mass
'no magic to the mole'
amount
molar mass
concentration
solution volume
gas volume
molar gas volume
Avogadro
constant, L
number of
entities, N
Now try the following question.
CRITICISM OF IUPAC's AMOUNT OF SUBSTANCE & MOLE DOGMA
In 1996, nobody less than Max McGlashan (1924-97) wrote about ‘amount of substance’:
‘Do we really need amount of substance ?
No, we could perfectly manage without the introduction of amount of substance’.
And: ‘If any change was needed …, then that of abandoning amount of substance altogether would be much less unattractive.
Though widely used by chemists, the physical quantity called amount of substance and its SI unit called the mole are not necessary in science’ (1996, personal communication). But the concept was retained.
Professor emeritus in philosophy, Umeå University, Sweden argues that 'the SI system has not carefully enough taken into account the differences that exist between stoichiometry and physics...'
'...New SI definitions of the mole and the second neglect the distinction between discrete and continuous quantities... definitions refer to constancies that are not invariants of nature.'
Carmen J. Giunta
Professor Emeritus, Le Moyne College, NY 13214
J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92, 10, 1593–1597
Klaus Schmidt-Rohr
Department of Chemistry, Brandeis University, MA 02453
J. Chem. Educ. 2020, 97, 3, 597–602
Gordon Cooper & Stephen M. Humphry
The University of Western Australia, 6009, Australia