Interval before Nuclear Decay

[David]

At first I thought sci.physics or sci.physics.particle were better
places for this, but all the unmoderated groups in this block seem
hopelessly clogged with the rantings of the mentally ill. I posted to
sci.physics, but I'm posting here as well.

My background in physics comes from Nuclear Power School in the Navy
(back in the early 1970's). The Navy sent me to school so that I
could operate an S5W nuclear propulsion plant (not alone, of course).

So, since the '70's anything more that I've learned about nuclear
physics, I've learned informally.

I have a question. A nucleus, say cobalt 60, decays. I know how to
calculate the probability that it will decay within some certain
interval of time, but I can't predict exactly when it will decay.

Is there any way, in principle, to predict the exact time that the
nucleus will decay? In other words, does any current theory account
for why the nucleus decays at one instant in time and not another?

I think I've stated the question clearly enough--any thoughts?

David

[Uncle Al]

Spontaneous nuclear decay is entirely random,

http://www.fourmilab.ch/hotbits/

Triggered decay of metastable spin isomeric states has not been
demonstrated.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

[Boo]

> Is there any way, in principle, to predict the exact time that the
> nucleus will decay? In other words, does any current theory account
> for why the nucleus decays at one instant in time and not another?
>
> I think I've stated the question clearly enough--any thoughts?
>

The answer is no. The equations in Quantum Mechanics (QM) that are
known to describe these aspects of the world are fundamentally
probalistic : the Schrodinger equation is a differential equation in a
variable which is the complex square root of the probablilty of finding
a particle in a given space and given time interval.

The randomness is fundamental in the theory and seems to be
correspondingly fundamental in the real world. There are some (somewhat
disputed) theorems that show there can be no reasonable "underlying
reality" which is non-probabalistic and which agrees with the results of
QM.

--
Boo

[Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply]

In article <1170183267....@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>, David
<da5id...@yahoo.com> writes:

> I have a question. A nucleus, say cobalt 60, decays. I know how to
> calculate the probability that it will decay within some certain
> interval of time, but I can't predict exactly when it will decay.

Right.

> Is there any way, in principle, to predict the exact time that the
> nucleus will decay? In other words, does any current theory account
> for why the nucleus decays at one instant in time and not another?

Assuming your are talking about a nucleus unperturbed by other particles
etc, then the answer is no. In quantum mechanics, it is "just" a matter
of chance---nothing else. This doesn't prove that there is not some
"deeper reason", but there is nothing that requires a deeper reason.