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

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concepts of mass deficit and nuclear binding energy, specifically exploring their definitions, relationships, and the sign conventions associated with binding energy.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Geo inquires about the difference between mass deficit and nuclear binding energy, seeking clarification on their relationship.
  • One participant states that mass deficit is equivalent to binding energy expressed in mass units.
  • Geo questions whether binding energy is a negative number, suggesting that a higher value indicates a more negative energy state.
  • Another participant notes the existence of both positive and negative sign conventions in literature, expressing a preference for the negative sign convention as it aligns with the idea that energy is taken away to achieve a bound state.
  • Geo expresses long-standing confusion regarding the sign conventions and concludes that if mass is deficit, then energy should also be considered deficit, reinforcing the relationship between the two concepts.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the sign conventions for binding energy, with some favoring a negative interpretation while others note the prevalence of positive conventions in nuclear physics literature. The discussion remains unresolved regarding which convention is more appropriate.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the ambiguity surrounding the sign conventions for binding energy and mass deficit, with participants acknowledging the confusion that arises from differing interpretations in various contexts.

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
3K
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