Perhaps this page can be folded into the Radioactivity page? It seems a bit redundant having both...
Both are usefull, this one on the mechanisms and pyhsics, the other one for the seconadry effects of decay,
on environment, bioloy etc.
Btw. does anyone know if there exists a formula by which, given the number of protons and neutrons, the half-life of a nucleus can be derived?
- The best that I know is Table of Nuclides, which I added to the article. I believe that these are all measured values, I don't think science can calculate these things accurately at present. pstudier 22:55, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- If only nuclear physics were that advanced! Each of the decay mechanisms are very different processes with separate theoretical treatments. I think it's fair to say that most decay rates can be reproduced by theory to within an order of magnitude or thereabouts. All but the lightest nuclei represent extremely complex many-body problems that cannot be solved exactly (not at the moment anyway). You can make general comments, like for a particular isotope (i.e. constant proton number) the beta decay half-life gradually shortens as you move away from the line of stability (increasing or decreasing the number of neutrons).
- There is a formula that given A (total nuber of proton and neutron) and Z (number of proton) give you the approximate mass of the neuclide. But (in my opinion) is an empirical law (it has some parameter that are choose to make it better appriximate the empirical data). From this given a nuclide (A,Z) and a new neuclide (A*,Z*) you cnan know if the transform would be energetically favorible. But you have to take in account also the mass of the particle emitted. Unfourtunatelly it is not so easy, and this is not all of physics.AnyFile 11:38, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Would someone be able to elaborate on the following: what makes a nuclide unstable? what accounts for differences in radionuclide decay constants? how does radioactive decay relate to the second law of thermodynamics?
Merge
The above argument for maintaining separate articles here and at Radioactivity is no longer valid. We need to decide which article will be kept, and which will be made into a redirect. The case as I see it is thus:
- In favor of Radioactive decay: More precise term. Radioactivity would then be turned into something between a stub and a disambig page, linking perhaps to Radiation, Radioactive decay, and Radioactive contamination.
- In favor of Radioactive decay: Leave redirect at Radioactivity. pstudier 23:00, 2004 Nov 14 (UTC)
- In favor of Radioactivity: More common term, more likely to be searched, easier to link to.
- In favour. At the moment both page are not very scientific. Maybe also a rewriting or an extension are neededAnyFile 11:40, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Contesting your logic. I've been planning for weeks to rewrite this page, and I plan to proceed as soon as the merge takes place. It just seems foolish to start rewriting an article when I don't yet know what it will be entitled.
- May be I have express myself in a bad way. What I wanted to say is that there a lot of argument not covered and what is already written will need to be changed if I want to enlarge it.AnyFile 15:30, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
--Smack 06:26, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Please add any new arguments to this list. --Smack 22:09, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I can see no problem with keeping both. Wikipedia is not written on paper and data can be held several times over in different places with minimal extra cost. The principal search term will probably be Radioactivity but a more detailed look at Radioactive decay, perhaps detailing the rate of decay of specific elements and isotopes would be very interesting and would be too much detail to hold on the Radioactivity article. Lumos3 09:43, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- While it is often useful to have some minor subtopics discussed in more than one article, it is generally accepted that it is impractical to keep multiple articles on essentially the same topic. Consolidating these two articles in one location will facilitate all manner of maintenance tasks and help prevent inconsistencies from arising. If you wish to continue this discussion further, please do so at , where it may garner input from Wikipedists more competent to address the issue. --Smack 18:18, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Question of naming
Let's have another vote. Should this article live here, or at Nuclear decay? The present title is favored by a Google test, seven to one. --Smack (talk) 23:56, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Those in favor of 'Radioactive decay':
- Those in favor of 'Nuclear decay':
