Is the strong nuclear force truly stronger at greater distances?

gespex
Messages
56
Reaction score
0
Hi all,

I read a while ago that there was a force that increased as distance increased. So I went to look around, and I read that it is supposedly the "strong nuclear force". However, reading up on the details, it didn't really seem to be the case at all.

I found this image for the relation between distance and force:
http://webs.mn.catholic.edu.au/physics/emery/assets/9_5_op21.gif

And sure, there is a small region for which the force becomes stronger as the distance increases (actually, it's the other way around, the force becomes weaker as the distance decreases, as the typical separation distance is at the height of the force).

So what is up with this "increased distance increased force"? Are they really only referring to that small region of the graph for which this is true?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
gespex said:
Hi all,

I read a while ago that there was a force that increased as distance increased. So I went to look around, and I read that it is supposedly the "strong nuclear force". However, reading up on the details, it didn't really seem to be the case at all.

I found this image for the relation between distance and force:
http://webs.mn.catholic.edu.au/physics/emery/assets/9_5_op21.gif

And sure, there is a small region for which the force becomes stronger as the distance increases (actually, it's the other way around, the force becomes weaker as the distance decreases, as the typical separation distance is at the height of the force).

So what is up with this "increased distance increased force"? Are they really only referring to that small region of the graph for which this is true?

Short answer - yes.
 
are you sure you arent confusing the strong force with the residual strong force?
 

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

A How does the strong force loses its strength with distance?
Replies
3
Views
2K
I Is the strong nuclear force stronger than the weak force?
Replies
2
Views
2K
B The Strong Nuclear Force: Is my understanding correct?
Replies
14
Views
3K
I Strong and Weak Nuclear forces at long ranges
Replies
2
Views
2K
B Nuclear binding FORCE or ENERGY?
Replies
5
Views
2K
B Nuclear Binding Energy: Is my understanding correct?
Replies
1
Views
2K
Questions on the Strong Nuclear Force
Replies
2
Views
2K
Calculating the Nuclear Strong Force?
Replies
1
Views
4K
My Confusion Regarding the Strong Force
Replies
6
Views
2K
Why is the strength of weak nuclear force important ?
Replies
7
Views
5K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top