Well, CTD, you still miss the point(s)
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.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.
Yes, and if you read the article you will see that this is discussed, this is called the Coulomb barrier or the Coulomb wall. The problem for you is that if there is no way to surmount the barrier/wall, that then there is
no radiation. Because we do have radiation, we
know this assertion is false.
The way the alpha particles get around the barrier/wall is by quantum tunneling, and you can calculate the probability of an alpha particle tunneling through the barrier with standard field equations. Curiously this is what tells you the decay rate of the isotope.
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.
Indeed I hope they do follow the link, as then they can see that all the dots on the
line labeled 96 are in line, as are each of the dots on the other lines labeled with different
numbers of protons (that's what the "96" represents). The lines are roughly parallel, and thus they show similar changes in alpha particle energy with the different numbers of protons in different isotopes (which is also predicted by the energy calculations). This kind of multi-line graph is commonly used to show the effects of three variables on the interactions, particularly when one variable, proton number, is an integer.
These lines clearly show that for any isotope (any set number of protons) there is a line showing a direct relationship of alpha particle energy to half life, and that if you change the decay rate (half life), you then change the alpha particle energy by an inverse logarithmic relationship.
Seeing as your initial premises, based on misunderstanding of the physics and the graphs, are invalid, this means that any further conclusions you have are irrelevant, and so I don't need to reply to them.
What uranium halos show is that the energy of alpha particles from uranium decay have not changed during the course of the formation of the uranium halos.
Because the alpha particle energy is inversely related to the log of the decay rate half-life, and you cannot change the decay rate without changing the alpha particle energy, this means that the decay rate for uranium has not changed during the formation of the uranium halos.
Because the uranium halos take several hundred million years to form with this decay rate, the earth is at least several hundred million years old -- since the rocks cooled to form the crystals.
Enjoy.
