Is the Mass Defect in Heavy Nuclei Well Supported by Scientific Evidence?

  • Thread starter Thread starter granpa
  • Start date Start date
granpa
Messages
2,268
Reaction score
7
how sure are we that heavy nuclei are less massive than the sum of their constituent particles? the masses of atoms are determined by sending their ions through magnetic fields and measuring how much they are deflected. how do we know that heavy nuclei don't simply produce, at any given velocity, slightly stronger magnetic fields than lighter nuclei?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
The nuclei bend in Magnetic fields due to their own charge. The magnetic field is external, the only thing you are measuring of the nuclei is their charge vs. mass ratio.

So there is not a magnetic field beeing produced by the nucleus.. only electric charge, which electric field is additative.

There was a crackpot here almost a year ago who claimed that the other protons in the nuclei whould sheild the charge from the protons inside, hence resulting in a smaller net charge than the sum of the constituent protons... but as he didn't know, equal charges do not screen...
 
Thread 'Why is there such a difference between the total cross-section data? (simulation vs. experiment)'

Thread 'Why is there such a difference between the total cross-section data? (simulation vs. experiment)'

Well, I'm simulating a neutron-proton scattering phase shift. The equation that I solve numerically is the Phase function method and is $$ \frac{d}{dr}[\delta_{i+1}] = \frac{2\mu}{\hbar^2}\frac{V(r)}{k^2}\sin(kr + \delta_i)$$ ##\delta_i## is the phase shift for triplet and singlet state, ##\mu## is the reduced mass for neutron-proton, ##k=\sqrt{2\mu E_{cm}/\hbar^2}## is the wave number and ##V(r)## is the potential of interaction like Yukawa, Wood-Saxon, Square well potential, etc. I first...
View full post »

Thread 'Toponium Discovered'

Toponium is a hadron which is the bound state of a valance top quark and a valance antitop quark. Oversimplified presentations often state that top quarks don't form hadrons, because they decay to bottom quarks extremely rapidly after they are created, leaving no time to form a hadron. And, the vast majority of the time, this is true. But, the lifetime of a top quark is only an average lifetime. Sometimes it decays faster and sometimes it decays slower. In the highly improbable case that...
View full post »

Thread 'Dirac-Delta from Normalization of Continuous Eigenfunctions'

I'm following this paper by Kitaev on SL(2,R) representations and I'm having a problem in the normalization of the continuous eigenfunctions (eqs. (67)-(70)), which satisfy \langle f_s | f_{s'} \rangle = \int_{0}^{1} \frac{2}{(1-u)^2} f_s(u)^* f_{s'}(u) \, du. \tag{67} The singular contribution of the integral arises at the endpoint u=1 of the integral, and in the limit u \to 1, the function f_s(u) takes on the form f_s(u) \approx a_s (1-u)^{1/2 + i s} + a_s^* (1-u)^{1/2 - i s}. \tag{70}...
View full post »

Similar threads

Mass defect and binding energy help
Replies
10
Views
6K
B Mass Defect: Is my understanding correct?
Replies
3
Views
2K
I Why does a Mass Defect Exist if |PE| Increases?
Replies
7
Views
2K
B Understanding Momentum: The Relationship Between Mass, Velocity, and Force
Replies
29
Views
3K
I Are Light Quark Pole Masses Below 1 GeV Meaningful or Non-Physical?
Replies
4
Views
2K
I Progress In Calculating The HLbL Contribution To Muon g-2
Replies
0
Views
2K
B Experimental evidence for effective mass increasing with speed
Replies
11
Views
3K
I How powerful would a collider have to be to observe a sphaleron?
Replies
2
Views
3K
Calculate the mass defect of a molecule without empirical mass
Replies
1
Views
2K
My inspirational epic -- Enjoy, correct and criticize to your heart's content
Replies
3
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top