Notices
Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Do sub-atomic particles hold more power than nuclear power?

  1. #1 Do sub-atomic particles hold more power than nuclear power? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    61
    I have been told that, in nuclear physics, as you go from the large atom to the much smaller nucleus, the amount of energy per particle is literally millions of times greater. In other words, as we begin to investigate quarks, muons, and other sub-atomic particles, we might find sources of energy millions of times greater than nuclear power.

    I'm not up on this, but I'm intrigued, so I'm hoping someone can explain this to me. Thanks.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Do sub-atomic particles hold more power than nuclear power? 
    Forum Sophomore Vaedrah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    155
    I thought a particle's energy was given by the particle's mass according to . In nuclear reactions, the products might have less mass that the input material (atoms) so the difference in mass results in a difference of energy produced so that .

    Assuming sub atomic particles have mass then Einstein should still be applicable here.

    The best conversion possibly comes from particle - anti particle annihilation. In this case the for each should equal . Still, I am not expert in this field.


    "The sky cannot speak of the ocean, the ocean cannot speak of the land, the land cannot speak of the stars, the stars cannot speak of the sky"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    61
    I found this web page which talks of nuclear binding energy. The nuclear binding energy of a sub-atomic particle are a million times greater than that of the atom. I think they call it the strong force.

    So it is true after all. Holy cow, think of what we can do if we tap into that power.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Sophomore Vaedrah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    155
    Thanks for the web link LegalEagle. However it appears the the comparison is between the binding energy of an electron to a nucleus and the binding energy that holds protons and neutrons together in a nucleus;

    The enormity of the nuclear binding energy can perhaps be better appreciated by comparing it to the binding energy of an electron in an atom. The comparison of the alpha particle binding energy with the binding energy of the electron in a hydrogen atom is shown below. The nuclear binding energies are on the order of a million times greater than the electron binding energies of atoms.


    also



    The article also suggests the binding energy in terms of a differential mass equivalent as I suggested earlier might be the case,

    Nuclear binding energy = Δmc2
    (from the web article)

    So, as nice as the possibility of almost free energy may be, the "binding energy". represented as a differential mass, is still far less than the total energy associated with total mass.
    "The sky cannot speak of the ocean, the ocean cannot speak of the land, the land cannot speak of the stars, the stars cannot speak of the sky"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by Vaedrah
    Thanks for the web link LegalEagle. However it appears the the comparison is between the binding energy of an electron to a nucleus and the binding energy that holds protons and neutrons together in a nucleus;

    The enormity of the nuclear binding energy can perhaps be better appreciated by comparing it to the binding energy of an electron in an atom. The comparison of the alpha particle binding energy with the binding energy of the electron in a hydrogen atom is shown below. The nuclear binding energies are on the order of a million times greater than the electron binding energies of atoms.


    also



    The article also suggests the binding energy in terms of a differential mass equivalent as I suggested earlier might be the case,

    Nuclear binding energy = Δmc2
    (from the web article)

    So, as nice as the possibility of almost free energy may be, the "binding energy". represented as a differential mass, is still far less than the total energy associated with total mass.
    Neither atoms or particles have any power. Or potential power. There is actually no such thing as energy. There is velocity and the effect velocity has on structure.

    Electrons have no mass or weight. At very high speed, invisible undetectable high velocity electrons, race through all matter. Keeping it under pressure. Holding the tiny structures called protons together.
    Protons are spheres of electrons. Electrons that get trapped in a spherical shape. A prison with the ambient radiation as the CO's(commanding officers) keeping them in their little cells and under pressure.

    Believe it or not. When you slow down the ambient radiation, the one the only force in the Universe, "Repel" is given a chance to use its infinite ability to repel anything it is near. When slowed, it is given time to repel, but when positively accelerated the electron has no time or less time to effect matter.

    A single electron can repel and move the entire volume of matter in the universe, rather then touch another electron.

    This is what Benjamin Franklin discovered, and went downtown to get some Satisfaction from the failed law makers, about.



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    61
    Can you guys repeat what you said, in English?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Ph.D. Steve Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Magdeburg, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany
    Posts
    782
    I think it can be likened to the proverbial cup of water which contains all the energy anyone ever could be in need of. As for what I think the (sub atomic ) particle does not contain the energy but it was energy itself. Perhaps not the particle itself, but the mass of it which was the same almost as for this sample.

    Steve
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Miller
    I think it can be likened to the proverbial cup of water which contains all the energy anyone ever could be in need of. As for what I think the (sub atomic ) particle does not contain the energy but it was energy itself. Perhaps not the particle itself, but the mass of it which was the same almost as for this sample.

    Steve

    If you could give the idea that electrons have no weight. And are too small to be measured a chance. It does work in the universal scientists world.

    In other words high velocity, electrons in ambient radiation that hold protons (balls of electrons) in spherical shape. And under pressure. Have no weight, no inertia. As this radiation travels, most of it is far beyond the speed of light. Much faster then light. It is slowed, to create effects like light. However only some of the ambient radiation is slowed, and even that which is slowed is only slowed to some degree.

    These electrons have no energy, no mass, only their velocity, or potential velocity, which can be realized if you slow them. As these ambient radiation electrons pass through matter, in most cases except for glass and other substances that allow light to pass through them as light. The electrons in ambient radiation, are positively accelerated by metal and other substances that do not allow light to pass through them as light.

    This explains why matter like a paper thin sheet of metal, that is considered to be 90 percent space, does not allow light to pass through it as light. The rays that were light continue through the sheet, and are positively accelerated, and can be picked up by other more sensitive equipment. That can record higher velocity, emissions.

    When electrons in ambient radiation are slowed, they can apply there repulsive force and be more noticed. Like in a beam of light. There are slow moving electrons that spread the distance between atoms of air. Allowing for different kinds of rays to be created within the beam of light.

    Almost instant heating of objects can be caused by rays that have this effect on the substance. There is no real energy, given or taken away, on the most technical level, a scientific level. However in day to day life and even it technical fields, we refer to it, as "the transfer of heat, or energy" all the time. But in actuality something else is taking place.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    I'm not really familiar enough with the meaning of binding energy to give you a meaningful answer, but I can tell you that what William said would sound no more understandable (and no more believable) in clearer english. You can safely ignore almost everything he says. (In fact, it'd be to your benifit to add him to your ignore list unless you enjoy arguing.)

    Hopefully someone here with more physics knowledge than I have can answer your question better.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Ph.D. Steve Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Magdeburg, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany
    Posts
    782
    I would say it's being about to better understand the interactions of particles, subatomic particles even. Particles atoms are made of have to interact right before the actual atom was structured, and well beyond that process. The interaction surly goes on after the atom yet was what it was, inside of it, as well as with other atoms, particles or other surrounding matter.

    No one really knows about it today, though the atoms state are resolved partly afterwards and molecules do take shape. For my understanding that's substantial to successfully proceed in science. I often really don't find a naming for what I like to tell about how I thing this goes forth, since I tend to associate this processes to my knowledge of mechanical work, meaning to apply work to a work piece.

    This was not really allowed since atoms are not like work pieces. Atoms form naturally and mechanical work applied to different kind of work pieces were cultural processes, or result thereof.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •