Physicists and chemists: Strength of nuclear string?
401877
Well, I can't even imagine what you are trying to let us picture but, at the same time, I feel this question must have at least one answer so, here I go without having a clear picture in my mind and perhaps lesser knowledge than required to answer this question-\n\nLets first imagine that this fictitious rope is made up of x number of neutrons and y number of protons.\n\nNow, Mass of x number of neutrons = "x" multiplied by 1.00864 atomic mass units.\n\nAnd mass of y number of protons = "y" multiplied by 1.00727 atomic mass units.\n\nNow, total "expected" mass of the rope = "x" multiplied by 1.00864 atomic mass units + "y" multiplied by 1.00727 atomic mass units\n\nTo Convert total "expected" mass of the rope from a.m.u. to kilograms :-\nUse the relation- 1 a.m.u. = 1.66 * 10 raised to the power (-27) kg.\n\nNow, weighing the rope, we will find that the actual mass of the rope is lower than the expected mass. Let the diference between the Actual mass and the expected mass be [M], now as Einstein told us:\nE = mc^2\n\nWe can express this mass difference as:\nBinding energy = [M] c^2\n\nI think that to determine the physical strength of this rope, one shall have to divide the Binding energy obtained above by the total lengh of the rope.\n\nAfter doing so, you'll get the value of the physical force that is keeping the rope intact.
832260
A 60 over 28 Ni\nB 222 over 86 Rn\nC 0 over -1 e\nD 4 over 2 He\n\nMake sure all the subatomic particles balanced. Total number of nucleons (proton + neutron) and protons should be the same on both side of the equation.
1131781
Superstring theory is an attempt to explain all of the particles and fundamental forces of nature in one theory by modeling them as vibrations of tiny supersymmetric strings. It is considered one of the most promising candidate theories of quantum gravity. Superstring theory is a shorthand for "supersymmetric string theory" because unlike bosonic string theory, it is the version of string theory that incorporates fermions and supersymmetry.\n\nThe deepest problem in theoretical physics is harmonizing the theory of general relativity, which describes gravitation and applies to large-scale structures (stars, galaxies, super clusters), with quantum mechanics which describes the other three fundamental forces acting on the microscopic scale.\n\nThe development of a quantum field theory of a force invariably results in infinite (and therefore useless) probabilities. Physicists have developed mathematical techniques (renormalization) to eliminate these infinities which work for the electromagnetic, strong nuclear and weak nuclear forces, but not gravity. Thus the development of a quantum theory of gravity must come about by different means than were used for the other forces.\n\nThe basic idea is that the fundamental constituents of reality are strings of the Planck length (about 10−35 m) which vibrate at resonant frequencies. The tension of a string (8.9×1042 newtons) is about 1041 times the tension of an average piano string (735 newtons). The graviton (the proposed messenger particle of the gravitational force), for example, is predicted by the theory to be a string with wave amplitude zero. Another key insight provided by the theory is that no measurable differences can be detected between strings that wrap around dimensions smaller than themselves and those that move along larger dimensions (i.e., effects in a dimension of size R equal those whose size is 1/R). Singularities are avoided because the observed consequences of "big crunches" never reach zero size. In fact, should the universe begin a "big crunch" sort of process, string theory dictates that the universe could never be smaller than the size of a string, at which point it would actually begin expanding.
1136639
In the Standard Model, quarks, electrons and the like are considered to be pointlike. This gives problems at short distances where for instance the electromagnetic force between two of them becomes infinite.\n\nThe basic idea of stringtheory is that the fundamental constituents of matter are strings of a length of order of 10^35 m which vibrate at specific frequencies. However, the simplest string theories give more problems then they solve and consistent theories requires more then four dimensions. \n\nMembranes take the idea even further.  The particles are represented by vibrating surfaces and higher dimensional objects.
1178573
a) a nuclear disaster falls under physics, not chemistry\nb) Yahoo Answers does not exist to do your homework for you.
891719
In all honesty you can't. String theory is so mathematically complex that you basically need a PhD in string theory to understand it, in fact most PhD physicists who are not string theorists don't understand it, nor do the want to (and a lot of them are opposed to it).\n\nString theory is a very dangerous endeavor. Some of the stuff it suggests (like time travel) are fun to think about, but it has yet yielded an experiment that could be used to test its validity. There has never been anything observed, no measurement taken, that could prove sting theory true or false. So far, it is only a set of very complicated mathematical expressions that may or may not describe the world we live in. \n\nI think its great that your cousin has taken an interest in physics. But I think it would be best if you steer him away from books on string theory. There are many fascinating physical phenomena that have been observed that have nothing to do with strings. I would suggest that he read "1 2 3 ... infinity" by Gamow.
435218
Iso- as a prefix means "the same". Thus isobar (same pressure), isosceles triangle (two sides the same length) and isotope two or more versions of the same element which all have the same number of protons (or it would be a different element!) but varying numbers of neutrons in the nucleus.\n\nAs protons are positively charged and neutrons have no charge (electrons have a negative charge) neutrons are needed as "packing materials" to help keep the positive charges fom repelling one another and making the nucleus unstable.\n\nWith elements of low atomic number, the number of neutrons will be the same or just greater than the number of protons. But with elements of high atomic number, more packing materials are needed, and the ratio of neutrons to protons begins to climb towards 1.5:1\n\nThere is only a narrow range of options for that ratio for isotpes that are stable. Those with too few or too many neutrons, iutside that range, are unstable and decay.\n\nCompare Carbon 12 and Carbon 14 with Uranium 235 and Uranium 238\n\nCarbon 12 has 6 protons and 6 neutrons and is stable\n\nCarbon 14 has 6 protons and 8 neutrons and is unstable, it decays\n\nU235 has 92 protons, 143 neutrons and is unstable.\n\nU238 has 92 protons, 146 neutrons and is unstable\n\nAs regards silver (Ag) oy has two stable isotopes Ag 107 (47p, 60n) and Ag 109 (47p, 62n) But very short-lived isotopes varying in atomic mass from the neutron-deficient Ag 93 (47p, 46 n) to Ag 123 (47p 76n) also exist.
1018053
there are problems in your theory... first what can be considered FIXED in the universe. nothing is fixed... its a relative term in this situation.  Also an unbreakable string is an impossibility. There is no such situation where something is completely unbreakable. Even the smallest particle can be broken by enough outside force. \n\n I would like to take your idea to a different level. Lets say it was possible to have an unbreakable string.  Send the ends of this string into 2 different black holes.  Visualize 2 black holes connect by a string.  To answer your first question about seeing the string... You would able to see it until it got to the point where the light wouldn't be able to escape the gravitational pull of the black hole... In theory if the string is unbreakable then it will be impervious to heat and pressure... so it wont melt and crush... Eventually the constant pressure on the string would bring the 2 black holes together. Until the combined gravitational pull of both black holes on each other cause a cataclysmic event where the combined speed and pull of the black holes would cause the entire universe to collapse on itself... and everything as we know it would cease to exist
436139
yes, Each proton and each neutron contains three quarks.There are several varieties of quarks. Protons and neutrons are composed of two types: up quarks and down quarks.\n\nEach up quark has a charge of +2/3.\nEach down quark has a charge of -1/3.\nThe sum of the charges of quarks that make up a nuclear particle determines its electrical charge. \n\nbut string theory proposes that it gets smaller than quarks a lot smaller. it is interesting and cool to look into.
954799
The nuclear strong force keeps the nucleus together...Otherwise, you would be right.
560218
instead of counting the number of flux to determine the strength of the force, i suggest u hang a piece of metal on a string, then investigate the angle of the string when u put a magnet at different distance. Because with this experiment, u can calculate the force much more easily through the angel and length of the string with the knowledge of gravitational force.\n\nThe flux suggestion is good, but how do u determine the force? There r much more complicated theory behind it and they r less intuitive than gravitational force.
154823
Strickly speaking there are four fundamental forces: electromagnetic, gravity, the strong nuclear, and the weak nuclear force.\n\nOn the other hand, it has been shown that the electromagnetic and weak forces are two aspects of the same thing - sort of like how ice and water are two aspects of the same thing. And it has been shown that this electroweak force is the same as the strong nuclear force.\n\nIn other words, those three forces are really one force that we observe as different aspects.\n\nGravity has yet to be connected. String theories are one way being pursued to try and link all four forces together. I ten to think, and most physics people do, that gravity is related. \n\nBut if it isn't then we have : electroweak-strong and gravity as the two forces.
580964
Gamma decay is probably the one you are after.\nTransitions in the energy levels of the nucleons is the process behind it.\nNuclear Magnetic Resonance is also a nuclear process and would make a better answer as the wavelength of radiation is much safer.
684740
The string holds it all together, nothing would work without string. Even the internet is held together with string. As for the dry roasted peanuts well if we knew that the universe would unravel and we'd be left with nothing but string.
1145043
Gravity certainly is the weakest force, and your reasoning was pretty good - as a very rough comparison of the strength of the gravitational force compared to the electromagnetic force, your magnet situation is quite neat...\nThe gravity exerted by a body varies with it's mass, and your lump of metal, a paper clip say, stays on the desk because of the gravity exerted by the Earth. Quite a weak magnet could easily move or pick up the paper clip, effectively overcoming the gravitational field of the whole planet!\n\nIn fact the Electromagnetic force is about 10^36 times stronger than the the gravitational force.\n\nWeaker still is 'The Weak Nuclear Force', which is felt over only a very, very short range and is involved in the action of radioactive decay.\n\nThere's one more force in our universe, and it's even stronger than Electromagnetism - the very imaginatively named 'Strong Nuclear Force'. It's many times stronger than the other forces and again works over an extremely short scale. It's what holds everything together on a subatomic scale, so has to be pretty tough or we'd all fall apart!
292697
A periodic table will generally not tell you how many neutrons are present in the nuclei of an element.  Recognize that many elements have multiple isotopes, and the atomic mass of an element reflects the weighted average (weighted by the relative abundances of the different isotopes) of the atomic masses of the individual isotopes.  Knowing the atomic number (= the number of protons) and isotopic mass of a given isotope lets you determine the number of neutrons present in that isotope (isotopic mass - atomic number = neutron number, if you round everything to whole numbers).\n\nOf course, for neutral atoms, the number of electrons is always equal to the number of protons.\n\nWhat the poster is really looking for is a chart of the nuclides, in which the atomic number is plotted on one axis, and the neutron number is plotted on the other axis.  The stable isotopes of the elements fall along a curved line (called the "valley of stability") in this diagram.  Radioactive isotopes that decay via beta-minus decay plot on the neutron-rich side of the valley of stability.  Radioactive isotopes that decay via positron (beta-plus) emission or electron capture lie on the neutron-poor side of the valley of stability.\n\nOnline charts of the nuclides can be found at:\n\n<http://wwwndc.tokai.jaeri.go.jp/CN04/index.html>\nand\n<http://atom.kaeri.re.kr/>
24262
Like charges repel, right?\nA nucleus is full of like charges and it takes a lot of force to hold them together.  This is "the strong force".  If a nucleus is big enough, like uranium, that balance is pushed to the ragged edge so chunks break off.  Hence, radiation.\nThats the simple version, but you get the pic.