Nuclear Binding Energy: Is Conservation of Energy Violated?

talksabcd
Messages
34
Reaction score
0
We know that induvidual nucleons are heavier than the nucleus. So Nucleons
should have more gravitational potential energy with respect to the rest of the universe than the nucleus. Doesn't this violate the law of conservation of energy ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
talksabcd said:
We know that induvidual nucleons are heavier than the nucleus. So Nucleons
should have more gravitational potential energy with respect to the rest of the universe than the nucleus. Doesn't this violate the law of conservation of energy ?

I'm not an expert in this, but I think that an approximate answer is that the negative nuclear binding energy sort of has "negative weight" and therefore has negative gravitational potential energy WRT the rest of the universe. That makes up for the difference.

I also think that the answer is weirder (and more complete) in general relativity, which I don't understand. I hope one of the real physicists answers this soon, I'm interested.
 
OP - I'm not following your reasoning here, why would heavier particle having more gravitational PE violate the law of conservation of energy?

Claude.
 
talksabcd said:
So Nucleons
should have more gravitational potential energy with respect to the rest of the universe than the nucleus. Doesn't this violate the law of conservation of energy ?
No it does not because the binding energy is negative in value !

marlon
 

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

I Why the binding energy per nucleon has specific pattern?
Replies
2
Views
2K
B Nuclear Binding Energy: Is my understanding correct?
Replies
1
Views
2K
B Is Comparing Binding Energy and Mass to Kinetic and Potential Energy Valid?
Replies
5
Views
2K
B Why don't neutrons bind into large out of control masses?
Replies
28
Views
3K
I How Does Binding Energy Relate to Nucleon Distance in Atomic Nuclei?
Replies
17
Views
3K
B Radioactive decay, Stability and Halflife
Replies
44
Views
5K
I Separation energy of nucleons and Coulomb barrier
Replies
1
Views
2K
B Mass Defect: Is my understanding correct?
Replies
3
Views
2K
I Q: Binding energy per nucleon & energy released in reaction
Replies
2
Views
10K
B Nuclear binding FORCE or ENERGY?
Replies
5
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top