/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9393463
Depends on what element you're using.

>>9393463
Avogadro's number

At least 4.

>>9393463
exactly 1 mole dumbass

>>9393488
>exactly 1 mole dumbass

with that answer you have the gaul to call OP a dumbass?

6e26

>>9393477
Why do numbers like this exist?

eulers constant, infinity, the speed of light, how the fuck did so many goobers from hundreds of years ago get away with just making up uncheckably large numbers? You can't take a step through higher maths without tripping over some goofy fuckin made up number that has been taught as defacto when it isn't.

>>9393495

>gaul

>>9393505

Are these certain parameters not necessary, anon?

>>9393488
Check this brainletto. Hope you're not serious.

>>9393509
Necessary for what?

>>9393488
>exactly 1 mole dumbass

Please tell me this is a joke. Nobody can be this stupid.

>>9393505
>eulers constant, infinity, the speed of light, how the fuck did so many goobers from hundreds of years ago get away with just making up uncheckably large numbers?
Euler's number is about 2.7 and well-defined in several ways
Infinity is not a number but a concept (an unbounded limit)
The speed of light is a physical, measurable value that we just express in different units

Holy shit how brainlet can one person be?

>>9393463
Depends on the molecular mass of the element/mixture in question

>>9393505
>speed of light
We can set that to 1 if it tickles your biscuit

>>9393463
exactly 1 gaul dumbass

>>9393463
(mass of atom)^-1

>>9393516
Mole is important to keep the number of reactants stoichiometric, while being pretty easily definable.
Speed of light is physical constant, not at all arbitrary.
euler's number is usefull as it can help describe certain statistical natural phenomena.

>>9393463
like 3

A kilogram of what?
If it was water
1000 / 1,008 = 992,06
992,06 * 6,022*10^23 = 5,97*10^26 atoms

I think

>>9396307
You need the molar mass of H2O. Basically 1+1+16.

You'd have 6.022 x 10^23 atoms in 18 kg.

So roughly 3.4 × 10^22 atoms in 1 kg of qater.

Roughly. If you want, go look up the atom8c mass of oxygen, which accounts for isotope distribution etc..

>>9393463
-1/12

>>9396315
Oh wow totally screwed up the molar mass in my post lol, should be 18,016 yeh
But the math is still correct

>>9396315
>it's not a power of ten

metric system btfu

>>9396319
And molar mass = g/mol

>>9393475
you didnt provide sources

>>9393505
Lol - not sure if bait or brainlet. I used to come here for science, now it's just to laugh.

Why is it that mathematicians love abstractions and generalizations, praise those clever techniques and proofs that lead to thought-provoking results, love complex analysis and try to use it to generalize as much as possible about the real numbers... yet get completely ass-blasted angry whenever -1/12 gets brought up?

>>9393463
For a neutron star it would be 0 (on average)

The gravity is just too extreme for atoms to exist, its basically a goo of neutrons, protons, and their components.

sources
https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/23171/which-atom-is-a-neutron-star-made-of/23192

>>9393885
Euler's constant is not Euler's number.. It's actually about 0,577. Otherwise what you said about e pretty much applies to the constant aswell.

Still you might want to look shit up before you call someone a brainlet

Take Hydrogen 1 as an example, the molecular mass is 1, therefore, making a mol of H (6.02 X 10^23 pieces of H atoms) 1grams

And a kg is 1000gr so 1000 mols = 6.02 x 10^26 pieces of Hydrogen

more than 12

I'm pretty sure it's either one for something like diamond or more then 6 for other stuff . Source is my post

>>9393505
Infinity is not a number . Speed of light is just 1, not a special number . Only Euler constant pi and a handful of others are meaningful mathematical constants.
Avogadro num only exists because of retarded so units like gram.

>>9393488
H-hold me /sci/ it's getting dark

>>9393463
pi / (-1/12)

I think the point of the thread was establishing that no one has actually proven these numbers exist. No one has sat down and counted atoms of a unit of weight, no measuring device can operate as fast as the speed of light, etc.
Especially the latter when its impossible now yet c was defined before lightbulbs even existed.

>>9397121
They measured all these things senpai. Read up

>>9397124
Uh, no. Its impossible to measure the speed of light at the speed it's claimed to be. By the very definition of what the speed of light is meant to be, the maximum speed of information conveyence, it makes sense that it would be impossible to measure regardless of the method. You can know a car is going 30mph, but you can't know something is moving at or near a maximal speed limit for information transfer. How could you measure it, really? If you're saying information travels at X speed and not above X, how could you even know what X is without going faster than it? Either the speed of light is the number it is because FTL already exists, or the speed of light is just bullshit. Considering how neat it is at 186,000 miles per second, its clearly been fabricated. No other constant looks "neat" like this. Pi is a mess, e is a mess, constants are messy and dont simply just fall neatly on the number line.

The speed of light is not a constant, nor has it ever actually even been measured. IIRC the turd who supposed a speed of light existed came to the conclusion while observing jupiter and assuming it should have been in a certain location based on earlier observations, but it was slightly offset. This error could have literally been from any insignificant thing, so it was literally retard logic that even came up with the idea of light speed.

>>9396435
for a black hole it's also probably 0.

>>9393891
To do other calculations in peace, dumbass

>>9397155
Just measure it senpai there's a fuckload of ways.you can even get c from the spacial frequency of em radiation .
C is neat because it's the invariant velocity so it's just defined to be 1.

>>9393463
Exactly 2000 yen

>>9393505
Avogadro's number is just the number of atoms in a carbon 12 atom, which we then use to infer the number of atoms in other types of atoms. What's so difficult to understand about this?

>>9393463
just enough

>>9397220
>number of atoms in atoms
An atom contains one atom you dumbass

>>9397246
Yes, but it can contain many carbon 12 atoms.

>>9397265
yo nigger I heard you like atoms so we put an atom in your atom

>>9397167
No one has ever measured the speed of light m8. You've been lied to about lightspeed.

>>9393885
>eulers constant is e

It's summer!

>>9393505
>goobers
keked hard

>>9397292
I literally measured the speed of light 6 months ago in an undergrad lab.

>>9397684

>>9393488
>exactly one mole

>>9393505
none of these numbers exist, they're just man-made concepts that relate to some other imaginary things

>>9393463
Let's take Carbon for example:
mass of carbon in kg: 1.9944235 × 10^-26 kg ± 1.3284311 × 10^-30 kg

Source: pixels from my monitor when I typed 'mass of carbon in kg' in my browser

>>9397292
brainlet

>>9398318
>t. Never looked up how streak cameras work
just leave this board desu fampai

>>9397292
No one except every physics undergrad in the last 100 years and some dude from the 1600s (with high uncertainty but still a good measurement +-0.2)

>>9393463
Kilogram of what?

>>9396307
If it were****

>>9398339
The speed of light as the speed of information transfer means the earliest moment you can record the information is the moment you detect it, with no measuring device in existence capable of moving, cycling, or recording at a significant rate to determine. The speed of light isn't bounded by the beam travelling left to right, its the visibility of the beam towards the camera, which occurs instantaneously faster than the particles move across the visual space.

>>9399594
I don't think you understand how measuring works.
I'm phoneposting so I can't explain all the ways you're retarded.

>>9393505
>big numbers are higher math
>fuckin wew

>>9393463
exactly as many atoms as there are in a kilogram

source >>9393463

>>9393463
avogadros number if it's a kilogram of pure C12
if it's made of something else you can figure it out from that

>>9399712
what if it's one kilogram of only lelectrons?

>>9399744
then it's a kilogram of a white dwarf material
and electrons have an (atomic) mass right? Just use that

>>9393463

mol divided by atomic mass times 100.

So 1 kg of hydrogen would be 100 mol atoms. 1 kg of helium would be 25 mol atoms.

>>9399756
wait why times 100 for one and:
>atomic mass is the atomic number
you know that's not true

>>9393463
Are there any actual answers in this thread? I skimmed the first few posts, and found none.

OP, it depends on what substance the kilogram is made from. A kilogram of uranium has fewer atoms in it than a kilogram of hydrogen, since each uranium atom is heavier per se than a hydrogen atom.

>>9397121
Avogadro's number can be 'estimated' (much like every other physical constant is also an estimate) by literally counting atoms in an ultra-pure sample of something.

>>9399756
Erm, no.

1 g hydrogen atoms (and not H2) is 1 mole; so 1 kg would be 1000 mol.

1 kg of helium would be 500 mol.

>>9393463
wait is it not Mass/molecular mass = number of moles
number of moles*avogadros number = number of particles

>>9399786
Yes, now apply that logic to OP's question.

>>9399790
Let's assume this is a pure substance
1 kg / molecular mass = # of moles
# of moles * avogadros number = number of molecules
number of molecules * number of atoms per molecule = number of atoms

>>9399796
> 1 kg / molecular mass = # of moles
Correct. The OP is simply missing the second term, the molecular mass, of whatever substance/s the thing is made from.

>>9399800
If it's not a pure substance that really complicates things

>>9399594
Dude just Google it and measure it stop brainletposting . It's not even good as far as trolling methods go.

>>9399802
Just take the average molecular weight senpai

>>9399755
>then it's a kilogram of white dwarf material

No, white dwarf stars are electron degenerate matter, which is a plasma of (in this case) carbon nuclei and their electrons under extreme pressure, held up by the fact that the electrons really don't want to get any closer to one another due to quantum state stuff.
White dwarf stars aren't made of just electrons. If they were they would instantly fly apart despite their strong gravity because of the overwhelming electromagnetic repulsion.
Except not really, because the amount of energy in a sphere of electrons the size and mass of a white dwarf would cause that sphere to instantly collapse into a black hole with an event horizon that would expand at the speed of light until it was bigger than the observable universe. Think about it, the electron is roughly a million times less massive than the proton, but has an equal charge strength. For the mass of a single proton, you now have a cloud of a million electrons with a correspondingly large charge strength. Now multiply that mass and charge strength by as much as the mass of the Sun.
Oh, and black holes carry over electric charge. So now you have a black hole that will swallow the entire observable universe inside its event horizon, and everything that it does not expand to consume has to deal with an electric charge about 40 orders of magnitude stronger than the gravitational field.