Exponential Distribution: Calculating the Half-Life & Survival Rate of a Rock"

Click For Summary
A rock containing 10^20 atoms of a substance has an exponentially distributed lifetime with a half-life of one century. To determine when there is a 50% chance that at least one atom remains, the probability of no atoms surviving must equal 0.5, leading to the equation P(k=0) = e^-μ. The calculations suggest that approximately 65 centuries must pass for this probability to hold true, although there are noted errors in the assumptions regarding μ. The discussion emphasizes the need for careful consideration of the underlying statistical models, such as Poisson or binomial distributions, to verify the results.
Bachelier
Messages
375
Reaction score
0
A piece of rock contains 10^20 atoms of a particular substance. Each atom has an expoentially distributed lifetime with a half-life of one century. How many centurites must pass before

there is about a 50% chance that at least one atom remains. What assumptions are you making?

answer:

so P (at least one survives past t) = P (no one does) = .5

now, I'm making the assumption that Prob of survival is so small and since n is huge, this follows a poisson disn.

thus .5 = P(k=0) = e

then μ = ln 5

now μ = np = 1020* e-ln 2 t. ln 2 is my parameter since half time is 1 century.

thus t = ln(1020/ln 5) * (ln 2)-1 ≈ 65 years
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Your time unit is centuries, not years. So your answer (I didn't check arithmetic) is 65 centuries.
 
what about the theory, is it correct?
 
.5 = P(k=0) = e

then μ = ln 5

Above has error, μ = -ln.5 = ln2

The general idea is correct. You might try a binomial to check. The result should be about the same.
 
The standard _A " operator" maps a Null Hypothesis Ho into a decision set { Do not reject:=1 and reject :=0}. In this sense ( HA)_A , makes no sense. Since H0, HA aren't exhaustive, can we find an alternative operator, _A' , so that ( H_A)_A' makes sense? Isn't Pearson Neyman related to this? Hope I'm making sense. Edit: I was motivated by a superficial similarity of the idea with double transposition of matrices M, with ## (M^{T})^{T}=M##, and just wanted to see if it made sense to talk...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
Replies
147
Views
10K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
4K