Radioactivity: What Causes It?
Radioactivity: What Causes It?
Radioactivity: What Causes It?
Radioactivity we've all heard about it, we think we understand it, but do we really? The more I think about it, the entire nature of what we call radioactivity is highly mysterious, in fact it makes little sense but then again it's a quantum phenomena, so perhaps 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 become 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 moment 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 everything is just right. Another example is that I toss used kitty litter and bird seed husks on the garden foliage (serving as mulch and ultimately 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 ultimately they will reach the ground and stability.
Why radioactivity at all? Overall, there is, in general, a balance between the strong nuclear force trying to hold everything in an atomic nucleus (neutrons and protons) together, and the electrostatic positive charges of those protons trying to push things apart. However, things can reach a state where an imbalance happens. Then things eventually go poof' as the strong nuclear force is no longer adequate to keep everything 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 Number 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 eventually into something that's not radioactive and hence something that is stable. But, this unstable Substance X atom exists for perhaps 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 moment to be the poof' moment? What was different at that exact moment from all those moments that preceded it? There must be causality physical science is founded on the principal of cause and effect. Perhaps there is something in the unstable atom's nucleus trying to escape but lacking the energy to do so, but perhaps finally succeeding via quantum 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 anything you could do that would affect poof' moments? If so, then perhaps we have a handle 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 measure 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 around 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 surely not an everyday, common, physical or chemical process.
Mystery Number 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 of the unstable radioactivity present 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 interesting next unit will 62 or 63 atoms go poof'?) Somehow it's almost 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 precise mathematical half-life apple cart!" I mean it's almost 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 thought that if you have your 1000 radioactive Substance X atoms and since they (the atoms) aren't mathematicians and can't calculate then you'd expect their decay their poof' they would not follow a precise 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 perhaps another 50 in the second unit, another 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. Imagine 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 relationship in sync". Clive: That's okay Jane, I'll go poof' see ya". Jane: "Thanks a bunch!" Of course the above conversation is hardly one that anyone 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 anything resembling the half-life mathematics of radioactive decay. More likely as not, it will be a straight forward 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 former 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 of a radioactive substance decays in a certain unit of time, of what's left will ditto decay in the next time unit, and so on.
There is an analogy given to illustrate this half-life relationship. Imagine 1000 humans in a (rather large) room. Each human is given a standard 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 someone says "flip" again, and history repeats. Heads you leave; tails you stay. Of course 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 exercise such that after the first cull everyone left in the room took a tea break. The exercise 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 further 38 units of time had elapsed. Of course by then it was time for afternoon tea well you see the relationship of 50% down and out per unit of time has been shattered well and truly!
Further, in the human exercise 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 another example of how the behavior of the one is in stark contrast to the behavior of the many (which, come to think of it, can be easily extrapolated to human populations!). If one atom is part of a collective 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 however 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 affect 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: Another weird thing, well an extension 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 operate 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 relationship 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 figure out any other half-life phenomena in nature where something changes by 50% in each and every given standard unit of time. Of course 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 minute interval; 64 km/hour in the seventh minute; 128 km/hour in the eighth minute but that relationship soon collapses (either when the car reaches her design limits and/or the cops catch you!), and in any event (like the half-life coin tossing analogy above) is hardly a normal, natural, routine 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 actually makes sense as the luminosity must drop off over time as the radiant shell expands through space at a uniform rate, ever increasing 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 person is ill, and then it doubles, doubles again, and again and again, all in probably near equal increments of time. Of course the above two examples are the reverse of the standard half-life situation, but maybe it works in reverse. Say 1000 people are ill; the next day half have recovered; the day after that half of those have recovered, etc. But, I really doubt it works that neatly, if for no other reason than while some people are getting well, others are getting ill at the same time.
Actually there are several 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 surface (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 gather about half the dose gets absorbed in one unit of time, half of that I the second unit, etc. Of course 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 conclusion and solution: Quite apart from the uniqueness (or otherwise probably otherwise) of the half-life relationship for reasons suggested above (why unstable atoms going poof' at random should follow such a mathematical relationship), lies the fundamental question 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 individual nuclei without cause, yet collectively all the nuclei decay over time by following a neat and precise and predictable (half-life) mathematical relationship?
I believe there is a prim and proper causality explanation to radioactive decay. I suggested above an impact between an unstable nucleus and either a cosmic ray or a neutrino. Of the two, cosmic rays can't penetrate very far into the ground, but neutrinos can and do, in fact nearly all neutrinos pass right 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 enough 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 enough (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, picture a roomful of inflated toy balloons. Standing outside 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 number 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 collection 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 collective 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 perfect half-life predictable result. That's not what we observe. So again, I insist causality rules.
Vehicle Insurance Plan: The Safety for Your Life Just Plan It Business Shopping guide TANDBERG150 MXP video communication systems - Radio and TV Industry Regulated health safety procedures required for effective plumbing Plan General Insurance: Plan the Mission of Safety Tree Removal – Safety And Security Of Your Home And Family Reliance Motor Insurance: The ABCs of Safety Bought more than a year in the microwave frequency problem - the United States, and microwave ovens Make data encryption safe and sound with an Electronic signature Shed All the Worries - Use Digital Signatures to Authenticate the Message in an Electronic Highway Medicine & Health Products to prove safety of marketing the three way - health products - pharma NASCAR Tickets – Kyle Busch Heats up NASCAR Circuits in May Designing Medical Devices for Patient Safety - Webinar By ComplianceOnline Coast To Coast AM Radio Program About Ancient Wisdom, Modern Science, Reality, And The True Nature Of Things!