I’ll supply an instance of an anomaly that has always bothered me – radioactive decay and the ensuing half-existence dating. Your undertaking, if you make a decision to just accept it is to give an explanation for radioactive decay and the ensuing half of-existence courting to me. Don’t inform me what takes place – that I recognize. Tell me why it takes place whilst it takes place. Tell me why unstable nuclei cross poof completely at random, WITHOUT causality, yet shape a precise mathematical courting. Why?


You’re aware of the concept of radioactive decay and the half-existence dating that is taught in junior excessive college. Now radioactive nuclei will decay, cross poof, totally at random, in line with the textbooks. Radioactive or volatile nuclei will decay without any causality connected to the occasion, consistent with the textbooks. Now, you tell me how inanimate objects, volatile nuclei, can pass poof totally at random with none obvious causality but obtain a precise mathematical relationship – the half-lifestyles. It makes no sense. It’s near as if a volatile nucleus “is aware of” or is conscious whilst it’s miles its flip to head poof with a purpose to keep the half-lifestyles relationship. We realize it takes place, however why it takes place is an explanation dwelling someplace in “The Twilight Zone”.

Regarding radioactive decay, people frequently make one HUGE error. They say my obvious anomaly changed into as a result of fluctuations within the quantum vacuum. Please note the phrase used – “triggered”. Anyone who says this is guessing. Physicists don’t know that. The textbooks without a doubt country that with respect to radioactive decay there’s NO causality! It just happens for NO reason at all. So don’t argue with me on that – argue with the physicists! If you are saying radioactive decay is deterministic – just pronouncing that is the smooth component – and I’d want to agree, but what exactly determines it?

Now I suspect human beings is probably perplexing quantum fluctuations with quantum tunneling. Now the ‘what’ behind radioactive decay – well particularly the emission of alpha debris (helium nuclei) – is from time to time referred to as quantum tunnelling, but the ‘why’ in the back of quantum tunnelling isn’t of direction unique or explained either so Panpsychism* is as correct an evidence as any. But quantum tunneling isn’t the equal element as quantum fluctuations and that they charge distinctive entries in any textbook index or word list. Quantum tunneling is inner to the nucleus and so governs the decay or the poof. Quantum fluctuations are outside to the nucleus and thus haven’t any effect on what occurs internally. Nothing physical/chemical it truly is external to a risky nucleus will have the slightest impact on while it goes, poof.

But if quantum tunneling is what happens (leaving out the why and the how for the moment), then why (there may be that rattling word again) would not quantum tunneling take place in strong nuclei? That’s one rule for one; one rule for the other. That would not make a superb deal of feel because a nucleus, strong or unstable, is only a collection of protons and neutrons. There doesn’t seem to be any greater ‘something’ in a volatile nucleus that initiates quantum tunneling. Of route one may want to outline a risky nucleus as one in which there might be quantum tunneling and a stable nucleus in which there might not be quantum tunneling, however, this is only a definition, not an explanation.

I ought to repeat that on the subject of radioactive decay, there’s NO causality. Standard textbooks will inform you what takes place and how that results in a 1/2-existence and then there might be several paragraphs about how useful that is in archaeological and many others. Dating. You will NOT find any mention of quantum fluctuations, the Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics, non-locality, or any other try at explaining “why”. It could be smooth to mention, if it were honestly the case, that a cosmic ray or a neutrino or a rogue electron, and many others. Slammed into the risky nucleus and set it off on its course to destruction. But lamentably, it’s no longer what the physics texts say either.

As pointed out above, there may be no recognized bodily or chemical system acknowledged so one can force an unstable nucleus to go, poof if it does not need to. You can’t hurry matters up, nor are you able to retard the procedure. Sorry, it’s the way its miles – consistent with the textbooks. One actually should explain how you could take truly same volatile nuclei and vicinity them inside a digital Planck Length of every other such that they’re in the specific same environment. One might pass poof inside a minute – the twin might stick around for one billion years. Ah yes, you say, however, take humans and area them facet by facet. One would possibly have a heart attack instant and the other will now not have a coronary heart attack ever. Except, however, that analogy wouldn’t prove to be the case if both people have been in reality identical right down to the location of their ultimate electron.

However, let us for the moment just be given a proof of quantum fluctuations as being the motive of radioactive decay – alpha, beta and gamma radiation. That rationalization solves not anything. Even if quantum fluctuations have been answerable for radioactive decay it nonetheless fails to give an explanation for how a RANDOM quantum fluctuation manner can bring about a PRECISE mathematical relationship. And if quantum fluctuations are not random but are omnipresent all the time 24/7/fifty two, then you definitely expect all risky nuclei to go poof simultaneously. The upshot of that is there nonetheless will no resultant unique mathematical relationship, the 1/2-life.

The query also wishes to be requested, precisely how nicely have half-lives been tested? Given that people have most effective recognized approximately the idea for roughly ten decades or so (provide or take), nicely extraordinarily quick 1/2-lives relative to the human cognizance of the concept is one factor, but something within the hundreds to hundreds of thousands to billions of years stay in speculative limbo.

To illustrate how nutty this all is, we realize that there’s radioactive carbon (C-14) and it’s miles continuously being synthetic. Now let us imagine that for some reason C-14 had been to quit being synthetic, and for that reason, the overall deliver on Earth could now start to reduce thru radioactive decay. Let’s say for sake of argument that there are 1,000,000 C-14 nuclei on Earth. Okay, so the unstable nuclei of C-14 decay away at random. At a few points in time on down the track, 500,000 C-14 nuclei may have long past poof. You might name that elapsed time the half-life of C-14. Now the query is, for the reason that 500,000 C-14 nuclei that are left will keep to decay at random, is it greater logical to suppose that the remainder will pass poof in more or less the same time body because of the first 500,000 nuclei, or that most effective 250,000 will decay in that time body? If handiest 250,000 pass poof, doesn’t that recommend some non-random precept at work, like say recognition on the part of the nuclei (Panpsychism) or a pre-programmed (software program) state of affairs?

However, now rewind the clock back to the point in which C-14 stops being produced and do the state of affairs another time. Because of the random nature of the decay, you may get a barely one of a kind half-existence. Go returned and start all over again and you will get but another cost. Rewind time and again and you will never get the exact identical half-lifestyles price. The values might be within the same ballpark perhaps, however, nonetheless you’ll become with differing ratings, results, consequences, and many others.