From: eaglesondouglas@gmail.com   
      
   On Saturday, January 23, 2021 at 12:50:10 PM UTC-5, Phillip Helbig (undress to   
   reply) wrote:   
   > In article , Douglas Eagleson   
    writes:   
   >   
   > > On Monday, January 4, 2021 at 4:49:11 AM UTC-5, Phillip Helbig (undress to   
   reply) wrote:   
   > >> Not much effort is put into confirming or refuting undisputed results or   
   > >> expectations, but occasionally it does happen. For example, according   
   > >> to theory muons are supposed to be essentially just like electrons but   
   > >> heavier, but there seems to be experimental evidence that that is not   
   > >> the case, presumably because someone decided to look for it.   
   > >>   
   > >> What about even more-basic stuff? For example, over what range (say,   
   > >> multiple or fraction of the peak wavelength) has the Planck black-body   
   > >> radiation law been experimentally verified? Or that radioactive decay   
   > >> really follows an exponential law? Or that the various forms (weak,   
   > >   
   > > given a single neutron creating a single radioisotope atom   
   > > the question becomes "can it never decay?" Meaning does   
   > > decay have a probability distribution.   
   > >   
   > > The rate of decay in an exponential function leads to a   
   > > non-converging function. I might submit that it is exponential,   
   > > but has a time variable called "last atom decayed".   
   > >   
   > > The natural existence of a characteristic decay rate implies   
   > > an atom set lifetime. Now a convergent?   
   > >   
   > > But, at some time the last atom.   
   > >   
   > > Given a set of atoms and a 100percent counting efficiency   
   > > will the number of counts ever equal the number of   
   > > atoms.   
   > >   
   > > basically needing mathematical solution. How to solve   
   > > this dilemma? I am still open on this question but   
   > > submit it as a version of the halving distances function   
   > > dilemma. "If you halve the distance to an object forever   
   > > do you ever finally reach the object?"   
   > >   
   > > Or attack it by doing axis or time transform.   
   > The probability that an atom decays is constant in time. That leads   
   > directly to a declining exponential function for the number of atoms   
   > which have not yet decayed. Of course, that is exactly true only in the   
   > limit of an infinite number of atoms. If the number becomes to small,   
   > then the noise in the function becomes large enough to obscure the   
   > behaviour in the limit. When you are down to one atom, it is still the   
   > case that the probability that it will decay is independent of time. So   
   > you have no idea when it will decay.   
      
   sorry for the confusion.   
      
   wiki  T1/2  and  exponential decay expresses my concern.   
   there is a well stated law of large samples, i.e. N   
      
   Leaving the issue of mean lifetime of an atom.  I just need   
   to study the issue of mixed sample kinetics. Also would it not be   
   interesting to measure mean lifetime of decay relative   
   to time of atom production.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)