The discussion focuses on the binding energy per nucleon of carbon-12 and nitrogen-14, highlighting that carbon-12 has a higher binding energy despite having fewer nucleons. The binding energy is calculated from the total binding energy of the nuclei, which are established observational facts. The conversation emphasizes that nuclear binding energies are influenced by more than just the number of nucleons, as evidenced by the complexities observed in the binding energy curve, particularly around iron.
PREREQUISITESStudents and professionals in nuclear physics, educators teaching nuclear concepts, and researchers interested in the intricacies of nuclear binding energies.
but then the question would become if carbon has less nucleon than nitrogen why is the binding energy larger for carbon. neither of the nuclei is large enough that the nuclear forces from one nucleon wouldn't affect the other nucleons.Nugatory said:We calculate the binding energy per nucleon from the known total binding energy, not the other way around. The binding energies of
the two nuclei are observational facts; then we divide one by 12 and the other by 14 to get the binding energy per nucleon.
There's a lot more to nuclear binding energies than just the number of nucleons and the size of the nucleus. If you consider only those factors you can explain some broad-brush phenomena such as the way that the binding energy curve bottoms out at iron and climbs in both directions from there; but look more closely at nearby nuclei anywhere along the curve and it will be clear that there is more going on than that.Avalon_18 said:but then the question would become if carbon has less nucleon than nitrogen why is the binding energy larger for carbon. neither of the nuclei is large enough that the nuclear forces from one nucleon wouldn't affect the other nucleons.