Are electronic and nuclear binding energies a + or - number?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion clarifies the relationship between mass deficit and nuclear binding energy, establishing that mass deficit is equivalent to binding energy expressed in mass units. Participants noted that binding energy is often represented as a negative number, indicating energy removed from the system to achieve a bound state. However, a positive sign convention is also prevalent in nuclear physics literature, leading to some confusion. Ultimately, the consensus is that a mass deficit correlates with a deficit in energy, reinforcing their equivalence.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of mass-energy equivalence (E=mc²)
  • Familiarity with nuclear binding energy concepts
  • Knowledge of sign conventions in physics
  • Basic principles of nuclear physics
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of mass deficit in nuclear reactions
  • Study the differences between positive and negative sign conventions in physics
  • Explore the calculation of nuclear binding energy using mass defect
  • Investigate the role of binding energy in nuclear stability
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in physics, particularly those focused on nuclear physics, as well as educators seeking to clarify concepts related to mass deficit and binding energy.

geoelectronics
Messages
97
Reaction score
19
TL;DR
What is the difference between nuclear binding energy and mass deficit?
Please explain the difference between mass deficit and nuclear binding energy and is there a relationship?

Thanks

Geo
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
Mass deficit is binding energy in mass units.
 
Thank you. That makes sense to me.
Does that mean the binding energy is a negative number, so actually a higher number means more negative?

Thank you.
Geo
 
geoelectronics said:
Does that mean the binding energy is a negative number, so actually a higher number means more negative?

I have seen both sign conventions in the literature. Having it have a negative sign makes more sense to me, since it is energy that gets taken away from the system in order to put it into its bound state. But in, for example, the nuclear physics literature, it seems like the positive sign convention is much more common.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: weirdoguy
OK Thank you. I have lived with the same confusion for decades.
I will go on assuming that if the mass is deficit, then the energy is deficit and the relationship is they are the same thing.

The missing negative sign was really confusing me.

thanks for your patience.

Geo

-30-
 

Similar threads

Binding energy and nuclear fission
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K
Modeling and Simulation in Nuclear Energy
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
High School Is Comparing Binding Energy and Mass to Kinetic and Potential Energy Valid?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Is my understanding of nuclear fusion and binding energy correct?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
High School Why don't neutrons bind into large out of control masses?
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
3K
Undergrad Some confusion with the Binding Energy graph of atoms
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
Basic Nuclear Fusion question on Binding energy
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
High School The Effect of Binding Energy on Mass
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Principle of Nuclear Fission Direct Energy Conversion
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Troubleshooting nuclear decay, electron binding energies, internal contributions
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K