0

Why do groups of atoms decay at predictable rates even though a single atom’s decay point is completely unpredictable? I’m having trouble wrapping my head around this.

From my reading, it seems that the law of large numbers can explain this. For example, even though it is unknown where a particular coin will land, we can say with reasonable certainty that when tossing tons of coins, about half will land on heads and the other half tails.

But in the case of a coin, there seems to be physical reasons explaining why about half will land on tails and heads. For starters, the coin is balanced on each side and given the rest of our knowledge about nature, there is no reason to prefer one side over the other given how objects behave when thrown in the air.

If one had never seen or tossed a coin before, assuming there was nothing biasing one side, one could still guess that about half the times you land it, it will land on heads. But in the case of atoms, one cannot seem to predict this. We observe frequencies of atoms decaying and then after the fact determine their probabilities of decay.

The question, then, is twofold. First, why is the decay rate or half life of a particular group of atoms X instead of Y? What influences this if we’ve found (and apparently proved) no possible local influence of decay on a single atom?

Second, why is there a constant decay rate for these groups of atoms in the first place? Why not complete and utter chaos (I.e. pure chaos or complete indeterminism)?

Qmechanic
  • 201,751
  • 2
  • Decays being random and memoryless means that they will predictably behave according to an exponential distribution. This was proven long before progress was made on the question of why a particular half-life is what it is. – Connor Behan Oct 16 '23 at 13:44
  • 1
    'Following up on @ConnorBehan 's comment, it's unclear whether you are asking a) why the decays are memoryless, or b) why that's sufficient to yield an exponential distribution or c) something else. Can you clarify? – WillO Oct 16 '23 at 13:53
  • @WillO C). To clarify, I am asking why there is a defined, constant, probability in the first place. And why is it the value X instead of Y? In the case of a card being drawn, or a dice being rolled, or a coin being tossed, we have antecedent physical reasons. In the case of a single atom, we do not. –  Oct 16 '23 at 13:56
  • 2
    are you familiar with the formalism of quantum mechanics and the Fermi Golden Rule? I'm afraid you will have to be if you want an answer for the origin of the derivation of those decay probabilities – Barbaud Julien Oct 16 '23 at 13:56
  • @Barbaud Julien The question is not about the origin of the derivation of the decay probabilities. The question is why there is a decay probability in the first place.. –  Oct 16 '23 at 13:58
  • 2
    Yes, I'm pretty sure that if you understand how to derive those probabilities you will understand why there is a probability... By derive, I mean prove, not calculate. Those are a direct consequence of the QM formalism. We need to know if you are familiar with it or not before answering you (although the question itself suggests you are not, I am just checking) – Barbaud Julien Oct 16 '23 at 14:00
  • @BarbaudJulien to derive the probabilities you need a QCD potential which hasnt been found yet and we would need to plug in that potential into the Schrodinger Equation. – Cerise Oct 16 '23 at 14:07
  • I still don't get what you're asking. You've stipulated that the decay for a single atom is random, which implies by definition that there is a decay probability; then you've asked why, given this, there is a decay probability. Are you asking why the decay probability is the same for one atom as it is for another? Or why these probabilities are independent? Or something else? – WillO Oct 16 '23 at 14:33
  • @WillO It’s not a stipulation, atleast not mine. Current physics states that the decay point for a single atom is random. Secondly, random means unpredictable. But unpredictability does not imply a constant probability. For example, imagine a group of atoms that 95% of the time decay to half before 4 minutes but then suddenly start always decaying to half after atleast 4 minutes have gone by. The frequencies have now changed. Why do these frequencies as we observe not change? –  Oct 16 '23 at 14:41
  • To use the coin example, imagine I toss 10,000 coins on Tuesday and 50% of them land on heads. Suppose I then toss them on Wednesday and find out 80% of them land on heads. In the case of a coin, this seems like an unexpected scenario. But that is because if a coin is an unbiased coin, we have no reason to prefer one side over another. But in the case of an atom, what reason is there to show why one probability distribution occurs instead of another? –  Oct 16 '23 at 14:43
  • 1
  • We usually assume the laws of physics are not time-dependent, because this is equivalent to conservation of energy, for which we have substantial evidence. 2) Even if the decay probability for a single atom is time-dependent, the distribution of decays for a large ensemble of atoms will be (essentially) time-independent, unless the time-dependence happens in a way that is correlated across atoms (in which case we lose conservation of energy).
  • – WillO Oct 16 '23 at 14:57
  • I suppose that may explain why a constant probability exists for an ensemble of atoms. But why one rate over another? @WillO Thank you for your comment. Do you mind also explaining why the correlation across atoms would violate conservation of energy? In the meantime, I will do further research on this –  Oct 16 '23 at 15:03
  • 2
    @thinkingman: For understanding why time-invariance of physical laws is equivalent to conservation of energy, the key phrase to Google for is "Noether's theorem". – WillO Oct 16 '23 at 15:33
  • 1
    You wrote ... random means unpredictable ...

    That may be one of the standard meanings of random in ordinary language.

    But in science, random has a more precise meaning drawn from the theory of probability and statistics. In particular, to say that an event (e.g. the measured outcome of an experiment) behaves randomly means that there is a certain probability distribution on the outcomes of that event (e.g. the set of possible values of the measurement).

    – Lee Mosher Oct 16 '23 at 18:10