I agree with Jones that various "stable" nuclei could be stimulated to decay
to a different ground state than their so-called stable state. Electric
quadrupole and magnetic dipole resonant stimulation of nuclei with electric
or magnetic moments can respond to high intensity radiation which results
in a transition to an entirely different nuclear species. The activation
of a nuclei in a many bodied coherent system may also catalyze a nuclear
change within that system , not necessarily the activated nuclei IMHO.
Large magnetic field (B fields) can effectively change the shape and energy
states of an otherwise stable nucleus. The changes in the respective
resonances of the affected nucleus may induce electron capture decay where
it was not possible without the large B field. The changing energy states
in a large coherent system. It may be argued that this mode of decay does
not count as a stimulated reaction although commonly referred to as a
nuclear decay mechanism.
Bob Cook
-----Original Message-----
From: Jones Beene
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2016 4:38 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Kamacite and natural fractionation of heavy nickel
----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
Stimulated "decay" is not a possibility. You can't "stimulate" a reaction
that's isn't going to happen all by itself anyway over a long enough period,
and 64Ni doesn't decay. It's quite stable.
Hi, Robin
No, that's technically not correct on two counts, although nickel in general
is high on the list of presumed stability since it has a magic number of
protons. There is no intrinsic or absolute property of "stability," since it
is purely observational - and as we know, many nickel isotopes do decay,
despite the magic - notably 63Ni which is lighter than 64Ni.
There are many nuclides which are now known to be slightlyradioactive, but
forty years were called stable because they have extremely long half-lives
and were not observed to decay. My old Oxford reference book has a number of
errors, due to recent observation.
Secondly, stimulated decay can be the product of a strong stimulant, so to
speak, such as a cosmic ray neutrino, muon etc. That was the original
context.
Of course any sufficiently strong stimulant can give the identical
appearance of decay, and to quibble about the semantics of whether it is a
reaction or a decay is of no help- since stability is an observed property.
