Nuclear and Atomic Physics


Nuclear Binding Energy Fails (Is Mass Spectrometry Accurate?)

Authors: Chan Rasjid Kah Chew

Mass spectrometry measures atomic masses giving precision of 10^{-10}, but its accuracy has not been verified - precision and accuracy are two independent aspects. The Lorentz force law underlying mass spectrometry has not been verified. In the 1920's, the atomic masses of some elements measured through the early mass spectrometers showed some discrepancies from the `whole-number-rule' of atomic weights. The physics community accepted the discrepancies from whole numbers to be correct; they proposed the concept of `mass defects'. This, together with the mass energy equivalence of E = mc^2 allowed Arthur Eddington to propose a new `sub-atomic' energy to account for the source of the energy of the sun to be in line with the 15 billion age of the sun in their theory. They never entertained the other simpler option - that their mass spectrometers were only approximately good. If the atomic masses of nuclides were to be just whole numbers equal to the mass number in atomic mass unit, it would be a confirmation of the law of mass conservation in the atomic and subatomic world. The key to decide the fate of nuclear physics is in sodium fluoride NaF. Sodium and fluorine occur in nature only as single stable isotopes. A chemical analysis of NaF with the current analytical balance to determine the relative atomic mass of Na/F would decide conclusively if mass spectrometry is accurate. The current relative atomic mass of Na/F is : 22.989769/18.998403 or 1.210089; the ratio of the mass number of Na/F is : 23/19 or 1.210526. The accuracy of mass spectrometry would be confirmed if the value is 1.210089 +- 0.000012. Otherwise, if the value is 1.210526 +- 0.000012, it would mean a confirmation of the law of conservation of mass. The implications of such a scenario is beyond imagination - the whole world of nuclear physics would collapse.

Comments: 10 Pages.

Download: PDF

Submission history

[v1] 2018-09-23 09:08:02

Unique-IP document downloads: 29 times is a pre-print repository rather than a journal. Articles hosted may not yet have been verified by peer-review and should be treated as preliminary. In particular, anything that appears to include financial or legal advice or proposed medical treatments should be treated with due caution. will not be responsible for any consequences of actions that result from any form of use of any documents on this website.

Add your own feedback and questions here:
You are equally welcome to be positive or negative about any paper but please be polite. If you are being critical you must mention at least one specific error, otherwise your comment will be deleted as unhelpful.

comments powered by Disqus