Skip to main content

Is mass conserved in both physical and chemical changes?

The Law of Conservation of Mass states that mass is neither created nor destroyed in a chemical reaction or a physical transformation. Hence, a short answer to the question is - yes, mass is conserved whether matter undergoes a chemical change or a physical change.


Physical changes are changes that involve a simply change in phase. Condensing of a gas is an example. Any change that does not involve a change in chemical composition is physical change. Tearing up paper does not change the chemical composition of the paper, but merely changes the size of the paper. In both examples, there is no change in identity of the atoms involved, or even the general chemical composition of the paper. If it were possible to look at and track the individual molecules in the paper before and after the change, then it will be possible to see that the number of molecules did not change. 


It is less intuitive for chemical changes. Chemical changes involve a reaction a change in chemical composition. For instance, hydrogen gas can react with oxygen gas to form water. While the individual atoms are still there, the chemical composition is different. This involved a rearrangement of chemical bonds. However, it can easily be justified where the atoms went - nothing disappeared, and nothing just appeared out of nowhere - mass is neither created nor destroyed. The chemical reaction simply resulted to the rearrangement of chemical bonds. 


Hence, in both cases - physical or chemical change - the mass is conserved.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.
Post a Comment
Read more