View Single Post
Old 31st December 2018, 08:09 AM   #43
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,632
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
I actually think it's wrong as he stated it, but something like it is true.

He said:


The mass of an atom is very close to the mass of the protons + neutrons + electrons. The binding energy isn't that high compared to the masses of those particles, so while it's a measurable portion of the mass, it's certainly not 95% of it. Actually, thinking about it the mass of, say, Helium is less than the mass of it's constituent particles, which is why you can get energy out of the fusion of hydrogen into helium. And each element up to Iron has less mass/particle than the ones before it (which is why you can keep getting energy out as you go up the periodic table up to Iron), so if anything the elements in your man will weigh more when disassembled into their component particles, not less. That extra mass is the energy that it took to disassemble them.

However, something like what he said is true, not of the atoms, but of the nucleons: if you were to disassemble the protons and neutrons (somehow?) into their constituent quarks, on the other hand, then you'd find that most of the mass was missing. Because the mass of a proton really is mostly in the form of the binding energy (the gluons I guess), and the quarks' mass makes up a small proportion of the total.
Oh, wow. That's really complicated and interesting.
__________________
"We are enjoined, no matter how uncomfortable it might be, to consider ourselves and our cultural institutions scientifically — not to accept uncritically whatever we’re told; to surmount as best we can our hopes, conceits, and unexamined beliefs; to view ourselves as we really are." - Carl Sagan
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top