Re: Binding Energy Question

On Feb 25, 9:20 pm, srp2...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On 25 fév, 01:50, higis <hg...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:





On Feb 25, 2:20 pm, srp2...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

On 25 fév, 00:12, higis <hg...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Feb 25, 11:44 am, srp2...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

On 24 fév, 20:03, higis <hg...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Feb 25, 8:20 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

higis wrote:
The term binding energy is not so intuitive, isn't it.
When you have hydrogen atoms and you fuse them
into helium. It would release energy as in hydrogen
bomb. So how can you say it is binding energy
when the energy is gone.

To decompose the helium back into hydrogen.
It is said that it need energy input. If you can
pull helium apart against the strong force turning
into hydrogen atoms (gets separated). Is the energy
to pull it apart consist the binding energy that
would reconstitute the parts? Or do you need to
supply another energy that would make up the
binding energy?

higis

   Have a read:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_energy-Hidequotedtext-

- Show quoted text -

Yes. And I have trouble understand the details. For instance.
Wikipedia says:

"In general, binding energy represents the mechanical work
which must be done in acting against the forces which hold
an object together, while disassembling the object into
component parts separated by sufficient distance that further
separation requires negligible additional work."

Supposed I use mechanical work to pull the protons apart
in the helium to turn them into hydrogen. Well. After
the separations, the mass of the separated 2 hydrogens
is more than the 2 hydrogens fused in the helium (let's
just focus on the hydrogens). Now where do the extra
mass of the separated hydrogens come from? From
the mechanical work to pull the protons apart themselves?
Or does it conjure the energy or mass from the surrounding
(where) to reconstitute the separated hydrogens increased
mass?

hgis

You won't get a straight answer from orthodox physics.

All these explanations date back to before the internal
structure of nucleons was known, and no requestioning
of outdated explanations nor any update was ever
carried out.

André Michaud- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Pls. summarize what is binding energy and mass
defect in the clearest terms possible.

These definitions you can find in wiki and any other
ref. They belong to traditional physics and are its
best shot at describing the phenomenon.

How does your model differ to the standard
physics?

Not easy to summarize. Can no more be summarize
in a few sentences than SR and GR can.

But regarding your specific question as to why, if
you separate a helium atom into two hydrogens,
then the mass of the 2 separate hydrogens
is more than the 2 hydrogens fused in the
helium atom, in expanded geometry model,
the reason is the same as that which causes
the cesium atoms in atomic clocks to emit
higher frequencies in altitude, and that also
causes both Pioneer 10 and 11 to verifiably
follow escape trajectories tighter than all
established theory predict.

The latter case is that when a small quantity
of matter (a few hundred kg) is taken away
far from any large mass (the Earth), that small
mass increases slightly due to the fact that
the charged quark triads in each nucleus of
the mass tighten their translation orbit since
there is less matter around electrostatically
pulling the quarks outwards.

The same for the cesium atoms of atomic
clocks taken in altitude. Since the nuclei
tighten a little for the same reason, their
electronic escort also tighten in sync, which
explains the higher frequencies verifiably
emitted in altitude.

As for separating helium into 2 hydrogen,
this simply is the most extreme case of
the series. You have 4 tightly packed nucleons
each charged quark of which is pulling each
opposite charge quark of the three other
triads at close range, slackening rather
strongly their translation diameter,
thus diminishing their mass.

So this is your explanation of binding energy.
Hmm...

Not really. I can only present this out of
context since the pertaining model cannot
be put in perspective in a few sentences.

It's like talking about space and time dilation
without explaining SR first.

In the 3 spaces model, there is binding force
involved, not binding energy.

is this accepted by the mainstream?

Mainstream being of the Copenhagen school
of thought, any explanation that involves
particles being localized as they are moving
is de facto rejected as impossible.

This is because of the wave nature of matter.
What is your explanation why matter has
wave like properties? Heisenberg Uncertainty
Principle is a consequence of it. If matter is
pure wave, the wave is everwhere and so
there is no definite location, but if the wave
or momentum has a range of values that
is within the observed limit, there is a
corresponding range in the position since
the only way to localize a wave is to fourier
them. This is all common sense. What is
wrong with it?


If not, what are their counterarguments?

Simple. Their counterargument is that
I am a crackpot. Very scientific.

What
the mainstream is saying is that in bound
system, the potential energy is lower so
there is lower mass. But in your case, you
are explaining it in a mechanical way. About
the quarks. If you were a neutron in the outer
edge of the nucleus. You ould only feel the
strong force from the nearer neutron and
proton and not from the other proton/neuron
on the other side, isn't it?

Not so. Electrostatic interaction is in permanent
action as a function of the inverse square law
of the distance between all pairs of charged
particles.

What you are
saying is that the neutron on the edge of
the nucleus can feel the strong force in
all the protons and neutrons of the nucleus??

What you call the strong force is a just a
Copenhagen school interpretation of the
electrostatic force acting at close range.

You put similar charge particles close to one
another, they repel. So to counter the similar
charged protons in the nucleus from literally
exploding outward, the strong force being
strong bind them. How can your electrostatic
force do the same trick?

That's all for now.

higis


There is only one long force in action in the 3
spaces model, the electrostatic force, and it
is sufficient to explain and describe all of
the foundation, including gravity.

It simply is an extension of Maxwell's theory
modified with a disregarded de Broglie theory
that allows applying Maxwell to localized
moving particles.

André Michaud





Separate them and the separate triads
will of course tighten their orbits, increasing
their mass.

Highest mass for all atoms can be reached
only for very small amounts of matter located
far in space from any large accumulations
(planets).

André Michaud

It seems our physics is now so mathematically
oriented that physicists have finally did away
with any of the mental pictures of everything
like quantum mechanics and the vacuum but
what if the statistical and other dynamics are
energy fluxes of some sort. So I agree we must
not do away with the mental pictures but explore
them unless we want to hypnotize a whole new
generation to think that way in order perhaps to hide
some physics sectors that can only do more harm
than good in this level or stage of the moral,
mental and ethical development of humanity.
For example. Unlimited energy from the vacuum
can heat up the planet and destroy it in the long
run. So in the dying days of say 2300 A.D. when
global catasrophe occured because of what
happened in the early years of the 21th century
when secret physics were released upon the
world. I'd agree that should we be given another
chance of for comparatively speaking, say time
traveller in the dying days of 2300 A.D on a
mission in our time. We can give him the go
to sabotage any new vacuum principles that
might have been discovered that would put human
on the descent to extinction.

higis- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Binding Energy Question
    ... So how can you say it is binding energy ... To decompose the helium back into hydrogen. ... separation requires negligible additional work." ... is more than the 2 hydrogens fused in the helium (let's ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Binding Energy Question
    ... So how can you say it is binding energy ... To decompose the helium back into hydrogen. ... separation requires negligible additional work." ... is more than the 2 hydrogens fused in the helium (let's ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Binding Energy Question
    ... So how can you say it is binding energy ... the mass of the separated 2 hydrogens ... is more than the 2 hydrogens fused in the helium (let's ... you separate a helium atom into two hydrogens, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Binding Energy Question
    ... So how can you say it is binding energy ... To decompose the helium back into hydrogen. ... separation requires negligible additional work." ... is more than the 2 hydrogens fused in the helium (let's ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Binding Energy Question
    ... So how can you say it is binding energy ... To decompose the helium back into hydrogen. ... separation requires negligible additional work." ... is more than the 2 hydrogens fused in the helium (let's ...
    (sci.physics)
Loading