Mass Defect to calculate the stability of a nucleus

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the concept of mass defect and binding energy in nuclear physics, particularly in the formation of fluorine-19. It clarifies that binding energy is the energy released when a nucleus is formed, despite the mass defect being negative. The energy released to the surroundings during nuclear formation is a result of the conversion of mass into energy, which is consistent with the principles of nuclear binding. The analogy of magnets is used to illustrate that the energy released is not additional but rather a manifestation of the binding process. Overall, the binding energy is essential for understanding the stability of nuclei and the energy dynamics involved in their formation.
4everphysics
Messages
19
Reaction score
0
This is just a simple conceptual question.

When we try to calculate a nuclear binding energy of some nucleus,
we get the mass defect(del M) and find the binding energy by using
(del M)c^2 right?

Well, what I do not understand is this.
For instance, let's take a formation of a flourine-19.
Flourine formation(out of neutrons and protons) would be exothermic because del M is negative, but why would energy be released to the surrounding if also the same amount of energy is being used to bind the nucleus together?

Meaning, if some (x)J amount of energy is being used as a binding energy of flourine, the mass would convert to that energy and will be thus used to bind the flourine nucleus (and if that energy is being hold onto by the nucleus as a binding energy, it should not be released to the surrounding. no?)

I hope I have phrased my question right.
Thank you.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Binding energy is energy required to break something apart, not to put something together. I know it sounds backwards, but it is consistent with classical picture of holding things together. If there is a force pulling two objects together, you must do work to pull them apart. Conversely, you can make them do work by letting them pull together closer. So the binding energy is released when the nucleus is formed, not absorbed.
 
So if the nucleus forms a "rope" when it is formed by converting the mass to the "rope",
why is seemingly "additional" energy released to the environment as well? when it is used up by forming the "rope"?
 
That's just not how it works. Picture two powerful magnets sticking to each other. The sound they make as they smash into each other is basically the release of the binding energy. There is nothing there that requires additional energy.
 
Magnets that snap together have opposite charge. Maybe the binding energy is the energy required to hold together like charged nucleons...
 
Look at it this way. The mass defect in a hydrogen atom is -13.6 eV, relative to a free proton and electron.
 

Thread 'The Effect of Linear and Rotational Motion on Measured Weight'

Consider an extremely long and perfectly calibrated scale. A car with a mass of 1000 kg is placed on it, and the scale registers this weight accurately. Now, suppose the car begins to move, reaching very high speeds. Neglecting air resistance and rolling friction, if the car attains, for example, a velocity of 500 km/h, will the scale still indicate a weight corresponding to 1000 kg, or will the measured value decrease as a result of the motion? In a second scenario, imagine a person with a...
View full post »

Thread 'Coulomb gauge implies instantaneous radial electric field?'

Scalar and vector potentials in Coulomb gauge Assume Coulomb gauge so that $$\nabla \cdot \mathbf{A}=0.\tag{1}$$ The scalar potential ##\phi## is described by Poisson's equation $$\nabla^2 \phi = -\frac{\rho}{\varepsilon_0}\tag{2}$$ which has the instantaneous general solution given by $$\phi(\mathbf{r},t)=\frac{1}{4\pi\varepsilon_0}\int \frac{\rho(\mathbf{r}',t)}{|\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{r}'|}d^3r'.\tag{3}$$ In Coulomb gauge the vector potential ##\mathbf{A}## is given by...
View full post »

Thread 'Simple thought experiment with Stefan-Boltzmann law: energy'

Dear all, in an encounter of an infamous claim by Gerlich and Tscheuschner that the Greenhouse effect is inconsistent with the 2nd law of thermodynamics I came to a simple thought experiment which I wanted to share with you to check my understanding and brush up my knowledge. The thought experiment I tried to calculate through is as follows. I have a sphere (1) with radius ##r##, acting like a black body at a temperature of exactly ##T_1 = 500 K##. With Stefan-Boltzmann you can calculate...
View full post »

Similar threads

Is my understanding of nuclear fusion and binding energy correct?
Replies
1
Views
1K
B Mass Defect: Is my understanding correct?
Replies
3
Views
2K
B What causes mass defect in the nucleus?
Replies
29
Views
5K
B The Effect of Binding Energy on Mass
Replies
5
Views
2K
Binding energy and excited nucleus question
Replies
9
Views
2K
Semi empirical mass formula derivation help
Replies
4
Views
2K
I How Does Binding Energy Relate to Nucleon Distance in Atomic Nuclei?
Replies
17
Views
3K
Understanding Nuclear Stability: The Role of Binding Energy
Replies
5
Views
2K
B Why Is Binding Energy Subtracted in Nuclear Mass Calculations?
Replies
2
Views
2K
Where is nuclear binding energy stored?
Replies
3
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top