The Many Lives Of Radioactive Nuclei

When you study radioactivity in high school or anything that relates to radioactive dating, you’re drilled in the fact that any and every radioactive (unstable) nuclei decay at a fixed mathematical rate called the half-life. Each ‘brand’ of nuclei has its own half-life that’s applicable or unique to those particular nuclei. What’s probably not drilled into you is that unstable nuclei decay for no reason at all and that tends to make a bit of a hash of the half-life relationship which in turn can’t be explained. Something is screwy somewhere.

Is there a relationship between causality and radioactive decay and the precise pattern to that decay? Why is this important or interesting? Because, at least in IMHO, there’s something screwy somewhere between the three that needs resolution. Radioactivity – exactly when something decays, in this case unstable (i.e. – radioactive) nuclei, is totally random. There is no rhyme or reason for the when. There is no cause according to quantum or particle physicists; therefore there should be no pattern according to me. If, contrary to scientific opinion, cause and effect operate at the quantum level (the micro realm where unstable nuclei go poof) then there are plausible mechanisms, again according to me*, that could account for a pattern – the half-life pattern – which is what we observe. So there’s a conflict here, or as I have stated, there’s something screwy somewhere. 

The central theme here is why do unstable nuclei decay according to a precise mathematical relationship termed the half-life? There are potentially dozens of other precise mathematical possibilities, and a near infinite ones if you abandon any mathematical symmetry altogether. Let’s explore a few of those.

For the sake of what follows, let’s assume a barrel full of 1000 marbles. Each marble represents one of the 1000 identical unstable radioactive nuclei ‘marbles’ or atomic ‘marbles’ that sooner or later will go poof and decay giving off, radioactivity – Alpha, Beta and/or Gamma Rays. The barrel is just to keep all of them in place – say like a 1000 atom lump of uranium. The decay or the poof will originate when someone removes a marble or the marble from the barrel.

Now how many ways can one remove marbles from the barrel – how many ways can unstable radioactive nuclei be made to decay.

For the standard half-life relationship to hold, you are restricted to pulling out half of the marbles that are in the barrel per fixed unit of time. You remove one half of the original lot of 1000 marbles per unit of time; then one half of the remaining 500 marbles per unit of time; then one half of the remaining 250 marbles per unit of time; then one half of the remaining 125 marbles, and so on and so forth – 62, 31, 16, 8, 4, 2, 1 and finally all 1000 marbles have been removed and there is no more instability left. All the 1000 radioactive atoms have now gone poof and decayed. You can plot that on a graph and get a nice pattern. That’s what’s in the textbooks.

Since the half-life works on an ever diminishing scale, one-half of the original, then one-half of what remains, then one-half of what remains after that, and so on, why that and why not other possible but similar relationships?

What about three-quarter lives? If you start with 1000 unstable marbles, after one unit of time you decay 750, leaving 250. Three-quarters of 250 is 188 that bite the dust after another identical interval of time leaving 62 to go. Three-quarters of 62 is 46 more who have decayed. That just leaves 16 radioactive marbles in the barrel. 12 of them go poof in the next time interval, leaving a bare quartet. One more time interval sees just one lone radioactive marble left, which of course will give up the ghost in the next (and final) time interval. 

Now what about two-third lives? If you start with 1000 unstable marbles, after one unit of time you decay 667, leaving 333. Two-thirds of 333 are 222 that bite the dust after another identical interval of time leaving 111 to go. Two-thirds of 111 are 74 more who have decayed. That just leaves 37 radioactive marbles in the barrel. 25 of those go poof in the next time interval, leaving a bare 12. One more time interval sees just four lone radioactive marbles left, three of which of course will give up the ghost in the next to last round, the lone and final survivor going down the gurgler in that next (and final) time interval. 

For another example, why a one-half life relationship in favour of an ongoing diminishing reciprocal to the above one-third relationship? Remove one-third of the 1000 marbles leaves 667. One-third now removed from those 667 leaves behind 445 ‘radioactive’ marbles. Remove one-third of those 445 marbles and you’re left with 297. One-third taken away from 297 leaves 198, then 132, then 88, then 59, then 39, then 26, then 17, then 11, then 7, then 5, then 3, then 2, then one is left which goes poof at that last pick of the draw; in that final unit of uniform time.

In a similar sort of exercise to a third-life, you can substitute the standard half-life for a quarter-life (1000, 750, 562, 421, 316, etc.) or a half-life for a fifth-life (1000, 800, 640, 512, 410, etc.).

Another variation on the theme might revolve around why does not Mother Nature decide, per fixed unit of time, on one-half of the original then one-third of the remaining then one-quarter of what remains after that, hence one-fifth, one-sixth, etc. In our 1000 marble in the barrel analogy, that’s one-half of the 1000 removed or 500 left, then one-third removed of the 500 or 333 remain, then one-quarter removed of the remaining 333 leaves 250 remaining, then one-fifth removal of the 250 leaves 200 remaining, then remove one-sixth of the 200 leaves 167, and so on down the diminishing line.

Or what about an inverse square relationship which is a common relationship in physics. So the diminishing relationship is one quarter, followed by one ninth of what remains, followed by one sixteenth of that, followed by one twenty-fifth, followed by one thirty-sixth, etc.  That is, start with 1000 marbles, then removing one quarter of those 1000 leaves 750, then removing one ninth of those 750 leaves 667, and removing one sixteenth of those 667 leaves 625, then removing one twenty-fifth of those 625 leaves 600, then removing one thirty-sixth of those 600 leaves 583, and so on. Why didn’t Mother Nature opt for that mathematical relationship for radioactive decay?

Now consider the near infinite number of alternatives or possibilities.

You could grab out all 1000 marbles in one fell swoop.

You could equally grab out 500, catch your breath, then grab out 500 more.

You could pull out 1 or 2 or 5 or 10, etc. marbles per unit of time. From say the initial 1000, pull out 25 each grab: 1000, 975, 950, 925, 900, 875, etc. Or, one could pull out any random number of marbles every 25 seconds.

You could pull out 1, then 2 then 3 then 4 then 5, etc. per unit of time. Starting with 1000, you’d have 1000, 999, 997, 994; 900; 985; 979; 972, etc. Or, pull out 1, then 2 then 4 then 8 then 16 then 32 then 64, etc. doubling each time. Or 1, then 4, then 9, then 16, then 25, then 36 more, then 47 more, then 64 more, then 81 more, then 100 more, etc., the squares of 1, 2, 3, etc. Or there’s the cubes of 1, 2 3, etc. – 1, 8, 27, 64, 125 and so on until all the marbles have been grabbed. Another relationship could be pulling out 1, then 2 more, then 3 more, then 5 more, then 8 more, then 13 more, then 21 more, then grab another 34, then another 55, etc. where what you grab out is the sum of the previous two grabs. Then there are the primes – grab 1, then 2 then 3 then 5 then 7 then 11 then 13 then 17, etc. There’s no end to the possible mathematically related sequences that have nothing to do with a half-life. 

If radioactive nuclei go poof for absolutely no reason at all – there’s no cause for the effect – as scientists claim**, then all radioactive nuclei decay should be absolutely random. It just so happens that mathematically the most probable way is a totally random way, a totally random selection of marbles from the barrel since there are way more ways of doing something (removing marbles from the barrel) randomly than doing something by the mathematical book – engineering some precise mathematical relationship that one can put down in equation form and graph as a symmetrical line or curve.

Take say two decks of cards, each numbered 1 to 52 and each shuffled well – then each shuffled again. A randomly chosen card from Deck A decides the number of marbles to be removed; a randomly chosen card from Deck B decides the time before you remove them. Picked cards are re-entered back into their respective decks and the decks shuffled again.

Now this is just a convenient-sized quasi-random number generator one can apply to our 1000 ‘radioactive’ marble sample. In reality, the first ‘deck of cards’ would have to represent every possible positive whole number, and the second time generator ‘deck of cards’ every possible increment of the smallest possible time unit – the Planck unit of time – in which anything meaningful can take place, like a nucleus decaying and going  poof.  Both random number generating ‘decks’ together then can deal with every radioactive nucleus that ever was and is in the entire cosmos.

Meantime, back to the 1000 marbles in the barrel and the two finite shuffled deck of cards from which numbers of marbles and time frames are picked randomly. I think you’d agree that if you followed the logic of picking and removing the number of marbles from the barrel based on a random shuffling of one deck of cards and doing so at time intervals based on the random shuffling of a second deck of cards, you are unlikely in the extreme to end up with the standard half-life relationship. Something is indeed screwy somewhere.

In conclusion, if you buy say a 24-can case of beer, there will come a point in time when half the contents (12 cans) have been consumed. But you couldn’t call that time interval the half-life of that case of beer since there is no reason to assume that the next six cans (half of the remaining 12 cans) will be consumed in the next identical time interval and the next three cans in an identical time interval following that. The same argument applies to radioactive (unstable) nuclei. The fact that the half-life relationship exists and has been verified in defiance of all that is logical given the lack of causality is suggestive evidence IMHO for the reality of, our reality being; the Simulated (Virtual Reality) Universe scenario. It’s all just software programming done from a higher reality. 

* In the nanosecond that separates no decay from decay, something must of happened IMHO to trigger the decay event. I’ve gone on record elsewhere that a plausible mechanism might be neutrinos slam-banging into unstable nuclei, the impact being the tipping point that triggers the decay event.

**Scientists probably conclude that because nothing they do to radioactive nuclei, either chemically or physically makes any difference to the poof rate of that specific type of unstable nuclei. You can hammer them, boil them in oil, piss on them, feed them to bacteria, give them the evil eye, soak them in Holy Water, oxygenate then, play heavy metal music to them, shine a laser beam on them, freeze them, put them in a vacuum, and for all the good those things do, nothing changes. 

Further Reading:

Malley, Marjorie C.; Radioactivity: A History of A Mysterious Science; Oxford University Press, Oxford; 2011:



Those Oops In Physics: Part Two

Some physical scientists – professional skeptics – are quick to jump on what in their opinion are the flaws inherent in what they term pseudoscience or the paranormal. Perhaps they should gaze at their own navels first before criticizing others, as the following hopefully points out.

Continued now from yesterday’s blog…

Oops in Causality     

Causality (the future is contained in the past), cause-and-effect, has to operate across the board if Mother Nature is to be predictable, and prediction and predictability is at the heart of what makes science, science. Yet, some scientists insist some phenomena have no causality. Lack of causality implies that what happens is the result of some sort of ‘free will’ (or variations thereof) which is absurd. That would imply that an electron or a radioactive uranium atom has an independent ‘mind’ of its own. Lack of causality alone in IMHO is nearly sufficient evidence to justify the hypothesis that we are ‘living’ in a simulated (virtual reality) universe.

# Big Bang: Apparently the creation of the Universe (the Big Bang event) happened for absolutely no rhyme or reason at all. That means there was no first cause attributable for the effect that was Big Bang event. Does that strike anyone besides me as odd, as in absolutely impossible?

# Radioactivity: That two identical radioactive (unstable) nuclei will decay (go poof) at different times despite both being in the same place, in the same environment, at the same time. That’s therefore because of the ‘fact’ that an unstable radioactive nucleus will go poof for absolutely no reason at all. If there is no causality behind radioactive decay, then obviously any two identical radioactive nuclei can go poof in a totally random way. But random events shouldn’t result in a precise mathematical relationship, which is what is claimed by observation – the concept of the half-life.

# Electrons: That an electron will drop to a lower energy level by emitting a photon for absolutely no reason at all is strange given that an electron will jump to a higher energy level by absorbing a photon’s worth of energy. There’s no causality in the downward direction; there’s causality in the upwards direction. That’s nuts!  

# Pane in the Glass:  You have one light source. You have one normal everyday clear and clean pane of glass. Some of the light (photons) from the light source will pass clear through the clear glass, but some of those identical photons will reflect off the clear surface of the pane of glass. One set of circumstances yields two differing but simultaneous outcomes. That violates cause-and-effect. That’s crazy, but it happens as you can verify for yourself. 

Oops in Probability     

# Electric Charge: The electric charge of the proton is exactly equal and opposite to the electric charge on the electron, despite the proton being nearly 2000 times more massive. There’s no set in concrete theoretical reason why this should be so.

# Fine Tuning: In fact, you tend to a violation in probability when it comes to numerous examples of fine-tuning – the fine-tuning that allows the Universe to be bio-friendly. For example, if the force of gravity were slightly stronger, the Universe would have re-collapsed into a Big Crunch rather quickly, and thus there would have been no time allowed for life to form and evolve. If the force of gravity had been slightly weaker stars and galaxies wouldn’t have formed. No stars and galaxies: thus, again, a lifeless Universe.       

Oops in Theory vs. Observation

# Matter & Antimatter: Theory predicts there should be equal amounts of matter and antimatter in the Universe. Observation shows that there is a massive predominance of matter over antimatter. Something is screwy somewhere.

# Vacuum Energy: Theory suggests a certain value for the vacuum energy. Experimental observation shows quite a different value for the vacuum energy. In fact, the difference between theory and observation is 120 orders of magnitude. Something is definitely screwy somewhere.

# Protons: Some theories suggest that like an isolated neutron, the proton is, over the long term, unstable and should go poof and decay. Alas, experiments, and there have been many of them, have failed to detect even one proton decay event. Oh well, back to the drawing board.

General Oops: WTF?

# Inflation: In addition to the above, the Big Bang event as a standalone event raised lots of problems, collectively known as the flatness problem; the horizon problem; and the monopole problem. To resolve those issues, a secondary theoretical and rather ad hoc expansion event, termed Inflation, was proposed. Alas, it lacks any shred of actual independent and observational evidence (apart from dealing with the Big Bang issues as noted), and has its own set of problems, not least of which there are many variations on the Inflation theme; how and why Inflation started and how and why Inflation stopped. If the Big Bang were really a comprehensive theory of everything with respect to the origin and early evolution of the cosmos, there wouldn’t be a horizon, flatness and monopole problem requiring an ad hoc tack-on.

# Dark Matter: There apparently isn’t enough mass contained within our galaxy (and others as well) to account for its structure and how it stays together as a collective conglomerate of stars, planets, interstellar dust, etc. So, with a wave of a magic physics wand, physicists and astrophysicists invent out of thin air an ad hoc explanation – all that missing matter must be “dark matter”, matter which we can’t see, can’t detect, and haven’t a real clue as to what it might be

# Cosmic Rays: Cosmic rays tend to be very high energy particles like electrons and positrons, protons and antiprotons, alpha particles and other atomic nuclei that originate from beyond our solar system. After that, things get iffy. Their actual point(s) of origin are anywhere and everywhere and to be honest their origin(s) are rather mysterious. You name the astronomical object and someone will have tagged it as a, if not the, source of cosmic rays. Among the candidates are supernovae, active galactic nuclei, magnetic variable stars, quasars, gamma-ray bursts, even the Crab Nebula (a pulsar) and the radio galaxy Centaurus A. It all seems to be a case of picking a number out of a hat or throwing a dart at a dartboard labeled with astronomical structures. Your guess (and that’s what they are) is as good as mine.

# The Fine Structure Constant: The mysticism over the number 137 (i.e. - actually 1/137) – the Fine Structure Constant – has the same sort of cultist fascination and impact on some physicists and the physics community in general as the dimensions and mathematical relationships and their significance inherent in the Great Pyramid (at Giza, Cairo) has to occultists, numerologists, mystics and pseudo-archaeologists. Then there’s all that endless numerological speculations on and significance of 666 to Christians. A rose by any other name applies here.

Conclusions

As we have seen, there are many ghosts that haunt the academic corridors of academic physics. Physicists need to exorcise those demonic spirits first, before trying to inflict their exorcisms on the rest of the irrational world.

* What can escape from a Black Hole is called Hawking radiation, but in that massive a Black Hole, the one required for a pinhead sized start to the cosmos, that radiation leakage would take a very, very, very long time to ooze out; hardly what you’d call an explosive event.

     

Some Interesting Reading

Baggott, Jim; Farewell to Reality: How Modern Physics Has Betrayed the Search for Scientific Truth; Pegasus Books, New York; 2013:

Jones, Sheilla & Unzicker, Alexander; Bankrupting Physics: How Today’s Top Scientists Are Gambling Away Their Credibility; Palgrave Macmillan, New York; 2013:

Smolin, Lee; The Trouble With Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of Science and What Comes Next; Penguin Books, London; 2006:

Woit, Peter; Not Even Wrong: The Failure of String Theory and the Continuing Challenge to Unify the Laws of Physics; Vintage Books, London; 2007:



Those Oops In Physics: Part One

Some physical scientists – professional skeptics – are quick to jump on what in their opinion are the flaws inherent in what they term pseudoscience or the paranormal. Perhaps they should gaze at their own navels first before criticizing others, as the following hopefully points out.

Some people for example claim that some UFOs are actually extraterrestrial spacecraft and get bucketed for their point of view. No evidence; no proof is the mantra of the skeptic – usually a physical scientist. However, IMHO, some physicists (or other equivalent physical scientists like astronomers) make even greater outrageous claims without a shred of evidence, far less proof. The attitude of some scientists seems to be along the lines of ‘do as I say, not as I do’.

Physics tends to be a subject that lots of ordinary folks shy away from, probably because physics tends to rely heavily on mathematics, and usually highly complex mathematics at that, advanced mathematics that aren’t taught until well into third or fourth year at university and into gradate school. However, even when modern physics is explained minus the mathematics, in what I guess would be termed layman’s language, physics turns out to be really, really weird. The mathematics tends to hide the weirdness from the uninitiated (since everything is double Dutch to them) but it’s there all the same. These are some of the examples I’ve come up against – a wall that one tends to bang one’s head against in frustration. The frustration tending to be in the first instance, what’s wrong with me that I can’t do an end run around the (only apparent) weirdness? Once one accepts that it’s not you, but the physics that’s weird, well that doesn’t eliminate the frustration or the feeling that one still needs to bang their heads against the wall! Of course maybe it’s not the physics that are weird but the physicists. It wouldn’t be the first time – but that’s another story.

Oops in Common Sense - Theory

Now I am aware that common sense is not an acceptable criterion in science, but there is a limit to what pills I will swallow. With the exceptions of the speed of light and neutron decay (see below under observations) there is no observational or experimental evidence for any of this theoretical nonsense.

# Point Particles: Particle physicists often use the term “point particles” when talking about the fundamental or elementary particles that make up matter, like electrons, etc. However, a point particle has zero dimensions, and as such takes up zero volume. The upshot is, if particles have no dimensionality, then matter cannot exist. Matter is made up of these elementary particles, and if each particle has zero volume, well zero plus zero plus zero equals zero. All of matter would have zero volume and that’s clearly not the case. Alternatively, point particles couldn’t smash together in say the Large Hadron Collider or in any other particle accelerator.

# Dimensions: That there are up to ten spatial dimensions (not three) if Superstring Theory or M-Theory is correct. In the words of the late physicist Wolfgang Pauli, that’s “not even wrong”. 

# Big Bang: That the first nanosecond of creation crammed the contents of our observable Universe into a volume less than a pinhead. In any event, if you could squeeze the contents of the observable Universe down into a pinhead’s volume, you’d end up with the Mother of all Black Holes from which nothing* would escape. Therefore there would be no Big Bang and thus our Universe would not have been brought into existence. 

# Big Bang: That the Big Bang event created time itself. This can’t even be done in theory, far less in actual practice. Pull the left leg!

# Big Bang: That the Big Bang event created space itself. This too is beyond the theoretical limits of modern physics and certainly cannot be duplicated in the laboratory. Now pull the right leg!

# Theory of Everything (TOE): There are three quantum (micro) forces that rule the roost – the strong nuclear; the weak nuclear; and electromagnetism. All three have been unified into the Standard Model of particle physics that’s called the Grand Unified Theory (GUT). There is also one force that rules that rules supreme in the classical (macro) world – gravity. Since the micro and the macro are both part of the larger picture – Mother Nature – it should seem obvious that gravity can and should be unified with the Standard Model to provide what’s known in the trade as a Theory of Everything (TOE). Alas, despite the best minds working on unification over many, many decades, nothing of substance has surfaced. The realm of the micro and the realm of the macro are incompatible, like two different sets of software that are separate and apart but collectively run the cosmos. That makes no sense. It should be relatively easy to unify all four forces.    

# Gravity: Centuries after Isaac Newton, the puzzlement that is gravity has still not been completely solved. There appears to be two competing theories. One, gravity is geometry, otherwise wrapped around Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity. Mass tells space how to curve; curved space tells mass how to move. Two, gravity is a force somewhat akin to electromagnetism in that it has an associated particle that conveys the gravitational force, like a photon conveys the electromagnetic force. That hypothetical or theoretical particle is termed the graviton, and remains to date undetected. You’d think by now the issue would have been settled. 

# Observation/Measurement: That the lack of observation or of measurement (same difference) has a bearing on the reality of what’s not being observed or not being measured is absurd. That’s like saying the Moon doesn’t exist, or may or may not exist, or exists and yet doesn’t exist at the same time, if nobody is looking at it. In any event, to but the worms back into that can, during the early history of our Universe, there were no observers (i.e. – no life forms of any kind) and the cosmos got along just hunky-dory. The Universe doesn’t give a rat’s ass about observers. Things either are, or they are not.

# Electrons: When an electron rises or falls from one energy level to another, when in-between the electron is in limbo, in Never-Never-Land, in The Twilight Zone, in another dimension for all we know. It just can’t be anywhere that’s locatable in-between for if it was – in-between that is – it would possess an in-between energy state that it is not allowed to have.

Oops in Common Sense - Observations  

# Velocities: Velocities maybe added or subtracted. If you are on a treadmill that’s moving left at 5 MPH, and you’re on it walking to the right at 5 MPH, to an external observer you are waking yet standing still. Now the exception to that universal rule is the speed of light. The velocity of light is a constant to an external observer no matter what. Why that should be no one knows, but it is so. However, my take on this can of worms which as a consequence require both time and length to be flexible, is one should always be a bit suspect when it comes to the lone ranger, the exception to the rule. There’s something weird afoot here.  

# Neutron Decay: One isolated neutron will decay in roughly 15 minutes into an electron, a proton and an antineutrino. That’s probably why a hydrogen atom hasn’t a neutron you’d think; there’s only one electron around a nucleus of one proton. Unfortunately heavy hydrogen is heavy because it has one neutron, so that blows that idea. Apparently therefore, any neutron inside or part of a nucleus is stable. So obviously two or more neutrons together (i.e. – part of a nucleus or within a neutron star) will not decay. Why one isolated neutron is unstable, yet a neutron or neutrons (two or more together) as part of a nucleus or as a neutron star are stable, is to me a mystery that defies logic. I mean, by analogy, an isolated radioactive (unstable) nucleus behaves no differently than its clone or twin that is cheek-by-jowl with others of its kind. 

Oops in Conservation Laws – The Free Lunch     

# Dark Energy: Apparently the density of Dark Energy remains constant while the volume of the Universe expands. That’s something from nothing. That’s a free lunch.

# Big Bang: First there was nothing; then there was something. That means the Big Bang event created both matter and energy out of less than thin air. That’s also a free lunch.

To be continued…