Why do scientists always say 'relative atomic mass' when talking about a....
Scroll to see replies
Original post by morecambebay
The atomic weight isnt exactly 12 . The relative is.
Atomic weight and relative atomic mass are synonymous, and are both defined by the IUPAC as (to quote them):
"An atomic weight (relative atomic mass) of an element from a specified source is the ratio of the average mass per atom of the element to 1/12 of the mass of an atom of 12C."
Atomic mass (sans relative) is something different slightly, I think, although I wouldn't swear to that having not studied it in a while.
Original post by morecambebay
Noooooo that's the AVERAGE MASS of all of the carbon isotopes.
There are three naturally occurring isotopes:
12C
13C
14C
In other words, a naturally occurring sample of carbon has all three isotopes (in different amounts)
The internationally agreed reference is 12C so logically the average mass of a carbon atom is going to be a little higher... no?
Original post by Miss Understood
single atom or isotope?
If carbon - 12 has a mass of exactly 12. Why do scientists say carbon-12's mass is relative instead of exact.
Also, why do scientist refer to the word 'relative atomic mass' when they are just talking about 1 isotope/atom. Surely they should say the 'exact'.
Maybe I should just accept it....for now.
If carbon - 12 has a mass of exactly 12. Why do scientists say carbon-12's mass is relative instead of exact.
Also, why do scientist refer to the word 'relative atomic mass' when they are just talking about 1 isotope/atom. Surely they should say the 'exact'.
Maybe I should just accept it....for now.
Its a measurement of atomic mass units.
In the periodic table for the mass of elements they write them in whole numbers.
The units for these whole numbers is the atomic scale unit 'u' which is used as writing down the mass of each element in Kg is quite messy.
1u = is roughly 1.66×10^ -27 Kg
We use atomic mass units as its easier to work with whole numbers than to work with multiples of 1.66x10^-27's
That isn't the true value of 1u, 1u is some hugely long number which we round to 2 significant figures to make our lives a lot easier, obviously this produces a small rounding error.
Carbon 12's mass is 12u roughly but it is not exactly that, there's a lot of rounding of numbers involved which eventually gives you some degree of error so they say carbon 12- mass is relative.
A proton/nuetron doesn't exactly = to 1u (is actually a tiny bit bigger)
So carbon 12 doesn't really have 12u mass it actually has a slightly bigger mass but we round it to make the numbers easier
Hope that helps, I'm coming from a Physics perspective, I have never taking A level chemistry and I don't plan too :P but mass numbers play quite a big role in nuclear energy/binding energies and particle physics so this should all be relevent.
Original post by charco
The mass compared to a carbon 12 isotope (which has an internationally agreed mass of 12 .0000000000 atomic mass units)
Okay, so how does the relative atomic mass help decipher the the mass number/no of electrons/protons of elements?
Why does Carbon - 12 have an exact mass of 12? How did they figure can from?
If Carbon -12 wasn't relative but exact would the mass in Kg?
(edited 13 years ago)
Original post by Phil1541
Carbon 12's mass is 12u roughly but it is not exactly that, there's a lot of rounding of numbers involved which eventually gives you some degree of error so they say carbon 12- mass is relative.
.
.
This is simply not true.
It is the reference.
it is ridiculous to say that the reference is inaccurate. It makes a mockery of the idea of a reference.
True we can't measure anything with 100% accuracy, but that is another issue.
Philosophically a reference has to be 100% accurate.
Original post by Miss Understood
Okay, so how does the relative atomic mass help decipher the the mass number/no of electrons/protons of elements?
It doesn't, but then again it was never intended to do so...
Original post by Miss Understood
Why does Carbon - 12 have an exact mass of 12? How did they figure can from?
Why does Carbon - 12 have an exact mass of 12? How did they figure can from?
It was chosen by the higher beings in the IUPAC
Originally 'they' (or their predecessors) chose 16oxygen ( = 16.000) ...
and then 'those' that came after chose 1hydrogen ( = 1.000)..
but finally 'they' decided that a better choice would be carbon-12 for the simply reason that it's more common and can be determined very easily in a mass spectrometer.
Original post by Miss Understood
If Carbon -12 wasn't relative but exact would the mass in Kg?
If Carbon -12 wasn't relative but exact would the mass in Kg?
???
Original post by charco
This is simply not true.
It is the reference.
it is ridiculous to say that the reference is inaccurate. It makes a mockery of the idea of a reference.
True we can't measure anything with 100% accuracy, but that is another issue.
Philosophically a reference has to be 100% accurate.
It is the reference.
it is ridiculous to say that the reference is inaccurate. It makes a mockery of the idea of a reference.
True we can't measure anything with 100% accuracy, but that is another issue.
Philosophically a reference has to be 100% accurate.
No I'm right....
Proton = 1.67x10-27kg
Is the same value for a nuetron.
Thats already a slight error due to rounding of numbers,
We say carbon 12 is equal of 6 nuetrons + 6 protons and we don't count electons as there mass is insignificant.
So already we know that carbon 12 has a larger mass than 12u, as 'u' = 1.66x10-27 while protons and nuetrons have masses of 1.67x10-27. (were not even including electrons masses here)
Its accurate enough but when you're working with mass energy equivelances you need to try and be as precise as possible as a small difference in mass gives a large difference in energy, but this is going into the realm of Physics and is a little off topic
Were both technically right as you never really need to work in such precise detail but I thought it would be useful for the OP to know
(edited 13 years ago)
Original post by Miss Understood
Okay, so how does the relative atomic mass help decipher the the mass number/no of electrons/protons of elements?
Why does Carbon - 12 have an exact mass of 12? How did they figure can from?
If Carbon -12 wasn't relative but exact would the mass in Kg?
Why does Carbon - 12 have an exact mass of 12? How did they figure can from?
If Carbon -12 wasn't relative but exact would the mass in Kg?
I feel a bit stupid asking this at this stage of the debate but what level of answer do you need - KS3, GCSE or A Level etc?
Original post by Phil1541
Proton = 1.67x10-27kg
Is the same value for a nuetron.
Thats already a slight error due to rounding of numbers,
We say carbon 12 is equal of 6 nuetrons + 6 protons and we don't count electons as there mass is insignificant.
So already we know that carbon 12 has a larger mass than 12u, as 'u' = 1.66x10-27 while protons and nuetrons have masses of 1.67x10-27. (were not even including electrons masses here)
What you are saying is totally correct. the ACTUAL MASSES of the particles that make up the nucleus are not exact.
BUT, that is nothing to do with the concept of relative mass, which does not measure absolute values, it measures relative values.
On any relative scale the actual reference (particle mass, length, time etc) MUST be an integral value ..
.. unless defined otherwise.
Original post by charco
What you are saying is totally correct. the ACTUAL MASSES of the particles that make up the nucleus are not exact.
BUT, that is nothing to do with the concept of relative mass, which does not measure absolute values, it measures relative values.
On any relative scale the actual reference (particle mass, length, time etc) MUST be an integral value ..
.. unless defined otherwise.
BUT, that is nothing to do with the concept of relative mass, which does not measure absolute values, it measures relative values.
On any relative scale the actual reference (particle mass, length, time etc) MUST be an integral value ..
.. unless defined otherwise.
Touche
I thought I'd got the relative idea wrong cheers for pointing that out to me
Original post by js374
I feel a bit stupid asking this at this stage of the debate but what level of answer do you need - KS3, GCSE or A Level etc?
A level. Everyone has confused me. I feel like I don't know anything anymore.
I basically wanted someone to explain what the AQA textbook says.
Relative atomic masses are measured on a scale on which the mass of an atom of Carbon-12 is exactly 12. No other isotope has a relative atomic mass which is exactly a whole number. This is because protons and neutrons do not have a relative masses of exactly 1
High resolution spectrometers can measure the masses of atoms to serval decimal places. This allows us to identify elements by the exact mass of their atoms, that apart from carbon 12 whose relative atomic mass is exactly 12, are not exactly whole numbers.
From the way the book has worded it, it seems to mean that the relative atomic mass of just one carbon-12 atom is exactly 12. I was wondering why they said relative atomic mass instead of exact mass.
What do they mean by 'exactly 12'?
Is the relative atomic mass, the average mass of isotopes of the same element?
How did scientists work out the mass number/atomic number?
I want to get an A in chemistry, at this rate my only hope is a U.
Original post by Miss Understood
single atom or isotope?
If carbon - 12 has a mass of exactly 12. Why do scientists say carbon-12's mass is relative instead of exact.
Also, why do scientist refer to the word 'relative atomic mass' when they are just talking about 1 isotope/atom. Surely they should say the 'exact'.
Maybe I should just accept it....for now.
If carbon - 12 has a mass of exactly 12. Why do scientists say carbon-12's mass is relative instead of exact.
Also, why do scientist refer to the word 'relative atomic mass' when they are just talking about 1 isotope/atom. Surely they should say the 'exact'.
Maybe I should just accept it....for now.
They just say relative atomic mass because it's not really measured to any unit, you have to use a constant to turn it into grams or whatever, so that number is relative to the other atoms/molecules.
Btw, carbon isn't exactly 12, they round it up to make it easier.
Original post by Miss Understood
A level. Everyone has confused me. I feel like I don't know anything anymore.
I basically wanted someone to explain what the AQA textbook says.
Relative atomic masses are measured on a scale on which the mass of an atom of Carbon-12 is exactly 12. No other isotope has a relative atomic mass which is exactly a whole number. This is because protons and neutrons do not have a relative masses of exactly 1
High resolution spectrometers can measure the masses of atoms to serval decimal places. This allows us to identify elements by the exact mass of their atoms, that apart from carbon 12 whose relative atomic mass is exactly 12, are not exactly whole numbers.
From the way the book has worded it, it seems to mean that the relative atomic mass of just one carbon-12 atom is exactly 12. I was wondering why they said relative atomic mass instead of exact mass.
What do they mean by 'exactly 12'?
Is the relative atomic mass, the average mass of isotopes of the same element?
How did scientists work out the mass number/atomic number?
I want to get an A in chemistry, at this rate my only hope is a U.
I basically wanted someone to explain what the AQA textbook says.
Relative atomic masses are measured on a scale on which the mass of an atom of Carbon-12 is exactly 12. No other isotope has a relative atomic mass which is exactly a whole number. This is because protons and neutrons do not have a relative masses of exactly 1
High resolution spectrometers can measure the masses of atoms to serval decimal places. This allows us to identify elements by the exact mass of their atoms, that apart from carbon 12 whose relative atomic mass is exactly 12, are not exactly whole numbers.
From the way the book has worded it, it seems to mean that the relative atomic mass of just one carbon-12 atom is exactly 12. I was wondering why they said relative atomic mass instead of exact mass.
What do they mean by 'exactly 12'?
Is the relative atomic mass, the average mass of isotopes of the same element?
How did scientists work out the mass number/atomic number?
I want to get an A in chemistry, at this rate my only hope is a U.
When we use the phrase "relative atomic mass" this implies that the units we are using are "atomic mass units". Saying that the "exact mass" is 12, is meaningless because we haven't specified any units. Is it 12 kg, 12 stone, 12 Mini Coopers? 'Relative' doesn't mean it's not exact, it simply means that we are using atomic mass units.
As has been said, the definition of the atomic mass unit is 1/12 the mass of a Carbon-12 atom. That's why we talk about "relative" atomic mass, all we mean is the mass relative to 1/12 the mass of Carbon-12. So by definition, the mass of Carbon-12 is exactly 12.
Hope that helps.
You're getting a lot of conflicting information and a lot of it isn't right...
I'd just read this TBH http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_atomic_mass
I'd just read this TBH http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_atomic_mass
Original post by Phil1541
No I'm right....
Proton = 1.67x10-27kg
Is the same value for a nuetron.
Thats already a slight error due to rounding of numbers,
We say carbon 12 is equal of 6 nuetrons + 6 protons and we don't count electons as there mass is insignificant.
So already we know that carbon 12 has a larger mass than 12u, as 'u' = 1.66x10-27 while protons and nuetrons have masses of 1.67x10-27. (were not even including electrons masses here)
Its accurate enough but when you're working with mass energy equivelances you need to try and be as precise as possible as a small difference in mass gives a large difference in energy, but this is going into the realm of Physics and is a little off topic
Were both technically right as you never really need to work in such precise detail but I thought it would be useful for the OP to know
Proton = 1.67x10-27kg
Is the same value for a nuetron.
Thats already a slight error due to rounding of numbers,
We say carbon 12 is equal of 6 nuetrons + 6 protons and we don't count electons as there mass is insignificant.
So already we know that carbon 12 has a larger mass than 12u, as 'u' = 1.66x10-27 while protons and nuetrons have masses of 1.67x10-27. (were not even including electrons masses here)
Its accurate enough but when you're working with mass energy equivelances you need to try and be as precise as possible as a small difference in mass gives a large difference in energy, but this is going into the realm of Physics and is a little off topic
Were both technically right as you never really need to work in such precise detail but I thought it would be useful for the OP to know
Going off topic a bit..., so OP please ignore:
Unless I misunderstand you (which is possible, it's very late!), I don't think this is right. The rest masses of protons and neutrons in an atom don't add up the rest mass of the atom because of the mass-energy equivalence you talk about. Work is done in binding the nucleons together, i.e potential energy of the system is lost. This is exhibited as loss of mass, hence the mass of bound nucleons is less than the sum of the individual nucleons. It is not, I believe, due to rounding errors in the definition of the atomic mass unit.
Original post by Phil1541
No I'm right....
Proton = 1.67x10-27kg
Is the same value for a nuetron.
Thats already a slight error due to rounding of numbers,
We say carbon 12 is equal of 6 nuetrons + 6 protons and we don't count electons as there mass is insignificant.
So already we know that carbon 12 has a larger mass than 12u, as 'u' = 1.66x10-27 while protons and nuetrons have masses of 1.67x10-27. (were not even including electrons masses here)
Its accurate enough but when you're working with mass energy equivelances you need to try and be as precise as possible as a small difference in mass gives a large difference in energy, but this is going into the realm of Physics and is a little off topic
Were both technically right as you never really need to work in such precise detail but I thought it would be useful for the OP to know
Proton = 1.67x10-27kg
Is the same value for a nuetron.
Thats already a slight error due to rounding of numbers,
We say carbon 12 is equal of 6 nuetrons + 6 protons and we don't count electons as there mass is insignificant.
So already we know that carbon 12 has a larger mass than 12u, as 'u' = 1.66x10-27 while protons and nuetrons have masses of 1.67x10-27. (were not even including electrons masses here)
Its accurate enough but when you're working with mass energy equivelances you need to try and be as precise as possible as a small difference in mass gives a large difference in energy, but this is going into the realm of Physics and is a little off topic
Were both technically right as you never really need to work in such precise detail but I thought it would be useful for the OP to know
A carbon 12 atom weighs less then the invividual protons, neutrons and electrons that it is made from.
I'm sure Its exactly 12u. Well I was until I read this thread...
EDIT: Just checked my Physics notes. Just consider the Physics of it for a second.
Assume that the mass of Carbon-12 is 12.0000000u
A mass of an electron is 0.000549u
so the mass of 6 electrons is 0.033u
Therefore the mass of a carbon 12 nucleus is 12u - 0.033u = 11.9967u
Now consider the individual nucleons.
Mass of Proton = 1.00726u
Mass of Neutron = 1.00866u
So 6 of each = 12.0956u which is more then a carbon 12 nucleus as you quite rightly said.
However, the binding energy of Carbon-12 is -0.989u (in mass, not energy) which is exactly the binding energy of carbon-12 (look it up)
hence, carbon 12 is exactly 12u.
All the other RAMs are taken from this. For example Hydrogen is given as 1u, 1 twelth of the mass of carbon-12, it isn't however because of the difference in binding energies. The rest of the elements are not exact numbers of 'u's.
(edited 13 years ago)
Original post by Mbob
When we use the phrase "relative atomic mass" this implies that the units we are using are "atomic mass units". Saying that the "exact mass" is 12, is meaningless because we haven't specified any units. Is it 12 kg, 12 stone, 12 Mini Coopers? 'Relative' doesn't mean it's not exact, it simply means that we are using atomic mass units.
As has been said, the definition of the atomic mass unit is 1/12 the mass of a Carbon-12 atom. That's why we talk about "relative" atomic mass, all we mean is the mass relative to 1/12 the mass of Carbon-12. So by definition, the mass of Carbon-12 is exactly 12.
Hope that helps.
As has been said, the definition of the atomic mass unit is 1/12 the mass of a Carbon-12 atom. That's why we talk about "relative" atomic mass, all we mean is the mass relative to 1/12 the mass of Carbon-12. So by definition, the mass of Carbon-12 is exactly 12.
Hope that helps.
Thanks, just to clarify a few things:
Why is Carbon-12 the sole measurement of relative atomic mass and not any other element?
How did scientist work out the relative atomic mass of every element and how did that soon correlate to working out the quantities of protons/neutrons in an atom?
Original post by Joinedup
You're getting a lot of conflicting information and a lot of it isn't right...
I'd just read this TBH http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_atomic_mass
I'd just read this TBH http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_atomic_mass
Most decent response so far.
Just to rap things up. Why does my AQA textbook say Relative atomic mass is defined on a scale on which C-12 is exactly 12?
How did chemists know that relative atomic mass can help find atomic no/mass no.
Original post by Miss Understood
A level. Everyone has confused me. I feel like I don't know anything anymore.
I basically wanted someone to explain what the AQA textbook says.
Relative atomic masses are measured on a scale on which the mass of an atom of Carbon-12 is exactly 12. No other isotope has a relative atomic mass which is exactly a whole number. This is because protons and neutrons do not have a relative masses of exactly 1
High resolution spectrometers can measure the masses of atoms to serval decimal places. This allows us to identify elements by the exact mass of their atoms, that apart from carbon 12 whose relative atomic mass is exactly 12, are not exactly whole numbers.
From the way the book has worded it, it seems to mean that the relative atomic mass of just one carbon-12 atom is exactly 12. I was wondering why they said relative atomic mass instead of exact mass.
What do they mean by 'exactly 12'?
Is the relative atomic mass, the average mass of isotopes of the same element?
How did scientists work out the mass number/atomic number?
I want to get an A in chemistry, at this rate my only hope is a U.
I basically wanted someone to explain what the AQA textbook says.
Relative atomic masses are measured on a scale on which the mass of an atom of Carbon-12 is exactly 12. No other isotope has a relative atomic mass which is exactly a whole number. This is because protons and neutrons do not have a relative masses of exactly 1
High resolution spectrometers can measure the masses of atoms to serval decimal places. This allows us to identify elements by the exact mass of their atoms, that apart from carbon 12 whose relative atomic mass is exactly 12, are not exactly whole numbers.
From the way the book has worded it, it seems to mean that the relative atomic mass of just one carbon-12 atom is exactly 12. I was wondering why they said relative atomic mass instead of exact mass.
What do they mean by 'exactly 12'?
Is the relative atomic mass, the average mass of isotopes of the same element?
How did scientists work out the mass number/atomic number?
I want to get an A in chemistry, at this rate my only hope is a U.
You win the award for clearest post of this thread. If you will forgive me for saying it, I think you may have got confused because the initial question you asked was a little ambiguous so the answers were fairly divergent.
The phrase relative is used because all of the masses used are 'relative' to the mass of carbon-12. The exact mass of an atom of carbon-12 would be ~1.396x10^-17 g. This is clearly a very tiny number and is a pain to work with so it is much simpler to use the relative system. Take water as an example, the relative mass is ~18* so this is ~18* times heavier than 1/12 of a carbon atom. The weight of everything is calculated relative to the carbon atom weight. Exactly 12 just means that there are no decimal places and it has not been rounded.
Relative atomic mass take into account isotopic differences. So while carbon-12 has a RAM of 12, carbon does not and has a RAM of 12.011 to take account of the isotopes.
How scientists worked out the numbers was a long programme of research by different scientists. Lavoisier, Dalton, Avagadro and Mendeleev are some of the more important people if you want to read up on it.
I hope that is clearer.
* I use "~" because it is not exactly 18 and but i can't be bothered to work it out/look it up but I also don't want Charco or Phil jumping down my throat about how it is not a whole number
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- AQA GCSE Chemistry Paper 1 Higher Tier (8462 1H) - 22nd May 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Moles in A-Level Chemistry
- Chemistry relative atomic mass
- AQA Chem Unit 1 May 22nd 2015 *OFFICIAL THREAD*
- Mass vs relative atomic mass on periodic table
- Drift Velocity Q
- Chem Question!!!
- PAG 1.2 chemistry A-Level OCR A
- Relative atomic mass
- chemistry help
- Chemistry AQA GCSE Relative Formula Mass Calculations
- Mass Spectrum
- Titrations
- A level chemistry HELP
- chemistry a level
- Chemistry A-level Abundance question [Help]
- chem a level help
- A2 chemistry question relating to mass spectrometry.
- Chemistry a level
- Chemistry A-level question...
Latest
Last reply 2 minutes ago
Bank Of england degree apprenticeship 2024Last reply 7 minutes ago
Feeling inferior compared to syrians as a half moroccan/half whiteLast reply 9 minutes ago
Edexcel A Level Business Paper 1 (9BS0 01) - 14th May 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 13 minutes ago
LSE International Social and Public Policy and Economics (LLK1) 2024 ThreadLast reply 15 minutes ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant ThreadLast reply 16 minutes ago
Atkins Degree Apprenticeship 2024Last reply 21 minutes ago
Official UCL Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entryLast reply 26 minutes ago
Official University of St Andrews Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 36 minutes ago
Learn Direct - Vet science Unit 9 HELPLast reply 46 minutes ago
LSE undergraduate accommodationLast reply 51 minutes ago
The Official Cambridge Applicants for 2025 Entry ThreadLast reply 51 minutes ago
Airbus degree apprenticeships 2024Last reply 52 minutes ago
Official University of Edinburgh Applicant Thread for 2024
