A Statistical Explanation for Radioactive Decay - Coursework Example

COLLEGE RADIOACTIVITY REPORT 1 Introduction 2 Definitions 3 Background of the Experiments 4 Lab Experiment 1.5 Lab 2 Experiment 1.6 Lab 1 and 2 Discussion 1.7 General Conclusion 1.8 Bibliography 1.1 Introduction Aim of the experiment: To acquire a statistical explanation for radioactive decay Objectives of the experiment: 1. To determine the nature of the process of decay 2. To establish findings through probabilistic approach 3. To find out the errors in the analysis of the experiments 1.2 Definitions 1. Radioactivity It is a process that occurs when the two forces of attraction and repulsion in an atom lead to instability in the isotopes that surround the nucleus thereby causing a displacement of certain isotopes. Particles lost have a lot of energy in them upon emission. 2. Decay Decay occurs when energy is lost by the nucleus in form of mass as it tries to achieve stability. The most common way of loss of mass is through loss of neutrons. 3. Half-life When an element or atom changes and becomes half its original mass or value, then it has reached its half-life. 4. Why the Probabilistic Approach in the experiment Probability is used in these experiments determine half-life and the process of decay. It is a game. It uses random actions to prove certain trends. Probability is also used here to track progress of decay of the coins. It eliminates decayed coins against non-decayed. It is what enables us to draw conclusions from the trends we create on the tables and graphs. The evidences that we draw are results that we use to predict and interpret. 1.3 Background of the Experiment Two random experiments were conducted to determine radioactive decay of random coins. The purpose was to come up with a statistical explanation for their radioactivity and to establish the procedure. The coins were tossed and probability was used to determine the process of decay. The coins were put in a flat box with a cover and the box was shaken for a couple of seconds. After shaking, the coins were poured out onto a flat surface. The coins with their heads up were decayed. The coins with tails up were not decayed. 1.4 Lab 1 Experiment In the first experiment, 195 similar coins were used. Ten random tosses were made after shaking the box and the count of decayed coins was made after each toss. The decayed coins were then removed and the other coins returned into the box for more shake and spread on the table. This was done repeatedly for nine tosses. Hypotheses 1. It should take approximately 9 trials to get to remain with no coins in the box 2. Approximately half of the coins should decay in each trial Results The table for the first experiment shows that, all 195 coins decay within the first nine tosses from the box. Less than half of the coins decay in the first toss. More than the remaining half in the box decay in the second, third and fourth tosses. In the subsequent tosses, the remaining coins have a percentage of less than half of decay. By the last toss, all the coins are decayed. Conclusion According to the table representing this experiment / results, the first hypothesis proves to be substantially true. According to the first hypothesis, the results show that the nine tosses from the box lead to decay of all coins. The line graph of experiment one shows that there is a gradual but approximately consistent decay of the 195 coins used. The second hypothesis according to the table is also averagely true. The results show that in four out of nine tosses, more than half of the coins decay. The cumulative frequency shows that all the 195 coins decay eventually. 1.5 Lab 2 Experiment In this experiment, 16 similar coins were used. The coins were replaced with 16 new coins after every trial. The different sets of coins were put in the box and shaken then tossed on a table. The results were taken to determine the number of coins that decayed on the first throw. More tosses were made per set to determine how many tosses continually would lead to two or less coins in the box. Hypotheses 1. It should take 3 tosses most often to get to 2 or less in the box 2. Half of the coins should decay most often in more than half the 50 trials Results In almost half of all the tosses made of the 50, the coins that decay are exactly 8 or more in the first shake and toss. The tosses taken after the first throw to remain with two or less coins fluctuate between 2 and 3 more than 4. Conclusion The first hypothesis proves to be accurate. When the average is done (150/50 = 3). This means that after every three tosses from the box, the coins are all decayed. The second hypothesis is almost accurate. The percentage recorded in the table is 51%. This means that every first toss had more than 8 coins decaying in more than 25 tries out of 50. 1.6 Lab 1 and 2 Discussion The lab experiments are different because the aim is to come up with a set of statistics to prove different hypotheses altogether. Errors The coins are put in the same box for shaking and are tossed on the same table. There is decay substance that remains in this box and on the table. This tampers with the accuracy of the results because it interferes with subsequent tries of the experiment. How to make it better The experiments should be performed in twos to make it better. The coins should not be put in a box because collecting many boxes is tedious. They should be tossed only. One person should collect decayed coins, another tosses only. To avoid tampering with the decay substance. Time should also be calculated within tosses to ensure accuracy. This experiment is the best suited for radioactive decay process track. 1.7 General Conclusion The experiments 1 and 2 were both a success. The hypotheses tests were rather successful. The probabilistic approach proved to be a great way of determining the radioactivity process. 1.8 Bibliography Attached excel-format file containing the necessary graphs and tables Appendix Abstract 1.1 Introduction 1.2 Definitions 1.3 Background of the Experiments 1.4 Lab 1 Experiment 1.5 Lab 2 Experiment 1.6 Lab 1 and 2 Discussion 1.7 General Conclusion 1.8 Bibliography Read More