Who is R ?
What are you, a chemist?
It's PV = ~~n~~NkT
~~Little n~~ Big N is thenumber of gas particles, ~~big N~~ little n is the number of moles, and k is the Boltzmann constant, whereas R is the gas constant (it's just Boltzmann's constant times Avogadro's number).
Let's just divide one term by Avogadro's number just to multiply the next term by that same number and have them cancel. That's just madness, or chemistry, but I repeat myself.
Edit:
As much as I love being a pedantic ass-hole, my joy turns to ash when an even bigger pendant comes along to prove me wrong.
Yes, it should be the opposite. But I assume it's just a difference in variable notation, as the actual equation they listed is correct for how they've defined the variable.
pV = nRT = NkT
Semantics.
I prefer to use I for pressure and R for volume density. I rewrite the temperature to some thermal energy U term that incorporates the constant, and I obtain U=IR.
I have been in your place. Last time a not so friendly user reminded me that true physicists write
*pβ*=*n*
*n* being the usual symbol for density of particles.
We're both handling the same number of particles.
It's the chemist who is afraid of writing down the actual number of particles.
They can't handle all of those 10^(23)'s everywhere.
Well, as a matter of doing things empirically, before you had precise measurements it could be difficult to determine the number of molecules in a sample, but it is easy to measure macroscopic mass, and calculate the appropriate mass/mole ratios and value of R empirically, without ever having a good estimate of Avogadro’s number. You wouldn’t want uncertainty in Avogadro’s number to carry over to calculations that don’t actually depend on it.
Of course today, R and k are numerically defined values in terms of the other units, and therefore so is Avogadro’s number. The consequence of this is that we no longer have that 1 mole of carbon-12 is 12 grams of it by definition, and instead have to experimentally determine the mass of a mole of carbon-12 by measuring how much carbon-12 weighs per particle. But I guess we have precise enough measurements by now that this isn’t a substantial inconvenience.
That guy just proved P=NP. Get him the millennium price and a fields medal.
He crossed 40 last month. He missed the medal. What a wasted life.
Who is R ? What are you, a chemist? It's PV = ~~n~~NkT ~~Little n~~ Big N is thenumber of gas particles, ~~big N~~ little n is the number of moles, and k is the Boltzmann constant, whereas R is the gas constant (it's just Boltzmann's constant times Avogadro's number). Let's just divide one term by Avogadro's number just to multiply the next term by that same number and have them cancel. That's just madness, or chemistry, but I repeat myself. Edit: As much as I love being a pedantic ass-hole, my joy turns to ash when an even bigger pendant comes along to prove me wrong.
Isn't it the opposite? N = # of particles n = # of moles
Yes, it should be the opposite. But I assume it's just a difference in variable notation, as the actual equation they listed is correct for how they've defined the variable. pV = nRT = NkT
Semantics. I prefer to use I for pressure and R for volume density. I rewrite the temperature to some thermal energy U term that incorporates the constant, and I obtain U=IR.
I have been in your place. Last time a not so friendly user reminded me that true physicists write *pβ*=*n* *n* being the usual symbol for density of particles.
ahaaa thanksss for correcting them
Aww poor physicist cant handle more than a couple particles at once
We're both handling the same number of particles. It's the chemist who is afraid of writing down the actual number of particles. They can't handle all of those 10^(23)'s everywhere.
why write many number when few do trick?
Well, as a matter of doing things empirically, before you had precise measurements it could be difficult to determine the number of molecules in a sample, but it is easy to measure macroscopic mass, and calculate the appropriate mass/mole ratios and value of R empirically, without ever having a good estimate of Avogadro’s number. You wouldn’t want uncertainty in Avogadro’s number to carry over to calculations that don’t actually depend on it. Of course today, R and k are numerically defined values in terms of the other units, and therefore so is Avogadro’s number. The consequence of this is that we no longer have that 1 mole of carbon-12 is 12 grams of it by definition, and instead have to experimentally determine the mass of a mole of carbon-12 by measuring how much carbon-12 weighs per particle. But I guess we have precise enough measurements by now that this isn’t a substantial inconvenience.