Are Uranium Halos the best evidence of (a) an old earth AND (b) constant physics?

Moved from Message 61 on the How did the Aborigines get to Australia? threadHi foreveryoung, From link previously provided (Are Uranium Halos the best evidence of (a) an old earth AND (b) constant physics?):

quote:

---

Not being a physicist, I am not familiar with the equations that link decay rate to decay energy, so I am going on memory, but I found this interesting tid-bit in Alpha Decay, Alpha detectors and identification:

​

quote:

---

However, if the alpha has enough energy to surmount this barrier then it will regain that energy as electrostatic repulsion once it gets outside the range of the attractive strong nuclear force. One important consequence of this is that all alpha emissions have at least ~5 MeV energy. Furthermore, half-life is inversely related to decay energy.

---

(bold for empHASis)

---

If you look at Message 7 of that thread you will see this:

quote:

---

From Alpha Barrier Penetration

​

... There was also an incredible range of half lives for the alpha particle which could not be explained by anything in classical physics.

The resolution of this dilemma came with the realization that there was a finite probability that the alpha particle could penetrate the wall by quantum mechanical tunneling. Using tunneling, Gamow was able to calculate a dependence for the half-life as a function of alpha particle energy which was in agreement with experimental observations.

---

Thus you can see the experimental data that shows the inverse relationship discussed, and reference is made to the calculations relating alpha particle energy (inversely) to half-life (ie decay rate). Note that the vertical scale is a log scale, so the relationship is not a linear inverse relationship but a logarithmic inverse one. Message 8 gives us this information:

quote:

---

Alpha Tunneling Model

​

​

... Quantum mechanical tunneling gives a small probability that the alpha can penetrate the barrier. To evaluate this probability, the alpha particle inside the nucleus is represented by a free-particle wavefunction subject to the nuclear potential. Inside the barrier, the solution to the Schrodinger equation becomes a decaying exponential. Calculating the ratio of the wavefunction outside the barrier and inside and squaring that ratio gives the probability of alpha emission.

---

If you increase the rate of decay then the barrier is easier to penetrate and the particles will have more energy outside the barrier. Change in the energy outside would show up in the halos.Due to the extreme age necessary to form a uranium halo, we can be sure that the decay energy has not changed significantly during their formation, and thus that the decay rate has not changed in "at least several hundred million years" (to quote Dr Wiens on his Radiometric Dating, A Christian Perspective website.Enjoy.Edited by Zen Deist, : movedEdited by Zen Deist, : clrty

Yes, there is an inverse relation there that I see. The question is: does the inverse relation go both ways? If a higher decay energy translates into a shorter half life, that is fine. It has no effect on my accelerated decay theory. If a shorter half life translates into a higher decay energy, then my theory goes down the tubes. Can you show the later?

Hi foreveryoung, The closest I've found to having the formulas (so far) was on Message 9, unfortunately the link is broken (these are notes for a physics class, and subject to change every year. The quote on that post is from 2007 year courses. There were several pages of formulas, but they did derive the decay constant from the alpha particle energy. Yes.One of the laws of physics is that reactions are reversible. And the evidence of the Uranium halos shows that this did not occur. Decay rate is a function of alpha particle energy: faster decay rate = shorter half-life = higher decay energy.Alpha particle energy is a function of the decay rate: higher decay energy = shorter half-life = faster decay rate.These are saying the same thing.Enjoy.

I believe it is mathematically impossible for the situation you need to occur. If a correlation exists between high decay energy and short half life, then a correlation must also exist between short half life an higher decay energy.We are talking about quantum tunneling through a barrier, with the idea being that lowering the barrier height will increase the probability that a decay particle can tunnel through the barrier, thus increasing the decay rate (short half life). Conservation of energy considerations imply that an escaped particle must have higher kinetic energy if the barrier is lowered. Conservation of energy would also require that raising the barrier height would have the opposite effect.I agree with Zen Deist. Halos are great evidence that the energy of alpha particles from decay has not changed. If you have evidence for a hypothesis that allows some other mechanism for decay other than tunneling, let's hear it.I'd also have to ask why the barrier height would be expected to change with time. Is there some kind of matter aging effect at work?

This is why I asked the question I did in the other thread where I was told I was off topic. What are the factors that determine whether any unstable isotope decays faster or slower? You seem to think that the only way a different decay rate can occur is if the tunneling barrier is lowered. Is that the only factor determining decay rate? Doesn't the speed of light partly determine the decay rate. If the speed of light was higher in the past than it is today, isn't it possible that the decay rate of all unstable isotopes would be lower? It does not logically follow that if higher decay energies cause short half lifes, then lower half live must cause higher decay energies. It just doesn't follow necessarily. It all depends on what is causing the shorter half life. If it is soley dependent on tunneling height, then you have a point, if not, then you don't.

The laws of physics may determine that reactions are reversible, but we are not talking about reversing a reaction. An unstable isotope decays and the decay occurs at a particular decay energy. It has been shown that the faster the decay occurs, the greater the decay energy of each decay. We are not asking the reverse that decay so the point is moot.You said that uranium halo evidence shows that higher decay energies did not occur. Your logic is that since the halos are the same size throughout all geological history, and since decay energy is related to halo size, and since decay energy is inversely related to decay rate, the decay rate must have always been the same. This is faulty reasoning. You are assuming that a faster decay rate cannot occur without a greater decay energy. I say that there could be other mechanisms beside increasing decay energies that could cause faster decay rates. I think a faster speed of light would do the job.You say that shorter half lives creating faster decay rates is the same thing as saying higher decay energies creating faster decay rates. I am sorry but this is not logical. Alpha particle energy is a function of the decay rate? You cannot establish this. Unless you know all the possible mechanisms for determine the rate of decay, your function cannot be established.

Noone has made such an argument. What has been shown is that higher decay energies are correlated to shorter half lives. Fast light cures all eh?I'm game to entertain the idea that you are not grasping at straws. Why don't you describe a mechanism for lowered light speeds to affect alpha particle decay rates, such that the mechanism does so without affecting decay energy, some evidence that such a mechanism ever existed, and some evidence that the speed of light has changed in the last few hundred million years. Then perhaps we'll discuss supernova 1987a.And by the way, your proposed mechanism should affect decay rates in such a way that dating methods which overlap in date range give comparable results.You don't have to do all the work yourself. You can cite someone else's work. I'd be happy to rip into it.

Hi NoNukes and foreverryoung, Sounds like a great new topic.Curiously supernova 1987a also provides information on decay rates long ago ...Enjoy.

Hi foreveryoung,

quote:

---

from Message 1:

​

The basic radiohalo principle is simple: radioactivity produces alpha decay, and the alpha particle have a certain energy (usually measured in million electron volts, MeV) based on the familiar e=mc² formula and the conservation of energy/mass (see ref):

​

M₁ = M₂ + mp + e/c²

​

Thus when you have isotopes decaying into other isotopes by alpha decay, the energy of the alpha particle is unique to that decay stage because of the unique before and after mass of the decaying isotope and the constant mass of the alpha particle.

---

M₁ is the atomic mass before decay, M₂ is the atomic mass after the decay, mp is the mass of the decay particle, e is the energy of the decay particle and c is the constant called the speed of lightSpeed of light - Wikipedia

quote:

---

The speed of light in vacuum, usually denoted by c, is a physical constant important in many areas of physics. Its value is 299,792,458 metres per second, a figure that is exact since the length of the metre is defined from this constant and the international standard for time.[1] In imperial units this speed is approximately 186,282 miles per second.

---

Tell you what: start a new thread on this concept, and then if you can show that this would actually work and provide evidence that it could have happened, then you can bring that result back here. Thus faster decay would cause greater decay energy, and this would show up in the uranium halos. Again we see where there is a known relationship between decay rate and decay energy (even if we don't have the actual formulas to show it, see Message 7):

quote:

---

... It was evident that this energy was several times higher than the observed alpha particle energies. There was also an incredible range of half lives for the alpha particle which could not be explained by anything in classical physics.

The resolution of this dilemma came with the realization that there was a finite probability that the alpha particle could penetrate the wall by quantum mechanical tunneling. Using tunneling, Gamow was able to calculate a dependence for the half-life as a function of alpha particle energy which was in agreement with experimental observations.

---

We know that a relationship exists, we (here on this forum) don't know what it is. If we had Gamow's calculations we would have that information. Correct. Perhaps you are confusing yourself between decay rate and half-life. Decay rate and half-life are two different ways for expressing the same thing:Half-life - Wikipedia

quote:

---

• t_1/2 is the half-life of the decaying quantity,
• τ is a positive number called the mean lifetime of the decaying quantity,
• λ is a positive number called the decay constant of the decaying quantity.

​

The three parameters t_1/2, τ, and λ are all directly related in the following way:

​

t_1/2 = ln(2)/λ = τ•ln(2)

​

where ln(2) is the natural logarithm of 2 (approximately 0.693).

---

Thus the decay rate, λ, = ln(2)/t_1/2, the half-life.Thus the relationship between the decay rate, λ, and decay energy, e, is also the relationship between ln(2)/t_1/2 and decay energy (or t_1/2 and ln(2)/e).We can get the values for decay rate and decay energy and plot them if you want to. Correct except that decay energy is inversely related to half-life, half-life is inversely related to decay rate (see above). I believe it is shown. We would have more detail if we had Gamow's calculations, but we know that it has been calculated. This seems to be related:Gamow factor - Wikipedia

quote:

---

The Gamow Factor or Gamow-Sommerfeld Factor[1], named after its discoverer George Gamow, is a probability factor for two nuclear particles' chance of overcoming the Coulomb barrier in order to undergo nuclear reactions, for example in nuclear fusion. By classical physics, there is almost no possibility for protons to fuse by crossing each other's Coulomb barrier, but when George Gamow instead applied quantum mechanics to the problem, he found that there was a significant chance for the fusion due to tunneling.

​

This probability increases rapidly with increasing particle energy, but at a given temperature the probability of a particle having a high energy falls off rapidly, following the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution. Gamow found that, taken together, these effects mean that for any given temperature, the particles that actually fuse are mostly in a (temperature-dependent) narrow range of energies known as the Gamow window.[2]

---

Oh look, I found this by googling gamow decay energy calculationhttp://www.phy.uct.ac.za/courses/phy300w/np/ch1/node38.html

quote:

---

... (several formulas with undefined symbols, have fun) ...
The Geiger-Nutall equation is thus recovered. Note the extreme sensitivity of the decay constant on the energy in the above equation.

---

Change the decay rate and you change the energy of the decay particle.and (PDF) On the Effectiveness of Gamow's Method for Calculating Decay Rates

quote:

---

We examine Gamow's method for calculating the decay rate of a wave function initially located
within a potential well. Using elementary techniques, we examine a very simple, exactly solvable
model, in order to show why it is so reliable for calculating decay rates, in spite of its conceptual
problems. We also discuss the regime of validity of the exponential decay law.
... (lots of formulas with undefined symbols, have fun) ...

---

The decay rate is calculated from the decay energy.Enjoy.Edited by Zen Deist, : c what I meanEdited by Zen Deist, : took circle out of message linkEdited by Zen Deist, : code/space

To be fair to foreveryoung, he seems to be proposing that some property that we are taking as constant might have changed with the result that the known relationship between decay energy and decay rate would also change.Of course the obvious question to ask before pursuing such a possibility is why would the decay energy remain constant under a change in the relationship? After all, that is the value that affects the halos. In other words, if some property of the universe is not constant as we assume, then why is decay energy fundamental and constant?And the explanation also has to work out for a number of different nuclides. In those cases, we might not have to explain a constant decay energy, but we should be able to predict that their decay rates were faster by the same factor at a particular time in the past.So yeah, I'm skeptical that foreveryoung might be right. But...Maybe the answer would pop out of the analysis of Gamow's equations. If so then foreveryoung's question would seem to be on topic. He's fixed on the speed of light, but even the speed of light is based on other constants (permeability and permittivity of free space) that define some kind of "stiffness" of the space-time. And we might come up with other possibilities like charge or mass of some fundamental particle(s).I've gotta get to doing some real work, but I'm going to take a look at those links of yours real soon.

Hi NoNukes, Yes, this is the kind of double bind that the Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 thread creates - not only do they have to explain some mechanism to alter each different method for measuring time but also why they correlate. A possibility of course. I have trouble with the equations in the links because they don't define what the symbols mean, so it is hard to understand what they are talking about where they talk about it.Enjoy

For all readers,I find that I have committed an error in terminology by confusing decay rate with the decay constant, λ, where the decay rate involves the total decay from a radioactive mass within a set period of time:http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/...nuclear/halfli2.html

quote:

---

Radioactive decay is a statistical process which depends upon the instability of the particular radioisotope, but which for any given nucleus in a sample is completely unpredictable. The decay process and the observed half-life dependence of radioactivity can be predicted by assuming that individual nuclear decays are purely random events. If there are N radioactive nuclei at some time t, then the number ΔN which would decay in any given time interval Δt would be proportional to N:

​

ΔN = -λ•N•Δt

​

where λ is a constant of proportionality (decay constant).

​

Without any further assumptions, this leads to the exponential radioactive decay result:

N = N₀•e^-λ•t

​

and also implies that the decay rate and amount of emitted radiation also follow the same type of relationship:

​

R = R₀•e^-λ•t

---

Where R is the decay rate and λ is the decay constant.Hopefully it will not create terminal confusion if I say that in previous posts where I have said decay rate I should have said decay constant, except where it is taken from a quote from an article that uses the term decay rate.Thus we can say that the decay rate was higher in the past because there was more material decaying, just as the decay rate in radioactive lumps today are lower than they were yesterday or last year.This is accounted for in the radioactive dating methods, so to change the dating method results what creationists really want is a higher decay constant (shorter half-life).Decay Rate: the amount of decay events from a mass of radioactive material within a set time period, dependent on the quantity of radioactive material and the decay constant.Decay Constant: the ratio of the number of radioactive atoms disintegrating in any specified short unit interval of time to the total number of those atoms. mea culpaEnjoy.Edited by Zen Deist, : clrty

This kind of humility is completely unnecessary and should be avoided when engaging in online discourse.A more correct and apparently well practiced approach is to remind us that you were referring of course to a normalized decay rate based on a 1kg mass of the radioactive material under discussion. The normalized decay rate is of course inversely proportional to the half life of a radioactive substance.Where is your hubris dude? Did you forget you were online?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Hi again foreveryoung, thought you might want to bring your question here: It has to do with the conservation of momentum and energy among other things.In Message 99 I repeated the equation from Message 1:

quote:

---

The basic radiohalo principle is simple: radioactivity produces alpha decay, and the alpha particle have a certain energy (usually measured in million electron volts, MeV) based on the familiar e=mc² formula and the conservation of energy/mass (see ref):

​

M₁ = M₂ + mp + e/c²

​

Thus when you have isotopes decaying into other isotopes by alpha decay, the energy of the alpha particle is unique to that decay stage because of the unique before and after mass of the decaying isotope and the constant mass of the alpha particle.

---

If you change masses by some proportion, then e has to change as well.Enjoy.

I'm sure that foreveryoung would be willing to allow c to change to avoid that issue. Remember that some of the proponents of a relatively young universe want to believe in "tired light" explanations that just don't fit with the observational evidence that c is constant.