« Chimps practise self control | Main | ACS Boston August 2007: factoids »

ACS Boston August 2007: Avogadro's out

here's a bit of gossip - Avogadro's constant, the one that lets you work out how much is in a mole of something, is under threat from a bunch of physicists who want to see it declassified as an absolute number, and instead tied to Planck's constant, which is altogether more complicated to explain but essentially is used in quantum mechanics to bunch things into packets, or quanta. Not very clearly explained, but i'm no physicist. Check out other definitions here and here.

The person who told me this shocking piece of news is a member of th ACS nomenclature committee. Before you all rush out and try to recaluclate the number of moles in your morning coffee - dont' panic. My source tells me that on a practical day to day basis, there will be no change, although explaining moles to a tenth-grader will be more difficult if the change ever makes it through.

The paper that started it all was apparently published in the journal Metrology, by Ian Mills, although i'm having trouble tracking down the paper.

From my brief conversation, it seems that the idea is to relate Avagadro's number to Planck's constant so that the number becomes a relationship between the two numbers rather than an exact number. The grandiose phrase i heard was that this would relate Avagadro's number to the invariants of nature. What would happen in your world if suddenly you had to redefine Avagadro's number? Anything? Nothing?

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://blogs.nature.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/3273

Post a comment

Comments will be reviewed by staff before being published. You can be as critical or controversial as you like, but please don't get personal or offensive, and do keep it brief. Excessively long entries may be cropped. Remember this is for feedback and discussion - not for publishing papers or press releases.

We strongly encourage you to use your real, full name. Email addresses are required: this is just in case we need to discuss your comment with you privately. They won’t be published.


Please enter the numbers you see below - this helps us to cut down on spam. If you are having trouble with this system, you can instead e-mail a comment to 'inthefield at nature.com'.