Derivation for this equation: N = N0(1/2)^t/t1/2?

  • Thread starter nothing123
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Derivation
In summary: No this is actually true because=e^{-\lambda}=e^{- \frac{ ln\frac{1}{2}}{T_{\frac{1}{2}}}}=e^{(ln\frac{1}{2})^{-T_{\frac{1}{2}}}}=\frac{1}{2}e^{-T_{\frac{1}{2}}}}
  • #1
nothing123
97
0
Anyone know the derivation for this equation: N = N0(1/2)^t/t1/2? I can understand it plugging numbers in but I don't really know how it was derived in the first place.

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Well, we know that the rate of radioactive decay is proportional to the Number of particles at a time t.
So:

[tex] -\frac{dN_{(t)}}{dt}=\lambda N_{(t)} [/tex]

Now can you derive it?
 
  • #3
Using what you gave, I am able to derive N = N0e^-kt but the equation I provided is without the decay constant...
 
  • #4
nothing123 said:
Using what you gave, I am able to derive N = N0e^-kt but the equation I provided is without the decay constant...

Well the half life will be when [tex]N_{(t)}=\frac{N_0}{2}[/tex]. and when [tex]t=T_{\frac{1}{2}}}[/tex].

/Not sure how the decay constant disappears tbh.

/No wait I see now.
 
Last edited:
  • #5
Can you explain it a bit more clearly? Thanks.
 
  • #6
nothing123 said:
Can you explain it a bit more clearly? Thanks.

Sure no problem.

Half life is the when the number of particles is reduced by half.
Hence this occurs when [tex] N_{(t)}=\frac{N_o}{2})[/tex] No is the original number of particles.
The time which this occurs will be the half life and we call it [tex] T_{\frac{1}{2}}[/tex]

So we have:
[tex]\frac{N_o}{2}=N_o e^{-\lambda T_{\frac{1}{2}}}[/tex]
[tex]\frac{1}{2}=e^{-\lambda T_{\frac{1}{2}} }[/tex]

We already had:
[tex] N_{(t)}=\frac{N_o}{2})[/tex]
but
[tex] e^{-\lambda T_{\frac{1}{2}}}=\frac{1}{2}[/tex]

so [tex] -\lambda T_{\frac{1}{2}}= L_n(\frac{1}{2}}) [/tex]

[tex] e^{-\lambda}=\frac{e^{L_n(\frac{1}{2})}}{e^{T_{\frac{1}{2}}}}= \frac{1}{2}e^{-T_{\frac{1}{2}}}[/tex]

Sub that into the equation [tex]N = N_0e^{-\lambda t} [/tex]
and you got it :D

*Phew that took some time to type*

:)
 
Last edited:
  • #7
malty said:
Sure no problem.

[tex] e^{-\lambda}=\frac{e^{L_n(\frac{1}{2})}}{e^{T_{\frac{1}{2}}}}= \frac{1}{2}e^{-T_{\frac{1}{2}}}[/tex]

Sub that into the equation [tex]N = N_0e^{-\lambda t} [/tex]
and you got it :D

:)

Thanks for the reply but I'm not entirely sure how you got the above lines. My exponent rules might be a big hazy but I don't think e^a/b is the same as e^a/e^b if you know what I'm saying.
 
  • #8
nothing123 said:
Thanks for the reply but I'm not entirely sure how you got the above lines. My exponent rules might be a big hazy but I don't think e^a/b is the same as e^a/e^b if you know what I'm saying.

Not 100% sure what you are referring to.

Here's how I got that line:

[tex] -\lambda T_{\frac{1}{2}}= L_n(\frac{1}{2}}) [/tex]
and
[tex] {-\lambda}=\frac{L_n(\frac{1}{2})}{{T_{\frac{1}{2}}}}[/tex]
 
  • #9
Right, so does e^(ln(1/2)/T1/2) = e^ln(1/2)/e^T1/2?
 
  • #10
nothing123 said:
Right, so does e^(ln(1/2)/T1/2) = e^ln(1/2)/e^T1/2?

Well yes, if

[tex] e^{ab}=e^a*e^b [/tex]

then [tex] e^{-ab}=e^a*e^{-b}=\frac{e^a}{e^b}[/tex]
 
  • #11
Wait, doesn't e^a*e^b = e^(a+b) not e^ab? e^ab would be (e^a)^b, right?
 
  • #12
nothing123 said:
Wait, doesn't e^a*e^b = e^(a+b) not e^ab? e^ab would be (e^a)^b, right?

Lol yeah your right is does, I have absolutely no idea what made me think it was well that...

:redface:
 
Last edited:
  • #13
Ahh now I remember the equation I used was

[tex] {-\lambda}=\frac{L_n(\frac{1}{2})}{{T_{\frac{1}{2}}} }[/tex]

I took the exponent of this:




[tex] e^{-\lambda}=\frac{e^{L_n(\frac{1}{2})}}{e^{T_{\frac{1 }{2}}}}= \frac{1}{2}e^{-T_{\frac{1}{2}}}[/tex]

And that is still correct, I believe, my whole escapade with the awful exponent rules was well becasue...I'm tired (and dreaming) :p

:smile:
 
  • #14
Hmm I don't know if I'm just tired too or what but we seem to be back at square one. Didn't we conclude that e^(ln(1/2)/T1/2) does not equal e^ln(1/2)/e^T1/2?
 
  • #15
nothing123 said:
Hmm I don't know if I'm just tired too or what but we seem to be back at square one. Didn't we conclude that e^(ln(1/2)/T1/2) does not equal e^ln(1/2)/e^T1/2?

No this is actually true because

[tex]=e^{-\lambda}=e^{- \frac{ ln\frac{1}{2}}{T_{\frac{1}{2}}}}=e^{(ln\frac{1}{2})^{-T_{\frac{1}{2}}}}=\frac{1}{2}e^{-T_{\frac{1}{2}}}}[/tex]

Least I think it, *is brain dead*
 
  • #16
Ok, I think I figured it out but I don't think the equation you just wrote is correct. e^(ln1/2)/T1/2 = 1/2^(T1/2^-1). Now, subbing this into our original equation, we get N = N0(1/2)^t/t1/2. Thanks so much for your help anyways, it got my brain going.
 

FAQ: Derivation for this equation: N = N0(1/2)^t/t1/2?

What is the meaning of N, N0, t, and t1/2 in this equation?

In this equation, N represents the final amount of a substance, N0 represents the initial amount of the substance, t represents the time elapsed, and t1/2 represents the half-life of the substance.

How is this equation derived?

This equation is derived from the exponential decay model, which assumes that the rate of decay of a substance is proportional to the amount of the substance present. By solving the differential equation for exponential decay, the equation N = N0(1/2)^t/t1/2 is obtained.

Can this equation be used for any type of substance?

Yes, this equation can be used for any type of substance that follows an exponential decay model, such as radioactive isotopes or pharmaceutical drugs.

How can I use this equation to calculate the amount of a substance remaining after a certain amount of time?

To use this equation, simply plug in the initial amount of the substance (N0) and the time elapsed (t) into the equation. The resulting value of N will be the amount of the substance remaining after that amount of time.

Is this equation accurate for all situations?

This equation is a simplified model that assumes a constant decay rate and does not take into account any external factors that may affect the decay. Therefore, it may not be accurate for all situations, but it can provide a good estimate for many scenarios.

Similar threads

Back
Top