Derivation for this equation: N = N0(1/2)^t/t1/2?

  • Thread starter Thread starter nothing123
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Derivation
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on deriving the equation N = N0(1/2)^(t/T1/2), which describes radioactive decay. Participants clarify that the half-life is when the number of particles is halved, leading to the equation N(t) = N0e^(-λt). The conversation reveals confusion over exponent rules and the relationship between the decay constant and half-life. Ultimately, one participant successfully derives the original equation by substituting the half-life relationship into the decay formula. The exchange highlights the importance of understanding exponential functions in the context of decay equations.
nothing123
Messages
97
Reaction score
0
Anyone know the derivation for this equation: N = N0(1/2)^t/t1/2? I can understand it plugging numbers in but I don't really know how it was derived in the first place.

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Well, we know that the rate of radioactive decay is proportional to the Number of particles at a time t.
So:

-\frac{dN_{(t)}}{dt}=\lambda N_{(t)}

Now can you derive it?
 
Using what you gave, I am able to derive N = N0e^-kt but the equation I provided is without the decay constant...
 
nothing123 said:
Using what you gave, I am able to derive N = N0e^-kt but the equation I provided is without the decay constant...

Well the half life will be when N_{(t)}=\frac{N_0}{2}. and when t=T_{\frac{1}{2}}}.

/Not sure how the decay constant disappears tbh.

/No wait I see now.
 
Last edited:
Can you explain it a bit more clearly? Thanks.
 
nothing123 said:
Can you explain it a bit more clearly? Thanks.

Sure no problem.

Half life is the when the number of particles is reduced by half.
Hence this occurs when N_{(t)}=\frac{N_o}{2}) No is the original number of particles.
The time which this occurs will be the half life and we call it T_{\frac{1}{2}}

So we have:
\frac{N_o}{2}=N_o e^{-\lambda T_{\frac{1}{2}}}
\frac{1}{2}=e^{-\lambda T_{\frac{1}{2}} }

We already had:
N_{(t)}=\frac{N_o}{2})
but
e^{-\lambda T_{\frac{1}{2}}}=\frac{1}{2}

so -\lambda T_{\frac{1}{2}}= L_n(\frac{1}{2}})

e^{-\lambda}=\frac{e^{L_n(\frac{1}{2})}}{e^{T_{\frac{1}{2}}}}= \frac{1}{2}e^{-T_{\frac{1}{2}}}

Sub that into the equation N = N_0e^{-\lambda t}
and you got it :D

*Phew that took some time to type*

:)
 
Last edited:
malty said:
Sure no problem.

e^{-\lambda}=\frac{e^{L_n(\frac{1}{2})}}{e^{T_{\frac{1}{2}}}}= \frac{1}{2}e^{-T_{\frac{1}{2}}}

Sub that into the equation N = N_0e^{-\lambda t}
and you got it :D

:)

Thanks for the reply but I'm not entirely sure how you got the above lines. My exponent rules might be a big hazy but I don't think e^a/b is the same as e^a/e^b if you know what I'm saying.
 
nothing123 said:
Thanks for the reply but I'm not entirely sure how you got the above lines. My exponent rules might be a big hazy but I don't think e^a/b is the same as e^a/e^b if you know what I'm saying.

Not 100% sure what you are referring to.

Here's how I got that line:

-\lambda T_{\frac{1}{2}}= L_n(\frac{1}{2}})
and
{-\lambda}=\frac{L_n(\frac{1}{2})}{{T_{\frac{1}{2}}}}
 
Right, so does e^(ln(1/2)/T1/2) = e^ln(1/2)/e^T1/2?
 
  • #10
nothing123 said:
Right, so does e^(ln(1/2)/T1/2) = e^ln(1/2)/e^T1/2?

Well yes, if

e^{ab}=e^a*e^b

then e^{-ab}=e^a*e^{-b}=\frac{e^a}{e^b}
 
  • #11
Wait, doesn't e^a*e^b = e^(a+b) not e^ab? e^ab would be (e^a)^b, right?
 
  • #12
nothing123 said:
Wait, doesn't e^a*e^b = e^(a+b) not e^ab? e^ab would be (e^a)^b, right?

Lol yeah your right is does, I have absolutely no idea what made me think it was well that...

:redface:
 
Last edited:
  • #13
Ahh now I remember the equation I used was

{-\lambda}=\frac{L_n(\frac{1}{2})}{{T_{\frac{1}{2}}} }

I took the exponent of this:




e^{-\lambda}=\frac{e^{L_n(\frac{1}{2})}}{e^{T_{\frac{1 }{2}}}}= \frac{1}{2}e^{-T_{\frac{1}{2}}}

And that is still correct, I believe, my whole escapade with the awful exponent rules was well becasue...I'm tired (and dreaming) :p

:smile:
 
  • #14
Hmm I don't know if I'm just tired too or what but we seem to be back at square one. Didn't we conclude that e^(ln(1/2)/T1/2) does not equal e^ln(1/2)/e^T1/2?
 
  • #15
nothing123 said:
Hmm I don't know if I'm just tired too or what but we seem to be back at square one. Didn't we conclude that e^(ln(1/2)/T1/2) does not equal e^ln(1/2)/e^T1/2?

No this is actually true because

=e^{-\lambda}=e^{- \frac{ ln\frac{1}{2}}{T_{\frac{1}{2}}}}=e^{(ln\frac{1}{2})^{-T_{\frac{1}{2}}}}=\frac{1}{2}e^{-T_{\frac{1}{2}}}}

Least I think it, *is brain dead*
 
  • #16
Ok, I think I figured it out but I don't think the equation you just wrote is correct. e^(ln1/2)/T1/2 = 1/2^(T1/2^-1). Now, subbing this into our original equation, we get N = N0(1/2)^t/t1/2. Thanks so much for your help anyways, it got my brain going.
 
Back
Top