|
Post by principled on Mar 8, 2011 14:11:58 GMT 1
If all atoms in an isotope are the same, why is it that some will decay quickly whilst others will not? We know that the half life does not depend on how many atoms of an isotope there are, so it can't be due to the process of decay per se. So are all the atoms of an isotope identical? Is there a possibility that the structure of some of the atoms vary such that they decay more quickly. How does physics explain this phenomenon? P
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Mar 8, 2011 14:14:53 GMT 1
If all atoms in an isotope are the same, why is it that some will decay quickly whilst others will not? We know that the half life does not depend on how many atoms of an isotope there are, so it can't be due to the process of decay per se. So are all the atoms of an isotope identical? Is there a possibility that the structure of some of the atoms vary such that they decay more quickly. How does physics explain this phenomenon? P Oh blimey, you know what you've done here don't you? STA will provide a totally confusing explanation. Hope you don't expect to be educated, do you?
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Mar 8, 2011 14:45:51 GMT 1
If all atoms in an isotope are the same, why is it that some will decay quickly whilst others will not? We know that the half life does not depend on how many atoms of an isotope there are, so it can't be due to the process of decay per se. So are all the atoms of an isotope identical? Is there a possibility that the structure of some of the atoms vary such that they decay more quickly. How does physics explain this phenomenon? P Its quantum. There is no REASON why one nucleus decays now, whilst another takes another million years. It is a truly RANDOM event, and all that changes, for different elements, is the probability that any one atom will decay in the next second. This probability DOES depend on the exact process of decay and how energetically favourable the decay is. What is really odd is that unlike ordinary everyday physical processes (where things decay in a continuous manner before finally falling apart totally), there is no memory in basic quantum processes such as this. Its not that bons holding the nucleus apart get a bit slack as the nucleus ages, until it finally falls apart. The nucleus looks the same as it ever did, until the unpredictable and uncaused instant when it does fall apart. How do we know this? Because you can take some natural radioactive substance, thats been around since before the earth was formed, and some newly-made stuff from a particle accelerator or nuclear reactor, and the 'fresh' stuff from the reactor will display exactly the SAME decay process as the old stuff. So that's your answer -- there is no why, which is just the important point where quantum processes are different to everyday stuff -- quantum events can occur without a cause. They just happen. Its what lack of determinism means, there is no cause.
|
|
|
Post by principled on Mar 8, 2011 15:20:58 GMT 1
Thanks STA, perhaps I should row back a bit and start at the beginning. What factors affect the half life? For example why is Beryllium 11 around 14 secs and Nitrogen 16 abour half that? P
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Mar 8, 2011 15:59:40 GMT 1
If this is not evidence for the hand of God I don't know what is!
STA, why don't you just admit that science hasn't a bloody clue about why quantum events occur and that we must turn to religion and faith to encompass such deep mysteries? STA, perhaps you should consider a career in the Church, rather than science. What about becoming a Christian scientist, after all it would be a pity to waste all of that studying.
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Mar 8, 2011 17:12:26 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Mar 8, 2011 17:18:43 GMT 1
If you say there isn't a why then how can that be called science? It can't, so basically with the discovery of QM science has nothing to offer.
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Mar 8, 2011 17:29:41 GMT 1
O grow up! Science got away from these simplistic views on determinism a century ago!
Of course it is bloody science, you idiot, because we can still make definite statements about the distirbution of photons from the double slit, even if we can't predict the position that any one photon will arrive at. After all the discussions on quantum theory, you should know this, so you're either even stupider than I thought, have the short-term memory of a concussed goldfish, or are just playing more of your silly games.
I can't be definite as to which it is, but I think the latter has he highest probability...........................
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Mar 8, 2011 17:40:04 GMT 1
O grow up! Science got away from these simplistic views on determinism a century ago! Of course it is bloody science, you idiot, because we can still make definite statements about the distirbution of photons from the double slit, even if we can't predict the position that any one photon will arrive at. After all the discussions on quantum theory, you should know this, so you're either even stupider than I thought, have the short-term memory of a concussed goldfish, or are just playing more of your silly games. I can't be definite as to which it is, but I think the latter has he highest probability........................... I don't understand how it can be stupid to see that despite science being able to measure some phenomena or other, has absolutely no way and will never have a way of accounting for it. It's like monkeys looking at the stars and having no bloody clue what they are observing. But of course you won't have that because you will have to own up to being in the dark.
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Mar 8, 2011 18:01:50 GMT 1
If all atoms in an isotope are the same, why is it that some will decay quickly whilst others will not? We know that the half life does not depend on how many atoms of an isotope there are, so it can't be due to the process of decay per se. So are all the atoms of an isotope identical? Is there a possibility that the structure of some of the atoms vary such that they decay more quickly. How does physics explain this phenomenon? P Its quantum. There is no REASON why one nucleus decays now, whilst another takes another million years. It is a truly RANDOM event, and all that changes, for different elements, is the probability that any one atom will decay in the next second. This probability DOES depend on the exact process of decay and how energetically favourable the decay is. What is really odd is that unlike ordinary everyday physical processes (where things decay in a continuous manner before finally falling apart totally), there is no memory in basic quantum processes such as this. Its not that bons holding the nucleus apart get a bit slack as the nucleus ages, until it finally falls apart. The nucleus looks the same as it ever did, until the unpredictable and uncaused instant when it does fall apart. How do we know this? Because you can take some natural radioactive substance, thats been around since before the earth was formed, and some newly-made stuff from a particle accelerator or nuclear reactor, and the 'fresh' stuff from the reactor will display exactly the SAME decay process as the old stuff. So that's your answer -- there is no why, which is just the important point where quantum processes are different to everyday stuff -- quantum events can occur without a cause. They just happen. Its what lack of determinism means, there is no cause. It's a quantum of bollocks from our innumerate science idiot! ;D How can anyone possibly take this buffoon seriously on QM when she idiotically postulates that c=Lambda x f Proves that f must remain constant! Hahahaha! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Mar 8, 2011 18:05:05 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Mar 8, 2011 18:08:17 GMT 1
Which just means you never understood the first thing about quantum theory, or the significance of the tests of Bells inequality......................
As I said before, just plain STUPID, since you claim to have eagerly participated in discussions on all of the above topics............
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Mar 8, 2011 18:18:05 GMT 1
Abacus
Why you persist in engaging this utter buffoon I will never know. You can surely see that she does not have a clue! That is evident from her inarticuate rambling 'explanations' which are a combination of regurgitated half-undertsood extracts from the net cobined with utter gobbldegook
Do you enjoy these sparring contests with an idiot?
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Mar 8, 2011 18:20:32 GMT 1
Principled was TRYING to have a discussion with me, so why don't you two idiots just [SNIP] off and go play somewhere else.......................
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Mar 8, 2011 18:24:01 GMT 1
Principled was TRYING to have a discussion with me, so why don't you two idiots just fuck off and go play somewhere else....................... But my dear, we cannot have innumerate buffoons like you spreading gobbledegpook can we now? ;D
|
|