Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

This thread has become ironic drama Inception.

And now I'm part of it!

A troll within a troll, within a joke, within a thread?

sebster wrote:Oh internet, it never takes you long to sound cynical and cool about something, does it?

sebster wrote:instead of posting snarky little responses.

That is exactly what I was referring to.

Why did the Higgs-Boson go to Church? Because you can't have mass without it.

olympia wrote:Why did the Higgs-Boson go to Church? Because you can't have mass without it.

Ha. Ha. Ha. That was actually pretty decent.

Kilkrazy wrote:I thought that all protons have the same mass if they are travelling at the same speed.

Nope. Nuclear fission (which is what we use in some missiles and all power stations) works by making a nucleus have less mass, but doesn't reduce the number of protons, neutrons or electrons. This works by reducing the masses of the neutrons and protons. In fact, protons normally weigh a little less than neutrons, and the normal mass (atomic mass of 1) is generally worked out by the average mass of a carbon atom divided by twelve. Simple A-level physics

p_gray99 wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:I thought that all protons have the same mass if they are travelling at the same speed.

Nope. Nuclear fission (which is what we use in some missiles and all power stations) works by making a nucleus have less mass, but doesn't reduce the number of protons, neutrons or electrons. This works by reducing the masses of the neutrons and protons. In fact, protons normally weigh a little less than neutrons, and the normal mass (atomic mass of 1) is generally worked out by the average mass of a carbon atom divided by twelve. Simple A-level physics

You are extremely confused, fission often reduces the quantity of protons and neutrons.

Corpsesarefun wrote:

p_gray99 wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:I thought that all protons have the same mass if they are travelling at the same speed.

Nope. Nuclear fission (which is what we use in some missiles and all power stations) works by making a nucleus have less mass, but doesn't reduce the number of protons, neutrons or electrons. This works by reducing the masses of the neutrons and protons. In fact, protons normally weigh a little less than neutrons, and the normal mass (atomic mass of 1) is generally worked out by the average mass of a carbon atom divided by twelve. Simple A-level physics

You are extremely confused, fission often reduces the quantity of protons and neutrons.

You sure? Count carefully. One of the most common reactions: I've got the mass number then the symbol each time. It's not the standard layout, but it's simple. Count the total mass number on each side

1n + 235U -> 236U -> 1n + 1n + 90Kr + 144Ba + energy. The mass number on either side is the same, but the energy could only have come from mass and the end product weighs slightly less.

Think it was a fluke? Want another go? Ok, then.

1n + 235U -> 236U -> 1n + 1n + 140Xe + 94Sr + energy. Again, same totals on each side. Again, energy released and mass lost. Protons and neutrons can change how much they weigh.

Or the energy released is the energy used to bind the original Uranium nucleus together? The rest masses of protons and neutrons do not change.

Corpsesarefun wrote:Or the energy released is the energy used to bind the original Uranium nucleus together? The rest masses of protons and neutrons do not change.

Aha! You're right, yet you're wrong at the same time. Yes, it's the binding energy. Very well done, congratulations, that man!
...Except, where does the binding energy come from? This, you see, is where you're wrong. Because the binding energy comes from their mass. So in order for the U235 to exist, the binding energy that holds it together comes from the fact that U235 weighs slightly less than 235 neutrons and protons. Confused? I don't blame you. But read this. Yes, it's wikipedia, it's not to be trusted, but you can look it up on other websites if you don't believe me. Try the 4th sentence for the fact that they weigh less than they should.

Stop throwing your education into this...its confusing enough.....where's that damn water cannon

p_gray99 wrote:

Corpsesarefun wrote:Or the energy released is the energy used to bind the original Uranium nucleus together? The rest masses of protons and neutrons do not change.

Aha! You're right, yet you're wrong at the same time. Yes, it's the binding energy. Very well done, congratulations, that man!
...Except, where does the binding energy come from? This, you see, is where you're wrong. Because the binding energy comes from their mass. So in order for the U235 to exist, the binding energy that holds it together comes from the fact that U235 weighs slightly less than 235 neutrons and protons. Confused? I don't blame you. But read this. Yes, it's wikipedia, it's not to be trusted, but you can look it up on other websites if you don't believe me. Try the 4th sentence for the fact that they weigh less than they should.

You have it backwards; binding energy adds to the mass of the Uranium atom and this extra mass is unaccounted for if you only consider protons and neutrons thus when this binding energy is released the artificially inflated mass returns to the expected.

Okay, now that we knocked this one out (without letting the Dreen in) we can get started working on Nerve Staples, for the next time the drones riot.

Corpsesarefun wrote:You have it backwards; binding energy adds to the mass of the Uranium atom and this extra mass is unaccounted for if you only consider protons and neutrons thus when this binding energy is released the artificially inflated mass returns to the expected.

Someone on wikipedia wrote:Thus, the mass of an atom's nucleus is always less than the sum of the individual masses of the constituent protons and neutrons when separated.

These are saying the opposite. You say that the binding energy adds to the mass, wikipedia says that the mass is always less than it should be.

Well first off I'm not Kilkrazy, secondly I'll leave it to your A level tutors to explain to you why you're wrong when you finally get taught this in around 2 years.

Ah, sorry for the name thing. And just because I'm 16 and have only been officially taught to GCSE standard doesn't mean I don't know what I'm talking about. Ok, I don't know as much as a university graduate. But I do have great teachers who teach the class far above the level expected, so that this has actually been taught to us, as well as the fact that I enjoy reading ahead and have read A-level textbooks in reasonable detail. You think that protons and neutrons have the same weight whatever nucleus they are part of? Sorry, but even though I'm not qualified enough to believably tell you otherwise, universities trust to the top few results of search engines so long as they agree with each other. Here's the top result of one particular search. Check the next few down if you want.

I think you'll find that if you read that incredibly professional looking link it states nowhere the at the mass of a proton or neutron is variable at rest energy, instead it states that the total nucleic mass changes due to mass being bound as energy. In fact it states extremely accurate measurements of the masses of both neutrons and protons, why would they do this if it was a variable?

Regardless is wholly unrelated to the higgs boson.

Corpsesarefun wrote:I think you'll find that if you read that incredibly professional looking link it states nowhere the at the mass of a proton or neutron is variable at rest energy, instead it states that the total nucleic mass changes due to mass being bound as energy. In fact it states extremely accurate measurements of the masses of both neutrons and protons, why would they do this if it was a variable?

I never said that the masses were variable at rest energy, just that they were variable. Yes, the mass is turned into binding energy. But the amount of binding energy needed changes with the nucleus. This is why we take protons and neutrons to weigh 1/12 of a carbon-12 nucleus: because if we used any other nucleus it would come out slightly differently.

Fight! Fight! Fight!

I'm too lazy to look up the exploding head gif, so just imagine you're seeing it here as I read their posts.

p_gray99 wrote:I never said that the masses were variable at rest energy, just that they were variable. Yes, the mass is turned into binding energy. But the amount of binding energy needed changes with the nucleus. This is why we take protons and neutrons to weigh 1/12 of a carbon-12 nucleus: because if we used any other nucleus it would come out slightly differently.

Oh you never said rest energy? Please explain to me how relativistic favours are any more relevant than the higgs boson in this discussion? (protip, they aren't). If you ignore the fact that binding energy can create the illusion mass (or a lack of mass) and just divide the nucleic mass by the mass number then yes you'll get the (incorrect) impression that the rest masses of protons and neutrons do change. By the same token imagine you're attempting to measure the weight of some balls by weighing a bucket that has some water and three balls floating in it in, together the water and the balls weigh 30kg but if you remove some of the water you'll miraculously find that the total weight is now 27kg but the number of balls is still 3. Does this mean that the balls now weigh 9kg instead of 10kg? No.

And by your own admission we do not take protons and neutrons to be 1/12 of the mass of a carbon 12 nucleus as they do not have the same mass.

You're simply taking ideas you don't really comprehend yet and applying them incorrectly, it's nothing to be ashamed of.

Fight! Fight! Fight!

A Corpse and a..eerrr...uummmm....grey?

Corpsesarefun wrote:You're simply taking ideas you don't really comprehend yet and applying them incorrectly, it's nothing to be ashamed of.

Corpse is right.

Source: I'm a physics undergrad.

Medium of Death wrote:A troll within a troll, within a joke, within a thread?

sebster wrote:Oh internet, it never takes you long to sound cynical and cool about something, does it?

sebster wrote:instead of posting snarky little responses.

If I had said 'snarky responses are always bad' then you'd have a point. That would be a ridiculous claim, as I make them all the time, and it's about 90% of what the internet is.

It's your particular snarky response, that you used instead of saying 'tried to tell a joke, didn't work, my bad', that was the problem. Seriously, this is really pointless - you don't need to try and defend yourself over this, because no-one cares. Just know for next time there are better ways handle fething up a joke than your effort here.

I concede to the great and mighty Sebster, he was right all along, what a fool I was for not clearly expressing my (failed) humorous intent!

*sigh*
I suppose it's inevitable that I either have to concede or look like on of TFGs that simply don't admit defeat because they don't want to. You win. But watch these words: I'll be back. And when I am, I'm gonna out-physics you.

Well I'm glad you've conceded, I was getting a little sick.