1. I am just wondering why atoms are compared to 1/12 of the mass of an atom of carbon? Why carbon? Why is there a need to compare?

2.

3. The weight corresponds to the number of nucleons the atom has, where 1/12 the mass of an atom of carbon-12 is roughly the weight of any single nucleon.

The number of nucleons is useful to identify isotopes, which have different properties, mainly relating to stability/how likely it is to decay and emit ionising radiation.

4. Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
The weight corresponds to the number of nucleons the atom has, where 1/12 the mass of an atom of carbon-12 is roughly the weight of any single nucleon.

The number of nucleons is useful to identify isotopes, which have different properties, mainly relating to stability/how likely it is to decay and emit ionising radiation.
I think he was wondering why 1/12 of the mass of carbon-12 is stated as the weight of a nucleon instead of the mass of a hydrogen, 1/39 of the mass of potassium-39, etc. What makes carbon so special?

Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
The weight corresponds to the number of nucleons the atom has, where 1/12 the mass of an atom of carbon-12 is roughly the weight of any single nucleon.

The number of nucleons is useful to identify isotopes, which have different properties, mainly relating to stability/how likely it is to decay and emit ionising radiation.
I think he was wondering why 1/12 of the mass of carbon-12 is stated as the weight of a nucleon instead of the mass of a hydrogen, 1/39 of the mass of potassium-39, etc. What makes carbon so special?
Simpler to purify into known masses of 100% carbon-12, probably.

But it's just the same question as 'why do we base our mass unit (kilogram) on a piece of metal in a safe somewhere?'

6. Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
The weight corresponds to the number of nucleons the atom has, where 1/12 the mass of an atom of carbon-12 is roughly the weight of any single nucleon.

The number of nucleons is useful to identify isotopes, which have different properties, mainly relating to stability/how likely it is to decay and emit ionising radiation.
I think he was wondering why 1/12 of the mass of carbon-12 is stated as the weight of a nucleon instead of the mass of a hydrogen, 1/39 of the mass of potassium-39, etc. What makes carbon so special?
Simpler to purify into known masses of 100% carbon-12, probably.

But it's just the same question as 'why do we base our mass unit (kilogram) on a piece of metal in a safe somewhere?'
Haha, this is true. I think I recall my teacher saying that the piece of metal that represents the kilogram was radioactive or something, and as a result is actually losing mass and is slightly less than a kilogram now? Is that true or is my memory of something he might have said over six months ago just fuzzy?

7. No, I heard that too. I think since they realised that, they stopped using it as a measure of the kilogram, and started to rely on digitally saved versions of the kilogram instead.

After all, if the kilogram changes, the rest of the SI units no longer fit together properly.

We'll get to the bizaar situation where the kilogram weighs less than a kilogram

8. Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
No, I heard that too. I think since they realised that, they stopped using it as a measure of the kilogram, and started to rely on digitally saved versions of the kilogram instead.

After all, if the kilogram changes, the rest of the SI units no longer fit together properly.

We'll get to the bizaar situation where the kilogram weighs less than a kilogram
Haha, why use a radioactive mass? Well, then again, I guess all samples of matter almost inevitably have a few radioisotopes in them.

9. The only isotope that can ever be 100% stable is , as the neutron is unstable and decays into the protons over time.

Then again, it is theorised that even the proton is unstable, and decays into mesons and positrons.

And that is why, invariably, we are all going to die

10. Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
The only isotope that can ever be 100% stable is , as the neutron is unstable and decays into the protons over time.

Then again, it is theorised that even the proton is unstable, and decays into mesons and positrons.

And that is why, invariably, we are all going to die
Yeah, but... "In other words, proton decay has never been witnessed and the experimental lower bound on the mean proton lifetime (2.1×10^29 years) is put by the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory" - Wikipedia

We won't even be around that long to witness the protons decay! We could just have a kilogram of hydrogen

 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement