Abundancy of Uranium 235 when the earth was formed.

  • Thread starter Thread starter SuperPokenerd
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Earth Uranium
SuperPokenerd
Messages
6
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


The Earth is about 4.5 billion years old. If 235U is 0.65% abundant today, how abundant was it when the Earth formed? Note, in this case abundancy is defined as the ratio of Uranium 235 to Uranium 238

Homework Equations


R=N(lambda)
N=N0e^-lambda(t)
Half Life = ln(2)/lambda

The Attempt at a Solution


I am really unsure how to do this problem. I tried reworking the above equations but I was not able to get the correct answer. I need a little help getting started.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
In your second equation, you can divied by N0 to give N/N0. What would this quantity represent? Think about the total range of values this quantity could take on. Can N be negative? Can N>No?
 
Well, N/N0 would be the probability that a nucleus has decayed in the given period of time which in this case would be -4.5billion years if we take t=0 to be the present. And can't N be larger than N0 if we are going back in time?
 
ok, so I've worked it up to the point where I have the new abundancy = .0065e^(lambda238-lambda235)*4.5billion years but it's wrong. How can i fix this?
 
Got it wrong so now I got an 80 on my HW. Thanks for nothing.
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top