)/f(b)=([C]^c*[D]^d)/([A]^a*^b)

Well, if a=4 and b=3, the left side of eq.1 becomes:
eq.6 {left side}= 4A + 3B
eq.7 {left side}= A + A + A + A + B + B + B

Now (this is probably a pretty stupid question), why is it that all the factors in eq.2-5 are *multiplied* together, and not *added*?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
not stupid. 98% people don't realize what it is and ask the same.
But there's one valid, very valid and very strongly reasonable answer to this.

I give you the explanation, no crap.
Consider 3A + 2B --> Z
fine?

Now, I let the concentration of A be (0.5 moles/liter)
then I 'define' the (0.5) molarity or 'moles per litre', ("Implicity") as follows:
"You have 50% chance to find exactly 1 mole of A in 1 litre of given volume of the solution."

so when you say its 0.3 molars or moles/litre, I say "Its as good as a 30% chance to find exactly one mole of it in 1 litre of given volume of the solution."

And for the reaction to happen you need 3 moles of A to be present, and each of them has a 50% probability to be present (as defined by 'definition') so... its as good as saying you have three coins and you want heads in all of them as the probability to get heads in all of them (possibility of head in each is 1/2 so possibility to get heads at a single time in all of them is 1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2 or (1/2)^3. Because here, you want all of em to be present at the same time and each has 1/2 chance to be present (molarity = 0.5 = 1/2) so... if you want n moles of A its as good as the probability of exactly n moles of A to be present at the same time, and since each has a probability of k to be present (let the molarity of A be 'k' moles per litre) so... to get the probability for all of em to be present you do [k]^n;
but similarly you also need m moles of B at the same time, so (let the molarity of B be 'j' moles per litre, then...) you have probability of exactly m moles of B to be present at the same time = [j]^m

and since you need both A and B
you do [k]^n * [j]^n

get it?
reference: http://www.khanacademy.org/video/keq-intuition--mathy-and-not-necessary-to-progress?playlist=Chemistry
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...
Back
Top