Radioactivity - we all heard about it, we think that we understand it, but really? The more I think about it, the whole nature of what we call radioactivity is very mysterious, in fact it makes little sense, but again it is a quantum phenomenon, so perhaps this should not be surprising!
Let me start with two rules of thumb. The first rule of thumb is that unstable configurations become more stable over time. A common example is a pencil balanced on its tip (pointed bit). The specified pencil is unstable, and it will fall, because it will reach a more stable state.
My second rule of thumb is that the exact moment (transition from unstable to sustainable) tends to be unpredictable. In the case of a balancing pencil, it may begin to oscillate in the first 1 / 100th of a second or maybe the last 1/10 of a second, maybe even a second or 10 seconds, or even longer if everything is in order. Another example is that I throw the cosmic bedding and the seeds of the bird seeds on the garden foliage (serving as mulch and extremely fertilizer). Some of my foliage rolls cause some pieces to land on the leaves. I am not worried about this, because I understand that this is an unstable situation. Sooner or later, in addition to my ability to predict, affecting raindrops or gusts of wind, or a mistake, will drive out these bits, and they will reach earth and stability.
Why is radioactivity at all? In general, in general, the balance between a strong nuclear force, trying to hold everything in the atomic nucleus (neutrons and protons) together, and the electrostatic positive charges of those protons that are trying to push things apart. However, everything can reach a state in which an imbalance occurs. Then everything happens. since a strong nuclear force is no longer adequate to keep everything together as one big happy family.
I do not dispute that radioactivity exists, or that radioactive decay is an observable physical process and follows a certain mathematical progression. This is happening - but why?
Mystery Number One — why does what we call radioactive (say, a piece of something I call Substance X) break down or decide when it happens? I mean, here we have an atom of substance X, it is unstable, it will decay into something that is not radioactive and therefore stable. But this unstable atom of substance X exists for the probability of only microseconds before decay, but it can last in an unstable state for a year, a decade, hundreds, thousands, millions or even billions of years, # 39; poof and decay, releasing alpha particles, beta particles or gamma rays in the process. What made this particular moment be “poof”? moment? What was at that exact moment of all those moments that preceded it? There must be causality - physical science is based on the principle of cause and effect. Perhaps there is something in the unstable atom of the nucleus trying to escape, but not possessing the energy to do it, but, finally, succeeding through quantum tunneling, or, perhaps, the atom is accidentally imposed by an unknown form of matter (vol. # 39; sometimes?), causing decay or fall.
Is there anything you could do that would affect the poof & # 39; moments? If this is the case, then sometimes we have a reason handle for the "pouf". Take a piece of substance X (presumably trying to manipulate only one atom of substance X will be technologically difficult), and measure the speed of & nbsp; moments. Say it is one of them. in a minute. Now try to change this indicator. You can take this piece of substance X and shake it, bake, boil, freeze, hammer, grind, blow up TNT, put it in dark or shining lights on it, soak it in acid or otherwise chemically react with it, put it in an intense magnetic field or rotate it around in a centrifuge, shoot into outer space, and you will not change these "puffs", moments one jot. So what causes these totally unpredictable errors? moments? This, of course, is not an everyday, ordinary, physical, or chemical process.
The secret to number two is that radioactive decay marches through to the smallest detail of a mathematical equation known as the half-life equation (half-life is unique to each radioactive substance). It happens. Again, why?
Radioactive decay is measured at half-lives; the time it takes for unstable radioactivity to be present in order to go into a stable state. So, you start with 1000 radioactive atoms. In one unit of time, you have 500 radioactive atoms. After a unit of time, you have 250 radioactive atoms (and 750 stable ones) left. Another time unit brings you up to 125 radioactive atoms. (The following subdivision is interesting - do 62 or 63 atoms leave?) Somehow it is almost as if the atoms somehow have a clock and know when or not to cheat. Let's say that earlier than one unit of time has expired and 500 atoms have disappeared, one atom will somehow think about itself: “Hold on, I must wait for the next period of time now before I can do otherwise I would break the exact mathematical trolley and a half life. " I mean that it is almost as if the unstable (radioactive) atomic nucleus knows when it is Their turn to quit, when they are with a crowd of their peers.
I would think that if you have your 1000 radioactive atoms of substance X, and since they (the atoms) are not mathematicians and cannot calculate, then you expect them to disintegrate - them? - they will not follow the exact mathematical formula. I mean, let's say, the first 500 atoms break up in one unit of time. Doesn't it make sense, so for the second 500 atoms to cheat into the next unit of time? Or, if something truly random and unpredictable, no cause and effect, then 10 atoms can go to the umbilical cord. for one unit of time, then perhaps another 50 in the second block, another 7 in the third block, then a lot of “poof”, say, 103 pieces in the fourth time interval; perhaps only one of the fifth time units, etc. No, there is something strange here. Either this, or maybe you should adopt intelligent, communicating, all-knowing unstable cores. Imagine this conversation as an explanation. Jane: "Hello Clive." Clive: "Hi, Jane." Jane: "Look Clive, one of us must go to keep half life synchronization." Clive: OK, Jane, I will go. - see you. "Jane:" Thank you! "
Say that you have a bucket filled with 1000 ping-pong balls, and you pull them out one at a time. Obviously, you get nothing like the math half-life of radioactive decay. Most likely, it is not, it will be a direct equation: one ping pong ball splits (removed from the bucket) every unit of time and 1000 units of time later, the bucket will be empty (if you don’t get tired, in this case it can be a little over 1000 units time)!
In any case, to our decay, the half-life of our 1000 atoms of substance X. In units of zero time, we have 1000 radioactive atoms. In a unit of time, it is 500 radioactive atoms; after two units of time, it is 250 radioactive atoms; after three units of time, it is 125 radioactive atoms; after four units of time, we left 62 or 63 radioactive atoms; after five units of time, it is either 31 or 32 radioactive atoms; after six units of time, we have only 15 or 16 unstable atoms left; after seven units of time, we reduce to 7 or 8 radioactive atoms; after eight units of time, these are single 3 or 4 radioactive atoms; after nine units of time only 1 or 2 remains; after ten units of time it is neither one nor one; and after eleven units of time we have 1000 stable atoms and the unstable atoms of our former substance X. Thus, in this case, this is a maximum of eleven units of time up to 100% stability. It is predictable, considering the mathematics, that if a radioactive substance decays for a certain unit of time, what is left will disintegrate in the next block of time, etc.
There is an analogy illustrating this link half-life. Imagine 1000 people in a (rather large) room. Each person is given a standard coin. At the word "flip", each person turns over his coin. If it is a head, they leave the room; if so, they remain. Obviously, after half the people leave. Then someone says “flip” again, and the story repeats. Heads go; Tails you stay. Of course, after the second round, 750 people left the room (deviated). After the “flip” round of three, 875 people left, and so on.
Is this a real counterpart when people are equal to radioactive atoms; turning coins (heads or tails) is a “poof” compared to non-poof and leaving the room - is this a state of deception? Barely! First, you could structure this exercise in such a way that after the first culling, which was left in the room, they intercepted the tea break. The exercise did not take over the second culling - the second - - up to 18 units later (it was a long tea break). Then the remaining 250 broke for lunch, and were not resumed until another 38 units of time had elapsed. Of course, by that time, it was time for afternoon tea - well, you can see that the ratio of 50% down and because of a unit of time was destroyed well and truly!
In addition, in the analogy with human exercise, there is "a factor that is absent during normal radioactive decay. In exercise, you must have a coin; you must turn it over; you must? Leave the room if you turn heads, etc. The regulation is obvious. That that regulates real radioactive decay is not obvious.
Radioactivity has little logical meaning. So what is a hidden or real message or meaning? It seems to me that we have another example of how the behavior of one contrasts sharply with the behavior of many (which, having thought about this, can easily be extrapolated to human populations!). If one atom is part of a collective mob, it must go along with a mad mob. If an atom is alone in its solitude, it can do anything, damn it, do your work in modern jargon. The population of 1000 atoms of substance X completely disintegrates a maximum of eleven units of time. One atom X of a substance, although not susceptible to such a specific decomposition. He can decay in three units of time, or the last thirty, or three hundred, before his “navel” with fate. You could not predict in advance. It would be risky, even stupid, to put your life on it by doing a navel. eleven units of time!
So, what a strange process can be a puppy? 500 out of 1000 atoms of substance X per unit of time, but only capable of influencing the 250 atoms of the remaining 500 atoms in the next identical unit of time? Damned if I know, but I have an idea (see Conclusion / Decision)!
Flip-side: Another strange thing, and the extension of the already strange one above, is that if you have 2000 atoms of substance X, then now there are 12 units of time to cheat; 4000 atoms represent 13 units of time; 8000 atoms, obviously, are going to take 14 units of time in order to achieve 100% stability, and so on. D. And so on. This seems to make some sense - the more, the longer. It is easy to think about other examples from everyday life. If you add twice as much sugar to tea, it takes a little longer to dissolve. If you eat two sandwiches for lunch instead of one, your body will need a little more time to process it all. If you buy a larger house, it takes more time to clean it.
But a longer & quot; not universal. Grow one seed and get one plant per unit of time. Grow two seeds and get two plants for one unit of time. Grow three seeds and get three plants per unit of time. You get the idea.
And this trend can also work in the opposite direction, where shorter. Doubling the mass of a star does not increase the lifespan of a star, it reduces it. (Accurately people - gain too much weight, and you reduce your chances for a long service life.)
In addition, most relationships in the everyday world tend to be linear rather than exponential - something like a half-life. One liter of gasoline equals one unit of energy; two liters of gasoline equals two units of energy, etc. If a bricklayer can lay ten bricks in one hour, how much can you put in two hours?
Therefore, it is difficult for me to find any other half-life phenomena in nature, where something changes by 50% in each given standard unit of time. Of course, you can get into your car and drive 1 km / hour for one minute; 2 km / h the next minute; 4 km / h in the third minute; 8 km / h for the fourth minute; 16 km / h five minutes in your car; 32 km / h in the sixth minute; 64 km / h in the seventh minute; 128 km / h in the eighth minute - but this connection is soon collapsing (or when the car reaches its design restrictions, and / or the police catch you!) And in any case (for example, the analogue of half-life, throwing the analogy above) is very normal, natural , a routine incident is rather artificially invented and rather meaningless.
There is one case where I can think about the mirrors of radioactive half-life. Similarly, the brightness reduction of type IA supernovae follows the half-life, but it really makes sense, since the luminosity must decrease with time, as the radiant envelope expands in space with the same speed, constantly increasing its spherical area. It is not an accidental each of the particles, which in itself is like radioactive decay.
The next closest I can think of is the spread of the disease. First one patient, and then he doubles, doubles again and again, and all are probably almost equal increments of time. Of course, the above two examples are the opposite of the standard half-life situation, but perhaps it works the other way around. Say that 1000 people are sick; the next day, half recovered; the day after half of them recovered, etc. But I really doubt that it works neatly, if only for some other reason, while some people get better, others get sick at the same time.
In fact, there are several other natural situations that resemble a half-life relationship. Although this is not related to time, atmospheric pressure as a function of altitude approaches the same. This is only approximate and, as we know, the change in atmospheric pressure on the surface (and above the surface) from hour to hour. Sometimes you have high blood pressure; sometimes low pressure. Barometer tells the story.
Another example that I found in the rate of absorption of drugs in the body. I collect about half of the dose that is absorbed per unit of time, half of this second block, etc. D. Of course, the rate of absorption depends on many variables - the contents of the stomach, physiology, age, etc. - so; s is an approximate guide.
Finally, here is my conclusion and decision: completely irrespective of the uniqueness (or otherwise, perhaps the other way around) the half-life relationship for the reasons suggested above (why unstable atoms going to a random state must follow this mathematical relationship) is the fundamental question - what causes a navel? Firstly?
Particle physicists or nuclear physicists would agree that an unstable (radioactive) nucleus splits into a more stable nucleus for no reason; without any reason. At first it is unstable; then suddenly, at a time when it is indefinable, it becomes “poof” and is stable or, at least, on the road to temporary stability with alpha, beta and / or gamma radiation emitted to process. First, everything does not happen without a reason. This is impossible IMHO. Perhaps the unstable nucleus fell with a cosmic ray or neutrino (there are a lot of them around, in fact, the main part of the Universe is a neutrino), which caused the event. But something was a trigger mechanism. Secondly, as I asked, How can a radioactive cessation occur with individual nuclei for no reason, but all together all nuclei decay with time, following an accurate and accurate and predictable (half-life) mathematical relationship?
I believe that in radioactive decay there is a primitive and correct explanation of causality. I suggested the effect above between an unstable nucleus or a cosmic ray or neutrino. Of the two cosmic rays can not penetrate very far into the earth, but neutrinos can and do, in fact, almost all neutrinos pass directly through the Earth without the slightest fuss and anxiety. Тем не менее, несколько нейтрино (потому что их так много) действительно время от времени врезаются в что-то. В большинстве случаев это стабильное ядро, и ничего не происходит. По-видимому, это неустойчивое ядро, и этого воздействия достаточно, чтобы вызвать каскад неустойчивости вниз по склону до стабильности. Таким образом, неустойчивые радиоактивные ядра, находящиеся глубоко внутри Земли, раскалываются нейтрино, а затем декабрь, создавая в нем много тепла внутри Земли. Теперь я предлагаю, чтобы моя идея подвергалась экспериментальным исследованиям и проверке - или нет. Все, что нужно сделать, это искусственно увеличить нормальную фононную скорость нейтрино и посмотреть, меняется ли период полураспада элемента радиоэлемента! Эти внешние воздействия, такие как нейтрино (возможно, космические лучи), являются достаточно однородными (обычными нормальными постоянными фоновыми скоростями), так что данные воздействия влияют на события, если 1000 нестабильных ядер идут через единицу времени; в следующий раз блок видит 500 ядер go''poof & и так далее. Таким образом, идея нейтрали (или, скорее, неосознанно космического луча) объясняет явления полужизни.
По аналогии, изобразите комнату раздутых игрушечных шаров. Стоя вне комнаты, бросьте дротик после дротика в комнату. Сначала вы нажимаете много воздушных шаров; скажем, половину из них за один час бросать дротик. Но, поскольку количество раздутых воздушных шаров идет поп (или их количество), и их количество уменьшается, поэтому в следующий час стоит бросать дротик, вы не собираетесь ударять столько раздутых воздушных шаров, может быть, только половина половины, оставшаяся, и через час после этого еще меньше (другая половина половины), пока один воздушный шар не останется стоять - пока бродячий дарт не найдет, и комната теперь стабильный и свободный от надутых воздушных шаров. Это отношения полураспада. Теперь замените коллекцию неустойчивых ядер для воздушных шаров и нейтрино (или, возможно, космических лучей) для дартс, и там у вас это есть. Правила причинности, хорошо?
Если причинность не является правилом, если неустойчивое ядро уходит, без всякой причины, тогда коллектив всех таких ядер, связанных друг с другом, каждый участник, идущий индивидуально, каждый без причины, должен был бы стать коллективно полностью случайным и переменным результатом, а не математически идеальный полужизни предсказуемый результат. Это не то, что мы наблюдаем. Поэтому снова я настаиваю на правилах причинности.
