Why didn't radioactive decay probabilities cause the same uproar as QM

In summary: The thing that is random is the lifetime of any particular radioactive atom or molecule. The decay follows a "distribution", which is an overall pattern, but it doesn't tell you at which particular time a particular atom will decay. It...
  • #36
Lord Jestocost said:
It means: You cannot trace back along a causal chain in space and time why a true random individual event has occurred at a certain space-time coordination.

And that's not really true for RD or QM. Not being able to account for is why it happens at a particular point in time is different from why it happens at all.
 
  • Skeptical
Likes weirdoguy
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
Nugatory said:
- the probability of it decaying at any given moment is the same for all moments.

That's a pattern. If something always has a 50% probability of failure, then that is a pattern.
 
  • Skeptical
Likes weirdoguy
  • #38
A random physical process to me is: the absence of everything followed by a quantum fluctuation state, with all the parameters involved in generating a universe, followed by a generated universe.

The first chain is completely unaccounted for.
 
  • Skeptical
Likes weirdoguy
  • #39
An ever existing quantum fluctuation state generating universes in the same fashion as radioactive nucleis decaying is not random to me, however. We have a source at least.

The devil is in the details.
 
  • Skeptical
Likes weirdoguy
  • #40
BruteForce1 said:
An ever existing quantum fluctuation state generating universes in the same fashion as radioactive nucleis decaying is not random to me, however. We have a source at least.

The devil is in the details.
Either I'm not seeing some posts or you're debating with yourself here.
 
  • Like
Likes weirdoguy
  • #41
PeroK said:
Either I'm not seeing some posts or you're debating with yourself here.

I'm fleshing out my line of thinking out. If we have a source, how can it be random? It is a perfect of example of devil in the details.

I also gave an example of what would be a sourceless phenomenon.
 
  • #42
Lord Jestocost said:
It means: You cannot trace back along a causal chain in space and time why a true random individual event has occurred at a certain space-time coordination.
This is the case for radioactive decay. At least today there's no known way to know, when a nucleus precisely decays or why a nucleus has decayed at precisely that point in time at this place. It just happens randomly. All we have is a very precise theory predicting the probability for its decay, the Standard Model.
 
  • #43
vanhees71 said:
This is the case for radioactive decay. At least today there's no known way to know, when a nucleus precisely decays or why a nucleus has decayed at precisely that point in time at this place. It just happens randomly. All we have is a very precise theory predicting the probability for its decay, the Standard Model.

You know it has something to do with the radioactive nucleus, though. It is the most reasonable inference. If your technology breaks down but you can't trace to why it broke down, and why at that point, that doesn't mean it was a random event. Or do you think it was?
 
  • #44
Of course, there's no reasonable doubt that the radioactive decay is the decay of a radioactive nucleus. If I have some Radium nucleus, I know it will at some time randomly emit an ##\alpha## particle (He nucleus) with a half-life of about 1600 years. I.e., investigating a large number of Ra nuclei after 1600 years I have about only half of them left. When a specific Ra nucleus decays, we cannot predict.
 
  • #45
vanhees71 said:
Of course, there's no reasonable doubt that the radioactive decay is the decay of a radioactive nucleus. If I have some Radium nucleus, I know it will at some time randomly emit an ##\alpha## particle (He nucleus) with a half-life of about 1600 years. I.e., investigating a large number of Ra nuclei after 1600 years I have about only half of them left. When a specific Ra nucleus decays, we cannot predict.

And external factors like climate have no bearing on it? I'm trying to think of it like fail rates in technology. We know why some batteries fail earlier than others (storage, heating, etc).

same with genetic mutation.
 
  • #46
Have I understood the mathematical principle correctly here...If you have a lot of radioactive nucleus and you know anyone of them can go off at anytime, probability of a decay is higher since you have more of them?

One of them will go off T-2, another T-10, another T-30, etc and the more you have, the more T-decays scenarios you have made possible?There is nothing more to it than this, right?
 
  • #47
vanhees71 said:
Of course, there's no reasonable doubt that the radioactive decay is the decay of a radioactive nucleus. If I have some Radium nucleus, I know it will at some time randomly emit an ##\alpha## particle (He nucleus) with a half-life of about 1600 years. I.e., investigating a large number of Ra nuclei after 1600 years I have about only half of them left. When a specific Ra nucleus decays, we cannot predict.
Were there experiments that repeatedly prepared single radioactive atoms and waited until they decayed?
 
  • #48
BruteForce1 said:
And external factors like climate have no bearing on it? I'm trying to think of it like fail rates in technology. We know why some batteries fail earlier than others (storage, heating, etc).

same with genetic mutation.
It's very difficult to affect nuclear properties like decay rates due to the typical energy scales involved (MeV rather than eV in atomic physics). The only exception are cases like bound ##\beta## decays, where it can make a huge difference whether you look at the atom or the completely ionized bare nucleus, where due to the Pauli effect the ##\beta## decay is pretty well blocked, and the half-life between the atom and the bare nucleus differs by several orders of magnitude:

https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.77.5190
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Likes DarMM, weirdoguy and A. Neumaier
  • #49
A. Neumaier said:
Were there experiments that repeatedly prepared single radioactive atoms and waited until they decayed?
I'd consider the investigations in storage rings as examples for this. This is a pretty interesting field, also for precision measurements. One fascinating example is the GSI storage-ring result on Rhenium bound ##\beta## decay quoted above. Then there was also a high-precision test for time dilation of the life-time of moving unstable nuclei (at moderate speeds of about ##\beta=1/3##), of course confirming the Lorentz ##\gamma## factor result of Special Relativity.
 
  • Like
Likes mfb
  • #50
vanhees71 said:
I'd consider the investigations in storage rings as examples for this. This is a pretty interesting field, also for precision measurements. One fascinating example is the GSI storage-ring result on Rhenium bound ##\beta## decay quoted above.
In these experiments a large number of radioactive atoms are prepared simultaneously and only the number of decay product atoms counted; one does not know which atom decayed when. Thus this is not what I meant.

My question was whether a single radioactive atom prepared on a surface or an ion trap can be observed to decay.
 
  • #51
This thread has run its course. Time to close.
 

Similar threads

  • Quantum Physics
Replies
4
Views
829
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
895
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • Quantum Physics
5
Replies
143
Views
6K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • Quantum Physics
2
Replies
43
Views
6K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
25
Views
11K
Back
Top