The Size of Avogadro's number
in [Physics]
|
From: troll on 15 May 2010 20:20 On another whim, I hereby snap my fingers and declare the Yoda to be equal to 1/12th the mass of one septillion C12 atoms. This will make the yoda about 1.7 grams. This will be just different enough, when converting from grams, kilograms, or metric tons to yodas, kiloyodas, and metric yoda tons. The proper way of abbreviating the yoda is to use a lower case y. Always use hand writing, and round the top of the y just enough so that someone reading it can not be sure that a pen defect is the cause of the top of the y not being a complete circle.
From: Angelo on 16 May 2010 20:51 On 15 Mag, 02:30, "hanson" <han...(a)quick.net> wrote: > ---- . about the Size of Avogadro's number, N_A... ---- > THE MOST POWERFUL & FAR-REACHING # IN PHYSICS > :> > In other posts the general questions about the history, the > definition & use of Avogadro's number, N_A, are discussed > and stop at the SI mode that says: N_A, =~ 6.022x10^23 > atoms or molecules per mol(e), referring to the number (N_A) > of C12 atoms that are contained in 12 gr of C12, (1 mole) > > But rarely is the size of N_A, [6E23] given any attention & > discussed in relation to our normal day to day experience. > > So, let's have some fun with that mol or N_A, in which 6E23 > atoms happen to be in ~2.5 table-spoons full of soot. Right... > yeah, so what, BFD.... until you contemplate & realize that > the size of > > == 6E23 miles happens to be ~ 3 times the diameter of the > accessible universe. > == 6E23 football fields will stretch from here out to some > farthest galaxies we have observed. > == 6E23 people would need ~ 85 Million Million or > 85'000 Billion Earths to house them. > == 6E23 Years is 4'000 Billion times longer then the age of > the universe since the Big Bang. > == 6E23 kilograms is one tenth of the mass of Earth > > So, if what I penciled/estimated above, about the immensity > of the size of N_A, has not yet grabbed your attention yet then, > all you beat-off artists & fornicators, estimate how many times > you, or to make you feel less guilty, how many eons it will take, > if all the "active" males of the entire earth get at it, to ejaculate > == 6E23 individual sperms.- Give yourself some self-satisfaction > for a scientific reason for a change.... ahahahaha... AHAHAHA... > > This truly gigantic, cosmic sized number N_A, or 1 mole, works > the other way and shows how incredibly SMALL items can be, > i.e. : > == 6E23 atoms are present in 1 iron marble, only 2 oz heavy. > == 6E23 molecules of C2H5OH are in ~ 1 single shot of Booze. > == 6E23 molecules of Helium are in one ~5 gallon Balloon. > == 6E23 molecules of sugar are situated in 1 cup of it and > == 6E23 molecules of H2O go down your gullet with very > gulp of water that you swallow. > > Rem: 6E23 is the same # that reaches yondern cosmic limits. > In the above iron marble example you'll have to chop it into > 6E23 = 602 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 individual pieces > to pick up 1 of it up as a single iron atom. Very small boogers. > > This diminutive extent of the particles in the atomic world was > suspected since antiquity but it was only some 80 years ago > with the Nobel prize to Perrin in 1926, for his work on N_A, that > the existence of atoms was *officially* accepted and adopted. > > There are 2 widely used equations which connect our day to > day experience with the micro/atomic world, namely: > > N_A = F/e ---> 6E23 elem.el charges per Faraday unit, and > N_A = R/k ---> 6E23 Boltzmann units for the univ. Gas constant. > > And there are still more such N_A connections on the other > side of the scale of human experience, in the cosmic realm, > where the Hubble constant and the Cosmic background temp, > Tb, can be expressed by using or needing N_A, when looked > at it thru the prism of the Finestructure const, [a], Boltzmann's > constant [k], and the Lyman series limit freq. fL, as in > > H = (1/2) * [(a^2)/2]^2 * fL / N_A Hubble, > H = (3/2)* k * Tb * ((a^2)/4) / (N_A * h). Tb ~ 2.7..K. > > So, there is an interesting concept emerging here: > |||| It appears that there are N_A sized steps that nature takes > |||| in its manifestations... from the cosmic realm, which when > |||| sliced into N_A segments does arrive at the day to day > |||| human domain experience, which wherein when events > |||| are subdivided again into still N_A smaller fragments we > ||||| experience them as the particles in the atomic world.... > ||||| Surprisingly if we chop these atomic events/particles yet > ||||| one more time by another N_A sized step further down, > ||||| we arrive at the **** Domain of the NATURAL UNITS****. > > These profound notions go back to Max Planck's time ca. > 1899 when he first proposed NATURAL units for L, M & T > (instead of our arbitrary cultural ones like gr, cm & sec) as > follows: > > m_pl = sqrt (hbar*c/G) -- l_pl = sqrt (hbar&G/c^3) & t_pl = l_pl/c > > The inter-relationship of/between these units simply states that > 1 Planck mass, m_pl, unit has the size of 1 Planck length , l_pl, > and it exists for the duration of only 1 Planck time unit , t_pl. > See more in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units > > These Planck units are so small that they seems to have only > academic interest. But when they are seen as an entire mole > size set, (N_A times larger), then they represent familiar values > of physically existing M,T, & L values in the atomic world: > > |||| m_pl / m_e = a^(1) * (N_A*pi*sqrt3) > |||| 1 mole of electron masses = 1 Planck mass > or conversly > |||| r_H / l_pl = a^(0) * (N_A*pi*sqrt3) > |||| 1 mole of Planck length units = 1 H-Bohr radius > or > |||| r_e / l_pl = a ^(2) * (N_A*pi*sqrt3) > |||| 1 mole of Plank length units = 1 classical el-radius > or > |||| tau / t_pl = a^(-1) * (N_A*pi*sqrt3) **** > |||| 1 mole of Planck time units = 1 atomic time unit > > So, it appears, or at least one cam make a case that > |||| Nature is Self-Similar over all scale domains & in all > |||| events & processes to which we humans have access to > > N_A, the mole, that humble and indispensable number > for the dudes at the chem lab bench, is much more far > reaching then physicists have given it credit for. Unfortunately > N_A's use for the development of **fundamental experimental > physics*** was stopped, a few years after Max Planck > introduced his natural units, by the stream rollers of Einstein's > relativity which looked for illusions and lunatic apparition that > are never there when you probe'm close-up in the real world. > > So, Einstein, his Zios and his Goyim Dingleberries have > effectively derailed fundamental physics for over a century. > It basically shows that even physics is, like all other science > endeavors, also just another social enterprise...ahahaha.... > > Now sports fans, carry on with your self-manipulation to prove > to yourself that N_A is indeed useful for all natural events. > Till then, thanks for the laughs, guys... ahahahanson Dear Hanson, (dear all), I share and sincerely appreciate all you said above and think to recognize the original (new for most) significance you pointed out (thanks, sincerely). Anyway, I'm personally convinced that N_A should be more appropriately named 'amount of substance' and should have physical dimensions of "particle/mole" where 'particle' may be atoms or molecules, in the simplest cases. Sorry for this adding that isn't in line with your main theme (I thought to take just an advantage to express that opinion of mine here). Could I have your valuable opinion(s)? Best regards, Angelo
From: Angelo on 16 May 2010 21:15 On 15 Mag, 18:44, Uncle Al <Uncle...(a)hate.spam.net> wrote: [snip] > 12.0107 grams of graphite. > > The US national debt in unreconstructed zimbabs. The number of angels > that fit on the head of a pin (assuming bosonic angels composed of > religium). The number of avocados in a guacamole. I estimate Uncle Al's posts, but frequently (my bad English comprehension) I'm unable, as in this case, to grasp the whole significance. Maybe someone (perhaps Uncle Al if he likes) could put what he says in other words: I'd be extremely grateful for this. Hints: besides the grammar construction (a bit obscure for me), I miss 'zimbads', 'religium', and 'guaca'. > -- > Uncle Alhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ > (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm Thanks, Angelo
From: Androcles on 16 May 2010 21:21 "Angelo" <patrik56(a)libero.it> wrote in message news:30514610-9062-465b-a4a9-14caf0227187(a)l18g2000vbn.googlegroups.com... On 15 Mag, 02:30, "hanson" <han...(a)quick.net> wrote: > ---- . about the Size of Avogadro's number, N_A... ---- > THE MOST POWERFUL & FAR-REACHING # IN PHYSICS > :> > In other posts the general questions about the history, the > definition & use of Avogadro's number, N_A, are discussed > and stop at the SI mode that says: N_A, =~ 6.022x10^23 > atoms or molecules per mol(e), referring to the number (N_A) > of C12 atoms that are contained in 12 gr of C12, (1 mole) > > But rarely is the size of N_A, [6E23] given any attention & > discussed in relation to our normal day to day experience. > > So, let's have some fun with that mol or N_A, in which 6E23 > atoms happen to be in ~2.5 table-spoons full of soot. Right... > yeah, so what, BFD.... until you contemplate & realize that > the size of > > == 6E23 miles happens to be ~ 3 times the diameter of the > accessible universe. > == 6E23 football fields will stretch from here out to some > farthest galaxies we have observed. > == 6E23 people would need ~ 85 Million Million or > 85'000 Billion Earths to house them. > == 6E23 Years is 4'000 Billion times longer then the age of > the universe since the Big Bang. > == 6E23 kilograms is one tenth of the mass of Earth > > So, if what I penciled/estimated above, about the immensity > of the size of N_A, has not yet grabbed your attention yet then, > all you beat-off artists & fornicators, estimate how many times > you, or to make you feel less guilty, how many eons it will take, > if all the "active" males of the entire earth get at it, to ejaculate > == 6E23 individual sperms.- Give yourself some self-satisfaction > for a scientific reason for a change.... ahahahaha... AHAHAHA... > > This truly gigantic, cosmic sized number N_A, or 1 mole, works > the other way and shows how incredibly SMALL items can be, > i.e. : > == 6E23 atoms are present in 1 iron marble, only 2 oz heavy. > == 6E23 molecules of C2H5OH are in ~ 1 single shot of Booze. > == 6E23 molecules of Helium are in one ~5 gallon Balloon. > == 6E23 molecules of sugar are situated in 1 cup of it and > == 6E23 molecules of H2O go down your gullet with very > gulp of water that you swallow. > > Rem: 6E23 is the same # that reaches yondern cosmic limits. > In the above iron marble example you'll have to chop it into > 6E23 = 602 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 individual pieces > to pick up 1 of it up as a single iron atom. Very small boogers. > > This diminutive extent of the particles in the atomic world was > suspected since antiquity but it was only some 80 years ago > with the Nobel prize to Perrin in 1926, for his work on N_A, that > the existence of atoms was *officially* accepted and adopted. > > There are 2 widely used equations which connect our day to > day experience with the micro/atomic world, namely: > > N_A = F/e ---> 6E23 elem.el charges per Faraday unit, and > N_A = R/k ---> 6E23 Boltzmann units for the univ. Gas constant. > > And there are still more such N_A connections on the other > side of the scale of human experience, in the cosmic realm, > where the Hubble constant and the Cosmic background temp, > Tb, can be expressed by using or needing N_A, when looked > at it thru the prism of the Finestructure const, [a], Boltzmann's > constant [k], and the Lyman series limit freq. fL, as in > > H = (1/2) * [(a^2)/2]^2 * fL / N_A ����Hubble, > H = (3/2)* k * Tb * ((a^2)/4) / (N_A * h). �Tb ~ 2.7..K. > > So, there is an interesting concept emerging here: > |||| It appears that there are N_A sized steps that nature takes > |||| in its manifestations... from the cosmic realm, which when > |||| sliced into N_A segments does arrive at the day to day > |||| human domain experience, which wherein when events > |||| are subdivided again into still N_A smaller fragments we > ||||| experience them as the particles in the atomic world.... > ||||| Surprisingly if we chop these atomic events/particles yet > ||||| one more time by another N_A sized step further down, > ||||| we arrive at the **** Domain of the NATURAL UNITS****. > > These profound notions go back to Max Planck's time ca. > 1899 when he first proposed NATURAL units for L, M & T > (instead of our arbitrary cultural ones like gr, cm & sec) as > follows: > > m_pl = sqrt (hbar*c/G) -- l_pl = sqrt (hbar&G/c^3) & t_pl = l_pl/c > > The inter-relationship of/between these units simply states that > 1 Planck mass, m_pl, unit has the size of 1 Planck length , l_pl, > and it exists for the duration of only 1 Planck time unit , t_pl. > See more in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units > > These Planck units are so small that they seems to have only > academic interest. But when they are seen as an entire mole > size set, (N_A times larger), then they represent familiar values > of physically existing M,T, & L values in the atomic world: > > |||| m_pl / m_e = a^(1) * (N_A*pi*sqrt3) > |||| 1 mole of electron masses = 1 Planck mass > or conversly > |||| r_H / l_pl = a^(0) * (N_A*pi*sqrt3) > |||| 1 mole of Planck length units = 1 H-Bohr radius > or > |||| r_e / l_pl = a ^(2) * (N_A*pi*sqrt3) > |||| 1 mole of Plank length units = 1 classical el-radius > or > |||| tau / t_pl = a^(-1) * (N_A*pi*sqrt3) **** > |||| 1 mole of Planck time units = 1 atomic time unit > > So, it appears, or at least one cam make a case that > |||| Nature is Self-Similar over all scale domains & in all > |||| events & processes to which we humans have access to > > N_A, the mole, that humble and indispensable number > for the dudes at the chem lab bench, is much more far > reaching then physicists have given it credit for. Unfortunately > N_A's use for the development of **fundamental experimental > physics*** was stopped, a few years after Max Planck > introduced his natural units, by the stream rollers of Einstein's > relativity which looked for illusions and lunatic apparition that > are never there when you probe'm close-up in the real world. > > So, Einstein, his Zios and his Goyim Dingleberries have > effectively derailed fundamental physics for over a century. > It basically shows that even physics is, like all other science > endeavors, also just another social enterprise...ahahaha.... > > Now sports fans, carry on with your self-manipulation to prove > to yourself that N_A is indeed useful for all natural events. > Till then, thanks for the laughs, guys... ahahahanson Dear Hanson, (dear all), I share and sincerely appreciate all you said above and think to recognize the original (new for most) significance you pointed out (thanks, sincerely). Anyway, I'm personally convinced that N_A should be more appropriately named 'amount of substance' and should have physical dimensions of "particle/mole" where 'particle' may be atoms or molecules, in the simplest cases. Sorry for this adding that isn't in line with your main theme (I thought to take just an advantage to express that opinion of mine here). Could I have your valuable opinion(s)? Best regards, Angelo ==================================== Anyway, I'm impersonally convinced that 'substance' should be more appropriately named 'flubber' since nobody can tell me what matter or mass is. Valuable opinion given.
From: Angelo on 16 May 2010 21:46
On 17 Mag, 03:21, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > "Angelo" <patri...(a)libero.it> wrote in message > > news:30514610-9062-465b-a4a9-14caf0227187(a)l18g2000vbn.googlegroups.com... > On 15 Mag, 02:30, "hanson" <han...(a)quick.net> wrote: [snip] > Dear Hanson, (dear all), > > I share and sincerely appreciate all you said above > and think to recognize the original (new for most) > significance you pointed out (thanks, sincerely). > > Anyway, I'm personally convinced that N_A should > be more appropriately named 'amount of substance' > and should have physical dimensions of "particle/mole" > where 'particle' may be atoms or molecules, in the > simplest cases. > > Sorry for this adding that isn't in line with your main > theme (I thought to take just an advantage to express > that opinion of mine here). > > Could I have your valuable opinion(s)? > > Best regards, > Angelo > ==================================== > Anyway, I'm impersonally convinced that 'substance' should > be more appropriately named 'flubber' since nobody can tell Sorry, I have some difficulties as to regards at a disambiguation of the term 'flubber' (please consider that I'm not a native English speaker). > me what matter or mass is. Valuable opinion given. Thank you for your valuable opinion, but you yourself (I think) can realise that this is of no use for me as it stands. Best regards, Angelo |