Timeline for If the strong nuclear force is stronger than electrostatic repulsion, why don't nuclei collapse into a point?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
16 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 28, 2016 at 3:19 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/758502024937934855 | ||
| Jul 27, 2016 at 19:33 | answer | added | rob♦ | timeline score: 16 | |
| Jul 27, 2016 at 4:46 | vote | accept | Mark Bensen | ||
| Jul 27, 2016 at 0:50 | history | edited | Emilio Pisanty | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Made title more descriptive of the question.
|
| Jul 27, 2016 at 0:25 | comment | added | bright magus | @DonBranson, That's exactly the way Ptolemy's mind worked. | |
| Jul 26, 2016 at 19:28 | history | edited | Qmechanic♦ |
edited tags
|
|
| Jul 26, 2016 at 15:41 | comment | added | Don Branson | @Yakk I sentence you to walk the Planck. | |
| Jul 26, 2016 at 15:29 | comment | added | Yakk | @Jim That is a pretty weak argument. The gravity of this question makes me wonder about how strongly you are trying to, em, help, given the bad pun in your answer. Together, unified, we can do better; we can lift up a standard of high quality comments, break the confinement of off topic comments, be grander than ourselves, stop stringing people along, and model better behavior. In theory, QED, but more importantly: OP, does simply pointing out that the ratio isn't actually infinite sufficient to answer your question, or are you wondering how the protons don't collide? | |
| Jul 26, 2016 at 15:24 | comment | added | Don Branson | @brightmagus - The strong force isn't an invention, it's a discovery. The failure of the electromagnetic force to completely describe the behavior of the atomic nucleus pointed to the fact that there was something more to be discovered. | |
| Jul 26, 2016 at 14:59 | comment | added | dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten | I've nixed some comments relating to a un-vetted, personal theory. Physics Stack Exchange is not a forum for promoting un-tried theories, and the comments aren't meant to avoid negative feedback. | |
| Jul 26, 2016 at 13:25 | answer | added | ACuriousMind♦ | timeline score: 21 | |
| Jul 26, 2016 at 13:16 | comment | added | Mass | Are you sure that your teacher said 'strong force is infinitely stronger than repulsive force between protons? Is she said that, then its wrong. | |
| Jul 26, 2016 at 13:12 | comment | added | bright magus | The origin of the strong force is the fact that the electromagnetic theory as it is known now demands the nucleus to fall apart. It isn't the case, so something had to be invented. | |
| Jul 26, 2016 at 13:11 | comment | added | Jim | I would strongly disagree with that statement (bad puns are great). Obviously the strong force is not infinitely times greater than the repulsion force. In order for that to be true, there would either have to be zero force repelling the protons or infinite strong force holding them together. I'm afraid neither is the case. Even a cursory search on wikipedia should tell you that the strong force is only 137 times greater than the EM force. Go back to your prof and tell her you disagree | |
| Jul 26, 2016 at 13:09 | review | First posts | |||
| Jul 26, 2016 at 13:13 | |||||
| Jul 26, 2016 at 13:05 | history | asked | Mark Bensen | CC BY-SA 3.0 |