Radioactive material (e.g. Uranium) is placed into sealed box

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the behavior of radioactive materials, specifically uranium, when placed in a sealed box. Participants explore the implications of quantum mechanics, particularly the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and the Copenhagen interpretation, in relation to radiation emission. The scope includes theoretical considerations and thought experiments rather than practical applications.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that a radioactive material in a sealed box would not radiate due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, implying that without measurement, particles do not decide on a quantum state.
  • Another participant argues that the sample may or may not radiate, referencing the Copenhagen interpretation and the concept of superposition until measurement occurs.
  • A third participant challenges the initial claim, stating that a radioactive sample will radiate regardless of observation and requests evidence to the contrary.
  • A later reply clarifies that while the sample can be treated as a quantum-mechanical entity in thought experiments, in reality, it cannot, as interactions with the environment will lead to radiation regardless of containment.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express disagreement regarding the effects of observation on radiation emission. While some explore the theoretical implications of quantum mechanics, others assert that radioactive materials will emit radiation regardless of observation, indicating a lack of consensus.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights limitations in understanding the quantum behavior of radioactive materials, particularly in distinguishing between theoretical models and practical realities. Assumptions about measurement and observation are central to the debate.

paulhunn
Messages
33
Reaction score
0
Would i be right in saying that if a radioactive material (e.g. Uranium) is placed into sealed box then it would not radiate? i came to this conclusion through the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. If the particles making up the uranium are not measured then they don't decide on a quantum state and so do not find themselves outside of the nucleus and radiate.
Sounds a bit strange that keeping a highly dangerous radioactive material in a box makes it safe so i think I've gone wrong somwhere.

Paul
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The sample may or may not radiate. If you treat the sealed sample as a quantum-mechanical entity, the sample exists in a superposition of states until it is actually measured. When it's measured, the universe conspires to decide whether it did or did not radiate.

At least, that's the Copenhagen interpretation of things, exemplified by the similar thought experiment about Schrondinger's cat.

- Warren
 
That is not correct.
A radioactive "sample" will radiate regardless of "observation"
Show me one qualified example that this is not true.
 
Well, pallidin, a real sample is, of course, not a quantum-mechanical entity. Even in its sealed container, heat from decays will eventually escape. Air molecules interacting with the sample on the inside of the container interact with the container itself, eliminating superpositions as they go.

That's why I prefaced my explanation with "if you treat the sample as a quantum-mechanical entity," something that can be done tacitly in a thought experiment, but cannot be done at all in reality.

Either way, putting the sample inside a box doesn't prevent it from radiating.

- Warren
 
Thanks for clearing that up Warren. I did mean more as a thought experiment than a real world experiment i was just trying to phrase it so you knew what i was trying to ask.

Thanks,
Paul
 

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 50 ·
2
Replies
50
Views
9K
  • · Replies 81 ·
3
Replies
81
Views
11K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
7K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
10K