Suppose that all nuclei were either effectively stable (half lives over
a trillion years, so uranium, thorium, neptunium and plutonium would be stable to alpha and beta decay but not to fission whether spontaneous or induced) or very unstable (less than a microsecond) but the rest of
physics and chemistry continues as now. What would be the effect on
modern history?
We would still know about protons, neutrons and electrons, we would have X-rays, microelectronics and particle accelerators. Einstein would still conclude E=mc^2 and we would know that fission or fusion could produce energy. The stars would still generate energy as they do now.
What we would not have are easy fission reactors, nuclear medicine, and carbon dating or any other kind of isotopic dating for that matter. What else?
WWII and afterwards would clearly be very different. The US would have
much more money and scientists to use on other than the Manhattan
project. Again, what else would be different?
On 12/22/2023 6:17 AM, Paul Leyland wrote:
Suppose that all nuclei were either effectively stable (half lives
over a trillion years, so uranium, thorium, neptunium and plutonium
would be stable to alpha and beta decay but not to fission whether
spontaneous or induced) or very unstable (less than a microsecond) but
the rest of physics and chemistry continues as now. What would be the
effect on modern history?
We would still know about protons, neutrons and electrons, we would
have X-rays, microelectronics and particle accelerators. Einstein
would still conclude E=mc^2 and we would know that fission or fusion
could produce energy. The stars would still generate energy as they do
now.
What we would not have are easy fission reactors, nuclear medicine,
and carbon dating or any other kind of isotopic dating for that
matter. What else?
WWII and afterwards would clearly be very different. The US would have
much more money and scientists to use on other than the Manhattan
project. Again, what else would be different?
The entire planet's history would be wildly different.-a Radioactive
decay is part of what keeps the core of the planet hot.-a It would affect plate tectonics, the proportions of metals in the crust and more.-a There
is some evidence that the sudden proliferation of species around the
time hominids started evolving, leading to Homo Sapiens, occurred around
the time our solar system entered a supernova debris field containing a radioactive isotope of iron in sufficient quantities for it to show up
in Earth's geologic records.
On 22/12/2023 16:06, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
On 12/22/2023 6:17 AM, Paul Leyland wrote:
Suppose that all nuclei were either effectively stable (half lives
over a trillion years, so uranium, thorium, neptunium and plutonium
would be stable to alpha and beta decay but not to fission whether
spontaneous or induced) or very unstable (less than a microsecond)
but the rest of physics and chemistry continues as now. What would be
the effect on modern history?
We would still know about protons, neutrons and electrons, we would
have X-rays, microelectronics and particle accelerators. Einstein
would still conclude E=mc^2 and we would know that fission or fusion
could produce energy. The stars would still generate energy as they
do now.
What we would not have are easy fission reactors, nuclear medicine,
and carbon dating or any other kind of isotopic dating for that
matter. What else?
WWII and afterwards would clearly be very different. The US would
have much more money and scientists to use on other than the
Manhattan project. Again, what else would be different?
The entire planet's history would be wildly different.-a Radioactive
decay is part of what keeps the core of the planet hot.-a It would
affect plate tectonics, the proportions of metals in the crust and
more.-a There is some evidence that the sudden proliferation of species
around the time hominids started evolving, leading to Homo Sapiens,
occurred around the time our solar system entered a supernova debris
field containing a radioactive isotope of iron in sufficient
quantities for it to show up in Earth's geologic records.
Understood.
I was setting up a hypothetical situation which assumed the terrestrial environment would be otherwise unchanged. Elemental abundances from SN explosions would be different, for instance, as would the lack of
heating from Al-26 decay change planetary formation.
Let's assume for the model that radioactive decay changes continue
through the same pathways and at different rates but have the same cosmological, geological, etc consequences as in the Universe in which
we presently live. If you wish, and if it makes it easier to comprehend,
let us assume that the laws of physics magically changed in 1880.
Confession: many years ago I read a SF work in which such a change was introduced by an advanced technology through an application of Clarke's
3rd Law. I am now interested in finding out what others can work out in
this scenario.
Incidentally, a set of the laws of physics in which the weak interaction
is exceedingly weak can still produce a chemically and physically interesting universe. The Big Bang produces primarily protons and
neutrons, with a fair smattering of He-4. The neutrons do not decay and those which do not fuse with protons to produce deuterium form dark
matter. Stars generate energy from DD fusion to He-4 and helium burning continues when the core temperature rises high enough, and so. Elements
as far as Z=32 or so are stable.-a I can dig up references if anyone is sufficiently interested.
On 22/12/2023 16:06, Dimensional Traveler wrote:In such a case, life, assuming it began, would probably still be single celled organisms. Without the presence of radioactive potassium (0.012% of all potassium) to induce changes in DNA, the rate of mutation is severely decreased. And in case anyone is wondering, yes, bananas are radioactive.
On 12/22/2023 6:17 AM, Paul Leyland wrote:
Suppose that all nuclei were either effectively stable (half lives
over a trillion years, so uranium, thorium, neptunium and plutonium
would be stable to alpha and beta decay but not to fission whether
spontaneous or induced) or very unstable (less than a microsecond) but
the rest of physics and chemistry continues as now. What would be the
effect on modern history?
We would still know about protons, neutrons and electrons, we would
have X-rays, microelectronics and particle accelerators. Einstein
would still conclude E=mc^2 and we would know that fission or fusion
could produce energy. The stars would still generate energy as they do
now.
What we would not have are easy fission reactors, nuclear medicine,
and carbon dating or any other kind of isotopic dating for that
matter. What else?
WWII and afterwards would clearly be very different. The US would have
much more money and scientists to use on other than the Manhattan
project. Again, what else would be different?
The entire planet's history would be wildly different. RadioactiveUnderstood.
decay is part of what keeps the core of the planet hot. It would affect plate tectonics, the proportions of metals in the crust and more. There is some evidence that the sudden proliferation of species around the
time hominids started evolving, leading to Homo Sapiens, occurred around the time our solar system entered a supernova debris field containing a radioactive isotope of iron in sufficient quantities for it to show up
in Earth's geologic records.
I was setting up a hypothetical situation which assumed the terrestrial environment would be otherwise unchanged. Elemental abundances from SN explosions would be different, for instance, as would the lack of
heating from Al-26 decay change planetary formation.
Let's assume for the model that radioactive decay changes continue
through the same pathways and at different rates but have the same cosmological, geological, etc consequences as in the Universe in which
we presently live. If you wish, and if it makes it easier to comprehend,
let us assume that the laws of physics magically changed in 1880.
Confession: many years ago I read a SF work in which such a change was introduced by an advanced technology through an application of Clarke's
3rd Law. I am now interested in finding out what others can work out in
this scenario.
Incidentally, a set of the laws of physics in which the weak interaction
is exceedingly weak can still produce a chemically and physically interesting universe. The Big Bang produces primarily protons and
neutrons, with a fair smattering of He-4. The neutrons do not decay and those which do not fuse with protons to produce deuterium form dark
matter. Stars generate energy from DD fusion to He-4 and helium burning continues when the core temperature rises high enough, and so. Elements
as far as Z=32 or so are stable. I can dig up references if anyone is sufficiently interested.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 65 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 14:05:04 |
| Calls: | 862 |
| Files: | 1,311 |
| D/L today: |
8 files (13,162K bytes) |
| Messages: | 265,525 |