Atomic weight and relative atomic mass are synonymous, and are both defined by the IUPAC as (to quote them):(Original post by morecambebay)
The atomic weight isnt exactly 12 . The relative is.
"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.
You are Here:
Home
> Forums
>< Study Help
>< Maths, science and technology academic help
>< Chemistry

Why do scientists always say 'relative atomic mass' when talking about a.... watch

 Follow
 41
 04042011 00:02

charco
 Follow
 76 followers
 17 badges
 Send a private message to charco
 Visit charco's homepage!
 Community Assistant
 Study Helper
Offline17ReputationRep:Community AssistantStudy Helper Follow
 42
 04042011 00:03
There are three naturally occurring isotopes:
^{12}C
^{13}C
^{14}C
In other words, a naturally occurring sample of carbon has all three isotopes (in different amounts)
The internationally agreed reference is ^{12}C so logically the average mass of a carbon atom is going to be a little higher... no? 
 Follow
 43
 04042011 00:05
(Original post by Miss Understood)
single atom or isotope?
If carbon  12 has a mass of exactly 12. Why do scientists say carbon12'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.
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. 
Miss Understood
 Follow
 0 followers
 0 badges
 Send a private message to Miss Understood
 Thread Starter
Offline0ReputationRep: Follow
 44
 04042011 00:06
(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?Last edited by Miss Understood; 04042011 at 00:07. 
 Follow
 45
 04042011 00:07
I am loving this thread just for the fact it has got completely derailed and nobody even knows what the initial question was anymore.

charco
 Follow
 76 followers
 17 badges
 Send a private message to charco
 Visit charco's homepage!
 Community Assistant
 Study Helper
Offline17ReputationRep:Community AssistantStudy Helper Follow
 46
 04042011 00:09
(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.
.
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. 
charco
 Follow
 76 followers
 17 badges
 Send a private message to charco
 Visit charco's homepage!
 Community Assistant
 Study Helper
Offline17ReputationRep:Community AssistantStudy Helper Follow
 47
 04042011 00:14
(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?
(Original post by Miss Understood)
Why does Carbon  12 have an exact mass of 12? How did they figure can from?
Originally 'they' (or their predecessors) chose ^{16}oxygen ( = 16.000) ...
and then 'those' that came after chose ^{1}hydrogen ( = 1.000)..
but finally 'they' decided that a better choice would be carbon12 for the simply reason that it's more common and can be determined very easily in a mass spectrometer.

 Follow
 48
 04042011 00:17
(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.
Proton = 1.67x1027kg
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' = 1.66x1027 while protons and nuetrons have masses of 1.67x1027. (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 knowLast edited by Phil1541; 04042011 at 00:18. 
 Follow
 49
 04042011 00:18
(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? 
charco
 Follow
 76 followers
 17 badges
 Send a private message to charco
 Visit charco's homepage!
 Community Assistant
 Study Helper
Offline17ReputationRep:Community AssistantStudy Helper Follow
 50
 04042011 00:22
(Original post by Phil1541)
No I'm right....
Proton = 1.67x1027kg
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' = 1.66x1027 while protons and nuetrons have masses of 1.67x1027. (were not even including electrons masses here)
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. 
 Follow
 51
 04042011 00:28
(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.
I thought I'd got the relative idea wrong cheers for pointing that out to me 
Miss Understood
 Follow
 0 followers
 0 badges
 Send a private message to Miss Understood
 Thread Starter
Offline0ReputationRep: Follow
 52
 04042011 00:31
(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?
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 Carbon12 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 carbon12 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. 
 Follow
 53
 04042011 00:38
(Original post by Miss Understood)
single atom or isotope?
If carbon  12 has a mass of exactly 12. Why do scientists say carbon12'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.
Btw, carbon isn't exactly 12, they round it up to make it easier. 
 Follow
 54
 04042011 00:43
(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 Carbon12 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 carbon12 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.
As has been said, the definition of the atomic mass unit is 1/12 the mass of a Carbon12 atom. That's why we talk about "relative" atomic mass, all we mean is the mass relative to 1/12 the mass of Carbon12. So by definition, the mass of Carbon12 is exactly 12.
Hope that helps. 
 Follow
 55
 04042011 00:43
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 
 Follow
 56
 04042011 00:51
(Original post by Phil1541)
No I'm right....
Proton = 1.67x1027kg
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' = 1.66x1027 while protons and nuetrons have masses of 1.67x1027. (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
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 massenergy 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. 
Ollie901
 Follow
 1 follower
 1 badge
 Send a private message to Ollie901
 Visit Ollie901's homepage!
Offline1ReputationRep: Follow
 57
 04042011 00:55
(Original post by Phil1541)
No I'm right....
Proton = 1.67x1027kg
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' = 1.66x1027 while protons and nuetrons have masses of 1.67x1027. (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
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 Carbon12 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 Carbon12 is 0.989u (in mass, not energy) which is exactly the binding energy of carbon12 (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 carbon12, it isn't however because of the difference in binding energies. The rest of the elements are not exact numbers of 'u's.Last edited by Ollie901; 04042011 at 01:06. 
Miss Understood
 Follow
 0 followers
 0 badges
 Send a private message to Miss Understood
 Thread Starter
Offline0ReputationRep: Follow
 58
 04042011 00:58
(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 Carbon12 atom. That's why we talk about "relative" atomic mass, all we mean is the mass relative to 1/12 the mass of Carbon12. So by definition, the mass of Carbon12 is exactly 12.
Hope that helps.
Why is Carbon12 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? 
Miss Understood
 Follow
 0 followers
 0 badges
 Send a private message to Miss Understood
 Thread Starter
Offline0ReputationRep: Follow
 59
 04042011 01:09
(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
Just to rap things up. Why does my AQA textbook say Relative atomic mass is defined on a scale on which C12 is exactly 12?
How did chemists know that relative atomic mass can help find atomic no/mass no. 
 Follow
 60
 04042011 01:15
(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 Carbon12 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 carbon12 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.
The phrase relative is used because all of the masses used are 'relative' to the mass of carbon12. The exact mass of an atom of carbon12 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 carbon12 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
Related discussions
 AQA GCSE Chemistry C1 Unofficial Markscheme 2017
 Dumb things I've heard people say
 Dumb things I've heard people say
 The Chemistry ASlevel Thread
 I need time dilation help please?
 Are we time itself? or does time happen around us?
 AQA GCSE Chemistry  C2 & C3 (14th May 2015)
 If God exists, then who created HIM? HE DOESN'T EXIST!
 Are ethnic minorities insecure about their British identity
 Edexcel GCE AS Chemistry Unit 1: 22nd May 2015 + Unit 2 ...
Related university courses

Chemistry and Mathematics
University of Leeds

Medicinal and Pharmaceutical Chemistry
Loughborough University

Chemistry with Forensic Science
University of Leicester

Chemistry and Professional Education
University of Stirling

Astrophysics and Chemistry
Keele University

Chemistry (International)
Durham University

Chemistry with a Year in North America
HeriotWatt University

Chemistry with a Year's Professional Placement
King's College London

Materials Chemistry
University of St Andrews

Medicinal Chemistry with Science Foundation Year
Keele University
We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.
 charco
 Mr M
 Changing Skies
 F1's Finest
 Notnek
 RDKGames
 davros
 Gingerbread101
 Kvothe the Arcane
 TeeEff
 Protostar
 TheConfusedMedic
 nisha.sri
 claireestelle
 Doonesbury
 furryface12
 Amefish
 Lemur14
 brainzistheword
 Quirky Object
 TheAnxiousSloth
 EstelOfTheEyrie
 CoffeeAndPolitics
 Labrador99
 EmilySarah00
 thekidwhogames
 entertainmyfaith
 Eimmanuel
 Toastiekid
 CinnamonSmol
 Qer
 The Empire Odyssey
 RedGiant
 Sinnoh