Notices
Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: How is Uranium Possible?

  1. #1 How is Uranium Possible? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    19
    The decay time of uranium to lead is approximately 4.46 billion years, so the question is, if the solar system is 4.5 billion years old, how could there be any uranium left in it? In fact, if the universe is 12-14 billion years old, then how can any uranium exist anymore?

    My understanding of radioactive decay is limited, so I'm sure I'm missing something here...


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    4,431
    The number you quote is a half life, the time it takes for half of it to decay, not all of it...


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,533
    Quote Originally Posted by Jason Summer View Post
    The decay time of uranium to lead is approximately 4.46 billion years, so the question is, if the solar system is 4.5 billion years old, how could there be any uranium left in it? In fact, if the universe is 12-14 billion years old, then how can any uranium exist anymore?

    My understanding of radioactive decay is limited, so I'm sure I'm missing something here...
    According to the Big Bang theory, when the universe was formed there was NO uranium. There were no heavy elements at all.

    The heavy elements are thought to have come from synthesis in supernovae, in other words at the death of stars. So the uranium we see has to be a lot younger than the age of the universe. And of course supernovae are going on all the time, so uranium is still being synthesised.

    And then there is also the half life issue, as PhDemon has pointed out.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    The number you quote is a half life, the time it takes for half of it to decay, not all of it...
    so, does that mean 8.92 billion years for a full conversion?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,530
    Quote Originally Posted by Jason Summer View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    The number you quote is a half life, the time it takes for half of it to decay, not all of it...
    so, does that mean 8.92 billion years for a full conversion?
    No, in that time another half of what was left will be gone. Then after another 4.46 billion years, half the remainder from that will be gone. And so on.

    So, for example, if you start with 128 grams of uranium, after 4.46 billion years you will have 64 grams. After another you will have 32 grams. After another 4.46 BY you will have 16 grams ...
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    4,431
    What he said... He beat me to it!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    5
    I often wondered of Uranium is actually material from Solar Flairs...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    4,431
    No, it is dispersed in supernova explosions (as are most heavy elements). It is rare to see elements with atomic numbers above about 30 in solar flares.

    Some more info here http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//...00220.000.html
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jason Summer View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    The number you quote is a half life, the time it takes for half of it to decay, not all of it...
    so, does that mean 8.92 billion years for a full conversion?
    No, in that time another half of what was left will be gone. Then after another 4.46 billion years, half the remainder from that will be gone. And so on.

    So, for example, if you start with 128 grams of uranium, after 4.46 billion years you will have 64 grams. After another you will have 32 grams. After another 4.46 BY you will have 16 grams ...
    At this rate, a full conversion is going to take a while. And this looks mathematically to be an infinitely divisible process, like Zeno's paradox.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,640
    Quote Originally Posted by Jason Summer View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jason Summer View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    The number you quote is a half life, the time it takes for half of it to decay, not all of it...
    so, does that mean 8.92 billion years for a full conversion?
    No, in that time another half of what was left will be gone. Then after another 4.46 billion years, half the remainder from that will be gone. And so on.

    So, for example, if you start with 128 grams of uranium, after 4.46 billion years you will have 64 grams. After another you will have 32 grams. After another 4.46 BY you will have 16 grams ...
    At this rate, a full conversion is going to take a while. And this looks mathematically to be an infinitely divisible process, like Zeno's paradox.
    It's actually an ordinary exponential decay, with the added twist of randomness. After a half-life has elapsed, you may or may not have exactly half surviving. It's an average value.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,530
    Quote Originally Posted by Jason Summer View Post
    And this looks mathematically to be an infinitely divisible process, like Zeno's paradox.
    Mathematically, yes. But not physically, eventually you get to one atom left ...
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,533
    Quote Originally Posted by Jason Summer View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jason Summer View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    The number you quote is a half life, the time it takes for half of it to decay, not all of it...
    so, does that mean 8.92 billion years for a full conversion?
    No, in that time another half of what was left will be gone. Then after another 4.46 billion years, half the remainder from that will be gone. And so on.

    So, for example, if you start with 128 grams of uranium, after 4.46 billion years you will have 64 grams. After another you will have 32 grams. After another 4.46 BY you will have 16 grams ...
    At this rate, a full conversion is going to take a while. And this looks mathematically to be an infinitely divisible process, like Zeno's paradox.
    This is a classic exponential decay curve, i.e. where the rate of decay is proportional to the amount left. It is what is used in radioisotope age determination, e.g. the well-known carbon 14 measurement of the age of organic material. By comparing the amount of the radioisotope with that of the stable isotope, you can work out how far down the exponential curve you are and hence the age of the material. There is a practical age limit, when the amount left is too small to be quantified accurately by analysis. But it's a lot longer than the half life.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,070
    [QUOTE=Jason Summer;607927][QUOTE=Strange;607875]
    Quote Originally Posted by Jason Summer View Post
    At this rate, a full conversion is going to take a while. And this looks mathematically to be an infinitely divisible process, like Zeno's paradox.
    Once you get down to a small enough number of atoms, there are not enough to maintain the statistical average. If you look at a individual atom, there is no way to accurately predict when it will decay. All you can say is that there is a 50% chance that it will decay within the next 4.46By, a 75% chance that it will do so in 8.92By, a 87.5% chance in 13.56By and so on. It could decay in the next second or in a trillion years. The same goes if you had two atoms. You can't definitely say that one will decay in exactly 4.46By. It isn't until you get a significantly large enough sample of atoms that you can start to predict with any accuracy that 1/2 of the particles will have decayed after 4.46By.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    19
    [QUOTE=Janus;607952][QUOTE=Jason Summer;607927]
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jason Summer View Post
    At this rate, a full conversion is going to take a while. And this looks mathematically to be an infinitely divisible process, like Zeno's paradox.
    Once you get down to a small enough number of atoms, there are not enough to maintain the statistical average. If you look at a individual atom, there is no way to accurately predict when it will decay. All you can say is that there is a 50% chance that it will decay within the next 4.46By, a 75% chance that it will do so in 8.92By, a 87.5% chance in 13.56By and so on. It could decay in the next second or in a trillion years. The same goes if you had two atoms. You can't definitely say that one will decay in exactly 4.46By. It isn't until you get a significantly large enough sample of atoms that you can start to predict with any accuracy that 1/2 of the particles will have decayed after 4.46By.
    Okay, I think my question is answered.

    But now I have a new question. If a single atom has a chance, though minimal, that it will decay within seconds, is it possible to have a large quantity like that, like a whole gram spontaneously decaying? Of course we are entering the range of near impossible probability, but "near impossible" isn't impossible, yes?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    In theory, if you had a an entire star's worth of carbon 14, it could spontaneously, completely decay all at once. Is it likely? no. The probability is what we would considr to be effectively 0. BUT, could it happen? theoretically, yes.

    Radioactive decay doesn't occur at any predefined time. It happens, or it doesn't. All we can do is measure how often it happens as an average, and notice that the rates are correlative to how much is there to begin with. that's how half-lives were discovered
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    19
    You guys are great!

    Thanks a bunch for humoring me for a bit while I figure stuff out.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,679
    Quote Originally Posted by Jason Summer View Post
    Thanks a bunch for humoring me for a bit while I figure stuff out.
    Please! HumoUring!
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,530
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jason Summer View Post
    Thanks a bunch for humoring me for a bit while I figure stuff out.
    Please! HumoUring!
    The U decayed...
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,533
    Quote Originally Posted by strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jason summer View Post
    thanks a bunch for humoring me for a bit while i figure stuff out.
    please! Humouring!
    the u decayed...
    AaARGH!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,070
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jason Summer View Post
    Thanks a bunch for humoring me for a bit while I figure stuff out.
    Please! HumoUring!
    The U decayed...
    But that would make HumoThring.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    19
    you guys... T-T
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Radon from Uranium
    By Matt Wall in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: March 10th, 2012, 07:59 AM
  2. Will uranium exposure harm edible foods?
    By cashsale in forum Health & Medicine
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: February 13th, 2010, 06:19 PM
  3. *Weapons-grade Uranium close call!!!*
    By Deathridesahorse in forum Politics
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: January 1st, 2008, 11:37 AM
  4. Uranium
    By leohopkins in forum Chemistry
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: February 2nd, 2007, 12:26 PM
  5. Instability of Uranium
    By Photon in forum Physics
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: August 14th, 2006, 03:31 PM
Tags for this Thread

View Tag Cloud

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •