Why does one coulomb equal 6.241 × 10^18 electrons?

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Femme_physics
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Coulomb Electrons
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the relationship between the coulomb and the electron, specifically why one coulomb equals 6.241 × 1018 electrons. The coulomb is defined as the charge produced by a one ampere current flowing for one second, while the ampere is a fundamental base unit in the SI system. The conversation highlights the arbitrary nature of measurement standards, comparing the coulomb to the mole, which is defined based on carbon-12. The potential for redefining the coulomb based on elementary charge is also mentioned, emphasizing the evolving nature of measurement standards in physics.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of SI base units, particularly the ampere and coulomb.
  • Familiarity with the concept of electric charge and elementary charge.
  • Knowledge of measurement standards in physics.
  • Basic comprehension of atomic mass and molar mass.
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the definition and implications of the ampere as a fundamental SI unit.
  • Explore the concept of elementary charge and its significance in electromagnetism.
  • Investigate the historical context and reasoning behind measurement standards in physics.
  • Learn about the potential redefinitions of the coulomb and their impact on other units.
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, electrical engineers, educators, and students interested in the foundations of electrical measurements and the evolution of scientific standards.

Femme_physics
Gold Member
Messages
2,548
Reaction score
1
Just like the answer to mole is amount of atoms in 12 grams of carbon12. I wonder, is there a reason behind the amount of electrons in a coulomb?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Everything you can measure as a standard. For instance how do we define 1 gram? Or how do we define 1 second of time?

We define standards for measurements and then everything is based off of those standards. For instance the second is based off of the time it takes for a cesium atom to emit radiation like 9 billion times times.

If you'd like to read about electrical measurement standards:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IKZ/is_1_106/ai_82777388/
 
Well, I suppose my question is where this standard number came from... just like in the case of moles where we know it came from carbon-12. Or did someone just say "that seems like a fine huge random number!"
 
Well, the ampere is define as "the constant current which will produce an attractive force of 2 × 10–7 Newton per metre of length between two straight, parallel conductors of infinite length and negligible circular cross section placed one metre apart in a vacuum" (wiki). The coulomb is then defined as the amount 1 ampere * 1 second.
 
Got it!
 
It's not a reason, but instead a best guess measurment based on how strong the elementary charge of one electron is (compared to a Coulomb). There a proposals to redefine a Coulomb based on the current best guess. If a Couloumb is redefined to be based on elementary charges, then a kilogram effectively becomes a derived unit.
 
What Nabeshin said is correct. Did you know that the ampere is a fundamental base unit in the SI system and the Coulomb is not? Funny huh?
 
Amok said:
What Nabeshin said is correct. Did you know that the ampere is a fundamental base unit in the SI system and the Coulomb is not? Funny huh?

Well, they don't really represent the same thing if I got it right. Coulomb is an amount, regardless of time. Whereas ampere is an amount with respect to time. So, they're not really convertible I think.
 
Well yes, but that's the whole point. We usually say the A = C/s when actually we should say C = A*s. What I'm saying is that the Coulomb seems to be "more fundamental", but it was actually defined with respect to some current (what Nabeshin said), hence the strange numbers.

And about the mole question, you answered it yourself. Take any element in the periodic table of elements, if you know its atomic mass, then you also know its molar mass in g/mol! How easy is that? Some textbooks I've seen feature pound-moles (lb-mol), so that you know that a pound-mole of carbon atoms weighs 12 pounds (which means that a lb-mol is a larger number than a mole).

EDIT: you might enjoy this article :

http://www.economist.com/node/18007494
 
Last edited:
  • #10
Femme_physics said:
Well, they don't really represent the same thing if I got it right. Coulomb is an amount, regardless of time. Whereas ampere is an amount with respect to time. So, they're not really convertible I think.
Amok wasn't trying to say they are the same. The thing is, we are free to choose one quantity, and only one, in electromagnetism for the purpose of defining all electromagnetic units. Much as one defines the meter, second, and kilogram as base units, and then the units for velocity (m/s), force (Newtons = kg*m/s2), etc. are all defined in terms of just the base units.

Likewise, we could choose the Coulomb as a base unit, and then define an Ampere as the current due to 1 Coulomb flowing through a wire per second. But instead, the Ampere is chosen as the base unit, and a Coulomb is defined as the charge produced by a 1 Ampere current in 1 second. (There is actually a good reason for doing it this way.)

Amok said:
And about the mole question, you answered it yourself...
Actually, she wasn't really asking about the mole. Just using it for comparison purposes, asking if there was perhaps a similar relation between the Coulomb and the electron charge. At least I think that was Femme_physics's intent.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
5K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
5K