Radioactivity - we've all heard about it, we think we understand it, but do we really? The more I think about it, the whole nature of what we call radioactivity is highly mysterious, in fact it makes little sense - but then again it's a part phenomena, so possibly that shouldn't be surprising!
Let me start out with two rules of thumb. The first rule of thumb is that unstable configurations tend to come to be more stable over time. A common example is a pencil balanced on its tip (the pointy lead bit). Said pencil is unstable and it will fall over thus achieving a more stable state.
My second rule of thumb is that the exact occasion this happens (the transition from unstable to stable) tends to be unpredictable. In the case of the balancing pencil, it may start to teeter in the first 1/100th of a second, or maybe last 1/10th of a second, maybe even a second, or 10 seconds, or even longer if all is just right. Someone else example is that I toss used kitty litter and bird seed husks on the orchad foliage (serving as mulch and finally fertilizer). Some of my tossing into the foliage results in some bits landing on the leaves. I don't worry about that, for I realize this is an unstable situation. Sooner or later, beyond my ability to predict, impacting rain drops, or a gust of wind, or a bug, will dislodge those bits, and finally they will reach the ground and stability.
Why radioactivity at all? Overall, there is, in general, a balance in the middle of the strong nuclear force trying to hold all in an atomic nucleus (neutrons and protons) together, and the electrostatic inevitable charges of those protons trying to push things apart. However, things can reach a state where an imbalance happens. Then things at last go 'poof' as the strong nuclear force is no longer adequate to keep all together as one big happy nucleus family.
I don't dispute that radioactivity exists, or that radioactive decay is an observed physical process and follows a defined mathematical progression. It happens - but why?
Mystery estimate One is why does something that we term radioactive (say a lump of something I'll call Substance X) break down or decay when it does? I mean, here we have an atom of Substance X, it is unstable, it will decay at last into something that's not radioactive and hence something that is stable. But, this unstable Substance X atom exists for possibly only microseconds before decaying, but it could last in an unstable state for a year, a decade, hundreds, thousands, millions, or even billions of years, and then all of a sudden go 'poof' and decay, giving off alpha particles, beta particles or gamma rays in the process. What caused that specific occasion to be the 'poof' moment? What was dissimilar at that exact occasion from all those moments that preceded it? There must be causality - physical science is founded on the essential of cause and effect. possibly there is something in the unstable atom's nucleus trying to fly but lacking the power to do so, but possibly finally succeeding via part tunneling, or maybe the atom is by chance impacted by an unknown form of matter ('dark matter' perhaps?) causing the breakup or decay.
Is there whatever you could do that would sway 'poof' moments? If so, then possibly we have a deal with on the cause for the 'poof'. Take a lump of Substance X (presumably trying to manipulate just one atom of Substance X is going to be technologically too challenging), and part the rate of 'poof' moments. Say it's one 'poof' per minute. Now try to alter that rate. You can take that lump of Substance X and shake it, bake it, boil it, freeze it, hammer it, pulverize it, blow it up with Tnt, put it in the dark or shine lights on it, soak it in acid or otherwise chemically react with it, place it in an intense magnetic field or whirl it nearby in a centrifuge, shoot it into outer space and you will not alter those 'poof' moments one jot. So, what causes these totally unpredictable 'poof' moments? It's for real not an everyday, common, physical or chemical process.
Mystery estimate Two is that radioactive decay marches to the tune of a mathematical equation, known as a half-life equation (the half-life being unique to each and every radioactive substance). It happens. Again, why?
Radioactive decay is measured in half-lives; the time it takes ½ of the unstable radioactivity gift to decay to a stable state. So you start with say 1000 radioactive atoms. One unit of time later, you have 500 radioactive atoms. One unit of time later you have 250 radioactive atoms left (and 750 stable ones). One more unit of time sees you down to 125 radioactive atoms. (It gets intriguing next unit - will 62 or 63 atoms go 'poof'?) Somehow it's practically as if the atoms somehow have clocks and know when to, or not to, decay. Say just before one unit of time has elapsed and 500 atoms have gone 'poof', will one atom somehow think to itself, "hold on, I have to wait now for the next unit of time before I can do my 'poof' thing otherwise I'll upset the definite mathematical half-life apple cart!" I mean it's practically as if an unstable (radioactive) atomic nucleus knows when it's their turn to decay when they are with a crowd of their peers.
I would have conception that if you have your 1000 radioactive Substance X atoms and since they (the atoms) aren't mathematicians and can't imagine then you'd expect their decay - their 'poof' - they would not succeed a definite mathematical formula. I mean, say the first 500 atoms decay in one unit of time. Doesn't it make sense therefore for the second 500 atoms to decay in the next unit of time? Or, if things are truly random and unpredictable, no cause and effect, then 10 atoms might go 'poof' in one unit of time, then possibly Someone else 50 in the second unit, Someone else 7 in the third unit, then lots of 'poof's, say 103 worth in the fourth unit of time; maybe just one in the fifth unit of time, etc. No, there's something strange going on here. Either that or maybe you have to assume intelligent, communicating, all-knowing unstable nuclei. Fantasize this conversation as an explanation. Jane: "Hi Clive". Clive: "Hi Jane". Jane: "Look Clive, one of us must go 'poof' now in order to keep this half-life association in sync". Clive: That's okay Jane, I'll go 'poof' - see ya". Jane: "Thanks a bunch!" Of procedure the above conversation is hardly one that whatever could take seriously!
Say you have a bucket filled with 1000 ping pong balls and you pull them out one at a time. Clearly you're not going to end up with whatever resembling the half-life mathematics of radioactive decay. More likely as not, it will be a level transmit equation - one ping pong ball decays (is removed from the bucket) every unit of time, and 1000 units of time later, the bucket will be empty (assuming you don't get tired, in which case it might be slightly more than 1000 time units)!
Anyway, back to our half-life decay of our 1000 atoms of Substance X. At zero time units, we have 1000 radioactive atoms. After one time unit, it's 500 radioactive atoms; after two time units it's 250 radioactive atoms; after three time units it's 125 radioactive atoms; after four time units we have left 62 or 63 radioactive atoms; after five time units it's Either 31 or 32 radioactive atoms; after six time units we have only 15 or 16 unstable atoms left; after seven time units we're down to 7 or 8 radioactive atoms; after eight time units it's a lonely 3 or 4 radioactive atoms; after nine time units it's only 1 or 2 left; after ten time units it's none or one; and after eleven time units, we have 1000 stable atoms and no unstable atoms of our previous Substance X. So, in this case, it's a maximum of eleven time units to 100% stability. It's predictable given the mathematics that if ½ of a radioactive substance decays in a inevitable unit of time, ½ of what's left will ditto decay in the next time unit, and so on.
There is an analogy given to explain this half-life relationship. Fantasize 1000 humans in a (rather large) room. Each human is given a acceptable coin. At the word "flip", each human flips their coin. If it's heads, they leave the room; if it's tails they stay. Obviously, after one flip half the humans leave. Then man says "flip" again, and history repeats. Heads you leave; tails you stay. Of procedure after round two, 750 humans have left the room (decayed). After "flip" round three, 875 humans have left, and so on.
Is this a valid analogy where humans equal radioactive atoms; coin flipping (heads or tails) represents a 'poof' vs. A 'non-poof' and leaving the room is the state of decay? Hardly! Firstly, you could structure that rehearsal such that after the first cull everybody left in the room took a tea break. The rehearsal didn't undertake the second culling - the second 'flip' - until 18 units later (it was a long tea break). Then the remaining 250 broke for lunch, not resuming until a added 38 units of time had elapsed. Of procedure by then it was time for afternoon tea - well you see the association of 50% down and out per unit of time has been shattered well and truly!
Further, in the human rehearsal analogy, there is a 'must' factor absent in normal radioactive decay. In the exercise, you 'must' have a coin; you must' flip it; you 'must' leave the room if you flip heads, etc. The regulation is obvious. What regulates the real radioactive decay isn't obvious.
Radioactivity makes little logical sense. So, what's the hidden or real message or meaning? It seems to me that we have yet Someone else example of how the behavior of the one is in stark incompatibility to the behavior of the many (which, come to think of it, can be for real extrapolated to human populations!). If one atom is part of a group mob, it has to go along with the madding crowd. If the atom is by its lonesome, it can do whatever it damn well pleases - do its own thing in modern lingo. A population of 1000 Substance X atoms entirely decays in a maximum of eleven time units. One Substance X atom any way is subject to no such decay certainty. It might decay in three time units, or last thirty, or three hundred before its 'poof' with destiny. You couldn't make a prediction in advance. It would be risky, even foolish, to stake your life on it doing the 'poof' within eleven time units!
So, what sort of weird process can 'poof' 500 out of 1000 Substance X atoms in one unit of time, yet only be able to sway 250 atoms of the remaining 500 atoms in the next identical time unit? Damned if I know - but I have an idea (see the conclusion/solution)!
The Flip Side: Someone else weird thing, well an prolongation of an already weird thing above, is that if you have 2000 atoms of Substance X, it's now 12 units of time to decay; 4000 atoms represents 13 units of time; 8000 atoms is obviously going to take 14 units of time to reach 100% stability, and so on and so forth. This seems to make some sense - the more the longer. It's easy to think of other examples from everyday life. If you add twice as much sugar to your tea, it takes slightly longer for it to dissolve. If you eat two sandwiches for lunch instead of one, your body will need a bit more time to process it all. If you buy a bigger home, it takes longer to clean it.
But the 'more is longer' isn't universal. Plant one seed and get one plant in one unit of time. Plant two seeds and get two plants in one unit of time. Plant three seeds and get three plants in one unit of time. You get the idea.
And the trend can also control in reverse where 'more is shorter'. Doubling the mass of a star doesn't increase the lifespan of the star, it decreases it. (Ditto humans - put on too much weight and you shorten your odds for a long lifespan.)
Further, most relationships in the everyday world tend to be linear, not exponential - something the half-life association isn't. One liter of petrol equals one unit of energy; two liters of petrol equates to two units of energy, and so on. If a bricklayer can lay ten bricks in one hour, how many can be laid in two hours?
So I'm hard pressed to form out any other half-life phenomena in nature where something changes by 50% in each and every given acceptable unit of time. Of procedure you could get in your car and drive 1 km/hour for one minute; 2 km/hour the next minute; 4 km/hour in the third minute; 8 km/hour during the fourth minute; 16 km/hour five minutes into your drive; 32 km/hour in the sixth little interval; 64 km/hour in the seventh minute; 128 km/hour in the eighth little - but that association soon collapses (either when the car reaches her manufacture limits and/or the cops catch you!), and in any event (like the half-life coin tossing analogy above) is hardly a normal, natural, habit happening - it's rather artificially contrived and pretty meaningless.
There is one case I can think of that mirrors radioactive half-life. Apparently the decrease in luminosity of Type Ia supernovae follows the half-life pattern, but that for real makes sense as the luminosity must drop off over time as the radiant shell expands straight through space at a uniform rate, ever addition its spherical area. That's not a random every-particle-does-its-own-independent-thing like radioactive decay is.
The next closest I can think of is the spread of disease. First one man is ill, and then it doubles, doubles again, and again and again, all in probably near equal increments of time. Of procedure the above two examples are the reverse of the acceptable half-life situation, but maybe it works in reverse. Say 1000 population are ill; the next day half have recovered; the day after that half of those have recovered, etc. But, I for real doubt it works that neatly, if for no other imagine than while some population are getting well, others are getting ill at the same time.
Actually there are some other natural situations that resemble the half-life relationship. Although it doesn't involve time, atmosphere pressure as a function of altitude approximates same. It's only approximate, and as we know, atmosphere pressure varies on the exterior (and above the surface) from hour to hour. Sometimes you have high pressure; sometimes low pressure. The barometer tells the tale.
Another example I've uncovered in the rate of absorption of drugs in the body. I obtain about half the dose gets absorbed in one unit of time, half of that I the second unit, etc. Of procedure rate of absorption depends on a lot of variables - stomach contents, physiology, age, etc. - so it's only an approximate guide.
Finally, here's my windup and solution: Quite apart from the uniqueness (or otherwise - probably otherwise) of the half-life association for reasons suggested above (why unstable atoms going 'poof' at random should succeed such a mathematical relationship), lies the underlying quiz, - what causes the 'poof' in the first place?
Particle or nuclear physicists would have you accept that an unstable (radioactive) nucleus decays into more stable nucleus without any reason; without any cause. First it is unstable; then all of a sudden, at a time undeterminable, it goes 'poof', and it is stable, or at least on the pathway to eventual stability, with alpha, beta and/or gamma radiation given off in the process. Firstly, things don't happen without a cause. That's impossible Imho. Maybe the unstable nucleus got hit with a cosmic ray or a neutrino (there's lots of them around, in fact the bulk of the Universe are neutrinos) which triggered the 'poof' event. But something was the trigger. Secondly, as I've asked before, how could radioactive decay happen to private nuclei without cause, yet collectively all the nuclei decay over time by following a neat and definite and predictable (half-life) mathematical relationship?
I believe there is a prim and proper causality explanation to radioactive decay. I suggested above an impact in the middle of an unstable nucleus and Either a cosmic ray or a neutrino. Of the two, cosmic rays can't lanch very far into the ground, but neutrinos can and do, in fact nearly all neutrinos pass right straight through the Earth itself without the slightest fuss and bother. However, a few neutrinos (because there are so many of them) do run smack into something now and again. Most of the times it's a stable nucleus and nothing happens. Occasionally, it's an unstable nucleus and that impact is adequate to trigger the instability cascade down the slope to stability. So, unstable radioactive nuclei, deep inside the Earth, get whacked by a neutrino and thus decay, generating a lot of Earth's interior heat in the process. Now, I suggest my idea is subject to experimental research and verification - or not. All one needs to do is artificially increase the normal background neutrino rate and see if the half-life of a radioactive element changes! These external influences like neutrinos (maybe cosmic rays), are uniform adequate (everyday normal constant background rates) so that given impact events, if 1000 unstable nuclei go 'poof' after one time unit; the next time unit sees 500 nuclei go 'poof' and so on. So, my neutrino (or rather unlikely a cosmic ray) impact idea explains the half-life phenomena.
By analogy, photograph a roomful of inflated toy balloons. Standing exterior the room, toss dart after dart into the room. At first, you hit lots of balloons; say half of them in one hour's worth of dart tossing. But, as the estimate of inflated balloons go pop (or 'poof') and their numbers decrease, so in the next hour worth of dart tossing, you're not going to hit as many inflated balloons, maybe only half of the half that's left, and in the hour after that even less (another half of the half), until there's one balloon left standing - until a stray dart find that and the room is now stable and free of inflated balloons. It's a half-life relationship. Now substitute a variety of unstable nuclei for the balloons and neutrinos (or maybe cosmic rays) for the darts and there you have it. Causality rules, okay?
If causality doesn't rule, if an unstable nucleus goes 'poof' without any cause, then the group of all such nuclei bound together, with each participant going individually 'poof', each one without cause, would be have to end up being a collectively totally random and variable result, not a mathematically exquisite half-life predictable result. That's not what we observe. So again, I insist causality rules.
Radioactivity: Does It Violate Causality?