Why is binding energy called binding energy?

[Happiness]

Nuclear binding energy is the energy that would be required to disassemble the nucleus of an atom into its component parts.

If book-binding cost is the cost required to bind a book, then shouldn't nuclear binding energy be the energy required to bind a nucleus?

Given the definition above, would nuclear disassembling energy (or nuclear breaking energy) be more appropriate?

 

[russ_watters]

Per conservation of energy, the values must be the same, but grammatically, it is "energy that binds" and therefore must be overcome to "unbind".

 

[sophiecentaur]

Given the definition above, would nuclear disassembling energy (or nuclear breaking energy) be more appropriate?

Unfortunately for you, the terms has been accepted and used for many decades and everyone knows what it means. The mathematical description and the convention of signs used for energy changes are consistent and there would be no point in re-naming things at this stage. The convention is that negative work is done in bring two objects together together when there is an attractive force and everything else follows from that.

 

[phyzguy]

I've learned that when learning a language, the question "Why?" is usually a waste of time.

 

[Happiness]

The convention is that negative work is done in bring two objects together together when there is an attractive force and everything else follows from that.

I think the convention you are talking about is the convention of positive vs negative work done, which isn't quite the same as the "convention" of calling "disassembling energy" binding energy.

 

[Happiness]

I've learned that when learning a language, the question "Why?" is usually a waste of time.

Recognising and explicitly stating that electromotive force (emf) is not a force and hence is a misnomer is not a waste of time. Not doing so, on the other hand, creates confusion in people unfamiliar with the term.

Question: Is binding energy a misnomer?
Answer 1: Yes, it is. It should be called disassembling energy.
Answer 2: No, it is appropriate because ...
Answer 3: I don't know. I am confused. Well, let's pretend the problem doesn't exist. It will go away by itself after a while.

 

[davenn]

Question: Is binding energy a misnomer?
Answer 1: Yes, it is. It should be called disassembling energy.

no it isn't ... Russ answered that in post #2, did you not read his response ?

Answer 2: No, it is appropriate because ...

Again, Russ answered that

Answer 3: I don't know. I am confused. Well, let's pretend the problem doesn't exist. It will go away by itself after a while.

have you ever noticed that if you "bury your head in the sand" to ignore something ... you butt presents a really big target Dave

 

[Happiness]

no it isn't ... Russ answered that in post #2, did you not read his response ?

I may need more elaboration. By the same logic/convention, would house binding cost be the cost to build a house or the cost to demolish a house?

 

[FactChecker]

The word "cost" implies a payment in one direction, from the purchaser to the provider. On the other hand, "energy" does not imply a gain or a loss or any particular direction of flow.

 

[Happiness]

The word "cost" implies a payment in one direction, from the purchaser to the provider. On the other hand, "energy" does not imply a gain or a loss or any particular direction of flow.

How about house binding ceremony? By the same logic/convention, would it be the ceremony to build a house or the ceremony to demolish a house?

 

[russ_watters]

I may need more elaboration. By the same logic/convention, would house binding cost be the cost to build a house or the cost to demolish a house?

Read the first three words of my first post and tell me if that applies here.

Is this thread for real, or are you trollilng us?

 

[davenn]

Is this thread for real, or are you trollilng us?

well it definitely shouldn't have an "I" tag

 

[sophiecentaur]

I think the convention you are talking about is the convention of positive vs negative work done, which isn't quite the same as the "convention" of calling "disassembling energy" binding energy.

My point was that the sign is all you need to know to understand the Physics of the situation. The words are superfluous and you just have to accept some things in life because you ain't going to change it.

 

[phyzguy]

Recognising and explicitly stating that electromotive force (emf) is not a force and hence is a misnomer is not a waste of time. Not doing so, on the other hand, creates confusion in people unfamiliar with the term.

Question: Is binding energy a misnomer?
Answer 1: Yes, it is. It should be called disassembling energy.
Answer 2: No, it is appropriate because ...
Answer 3: I don't know. I am confused. Well, let's pretend the problem doesn't exist. It will go away by itself after a while.

Well if you're going on a crusade to clean up the English language, here are a few more things to add to your list:

Words by Josh White, Jr. and Pete Seeger. Sung by Pete Seeger

English is the most widely spoken language in the history of the planet.
One out of every seven human beings can speak or read it.
Half the world's books, 3/4 of the international mail are in English.
It has the largest vocabulary, perhaps two million words,
And a noble body of literature. But face it:
English is cuh-ray-zee!

Just a few examples: There's no egg in eggplant, no pine or apple in pineapple.
Quicksand works slowly; boxing rings are square.
A writer writes, but do fingers fing?
Hammers don't ham, grocers don't groce. Haberdashers don't haberdash.
English is cuh-ray-zee!

If the plural of tooth is teeth, shouldn't the plural of booth be beeth?
It's one goose, two geese. Why not one moose, two meese?
If it's one index, two indices; why not one Kleenex, two Kleenices?
English is cuh-ray-zee!

You can comb through the annals of history, but not just one annal.
You can make amends, but not just one amend.
If you have a bunch of odds and ends and get rid of all but one, is it an odd or an end?
If the teacher taught, why isn't it true that a preacher praught?
If you wrote a letter, did you also bote your tongue?
And if a vegetarian eats vegetables, what does a humanitarian eat?
English is cuh-ray-zee!

Why is it that night falls but never breaks and day breaks but never falls?
In what other language do people drive on the parkway and park on the driveway?
Ship by truck but send cargo by ship? Recite at a play but play at a recital?
Have noses that run and feet that smell?
English is cuh-ray-zee!

How can a slim chance and a fat chance be the same
When a wise man and a wise guy are very different?
To overlook something and to oversee something are very different,
But quite a lot and quite a few are the same.
How can the weather be hot as hell one day and cold as hell the next?
English is cuh-ray-zee!

You have to marvel at the lunacy of a language in which your house can burn down
While it is burning up. You fill out a form by filling it in.
In which your alarm clock goes off by going on.
If pro is the opposite of con, what is the opposite of progress?

Well, English was invented by people, not computers
And reflects the creativity of the human race.
So that's why when the stars are out, they're visible,
But when the lights are out, they're invisible.
When I wind up my watch I start it, but when I wind up this rap,
I end it. English is cuh-ray-zee!

 

[russ_watters]

If it's one index, two indices; why not one Kleenex, two Kleenices?

I think it is because Kleenex isn't an ordinary noun, it's a proper name, but in either case I think the point is adequately made.

Thread locked.