Any physics nuts out there?

K

koonja

Guest
My friend's in this physics class and it's not his cup of tea. I'm terrible, as well. Could anyone take a shot at answering this QU?

When discussing fission and fusion, we found that the energy produced in the reactions came from the conversion of some mass into energy. How is it possible to generate energy in this way if the number of protons and neutrons does not change during the reaction (hint: protons and neutrons are made of moving quarks)?
 
H

HereComeTheIrish

Guest
"Crush the Core"....

I don't know what the hell I'm talking about...Just quoting a movie. Anyone know what movie? 1,000,000 vbucks for the first correct answer
 

NDinFL

New member
Messages
2,946
Reaction score
278
It's being submitted as this if nothing better comes along, lol.


1 Million vbucks if anyone can come up with the answer or at least something that would render some points.

Wish I had an answer for ya.

Science was never my strong subject, but bravo to Mr. Mullet for the attempted thread jacking
 

magogian

New member
Messages
1,467
Reaction score
155
When discussing fission and fusion, we found that the energy produced in the reactions came from the conversion of some mass into energy. How is it possible to generate energy in this way if the number of protons and neutrons does not change during the reaction (hint: protons and neutrons are made of moving quarks)?

Protons and neutrons are not destroyed in the conversion. Elements may be split or combined, but the number of protons and neutrons stay the same.
 
K

koonja

Guest
Thanks to Kaneyoufeelit and notredomer23 for answering. Vbucks on the way.

Thanks again!
 

STLDomer

Schmitty
Messages
9,426
Reaction score
549

image.png
 

Old Man Mike

Fast as Lightning!
Messages
8,971
Reaction score
6,459
I'm not sure that anyone really wants to know after reading this thread, but I'll give some possibilities anyway:

1). no scientist REALLY knows the answers to things like this as the actions are taking place at far too microscopic a scale to be directly observed. Science also tends to be very accurate at measuring HOW something goes [i.e. these elements in these conditions can produce X amount of measurable energy] but not so good at WHY something happens [i.e. where does that energy come from?]. We make theoretical models and hope.

2). The old way of looking at Fission was that all elements were composed, yes, of protons, neutrons, and electrons, but that wasn't the whole story. Because protons all have positive charges, it was always a conundrum as to how those repulsive "like" charges could remain packed tightly into the nucleus without flying apart. So, the theoretical model of a form of nuclear binding force [later called the "Strong Nuclear Force"] came into being. Calculations with the model suggested that every nucleus had its own "amount" of strong nuclear force [carried by a different class/conception of particles called "force-carrying particles"].

The nucleus of a Uranium-235 atom or a Plutonium-239 atom will, in this model, contain a certain amount of this force. When these nuclei FISS, they form two or more [usually two big pieces and two free-flying neutrons]. These smaller nuclei don't need as much of the binding force as did the big one. The force must go somewhere. It is essentially released as "LIGHT" in all its electromagnetic spectrum forms.

3). Fusion is different. The old model for this was that Hydrogen atoms, and specifically the Hydrogen nucleus [a single proton] could be crushed together only so far with another proton until it had to "give". The way it "gave" under the tremendous heat was that one of the two protons would be changed into a neutron. Neutrons and protons weigh nearly the same, but in the neutron the positive charge is gone. What happened to it? The model says it "escaped" as a very light positively-charged particle. A very light positively charged particle is a "positron", or more germanely, an antimatter electron. Antimatter won't last long in our matter universe, so it rapidly merges with a matter electron, and the two mutually dematerialize into pure energy, as to Einstein's equation. This energy is radiated away as the full spectrum of "LIGHT". including Gamma and X-rays.



As I say, this might well have been just a joke and nobody is really interested, but I'm an old teacher and Hope never dies.
 
K

koonja

Guest
I'm not sure that anyone really wants to know after reading this thread, but I'll give some possibilities anyway:

1). no scientist REALLY knows the answers to things like this as the actions are taking place at far too microscopic a scale to be directly observed. Science also tends to be very accurate at measuring HOW something goes [i.e. these elements in these conditions can produce X amount of measurable energy] but not so good at WHY something happens [i.e. where does that energy come from?]. We make theoretical models and hope.

2). The old way of looking at Fission was that all elements were composed, yes, of protons, neutrons, and electrons, but that wasn't the whole story. Because protons all have positive charges, it was always a conundrum as to how those repulsive "like" charges could remain packed tightly into the nucleus without flying apart. So, the theoretical model of a form of nuclear binding force [later called the "Strong Nuclear Force"] came into being. Calculations with the model suggested that every nucleus had its own "amount" of strong nuclear force [carried by a different class/conception of particles called "force-carrying particles"].

The nucleus of a Uranium-235 atom or a Plutonium-239 atom will, in this model, contain a certain amount of this force. When these nuclei FISS, they form two or more [usually two big pieces and two free-flying neutrons]. These smaller nuclei don't need as much of the binding force as did the big one. The force must go somewhere. It is essentially released as "LIGHT" in all its electromagnetic spectrum forms.

3). Fusion is different. The old model for this was that Hydrogen atoms, and specifically the Hydrogen nucleus [a single proton] could be crushed together only so far with another proton until it had to "give". The way it "gave" under the tremendous heat was that one of the two protons would be changed into a neutron. Neutrons and protons weigh nearly the same, but in the neutron the positive charge is gone. What happened to it? The model says it "escaped" as a very light positively-charged particle. A very light positively charged particle is a "positron", or more germanely, an antimatter electron. Antimatter won't last long in our matter universe, so it rapidly merges with a matter electron, and the two mutually dematerialize into pure energy, as to Einstein's equation. This energy is radiated away as the full spectrum of "LIGHT". including Gamma and X-rays.



As I say, this might well have been just a joke and nobody is really interested, but I'm an old teacher and Hope never dies.

Thanks for the knowledge drop. I'm afraid if this was submitted as the answer, it'd scream 'cheater!' ;).
 

johnnycando

Frosted Tips
Messages
3,744
Reaction score
490
Thanks for the knowledge drop. I'm afraid if this was submitted as the answer, it'd scream 'cheater!' ;).

The bottom line is that energy and matter are interchangeable.

Theoretically.

Yet, a law is absolute is science.

The Law of Conservation of Mass wins.
 

Irish Houstonian

New member
Messages
2,722
Reaction score
301
My friend's in this physics class and it's not his cup of tea. I'm terrible, as well. Could anyone take a shot at answering this QU?

When discussing fission and fusion, we found that the energy produced in the reactions came from the conversion of some mass into energy. How is it possible to generate energy in this way if the number of protons and neutrons does not change during the reaction (hint: protons and neutrons are made of moving quarks)?

There is a mass change when nuclear energy is released, but not by the pure number of neutrons or protons (those get converted into another element). The energy released (mass lost) will be photon or particle energy like gamma rays or electromagnetic waves or an ejected electron.
 

johnnycando

Frosted Tips
Messages
3,744
Reaction score
490
There is a mass change when nuclear energy is released, but not by the pure number of neutrons or protons (those get converted into another element). The energy released (mass lost) will be photon or particle energy like gamma rays or electromagnetic waves or an ejected electron.

Particle energy isn't photons, neither gamma nor X-ray. It's a commonly misused way of describing the "rays," or photons. (Light energy.)

Charged particles are betas and alphas. Negatively and positively charged in fact. In close proximity, most betas appear to instrumentation as a photon. Or just as a - charge. (Depends on the KeV.) Alphas are also weighed differently. ( in the scale of MeV.)

Neutrons are another form of radiation. But not charged particulate. They interact either by elastic or inelastic scattering (with photon emission as a byproduct), capture which normally yields an alpha such as the boron triflouride detectors, or by fission.
 
Last edited:
K

koonja

Guest
Anyone?

1. Suppose we look at a distant quasar. If an inhabitant of the host galaxy of that quasar looked at the Milky Way at the same time we looked at their galaxy, what kind of object might they see? Explain. How would the color of light they observe be different than the color of light emitted by the Milky Way?



2. What is Hubble’s Law and how can it tell us the distance to a galaxy? Hubble’s Law contains a constant (labeled H, the slope of a line). How is the value of the constant determined? Suppose the accepted value of the constant was found to be incorrect in the future. Would we have to change our ideas about the evolution of galaxies? Why or why not? Would it change our estimate of the age of the Universe?

A million vbucks for a legit answer, per QU.
 
Last edited:
Top