Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Binding Energy makes life possible. Do you agree?

  1. Feb 22, 2008 #1
    Hi

    My teacher told me that its because of binding energy that we and everything around us exist. I have presented this viewpoint in my blog: http://hubpages.com/hub/The-energy-responsible-for-our-existence---BINDING-ENERGY

    Please visit it and give comments.

    If you find mistakes please do inform me.

    Waiting for your response.

    Thanks

    Ali
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 22, 2008 #2
    I hate this "without this the life wouldnt exist". The universe is the way it is, our planet is the way it is. If there was no water on our planet, mabye there would be life forms based not on water but on something else, if there was no binding energy, then there would be completely different universe. Who cares? You cant have infinite number of forces, objects, laws and what not about which you could claim that without it we wouldnt exist. Its just irrelevant.
    But thats nothing against your article particulary, actually I like it, its nice to see people actually care about what theyre doing.

    Tachyon.
     
  4. Feb 22, 2008 #3
    Thanks for the response. I have just presented my teacher's idea who is a PhD in Nuclear Physics. I am not trying to belittle you or anyone else. You may as well be a PhD in Physics.

    I just liked the idea and presented in the form of article.
     
  5. Feb 22, 2008 #4
    what he said. +1
     
  6. Feb 22, 2008 #5

    dst

    User Avatar

    There are a lot of things, which "if they weren't there", would make things completely different. The tiny percentage of noble gases for instance, in the air - if they weren't there, we'd probably still be in the dark ages.

    *gets coat*
     
  7. Feb 22, 2008 #6
    I think this is an even more generic and fallacious statement than some others posted.

    It amounts to saying... "Without the means of forming the consituents of matter, the the constituents of matter would not have formed."
     
  8. Feb 22, 2008 #7
    to dst:

    I am talking about the most fundamental "if they weren't there"
     
  9. Feb 22, 2008 #8
    Yes but whats the point really? Anyone capable of understanding the level of physics youre talking about also knows that this all *without thing X we wouldnt exist* is just a fillup line to put in BBC documents about black holes and star trek.
    I find it caluable for 14 years old students as a way to learn about the strong nuclear force, but as a way of showing "without this, universe wouldnt exist" it fails.

    Tachyon.
     
  10. Feb 22, 2008 #9
    to Tach

    Ok Tach. You tell me if it hadn't been for the binding energy what would have kept atoms from tearing apart?
     
  11. Feb 22, 2008 #10
    You didnt get my point. I am not saying that this particular force is neglectable. However trying to persuade everyone that without this force you wouldnt exist, is kind of waste of time really...

    Tachyon.
     
  12. Feb 22, 2008 #11
  13. Feb 22, 2008 #12
    Well I wont argue about it anymore, I made my point loud and clear and obviously I wont persuade you so feel free to continue :) Oh and if you want to improve your article you might wanna think about accuracy a bit more, for example instead of using zillions of atoms you can use more accurate estimate - 10 with 70 zeros after it :)
    Also you wouldnt want to draw protons and neutrons separated. As you said yourself, the electrostatic repulsion repel the protons from each other and they want to be as far as possible from each other, therefor they would kinda "mix" in between the neutrons.

    Tachyon.
     
    Last edited: Feb 22, 2008
  14. Feb 22, 2008 #13
    "Everything" it's not correct. There would still be a lot of things: space, time, energy, mass, charge, elementary particles, movement...
     
  15. Feb 22, 2008 #14
    I read the article and was somewhat disconcerted with the new attributions of force and energy. The author started out on strong footing including the term binding energy for which he or she was supposed to bring relief to the reader. The abrupt switch between binding energy and binding force, threw me off for a posteriori. However I mentally concluded that our narrator would complete my journey by explaining the tie in between binding force and binding energy for those of us who are more accustomed to hearing mass and energy being used interchangeably.

    So I would then puzzle whether it is a force that matters or energy at resonant frequencies?
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Binding Energy makes life possible. Do you agree?
  1. Binding energy (Replies: 9)

Loading...