MHB Half-Life of Radioactive Waste: 150,000 Years

  • Thread starter Thread starter Joystar77
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Half-life
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on calculating the half-life of a radioactive waste that reduces to 1/8 of its original amount after 150,000 years. It is established that the half-life must be less than the elapsed time since less than half remains, leading to the conclusion that the half-life is one-third of the elapsed time. The mathematical approach involves recognizing that 1/8 corresponds to three halvings, thus the half-life is approximately 50,000 years. Participants also discuss the use of fractions versus decimals in calculations and emphasize the importance of using rational numbers for clarity. The concept of half-life is clarified as the time required for half of a substance to decay, which is crucial for understanding radioactive decay processes.
Joystar77
Messages
122
Reaction score
0
After 150 thousand years, only 1/8 of the original amount of a particular radioactive waste will remain. The half-life of this radioactive waste is how many thousand years?

150,000 years / 1/8
150,000 / .125
= 1,200,000

If this isn't correct is the 1/8 suppose to be stay as a fraction, turned into a decimal, or turned into a percent? Also, if this isn't correct can somebody explain to me what the term means saying "half-life"?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Re: Math Word Problem

Since less than half of the original sample is present, you should expect that the half-life is less than the time that has already elapsed.

A quick way to solve this particular problem is to observe that the original amount has been halved 3 times, since $$\frac{1}{8}=\left(\frac{1}{2} \right)^3$$, and so we know the half-life is one-third of the elapsed time.

We won't always be presented with a current amount that is a power of one-half times the original amount, so a more general method would be to use:

$$A(t)=A_0\left(\frac{1}{2} \right)^{-\frac{t}{k}}=\frac{A_0}{2^{\frac{t}{k}}}$$ where $$0<k\in\mathbb{R}$$ is the half-life.

Now, we are told:

$$A(150000)=\frac{A_0}{8}$$

and so we may state:

$$2^{\frac{150000}{k}}=2^3$$

Now, equate exponents, and solve for $k$.
 
Re: Math Word Problem

Mark FL,

What shows up in my email as you working out this word problem shows something totally and completely different. I know obviously the problem that I worked out was wrong, but the question I asked was does the 1/8 stay as a fraction or be turned into a decimal or percent?

Here is what was sent to my email:
Since less than half of the original sample is present, you should expect that the half-life is less than the time that has already elapsed.

A quick way to solve this particular problem is to observe that the original amount has been halved 3 times, since \frac{1}{8}=\left(\frac{1}{2} \right)^3, and so we know the half-life is one-third of the elapsed time.

We won't always be presented with a current amount that is a power of one-half times the original amount, so a more general method would be to use:

A(t)=A_0\left(\frac{1}{2} \right)^{-\frac{t}{k}}=\frac{A_0}{2^{\frac{t}{k}}} where 0<k\in\mathbb{R} is the half-life.

Now, we are told:

A(150000)=\frac{A_0}{8}

and so we may state:

2^{\frac{150000}{k}}=2^3

Now, equate exponents, and solve for $k$.

My understanding of this math problem than what shows on this site seems to be a little different. Which is suppose to be the correct way?
 
What was sent to you by email is the text minus the MATH tags.

As you can see by this line:

$$A(150000)=\frac{A_0}{8}$$

I left the 1/8 as a fraction, since 8 is a power of 2, it made the last step easier. But suppose, instead we were told 1/10 of the original was left, then we would have:

$$2^{\frac{150000}{k}}=10$$

I try to use rational numbers rather than decimal representations whenever possible. I just prefer that form.

Taking the natural logarithm of both sides, we would find:

$$\frac{150000}{k}\ln(2)=\ln(10)$$

Now, solving for $k$, we find:

$$k=\frac{150000\ln(2)}{\ln(10)}\approx45154.49934959717$$

Does it make sense to you that if the elapsed time is held constant, but the amount left is decreased, then the half-life decreases as well? A smaller half-life means the substance decays at a quicker rate.
 
Joystar1977 said:
After 150 thousand years, only 1/8 of the original amount of a particular radioactive waste will remain. The half-life of this radioactive waste is how many thousand years?

150,000 years / 1/8
150,000 / .125
= 1,200,000

If this isn't correct is the 1/8 suppose to be stay as a fraction, turned into a decimal, or turned into a percent? Also, if this isn't correct can somebody explain to me what the term means saying "half-life"?

half-life is the amount of time it takes for half a given substance to decay. It needs a large sample size so the law of large numbers can be used.

  • At the start you have a fraction of 1 remaining (none has decayed)
  • After one half-life you have 0.5 remaining
  • After two half-lives you have 0.25 remaining

If you use the powers of two you have (where H/L is half-life for brevity's sake):
  • Start = $$2^0$$
  • One H/L = $$2^{-1}$$
  • Two H/L = $$2^{-2}$$

There is a pattern here: after n half-lives you have [math]2^{-n}[/math] left of the original amount.

If you know that [math]\dfrac{1}{8} = 2^{-3}[/math] you can say that three half-lives have passed in those 150,000 years so one half-life must be one-third of the 150,000 years that have passed.



More generally you can use the formula for exponential decay

[math]A = A_0e^{-t / t_{1/2}}[/math] where:

  • $$A$$ is amount remaining at time [math]t[/math]
  • $$A_0$$ is amount when $$t=0$$
  • $$t$$ is time
  • $$t_{1/2}$$ is the half-life

We know that:

  • $$A = 0.125A_0$$
  • $$A = A_0$$
  • $$t = 150,000$$

You can then plug in those values and find [math]t_{1/2}[/math]

$$0.125A_0 = A_0 e^{-150000/t_{1/2}}$$



A quick note on units: You can use any unit of time you like as long as your half-life and time share the same unit. Your value will come out in years if you apply the formula above.
 
Seemingly by some mathematical coincidence, a hexagon of sides 2,2,7,7, 11, and 11 can be inscribed in a circle of radius 7. The other day I saw a math problem on line, which they said came from a Polish Olympiad, where you compute the length x of the 3rd side which is the same as the radius, so that the sides of length 2,x, and 11 are inscribed on the arc of a semi-circle. The law of cosines applied twice gives the answer for x of exactly 7, but the arithmetic is so complex that the...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagoras'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top