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.
The problem with proposing added energy is pretty obvious: one runs up against
Conservation of energy. The energy of an alpha particle can't increase just because it is released ahead of a schedule set by men.
I hope folks will follow the link to the pdf, so they'll see that the context is different. If the author intended to assert some sort of universal law claiming higher decay rate always results in higher energy, he really should have omitted the chart that immediately follows the quote.
On said chart, directly below the number 96, I see a dot. There are dots surrounding this dot in all directions. Some have slower decay & lower energy. Some have slower decay & higher energy. Some have faster decay & lower energy. Some have faster decay & higher energy. All combinations of higher/lower energy and slower/faster decay are charted. So I conclude the author didn't intend to imply a universal law.
Such a law would naturally require a little more than say-so, before it could be considered scientific. And most such laws have names, if you think about it. I didn't see a name, so I think my interpretation is fairly safe.
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.
...
By now most of us are aware that talkdeceptions is fond of "predicting" anything and everything that's already been observed.
I'm confident something being classified as a "PRATT" is only a concern to talkdeceptions' flock.
You would need a fundamental change to physics in order to change the decay rates.
Why don't you explain how come some atoms hold together while other identical atoms right next to them fall apart.
I could be behind the times. If they discovered why this takes place they didn't have to notify me.
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.
Lost our way, have we? It is you who need to decide whether you want constant decay rates & polonium radiohalos stand, or whether you want variable decay rates and evodates fall.
Your attempts to explain away the radiohalos require suspension of decay during migration.
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
Change what physics? Nobody knows why decay occurs at any apparent rate.
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.
None of the logical fallacies you list are present in my post. I do not claim or imply that your argument is wrong because you are the source. I claimed it is wrong and implied you know it is wrong.
I didn't appeal to popularity to establish that I'm right about the issue. I didn't appeal to it at all, in fact. I should like to appeal to popularity for the purpose of discovering how successful you've been - nothing further. Don't know that'd I'd be keen on sharing the results with you either, if I had them.
As a matter of policy, I don't employ incredulity as an argument. On rare occasions I make special exceptions when I judge them to be warranted for purposes of humour and/or mockery.
