Can Beta-rays Travel Faster Than Light During Radioactive Decay?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter elias2010
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the behavior of beta rays emitted during radioactive decay, particularly in the context of a hypothetical scenario involving a spaceship moving at relativistic speeds. Participants explore the implications of special relativity on the detection of beta radiation and whether such emissions could exceed the speed of light.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that radioactive decay is a random process unaffected by external variables, questioning how this interacts with relativistic speeds.
  • Others argue that the principles of relativity dictate that no object can reach or exceed the speed of light, challenging the premise of beta rays emitted from a moving core exceeding this limit.
  • A participant suggests that if a Geiger counter inside a moving spacecraft detects radiation while an external counter does not, this raises questions about the nature of observation and reality in physics.
  • There is a discussion about the velocity addition formula, with some participants indicating that the classical Newtonian approach to adding velocities is invalid in relativistic contexts.
  • Some participants clarify that beta radiation, consisting of electrons or positrons, cannot exceed the speed of light, and they request scientific references to support any contrary claims.
  • Concerns are raised about the operation of Geiger counters, with one participant noting that they measure the presence of particles rather than their speed.
  • Questions are posed about the emission of gamma rays from the nucleus and their behavior under relativistic conditions, with acknowledgment that gamma rays travel at the speed of light in all reference frames.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views regarding the implications of special relativity on radioactive decay and the behavior of emitted radiation. There is no consensus on the interpretations of the scenarios presented.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include assumptions about the nature of radioactive decay, the effects of relativistic speeds on decay processes, and the interpretation of measurements made by Geiger counters. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the specific outcomes of the proposed scenarios.

  • #31
elias2010 said:
George mentioned what I was trying to say.That one simple fact (detector's indication) occurs depending on where we put the frame.

Ah, I think there is confusion about the meaning of the word "frame" in relativity. It is used to mean a coordinate system, basically the "X" and "Y" and time axes of a hypothetical set of rulers and clocks which fill the universe (so that we can say where and when events happen) with the origin defined by some particle moving at less than c and without (usually) acceleration.

You appear to be using it in the sense of a physical object, a frame that you could put in different places.

Is that the source of confusion or have I misread your post?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
elias2010 said:
George mentioned what I was trying to say.That one simple fact (detector's indication) occurs depending on where we put the frame.
This is not correct. The detectors indication depends on where you put the detector, not the frame.
 
  • #33


HallsofIvy said:
No one has said you cannot approach the speed- you just can't ever get there. And, no, the speed does not "prevent" decay of the nucleus. You are just using the wrong formula for combination of speeds. If an atom on a space ship, moving at, say, .9c relative to me, emits a beta ray moving at .9c relative to the atom, directly toward me, I would measure the beta ray as moving at
\frac{.9c+ .9c}{1+ \frac{(.9c)(.9c)}{c^2}}= \frac{1.8c}{1.81}= .99c
still less than the speed of light.

So if the ship speed is 0.9c and the speed of the radius b smaller than 0.99c, B does not detect the radiation. If the velocity of the particle b is less than 0.81c, does not detect either A.
Which of the two would happen if there was no Earth or other reference point to know the ship's speed? That is, whether the rings A or not, depends on the observer.
Look at the two cases:The reference frame is on the earth, or on the ship.
 
  • #34


elias2010 said:
So if the ship speed is 0.9c and the speed of the radius b smaller than 0.99c, B does not detect the radiation. If the velocity of the particle b is less than 0.81c, does not detect either A.
...That is, whether the rings A or not, depends on the observer.
This is incorrect. Please show your work so that we can show where you are making your mistake.
 
  • #35


DaleSpam said:
This is incorrect. Please show your work so that we can show where you are making your mistake.

You are right.I apologise for the trouble.
 

Similar threads

Undergrad Information traveling faster than light? (thought experiment)
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
Undergrad Does light escape the Universe?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Can Geiger Counter Ticks be converted into particle/wave counts?
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
High School Could this FTL idea with a fast moving large mass be possibl
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Graduate Faster than light relative speeds (I know it's impossible)
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
7K
Graduate Time Travel, Space Travel, Speed The Earths Movement, Speed Of Light
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Graduate Can a Tachyon Observe Light Traveling Faster Than Itself?
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
6K
Graduate Travel faster than speed of light. According to what reference frame?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Graduate Faster than light travel proved sort off
  • · Replies 61 ·
3
Replies
61
Views
11K
Graduate Can Neutrinos Travel Faster thyan Light?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K