I’ll supply an example of an anomaly that has usually bothered me – radioactive decay and the resulting half-life courting. If you decide to accept it, your venture will explain radioactive decay and the resulting half of-existence relationship to me. Don’t tell me what occurs – that I know. Tell me why it occurs whilst it happens. Tell me why volatile nuclei pass poof absolutely at random, WITHOUT causality, yet form a precise mathematical courting. Why? Why? Why? How? How? How?
You’re aware of the concept of radioactive decay and the half of-lifestyles dating that is taught in junior high school. Now radioactive nuclei will decay, cross poof, absolutely at random, consistent with the textbooks. Radioactive or risky nuclei will decay without any causality connected to the event, in step with the textbooks. Now, you inform me how inanimate objects, unstable nuclei, can move poof totally at random without any apparent causality but attain a precise mathematical courting – the 1/2-life. It makes no experience. It’s near as if an unstable nucleus “is aware of” or is conscious when it is its flip to move poof so that it will keep the half-existence relationship. We know it takes place, but why it takes place is an explanation living someplace in “The Twilight Zone.”
Regarding radioactive decay, people often make one HUGE mistake. They say my obvious anomaly changed due to fluctuations within the quantum vacuum. Please note the word used – “prompted.” Anyone who says that is guessing. Physicists do not know that. The textbooks, without a doubt, state that with admire to radioactive decay, there’s NO causality! It just takes place for NO cause in any respect. So do not argue with me on that – argue with the physicists! If you say radioactive decay is deterministic – simply pronouncing this is the clean element – and I’d like to agree, however, what precisely determines it?
Now I suspect human beings might be complicated quantum fluctuations with quantum tunneling. Now the ‘what’s behind radioactive decay – well, specifically the emission of alpha particles (helium nuclei) – is occasionally referred to as quantum tunneling, but the ‘why’ in the back of quantum tunneling isn’t of route targeted or explained both, so Panpsychism* is as suitable proof as any. But quantum tunneling isn’t the equal element as quantum fluctuations, and they rate special entries in any textbook index or glossary. Quantum tunneling is inner to the nucleus, and so governs the decay or the poof. Quantum fluctuations are external to the nucleus and consequently have no impact on what happens internally. Nothing bodily/chemical it truly is external to a risky nucleus could have the slightest impact on whilst it is going, poof.
But if quantum tunneling is what happens (leaving out the why and the how for the instant), when why (there may be that damn word again) doesn’t quantum tunneling take place in solid nuclei? That’s one rule for one; one rule for the opposite. That does not make a high-quality deal of feel because a nucleus, stable or risky, is only a series of protons and neutrons. There does not appear to be any more ‘something’ in a volatile nucleus that initiates quantum tunneling. One ought to outline a volatile nucleus as one where there might be quantum tunneling and a strong nucleus wherein there may not be quantum tunneling. However, it is just a definition, no longer a proof.
I ought to repeat that with regards to radioactive decay, there may be NO causality. Standard textbooks will let you know what happens and how that results in a 1/2-life. Then there may be numerous paragraphs approximately how beneficial that is in archaeological, and many others. Dating. You will NOT find any point out of quantum fluctuations, the Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics, non-locality, or every other strive at explaining “why.” It could be smooth to say, if it were, in reality, the case, that a cosmic ray or a neutrino or a rogue electron, and so on. Slammed into the risky nucleus and set it off on its path to destruction. But unfortunately, it is no longer what the physics texts say either.
As mentioned above, there’s no acknowledged bodily or chemical method known on the way to force an unstable nucleus to move poof if it doesn’t need to. You can not hurry things up, nor can you retard the method. Sorry, it’s the manner it’s far – in keeping with the textbooks. One absolutely does explain how you can surely take equal unstable nuclei and vicinity them inside a digital Planck Length of each different. They are in genuine equal surroundings. One may move poof within a minute – the dual may stick around for one thousand million years. Ah, sure, you say, but take two people and place them facet by aspect. One might have a coronary heart attack on the spot, and the alternative will not have a coronary heart attack ever. Except but, that analogy would not prove to be the case if each human being has been definitely the same down to their remaining electron location.
However, allow us to, for the moment, accept evidence of quantum fluctuations as being the motive of radioactive decay – alpha, beta, and gamma radiation. That rationalization solves nothing. Even if quantum fluctuations had been responsible for radioactive decay, it still fails to explain how a RANDOM quantum fluctuation procedure can result in a PRECISE mathematical dating. And if quantum fluctuations are not random but are omnipresent all the time 24/7/52, you definitely assume all volatile nuclei to head poof simultaneously. The upshot of this is there nevertheless will no resultant unique mathematical dating, the half-lifestyles. The question additionally wishes to be asked, exactly how nicely have 1/2-lives been validated? Given that people have only regarded approximately the idea for roughly ten many years or so (supply or take), nicely extraordinarily quick half of-lives relative to the human focus of the idea is one issue. However, something inside the heaps to tens of millions to billions of years continues to be in speculative limbo.
To illustrate how nutty this all is, we realize that radioactive carbon (C-14) and its miles are constantly being manufactured. Now allow us to imagine that for some cause, C-14 were to cease being synthetic, and accordingly, the overall delivery on Earth would now start to reduce via radioactive decay. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that there are one million C-14 nuclei on Earth. Okay, so the risky nuclei of C-14 decay away at random. At a few points in time, on down the music, 500,000 C-14 nuclei may have gone poof. You might name that elapsed time the half-life of C-14. Now the query is since the 500,000 C-14 nuclei which are left will hold to decay at random, is it more logical to assume that the rest will pass poof in more or less the equal time body because of the first 500,000 nuclei, or that most effective 250,000 will decay in that point body? If simplest 250,000 go, poof, does not that recommend a few non-random principles at work, like, say, recognition at the part of the nuclei (Panpsychism) or a pre-programmed (software) scenario?
However, now rewind the clock to the point wherein C-14 stops being produced and do the state of affairs another time. Because of the random nature of the decay, you may get a barely extraordinary 1/2-existence. Go returned and start all yet again, and you will get yet every other price. Rewind over and over, and you may never get the precise identical half of-existence fee. The values might be within the identical ballpark possibly, but you may emerge with differing rankings, consequences, effects, etc.