10 Feb 17
Originally posted by humyGrand Unified Theories predict proton decay with extremely large half-lives.
I just looked this up and there is the occasional rarely accepted theory going around that all atoms have a halflife but one that is so massively great (zillions of zillions of years) that we have yet to ever observe a single 'stable' atom decay.
This theory currently has no real evidence supporting it and can currently be easily dismissed as pure wild speculation; -but who knows and perhaps time will tell.
10 Feb 17
1 edit
Originally posted by humyI think it follows directly from quantum mechanics. Atomic decay is a function of the different forces holding everything together and some randomness in terms of movement and position breaking those forces leading to decay.
I just looked this up and there is the occasional rarely accepted theory going around that all atoms have a halflife but one that is so massively great (zillions of zillions of years) that we have yet to ever observe a single 'stable' atom decay.
This theory currently has no real evidence supporting it and can currently be easily dismissed as pure wild speculation; -but who knows and perhaps time will tell.
10 Feb 17
2 edits
Originally posted by humyI must note that in a single mole there are 6.022×10^23 atoms. If half of those will decay in a zillion zillion years, then to see one decay we need only observe for (a zillion zillion divided by half a mole) years.
but one that is so massively great (zillions of zillions of years) that we have yet to ever observe a single 'stable' atom decay.
When you have decided how many zeros in a zillion, we can do the calculation.
Tellurium-128's half-life is over 160 trillion times longer than the universe has existed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_radioactive_isotopes_by_half-life#1030_seconds
Tellurium-128's half-life is over 160 trillion times longer than the universe has existed.
Yet apparently decay has been observed and its halflife measured.
10 Feb 17
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe key words are spontaneous fission not mere alpha decay. While it can be argued that alpha decay is spontaneous fission, it seems not to be what was meant since chaney3 said: "The scienist said that uranium is the only element that, on its own, changes its nucleus.". The scientist cannot possibly have thought that uranium is the only element that undergoes alpha decay. He or she must have been referring to spontaneous fission. The Wikipedia page [1] gives a list of elements which do undergo spontaneous fission and I was wrong, Uranium is among them. The list of elements Wikipedia gives is: Uranium 235 (3.5E17 years), Uranium 238 (8.4E15 years), Plutonium 239 (5.5E15 years), Plutonium 240 (1.16E11 years), Curium 250 (61% of decays lead to spontaneous fission, overall half life 6900 years), Californium 252 (3% of decays are spontaneous fissions, overall half-life is 2.63 years).
Be careful here. It all depends on what isotope you are talking about.
But according to Wikipedia, every known isotope of Uranium has a halflife.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium
I suspect that every atom except hydrogen has a theoretical halflife.
The first thing I'd like to point out is that the spontaneous fission rates of Uranium and Plutonium 239 are small, with half-lives for spontaneous fission of the order of a quintillion years. Plutonium 240 has a half-life for spontaneous fission an order of magnitude bigger than the age of the universe. So I was right in so far that it's really much more significant with Pu 240. Although note [2]. Now, the thing to note about this list is that none of the elements listed occur naturally in the Earth's crust due to their short half-lives. So what Chaney3's scientist probably actually said was words to the effect of:
"Uranium is the only naturally occurring element that undergoes spontaneous nuclear fission."
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_fission
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fission_track_dating
10 Feb 17
Originally posted by DeepThoughtBut even so, his implication that it is not known why is unfounded. Spontaneous fission occurs with very large nucleus' and the larger they are the faster it happens. So it really isn't surprising that there is only one or two with a half life just right to 'naturally occur' as well as not be considered completely stable.
"Uranium is the only naturally occurring element that undergoes spontaneous nuclear fission."
10 Feb 17
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe documentary I watched on PBS was presented by a physicist and engineer, Derek Muller, titled "Uranium: Twisting the Dragon's Tail".
But even so, his implication that it is not known why is unfounded. Spontaneous fission occurs with very large nucleus' and the larger they are the faster it happens. So it really isn't surprising that there is only one or two with a half life just right to 'naturally occur' as well as not be considered completely stable.
He said that uranium is the only element (parent) to initially change its nucleus. The following daughters of uranium do the same until the final product is lead.
He only mentioned half life, after humans forced fission and radioactive problems like Chernobel and Hiroshima occured.
10 Feb 17
Originally posted by wildgrass"The Universe was made by nothing" is not the only alternative to "the Universe was made by a deity."
One could argue, were he still playing Devil's advocate, that Occam's razor actually supports the existence of a Creator on these grounds. To say that "the universe was made by a Deity" very succintly explains where all the laws of the Universe came from. All you have to explain is where the Deity comes from (and of course, all the matter). But if "the uni ...[text shortened]... le that nothing knew all the laws of the Universe. In this context, nothing is more complicated.
In fact, for a deity to "explain" something, one first needs to identify how one measures a deity and how a world with a deity is different from one without a deity.
10 Feb 17
2 edits
Originally posted by chaney3You clearly misunderstood him.
He said that uranium is the only element (parent) to initially change its nucleus. The following daughters of uranium do the same until the final product is lead.
I watch his YouTube channel and I have probably seen bits or all of the documentary in the past.
Sadly this website won't let us South Africans watch it.
http://www.pbs.org/program/uranium-twisting-dragons-tail/
10 Feb 17
Originally posted by twhiteheadHe explained it at a pool table, with the nucleus of uranium as "red and white pool balls", above the pool table.
You clearly misunderstood him.
I watch his YouTube channel and I have probably seen bits or all of the documentary in the past.
Sadly this website won't let us South Africans watch it.
http://www.pbs.org/program/uranium-twisting-dragons-tail/
I don't think I misunderstood. He had the opportunity to say other elements are capable of the same, but he didn't.
11 Feb 17
Originally posted by humySo the 'design' idea doesn't annoy you, but it is idiotic? Rationality evades you on this issue. Like I said, it strikes a nerve.
Then you guess wrong; it isn't design idea that is annoying us but the moronic rhetoric of chaney3.
And, it isn't so much the topic we are responding to, which is completely idiotic and thus I bet extremely uninteresting to most of us, but rather the moronic chaney3 rhetoric. The only thing I find 'interesting' about it is how can some people believe such a load ...[text shortened]... n'.
If we found the idiotic 'design' thing interesting, we would have brought it up ourselves here.
Embrace the pain, handle it, and grow in power.
11 Feb 17
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhile I was doing more study of uranium, I came across the Quantum Zeno Effect, which basically says that if you observe the nucleus of uranium, it will not change. Yet, once you walk away, it changes, as if it's aware you are watching and will do nothing until you leave.
You clearly did.
I do think, however, that you should continue watching educational documentaries. You have a lot to learn.
Only design can account for this. Unless you want to give intellect to atoms, like you do for evolution.
11 Feb 17
Originally posted by chaney3Except design doesn't account for it either.
While I was doing more study of uranium, I came across the Quantum Zeno Effect, which basically says that if you observe the nucleus of uranium, it will not change. Yet, once you walk away, it changes, as if it's aware you are watching and will do nothing until you leave.
Only design can account for this. Unless you want to give intellect to atoms, like you do for evolution.
Sorry, but your argument boils down to 'I don't understand it therefore its design'. Bad argument.