Re: Binding Energy Question

On 25 fév, 23:10, higis <hg...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 26, 9:19 am, srp2...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:



On 25 fév, 18:51, higis <hg...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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of outdated explanations nor any update was ever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?

There is no question in my mind that matter
has wavelike properties. What the de Broglie
hypothesis shows, is that this is not at all
incompatible with particles being localized
at all times.

So you are a Bohmian?

I am not a Bohmian by any stretch of the
imagination.

If not. How does
your model differs to Bohmian. Specifically
how do you plan to alter the Schroedinger
Equation?

I wouldn't change the Shroedinger equation
in any manner. It has its uses.

If you believe only wave exists
and particle just node of it but the Schroedinger
Equation would produce electrons that would
spread out but experiment shows it is only
in one place.

Exactly. The equation has its uses, but I
don't see any useful purpose in attempting
to modify it. I think it is fine as it is.

This is just a mathematical approximate
representation of physical reality, just like
Newton's kinetic equation is.

They have their uses.

This is the reason for Born probability
interpretation of the wave function.

Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is a
consequence of it.

The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is
a property of the wave function and of
the corresponding Heisenberg statistical
spread, not a property of physical particles.

In other words, it is a property of the method.

It is not because QM is unable to describe
moving particles as being localized that
they can not be in physical reality.

That's precisely what Einstein and de Broglie
among others have tried to argue, to no avail.

If matter is pure wave,

I would rather say that matter is standing
energy electromagnetically oscillating.

the wave is everwhere and so there is no
definite location,
it doesn't have to be in the 3 spaces model.
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?

Mathematically nothing is wrong with it. But
there are other ways to describe it. They can
also be described as remaining localized at
all times, either as localized fields or as
locally oscillating EM energy. See the first
paper I refer you to in my other post for one
manner (fields) that is compatible with them
remaining localized. The other manner is
not detailed in a separate paper.

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.

Yes. But since the force induces energy directed
outwards as the inverse square of the distance,
the total complement of induced energy quickly
exponentially maxes out, which causes repulsion
to really be effective only at rather close range.

I don't understand this. Any illustration in your
web site?

No. And I don't have a website explaining all of this.

It is in a book.

Difficult to describe out of context. The model is based
on the notion that force does not directly cause
motion. Force induces energy in charged particles
directed either towards each other (for opposite
sign charge pairs) or away from each other (for similar
sign charge pairs). It is the energy that causes
the particles to move.

They move in the direction that the vectorial sum
of all interactions with all other particles indicate.

Anyway. What is your background in the Standard
Model? What part have you studied in depth?

All of it.

Since all known stable matter is made up of only
scatterable electron, positron, quark up, quark down
and photons, only those are required to build the
universe. All other scatterables are excited states
that end up as these.

The model defines their structure and interactions
between them.

How about relativistic quantum field theory?

Not required.

The model doesn't need any underlying fields.
all electromagnetic properties are direct properties
of the localized EM quanta.

It seems you touch classical electrodynamics and
after that bypass quantum mechanics,

I don't. I only subject it to the restriction that no
energy can move faster than c.

QM simply doesn't apply any limit to the wave
spread. Do you really think that it makes sense
that a fraction of a second before function collapse,
a particles energy is spread all over the place and
that a fraction of a second later at actual collapse,
it suddenly instantly regroups to be localized ?

I don't.

So the actual spread can only be way more
restricted for a moving particle than the theoretical
QM spread allows.

From de Broglie's hypotheses, there is only one
way for this to occur. Local EM quantum oscillation
that cannot possibly allow the energy to exceed c
as it transversally oscillates, and that must account
for the energy inertia.

QFT and the entire 100 years of advancement
in physics.

All discoveries regarding actual scatterable elementary
particles must be accounted for, of course.

Btw.. what is your comment about the Gauge
Principle? How come local invariance of phase
need the electromagnetic potential produces
the QED U(1) and the invariance in isospin produces
SU(2) of the electroweak and the SU(3) describing
the strong force. Are these just mathematical
tricks? If so, how come they can describe
experiments down to 2 parts in 100 billions
accuracy? Does your model also describe
and predict experiments without those gauge
theory? How?

I have no comment on this other than that
no one could ever formulate the equations of QCD
with sufficient precision to correctly describe a
nucleon.

A dead end.

If the model wasn't sound, it never would have
allowed expanding Newton's kinetic energy
equation to relativistic form by means of
deBroglie's hypothesis on localized moving
photons.

André Michaud

André Michaud
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Binding Energy Question
    ... So how can you say it is binding energy ... pull helium apart against the strong force turning ... the mass of the separated 2 hydrogens ... 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 ... the mass of the separated 2 hydrogens ... 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: chuck the shuttle, we need an alternative fuel source
    ... > In a hydrogen explosion more energy is directed upwards, ... > Danger is not a good reason to skip hydrogens use, ... The electrolysis plant ... >>> as much pollution producing the fuel as if we just used the fuel in the ...
    (rec.radio.amateur.policy)
Loading