Negative Impacts on Society

Hahaha...
Avocado...I guess my question, making people certain I am a fruit cake has produced a Freudian slippery slope for you.Yeah?
How could this guy, Avo, get credit for a number, if he never produced the number, ...
....and if the long accepted number is wrong, (which it is)...
... and if he died before Mosely, Thomson, et al without and before any knowlegde of protons especial their weights...... and, then, he DOESN'T get deserved credit for unraveling the mystery that Diatomism, which essentially cleared up Chemistry mathematics, when he explained that one mole of H plus one mole of Cl = TWO moles of acid!
Hey!
There MUST have been H.H and Cl.Cl in those other moles!thanks for the responds...
daveBut, that's the way they teach science, because the guy who DID discovered protons has been ignored, the Jewish guy, Goldstein.

Actually, there are a few numbers floating around.
Avogadro got the credit for the number, but his real claim to fame ought be for interpretation of diatomism.Einstien has figured an Na = 6.56 x 10^23.Millikan came up with Na = 6.06 x 10^23.Max Planck got a number.J. B. Perrin got a wayout 7.0 x 10^23 from.Your x-ray source, almost the latest word on this number, reads out:
Na = 6.02213 x 10^23Of course, two things on this:1) 6.02213 is not the best most elegant number, nor the latest proposal for finalizing the Na ... I got a proposal of my own. For later.2) If 6.02213 is right,...If one mole = each particle's weight x 6.022 x 10^23,or, 1/6.022 = particle weight = 1.66057 x 10-24 gramsBUT,
... how do you (or rocket or others) explain that protonium, H, IS actually a single particle, a proton. It is heavier than this Avogadro particle. Yet, one mole wouldvstill contain yhe same number of particles, 6.022.If one mole of hydrogen represents 6.0220 x 10 ^23 protons, which we KNOW protons weigh 1.67265 x 10^-24 grams,... we get more than one mole, we get 1.0072 moles?(I think that the most beautiful and elegant number ought be used. What do you guys think? And, which number is that? And why?Something new, guys on this one. To me, it'll always be the "Kofh Number."

I think that your "anomaly" is because an atomic mass unit is defined as 1/12 the mass of a carbon-12 atom, not the mass of a hydrogen atom.

I wonder if you could be a little more constructive in your criticism of my anomaly concerning C12?How does carbon pertain to t
e facts here about one mole of hydrogen? The amu of hydrogen is calculated relative to Carbon, but one mole must contain anAvogadro number of Protons, true?(PS: Rso
ution of this seeming paradox is an important part in deciding on which Avo # to promote, and zi believe the present numbers are the wrong choice
.

I don't believe that we should base our view of the physical universe on the aesthetics of elegant mathematics rather than on what we actually observe by experimentation.I'd say that subsequent repeated measurement and possible future techniques will allow us to refine the value but I don't see a major revsion coming from a purely theoretical corner.TTFN,WK

Yes, but a hydrogen atom weighs slightly more than one amu because of the loss of mass involved in the binding force that holds a carbon-12 nucleus together. And neutrons don't weigh the same as protons, either.Nothing is wrong with Avagadro's number - it's no more fundamental to our understanding of the universe that the measure of eggs by the dozen or sheets of typing paper by the ream are.Added in edit: the burning question here is "How much does an Avogadro's number of avocados weigh? More or less that a breadbox? More or less than the Moon?[This message has been edited by Coragyps, 04-25-2004]

1) We seem to agree that it is shocking, that Avogadro has no number, none at all. And, those many people who do, who have proposed a number, an actual mathematical figure, (from their experimental data), are as far from one another as was I, in my own shocking Freudian slip.Nevertheless, we do have sophisticated experimental confirmation from the work of renown scientists, to include the direct computation of "Avogadro's" Number, (Na), by Einstien, Planck, Millikan, Perrin, and silicon x-ray studies by (?) Becker... well, by a number of guys from 1930-70 at least.2) The fact that carbon was elected, arbitrarily, at an assumed composition of exactly 12 atomic mass units ignored the carbon isotopes. Compounding this, all elements have atomic weights, in amu, which also have been averaged with their isotopes. Hence, even though any sample must contain, say (x) number of whole particules, we are content with factional averages, implying that the Na is not reaaly a head count.2) Ridiculous. Of course, our numbers are fractional, and these numbers, like .0221 are abstractions, not really literal.
So, in discovering the number of particles in a mole sample, in whose weighing the several isotopes are included, what we get for Na is not the real number of particles in the sample.
And, our best answers have a range of @ 2.5% of the largest guess.I recognize that we don't even want a direct implication between the actual countable particules and the mathematical conveniece of an abstract number.With this in mind, I say we might adjust this number with little consequent, based upon the best choice for us, as regards its mathemaical and experimental relationship with other known and useful constants.For instance, Na is directly related to both Boltzman's constant k, (which is used in the gas laws, k = to R/Na), and in others, such as Planck's value for h.What I am saying is that the round robin of using constants in computing experimental results to evaluate other constants presents a round robin of on going adjustments and refinements concerning them all.A good "standardization" of constants might begin in the acceptance of one or another values for Na.See what I mean?3) Hold on. YOU SAY...."Nothing is wrong with Avagadro's number - it's no more fundamental to our understanding of the universe that the measure of egg"...Hmmmmm.... no more fundamental than counting eggs by the dozen. I wonder about that too. The rather arbitrary election of 12 as a unit, duodecimalism do theycall that, or did I spell it wrong...If we choose the value for Na, as suggested by Max Planck's experimental data, it may turn out that you are shocked,... once more![This message has been edited by kofh2u, 04-25-2004]

quote:

---

2) The fact that carbon was elected, arbitrarily, at an assumed composition of exactly 12 atomic mass units ignored the carbon isotopes. Compounding this, all elements have atomic weights, in amu, which also have been averaged with their isotopes. Hence, even though any sample must contain, say (x) number of whole particules, we are content with factional averages, implying that the Na is not reaaly a head count.

---

It is not an assumed composition. It's a direct definition of u. You are correct in that we could chose more or less any other value of u, but it's been defined this way and as such is very much definite.The isotope spread is statistical, and therefore can't be exact for all numbers. Na is a head count, but you can't always be sure, in a given practical situation, the exact spread of isotopes. But of course we don't get factions of atoms.[This message has been edited by Melchior, 04-25-2004]

[/qs]Ridiculous. Of course, our numbers are fractional, and these numbers, like .0221 are abstractions, not really literal.[/qs]This looks like you've picked the mantissa of Avogadro's number as an example. As I read this I can't believe what I'm reading so I must misunderstand you.Could you explain exactly what you mean here?

1) I understand your point. This which follows is not an argument.
Mathematics is the tool basic to the very understanding of what is going on in the physical reality. The abstraction of math is really a whole mental lattice of logical relationships which, when experiment realities are successfully introduced into that "Lattice" analysis, we are able say we know t is or that.The converse, that the lattice, irself, upon study, suggests domething, such as E = mC^2, which we do not expetimental "know" yet identifies an actual "lattice" and is mh point concetning mathematics and dcientific elegance.To suggest that a fundamental beauty is encorporated in any reality we scientifically investigate has been confirmed over and again indpite of any empirical proof that it is so. How could we argue, then, it is just intuitively acceptabld or unacceptable that Beauty and Truth must marry.2) On the other hand, what I am saying is, given a choice between a beautiful Na and one rather dismally plain, could you be seduced by good looks?[This message has been edited by kofh2u, 04-25-2004]

Yes.
That's what I said.We agree. And, I went a even little further, suggesting that the statistical nature of Na, and all the other constants for that matter, (for they are all related and interdependent one upon the other), suggest a slight degree of flexibility in deciding which of these famous men and famous experiments we might accept as the best value to assign Na.

Hahaha...
That must have seemed wierd. I ignored the 6. We are dscussing what this mantissa could,ought, might best be.Yes, I did just short hand the last four digits, dropping the 6 altogether. The non-sacred number 6.0221 started this whole linebof discussion because, horror of horrors, I have been playing loosely with it. I want to chage it.

It was the "abstractions, not really literal" that I didn't understand.Oops sorry, wrong ID, that should have been by NosyNed[This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 04-25-2004]

Actually Kofh2u what started this line of discusssion was you using an example of the sort of proper 'good' science history that should be taught in schools which was totally lacking in any basis in either history or science and seemed to have been pretty much generated solely in your head or from a very specious source. Where did your strange misconceptions about the origin of Avogadro's number come from?TTFN,WK

..."abstractions not really literal"...THE BEST QUESTION SO FAR!Adminosy asks:Re: Can you explain?It was the "abstractions, not really literal" that I didn't understand.YEs!There is a mathematical "lattice" which we, man, superimpose upon the world external in order to think about it. This Lattice aids understanding, and allows a beneficial relationship to exist. It is intangible, an abstraction, a mental construct. We would say it was merely a tool except it is our mind, in its quintessence.Collectively, we men have now (as Dwakins pointed out) sort of come to the "end" of Science. The "Lattice" stretches from the tiny reality of the Quantum World to the extremes of the material Universe. This "thingee" in our head, this mathematical abstraction, this "Lattice" is a model of what is outside our head.The Homo Sapiens mind, then, is the Schemata of the Universe, meaning, literally, the reflection of everything and, abstractly, the analogy of everything.Another way of making the point, between literal and abstract, is in a semantical way. Read the two verses below and decide, is this literally true or, is this an abstraction?Or, if true, is it both?Gen. 1:26 And God, (The Universal Force, the Macrocosmos), said, "Let us, (the Natural Laws), make man, (a conscious mind, to model us, the Universe, as in a Microcosmos of his mind, in order that our image might be modeled after our own orderly organization): and let him (that conscious mind,) have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."Gen. 1:27 So God (The Universal Force) created man (an abstract mind in his own image, enabled to image The Universal Force, abstractly and mathematically), so created God (The Universal Force) him; male and female created he them.