The Naked Scientists
  • Login
  • Register
  • Podcasts
      • The Naked Scientists
      • eLife
      • Naked Genetics
      • Naked Astronomy
      • In short
      • Naked Neuroscience
      • Ask! The Naked Scientists
      • Question of the Week
      • Archive
      • Video
      • SUBSCRIBE to our Podcasts
  • Articles
      • Science News
      • Features
      • Interviews
      • Answers to Science Questions
  • Get Naked
      • Donate
      • Do an Experiment
      • Science Forum
      • Ask a Question
  • About
      • Meet the team
      • Our Sponsors
      • Site Map
      • Contact us

User menu

  • Login
  • Register
  • Home
  • Help
  • Search
  • Tags
  • Member Map
  • Recent Topics
  • Login
  • Register
  1. Naked Science Forum
  2. On the Lighter Side
  3. New Theories
  4. Avogadros number rethink
« previous next »
  • Print
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Avogadros number rethink

  • 3 Replies
  • 440 Views
  • 0 Tags

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Chondrally (OP)

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 94
  • Activity:
    0%
    • View Profile
Avogadros number rethink
« on: 16/05/2020 05:49:19 »
A Mol of water, H2O is 18 ml by definition.
The old Avogadros number is approximately 6.023x10^23 particles/Mol
18ml/6.023x10^23(particles/mol)= 2.98854x10^(-23) ml per water molecule
Is this consistent with the average volume of a water molecule and not in Ice but liquid water
particle physics at Cern in France and Switzerland have estimates of the smallest volume that can actually be measured and at the lowest levels this number is quite blurry due to the uncertainty principle.  what is the smallest length that can be measured with any accuracy, and i am talking about in spacetime,  not in light.
What would the new avogadros number be? 
It seems to me that 10^(-23) ml actually does not exist, and is way too small to even be measured.  Sources i have checked at Cern in the past suggest about between 10^(-7) to 10^(-9)  ml would be at the limit of reality.  Is this true?  And this throws a lot of uncertainty on the new avogadros number and it might only be known with 50% error.
Logged
 



Offline Kryptid

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ********
  • 5956
  • Activity:
    75.5%
  • Thanked: 286 times
    • View Profile
Re: Avogadros number rethink
« Reply #1 on: 16/05/2020 05:53:30 »
Don't repost topics. You already speak about this here: https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=79483.0

Quote from: Chondrally on 16/05/2020 05:49:19
Sources i have checked at Cern in the past suggest about between 10^(-7) to 10^(-9)  ml would be at the limit of reality.  Is this true?

No. I explained why in your other topic.
Logged
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 22435
  • Activity:
    100%
  • Thanked: 572 times
    • View Profile
Re: Avogadros number rethink
« Reply #2 on: 16/05/2020 13:18:39 »
Quote from: Chondrally on 16/05/2020 05:49:19
Sources i have checked at Cern in the past suggest about between 10^(-7) to 10^(-9)  ml would be at the limit of reality.  Is this true? 
What a remarkably ill informed idea.

10^-9 ml is really quite big.
1 ml is pretty close to 1 cubic centimetre.
So 10^-9 ml is  a cube about 1/1000 of a cm on each side.
that's 10 microns on each side
About the size of a white blood cell.

Or big enough to hold something like half a million coronaviruses.

 
Quote from: Chondrally on 16/05/2020 05:49:19
And this throws a lot of uncertainty on the new avogadros number and it might only be known with 50% error.

The error margin on the value of Avogadro's number is exactly zero.
It is correct by definition.
I already explained this to you.
Logged
Please disregard all previous signatures.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 22435
  • Activity:
    100%
  • Thanked: 572 times
    • View Profile
Re: Avogadros number rethink
« Reply #3 on: 16/05/2020 13:22:04 »
Quote from: Chondrally on 16/05/2020 05:49:19
A Mol of water, H2O is 18 ml by definition.
No it isn't
A mole of water is NA (  exactly 6.02214076×1023) molecules of water by definition.
Logged
Please disregard all previous signatures.
 



  • Print
Pages: [1]   Go Up
« previous next »
Tags:
 
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
  • SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines
    Privacy Policy
    SMFAds for Free Forums
  • Naked Science Forum ©

Page created in 0.109 seconds with 42 queries.

  • Podcasts
  • Articles
  • Get Naked
  • About
  • Contact us
  • Advertise
  • Privacy Policy
  • Subscribe to newsletter
  • We love feedback

Follow us

cambridge_logo_footer.png

©The Naked Scientists® 2000–2017 | The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks created by Dr Chris Smith. Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators, sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.