Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Probability For A Hydrogen Atom To Be 13 Billion Years Old?


  • Please log in to reply
25 replies to this topic

#18 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2443 posts

Posted 14 May 2019 - 05:15 PM

No, the decay is not due to an approximation ''of when it might decay'' as there are physical reasons why it cannot. Using the simplest system, an electron, the same reason holds, there is nothing the electron can decay into that is simpler. Unless of course, you argue after so many aeons it could decay into something simpler, we have yet to see direct reasons for this... though an electron is composed of smaller components, at least three if memory recollects, but this is done under different medium.

 

In short, a stable particle, is one that cannot decay into anything simpler in the vacuum of space.



#19 VictorMedvil

VictorMedvil

    The Human Shadow

  • Members
  • 1054 posts

Posted 14 May 2019 - 05:17 PM

No, the decay is not due to an approximation ''of when it might decay'' as there are physical reasons why it cannot. Using the simplest system, an electron, the same reason holds, there is nothing the electron can decay into that is simpler. Unless of course, you argue after so many aeons it could decay into something simpler, we have yet to see direct reasons for this... though an electron is composed of smaller components, at least three if memory recollects, but this is done under different medium.

 

In short, a stable particle, is one that cannot decay into anything simpler in the vacuum of space.

 

Yes, but this is the chance of it losing or gaining an electron or becoming bonded which I just used the exponential decay formula thinking it would exponentially decay from the state given that once again I don't know the complex factors to get a better answer. I am not saying it is actually decaying like a isotope but rather from the state of having its original electrons and such.


Edited by VictorMedvil, 14 May 2019 - 05:17 PM.


#20 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2443 posts

Posted 14 May 2019 - 05:23 PM

Ok.. put it this way, for a hydrogen atom to lose energy is much less in statistical significance to a ground state to gain bonds. The reason why is because ... in a loose sense of the terminology we tend to use, would take an infinite amount of energy for a ground state particle to decay.



#21 VictorMedvil

VictorMedvil

    The Human Shadow

  • Members
  • 1054 posts

Posted 14 May 2019 - 05:27 PM

Ok.. put it this way, for a hydrogen atom to lose energy is much less in statistical significance to a ground state to gain bonds. The reason why is because ... in a loose sense of the terminology we tend to use, would take an infinite amount of energy for a ground state particle to decay.

 

That's why this is an approximation, I am not going to take the time to calculate the hundreds of complex factors that would give rise to this as it would take me months to solve. I understand that they can not actually decay the hydrogen atoms but it is the math curve I was trying to fit this to rather than do that HUGE calculation to exactly get your answer. I will leave something like that to the OP.


Edited by VictorMedvil, 14 May 2019 - 05:29 PM.


#22 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2443 posts

Posted 14 May 2019 - 05:32 PM

If you accept what I have said, then the approximation for the ground state atom, is vanishing, simply because it would take far more energy right now required in the observable horizon to decay it. You see, the approximation says, maybe one day such an atom is capable of decaying, but it would take an infinitely long time. These kinds of approximations are called limits and these kinds of limits are really no good unless you want a full picture in a certain model ie. an infinitely expanding space.



#23 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2443 posts

Posted 14 May 2019 - 05:34 PM

But why concentrate on an atom? There are physics there telling us the same thing about simpler systems, just like an electron. It will not decay into anything else, simply because there are no known working models for it to decay into. And it still remains, that this is fact.



#24 VictorMedvil

VictorMedvil

    The Human Shadow

  • Members
  • 1054 posts

Posted 14 May 2019 - 05:36 PM

But why concentrate on an atom? There are physics there telling us the same thing about simpler systems, just like an electron. It will not decay into anything else, simply because there are no known working models for it to decay into. And it still remains, that this is fact.

 

That's what the OP wanted so I choose that as my object to be looked at. I could have chosen smaller parts I suppose when doing that calculation.


Edited by VictorMedvil, 14 May 2019 - 05:38 PM.


#25 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2443 posts

Posted 14 May 2019 - 05:40 PM

That's what the OP wanted so I choose that as my object to be looked at.

 

ok.

 

But again, there are physical reasons why we will never see this decay. And if it takes an infinity to do so, it remains an approximation for a very distant future, and even then it remains a speculation. When we require a system to do an ''infinite amount of phases or steps'' to reach a specific decay mode, it's highly unlikely it will ever occur. Best yet, infinity is not even a number, at worse, it is a very bad application of approximation ie. there are many types of infinity, if you believe in that kind of thing.


Edited by Dubbelosix, 14 May 2019 - 05:41 PM.


#26 VictorMedvil

VictorMedvil

    The Human Shadow

  • Members
  • 1054 posts

Posted 14 May 2019 - 05:44 PM

ok.

 

But again, there are physical reasons why we will never see this decay. And if it takes an infinity to do so, it remains an approximation for a very distant future, and even then it remains a speculation. When we require a system to do an ''infinite amount of phases or steps'' to reach a specific decay mode, it's highly unlikely it will ever occur. Best yet, infinity is not even a number, at worse, it is a very bad application of approximation ie. there are many types of infinity, if you believe in that kind of thing.

I agree the chance is near Zero but still not 100% thanks to computer calculations otherwise I would have just said Zero without a computer that could calculate that decay mode's chance or in this case the odds of a atom staying unchanged over billions of years.


Edited by VictorMedvil, 14 May 2019 - 06:07 PM.