Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by paddoboy, Feb 3, 2017.
Is the mass of a molecule different than the sum total mass of the atoms that make up the molecule?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Well, for starters, water - even pure water - is not simply a single molecule.
It is composed of free hydrogen ions (H+), free hydroxides (OH-) as well as H20.
Thank you, I didn't know that. So in effect, a watermolecule would also include the mass of those free atoms?, in addition to H2O. Is there a fixed number of those particles, or does the term "free" indicate an arbitrary amount contained in a water molecule.?
Link is in post #291
But where, in that long Wiki article, is there anything about fundamental symbolic constants? I could not see any reference to these.
SI is a system if units of measure. A unit of measure is not a fundamental constant. It is an arbitrarily chosen quantity, adopted as a standard for convenience.
Examples of fundamental constants would be the speed of light, c, or Planck's constant, h. Note that these will have different numerical values depending on the system of units in which they are expressed, e.g. c can be expressed in miles per hour or metres per second, etc.
Not if one neglects the infinitesimally tiny relativistic effect on mass of the bond energies.
A hydrogen atom has a mass of 1 atomic unit, an oxygen atom a mass of 16 units and thus a water molecule a mass of 18 units.
A collection of Avogadro's Number of water molecules has a mass of 18g.
The qualification about relativity and bond energy arises from the fact that the bound state of water lies at lower energy (i.e. is a more stable state) than the isolated hydrogen and oxygen atoms. This would mean that in theory, since it contains less energy than the isolated atoms its mass would be very slightly less, by E=mc². But the difference is so tiny that nobody would ever bother with it.
(Such differences in energy due to stability can however be significant when one considers the much stronger bonding between protons and neutrons in an atomic nucleus, i.e. in the realm of nuclear physics rather than chemistry.)
Technically true, but perhaps a bit confusing for Write4U, don't you think?
The dissociation constant for pure water is 10⁻¹⁴, making the concentrations of H30+ and of OH- each equal to 10⁻⁷ (which is why the pH of water is 7).
So that means only one molecule in every 10 million is dissociated into ions at any given moment.
I'm "late" to this discussion, so I'll ask has anyone mentioned this paper: "Spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing?" The proofs the researchers developed to support the notion of "something from nothing" are in that paper.
A friend of mine used the paper as part of an argument refuting the merit of Aquinas' Cosmological argument.
Does this in any way restrict the formation of bio-chemicals? We are talking about probabilistic events over enormous time spans, by trillions per second throughout the universe.
Unless someone can prove that mathematically something cannot occur, I remain optimistic that no matter how we hard try to imitate nature in a lab, it has already been there and done that, long before we came on the scene. IMO
Hm? Oh, I thought we were just posting random bits of stuff we like.
0 universe = 0 state. 1 universe = 1 state. Observation requires a state of 1, so a state of 0 cannot be observed.
There is recourse. It is a mathematical logic, where state 0 can be predicted without observation. Stepping lightly, does state 1 arrive out of state 0? If yes, then how? The argument from there goes, Well it has to. So how? It spontaneously appears out of state 0. This is a simple thought experiment with no basis in reality, as is this: You could say state 1 was created by God or a dragon, where God 'existed' outside of the universe as state 2 or -0, but that is extrapolating on nothing observable (which requires 1), which is the definition of faith. You can hold it as true if you want, but it 'cannot' be proven by observation. Can there be an un-observable state 0? Yes, but only as a thought experiment that cannot be observed, and by definition it is empty. There is no basis in 'reality which requires state 1' for state 0.
From post # 42 , by karenmansker
"Much Ado About Nothing" (Ref. Shakespeare) An alternative hypothesis (Yes MODS . . . Alternative . . . move it there if you want!) : I'd proffer that prior to our currrent universe's creation, there was 'something' within the 'nothing' - a (potential) energy field, EF (or an energy potential field?). The EF was pre-existant, became unstable due to quantum fluctuations (or other subquantum mechanisms), all causing (i.e., causality) a thermodynamic cascade (analogy: water cascading over a waterfall?), ergo, our observable (mass/energy) universe has emerged and is evolving from this continuing creation (EGAD! . . . Continuous Creation!! . . . "Who ordered THAT!"). Albeit, we are now stuck with what is/was the source of the energy potential field . . . and . . . (sigh) there we again run up against a metaphysical 'wall'. [BTW: this hypothesis allows a BB, but does NOT require it!!]
Then, by definition, it wasn't nothing.
Of course .
Look at this way ; how does nothing , no matter how you contort nothing , become something ?
That's kind of the question on the table.
It isn't on the table at all .
Something is complete opposite of nothing .
Nothing has no , depth , breadth , movement therefore no ability to change nor ability to manifest anything for infinity .
Separate names with a comma.