7 ms·
In the context of chemistry, conservation of mass is not at all obvious which is why it is a big deal that Lavoisier proved it to be the case. To determine that
by Mvandenbergh 9y ago
In the context of chemistry, conservation of mass is not at all obvious which is why it is a big deal that Lavoisier proved it to be the case. To determine that burning wood into ash (for instance) doesn't change the total mass of the system requires precise measurement and an intuitive leap on what constitute the boundaries of the system.
In mechanics there is historically no such law precisely because no-one would ever have thought that it wasn't obviously true.
- mowenz 9y agoYes I am aware. The issue is that in our current understanding we now know in chemistry we are adding element1+element2=element1+element2... (classically at least). So while Lavoisier led us to the above, the author is pointing to the fact that e1+e2=e1+e2 but to the reader this can be confusing because Lavoisier's Law also states the same... Though once you understand that you are just rearranging chemical bonds b/w elements there's nothing different about it. I don't have any intuition about how you would theoretically prove the assumption in Lavoisier's Law--Newton's 0th Law. It seems if Lavoisier's Law is true it implies Newton's 0 must also, at least intuitively... It's a reasonable source of confusion and I think it's ok the above poster was misguided about it as everyone agrees from the start on this: almost no one questioned such an assumption.