Re: mass defect

[Jay R. Yablon]

"mercury" wrote in message
news:fe92766b-a089-4008...@googlegroups.com...

> I tought is there any explicit mechanism realizing the mass defect.
> Something in terms of gravitons or virtual photon. Maybe it looks
> silly but I wonder why there is not a defect of the charge as well
> as a defect if mass.

*** Jay Writes ***

Hi Mercury:

I am going to refer you to my paper below, which was just published on
April 30, because it is exactly on point to your question:

J. Yablon, "Predicting the Binding Energies of the 1s Nuclides with High
Precision, Based on Baryons which Are Yang-Mills Magnetic Monopoles,"
Journal of Modern Physics, Vol. 4 No. 4A, 2013, pp. 70-93. doi:
10.4236/jmp.2013.44A010. Link:
http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=30817

This paper is all about nuclear mass defect / binding energy,
specifically for 2^H, 3^H, 3^He and ^4He. Section 8 of this paper
"retrodicts" (Phil, I like that word!) the mass defect for each of these
nuclides to within about parts per million.

You will see that *sole* the driving factors in these binding energies
are the up and down current quark masses. Very interestingly, whatever
electrostatic repulsion there is between pairs of protons (in He) or
whatever electrostatic repulsion is absent because there is only one
proton (in H), is fully accounted for. This tells us that the fact that
the down quark (circa 4.9 MeV) is more massive than the up quark (circa
2.2 MeV) *already incorporates* the electrostatic repulsion that we
observe in nuclear binding (therefor subsuming any discussion that one
might wish to have about electrostatic charge). In other words, the 4.9
MeV - 2.2 MeV = 2.7 MeV difference between the up and down masses is
*already inherently reflective* of the fact that a larger electrostatic
repulsion (which reduces the energy, compare the ^3H to ^3He isobars,
also compare the free proton and neutron masses) exists within a proton
(with two +2/3 and one -1/3 charges) versus within a neutron (with two
-1/3 charges and one +2/3 charge), together with the fact that that a
neutron gives off an electron (and an antineutrino ~ 0 mass) to turn
into a proton.

Jay

[mercury]

[[Mod. note -- Please limit your text to fit within 80 columns,
preferably around 70, so that readers don't have to scroll horizontally
to read each line. I have manually reformatted this article. -- jt]]

I suppose you have calculated the binding energies and then diveded
by c*c. But I have somwthing other in mind.

When Newton introduced his formula for gravity he doesnt explain
it. It was explained by the genaral theory of relativity as deformation
in the fabric if spacetime.

Now Einstein introduced his formula E=mcc but as Newtin he doesnt
explain it. Maybe its my omission but i have seen its derivation
on relativistic symetry ground.

Now my question is can the diminisging in the mass be accaunted for
as lifting of the bodies in the fabric of spacetime due to the fact
that they now connected tru the electrostatic chanel (which reminds
me of Kaluza forth dimention).

Do seen sometbing similar - thats qhat I mean as explanation.
Im intersted to see a much morw physical than mathematical explanation.

[Anon E. Mouse]

In unified feild theory properties of mass inertia and momentum are
specific to the feilds of space and time. In other theoretical
constructs this is not necessarily the case. The following response is
only valid with respect to unified feild theory.

The mass of the bound electron-proton pair appears less than the free
state and so does the ccharge. So, there is an apparent defect of both
mass and charge, since both have lower energy states in the bound
form.

The photon is measured to be a carrier of both mass and charge aand
its radient energy equals and accounts for the difference between the
two states.

The term graviton can be thought of as referring to the spatial and
temporal qualities of the radiatedbBbbbbbl photon.