Yes, the double talk gets old CTD.
Changing the decay rate would result in more decay - not more energetic decay. In alpha decay, for example, more alpha particles would be produced in a given amount of time, but the energy of each alpha particle would remain exactly the same.
You of course can prove this (the way you "proved" that 1/4 life resulted in a different rate of decay from a 1/2 life?). We can calculate the amount of energy for decay of atoms by e=mc^2 and the energy left over from the masses involved (M1 > M2 + mp, where M1 decays to M2 with mp being the particle) -- today -- however the energy to release the particle in the first place is tied to the decay rate:
Alpha Decay, Alpha detectors and id...Vance, chapters 1.3.4, 2.1, 6.2 and 8.4)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). Change the decay rate and you change the decay energy.
Another problem is that the very concept of a changing decay rate is a PRATT (
CF210) with consequences:
The half-lives of radioisotopes can be predicted from first principles through quantum mechanics. Any variation would have to come from changes to fundamental constants. According to the calculations that accurately predict half-lives, any change in fundamental constants would affect decay rates of different elements disproportionally, even when the elements decay by the same mechanism (Greenlees 2000; Krane 1987).
You would need a fundamental change to physics in order to change the decay rates.
And of course this doesn't answer the question of HOW the decay rate is changed, and how it miraculously does not affect all the evidence that there has been no change in decay rates for billions of years (it can be observed in the old light from stars billions of light-years away).
Some minor changes can be effected,
How to Change Nuclear Decay Rates, but not of much significance:
However, there are exceptions, the most notable being the the astrophysically important isotope beryllium-7. Be-7 decays purely by electron capture (positron emission being impossible because of inadequate decay energy) with a half-life of somewhat over 50 days. It has been shown that differences in chemical environment result in half-life variations of the order of 0.2%, and high pressures produce somewhat similar changes. Also, a recent paper measures a 0.8% reduction in half-life for Be-7 atoms enclosed within C60 cages. Other cases where known changes in decay rate occur are Zr-89 and Sr-85, also electron capturers; Tc-99m ("m" implying an excited state), which decays by both beta and gamma emission; and various other "metastable" things that decay by gamma emission with internal conversion. With all of these other cases the magnitude of the effect is less than is typically the case with Be-7.
Now I don't call less than 1% significant, especially when the measured rate of decay can be off by that amount based on empirical evidence.
So are you going to provide a mechanism and a mathematical model for changing the decay rate? Or are you just going to hide behind double talk and assertion.
The exact same halo would result, only faster. The energy contained by decay particles is a function of their source atom. It has nothing at all to do with how many atoms are decaying in a given timeframe.
When you change the physics to increase the decay rate you change the physics for the decay energy (to say nothing of bonding energy holding everything together). You also
fry because you have multiplied the heat generated by decay by several factors.
Here RAZD clearly identifies his target audience. He's out to fool those who don't follow links & examine the evidence for themselves. Look at how many sources he cites in order to create the impression that he's done his homework before trying to sneak this false claim in under the radar.
Might be interesting to see the results if we could accurately poll the readership.
Another
ad hominem, argument from incredulity, and now the logical fallacy of the appeal to popularity. Logical fallacies don't prove anything.
It used to be quite popular to think the earth was the center of the universe, and it used to be quite popular to think that gravity was according to Newton's formula (after he did away with a formerly popular notion). Popularity has nothing to do with reality.
Enjoy.
