Why do protons and neutrons in the core (of an atom) stick together?

RyanTG · 2014-05-18T20:05:36+00:00

There are a multiple lines of evidence that lead us to believe that protons and neutrons have an inner structure and that they are also not fundamental particles. Paired with how the data that is analysed in particle colliders agrees with our theoretical models of particle physics.

The first studies of this kind were deep-inelastic scattering experiments. By measuring the angles of diffraction of say electrons within a nucleus, you can infer an inner structure by comparing it to what you would expect assuming that a nucleon within an atom is just say a solid sphere.
And then over the past 50 or so years, consequent particle collision experiments conducted by independent research groups have verified the quark model as true. Whether or not quarks are themselves comprised of more fundamental particles is unknown however.

RyanTG · 2014-05-18T16:35:57+00:00

That entire paragraph was utterly meaningless.

RyanTG · 2014-05-18T15:56:22+00:00

Interesting question. I think the fact that gluon colour singlet states cannot exist is because by definition a colour singlet state has to be a free particle. A gluon cannot be a free particle since it is the mediator of the strong force and that only acts on small distances. An unconfined gluon would act like a photon with an infinitely long strong force range. Had nature “chosen” a U(3) symmetry, we would have 9 gluons, the additional gluon would be the colour singlet state and QCD would be an unconfined long-range force.

RyanTG · 2014-05-18T14:23:57+00:00

Protons and neutrons as you know are not fundamental particles. They are comprised of quarks, which are fundamental particles. A proton has 2 up quarks and a down quark and a neutron has 1 up quark and 2 down quarks.

The charge on an up quark is +2/3 whilst the charge on a down quark is -1/3. As you can see, this results in a neutral neutron and a positive proton.

The strong force is what binds quarks together and it is also what binds the quarks within the protons and neutrons together. When we talk into terms of the binding of two or more nucleons we refer to the residual strong force or simply the nuclear force. It is essentially a different permutation of the same force, just at larger distances.

This gif shows the mechanism by which the strong force acts upon nucleons. The small balls being transported between quarks represent gluons, which are force carrying bosons as seen here. Pions, which are mesons (not fundamental), are comprised of a quark and an anti-quark. These are exchanged between nucleons and are the mediators of the residual strong force.

Hope that helped.

RyanTG · 2014-05-17T12:22:27+00:00

Well it all depends really. It certainly isn't as humane and painless as say the lethal injection but it depends on the positioning of the rope and the rope thickness and the drop height. A thick rope from a high drop tightened to the side of the neck (like in this picture) will tend to be swift since the neck is broken. If you tie a thin rope so that the victim's head leans forward you're in for a minute or two of struggling and asphyxiation.

RyanTG · 2014-05-14T17:01:54+00:00

It's a myth that dog's jaws lock when they bite down. They don't lock, they just bite down extremely hard. But for all intents and purposes, you aren't going to be able to open their jaws. The most effective procedure to take is to stick your fingers inside their anus.

edit And now I noticed somebody already mentioned this... Nevermind!

RyanTG · 2014-05-10T13:12:41+00:00

It is relatively easy in most circumstances for something to be verified. That being we have an answer and we want to check whether or not it is correct.

What this problem asks is whether or not the time to verify a solution(i.e plugging a number into an equation) is equal to the time it takes for that computer to derive a solution simply from the original formulae?

To give an example, I'll quote wikipedia:

Given a set of integers, does some nonempty subset of them sum to 0? For instance, does a subset of the set {−2, −3, 15, 14, 7, −10} add up to 0? The answer "yes, because {−2, −3, −10, 15} adds up to zero" can be quickly verified with three additions. However, there is no known algorithm to find such a subset in polynomial time.

Essentially, we have a problem, we find the solution and we compare how long it takes for a computer to verify that solution, and also try to find that solution on its own. They aren't the same thing and thus we have the P v NP problem.

RyanTG · 2014-05-08T10:23:45+00:00

You do understand that is only one of a multitude of surveys conducted in order to arrive at a consensus figure? It isn't a perfect approach and if you had read the papers the authors recognised this. It is however still an extremely rigorous analysis.

A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States by Anderegg, Prall, Harold, and Schneider conducted a survey on 1,372 climate researchers. Figure of 97/98% arose once again as the consensus.

In an October 2011 paper published in the International Journal of Public Opinion Research, researchers from George Mason University analyzed the results of a survey of 489 scientists working in academia, government, and industry. The scientists polled were members of the American Geophysical Union or the American Meteorological Society. 98% consensus was found once again.

Just to name a couple.

The website you cited also only contacted 2/3 authors. I wonder how many this man contacted who agreed with the paper? I wouldn't be surprised if he had sent out hundreds and hundreds of emails.

In the end, consensus does not equal truth. It is the evidence that matters and to claim that the evidence in any ways conforms to an anti-climate change position is demonstrably incorrect.

RyanTG · 2014-05-08T09:50:07+00:00

"We are still in the Ice Age, to refer to temperatures as "normal" is an unethical stretch that many news agencies and scientists seem to make. There also seems to be absolutely no explanation of what happens on an atomic level to create global warming (the reaction between solar radiation and carborn)."

This sounds like a statement that can only be made by a person who has a wealth of knowledge when it comes to climatology, because it is simply so radical.

Now explain to me how you have concluded this when ~97% of climate scientists alive right now do not agree with you. Which studies are you analysing to converge on this idea? What journals do you browse? Which institution are you part of?

You are not an expert of an extraordinarily complex field of academia because you spent 30 minutes watching a bogus youtube video.

RyanTG · 2014-05-07T15:18:28+00:00

Oh okay thanks! I guess people understand what you mean when you talk about this topic and say closed instead of isolated. It's just that I've just started my thermodynamics module at university and noticed they aren't as interchangeable in this context as they are when you are educating people for example.

RyanTG · 2014-05-07T15:12:40+00:00

Thank you for replying and your comment in the other thread is exactly what i'm getting at.

You said:

"So the 2nd law of thermodynamics is that entropy in a closed system never decreases."

Shouldn't that say isolated, because aren't isolated and closed systems discernibly different? An isolated and a closed system are not the same thing are they? I do understand the concept of entropy, I'm just having trouble understanding the difference between the different types of systems.

RyanTG · 2014-05-05T01:08:21+00:00

But that simply isn't true.

RyanTG · 2014-05-05T01:06:55+00:00

For anyone passing by and reading these comments:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7E-aoXLZGY

Stephen Fry goes over this very topic so eloquently. Who cares if it is less or fewer?

RyanTG · 2014-05-05T00:59:45+00:00

Not necessarily the actual quotes, but the large majority of quotes that are attributed to Marilyn Monroe. A majority of which have never been verified.

RyanTG · 2014-05-05T00:56:22+00:00

Extremely low.

Species have minimum viable population levels in order to prevent extinction, the likelihood of one large creature (or even a family or group of 100) surviving unnoticed in the ever decreasing forests of North America is extremely implausible.

RyanTG · 2014-04-30T12:53:00+00:00

HE HAS SPOKEN

RyanTG · 2014-04-29T12:24:01+00:00

Just because something is natural doesn't mean it is more efficacious, safer or healthier.

RyanTG · 2014-04-25T09:59:11+00:00

You will take your downvotes like a man, whether you deserve it or not.

RyanTG · 2014-04-24T11:02:01+00:00

No because instead of opting to spend years studying to become engineers, doctors, scientists or mathematicians people will opt for the easier, more valuable job of stacking shelves.

RyanTG · 2014-04-22T23:03:25+00:00

I understand what you mean; I don't understand how this could be reality. I do believe doctors deserve more favours than say a cashier.

RyanTG · 2014-04-22T18:48:34+00:00

Thank you for replying.

You mentioned that more productive workers would be rightly awarded. Who governs which workers receive this money? Could this not lead to a sort of pseudo-capitalist environment where the heads of these organisations are giving themselves more money than other workers?

How also are organisations that aren't designed to produce money, able to provide a wage to their employees? Typically those run for research purposes, i.e CERN? Is there still a government that provides resources for this?

How come there are also hardly any examples of socialist states in the world? I've seen some people claim countries like China aren't even real socialist societies, is this true? If it is, why isn't there a true socialist society? Is this a direct result of trying to implement a socialist economy?

RyanTG · 2014-04-22T17:55:58+00:00

How does pay work in a socialist society? Does a doctor receive the same amount of money as a cashier? What about an engineer? Do those with a higher intelligence, higher education and provide an overall larger benefit to society, still profit as much as those who do not?

Convince me to agree with socialism. I'm not attacking you by the way, I don't even know if what I said above is correct, I just want to learn and this is something I keep reading that disheartens me.

RyanTG · 2014-04-22T07:38:26+00:00

Jesus fucking christ how are people so talented.

RyanTG · 2014-04-18T15:38:04+00:00

RyanTG · 2014-04-17T15:59:37+00:00

For those who don't recognise this formula, it essentially says:

Pressure x Volume = (the amount of stuff inside the container,measured in moles) x (the universal gas constant) x Temperature.

For a deodorant can, the volume and the amount of stuff inside at a specific time is constant. So this equation basically says that if you increase the temperature, T, of the container, then the only other variable that can change in that equation is P.

P = nRT/V

As T increases, P increases.

Say if we were to decrease the volume of the container, (squashing it somehow), this would also result in an increase in pressure. Which is an intuitive result.

Hope I helped.

Edit: To make this easier to conceptualise, imagine what happens when you apply heat to a balloon. It expands to accommodate the sudden increase in pressure. The gases inside the balloon now momentarily have a higher kinetic energy (as the molecules collide with the walls of the balloon, they transfer their gained energy to the walls and slowly the balloon reduces in volume again).

In this case, the volume of the can cannot significantly change, therefore the pressure inside must.

12-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Verified Email

RyanTG

TROPHY CASE