Yes, and if you read the article you will see that this is discussed, this is called the Coulomb barrier or the Coulomb wall.
That's not the same thing. First of all, there may or may not be a mechanism which controls the timing of decay. Nobody has yet discovered one. You want to claim "quantum tunneling" is the means of decay? This is an ineffective dodge. You still need to answer the
timing issue. What allows one particle to tunnel, while preventing another? Do the atoms poll their neighbors? How do they know when to decay? Who sets their schedule?
The problem for you is that if there is no way to surmount the barrier/wall, that then there is no radiation.
The problem for you is pretty clear. This isn't what I argued. I never said there is no decay. I noted that your migration stories require decay to cease, but I never advocated the position for one instant. If this is a problem for anyone, it's a problem for talkdeceptions, Linear, and yourself.
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.
Nothing curious at all about it, except that anyone would try to pass it off as a "prediction". That, and the idea that anyone would bother with such a roundabout method of calculating.
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).
Yes, and the chart's been jimmied quite a bit to obtain straight looking lines. Note the numbers on the horizontal and vertical scales, and their spacing. Presenting this chart to an educated audience who understand that the lines are actually curves is one thing. Trying to pass them off as actually straight is another.
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.
Neither the article nor the chart discuss changing decay rates. They discuss some examples of observed decay rates. RAZD extrapolates and asserts a new, unnamed, unrecognized law. I do not imply that he's the first, so the "law", if it ever is recognized, may well bear someone else's name.
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.
Seeing that you decline to answer whether or not decay must always be the same, or if it can be suspended to allow for migration fantasies; I shall consider your dilemma unresolvable.
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.
What polonium halos show is a phenomenon which can only be plausibly explained by confessing "God did it."
