Name just one....

[RocksInMyHead]

I hope to see an equation like f(x)g(y) = decay constant of Z

Where x and y are atomic or nuclear property of element Z, but are not directly related to the decaying.

So, if you plug x and y of a stable element into the equation, the result would be zero. In other words, this equation could provide a theoretical test to the degree of stability of an atom on its natural state.

If such an equation existed, then I would consider that we do understand what is the nature of radioactive decay.

Given that radioactive decay is a nuclear process, every atomic/nuclear property is related to it - mostly by determining the stability of an isotope. And as things are now, the decay constant for a stable element is zero - since the time it takes for a single atom of a stable element to decay would be infinity, and 1/infinity = 0. Likewise, the half-life would be infinity.

I must admit that there is no predictive model for radioactive decay, but it can be verified to work (at least for the last 150,000-200,000 years or so) by other methods such as tree rings, lake varves, and ice cores. The various radiometric dating methods also agree with each other, despite having different decay rates. And I can think of other fields - quantum mechanics for one - that are still used every day despite the lack of a functional predictive model.

Moreover, I see no reason to disbelieve a mountain of evidence for the reason that it lacks a predictive model when your countering theory lacks one as well, along with any solid evidence.

 

[shernren]

Only one decay-related measurement is needed: the energy of the escaping alpha particles, which is uniform.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Only one decay-related measurement is needed: the energy of the escaping alpha particles, which is uniform.

That's a good one; thinks for digging it up. What do each of the variables stand for?

 

[Assyrian]

However, not just a claim. There should be a way for the estimation.
What is that for my estimation? Well, we do have a clue on how to start it, don't we? It would be a small research project. But it could be done.

Such as:

Significant issues in Judaism ...
Themes of messages preached by Jesus ...
Chance of the topic be included in His message.

I am sure you can figure out other better algorithms.

Unfortunately Jesus had this habit of never giving people the replies they were looking for. And of course if you can work out what Algorithm Jesus is going to say you don't really need him to teach you, do you? You just need your algorithm.

 

[juvenissun]

Unfortunately Jesus had this habit of never giving people the replies they were looking for. And of course if you can work out what Algorithm Jesus is going to say you don't really need him to teach you, do you? You just need your algorithm.

What we talked about is to back track on what Jesus might have said but is not recorded. He has taught us everything we need to know. We are just trying to guess (for some purposes? such as He mentioned the Global Flood to people in His preaching.)

OK, stop. This is it.

 

[juvenissun]

Only one decay-related measurement is needed: the energy of the escaping alpha particles, which is uniform.

First, if we still need to measure the energy of decay, then we may as well to measure the decay rate directly. Second, is the equation only used for alpha decay? Are there similar equations for other types of decay?

While I like to know what does each item in the equation mean, I also notice that it is an equation taken from a 300 level physics course. I thought my question should be way beyond 700 level. Am I wrong?

 

[Assyrian]

What we talked about is to back track on what Jesus might have said but is not recorded. He has taught us everything we need to know. We are just trying to guess (for some purposes? such as He mentioned the Global Flood to people in His preaching.)

OK, stop. This is it.

Sure. It is always worth taking creationists up on it when they attribute their own interpretations of Genesis to Jesus. Thanks for having a go at defending Tas.

 

[shernren]

First, if we still need to measure the energy of decay, then we may as well to measure the decay rate directly. Second, is the equation only used for alpha decay? Are there similar equations for other types of decay?

There is a profound difference. Suppose I observe a uranium atom and it takes three days to decay. Do I know anything about the half-life of uranium? No, I only know how long it took this particular atom to decay, which doesn't tell me much about how long uranium atoms in general take to decay.

But then I measure the energy of the alpha particle emitted; using the Geiger-Nuttall law, I immediately know the decay rate of the atom. Furthermore, the energy of the alpha particle has very measurable consequences. For example, it is exactly related (by E = mc^2) to the mass difference between the initial nucleus and the final nucleus + alpha particle, which means that for the energy to change the masses of atoms would have to change, which would mean all kinds of things such as stars not having enough mass to come together and burn or to explode and all that.

While I like to know what does each item in the equation mean, I also notice that it is an equation taken from a 300 level physics course. I thought my question should be way beyond 700 level. Am I wrong?

Alpha decay can be very successfully modelled as an alpha particle tunneling through a square potential barrier, because no nucleon transformations occur (every proton remains a proton and every neutron, a neutron). Tunneling equations are standard fare for a second quantum mechanics course, and indeed the successful application of tunneling was one of the historical high points of early QM. That's why it's only 300 level. (And I have no idea what that means ... )

Beta decay is tougher because it involves a transmutation: from one quark flavor to another accompanied by the creation of a lepton-antilepton pair. Calculating the probabilities of that occurring requires a mathematical formulation of the weak force, which is tough - but hardly impossible.

Gamma decay is conceptually simpler because it represents a transition between two states of the nucleus, but practically a lot more difficult because there's no way to predict exactly what the energy levels of the nucleus are.

That's a good one; thinks for digging it up. What do each of the variables stand for?

Gamow theory of alpha decay

 

[juvenissun]

There is a profound difference. Suppose I observe a uranium atom and it takes three days to decay. Do I know anything about the half-life of uranium? No, I only know how long it took this particular atom to decay, which doesn't tell me much about how long uranium atoms in general take to decay.

But then I measure the energy of the alpha particle emitted; using the Geiger-Nuttall law, I immediately know the decay rate of the atom. Furthermore, the energy of the alpha particle has very measurable consequences. For example, it is exactly related (by E = mc^2) to the mass difference between the initial nucleus and the final nucleus + alpha particle, which means that for the energy to change the masses of atoms would have to change, which would mean all kinds of things such as stars not having enough mass to come together and burn or to explode and all that.



Alpha decay can be very successfully modelled as an alpha particle tunneling through a square potential barrier, because no nucleon transformations occur (every proton remains a proton and every neutron, a neutron). Tunneling equations are standard fare for a second quantum mechanics course, and indeed the successful application of tunneling was one of the historical high points of early QM. That's why it's only 300 level. (And I have no idea what that means ... )

Beta decay is tougher because it involves a transmutation: from one quark flavor to another accompanied by the creation of a lepton-antilepton pair. Calculating the probabilities of that occurring requires a mathematical formulation of the weak force, which is tough - but hardly impossible.

Gamma decay is conceptually simpler because it represents a transition between two states of the nucleus, but practically a lot more difficult because there's no way to predict exactly what the energy levels of the nucleus are.



Gamow theory of alpha decay

Thanks for the details.

So, let me change the question: Do we know WHY are there different types of radioactive decaying? Can we examine an atom and predict which type of decay would it make?

 

[Mightymenoftoday]

hi philadiddle,

I understand your challenge, but as a born again believer the only argument I need is God's word. I can very easily say, without any proof to the contrary, that any supposed scientific finding that contradicts God's word is somehow in error. Do I know what the error in the hypothesis and proof is? No! I just know that God's word is the truth and I rest fully, firmly and confidently that despite whatever the world might throw at me as 'proof', if it is not in agreement with God's word, that it is a 'proof' founded in error.

Yes, I know, your argument is going to be, "Well, science answers the 'unclear' explanation of the Scriptures. Well, again, according to Jesus' words, when we are born again the job of the Holy Spirit in the born again believer's life is to lead him into all truth. I don't find any 'unclear' teaching in the Scriptures. As regards the creation account, God not only caused the Holy Spirit to write 'yom', which may be unclear, but then further defined 'yom' in context as an evening and a morning. Still to this day, two halves of a twenty-four hour day. He then listed the geneologies so that we could count back to the day that Adam was created. Well, maybe not the day, but certainly, within a couple of hundred years, the general number of years the creation has existed. There is no 'unclearness'. There is no ambiguity. For me, it is clear as crystal and so, when I hear of 'scientific' proofs that negate the truth that I know to be true, then there is only one option. The 'scientific' proof is somehow mistaken.

How is it mistaken? I don't know. I just know that it is. The day will come that I will know, or maybe not, but it ultimately doesn't matter. I was not created to agree with man, but to agree with my Creator. Now, you may call me dumb, stupid, ignorant, blind, hard-headed, foolish or any other identifier that you feel is appropriate to describe someone who doesn't believe the basic proven truths of science. It's ok with me. I won't hold it against you. I forgive you. I love you. But I'm not here to agree with you or believe you. I'm here to believe and agree with God. My purpose for which I was created is to sing His praises and give Him glory for the most miraculous miracles that He as done that I might have life.

I know, yes, I know that about 6,000 years ago, as we account time, that there wasn't a single physical body in the entire blackness of space that surrounds us and that God spoke all that is in this realm of existence, just as He did when He created the realm of the angels, He merely spoke and suddenly the earth just appeared out of nothing and He built it into a home for a creature that He was creating to sing His praises and glory by merely speaking all the land and water and plants and creatures and heavenly bodies into existence in the span of six days that comprised of an evening and morning just as a day is made up today. Nothing different. That is the power, glory, majesty, wisdom and love of my Creator. He's an awesome God.

And because I have such a basic understanding of all that He has done for nothing more than the sole purpose of giving me life and that I have a huge planet of land and water and oxygen spinning relentlessly and eternally through space so that I might live the life that He created me to enjoy. I love Him. I understand the awesome and, obviously to you, unbelievable things that He has done that I might live. He is an awesome God!

He has given you and me a sound and thoroughly explained cause and effect of why we are here. The earth was created before any of the stars that you might look up into the night sky and see. It was created before any of the galaxies that we believe are out there. God's word says that He created the earth first and built it into a home for man and then peppered all the stars and other heavenly bodies in the universe so that we might know and set times and seasons. It was all created for us. Everything in this entire realm of existence was created by a God who loves and provides for us all that we need to enjoy the existence that He created us to enjoy.

Now, we are working out the finer details of who is going to believe Him and who isn't. The day will come when all the unbelieving, liars, adulterers and fornicators will be cast out into the darkness. That's the plan. He created near instantaneously this entire realm of existence and He set in motion a plan that would provide redemption and salvation for all those who would believe and rejection of all those who won't. That's the plan. It hasn't evolved over millions or billions of years. It started some short 6,000 years ago and will probably culminate in the next hundred or so, although I can't be sure of the time that He has set for the day of judgment.

But the signs are there and we see more and more as mere decades pass. It's going to wind down and God is going to judge all that He created and His judgment will be just and true. Praise Him! He is an awesome God!

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Amen Brotha, sorry for the giant repost everyone, but this needs an amen.

 

[jackmt]

If you do not use radiometric dating as an argument, then it is very easy to show that the earth is young.

Radio carbon dating only "works" if you don't know beforehand how old the object is. Stories abound, and I have seen some on broadcast news, about the live tissue that was RC dated at thousands of years old, about the single artifact that had 3 different parts tested with several hundred milennia discrepancies, of things known to be a hundred or so years old but RC dated at many millenia. If you know how old the thing is, radio carbon dating doesn't work. If you don't know, keep testing till you get the result you want. Then you will have proof.

It sounds like you know the theory very well. But as my favorite philosopher said, "In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is." Yogi Berra

 

[mathetes123]

YECs, please name your best evidence outside of the bible that supports a young earth and instantaneous creation. Please, just stick to one, if anyone cuts and pastes a list from a YEC site I'll only take the time to respond to the first one. Be prepared to back it up since I will have questions about it for you to respond to.

Also, please don't vaguely allude to the existence of evidence, ie "strata formations in the grand canyon prove a young earth". Take the time to explain specifically what the evidence is and how it can only be interpretted to fit your cosmogony.

I'm willing to discuss any field of science related to the age of the earth or the origins of species. Just make sure it's your best argument.

Thanks!

1) Petrified trees in several layer of sedimentary stone in the grand canyon indicating rapid deposit of sediments from the flood.

2) The salt content of the oceans.

 

[philadiddle]

1) Petrified trees in several layer of sedimentary stone in the grand canyon indicating rapid deposit of sediments from the flood.

How do they do that? It couldn't have been a local flood? Or trees in marshes being covered in a few hundred years by small seasonal flooding? Or other natural disasters?

2) The salt content of the oceans.

This is vague, can you be more specific?

 

[philadiddle]

Radio carbon dating only "works" if you don't know beforehand how old the object is. Stories abound, and I have seen some on broadcast news, about the live tissue that was RC dated at thousands of years old, about the single artifact that had 3 different parts tested with several hundred milennia discrepancies, of things known to be a hundred or so years old but RC dated at many millenia. If you know how old the thing is, radio carbon dating doesn't work. If you don't know, keep testing till you get the result you want. Then you will have proof.

Note that in the post you were responding to he was indirectly admitting that radiometric dating gives the earth an older age, so he needs to ignore it.

Can you give an example of something dated with the wrong age?

Can you give an example of something that was tested over and over again till they got the results they wanted?

 

[DCJazz]

I personally don't see how it's so impossible for God to create the universe and everything in it in just 6 days.

 

[philadiddle]

I personally don't see how it's so impossible for God to create the universe and everything in it in just 6 days.

I don't think anyone thinks that it's impossible. It's also possible he made it a week ago, or 1 million years ago, or 6 trillion years ago. The question is, did He? How can we tell?

 

[DCJazz]

I don't think anyone thinks that it's impossible. It's also possible he made it a week ago, or 1 million years ago, or 6 trillion years ago. The question is, did He? How can we tell?

You missed the point. Where do we find that it says he created it all in 6 days, and on the 7th rested?
The bible, right? So what is it about the creation account that is so difficult to accept?

 

[philadiddle]

You missed the point. Where do we find that it says he created it all in 6 days, and on the 7th rested?
The bible, right? So what is it about the creation account that is so difficult to accept?

Everything about God's creation seems to say otherwise. It appears that theologians throughout the centuries who see the creation account as symbolic have the correct interpretation, whereas the fairly new YEC interpretation isn't grounded in reality.

Why would God lie through His creation? Is He trying to trick us for some reason?

 

[juvenissun]

Note that in the post you were responding to he was indirectly admitting that radiometric dating gives the earth an older age, so he needs to ignore it.

Can you give an example of something dated with the wrong age?

Can you give an example of something that was tested over and over again till they got the results they wanted?

There is nothing called "wrong age". It is just a timing mark and is subjected to interpretation.

A serious dating work usually take tens of dates. How to interpret those dates would depend on the purpose of study.

Again, geochronologists DO NOT take the dates as the "real" true age. It is not their goal to do that. The so-called "true age" is only a term which refers to the most logical dates.

 

[juvenissun]

Radio carbon dating only "works" if you don't know beforehand how old the object is. Stories abound, and I have seen some on broadcast news, about the live tissue that was RC dated at thousands of years old, about the single artifact that had 3 different parts tested with several hundred milennia discrepancies, of things known to be a hundred or so years old but RC dated at many millenia. If you know how old the thing is, radio carbon dating doesn't work. If you don't know, keep testing till you get the result you want. Then you will have proof.

It sounds like you know the theory very well. But as my favorite philosopher said, "In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is." Yogi Berra

I wish I know the theory. The problem is that I don't.
I only know how to use the fact in practice, a low level practice.