Binding Energy and Strong Nuclear Force (1 Viewer)

[serge]

Does the binding energy provide the
energy for the strong nuclear force

an old excel textbook kind of hints at
this, but does not say it explicitly?

anyone know for sure?

cheers

 

[rama_v]

Yes, the strong nuclear force has to come from somewhere, and it comes from the mass defect which is ironically converted into the binding energy
EDIT: I'm wrong again, read below

Binding energy is the energy required to disassemble a whole into separate parts. A bound system has a lower potential energy than its constituent parts; this is what keeps the system together; it corresponds to a positive binding energy.

At the nuclear level, binding energy is derived from the strong nuclear force and is the energy required to disassemble a nucleus into neutrons and protons. At the atomic level, binding energy is derived from electromagnetic interaction and is the energy required to disassemble an atom into electrons and a nucleus. In astrophysics, gravitational binding energy of a celestial body is the energy required to disassemble it into space debris, not to be confused with the gravitational potential energy to separate e.g. a celestial body and a satellite to infinite distance, keeping each intact.

Because a bound system is at a lower energy level, its mass must be less than its unbound constituents. Nuclear binding energy can be computed from the difference in mass of a nucleus, and the sum of the mass of the neutrons and protons that make up the nucleus. Once this mass difference (also called the mass defect) is known, Einstein's formula (E = mc²) can then be used to compute the binding energy of any nucleus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_energy

 

[serge]

thanks rama,

i knew by posting links everywhere
eventually someone would answer it

BTW- do you know what an electric range is?

http://community.boredofstudies.org/showthread.php?p=1979927#post1979927

 

[KFunk]

The two things are related but I don't think that the binding energy actually provides the energy for the strong nuclear force. For the most part I think binding energy is probably lost as radiation to the environment. Check out this diagram:

http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/dl/free/0070524076/58012/29_004.gif

Looking at that you'll see that Uranium has lower binding energy than it's constituent parts, i.e. when it splits up you get atoms with greater binding energy meaning that energy is released. I think this is the source of the energy created in a Uranium fusion reaction. Likewise, if you check out the lower range you can see why the fusion of two deuterium atoms would realease energy --> since down that end a larger nucleus has greater binding energy, hence it releases energy which is why fusion is theoretically feasible.

The binding energy would seem to have more connection to the reason for the existence of atomic systems, since they represent a lower energy level of their constituent particles. In terms of its relationship with the strong force I think binding energy is roughly equivalent to the energy required to overcome the strong force and break the nucleus apart.

 

[rama_v]

The two things are related but I don't think that the binding energy actually provides the energy for the strong nuclear force. For the most part I think binding energy is probably lost as radiation to the environment. Check out this diagram:

http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/dl/free/0070524076/58012/29_004.gif

Looking at that you'll see that Uranium has lower binding energy than it's constituent parts, i.e. when it splits up you get atoms with greater binding energy meaning that energy is released. I think this is the source of the energy created in a Uranium fusion reaction. Likewise, if you check out the lower range you can see why the fusion of two deuterium atoms would realease energy --> since down that end a larger nucleus has greater binding energy, hence it releases energy which is why fusion is theoretically feasible.

The binding energy would seem to have more connection to the reason for the existence of atomic systems, since they represent a lower energy level of their constituent particles. In terms of its relationship with the strong force I think binding energy is roughly equivalent to the energy required to overcome the strong force and break the nucleus apart.

hmm i never considered that...But where does the binding energy come from, is it like an inherent property of atoms that there exists this force? I'm pretty sure you are right, because this site below suggests that the binding energy is a measure of strength of the strong nuclear force holding the nucleons togehter - it doesn't actually say that the strong nucelar force is derived from the binding energy. The fusion you highlihgted above where iron is the element with the highest binding energy also tends to agree///

http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/mod_tech/node178.html

 

[serge]

is this question old or new syllabus?
http://community.boredofstudies.org/showthread.php?t=90793

 

[KFunk]

hmm i never considered that...But where does the binding energy come from, is it like an inherent property of atoms that there exists this force?

I think the binding energy is energy initially possessed by individual particles which is dissapated when they join together to form an atomic system. As to the force being an inherent propery of particles I'd say that's probably the way it is. I'm not sure whether theories like QED and QCD propose a model for what actually causes the EM and strong forces to exist but it's my geuss that you've touched on one of the issues modern physics is yet so solve. This is beyond the point where my knowledge is firm so don't take my word for it. This is all just my kind of intuitive understanding of how the stuff works.

 

[rama_v]

I think the binding energy is energy initially possessed by individual particles which is dissapated when they join together to form an atomic system. As to the force being an inherent propery of particles I'd say that's probably the way it is. I'm not sure whether theories like QED and QCD propose a model for what actually causes the EM and strong forces to exist but it's my geuss that you've touched on one of the issues modern physics is yet so solve. This is beyond the point where my knowledge is firm so don't take my word for it. This is all just my kind of intuitive understanding of how the stuff works.

Oh, ok...then it must be another area of physics such as gravity for which current theories don't fully account for.

Serge, you must stop asking these questions no one has answers for

 

[serge]

Serge, you must stop asking these questions no one has answers for

lol, maybe

but without my questions you'd be left with week old threads
about people not knowing the difference between mass and weight,
asking for clarification on F=mg

 

[darkwarrior2]

according to jacaranda, binding energy is the mass defect, and IS the energy required to break a nucleon into its constituent protons and neutrons.

 

[M-turkey]

according to jacaranda, binding energy is the mass defect, and IS the energy required to break a nucleon into its constituent protons and neutrons.

Thats true. It could have been worked out with common sense. If mass is converted into energy for the strong force. An equal amount of energy would be needed to seperate the nucleons and restore the lost mass.

Mass lost from Nucleon to create energy for the stong force (Binding Energy) = Mass gained by Nucleon when separated.