4 ms·
It is a base unit, a unit for lots of stuff, and it is not dimensionless it is 6*10^23/mol
by kiriakasis 8y ago
It is a base unit, a unit for lots of stuff, and it is not dimensionless it is 6*10^23/mol
- thaumasiotes 8y agoI'm pretty sure the mole is not defined as 6 * 10^23 mol^{-1}. There is a concept of "the Avogadro constant", which is defined to have units of mol^{-1} (at least, according to a cited statement on wikipedia), but that is not a coherent concept -- since mol is dimensionless, mol^{-1} is also dimensionless. Just look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mole_(unit)#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mole_(unit)#Criticism : > Since its adoption into the International System of Units in 1971, numerous criticisms of the concept of the mole as a unit like the metre or the second have arisen: > the number of molecules, etc. in a given amount of material is a fixed dimensionless quantity > the mole is not a true metric (i.e. measuring) unit Or look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_mass_unit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_mass_unit : > One unified atomic mass unit is approximately the mass of one nucleon (either a single proton or neutron) and is numerically equivalent to 1 g/mol. amu and g are both units of mass, so 1 amu = 1 g/mol is an explicit statement that mol is dimensionless. Calling mol a unit won't accomplish anything except corrupting your dimensional analysis. mol is not analogous to the SI units meter, second, ampere, gram, kelvin, etc. -- it is analogous to the SI prefixes kilo-, mega-, milli-, micro-, nano-, etc.