Explanation of radioactive decay

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the explanation of radioactive decay, particularly focusing on the relationship between entropy, activation energy, and the conditions under which decay occurs, including the concept of vacuum. Participants explore theoretical aspects, potential misconceptions, and the implications of decay in different environments.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that radioactive decay is linked to an increase in entropy, suggesting that all spontaneous processes are associated with this phenomenon.
  • Others argue that radioactive decay is a quantum tunneling phenomenon and is not dependent on the presence of particles in a vacuum.
  • A participant questions whether activation energy must be overcome for decay to occur, despite it being a spontaneous process.
  • There is a discussion about the possibility of radioactive decay occurring in a vacuum, with some asserting that it is possible while others suggest that certain isotopes may require the presence of atomic electrons to decay.
  • One participant mentions specific isotopes that may only decay when their nuclei are bare, indicating a potential condition for decay related to electron presence.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the role of activation energy and the conditions necessary for decay in a vacuum. There is no consensus on whether activation energy is required for decay or on the implications of vacuum conditions for different isotopes.

Contextual Notes

Some statements rely on specific definitions of "vacuum" and "activation energy," which may not be universally agreed upon. The discussion includes assumptions about the behavior of certain isotopes that are not fully resolved.

TuAst
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Hi folks

I was wondering if someone could please help me with the following:

Is the explanation for radioactive decay (if it is not "induced") the increase in entropy, and
is it true that an activation energy must be overcome (if so, does that mean that it is not possible for an unstable isotope to decay in total vacuum).

Thank you very much for your help!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Radioactive decay is a quantum tunneling phenomena...which has nothing to do with "total vacuum", whatever that means...given a number of unstable nuclei they will decay in a statistically random fashion..no one knows which nuceli will decay next...

lots more at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_decay
 
Naty1

Thank you for your quick reply, I read about it in wikipedia before I came here to ask, that was where I found out about the activation energy and entropy. However, I want to ask the experts, I'm never sure about what I can trust on wiki, even though it is a very good reference.

"Total vacuum" is a stupid way of saying "not normal vacuum, which has some particles that can interact" - so I guess "no disturbing elements" or something would be better! Haha
 
Every spontaneous process is connected to an increase in entropy, so I agree with the Wikipedia article on that point.
 
Mapes

Thank you for your reply! So would you say that in order for "one decay" to occur, an activation energy must be overcome, even though it is spontaneous?
Thank you for your time.
 
Hi,
I have a question:
Radioactive decay is possible in vacuum or not?
anyone please tell me...
 
Yes. Why not?
 
hashdude_91 said:
Hi,
I have a question:
Radioactive decay is possible in vacuum or not?
anyone please tell me...
Nearly every radioactive atom will decay in a vacuum. Some atoms decay only by capturing an atomic electron, and will (may?) be stable if all the atomic electrons are stripped off. I think that there are two stable isotopes (neutral atoms) that decay radioactively only when the nucleus is bare (no electrons), because the Coulomb field of the atomic electrons inhibit the radioactive decay of the nucleus. I think that A≈ 181 to 185. Anyone remember?

Bob S
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 44 ·
2
Replies
44
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K