Are there an even number of molecules in existence?

Flip a coin.

Sure there’s an even number. There’s 2, 4, 6, 8, etc… If you’re asking about the total number, then you’re getting abstract. You have to start thinking about things like infinity and concepts we don’t normally think about. Hooray for that!

one mole is 6.02×10^23

an even number

assuming there is a whole number of moles in existence (odd or even) then yes, there are an even number of molecules in existence ( and will always be according to the law of preservation of mass). How ever, if there are whatever.3 moles in existence, then no, there is an odd number.

there is no way to be for sure, and if anyone tells you otherwise, tell them that theyre full of shit, because there is no way to be sure, and that with as many made up values in science ( such as the AMU, was based on hydrogen, now its based on carbon 12 i believe) that even if a definite figure was brought into light, there is no way its as accurate as they say it is

The number of molecules in existence is a function of time; it’s odd that its value is so often even.

Is there even a number of molecules in existence?

Uh, who cares?

Right now it’s even, yes…no,wait—odd again… oops, no, back to even…um, make that odd…

Even if we substitute “irreducible subatomic particles” for the word “molecules”, there’s still no answer. The problem is, matter can be converted to energy. And it happens all the time.

Yes, there is an even number of molecules in existence. If you think I’m wrong, prove it to me.

@jfos

Prove YOUR opinion first. Okay, we’ve reached a stalemate.

Such is the religion/atheism debate. Both sides want the other to prove it. You can’t prove there is or is not a God.

sorry if this is a little off topic

@Insomnia Haha, you caught my satirical allusion. Bravo.

@insomnia : Of course it would be possible to prove that God exists—by demonstration. I agree that it would be logically impossible to prove that no such Supreme Being (under any reasonable definition) exists. But saying that i can’t prove that God exists is not equivalent to saying that it’s possible to prove that God does not exist.

”(a+b^n)/n=x”, as Euler said to Diderot.

1) If you can’t prove that there is not a bear in the forest, it doesn’t mean that there is a bear in the forest.

2) If you can’t prove that there is a bear in the forest, then it doesn’t mean that there is no bear in the forest.

3) If you claim that there is a bear in the forest, it seems appropriate to be able to prove that there is a bear in the forest.

@LexWordsmith, great reference.

As a fan of the late, great Douglas Adams I couldn’t help but wonder what would happen if we applied the Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything to Euler’s equation.

As it happens, my math is no good. But that’s why we have WolphramAlpha (and Mathematica) after all:

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=x%3D(a%2Bb^n)/n,+x%3D42

—

(I’m just glad the universe didn’t explode.)

@robmandu : Thanks for playing! great extension of my silliness!

see also http://www.jstor.org/stable/2307789?seq=4

@jfos : sorry, i appear to be unable to see your point.
Perhaps you could explain it in simpler terms, for my benefit?

@jeffgoldblumsprivatefacilities Its for a bet.

@ratboy You are absolutely incorrect

the number of molecules in existence is not dependent on time for matter cannot be created or destroyed. Thus the number was pre-established, and will never change.

chem 101 dude…..

@kibaxcheza If I take a glycerol molecule and bond it to 3 fatty acid molecules, I now have 1 triglyceride molecule instead of 4 molecules.

chem 102

whats the ratio of the by product….. i have a tough time believing that its a 1 to 1 reaction….

my touch on anatomy is bare but were talking about like protein and sat fat right? whats the catalyst in those reactions, i dont know why but i feel like there is something we both are missing in this ( or maybe my statement wasnt as true as i originally thought). But my point remains; the number of molecules in existence is not based on time alone.

If it turns out that i was mistaken and you are correct then that would come close to proving (though definitely inversely stating) that the number of molecules is based on happenstance as such in metabolism, it is not systematic.

i dono about you but ill most definitely take being have correct than completely wrong =p

At a time after the Big Bang of 10**(-42) seconds, there were no molecules, and now there are some; so, clearly, the number can change. Time to take Chem 102.

Does the universe contain an even or odd number of stars?

@mattbrowne Thats what I was going to ask originally.

@LexWordsmith If youre going to go into that theory can we at least go the entire distance then? If youre saying there was nothing then there was something, then finish it with the, the energy of the degeneration of the first something cause the build up for the second something to explode into existence. Thus the matter from the first existence created the second. So ideally were running off the same matter that the last universe was running off of in the first place.

so then it becomes an equation that has a polynomial for time, a variable for happenstance, and some other weird ass unexplained symbol for god knows what (as math and science like to throw in for what seems to be shits and giggles); and of course in there somewhere is a summation just to make everyone happy, ya know?

im in 115 XD (my university goes to 116 which is organic then goes to specific sub fields)