Radioactive Decay is Causeless?

[SkepticLance]

To elas

 

I am puzzled. Could you please explain why you think what I said is 'on dangerous ground?'

[elas]

To elas

 

I am puzzled. Could you please explain why you think what I said is 'on dangerous ground?'

 

There is an on going debate on the need to introduce a little science into the field of mathematical prediction (Quantum physics is mathematical prediction). Unfortunately this is not always a clean fight, even the work of a Noble prize winner has recently been deliberately misfiled on arXiv and all attempts by the Nobel prize to get this corrected (using academic supporters) have failed.

 

You are, of course correct, in saying that everything must have a cause but that is science, it is not the view of many QT experts who insist that some things are beyond explanation. Do not expect a clean fight; at present mathematicians (not scientists) are in control of the madhouse.

My (amateur) view is that QT is a collection of brilliant mathematical shortcuts, we need science to understand why they work. However, in all fairness, I should point out that I am considered to be one of the nutcases.

[Klaynos]

There is an on going debate on the need to introduce a little science into the field of mathematical prediction (Quantum physics is mathematical prediction). Unfortunately this is not always a clean fight, even the work of a Noble prize winner has recently been deliberately misfiled on arXiv and all attempts by the Nobel prize to get this corrected (using academic supporters) have failed.

 

You are, of course correct, in saying that everything must have a cause but that is science, it is not the view of many QT experts who insist that some things are beyond explanation. Do not expect a clean fight; at present mathematicians (not scientists) are in control of the madhouse.

My (amateur) view is that QT is a collection of brilliant mathematical shortcuts, we need science to understand why they work. However, in all fairness, I should point out that I am considered to be one of the nutcases.

 

You need to learn what science really is before you make statements like that. Sorry to be blunt but it's true.

[swansont]

Discussion along the lines of these past few posts is OT for this thread, I've copied posts over to http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=32871

[lucaspa]

As I read the literature, it is agreed that quantum events are regular, but that the individual event is "uncaused". In the case of radioactive decay, if we have 1,000 atoms of C14, 500 of them will decay within a half-life (= 5730 ± 40 years). However, that doesn't tell us which atom will decay next and why. That event is "uncaused" in the classical sense.

 

It gets weirder. So we start with 1,000 atoms and 500 decay in the first half-life. Now we have 500 atoms. Do 500 decay within the next half-life? NO Now only 250 decay within the next half life. How do the atoms keep track and "know" that there are now only 500 of them instead of 1,000 and thus, only 250 of them will decay?

 

This, and other puzzles, is why, as far as I can tell, physicists say there are no "causes". Any cause that will work for the 1st half-life breaks down when we consider the second half-life. Let's face it, any cause we consider that will result in 500 atoms decaying in the first period (half-life) should also mean 500 atoms decay in the next period (half-life).

 

As unsatisfactory as many of you consider "no cause" to be, I'm content to let that be a description of the universe if the universe is really like that. The universe is what it is, not what we want it to be. If that includes there being no cause for individual quantum events, then that's it.

 

Now, that won't stop some people from looking for a cause, and that's fine. But until there is new data to overthrow the hypothesis that there is no cause, I'm content to accept that hypothesis.

 

As I read the literature, it is agreed that quantum events are regular, but that the individual event is "uncaused". In the case of radioactive decay, if we have 1,000 atoms of C14, 500 of them will decay within a half-life (= 5730 ± 40 years). However, that doesn't tell us which atom will decay next and why. That event is "uncaused" in the classical sense.

 

It gets weirder. So we start with 1,000 atoms and 500 decay in the first half-life. Now we have 500 atoms. Do 500 decay within the next half-life? NO Now only 250 decay within the next half life. How do the atoms keep track and "know" that there are now only 500 of them instead of 1,000 and thus, only 250 of them will decay?

 

This, and other puzzles, is why, as far as I can tell, physicists say there are no "causes". Any cause that will work for the 1st period (half-life) -- such as the suggestion of "electroweak force" breaks down when we consider the second half-life. Let's face it, any cause we consider that will result in 500 atoms decaying in the first period (half-life) should also mean 500 atoms decay in the next period (half-life).

 

Another example is shining a laser beam at a mirror. 95% of the photons are reflected and 5% go thru. Fine and dandy. But now take those 5% that go thru and have them hit a second mirror. 95% of them are reflected and 5% go thru! Or even take them around to the same mirrror. Same thing.

 

Or take the 95% reflected and have them hit a second mirror. Again, 95% of these are reflected and 5% go thru. Why? What's the cause of any particular photon being reflected or going thru? They are all identical. There doesn't seem to be any cause in the classical sense. However, as long as the numbers are regular when there are large numbers, then we can act as tho there is a cause.

 

Another example is the formation of virtual particles. Again, we can say that this is variations in quantum energy for the numbers, but there is no "cause" for any particular virtual particle.

 

So, in the creationism vs rest of science debate, one possiblemeans (among many) of getting the universe is for the universe itself to be an uncaused quantum event. It's called "Quantum Fluctuation".

 

Another counter to the "everything must have a cause" argument put forward by creationists is that the cause does not have to be deity. If we trace the chain of cause and effect back and back, the logic is undeniable that somewhere we need an Uncaused Cause to get the whole chain started. This is often referred to as First Cause. Deity (God) is often put forward as the First Cause and, therefore, as "proof" that deity exists. The "proof" is wrong. From what I read, there are at least 5 candidates for First Cause. Deity is one. But that there are 4 others (Quantum Fluctuation is one) means that First Cause does not have to be deity. It could be one of the others. But since none of the others has enough data to be unequivocally accepted, conversely deity could be First Cause. It's a classic case of multiple competing hypotheses and insufficient data to choose between them.

 

I know some people disagree with me, but in my own very humble opinion, understanding causes and mechanisms, while important, is secondary in science.

 

Science first must start with obtaining clear cut and reliable data. That data often points to phenomena that are not understood.

 

Skeptic Lance, you actually have that backwards. Most of the time, data is only gathered after you have proposed a hypothesis/theory -- what you call "understanding causes and mechanisms". Yes, having good data is of paramount importance, but that importance is because you use the data to evaluate the hypothesis. Some philosophers of science even declare that it is impossible to gather data without first having a hypothesis. They say that the hypothesis is unconscious but it is there. I disagree but I do think, based on data, that there are very few cases where you go, or scientists have gone, out looking for data without a hypothesis first. An example would be the first microarray studies. They were fishing expeditions. Now, however, all microarray studies start out with a hypothesis first.

 

No-one REALLY understands quantum actions, though they can be described mathematically. Science can work with them, though, and make predictions based on what we know of them, and even design new gadgets of great value based on the quantum effects we do not truly understand.

 

Correct. The mathematical descriptions come because, in large numbers, quantum events are regular. As you noted with alpha decay, in a half-life, half the atoms in a large number will decay. That allows mathematical description. But when we get down to the level of an individual atom, there is no cause why that particular atom decayed when it did.

[Mr Skeptic]

Lucaspa, as a biologist, surely you must be aware of how exponential decay works. The breakdown of medicines in the body, for example. There is no "keeping track" of anything going on -- they continuously have exactly the same probability of breaking down within a certain time. The difference here is that there is an explanation for the breakdown of chemicals, but none for the decay of nuclei.

[Farsight]

Hello, what's this?

 

You are treading on dangerous ground, it is a simple matter to take experimental results and published data and construct a theory that explains rather than predicts, but getting such work published or debated is impossible. Reviewers refuse to explain why the work is rejected and forum administrators move the work too to forums with demeaning titles knowing that no one of merit will visit them. But, if you read the comments of senior physicists you will find that there is a growing dissatisfaction with the current state of particle and atomic physics and the Standard model, so hopefully change is on the way...

It certainly is.

 

You are, of course correct, in saying that everything must have a cause but that is science, it is not the view of many QT experts who insist that some things are beyond explanation. Do not expect a clean fight; at present mathematicians (not scientists) are in control of the madhouse.

It does rather seem that way.

 

My (amateur) view is that QT is a collection of brilliant mathematical shortcuts, we need science to understand why they work...

I know how Quantum mechanics works. I can explain it. Radioactive decay is not causeless.

[ydoaPs]

Hello, what's this?

 

It certainly is.

 

It does rather seem that way.

 

I know how Quantum mechanics works. I can explain it. Radioactive decay is not causeless.

 

Put up or shut up. And show maths.

[Reaper]

Hello, what's this?

 

It certainly is.

 

It does rather seem that way.

 

I know how Quantum mechanics works. I can explain it. Radioactive decay is not causeless.

 

 

Alright people, get your bingo chips ready .

[elas]

I know how Quantum mechanics works. I can explain it. Radioactive decay is not causeless.

 

Swansont removed my explanation and issued a warning, what happened to yours?

[swansont]

Moved, not removed, because it was off-topic. http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=407575

 

Just like Farsight's posts were moved, for the same reason.

[lucaspa]

Lucaspa, as a biologist, surely you must be aware of how exponential decay works. The breakdown of medicines in the body, for example. There is no "keeping track" of anything going on -- they continuously have exactly the same probability of breaking down within a certain time.

 

Mathematically, yes. But we don't have a mechanism that would result in exponential decay of nuclei, as you note. Otherwise, it's apples and oranges. In the case of medicines, you are referring not to the "breakdown of medicines" but rather the elimination of them from the body. http://www.4um.com/tutorial/science/pharmak.htm

 

And yes, a constant fraction is eliminated per unit time. This is due to the volume of distribution -- which is constant. As drug is eliminated, it's concentration drops because a lesser amount of the drug is distributed in the same volume. There is only a certain amount of blood volume that can pass thru the kidney per unit time. So the constant fraction is due to the constant fraction of blood that is passed thru the kidneys. The equation is: Cl = kel x Vd

 

But none of that applies to decay of nuclei, does it?

[SkepticLance]

To lucaspa

 

Re your earlier description of photons hitting a mirror and 5% getting through.

 

Imagine a wall with a bunch of 30 cm holes in it. We take a thrower and blindfold him. Then hand him a bunch of tennis balls, which he throws

'blindly' at the wall. 95% bounce off and 5% pass through. Would you say we cannot understand why only 5% pass through?

 

Your comment about data. We MUST have data before forming a hypothesis. Sometimes the data is not good data, and the subsequent hypothesis is not a good hypothesis. However, there is always data. A good scientist will gather good data. The subsequent hypothesis has a better chance of being a good hypothesis.

 

Sure, there is a major data gathering exercise after that as well. In particular, we see the process of making predictions based on the hypothesis and testing those predictions, but data must pre-exist the hypothesis, or else it all becomes some kind of sick joke.

 

Sometimes a scientist will spend his/her entire professional life just gathering data, without forming any hypotheses of significance. Others may use that data to make paradigm shattering hypotheses.

 

In science, data is king. Data gathered before, and after hypotheses are formed. Data to confirm hypotehses, and data to destroy them. Data to permit futher hypotheses.

 

There is a word for hypotheses that are formed without pre-existing data. "Fiction."

[swansont]

To lucaspa

 

Re your earlier description of photons hitting a mirror and 5% getting through.

 

Imagine a wall with a bunch of 30 cm holes in it. We take a thrower and blindfold him. Then hand him a bunch of tennis balls, which he throws

'blindly' at the wall. 95% bounce off and 5% pass through. Would you say we cannot understand why only 5% pass through?

 

But that still does not tell you which balls will get through, if you don't know the trajectory. This goes back to knowing the basic mechanism, which for decay, we do. It still doesn't allow us to say when a particular nucleus will decay.

[SkepticLance]

To swansont

 

Do you not believe that a cause that has to use statistics to assign a probability to individual events can still be considered a known cause?

[swansont]

No, I don't think it is, in that sense. We know an alpha tunnels out, but why it makes it on any particular attempt is unknown. The thrower with a blindfold is different if you are analyzing individual trajectories, which are things that do not exist in QM.

[elas]

Moved, not removed, because it was off-topic. http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=407575

 

Just like Farsight's posts were moved, for the same reason.

 

The question is about cause; QT is a non-causal mathematical prediction theory and cannot be used to explain cause, yet any attempt to offer a causal interpretation of experiments is declared OT.

 

No, I don't think it is, in that sense. We know an alpha tunnels out, but why it makes it on any particular attempt is unknown. The thrower with a blindfold is different if you are analyzing individual trajectories, which are things that do not exist in QM.

 

It is a linear action event, think of a 'plant' in a game of snooker; the line has to be right or there is no 'plant' and note also that the ejected particle (potted ball) is not the originating particle.

 

(Sorry about the time taken to reply but, I no longer receive email notification of replies. It must be all part of swansont's devilish plan!).

[Klaynos]

(Sorry about the time taken to reply but, I no longer receive email notification of replies. It must be all part of swansont's devilish plan!).

 

Or you're just no longer auto-subscribing to threads automatically when you post...

[pioneer]

Radio-active decay is a rational event and therefore should be subject to the laws of cause and affect. The easiest way to see this is to change the experiment slightly. Say we start with 10 grams of a material with a half life of 1 year. At the end of the year, we have 5 grams. Next, we add 5 grams back, to the pile so we can again start with 10 grams. After one year we have 5 grams again. We add 5 grams a second time to return the sample to 10 grams. I predict with 100% certainty we will have 5 gram at the end of the year. It is a sure thing. This implies there is cause and affect. It is not a flip of the coin with some years turning out differently.

 

Where the problem begins is trying to explain this in terms of cause and affect even though it is loaded dice. Cause and effect explanations have a harder requirement for establishing proof. A statistical approach has built in fudge factor so the standard of proof is more lax. It is easier to use a statistical approach since it can lead to useful and practical results without having to be specific. The same procedure works for radio active decay or genetics.

 

This practical ease has led people to assume reality is probability. Many forget this approach was originally just an approximation tool that allowed quicker answers with less proof. Somewhere along the line the human mind gave up on cause and affect, even with the radio active decay phenomena which shouts cause and affect. Einstein warned about playing dice with universe since he anticipated this philosophical dilemma between the needs of practical science taking over our perception reality.

 

If we go back to radio active decay there are some basic observations that may offer some rational clues. If we look at the mass numbers of the atoms in the periodic table almost all atomic masses are close to the ratio is 1 proton to 1 neutron. The deviation from this is accounted for by other isotopes. The isotopes that deviate from 1 to 1, are typically more likely to decay. For example C12 is more stable than C13. Maybe 1 to 1 is the goal.

 

Another observation is H has a mass number close to 1 proton and O neutrons. Hydrogen has traces of deuterium and tritium which are 1 to 1 and 1 to 2. Within hydrogen's ratio range all the other atoms lie. The relative ease of making higher atoms from deuterium and tritium might be related to the 1 to 1 goal. These prime the 1 to 1 proton-neutron standard. What it also suggest is the hydrogen proton is an odd duck, maybe with something extra or lack of extra. The lack is the nuclear forces but the extra may be the potential energy released by the nuclear forces, but that release appears to need a neutron.

 

Another observation is atoms don't form with just protons or just neutrons. If there is bias in either direction, this is more likely to need adjustment. The goal appears to try and settle at 1 to 1. Another observation is neutrons can form by combining an electron with a proton. What that seems to indicate is positive charge might be able to migrate. The model I see is analogous to a nuclear version of atomic orbitals using the same schema as the two electrons per orbital but in this case it use two masses within positive space-time. From this we can build nuclear molecules we call the higher atoms.

 

An isotope may be something analogous to magnetic iron where the electrons form a semi-stable orbital arrangement but not at lowest energy. Nuclear criticality may be loosely analogous to magnetic induction that can excite these energy states, adding activation energy for decay. The goal is to get the most stable nuclear molecules with the 1 to 1.

[elas]

pioneer

swansont

 

pioneer's submission is just the sort of entry I would like to debate but cannot because my subs. have been moved and further mention of them is a breach of the rules. I believe pioneer is right to say that we need to understand 'cause' and 'effect'; but, I disagree with pioneer's conclusions and am not allowed to say why.

My reply to swansont's criticisms of my subs will appear in the 'sin bin' but I am not even allowed to tell pioneer where that is, having received warnings for previously giving such references.

There has to be a better way of debating 'cause'.

Debates and criticisms are the lifeblood of progress and I stick with SFN because I value swansont's criticisms and references, I just wish that somewhere in the physics section there was room for a more open debate on 'causal physics'.

 

Klaynos

Have seven posts on my subscribed list all marked for email notification.

[Vexer]

Klaynos

 

 

Incomplete not wrong.

 

 

I think it is. 2 +2 = 5 is ‘incomplete’?

 

 

50 years of over-confident cosmological models that (it now turns out)

didn’t account for 90% of the universe.

 

If that’s just "incomplete".. then, ok.

[swansont]

If we go back to radio active decay there are some basic observations that may offer some rational clues. If we look at the mass numbers of the atoms in the periodic table almost all atomic masses are close to the ratio is 1 proton to 1 neutron. The deviation from this is accounted for by other isotopes. The isotopes that deviate from 1 to 1, are typically more likely to decay. For example C12 is more stable than C13. Maybe 1 to 1 is the goal.

 

Another observation is H has a mass number close to 1 proton and O neutrons. Hydrogen has traces of deuterium and tritium which are 1 to 1 and 1 to 2. Within hydrogen's ratio range all the other atoms lie. The relative ease of making higher atoms from deuterium and tritium might be related to the 1 to 1 goal. These prime the 1 to 1 proton-neutron standard. What it also suggest is the hydrogen proton is an odd duck, maybe with something extra or lack of extra. The lack is the nuclear forces but the extra may be the potential energy released by the nuclear forces, but that release appears to need a neutron.

 

Another observation is atoms don't form with just protons or just neutrons. If there is bias in either direction, this is more likely to need adjustment. The goal appears to try and settle at 1 to 1. Another observation is neutrons can form by combining an electron with a proton. What that seems to indicate is positive charge might be able to migrate. The model I see is analogous to a nuclear version of atomic orbitals using the same schema as the two electrons per orbital but in this case it use two masses within positive space-time. From this we can build nuclear molecules we call the higher atoms.

 

An isotope may be something analogous to magnetic iron where the electrons form a semi-stable orbital arrangement but not at lowest energy. Nuclear criticality may be loosely analogous to magnetic induction that can excite these energy states, adding activation energy for decay. The goal is to get the most stable nuclear molecules with the 1 to 1.

 

1:1 ceases to hold after you reach Z=20. I think the reasons for all of your points here are well understood and explained and predicted by nuclear physics.

 

pioneer

swansont

 

pioneer's submission is just the sort of entry I would like to debate but cannot because my subs. have been moved and further mention of them is a breach of the rules. I believe pioneer is right to say that we need to understand 'cause' and 'effect'; but, I disagree with pioneer's conclusions and am not allowed to say why.

 

If your reason is at odds with accepted physics, then it needs to go in speculations. I really see no reason to keep going over this. That's how the forum is set up, and continually bringing this up and complaining about it is unproductive.

[Klaynos]

Klaynos

 

 

Incomplete not wrong.

 

 

I think it is. 2 +2 = 5 is ‘incomplete’?

 

 

50 years of over-confident cosmological models that (it now turns out)

didn’t account for 90% of the universe.

 

If that’s just "incomplete".. then, ok.

 

 

2+2=5 is not an experimentally testable prediction.

 

With ALL the commonly accepted physics theories they make predictions which are tested and found to be true.

 

Newtonian mechanics is not wrong just because GR and QM exist, it's not a not complete theory that applies to a subsection of the universe.

 

Dark matter is a name given to the apparent mass difference between the predictions and the theory, indicating there is something missing from the theory (as they work in other situations), this matter might not actually turn out to be matter, it's just a name given to label the phenomenon.