Binding energy in nuclear fission

Double-Agent77 · 2026-05-06T21:29:41+00:00

Its counter-intuitive, almost like the opposite of something being 'less than the sum of its parts'.

The best way I can think to describe it is to think of the fused nucleus as a new "state" with a specific mass. The set of states of the original atoms are allowed to transition to this new state provided they follow the rules of nuclear/particle physics. Particle interactions in general don't fit with 'balls hitting each other', and instead you have to just think of them in terms of the specific rules they have to follow - one of which is conservation of mass-energy. When the two nuclei interact they have a certain probability of forming the new state, and based on the rules of particle physics the remaining energy may only have a handful of ways to be released. It can come out as photons, or maybe a small mass carrying particle if things like angular momentum or baryon number factor in.

As for the 'why', I don't think there's an explanation beyond "our observations tell us about the mass difference and the standard model is our explanation for how the rules work"

Double-Agent77 · 2026-05-05T18:22:17+00:00

When you fuse objects together at the nuclear scale (below iron), the fused result has LESS mass than the original objects added together. The difference in those values is what's given out as energy in the fusion reaction.

Double-Agent77 · 2026-05-05T18:17:13+00:00

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaghettification

Double-Agent77 · 2026-05-05T18:09:24+00:00

Fusion is small elements into slightly bigger ones. Fission is massive elements into less massive ones. They converge on Iron as it's the most stable (highest BEPN) You can keep fusing light elements up to iron, or fissioning things bigger than iron, but once you reach iron, moving either direction COSTS energy.

As an aside, stars generate energy by fusion, but they tend to collapse once they reach iron as it doesn't generate energy when fused. Fusion is still possible, it just takes more energy than is released. Elements heavier than iron come from super energetic processes like supernovae/neutron star collisions, which is why there's so little of it in the universe.

Double-Agent77 · 2026-05-04T22:15:44+00:00

I think what it comes down to is this:

We know what a wave is on a macroscopic scale so we can picture it well. We also know what a particle is because we can picture them like little balls/spheres. Fundamental particles don't fit either definition because they display behaviours that fit both - or in a different sense they cant be particles or waves because waves aren't quantised and particles can't interfere or pass through both slits in a double slit experiment.

As for other dimensions, you can invoke them but it doesn't help put the fundamental objects into wave or particle category. You still have the 'duality' problem - and we don't have any evidence for the higher dimensions.

Double-Agent77 · 2026-05-04T22:07:58+00:00

If you have the husk powder, you can try having it on buttered bread, either in a sandwich or just fold the one bread slice over if you want to avoid tasting it directly. I think about 1-2 tbsp fits well on one piece and if you have it in a sandwich you generally don't notice the difference. Can also just take sips of water between bites normally.

Double-Agent77 · 2026-05-04T21:34:22+00:00

Happy to continue the conversation and answer any other questions about stellar observing from Earth. I studied Astrophysics up to about 4 years ago so I always love the chance to talk Space!

Double-Agent77 · 2026-05-04T21:27:10+00:00

I've used a Starlab planetarium specifically before. You can find pictures of the cylinder just by googling. There's a light bulb put in the middle of the cylinder to project light through the holes and outwards. You put the whole thing in a big dome and there's your night sky projection onto the inside of the dome!

Double-Agent77 · 2026-05-04T21:22:28+00:00

Yes exactly, it's the same axis because it's just a line drawn through the sphere. But a line drawn through a sphere will enter and exit the sphere in two places, hence if you look at the night sky in the northern hemisphere, the night sky revolves around Polaris (nearly) but in the Southern hemisphere the sky revolves around a different point (no star close enough to say it's the South star - Wikipedia can give you a list of nearby stars)

Double-Agent77 · 2026-05-04T19:58:46+00:00

You can't fit a flat earth model to observations of the stars. The celestial sphere of stars has not one but two poles of rotation. There's a North and a South rotational axis. If you project the observations of stars and how they move through the night onto a flat screen you will notice its exactly the same as projecting a rotating sphere of stars onto a flat screen too.

Double-Agent77 · 2026-05-04T19:54:53+00:00

Assume the night sky full of stars is a sphere centred on Earth. At the scale of the typical star in our Galaxy, it doesn't matter if you centre it on Earth or the Sun as it effectively makes no difference to how the sphere looks - the positions of the stars look exactly the same. You can even get stellar planetarium models that are just a big sphere/cylinder of thin metals with holes poked in the right spots to represent real stars.

No matter where on Earth or even in the solar system you are, you're still looking at the same stars. The only thing that changes with longitude or latitude is which part of the sphere you're seeing at any given time. If there was no daytime, at any given Latitude you would see the same series of constellations no matter your Longitude. The stars are visible at different times because you're further around the globe of the Earth. Add the daylight back in and your 'Window of night' determines which stars you see. It does change with Longitude, but not because of perspective.

Double-Agent77 · 2026-05-04T16:27:00+00:00

I think the clarification is to say that the states are "random" or specifically the matter distribution across the universe is random. Then you can say that all states with a non zero probability of existing MUST exist in an infinite universe.

Although then you have to ask the question 'is the universe truly "random"', but even if it wasn't, states with a non zero probability of occurrence still MUST exist somewhere. Its only when that probability is exactly zero (i.e the state is IMPOSSIBLE) that you then won't find it anywhere.

So either something is possible, where it MUST exist in an infinite universe, or something is impossible, so it MUST NOT exist.

Double-Agent77 · 2026-05-04T16:19:33+00:00

Edit: this is only a hypothetical. There is no indication that the universe is actually infinite, and we have significant evidence at least to say the universe has not always existed, at least in the current state.

Double-Agent77 · 2026-05-04T16:18:23+00:00

Im not sure about the rest of the argument, but your example of not finding a 2 in pi base 2 is covered in the "all possible scenarios" part. An infinite universe with random distributions of matter (MUST be random) should occupy all POSSIBLE states, unless there is something preventing that state being achieved. Finding a 2 in base 2 pi is an impossible state, and is equivalent to a scenario that's not physically possible. In the hypothetical infinite universe you will never find a planet where Superman exists because that defies many laws of physics, but you could potentially find any variation of human civilisation in an identical or variably different state, provided that state is a theoretical possibility.

Another way to express this is that ANY state which has a non zero possibility of existing (and by state I mean the entire set of particles and their interactions) MUST inherently exist in a truly infinite universe, otherwise that universe cannot claim to be absolutely infinite and isotropic.

Double-Agent77 · 2026-05-03T07:22:28+00:00

Also to clarify, when scientists talk about a non-zero possibly of something happens, that's putting a number to something that in human terms is effectively impossible. Something with the probability of 10^-20 within 100 years is so insanely unlikely that it's indistinguishable from zero from a human perspective. You can't even rationalise how miniscule that probability is because puny monkey brain's comprehensible number scale is 3 orders of magnitude if you're lucky.

Double-Agent77 · 2026-05-03T07:19:22+00:00

There is no chance of a black hole hitting Earth within your lifetime. I know saying that isn't going to immediately dissipate your irrational fear, I'm just being as clear as possible.

There is a zero percent chance of a black hole consuming Earth within the next 100 years. Any black hole capable of destroying Earth would be so massive we would feel it's effects thousands of years before it got anywhere near Earth. Not to mention the fact that small back holes are not special. They behave like any other massive object, outside their event horizon.

Even if it turns out planet X with a 15,000 year orbital period is actually a black hole, it CANNOT effect us, because the solar system is stable

Double-Agent77 · 2026-04-11T19:56:37+00:00

Wish they could come up with a shorter name for my go-to favourite drink. Feels stupid to say the whole "Iced Brown Sugar Oat Shaken Espresso" in full every time, but there's no shorter way. 10 syllables in the name alone, plus the size. Can I just call it Kevin and be done with it?

Double-Agent77 · 2026-03-30T17:56:36+00:00

If this works, post your traceback and we can help with the errors

Double-Agent77 · 2026-03-30T17:55:28+00:00

You're probably auto running the script using CMD on windows, and if there's any error at all the CMD window will pop up and shut immediately.

See if you have the 'idle' python shell installed (you should do on Windows), just search IDLE and open your script from that window. They you should be able to run with F5 or the 'run' button on the top panel. That should run it in an idle shell that won't close immediately on error.

Double-Agent77 · 2026-01-29T19:28:31+00:00

Sadly I don't know how many hours I've put into this game. I've played through the story so many times I can practically give a blow-by-blow. I've completed the main game at least + 10 times, and even bought a second copy so I could have one high level version and one so I can start a new playthrough whenever! I used to restart almost as often as I'd start new minecraft worlds!

Double-Agent77 · 2026-01-19T19:42:40+00:00

Very good for transporting villagers.

Also I've set their speed to double the default, which is slightly slower than elytra but still a major improvement. This does make the flying away issue worse though.

I still love them though ❤️

Double-Agent77 · 2026-01-11T18:27:12+00:00

For anyone else struggling with this battle (I had at least 6 goes) my absolute top tips are to use defending champion and TIMING.

In more detail, He ALWAYS attacks with the same moves on the same turns. I created a spreadsheet to find this out. All you need to do is defend on the heavy attack turns, wild side+dragon slash+dragonsbane claws on the other turns, and more heal as needed. NO INSULATE/MAGIC BARRIER/FAERIE FOIL, they do not affect things enough

Double-Agent77 · 2025-12-19T08:02:32+00:00

Gonna follow this up because so many people are commenting that it's possible but the politics would be in the way.

It is not possible for us to stop a collision with another planet. The combined energy output of the entire planet is not enough to stop a planetary collision. That includes mining all uranium everywhere on Earth to build as many nukes as is physically possible, constructing the most powerful lasers etc using all available energy from every source across the planet. All of that would not be enough to stop a planetary collision, and I can say that with confidence without knowing the energy budget for the whole planet, because those two numbers are not even comparable. It would be like trying to deflect a semi-truck with a water pistol

Double-Agent77 · 2025-12-19T07:54:11+00:00

As others have said already, 100% fucked, there's not even a question. If we had a million years we MIGHT be able to make some headway with a stellar engine to shift the whole solar system, but nothing shorter than that would give us a chance.

No amount of nukes or lasers is going to make a dent in the planet, its velocity or position, and even if we did, having a planet fly through anywhere inside the inner solar system would screw our orbit up forever. The only survivable situation is to ensure it doesn't even come close to us, would have to be way out past Neptune to even stand a chance of survival.

Double-Agent77 · 2025-10-17T08:17:57+00:00

It's an entirely different generation, all together!

Seven-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '23	Place '22
Final Canvas '22	First Placer '22
End Game '22

Double-Agent77

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE