How do half life's of radioactive substances work in relation to relativity? I assume its pretty straight forward...

How do half life's of radioactive substances work in relation to relativity? I assume its pretty straight forward. Lets say we accelerate some nuclear isotope with a long half life to the speed of light for 50 years. The isotope would only see 50 years of decay correct?

Tangential to ops question i have always wondered why radioactive decay is spontaneous and not constant. So if someone could explain beyond

"Radioactive decay is a stochastic (i.e. random) process at the level of single atoms, in that, according to quantum theory, it is impossible to predict when a . particular atom will decay,"

that would be awesome, especially if its on a retard level.

you want someone to explain it beyond the explanation? I'm confused.

I actually don't know the answer to OPs question on the other hand and I hope someone will answer.

>I actually don't know the answer to OPs question on the other hand and I hope someone will answer.
OP Here, is that meaning its a decent question? I had never read anything discussing something like that before and I assume its straight forward but I dont know enough about relativity to say, im just a shitter EE

So it's random is an explanation to you?
What's happening that makes it random?

>The isotope would only see 50 years of decay correct?
I *think* it would experience decay for its subjective time. Meaning that if it is accelerated to a speed where it experiences faster time, say a factor 10 faster, when it comes back only 5 years worth of decay have happened.

>What's happening that makes it random?
Quantum mechanics is happening. If you want to know more, study quantum mechanics. I don't think there is much more to summarize than that.

Pure quantum mechanical concepts are central to the phenomenon, there are no other means of explaining it.

>I *think* it would experience decay for its subjective time. Meaning that if it is accelerated to a speed where it experiences faster time, say a factor 10 faster, when it comes back only 5 years worth of decay have happened.
Thats what I think as well, maybe someone else can come in and confirm. I was just thinking about stupid ways of disposing of nuclear waste and this popped into my head

You wouldn't be able to get it to the speed of light because of its mass but it would decay slower relative to the observer

Each atom would decay according to its proper time. If you accelerate the isotope to nearly the speed of light, from its point of view it would last the same amount, from your point of view it would last longer.

That exact phenomenon is what allows the detection of some cosmic particles at ground level, even if they should have decayed at that point.

>Not understanding random
This is how mathematicians and determinismfags must feel like

so some particles that come past earth that have been traveling near the speed of light are technically not that old?

Lets say we live long enough as humans that the sun dying out is a real threat for our lives and that the sun revolves around earth. Assuming we had a way to speed the sun up near the speed of light (and assuming this doesn't fuck up everything else) would that not be a way to extend the life of the sun relation to earth?

Perhaps, but then the Sun is moving at a relativistic speed, which is probably away from the Earth. Unless we want to freeze and die, the Earth would need to stay by the Sun (or find another star). This means accelerating the Earth up to the same relativistic velocity. Except now, to an Earth-based observer, everything looks the same, meaning that the Sun is still at risk of dying at any moment since the Earth's reference frame is so similar to the Sun's

my guess would be that it's the protons and neutrons doing quantum jiggling due to Heisenberg's unertainty, aka quantum tunneling

HIDDEN VARIABLES

h-hidden variables

You could just accelerate it in a circle, there's no reason the movement has to be linear

But then it's just oscillating, and that alone won't work

they just dont understand the exact phenomenon that causes each decay, or what precisely induces it.
it may not actually be random, its just random in the sense that the behavior cannot currently be described on the level of individual decay events

>Sun orbiting Earth at near the speed of light.

What could go wrong?

A very small circle, I meant. It could still occupy essentially the same place in the solar system

It would have a constant speed so I don't see why it wouldn't work

It doesn't have a constant speed: going around in a circle means it's constantly accelerating

>I *think* it would experience decay for its subjective time. Meaning that if it is accelerated to a speed where it experiences faster time, say a factor 10 faster, when it comes back only 5 years worth of decay have happened.
This is correct. This is why particle accelerators, well, accelerate things, in part. At close-to-light speeds, particles live and are observable much longer (from our frame of reference).

Accelerating as in gravity - gravity stretches time and all that.

Both motion in a circle and gravity cause acceleration. A "very small" circle may not be sufficient for time dilation, while acceleration due to gravity requires a sufficiently massive object to hold the Sun near it while it does its relativistic thang. This basically means a black hole which will probably be "too close" for a stable orbit to be a "small enough circle"

It's my job ot rain on your parade :/

If it has a half life of 10 days when observed stationary relative to you, then as it gets closer to the speed of light that half life could be increased without bound, although of course it's basically impossible to really get it that close.

This is how Muons are observed at the surface of the Earth, their half life and speed when entering the atmosphere appears to be too short, but because of relativity their half life is increased and some of them make it.
Length contraction from the Muons reference frame stops the paradox that the Muons see themselves decaying at the normal rate and the Earth coming towards them at the same speed, but the contraction makes the distance shorter so they still make it to the surface in time from their reference frame and paradox averted

The time dilation would slow the rate the Sun is dying at so yes you could extend the lifetime of a dying star to try and save you planet. But the time dilation means that the rate of fusion in the star goes down as well and it will appear to go out anyway

Still a constant speed. A different velocity as the direction would be changing, but still a constant speed.

If we're considering a level of technology which can accelerate the sun, the circle radius is irrelevant, and the high constant speed means time dilation will occur

Honestly, I'm not sure about that at all. Taking the scenario to its limit where the sun is moving in a circle of an infinitesimal radius at infinitesimally less than c, In not sure whether the sun would appear motionless in the Earth's frame and therefore nonrelativistic to us, or whether relativistic effects would occur. I'll ask my professors

You're right, I didn't read the second half of the thread, thanks for clarification.

If the level of tech is high enough to accelerate the Sun itself, the energy from Sun is not a huge threat anymore.

>If the level of tech is high enough to accelerate the Sun itself, the energy from Sun is not a huge threat anymore.

OP here, I realize this, but I'm just exploring the concept

Surely how it looks to us is irrelevant, even if we can't see it moving at incredible hihg speeds it can still very well be moving at relativistic speeds
And the light would probably look normal because it could be as blueshifted as it is when it moves away as it is redshifted when it moves towards us