File: usdp-nnd.gif (586 KB, 220x220)

586 KB GIF

Light speed wobble.

>>17078021

Alpha, beta or gamma decay??

>>17078024
i mean in non-niggerbabble terms like what triggers the mechanism, what determines that specific atom to decay at that moment in time and not another one that isn't just stochastic randomness.

>>17078021
shitposting

>>17078046
not every reaction needs an action

>>17078046
atoms are not static objects, statistically shit just gets unstable at some point

>>17078021
The protons all have electrostatic repulsion from one another and it makes the nucleus unstable (unless it has the right number of neutrons) . Otherwise at some point (based on how unstable the isotope is) the nucleus will either alpha decay, beta decays, or spontaneously fission.

>>17078171
>unstable
OP's question was WHAT triggers it
let me rephrase it:
some almost 5 billion years ago, a neutron star merger spat out a fuckload of heavy elements, including the very atom I just watched decay on my geiger counter.
that son of a bitch has been stable for almost 5 billion years, yet for some fucking reason, while looking at it it shat itself. why? explain it.
>muh unstable
pretty fucking stable for 5 billion years. why did it shit itself right now?

File: 200w.gif (3.68 MB, 200x200)

3.68 MB GIF

Because atoms are jiggling and wobbling and sometimes it just so happens that they break apart. I imagine an atom like a cluster of orbeez or something that are jiggling there in the nucleus. And then every once in a while, one of those orbeez jiggles just hard enough that it breaks free from the atom. Could be wrong but I hope it's at least partially accurate. Lol

This is what's interesting about bismuth. If you have a singular atom of bismuth, there's about equal probability for you to win the Powerball jackpot two times in a row as for that bismuth atom to decay during a century. But if you have a kilogram of bismuth, on average one atom decays every five minutes or so because of the power in numbers.

>>17078231
>Could be wrong but I hope it's at least partially accurate
their jiggles seems to shit them ultra precise in high numbers, like weirdly precise. I find that fascinating.

what's weird is that you can pick any of them atoms and you could watch it for billions of years and it's possible it doesn't decay. and it's not about you picking the right or wrong one. theoretically doesn't matter which one you choose.

i suppose the nucleons tunnel out of their bound state? with the observation time of this being random, as all quantum measurements

>>17078217
Basically the fine details of nature are random simply because there is no pixel size to reality. A binary/digital foundation, like computers, have great trouble with randomness and they must sample some natural process to obtain it.
Nature has true randomness. Deal with it.

>>17078021
At the end of time the individual needs to be able to spin the wight of the universe or they get kinked and thrown in a black hole.

>>17078246
so the wavefunction of an atom has sections of it sitting in some lower bound decayed state? and it just arbitrarily collapses to it?

File: cell division algae micra(...).gif (1.81 MB, 400x297)

1.81 MB GIF

There is always one decaying.
Mostly in the middle of the probability of decay timeline.
But always one decaying out of the 1 with 100 zeros quantity that comprises a hair width
Slight differences in the point particle quantity, the interactions, reception of and transference of photons from and to electron cloud orbital probability intrinsic spin angular momentum "around" the nucleus determine when it decays

.

.

.

Are you asking.....what IS decay as a basic explanation for causality of reductionism origin itself?

That is simply the point particles in this universe all possessing the single +/- push/pull force as an individual and combined attribute since the big bang origin expansion hyperinflation, all of those original singularity of +/- possessing parts, are attempting to recombine and reconnect all back together into the universe singularity.
That appears to us as decay, frictional sheering, black holes, technically photons but in 1 dimension of movement while on a three dimensional track etc.
But there is still the original big bang singularity separation energy trapped in the universe of moving parts, so the parts cannot return back to the original connected together singularity single piece/part state and must form a new equilibrium....possibly two separated halves divided by a pocket of the "separation energy" whatever it may be...I reckon just a cloud field of moving parts, in between two solid separate parts....finally pushing them away from one another to start new little universe families of their own like Charlotte's Web!
Bye little universes!
Goodbye!
Go mate with other universes young heart universes be free tonight!
Go build observers and explorers to report new findings!

>>17078350
yeah. that's how i imagine it at least... just from my qm knowledge, i don't know if this is correct
it has some of probability mass outside of the nucleus, and it's really unlikely to be observed there
so you observe it, but almost every time it's inside
however once it is observed to be outside, it has escaped and the nucleus decays

I would've thought the decay of universe would eventually build up around the outer layer of the universe with the force.

>>17078350
Almost. The decayed state is a lower energy configuration. By the laws of quantum mechanics anything at a higher energy state (the current atom) has a probability to decay into a lower energy one. That's all radioactive decay is.

>>17078021
Can you be more specific? I don't know exactly which atom you so diligently query

>>17078021
The equation of state that describes the quantum system of the atom fluctuates into a condition where it becomes unstable and it undergoes nuclear decay. It is, effectively, pure chance.

>>17078135
anti science

quantum space ghost

>>17078418
>>17078462
so if there's ever any nonzero chance for a lower energy configuration, no matter how infinitesimally small it may be, decay is inevitable and favorable, but there's no indication that its on the verge of decay and losing stability over time? it will either be measured as stable or that it decayed with no preexisting signs of regression?

>>17078731
>no preexisting signs
that's just you lacking information about the state of the particle

>>17078747
what information? i'm being taught there's a particle, there's a wavefunction that encodes all states it can take, when a measurement is done it goes into a state for w/e reason, and that's it. we have the state that it decayed or not the next moment in time. how can i know one atom is closer to decay than another and just deduce without measuring anything later?

>>17078169
nothing is static in the universe.... therefore everything must change and eventually reach a point of what we define as decay.

>>17078786
is there no aspect of the universe that will remain unchanging?

>>17078731
> no matter how infinitesimally small it may be, decay is inevitable and favorable,
Favorable, yes. Inevitable, only on long enough time scales. There are atoms with half-lives in the many billions of years. You might have to wait longer than the current age of the universe.

> but there's no indication that its on the verge of decay and losing stability over time?
Correct. It's a purely random quantum mechanical process. After all we still don't understand or agree upon an explanation for the more basic wavefunction collapse, or if there is a collapse at all and it's just math.

> how can i know one atom is closer to decay than another
You don't. Just like we have no idea what the result of any quantum measurement will be, only the probabilities of the possible outcomes.

>>17078483
ok mr scientist, explain which action causes an electron to tunnel

>>17078747
there is no hidden information about the particle. your only out is superdeterminism which is kinda dumb
you need to prove the particle has information that you don't know about, else you can always invoke it as zealots invoke god for literally everyting.
something doesn't fit your worldview? god. or hidden information you dont' know about. done, problem solved.

>>17078865
you're cute, edgy puppy, but I don't need to prove the uncertainty principle

>>17078915
>uncertainty principle
it means you cannot know everything about a particle, simply and mostly wrongly said, but it doesn't say you can't know what you are interested in. speed or position, you can probe whatever you want to know.
but you're advocating for it having something we don't even know it has, which is dumb, it's not uncertainty principle.
it's the dumb principle, which says you're dumb, on principle.

>>17078927
Sure thing, pup. Good luck determining the precise trajectories of the neutron and the W boson that will induce beta decay.

>>17078021
About tree fiddy.

>>17078986
still something you know exists.

>>17078796
>>17078796
The nature of change.

First, to change is to be in relation. Consider motion: the idea of motion as a thing-in-itself is incomprehensible, it is defined by at least two different perspectives. "Independent existence" is the ultimate fiction.

Secondly, change is apprehended in two mutually implicating perspectives: cumulative change (integration) and instantaneous change (differentiation.) The instant and duration. Velocity is defined only through a history; you need the position over a neighborhood of time to compute the slope at one point. Total distance is defined only through the local rate: you build it up from infinitescimal contributions at each instant.

I have described integration and differentiation as passive "perspectives"" but these are also two categories of active processes: gathering and cutting, coming-together and coming-apart. Integration accumulates, sustains, and binds: it is memory, habit, contingency and layering. Differentiation isolates, decides, and breaks. It is the instant of the brush stroke, the choice of one note over another, the moment a mass of material becomes a distinct edge.

This dynamic is reflected in biological evolution where mutation is differentiation (Literally the introduction of a genetic difference) and selection is integration (genetic traits are ordered according to their environmental fitness.

Complexity flourishes in the universe in the rare places where where is a dynamic equilibrium between dissipation and petrification. Earth's Goldilocks zone is an example: if further from the sun everything would freeze and life would be impossible, if closer the oceans would evaporate.

>>17078786
It’s just random entropy.