Calculation of Isotop lifetimes

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Dmitry67
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Calculation
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the calculation of isotopic lifetimes, specifically focusing on Bismuth-209. Participants explore the theoretical and computational methods used to predict nuclear stability and decay, including the role of quantum chromodynamics and empirical models.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Technical explanation, Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant notes that Bismuth-209 has a lifetime of 19*10^18 years and questions the feasibility of calculating such lifetimes using quantum chromodynamics given the complexity of the particle interactions involved.
  • Another participant mentions that Bismuth-209 is unstable with respect to alpha decay due to its mass compared to Helium-4 and Thallium-205, referencing a scientific article for support.
  • A follow-up request for clarification on the precision of the two approaches mentioned in the initial post indicates a desire for more detailed information on current methodologies.
  • A participant expresses skepticism about the existence of quark-level calculations for real atomic nuclei, highlighting the challenges of the many-body problem and the reliance on empirical models for nuclear interactions.
  • This participant also recalls that past literature suggested isotope lifetimes could not be calculated, but acknowledges that advancements may have occurred since then.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the current capabilities of theoretical models to calculate isotopic lifetimes, with some uncertainty about the precision and applicability of existing methods.

Contextual Notes

There is mention of the complexity of many-body problems in nuclear physics and the potential limitations of empirical models, but no specific assumptions or mathematical steps are resolved in the discussion.

Who May Find This Useful

Researchers and students interested in nuclear physics, quantum mechanics, and theoretical modeling of atomic nuclei may find this discussion relevant.

Dmitry67
Messages
2,564
Reaction score
1
I know that Bismuth is not stable, Bi209 has a lifetime of 19*10^18y.
I also know that before decay was experimentally confirmed, it had been theoretically predicted.

My question is - HOW?

Is color chromodynamics advanced enough so it can calculate for any number of neutrons and protons the lifetime of the nuclei? Bi-209 contains more then 6 hundreds quarks - is it really possible to calculate a system with that many 'particles' just based on the QM equations?

Or may be, as there are so many particles, artificial models (droplet, shells) are used? But this is really strange: energy margin between Bi-209 being stable and having lifetime of 10^19y is so tiny that these ad-hoc models must be fastastically accurate!

Please help.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Wismut 209 is heavier than an He 4 and Tl 205,
hence it is unstable with respect to alpha decay.
see
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038%2Fnature01541
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thank you.
But could you comment on 2 approaches I menationed in my first post.
What is a precision of both methods right now?
 
I'm not aware of any quark-level calculations for ``real'' atomic nuclei. Handling something like Bi209 is a highly nontrivial many-body problem even when using empirical strong force potentials (say, based on the pion exchange formula and extensions of it).

That being said, I'm into quantum chemistry and only ever skimmed through some theoretical nuclear structure books. So I'd love to be proven wrong. I also seem to remember that one of the books I had checked out said that isotope lifetimes can currently not be calculated, but I think the book was from the 80s or early 90s, so that might have changed in the meantime.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
7K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
5K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
5K