Nuclear Fusion: Radioactive Decay?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the nature of radioactive decay and its distinction from nuclear fusion. Participants explore definitions, characteristics of decay processes, and the implications of nuclear stability in relation to binding energy.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions why nuclear fusion, which is exothermic, cannot be considered a mode of radioactive decay, suggesting that the energy barrier for fusion is a key factor.
  • Another participant proposes that decay is a process where one particle decays into several, implying that fusion does not fit this definition since it starts with two particles.
  • A participant discusses the concept of nuclear stability, indicating that a stable nucleus is one that does not undergo radioactive decay, raising questions about the meaning of stability.
  • Concerns are raised about whether the term "stable" implies a lack of interactions or changes in the nucleus.
  • One participant mentions that Iron-56 and Nickel-62 are considered stable due to their high binding energies per nucleon, questioning how binding energy relates to nuclear stability.
  • A later reply suggests that the discussion may be more about nomenclature than physics, asking for clarification on the specific physics question being addressed.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the definitions and implications of decay and stability, indicating that multiple competing perspectives remain without consensus.

Contextual Notes

Participants have not reached a clear definition of radioactive decay, and there are unresolved questions regarding the relationship between binding energy and nuclear stability.

A M
Messages
83
Reaction score
16
Radioactive decay modes always release energy;
but why can't nuclear fusion of light elements be a mode of radioactive decay?
I guess because although such processes are exothermic, we need an inaccessible fairly high amount of energy to overcome the electrostatic repulsion barrier.

But now, I'm facing two more challenging questions:
What exactly is the universally agreed upon definition of radioactive decay?
If nuclear fusion is not a decay mode because we need energy as input for such processes, don't we also need energy for splitting a nucleus in [fission] decay modes? (Like SF, CD, α, p.)

[
Note for mentors: These are not my OP questions, they're only some of my questions by which it is better to start discussion. I'll ask the rest during the discussion ]
Edition: fusion is a decay? what a silly idea I had!
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I would say a decay is a ##1\to n## process. Of course this is just a label that has nothing to do with physics, so I am not sure what the question is actually about.
 
Dr.AbeNikIanEdL said:
I would say a decay is a 1→n1→n1\to n process.
What do you mean?
 
I mean a process where 1 particle decays into several (usually 2). That is what the word decay means to me. Fusion starts with two particles (at least).
 
Yes, I know it's 'decay' after all.
According to nuclear stability, a nucleus is stable if it can't go or hasn't gone under radioactive decay.
It means that stability is not the ability of a nucleus not to change into other nuclei?
 
Sure, “this particle is stable” does usually not mean “this particle can not undergo interactions” if that is your question.
 
Iron-56 & nickle-62 have the highest binding energies per nucleon; meaning that if they go under a nuclear reaction changing them to other nuclei, the process is endothermic and thus very unlikely.
So they are usually known as the most stable nuclei.
But according to what you said, how can binding energy per nucleon be a parameter upon which stability of stable nuclei depends?
 
I am having the feeling we are just discussing nomenclature here. Is there an actual physics question this is building up to? Do you want to as about the use of the word stability in a particular context? Then it would be nice to provide some reference.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 44 ·
2
Replies
44
Views
6K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K