Is Radioactive Decay Truly Random?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the nature of radioactive decay, specifically whether it can be considered truly random. Participants explore the relationship between the predictability of decay rates, as determined by half-lives, and the randomness of individual atomic decay events. The conversation includes theoretical and conceptual aspects of radioactive decay.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions how radioactive decay can be random if half-lives allow for predictions about decay timing.
  • Another participant asserts that while the decay of individual atoms is random, the overall behavior of large numbers of atoms follows predictable patterns, similar to coin flips.
  • A participant elaborates on exponential decay, explaining that the decreasing number of undecayed nuclei leads to a predictable decay rate over time, rather than a change in individual decay probabilities.
  • Some participants discuss the implications of half-lives, noting that while the probability of decay within a half-life is 50%, individual atoms may decay at various times, leading to uncertainty in exact decay timing.
  • There is a mention of the potential for some nuclei to survive multiple half-lives, illustrating the randomness of decay events over time.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of randomness in radioactive decay. While there is agreement that individual decay events are random, there is contention regarding how this randomness relates to the predictability afforded by half-lives. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing perspectives.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the probabilistic nature of decay and the implications of large sample sizes on predictability, but there are unresolved nuances regarding the interpretation of half-lives and the randomness of decay events.

SarahB
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
How can radioactive decay be random if we can calculate aproximately when it will happen .
For example we know that an isotope will decay every 2 years by calculating the half life . Doesnt that mean that the decay is systematic rather than random because we can calculate when its guna happen .
Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
When an individual atom will decay is completely random. But each atom has a certain probability of decaying in a given time interval. So when I have large numbers of atoms, the number of decays vs time is very predictable. This is just like flipping a coin. Whether it comes up heads or tails is completely random. But it has a 50% probability of coming up heads or tails. So when I flip the coin 1 million times, there will be very close to 50% heads and 50% tails.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: anorlunda
I second phyzguy.

Also note that exponential decay is logical and natural. Suppose you start off with N nuclei. Each one has some possibility of decaying in the first second. If each has the same probability, then the probable number that do decay must be proportional to N. The exact number of decays isn’t guaranteed, but some number decay over the first second. Now there are fewer radioactive nuclei. Those that are left still have the same probability of decaying in the following second, but now there are fewer of them. The probable number of decays is fewer in the second second than the first not because the probability of decay for each nucleon is different, but rather just because there are fewer of them. Each second the number left ticks down and so the probable number that decay each second ticks down. Etc etc. The number of decays that are likely each second gets smaller and smaller second to second because there are fewer and fewer radioactive nuclei. That is the reason for the exponential decay in the radioactivity. Eventually there comes a time when only N/2 are left. That is the half life. It isn’t a behavior of the underlying probability for each nucleon each second. It is merely due to how many are left undecayed. The number left will be cut approximately in half every half-life time interval.
 
phyzguy said:
When an individual atom will decay is completely random. But each atom has a certain probability of decaying in a given time interval. So when I have large numbers of atoms, the number of decays vs time is very predictable. This is just like flipping a coin. Whether it comes up heads or tails is completely random. But it has a 50% probability of coming up heads or tails. So when I flip the coin 1 million times, there will be very close to 50% heads and 50% tails.
So would we consider the randomness of the decay restricted within the time period of the predicted half life , so we don't really know exactly when its going to decay but its probably some time within this time frame.
 
SarahB said:
So would we consider the randomness of the decay restricted within the time period of the predicted half life , so we don't really know exactly when its going to decay but its probably some time within this time frame.

No, not quite. The half life is the 50-50 point. The probability that an individual nucleus will decay within one half-life time is 50%.
 
Cutter Ketch said:
No, not quite. The half life is the 50-50 point. The probability that an individual nucleus will decay within one half-life time is 50%.

Right. So it might last 10 half-lives. Just like we might get 10 heads in a row.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Cutter Ketch
phyzguy said:
Right. So it might last 10 half-lives. Just like we might get 10 heads in a row.

And if you start with, say, a mole of radioactive nuclei, some lucky nuclei WILL last a many half-lives. The most likely time for the last one to go is N half lives where 2N = 6.02E23 = 80 half-lives

All the U235 on Earth was created in a supernova 6 billion years ago. The half life of U235 is only 700 million years. The U235 that is left has lasted almost 9 half lives and is only 1/29 = 0.2% of the original amount.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 44 ·
2
Replies
44
Views
5K