摩尔的新旧定义背后是否有不同的化学观点?

IF 1.8 3区 化学 Q1 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE Foundations of Chemistry Pub Date : 2024-08-07 DOI:10.1007/s10698-024-09515-z
Elena Ghibaudi, Marco Ghirardi, Alberto Regis
{"title":"摩尔的新旧定义背后是否有不同的化学观点?","authors":"Elena Ghibaudi, Marco Ghirardi, Alberto Regis","doi":"10.1007/s10698-024-09515-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>In recent years, the definition of <i>mole</i>, the unit of the <i>amount of substance</i>, has changed to have the base units of the International System defined by “explicit-constant” formulations. The old definition, by referring explicitly to both mass and elementary units, suggests that the mole is a bridge between the macroscopic and microscopic registers. Conversely, the new definition emphasizes the aspect of counting, referred to any kind of elementary unit. Paradoxically, this results in the disappearance of the notion of substance from the very unit of the quantity <i>amount of substance</i>. This change of definition elicited both positive and negative remarks from various authors, in relation to its epistemological, disciplinary, lexical and educational implications. In the present paper, we analyze some of these issues, highlighting the (conflicting) motivations of metrologists and chemists. We argue that the new definition of mole reflects a view of chemistry according to which the microscopic perspective prevails, possibly entailing the loss of reference to the macroscopic register; this could be related with the profound change undergone by the cognitive practices of chemistry along this last century.</p>","PeriodicalId":568,"journal":{"name":"Foundations of Chemistry","volume":"22 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Are there distinct views of chemistry behind the old and the new definition of mole?\",\"authors\":\"Elena Ghibaudi, Marco Ghirardi, Alberto Regis\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10698-024-09515-z\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>In recent years, the definition of <i>mole</i>, the unit of the <i>amount of substance</i>, has changed to have the base units of the International System defined by “explicit-constant” formulations. The old definition, by referring explicitly to both mass and elementary units, suggests that the mole is a bridge between the macroscopic and microscopic registers. Conversely, the new definition emphasizes the aspect of counting, referred to any kind of elementary unit. Paradoxically, this results in the disappearance of the notion of substance from the very unit of the quantity <i>amount of substance</i>. This change of definition elicited both positive and negative remarks from various authors, in relation to its epistemological, disciplinary, lexical and educational implications. In the present paper, we analyze some of these issues, highlighting the (conflicting) motivations of metrologists and chemists. We argue that the new definition of mole reflects a view of chemistry according to which the microscopic perspective prevails, possibly entailing the loss of reference to the macroscopic register; this could be related with the profound change undergone by the cognitive practices of chemistry along this last century.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":568,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Foundations of Chemistry\",\"volume\":\"22 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Foundations of Chemistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"92\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10698-024-09515-z\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"化学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Foundations of Chemistry","FirstCategoryId":"92","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10698-024-09515-z","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

近年来,摩尔(物质的量的单位)的定义发生了变化,国际单位制的基本单位由 "显式常数 "表述来定义。旧定义明确提及质量和基本单位,表明摩尔是宏观和微观之间的桥梁。相反,新定义则强调计数的一面,指的是任何一种基本单位。矛盾的是,这导致物质的概念从物质的量的单位中消失。这一定义的变化在认识论、学科、词汇和教育影响方面引起了不同作者的积极和消极评论。在本文中,我们分析了其中的一些问题,强调了计量学家和化学家(相互冲突的)动机。我们认为,"摩尔 "的新定义反映了一种微观视角占主导地位的化学观点,可能意味着失去了对宏观记录的参照;这可能与上个世纪化学认知实践所经历的深刻变化有关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Are there distinct views of chemistry behind the old and the new definition of mole?

In recent years, the definition of mole, the unit of the amount of substance, has changed to have the base units of the International System defined by “explicit-constant” formulations. The old definition, by referring explicitly to both mass and elementary units, suggests that the mole is a bridge between the macroscopic and microscopic registers. Conversely, the new definition emphasizes the aspect of counting, referred to any kind of elementary unit. Paradoxically, this results in the disappearance of the notion of substance from the very unit of the quantity amount of substance. This change of definition elicited both positive and negative remarks from various authors, in relation to its epistemological, disciplinary, lexical and educational implications. In the present paper, we analyze some of these issues, highlighting the (conflicting) motivations of metrologists and chemists. We argue that the new definition of mole reflects a view of chemistry according to which the microscopic perspective prevails, possibly entailing the loss of reference to the macroscopic register; this could be related with the profound change undergone by the cognitive practices of chemistry along this last century.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Foundations of Chemistry
Foundations of Chemistry HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE-
自引率
22.20%
发文量
35
期刊介绍: Foundations of Chemistry is an international journal which seeks to provide an interdisciplinary forum where chemists, biochemists, philosophers, historians, educators and sociologists with an interest in foundational issues can discuss conceptual and fundamental issues which relate to the `central science'' of chemistry. Such issues include the autonomous role of chemistry between physics and biology and the question of the reduction of chemistry to quantum mechanics. The journal will publish peer-reviewed academic articles on a wide range of subdisciplines, among others: chemical models, chemical language, metaphors, and theoretical terms; chemical evolution and artificial self-replication; industrial application, environmental concern, and the social and ethical aspects of chemistry''s professionalism; the nature of modeling and the role of instrumentation in chemistry; institutional studies and the nature of explanation in the chemical sciences; theoretical chemistry, molecular structure and chaos; the issue of realism; molecular biology, bio-inorganic chemistry; historical studies on ancient chemistry, medieval chemistry and alchemy; philosophical and historical articles; and material of a didactic nature relating to all topics in the chemical sciences. Foundations of Chemistry plans to feature special issues devoted to particular themes, and will contain book reviews and discussion notes. Audience: chemists, biochemists, philosophers, historians, chemical educators, sociologists, and other scientists with an interest in the foundational issues of science.
期刊最新文献
Laws of nature according to some philosophers of science and according to chemists Chemical jargon: thinking out loud Editorial 77 Identity in the nanoworld: processes and contextuality Are there distinct views of chemistry behind the old and the new definition of mole?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1