Is Nuclear Decay random?

  • Thread starter Paul Dirac
  • Start date
14
0
For example tritium has a half life of of 12.3 years. So if you had 2 atoms of tritium then after 12.3 year you would expect to have 1 atom of tritium and 1 atom of h-3. My question is, is it possible that tritium could decay in 1 second? Or how about 1 eon? I know its not probable but is it possible? <Edited to remove personal speculation>
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Nugatory

Mentor
12,329
4,807
you are right about the random nature of radioactive decay. If I take a large number of tritium atoms and watch them... They'll be randomly decaying at a rate such that after 12.3 years half will have decayed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
14
0
Thanks for your answer. My question is, is it possible that tritium could decay in 1 second? Or how about 1 eon?
 

Matterwave

Science Advisor
Gold Member
3,951
324
For one single tritium atom, the decay could theoretically happen from any time to any time. But the most likely times for decay are around the half life times. Other times like 1 second or 1 eon are extremely unlikely.
 
14
0
thank you! <Edited to remove personal theory>
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Early experimenters with radioactive elements measured a Poisson decay curve for all elements tested. That decay curve only occurs if the probability of a decay is random. i.e. it does not depend on previous decays or on any other measurable parameter. Thus, the randomness is established by experimental results.
 

Orodruin

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Gold Member
2018 Award
15,945
5,917
Matterwave: The most likely time of decay is at t=0 since the decay time for a single nucleus follows an exponential distribution. This is reflected in the fact that if you take a lot of tritium the decay rate will be largest in the beginning (simply due to each tritium atom having a fixed probability of decay per time unit). Of course, this still does not change the fact that the mean life time is non-zero, or that you will have very close to half of the nuclei left after a time equal to the half-life has passed - which follows directly from the central limit theorem.

OP: The probability of N given nuclei decaying within a time t is given by P = (1-exp(-t/T))^N, which for small t/T approximates to (t/T)^N. Taking a mol of tritium for 1s would therefore give t/T = 1.8e-9 and N equal to the Avogadro number. (1.8e-9)^NA is really really really small.
 

Matterwave

Science Advisor
Gold Member
3,951
324
Matterwave: The most likely time of decay is at t=0 since the decay time for a single nucleus follows an exponential distribution. This is reflected in the fact that if you take a lot of tritium the decay rate will be largest in the beginning (simply due to each tritium atom having a fixed probability of decay per time unit). Of course, this still does not change the fact that the mean life time is non-zero, or that you will have very close to half of the nuclei left after a time equal to the half-life has passed - which follows directly from the central limit theorem.
Yes, this was my fault for using not the correct language. I was talking about the mean life-time of the particle ##\tau\equiv\frac{1}{\Gamma}## being roughly in the half-life range (rigorously the half life is ##\lambda=\tau\ln(2)##).

But you are right, this is not the "most likely time time for decay". It is the mean time for decays averaged over a large sample.

There is no relationship that more electrons = longer lifespan of particles.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
9,188
2,097
I think, Mr Dirac, you should live up to the eminence of your namesake and study quantum field theory where the answer to such things is found.

Beware however, although well within the capabilities of the great man, to mere mortals like I am, and I suspect you are, it is HARD, very very HARD.

You might like to build up to it so here is my recommended reading list in order of difficulty:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0473179768/?tag=pfamazon01-20
https://www.amazon.com/dp/046502811X/?tag=pfamazon01-20
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0465036678/?tag=pfamazon01-20
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0071765638/?tag=pfamazon01-20
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0071543821/?tag=pfamazon01-20
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0691140340/?tag=pfamazon01-20
https://www.amazon.com/dp/019969933X/?tag=pfamazon01-20

All that is simply a build up to what many consider THE book on QET by Peskin and Schroeder:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0201503972/?tag=pfamazon01-20

It will be a long hard slog but at the end of it you will understand things a lot better than you do now, because to be blunt what you wrote is utter nonsense.

BTW I have those books except QFT for the Gifted Amateur and Peskin and Schroeder and am still worried I may find Peskin and Schroder still too tough. It is really hard. I want to get for the Gifted Amateur text first.

Thanks
Bill
 
Last edited by a moderator:

berkeman

Mentor
55,714
5,803
Thread closed for Moderation...
 
28,294
4,647
The thread is re-opened and has been edited to remove personal speculation. I remind the participants to review and abide by the forum rules.
 

Duplex

Gold Member
23
13

.Scott

Homework Helper
2,376
806
If a weak nonrandom variation in half-life existed, it should certainly already have been discovered. I think that only on that basis physicists would try to figure out how to accelerate or "freeze" half-life.
Actually they have been discovered. Which means the answer to the OP is that nuclear half lives have a random component of nearly 100%.
The specific cases where decay rates can change are:
7Be: I'm sure there are better citations, but the only one I can find right now is this:

http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/21680118/change-7be-electron-capture-half-life-metallic-environments

163Dy: Stable, but can be made to decay.
http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.69.2164

More at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_decay#Changing_decay_rates
 

Vanadium 50

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
23,219
5,549
On of the less attractive features of PF is that people often give an esoteric to answer someone who is struggling with basic concepts. Yes, there are atomic perturbations on the half-lives of nucleii. Usually they are small. They are certainly not relevant for the answer to the very basic question the OP asked.

Thread closed. (again)
 

Related Threads for: Is Nuclear Decay random?

  • Posted
Replies
13
Views
207
  • Posted
Replies
12
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
698
Replies
1
Views
395
  • Posted
Replies
9
Views
5K

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Hot Threads

Top