B The Effect of Binding Energy on Mass

Click For Summary
Binding energy plays a crucial role in determining the mass of atomic nuclei, as it accounts for the difference between the mass of individual protons and neutrons and the mass of the nucleus they form. The strong nuclear force binds these particles together, resulting in a lower total mass due to the energy lost when the nucleus is formed. This phenomenon is also observed at the quark level, where the mass of protons and neutrons is significantly greater than the sum of their constituent quarks, with the additional mass attributed to the energy from the strong interaction. The discussion highlights that binding energy is an internal factor that affects mass, contrasting with external forces like those between magnets. Ultimately, the binding energy within a system leads to a measurable decrease in mass when particles are bound together.
Dileep Ramisetty
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
TL;DR
The binding energy being within the different system of force or interactions, how does it vary mass?
Starting to explore quantum mechanics, I read strong nuclear force that binds protons and neutron together in nucleus of atom, gives atom its mass. More binding energy means more mass of atom. Hence the query that, for example there are two magnets having a force F1. And we have the same size magnets with higher force F2, when they are placed on weighing machine reads the same weight as the interactions of force are within the system and not with the objects external to system. Similarly, the binding energy being within the system, how does it vary mass.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Are you referring to magnets or what? Or if binding energy of the magnets would result in a scale showing less mass?

Or atomic nuclei?
 
Dileep Ramisetty said:
TL;DR Summary: The binding energy being within the different system of force or interactions, how does it vary mass?
Generally, the mass of a nucleus is less than the total mass of the constituent protons and neutrons (due to the binding energy, which is energy lost from the system when the nucleus forms). See, for example:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/NucEne/nucbin.html
 
  • Like
Likes Vanadium 50 and Sagittarius A-Star
Dileep Ramisetty said:
Starting to explore quantum mechanics, I read strong nuclear force that binds protons and neutron together in nucleus of atom, gives atom its mass.

That effect is mainly inside the protons an neutrons. For example:
Wikipedia said:
For protons, the sum of the rest masses of the three valence quarks (two up quarks and one down quark) is approximately 9.4 MeV/c2, while the proton's total mass is about 938.3 MeV/c2.
Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_chromodynamics_binding_energy
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71 and PeroK
Dileep Ramisetty said:
I read
Where? Can you give a reference?

Dileep Ramisetty said:
strong nuclear force that binds protons and neutron together in nucleus of atom, gives atom its mass.
Not really. It's not the binding of protons and neutrons, it's the confinement of quarks. Each individual proton and neutron has a mass that is much larger than the sum of the rest masses of its constituent quarks. The remaining mass is believed to be due to energy associated with the strong interaction that confines the quarks inside each individual proton or neutron.

At the level of protons and neutrons combining to make atomic nuclei, the total mass of a given nucleus will be less than the sum of the masses of its individual protons and neutrons; in other words, the binding energy of protons and neutrons in the nucleus is negative, as with ordinary bound systems that we are familiar with.
 
In Birkhoff’s theorem, doesn’t assuming we can use r (defined as circumference divided by ## 2 \pi ## for any given sphere) as a coordinate across the spacetime implicitly assume that the spheres must always be getting bigger in some specific direction? Is there a version of the proof that doesn’t have this limitation? I’m thinking about if we made a similar move on 2-dimensional manifolds that ought to exhibit infinite order rotational symmetry. A cylinder would clearly fit, but if we...