![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
To say that spontaneous radioactive decay occurs in a truly random fashion says nothing. Since science argues that all atoms of a particular element and isotope are truly identical and lack a unique "serial number", all should decay at the very same time or never, for they have no inherent difference that could differentiate among them!
This is in contrast with what we observe. Therefore, there must be a mechanism that individually identifies atoms and "draws lots" from the configuration space of the information universe, to find out which single atom should "spontaneously" decay at any given time and somehow individually "pings" the unlucky one to induce the decay.
Yet, this WP article says nothing about science's effort to find out, how and where the "NIC addresses" of individul atoms are stored in nature, as well as the search to identify the "CAT5 cable" that connects individual atoms to the configuration space, so that they can be pinged to decay if the "Ultimate Dice-thrower" decides its game over for that atom.
Indeed, one can write pretty math equations for truly random spontaneous decay, but that does not explain the physical mechanism by which such is induced to effect. Contrary to the currently fashionable notion that Universe = Mathemathical Information, there are many trans-computable processes, from 3-body problem to turbulent flows, that show matter and energy are more existant than maths!
This mandates a big change in the tone of this article. In fact, treatise on "spontaneous radioactive decay" should become a separate article, because of its deep philosophical, theophysical and experimental implications! 82.131.210.163 ( talk) 12:11, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
The mechanism for alpha decay is pretty well understood. Quantum mechanically, you can consider the nucleus as made up of alpha particles, plus an additional odd neutron and/or proton. The alpha particles move at the fermi velocity, trying to escape, but are held back by the nuclear binding (strong) force when they hit the surface. Each time, there is some probability of Quantum tunnelling through the barrier. Statistically, it is many many trials with very low odds, until it escapes. Statistical randomness is a fundamental part of quantum mechanics. Gah4 ( talk) 00:42, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
A radioactive source emits its decay products isotropically As noted with the recent change, this isn't, in general, true. Assuming that the nuclear orientation in space is isotropic, (that is, statistically independent) then it is naturally true. I suppose it should also be for spin zero nuclides. But nuclides with spin are not isotropic, and when spin aligned, the decay products likely aren't, either. Gah4 ( talk) 09:08, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
It is unclear from the articles on Abel Niépce de Saint-Victor and Henri Becquerel what exactly is Becquerel's discovery with respect to Niépce's work, or indeed if Becquerel deserves credit for the discovery of radioactivity. The current state of the Intro to the History section seems especially inappropriate because Becquerel seems to have had prior contact with Niépce's work.
Somebody should volunteer a bit of research and improve these 3 articles ;) 213.149.51.245 ( talk) 07:46, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Radioactive decay. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:46, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
The article indicates that only elements of atomic number 52 and higher alpha decay, but there is one more case: 8
4Be
. It is a little unusual, but it seems to be the usual description of its decay mode.
Gah4 (
talk) 08:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
The text says, "no known natural limits to how brief or long a decay half-life for radioactive decay of a radionuclide may be." Since there is a lower limit to time itself (planck time) it would seem that no half-life could be less than two planck times. So there is a known limit to how brief a decay half-life of a radionuclide could be. I flagged the claim with a citation tag to see if there are any sources that might contradict my OR on this (or confirm it). Sparkie82 ( t• c) 23:53, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
This is a full list of decay modes, listed in {{NUBASE2016}} p.20 [1]:
Decay modes
It occurs to me that the table in Radioactive_decay#Types of decay could be checked against this list. - DePiep ( talk) 17:51, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
References
There is a question in the section Theoretical basis of decay phenomena about WP:OR. I suspect that some is, but I don't know which. There is, however, one case that I believe is well described. You can consider most of the nucleons on the nucleus as moving alpha particles. (That is, quantum states where two protons and two neutrons are in the same state.) These alpha particles then move at the fermi velocity and run into the potential barrier at the nuclear boundary. There is a possibility of Quantum tunnelling each time it hits the potential barrier at the nuclear boundary. Since tunnelling is exponential, it is easy to explain the large range of decay times. Gah4 ( talk) 01:56, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
There seems to be some question as to gamma photons being subatomic particles. Photons are particles, so that should be fine. If the wavelength is smaller than a typical atom size, then they are subatomic. Some might be low enough energy to have a wavelength bigger than a typical atom, but most don't. Gah4 ( talk) 23:58, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Does this apply to all forms of decay? Or is alpha decay caused by the electromagnetic force?-- Klausok ( talk) 06:11, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
To say that spontaneous radioactive decay occurs in a truly random fashion says nothing. Since science argues that all atoms of a particular element and isotope are truly identical and lack a unique "serial number", all should decay at the very same time or never, for they have no inherent difference that could differentiate among them!
This is in contrast with what we observe. Therefore, there must be a mechanism that individually identifies atoms and "draws lots" from the configuration space of the information universe, to find out which single atom should "spontaneously" decay at any given time and somehow individually "pings" the unlucky one to induce the decay.
Yet, this WP article says nothing about science's effort to find out, how and where the "NIC addresses" of individul atoms are stored in nature, as well as the search to identify the "CAT5 cable" that connects individual atoms to the configuration space, so that they can be pinged to decay if the "Ultimate Dice-thrower" decides its game over for that atom.
Indeed, one can write pretty math equations for truly random spontaneous decay, but that does not explain the physical mechanism by which such is induced to effect. Contrary to the currently fashionable notion that Universe = Mathemathical Information, there are many trans-computable processes, from 3-body problem to turbulent flows, that show matter and energy are more existant than maths!
This mandates a big change in the tone of this article. In fact, treatise on "spontaneous radioactive decay" should become a separate article, because of its deep philosophical, theophysical and experimental implications! 82.131.210.163 ( talk) 12:11, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
The mechanism for alpha decay is pretty well understood. Quantum mechanically, you can consider the nucleus as made up of alpha particles, plus an additional odd neutron and/or proton. The alpha particles move at the fermi velocity, trying to escape, but are held back by the nuclear binding (strong) force when they hit the surface. Each time, there is some probability of Quantum tunnelling through the barrier. Statistically, it is many many trials with very low odds, until it escapes. Statistical randomness is a fundamental part of quantum mechanics. Gah4 ( talk) 00:42, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
A radioactive source emits its decay products isotropically As noted with the recent change, this isn't, in general, true. Assuming that the nuclear orientation in space is isotropic, (that is, statistically independent) then it is naturally true. I suppose it should also be for spin zero nuclides. But nuclides with spin are not isotropic, and when spin aligned, the decay products likely aren't, either. Gah4 ( talk) 09:08, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
It is unclear from the articles on Abel Niépce de Saint-Victor and Henri Becquerel what exactly is Becquerel's discovery with respect to Niépce's work, or indeed if Becquerel deserves credit for the discovery of radioactivity. The current state of the Intro to the History section seems especially inappropriate because Becquerel seems to have had prior contact with Niépce's work.
Somebody should volunteer a bit of research and improve these 3 articles ;) 213.149.51.245 ( talk) 07:46, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Radioactive decay. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:46, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
The article indicates that only elements of atomic number 52 and higher alpha decay, but there is one more case: 8
4Be
. It is a little unusual, but it seems to be the usual description of its decay mode.
Gah4 (
talk) 08:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
The text says, "no known natural limits to how brief or long a decay half-life for radioactive decay of a radionuclide may be." Since there is a lower limit to time itself (planck time) it would seem that no half-life could be less than two planck times. So there is a known limit to how brief a decay half-life of a radionuclide could be. I flagged the claim with a citation tag to see if there are any sources that might contradict my OR on this (or confirm it). Sparkie82 ( t• c) 23:53, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
This is a full list of decay modes, listed in {{NUBASE2016}} p.20 [1]:
Decay modes
It occurs to me that the table in Radioactive_decay#Types of decay could be checked against this list. - DePiep ( talk) 17:51, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
References
There is a question in the section Theoretical basis of decay phenomena about WP:OR. I suspect that some is, but I don't know which. There is, however, one case that I believe is well described. You can consider most of the nucleons on the nucleus as moving alpha particles. (That is, quantum states where two protons and two neutrons are in the same state.) These alpha particles then move at the fermi velocity and run into the potential barrier at the nuclear boundary. There is a possibility of Quantum tunnelling each time it hits the potential barrier at the nuclear boundary. Since tunnelling is exponential, it is easy to explain the large range of decay times. Gah4 ( talk) 01:56, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
There seems to be some question as to gamma photons being subatomic particles. Photons are particles, so that should be fine. If the wavelength is smaller than a typical atom size, then they are subatomic. Some might be low enough energy to have a wavelength bigger than a typical atom, but most don't. Gah4 ( talk) 23:58, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Does this apply to all forms of decay? Or is alpha decay caused by the electromagnetic force?-- Klausok ( talk) 06:11, 5 March 2020 (UTC)