The Strong Nuclear Force: Increasing with Distance?

AI Thread Summary
The strong nuclear force, responsible for binding quarks within baryons, behaves differently than other forces by becoming more attractive as quarks are pulled apart, up to a certain distance, after which it rapidly diminishes. At very close distances, the force is repulsive, but as separation increases, it reaches a peak attraction before declining. This unique characteristic explains why it requires significant energy to separate quarks, but does not prevent the existence of free baryons, as energy input can lead to the creation of new quarks instead of isolating them. The analogy of a rubber band illustrates this concept well, where stretching leads to the formation of additional quarks when the force exceeds a limit. Overall, the strong nuclear force is short-range and does not allow for isolated quarks due to its inherent properties.
Atomos
Messages
165
Reaction score
0
My (high school) physics teacher was telling us about quarks and how the colour force between quarks is responsible for the strong nuclear force among baryons. He also claimed that unlike other forces, this force became stronger over a distance which is why it requires a lot of energy to separate quarks. I do not understand how it is possible to have a force that becomes stronger as distance increases. If this is so, how is it possible to to have protons and neutrons not bound to the nucleus? Wouldnt it be impossible to ever supply enough energy to have free baryons? Did my teacher incorrectly describe the distribution of the strong nuclear force?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Realize that the strong nuclear force is a very short-range force. Outside of a certain distance (typical nucleon separation distances) the force quickly dies off.
 
Doc Al said:
Realize that the strong nuclear force is a very short-range force. Outside of a certain distance (typical nucleon separation distances) the force quickly dies off.

It becomes stronger over an increase in distance to a certain point then dies off? That would seem to make more sense.
 
That's right. At very close distances the force is highly repulsive. As distance increases, it becomes more and more attractive. After reaching a maximumum attractiveness, it begins to die off rapidly with greater distance.
 
Atomos said:
My (high school) physics teacher was telling us about quarks and how the colour force between quarks is responsible for the strong nuclear force among baryons. He also claimed that unlike other forces, this force became stronger over a distance which is why it requires a lot of energy to separate quarks. I do not understand how it is possible to have a force that becomes stronger as distance increases. If this is so, how is it possible to to have protons and neutrons not bound to the nucleus? Wouldnt it be impossible to ever supply enough energy to have free baryons? Did my teacher incorrectly describe the distribution of the strong nuclear force?

As Doc All explained, it increases over a hort distance range and then dies off quickly.

If you want to have a mental picture, think of a rubber band. Think of the quarks as being little beads attached at the ends of the rubber band. If they are very close, the force is very small. As you pull the beads apart, the force increases (pulling them back together). If you pull too much, the rubber band snaps and the force goes to zero. (the difference though is that in the case of quarks, when the equivalent of the rubber band snaps, the energy stored in the rubber band is converted into mass (thik of E=mc^2) and it creates two new quarks at the extremities of the rubber bands that snapped, ''repairing'' the rubber band there. So when the rubber bands snaps, you end up with *two* rubber bands each with two quarks attached (so for a total of 4 quarks). The end result is that the energy you put in in stretching the rubber band has been converted into mass of the new quarks. This is why also one never sees an isolated quark, a quark alone.

Hope this makes sense

Pâtrick
 
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Back
Top