This  level-3 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Physics High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Environment High‑importance This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Hi i was just wondering why it isnt explicitly pointed out that for an atom to be considered radioactivelly decaying it would have to be emitting ionizing radiation. Without ionizing explicitly being stated, emittance of infrared radiation could also be considered radioactive decay, no? "Radioactive decay (also known as nuclear decay, radioactivity, radioactive disintegration or nuclear disintegration) is the process by which an unstable atomic nucleus loses energy by radiation" it is not clear if in this sentence "unstable" is ment as a vague term, or in the physics sense of the atom containing more energy than its ground state. If the latter, once again, the absorption of lets say yellow light which results in for example the emittance of infrared radiation could be considered radioactive decay. I am in no way trying to be rude, i just ran into this problem while trying to understand the exact definition of radioactive decay. If i was wrong anywhere in my comment please do point it out.

Greetings,

Sander — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sander721 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion. I suspect that "ionizing radiation" was not mentioned because it is a somewhat old-fashioned term not much used now. However I found it mentioned in an introductory chemistry text and attributed to the Curies, so I have now included it in the History section, as well as a link to the article Ionizing radiation which explains it in detail. Dirac66 (talk) 20:06, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If "ionizing radiation" is old fashioned, then perhaps you could say what modern terminology is used to denote radiation that is able to ionize chemical substances, as distinct from radiation that cannot do so. 2600:4041:DF:9600:4503:4891:B9B:EE5E (talk) 12:12, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The modern terminology used to describe each radioactive decay process is to identify the exact particles emitted in each decay process as α particles, β particles, γ rays etc. However I will admit that the term "ionizing radiation" is still accurate as a general term, and is still used in many other contexts. See the article Ionizing radiation for more detail. Dirac66 (talk) 15:17, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DePiep: Would it be possible to edit the line Cluster decay in your table? Normally I would do it myself, but I cannot find the source code to modify. Suggested changes: 1. Mode column: Delete 24Ne because it is not the only possible cluster emitted. 2. Action column: Add at the end: Examples C-14 and Ne-24. (These are 2 of the most frequent examples as per the list in the article Cluster decay. Dirac66 (talk) 16:02, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dirac66: DePiep has been community banned since May, so he's not able to respond. I think I've done what you asked. Double sharp (talk) 08:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Double sharp: Yes, you have corrected the table as I asked. Thank you for the correction and also for pointing it out. I did not notice the change since because it does not appear in the revision history. Whatever method you used to correct the table is quite mysterious for someone used to standard Wikipedia edits, and if I now look at a revision before the date of the request above (29 Oct 2023) the system claims that this line was already as it is now, which is not true. I am glad you knew how to do it. Dirac66 (talk) 22:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 12 February 2024 and 14 June 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Alliemoreno (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Samiam25.

— Assignment last updated by Ahlluhn (talk) 00:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article claims, without a reference, that radioactive decay is analogous to an avalanche from a snowfield on a mountain. The entire paragraph mixes simple classical ideas with bogus quantum ones. It talks about entropy and "over a larger number of quantum states". The energy of decay is down hill even ignoring entropy as far as I know. That's one of its most interesting characteristics. Radioactive decay is exactly not like classical systems. Am I wrong here? Johnjbarton (talk) 01:52, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph following our snowfield seems equally dubious to me.

• Such a collapse (a gamma-ray decay event) requires a specific activation energy.

I've never heard of this. The paragraph ends with a reference to

• Milonni, Peter W. "Why spontaneous emission." Am. J. Phys 52.4 (1984): 340-343.

which is about spontaneous emission. As far as I can tell the article never mentions radioactive decay. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ehrenkater Here is the paragraph I based the lifetimes on

• All of the strong, the electromagnetic and the weak interactions are relevant to the decay of nuclei. Though there are a large variety of decays, the time scale of the lifetime associated with them is of the order of 10−21 s, 1 ps = 10−12 s, and 1 min, respectively, reflecting the difference among their strengths.

To me that means the characteristic time associated with weak interaction is on 1 minute. As for the dubious mark: "The strong interaction produces attraction between nucleons, and is thus responsible for nuclear stability and when it fails[dubious – discuss] the lifetimes are of the order of 10-21s." what is your suggestion? Johnjbarton (talk) 21:39, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• One simplistic question here: if the weakest of the 3 interaction types leads to lifetimes of the order of 1 minute, why are there also much longer lifetimes of the order of billions of years? Dirac66 (talk) 22:57, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  yes, seems pretty lame. I will look for a different reference.

  Mabye we should delete this section altogether. When I arrived it had poor refs and puzzling claims, and now it's different but the same ;-) Johnjbarton (talk) 23:05, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This ref is a lot clearer:

  • Pfützner, M., Karny, M., Grigorenko, L. V., & Riisager, K. (2012). Radioactive decays at limits of nuclear stability. Reviews of modern physics, 84(2), 567-619.

  Johnjbarton (talk) 23:41, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The abstract for the article by Pfutzner et al. is available at https://journals.aps.org/rmp/issues/84/2 Free access to the full article requires logging in via an institution. Dirac66 (talk) 00:19, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sorry. Reviews of Modern Physics is the only thing I subscribe to. In this case I think you can find it on citeseer or arXiv, see google scholar search result Johnjbarton (talk) 01:30, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not true that "the time scale of the lifetime associated with them is of the order of 10−21 s, 1 ps = 10−12 s, and 1 min, respectively". First, the half lives, or mean lives, whichever you prefer, vary over a huge range, and none of them has a "characteristic lifetime". The reference to a specific time interval, such as 1 minute, is not grounded in fact. Second, each type of decay is related to a balance between the strong, electromagnetic, and weak interactions, and not with just one of them, so "respectively" is highly misleading.

Next, the strong interaction does not "fail", it is there all the time, so the mention of "failure" is also highly misleading (and dubious). The stability of a nucleus depends on the balance between the various forces, and it is this that determines nuclear stability or instability, and not the strong force alone.

I agree that we should delete the section as it is, and maybe start again. Ehrenkater (talk) 10:07, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or I started over.

When we collide some atoms to create a new element, in some case the strong force overcomes the other forces. In other circumstances it "fails" to overcome the other forces. It seems like a reasonable way to explain it to me, but I agree that my first attempt implied a change in the strong force, which does not occur. Anyway that is now gone we can try again. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:20, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I completed a short section that primarily acts to link other articles, a good goal for now. Please review.

The Pfützner review has a figure showing characteristic times for gamma and beta competing with particle emission. While is interesting and could be explained, they don't really discuss it. What we need for more on this is a ref that discusses the competition. Johnjbarton (talk) 00:27, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]