Gilded Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 With all the Zeno effect discussion etc. going on, I began to think about control over particles in general. Inhibiting certain things from happening, trapping particles in magnetic traps and so on. More specifically, nuclear decay came to mind. The question is, are there conditions that can sort of trigger a radioactive decay or accelerate the decay rate or should I say increase the probability of decay in a period of time, or is the half-life of a particle constant in all circumstances? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 If you put a particle in a 'box' that is smaller than the wavelength of the emitted radiation then the probability shrinks massively. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 Yes. (If you don't have a subscription, the article says that containing a radioactive material inside a material at low temperature can actually speed its decay rate. See also image.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gilded Posted November 1, 2006 Author Share Posted November 1, 2006 Thanks for the link! Interesting... Sort of control over randomness if you will. It's starting to bother me for some bizarre reason that 1000 nuclei of very long half-lives could theoretically all decay in a very short period by chance, yet there's basically nothing we can do to "make it happen" at will. Damn quantum-mechanical systems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royston Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 Is there the possibility that natural systems could effect decay rate, I was just wondering if decay rate isn't constant under certain conditions...it would effect the results of radiometric dating ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 Electron capture has been measure to vary slightly at high pressure. As far as the Rolfs result goes, there is a danger in latching on to a single result. Let peer-review take its course and have others verify it before it is promoted as being fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royston Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 Electron capture has been measure to vary slightly at high pressure. Ok, thanks. As far as the Rolfs result goes, there is a danger in latching on to a single result. Let peer-review take its course and have others verify it before it is promoted as being fact. I realise it certainly isn't full proof, and when probability is thrown into the mix as well (with regards to Gildeds statement), I was just wondering if the process needs to be revamped in some way...but like you said, best to let peer-review take it's course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now