I've read this excerpt from Wikipedia countless times, but I'm still confused:
The Avogadro number is the approximate number of nucleons (protons or neutrons) in one gram of ordinary matter.
Shouldn't that be "in one mole"?
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
0
Add a comment
|
1 Answer
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
8
The quote you have used is there just behind the Avogadro constant([$\pu{mol-1}$])/Avogadro number(unitless) definition. Many true statements can be misinterpreted, if quoted or considered out of their context.
Notice the approximate. It is not the definition.
- $\pu{1 mol}$ is by definition the amount of matter consisting of exactly $N_\mathrm{A} = \pu{6.02214076E23}$ particles(or generally any formal constituent objects).
- The molar mass of nucleons ( protons or neutrons) is approximately $M_\text{nucleon} \approx \pu{1 g/mol}$.
- Practically all the mass of ordinary matter is due its nucleons.
- Therefore, $\pu{1 g}$ of ordinary matter contains approximately $N_\mathrm{A}$ nucleons, as it contains approximately $\pu{1 mol}$ of them.
Imagine this:
- I say that the current definition of kilogram is based on the fixed value of the Planck constant.
- I then say $\pu{1 kg}$ is the approximate mass of $\pu{1 L}$ of water.
- Does it mean I say the kilogram is defined as the mass of $\pu{1 L}$ of water? Of course it is not.
-
$\begingroup$ The subject and predicate should be reversed! One gram of matter contains approximately Avogadro's number of nucleons [protons + neutrons] [but not Avogadro's number of electrons unless the substance is protium or possibly the natural mix of H2] $\endgroup$– jimchmstCommented Nov 25, 2022 at 23:29
-
1$\begingroup$ @jimchmst Electrons were not talked about. :-) $\endgroup$– PoutnikCommented Nov 26, 2022 at 0:14
-
1$\begingroup$ @jimchmst Not really in this context. $\endgroup$– PoutnikCommented Nov 29, 2022 at 22:58
-
1$\begingroup$ @jimchmst If I say 1 kg is the approximate mass of 1 dm3 of water, it does not meant 1 kg is defined as the mass of 1 dm3 of water. $\endgroup$– PoutnikCommented Nov 29, 2022 at 23:13
-
1$\begingroup$ @jimchmst It is there just behind the definition. If he used a broader quote... If it fooled 1 person, than it is still great. Many correct statements fool multiple persons misinterpreting that. Especially if quoted out of context. $\endgroup$– PoutnikCommented Dec 1, 2022 at 5:49