Why do atoms decay

I ask because it seems that although transformation and absorption are different from decaying, all three are forms of mutability; ways in which a particle is destroyed and replaced with something else.

So yes, mutability is a consequence of having any interactions at all. All other forms of mutability require two particles come into close proximity, and that is much less likely to happen spontaneously except in very dense environments such as cores of stars or particle accelerators.

Thanks Matt. Does the rarity of these collisions mean that in a heat death of the universe we will just have electrons and neutrinos remaining? Photons, electrons, neutrinos, positrons, antineutrinos, gravitons — and possibly protons and other atomic nuclei and their antiparticles though these are expected to decay very slowly.

But dark matter particles might be stable too; there may be additional conversation laws that prevent their decay. Alternatively, they may decay very slowly. I wish to express my affection for your kind-heartedness for persons that actually need assistance with your area. Your real dedication to getting the solution all-around had become extremely helpful and have usually helped those just like me to attain their desired goals.

Your amazing important suggestions means a great deal to me and extremely more to my office workers. Thank you; from everyone of us. Hi there, I wish for to subscribe for this website to take hottest updates, therefore where can i do it please help. Oh, you probably will never read this, seeing that it is an older article. We could also say that energy is that which we refer to as a force. Hence, EM force is energy made of strings with two opposing charges.

When these connect into a long line, we feel the force or fow of that energy. Nuclear force is the energy that carries or breaks up into three different points of connection thus allowing for 16 combinations or outcomes. Nuclear weak and strong aspects of it are merely the limit to how much interaction is possible before something gives in. We can fill the glass with water, but when it reaches its capacity, it will overflow.

The number of these combinations is limited because the number of connections is determined by the nature of the energy that makes up the force. The two terms are interchangeable. Force is energy and energy is a force. They are one and the same thing.

Too much force or energy results in a spillage of that energy, therefore particles of smaller mass if that spill is at its very minimum than virtual particles. Vacuum is a medium with its own variables through which these energies vibrate. The nature of this medium is such as to push against the energy, not because it stronger then forces per square inch, but because there is more of it. Analogy to that would be an ocean and the submarine thou submarine will not spin but may get crushed by the enormous pressure of water or under the weight of it.

Show me equations that represent your words and lead to predictions that we can compare with experiment; then we will compare with experiment and see. My educated guess, looking at your words, is that it would be impossible for anyone to turn your words into equations that would agree with experiment. For instance, despite what you suggest, force is not energy and energy is not force; I can take a free particle that is exerting no force on anything, and I can measure its energy; all the forces involved are ZERO, but the energy of the particle is NOT zero.

So that seems like a flat-out contradiction. It would be better for you to learn the language of physics first, and translate your ideas into the language that physicists speak. Then maybe equations can be written down [if that is even possible], predictions made, and comparisons with experiment performed.

Thanks for your reply. Still, I see force as a dispersion of enormous energy, hence the two are interchangeable. I do apologize for my non — expert delivery. The very definition of these two concepts makes that impossible. With the definition that is used in physics, force can be zero when energy is not; energy is a number whereas force has a direction — etc. Concentration of photons into a small stream cuts through things.

Is energy of photons doing the work or does the energy become a force when concentrated? The strong gravity inside the black hole destroys more energetic stars. How can we say a strong concentration of gravity in a tiny place will surpass the energy of the more massive star if it has no energy? A thunder bolt fries the object it hits. Do we see anything like that in space? Can electric bolt travel through vacuum of space? Two nuclear bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki burned everything and everyone within its epicenter.

The floor and the ceiling drawn on a paper of the house plan serves two different functions, but a 2D representation of the space it will occupy once the house is built is the same space. You say a particle has energy you can assign a number to, but force has zero energy.

It looks to me like we are walking on a ceiling already. A force is more powerful than the energy locked in the particle. So who is performing this work? I am not challenging physics. I am demonstrating how the rest of us see the natural world. You male brain is better suited for tunnel vision and spatial comprehension, but my female brain is great for networking.

It looks very probable to me that the two need each other to get the whole picture of things. A man should not strain his brain to think like a woman, and a woman should not strain her brain to think like a man. Just sayin.. You have no idea how other people see it.

You have just insulted every woman in my field. End of conversation. She tries to demonstrate her competence by using cold logic in her reasonings.

She is being forced into unnatural mold. Recent researches of a human brain show that the brains of the two sexes really do function differently. Women physicists should be appreciated for the unique aspect they can provide to sciences, their intuition.

I may of said this in a very blunt way English is my second language but I never meant to insult anyone. However, dismissing someone elses reasoning as absurd just because it challenges the mainstream idea demonstrates to me a sensitive spot in a mainstream theory of these very subjects.

If you get into the math, it becomes clear very quickly why force and energy have the same sort of relationship as amps and volts. The concept is Dimensionality. RobertC As will be obvious from the question, I am not a scientist. However I am baffled by the concept that fundamental particles decay into other fundamental particles. Surely one fundamental particle cannot transform itself into one or more other fundamental particles?

Many thanks. I wish that all householders could become more aware of the dangers of carbon monoxide poisoning. Every year more than twenty people are killed by carbon monoxide leaking from faulty central heating boilers and many hundreds more suffer health problems caused by it. The every six months, tto ensure the health and orlando balance of yyour musculoskeletal system and will also reduce the likelihood of future injuries.

And aas mentioned earlier, there is a significaant part of construction to protect and signify your property from unnecessary interruptions. On particle decay: I believe in the conservation of energy law and see everything in existence as a form of basic, eternal energy.

I believe reality has always existed and has a constant, eternal value of 1. In other words, all that exists within reality can never lose or gain value, no matter how many matter to energy or energy to matter exchanges occur within it. This is in agreement with the conservation of energy law. That law is telling us that something had to have always been in existence in order for anything to exist.

Is basic energy intelligent or completely mechanical? All particles may eventually be stripped of the properties that distinguish them from the eternal energy that constructed them. If this is so, the process is most likely reversed to allow reconstruction of universes within an eternal reality.

If gravity is also eliminated in the decaying process, there must be some other force or forces involved in the reconstruction of matter and the corresponding restoration of gravity.

This unconventional thought process may offer clues into how energy from decayed matter can possibly form singularities that eventually expand into universes once critical mass is reached.

Quantum mechanics may be the enabler of this endless cycle of decay and reconstruction if universes do decay to the point of gravity loss. I thought I will be the first one to comment that this whole theory sounds like pure cattle business. Why do they need all of this architecture and just start realizing that this stuff is made from some magical type substance that no one just yet can conceptualize. A while ago during 10 hour per week chemistry lectures and lab experiments I saw something completely different about these particles than what the QM model describes.

That is, a place where dimensions are radially inverted. Objects that appear closer in our universe would appear further in this hypothetical space. Of course this is all just speculation based on comments from physicists and mathematicians from the last 50 years. Planck and company spent their careers figuring out the math behind all these concepts. If you make a measurement, you know some mix of position and time. But since your measurement literally doesn't have enough dimensions to carry all that information, you're stuck with a fundamental limit of certainty.

For a given effort, we can tell with great precision when something happened or where it happened but not both.

Same with angle and speed and starting position. We'll only ever get an estimate of velocity vectors. Mike, I'm gonna go out on a limb and risk stating that it's quite likely that everything eventually decays, even electrons. A proposed decay path is that if other matter somehow all decays to electrons and positrons and quite a bit of bosons , then eventually even the electron-antielectron pair should eventually merge, even if it takes an insanely high amount of time.

We use the term metastable to refer to elements with lifespans so long that half of them that exist now assuming no more is created and none are converted forcefully like with neutron bombardment will still be here in roughly billion years. On time scales of strong-force interactions back and forth in an atom's nucleus, even top quarks take a 'while'. It's called decay because using words like 'roulette' would sound too much like games of chance?

I amm sure this article has touched all the internet visitors, its really really fastidious post on building up new blog. I kjow this site gives quality dependent articles orr reviews annd other data, is theree any other site which gives these stuff in quality? With havin so much content and articlles do you ever run into any issues of plagorism orr copyright violation? Do you know any solutions to help protect against content from being stolen? Have you seen this new method?

Copyscape and Getty and such are somewhat useful tools for images or text BTW, but IMO total idiots when it comes to getting blacklisted from practically every major site as an abusive bot. Try looking at the BlackhatSEO forums for a example of many sides in this never-ending battle to increase search ranks.

Then I read somewhere that some isotopes of common elements display both types of decay. Result: Argon And there are even a small minority of cases where the proton turns directly into a neutron, releasing a positron and a neutrino. No need to wait for star-core collapse: the bananas in my fruit-bowl are breaking the laws of physics on a daily basis!

This calls for one of your inimitable explanations! Since posting my question above, further reading has made me understand that, although proton-to-neutron change is virtually impossible for isolated particles, it is perfectly feasible when the total mass-energy of an atomic nucleus is involved.

Cobalt 27protons — 60 isotope can change into Nickel 28 — 60 , whereas Cobalt 27 — 56 isotope changes to Iron 26 — Which leaves me with two hopefully more sensible questions: 1. What about Electron Capture? How come in some isotopes an electron can plummet from its inner orbital to collide with a proton, resulting in a neutron and released neutrino? I hope these questions from an amateur make some contribution to the theme of this thread. The reason we have atomic decay is the Weak Nuclear Force!

The Weak Nuclear Force is because of the vacuum of space! The vacuum of space is in fact the Weak Nuclear Force! I am currently writing an article on the decay channels of the Higgs Boson myself and I was hoping perhaps you could help me with references you used in writing this articles, such as papers and books. Hello there, professor. First off, I would like to congratulate you for your article. Exceptional as usual. I would like to know your opinion on whether the particle decay and other known phenomena, like the radioactive decay are uncaused, that is, do not have any particular cause.

As far as I know, there is no known reason for a particular atom to decay, they are objectively random events. All you can know is some variables or parameters involved. For instance, in the radioactive decay the most you can do is address a half-life constant for every element that has radioactivity and predict when an ensemble of radioactive atoms will decay through statistical methods, although, it is impossible to know when, and if, a particular atom will decay.

Consider the case of an incandescent lamp. Macroscopically, you can attribute the cause of the lightning of the light bulb as the passage of electrical current due to the switch activation. However, analyzing the same problem microscopically, the case is slightly different. When the switch is turned on, the lamp filament is excited by the passage of the current of electrons and the free electrons in the atoms become excited. The light is emitted, then, when the electron decays. But when does the decay occurs?

The decay can happen at any time or place indefinitely. There is no cause for a particular electron to decay, only a probability chance of decaying at a particular instant of time, which can occur or not. Cause determines, condition allows. For light to be emitted it is necessary to the electron be excited, but being the electron excited, the emission can occur, or not, that is, the emission is not determined by any constraints.

Particles decay because of the vacuum environment in space! If you wish to want to more email or fb me! Matt is a total douche. How about fucking just teaching Matt huh? The rate of decay activity of a radioactive isotope is proportional to the number of atoms of the isotope present.

The atomic mass of a radioactive atoms is changed during the radioactive decay alpha decay, neutron decay, proton decay, double proton decay , spontaneous or artificial fission, nuclear reactions. Similarity: Both show that the radioactive atoms decrease and decayed atoms increase Difference: an actual decay is longer. Log in. Nuclear Physics. See Answer.

Best Answer. Study guides. Q: Why do atoms decay? Write your answer Related questions. Do all atoms have beta decay? What are nuclear decay equations? What does radioactive atoms do? What do radioactive atoms do? Why do some atoms decay more quickly than others? Can atoms change back from one another? What is it called when atoms are unstable and undergo a nuclear decay? What are unstable atoms?

How do you figure out beta decay of molecule? Why would carbon dating work if carbon atoms did not decay at a constant rate? How much time it takes for half of the atoms in a radioactive element to decay? Is fusion nuclear decay or nuclear synthesis? Would carbon dating work if carbon atoms did not decay at a constant rate and why? Can an atom be broken? Alpha decay and beta decay are two forms of radioactive decay that cause what process?

What must occur before a radioactive atoms ceases to undergo further radioactive decay? Atoms are changed into other atoms? Rather, an atom decays at a random time, completely independent of how long it has been in existence. Radioactive decay is governed by random, statistical effects and not by internal deterministic machinery. A particular radioactive atom can and will decay at any time. The "lifetime" of a radioactive isotope is not a description of how long a single atom will survive before decaying.

Rather, it is a description of the average amount of time it takes for a significant portion of a group of radioactive atoms to decay. A characteristic lifetime does not come about by the progression of internal machinery, but by the statistical behavior of a large group of atoms governed by probability.

An analogy may be helpful. A standard six-sided die will show a single number between "1" and "6" when rolled. Let us agree that when we roll a "6", we smash the die to pieces and the game is over for that particular die. We begin rolling the die and get a "3", and then a "1" and then a "5".

Next we roll a "6" and destroy the die as agreed upon. Since the die was destroyed after four rolls, we say that this particular die had an individual lifetime of four rolls. Now we get a new die and repeat the game. For this die, we roll a "2", then a "1", then "4", "3", "1", "5", and then finally a "6". This die therefore had an individual lifetime of seven rolls.

When we repeat this game for many dice, we discover that the individual lifetime of a particular die can be anything from one roll to hundreds of rolls. However, if we average over thousands of individual lifetimes, we find that the dice consistently have an average lifetime of about six rolls.