Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

CRC Press eBooks

NUCLEAR DYNAMICS

Mircea S. Rogalski, Stuart B. Palmer

Published Jan 8, 2014• 0 citations
Publisher

Abstract

Instead of counting the number of nuclei ( ),tN it is easier to count the rate at which decays occur in the radioactive sample, and this is called the activity, defined as ( )0 tdN N e Ndt λλ λ−= = t (47.5) and follows the same exponential decay law (47.3). The SI unit for activity is the Becquerel (Bq), equal to one decay per second, and the common unit is the Curie (Ci), defined as It is also convenient to introduce the half-life as the time interval in which the activity is reduced to one-half .Bq107.3Ci1 10×= 2/1t 2ln2ln2/1 τλ ==t (47.6) The probability of radioactive decay through the direct transition of the nucleus from an initial state to a final state Ψi Ψ f , in time t, is given by (47.7) P t a tif f( ) | ( )|= 2 where the wave function amplitudes a are obtained from Eq.(37.11), which can be approximated by tf ( ) == /)()()()( tifiif ifetVtadt tda i εε −= (47.8) Since the probability of finding our decaying system in the initial state Ψi must decrease with time according to the radioactive decay law (47.3), which gives 2 2| ( ) | | | ti it e λ−Ψ = Ψ (47.9) we have to choose / 2( ) tia t e λ−= (47.10) rather than as considered in Eq.(37.13). Substituting this result into Eq.(47.8), and assuming a constant perturbation which is switched on at time t = 0, yields ai = 1, i εελ −+−= (47.11) Integrating, we get an oscillatory behaviour of the wave function amplitude, given by ( ) ( ) /2 V e a t i ε ε λ − +⎡ ⎤−⎣ ⎦= − + = == = (47.12) Figure 47.1. Energy spectrum of a decaying state of width Γ At the end of the nuclear transition we should consider the amplitude corresponding to ,∞→t which reads )( λεε = = i V a if fi f +−=∞ (47.13) and this yields the transition probability (47.7) in the form )( || )( Γ+−=∞ if fi if V P εε = (47.14) Hence, the probability to observe the nucleus with energy fε in the vicinity of iε follows a Lorentzian distribution, illustrated in Figure 47.1. By analogy with the atomic transitions, Γ = = 〈 〉= =λ / t gives the natural linewidth of the emitted radiation, which is the same as the width of the decaying nuclear state. Nuclear states which are populated in ordinary decays typically have lifetimes greater than corresponding to sec,10 12− ( ) τ/1066.0eV 15−×=Γ (47.15) which is of the order of Since this width is small compared with the energy spacing of nuclear levels, which is of the order of the nuclear decaying states may be regarded to be discrete quasi-stationary states.

DOI
10.1201/b16000-52

Related papers

Non-Exponential Decay of Nuclei A Search for a Fundamental Quantum Effect in Nuclei

Douglas P. Wells, F. Harmon, Anton P Tonchev

APS•May 1, 2000•0 citations

ATOMIC RADIATION

Mircea S. Rogalski, Stuart B. Palmer

During the presence of the radiation perturbation ( ),ˆ tV the Hamiltonian of the system becomes ( )tVHH ˆˆˆ 0 += (37.4) and, since the state of the system varies with time, we must adopt the time-dependent Schrödinger equation to be a basis for the perturbation theory, that is ( ) ( ) ( )0ˆ ˆti H V tt ∂Ψ ⎡ ⎤= + Ψ⎣ ⎦∂= t (37.5) We assume that Eq.(37.5) has normalized solutions which can be expanded in terms of the as 0kΨ t a t t a t e ε−Ψ = Ψ = Ψ∑ ∑ = (37.6) where the normalization condition on ( )tΨ gives a t =∑ (37.7) that is, ( ) 2ka t gives the probability that the system is in the state at time t. Substituting Eq.(37.6) into Eq.(37.5) yields da t ii a t e V t a t e dt ε εε ε− −⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤− Ψ = +⎢ ⎥ ⎣ ⎦⎣ ⎦∑ ∑ = == = which reduces to da t i e V t a t e dt ε− k ε−Ψ = Ψ∑ ∑= == (37.8) In view of orthogonality of the stationary state eigenfunctions, multiplication by ( ) followed by integration over the configuration space gives da t i e a t e V t dt ε εδ− −= Ψ Ψ∑ ∑= == (37.9) Denoting the matrix elements of the perturbation operator between the stationary states n and k by ( ) ( )0 ˆnk n kV t V t 0= Ψ Ψ (37.10) we can rewrite Eq.(37.9) as da t i a t V t e dt ε ε−= ∑ == (37.11) which is a set of simultaneous differential equations of the first order for the coefficients ( ).na t If we assume that the system is in a definite stationary state at some 0iΨ particular time 0,t = and then it is allowed to interact with the radiation field, we obtain from Eq.(37.6) that ( ) ( )0 00 0i k k aΨ = Ψ = Ψk∑ Multiplying by and integrating gives ( )∗Ψ 0k ( )0ka kiδ= (37.12) that is, and for .( ) 10 =ia ( ) 00 =ka ik ≠ If we consider a time interval t sufficiently short for the coefficients in Eqs.(37.11) to be approximated by the form (37.12), which means that the term gives the greatest contribution to the sum and all other terms can be neglected, we have ( )tak ik = ( ) ( ) ( )0 0 /n ii tn nida ti V t edt ε ε−= == , ( ) ( ) ( )i i iida ti a t Vdt == t (37.13) and on integration we obtain ( ) ( ) ( ) (0 0 / 0 ia t V t e dt n iε ε ′− ′= − ≠∫ == ) , ( ) ( ) tdtVita iii ′′−= ∫ 0 1 = (37.14) The probability (29.29) that the system is in the state at time t, in other words, that coincides with is given by ( )tΨ ,0nΨ ( ) ( ) ( )2 20in n nP t t a t= Ψ Ψ = (37.15) and this is taken to be the probability of direct transition from state to state in a time t, induced by the presence of the radiation field. Assuming a transition where a photon is emitted, that is, we recall the Bohr condition (28.19), which reads ,00 ni εε > (37.16) inni ωεε ==− 00 so that Eqs.(37.14) can be rewritten as ( ) ( ) ( ) 0 n ni ia t V t e dt n iω ′−′ ′= − ≠∫= (37.17) ( ) ( ) 0 1 t i ii ia t V t dt′ ′= − ∫= As we can see from the above, the time-dependent perturbation theory is concerned with transitions that result from perturbation, between the unperturbed levels of the system, while time-independent perturbation theory calculates the stationary shifts in the energy levels. 37.2. FERMI'S GOLDEN RULE Consider the case of a constant perturbation, switched on at time The integrals (37.17) become straightforward, and we obtain .0=t ( ) ( ) ( )1ini tnin in Va t e n iωω −= − ≠= (37.18) ( ) tVita iii =−=1 Substituting Eqs.(37.18) into Eq.(37.6) gives, to a first approximation, the wave function of the atomic system as Vt e t e tωω − − ≠ Ψ = Ψ + − Ψ∑= = (37.19) The probability (37.15) of observing the system in the state at time t, for the coefficients given by Eq.(37.18), reduces to 0 nΨ( )tan ( ) ( 2/sin4 222 2 t V ni in ωω== ) (37.20) which means that transitions from state to states only take place if the matrix elements do not vanish. The plot of niV ( )tPin as a function of inω , given in Figure 37.1 for a perturbation which is on for a time t, suggests that the probability behaves like a Dirac δ -function as t approaches infinity. We may represent the δ -function as ( ) dxe t t 2 1lim 2/ 2/sin lim ωππω ω ( ) ( ininxi dxe in ωδωδπ ω 22/2 1 2/ === ∫ ∞ ∞− ) (37.21) where use was made of a property derived from the normalization condition, written as ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )u k kukudkuduu δδδδ 1or1 === ∫∫ ∞ P t( ) ω4π6π t2π in t-t-t 2π 4π t 6π t0 Figure 37.1. Dependence of the transition probability on frequency It follows from Figure 37.1 that, in the large-t limit, we have ,0≅inω and hence ( )2sin / 2 / 1.in int tω ω⎡ →⎣ ⎤⎦ Thus, one obtains ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) (2 24sin / 2 sin / 2 sin / 2lim lim / 2 2/ 2 / 2in in in in int t in inin t t t tt ω ω ω )π πδ ω πδ ωω πωω→∞ →∞ ⎡ ⎤= =⎢ ⎥⎣ ⎦ = so that the transition probability becomes ( ) ( ) (2 2 0 022 2lim in ni in ni i nt t tP t V Vπ π )δ ω δ ε→∞ = = == ε− (37.23) It follows that the transitions take place between states of equal unperturbed energies The transition probability is proportional to the time interval t during which the perturbation is on, that is .00 in εε → ( )tPin approaches infinity as .∞→t Since no experiment lasts for an infinite time, it is the transition probability per unit time, called the transition rate , which is of particular interest. Normally, is part of a continuum, and hence, the transition might end in any state which belongs to a finite range of N final states, rather than in a particular state. We may then define the transition rate as ( )dNtP t P intni ∫∞→→ = 1lim (37.24) The integral over the final states is usually transformed into one over energy, if we define a density of states ( ) ,ρ ε representing the number of continuum states per energy interval, by taking ( )0ndN d 0nρ ε ε= (37.25) so that, substituting Eqs.(37.23) and (37.25), Eq.(37.24) gives ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )20 0 0 0 01 2limi n in n n ni n i ntP P t d Vt πρ ε ε ρ ε δ ε ε→ →∞= =∫ = − (37.26) This result is known as Fermi's golden rule, which states that transitions may occur only between states of equal energies for which the matrix elements of the perturbation operator do not vanish, and that the transition rate is proportional to both the square modulus of these matrix elements and the density of final states. 37.3. EMISSION AND ABSORPTION OF RADIATION Consider the transitions between stationary states which are induced by a harmonic perturbation of the form ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )( )titi eeArVtArVtV ωωωωω −+== GG ˆcosˆ2ˆ (37.27) It is assumed that the harmonic perturbation corresponds to the interaction of either the electric or magnetic field components of the incoming radiation with the electric or magnetic moment of the atom. Thus, the coupling between the system and the perturbing field can be taken in the form of a field amplitude ( )ωA times a displacement of the system ( ).ˆ rV G On substitution of Eq.(37.27) into Eq.(37.10) one obtains ( ) ( ) ( )( ) ( )( )titinititiinni eeAVeeArVtV ωωωω ωω −− +=+ΨΨ= 00 ˆ G (37.28) It follows from Eq.(37.17) that n ni ia t V A e e dtω ω ω ωω ′ ′− − − +⎡ ⎤ ′= − +⎣ ⎦∫= (37.29) inin eeAV 0 ⎥⎦ ⎤⎢⎣ ⎡ ++−= ωωωω ω ωωωω V A e eω ω ω ωω ω ω ω ω − − − +⎡ ⎤− −= +⎢ ⎥− +⎢ ⎥⎣ ⎦= If the atomic system is bathed into a radiation field of frequency ,inni ωωω −== which implies that according to the Bohr condition (37.16), the transition from state to state describes a process of induced absorption, where the energy of the system is increased by energy transfer from the radiation field to the atom. If 00 in εε > ,ni inω ω ω= = − the second term on the right-hand side of Eq.(37.29) grows without limit, so that the first term can be neglected.

CRC Press eBooks•Jan 8, 2014•0 citations

Non-Exponential Decay of Nuclei — A Search for a Fundamental Quantum Effect in Nuclei

Wade W. Scates

AIP conference proceedings•Jan 1, 2003•0 citations

Decay of a quantum-mechanical state described by a truncated Lorentzian energy distribution

Kathleen M. Sluis, Eric A. Gislason

The nondecay probability Q(t) for a Lorentzian energy distribution peaked at ${\mathit{E}}_{0}$ with full width at half maximum equal to \ensuremath{\Gamma} is given in atomic units by ${\mathit{Q}}_{\mathit{L}}$(t)=exp(-\ensuremath{\Gamma}t). However, the Lorentzian distribution includes energies in the range -\ensuremath{\infty}\ensuremath{\le}E\ensuremath{\le}\ensuremath{\infty}. On physical grounds, this distribution must be truncated at some minimum energy E=0. In this paper, Q(t) is derived for a properly normalized truncated Lorentzian energy distribution. To aid the analysis, the average lifetime \ensuremath{\tau}(${\mathit{t}}_{\mathrm{min}}$) for that fraction of the system that has not decayed by ${\mathit{t}}_{\mathrm{min}}$ is also calculated for this system. For a given value of the ratio ${\mathit{E}}_{0}$/\ensuremath{\Gamma}, the function Q(t) shows different behavior in different time regimes; this behavior is presented and the time periods are determined. It is shown that Q(t) falls off linearly at very small t, but at a rate only half as fast as for ${\mathit{Q}}_{\mathit{L}}$(t). Thus this system cannot exhibit the behavior known as Zeno's paradox, but rapid measurements on this system that collapse the wave function back to the original state could, in principle, reduce the decay rate by a factor of 2.

Physical Review A•May 1, 1991•32 citations

General Timelessness and the Atom - Stable and Radioactive Bound Configurations as Two Presentations of Timeless Lawful Structure

John Christian William McKinley

This paper states a narrow interpretive claim about stable and radioactive bound configurations under the matter-side reading of the Timeless Light Model. It introduces no new equations and alters no predictive content of atomic physics, nuclear physics, or quantum mechanics. The claim is that stable and radioactive bound configurations are two presentations of the same structural reading: each is timeless lawful structure in force, registered in spacetime when called on, with registrations governed by lawful content. Stable configurations have no admissible spontaneous decay channel under the operative description; nothing registers, and nothing accumulates. Radioactive configurations have at least one decay channel in their lawful content; channel realizations register along the worldline at rate λ fixed by content. The paper argues that neither stable nor radioactive matter undergoes substance-aging. Stable atoms do not grow older as degraded versions of themselves, and radioactive atoms do not age toward decay. A radioactive nucleus that has not yet realized its decay channel retains the same decay probability per unit proper time in the experimentally dominant exponential regime. Bulk decay curves describe cumulative counting of channel realizations across an ensemble, not individual atomic wear. The result is interpretive only. It preserves the standard exponential-decay law, the standard treatment of stationary states, and the standard predictive machinery of atomic and nuclear physics. Its contribution is ontological: stability and radioactivity are content-level distinctions, not different categories of being.

•May 20, 2026•0 citations

Nonexponential nuclear quantum decay at large times

Hector Mauricio Castañeda Cortés

•Jan 1, 2005•0 citations
Instead of counting the number of nuclei ( ),tN it is easier to count the rate at which decays occur in the radioactive sample, and this is called the activity, defined as ( )0 tdN N e Ndt λλ λ−= = t (47.5) and follows the same exponential decay law (47.3). The SI unit for activity is the Becquerel (Bq), equal to one decay per second, and the common unit is the Curie (Ci), defined as It is also convenient to introduce the half-life as the time interval in which the activity is reduced to one-half .Bq107.3Ci1 10×= 2/1t 2ln2ln2/1 τλ ==t (47.6) The probability of radioactive decay through the direct transition of the nucleus from an initial state to a final state Ψi Ψ f , in time t, is given by (47.7) P t a tif f( ) | ( )|= 2 where the wave function amplitudes a are obtained from Eq.(37.11), which can be approximated by tf ( ) == /)()()()( tifiif ifetVtadt tda i εε −= (47.8) Since the probability of finding our decaying system in the initial state Ψi must decrease with time according to the radioactive decay law (47.3), which gives 2 2| ( ) | | | ti it e λ−Ψ = Ψ (47.9) we have to choose / 2( ) tia t e λ−= (47.10) rather than as considered in Eq.(37.13). Substituting this result into Eq.(47.8), and assuming a constant perturbation which is switched on at time t = 0, yields ai = 1, i εελ −+−= (47.11) Integrating, we get an oscillatory behaviour of the wave function amplitude, given by ( ) ( ) /2 V e a t i ε ε λ − +⎡ ⎤−⎣ ⎦= − + = == = (47.12) Figure 47.1. Energy spectrum of a decaying state of width Γ At the end of the nuclear transition we should consider the amplitude corresponding to ,∞→t which reads )( λεε = = i V a if fi f +−=∞ (47.13) and this yields the transition probability (47.7) in the form )( || )( Γ+−=∞ if fi if V P εε = (47.14) Hence, the probability to observe the nucleus with energy fε in the vicinity of iε follows a Lorentzian distribution, illustrated in Figure 47.1. By analogy with the atomic transitions, Γ = = 〈 〉= =λ / t gives the natural linewidth of the emitted radiation, which is the same as the width of the decaying nuclear state. Nuclear states which are populated in ordinary decays typically have lifetimes greater than corresponding to sec,10 12− ( ) τ/1066.0eV 15−×=Γ (47.15) which is of the order of Since this width is small compared with the energy spacing of nuclear levels, which is of the order of the nuclear decaying states may be regarded to be discrete quasi-stationary states.
During the presence of the radiation perturbation ( ),ˆ tV the Hamiltonian of the system becomes ( )tVHH ˆˆˆ 0 += (37.4) and, since the state of the system varies with time, we must adopt the time-dependent Schrödinger equation to be a basis for the perturbation theory, that is ( ) ( ) ( )0ˆ ˆti H V tt ∂Ψ ⎡ ⎤= + Ψ⎣ ⎦∂= t (37.5) We assume that Eq.(37.5) has normalized solutions which can be expanded in terms of the as 0kΨ t a t t a t e ε−Ψ = Ψ = Ψ∑ ∑ = (37.6) where the normalization condition on ( )tΨ gives a t =∑ (37.7) that is, ( ) 2ka t gives the probability that the system is in the state at time t. Substituting Eq.(37.6) into Eq.(37.5) yields da t ii a t e V t a t e dt ε εε ε− −⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤− Ψ = +⎢ ⎥ ⎣ ⎦⎣ ⎦∑ ∑ = == = which reduces to da t i e V t a t e dt ε− k ε−Ψ = Ψ∑ ∑= == (37.8) In view of orthogonality of the stationary state eigenfunctions, multiplication by ( ) followed by integration over the configuration space gives da t i e a t e V t dt ε εδ− −= Ψ Ψ∑ ∑= == (37.9) Denoting the matrix elements of the perturbation operator between the stationary states n and k by ( ) ( )0 ˆnk n kV t V t 0= Ψ Ψ (37.10) we can rewrite Eq.(37.9) as da t i a t V t e dt ε ε−= ∑ == (37.11) which is a set of simultaneous differential equations of the first order for the coefficients ( ).na t If we assume that the system is in a definite stationary state at some 0iΨ particular time 0,t = and then it is allowed to interact with the radiation field, we obtain from Eq.(37.6) that ( ) ( )0 00 0i k k aΨ = Ψ = Ψk∑ Multiplying by and integrating gives ( )∗Ψ 0k ( )0ka kiδ= (37.12) that is, and for .( ) 10 =ia ( ) 00 =ka ik ≠ If we consider a time interval t sufficiently short for the coefficients in Eqs.(37.11) to be approximated by the form (37.12), which means that the term gives the greatest contribution to the sum and all other terms can be neglected, we have ( )tak ik = ( ) ( ) ( )0 0 /n ii tn nida ti V t edt ε ε−= == , ( ) ( ) ( )i i iida ti a t Vdt == t (37.13) and on integration we obtain ( ) ( ) ( ) (0 0 / 0 ia t V t e dt n iε ε ′− ′= − ≠∫ == ) , ( ) ( ) tdtVita iii ′′−= ∫ 0 1 = (37.14) The probability (29.29) that the system is in the state at time t, in other words, that coincides with is given by ( )tΨ ,0nΨ ( ) ( ) ( )2 20in n nP t t a t= Ψ Ψ = (37.15) and this is taken to be the probability of direct transition from state to state in a time t, induced by the presence of the radiation field. Assuming a transition where a photon is emitted, that is, we recall the Bohr condition (28.19), which reads ,00 ni εε > (37.16) inni ωεε ==− 00 so that Eqs.(37.14) can be rewritten as ( ) ( ) ( ) 0 n ni ia t V t e dt n iω ′−′ ′= − ≠∫= (37.17) ( ) ( ) 0 1 t i ii ia t V t dt′ ′= − ∫= As we can see from the above, the time-dependent perturbation theory is concerned with transitions that result from perturbation, between the unperturbed levels of the system, while time-independent perturbation theory calculates the stationary shifts in the energy levels. 37.2. FERMI'S GOLDEN RULE Consider the case of a constant perturbation, switched on at time The integrals (37.17) become straightforward, and we obtain .0=t ( ) ( ) ( )1ini tnin in Va t e n iωω −= − ≠= (37.18) ( ) tVita iii =−=1 Substituting Eqs.(37.18) into Eq.(37.6) gives, to a first approximation, the wave function of the atomic system as Vt e t e tωω − − ≠ Ψ = Ψ + − Ψ∑= = (37.19) The probability (37.15) of observing the system in the state at time t, for the coefficients given by Eq.(37.18), reduces to 0 nΨ( )tan ( ) ( 2/sin4 222 2 t V ni in ωω== ) (37.20) which means that transitions from state to states only take place if the matrix elements do not vanish. The plot of niV ( )tPin as a function of inω , given in Figure 37.1 for a perturbation which is on for a time t, suggests that the probability behaves like a Dirac δ -function as t approaches infinity. We may represent the δ -function as ( ) dxe t t 2 1lim 2/ 2/sin lim ωππω ω ( ) ( ininxi dxe in ωδωδπ ω 22/2 1 2/ === ∫ ∞ ∞− ) (37.21) where use was made of a property derived from the normalization condition, written as ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )u k kukudkuduu δδδδ 1or1 === ∫∫ ∞ P t( ) ω4π6π t2π in t-t-t 2π 4π t 6π t0 Figure 37.1. Dependence of the transition probability on frequency It follows from Figure 37.1 that, in the large-t limit, we have ,0≅inω and hence ( )2sin / 2 / 1.in int tω ω⎡ →⎣ ⎤⎦ Thus, one obtains ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) (2 24sin / 2 sin / 2 sin / 2lim lim / 2 2/ 2 / 2in in in in int t in inin t t t tt ω ω ω )π πδ ω πδ ωω πωω→∞ →∞ ⎡ ⎤= =⎢ ⎥⎣ ⎦ = so that the transition probability becomes ( ) ( ) (2 2 0 022 2lim in ni in ni i nt t tP t V Vπ π )δ ω δ ε→∞ = = == ε− (37.23) It follows that the transitions take place between states of equal unperturbed energies The transition probability is proportional to the time interval t during which the perturbation is on, that is .00 in εε → ( )tPin approaches infinity as .∞→t Since no experiment lasts for an infinite time, it is the transition probability per unit time, called the transition rate , which is of particular interest. Normally, is part of a continuum, and hence, the transition might end in any state which belongs to a finite range of N final states, rather than in a particular state. We may then define the transition rate as ( )dNtP t P intni ∫∞→→ = 1lim (37.24) The integral over the final states is usually transformed into one over energy, if we define a density of states ( ) ,ρ ε representing the number of continuum states per energy interval, by taking ( )0ndN d 0nρ ε ε= (37.25) so that, substituting Eqs.(37.23) and (37.25), Eq.(37.24) gives ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )20 0 0 0 01 2limi n in n n ni n i ntP P t d Vt πρ ε ε ρ ε δ ε ε→ →∞= =∫ = − (37.26) This result is known as Fermi's golden rule, which states that transitions may occur only between states of equal energies for which the matrix elements of the perturbation operator do not vanish, and that the transition rate is proportional to both the square modulus of these matrix elements and the density of final states. 37.3. EMISSION AND ABSORPTION OF RADIATION Consider the transitions between stationary states which are induced by a harmonic perturbation of the form ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )( )titi eeArVtArVtV ωωωωω −+== GG ˆcosˆ2ˆ (37.27) It is assumed that the harmonic perturbation corresponds to the interaction of either the electric or magnetic field components of the incoming radiation with the electric or magnetic moment of the atom. Thus, the coupling between the system and the perturbing field can be taken in the form of a field amplitude ( )ωA times a displacement of the system ( ).ˆ rV G On substitution of Eq.(37.27) into Eq.(37.10) one obtains ( ) ( ) ( )( ) ( )( )titinititiinni eeAVeeArVtV ωωωω ωω −− +=+ΨΨ= 00 ˆ G (37.28) It follows from Eq.(37.17) that n ni ia t V A e e dtω ω ω ωω ′ ′− − − +⎡ ⎤ ′= − +⎣ ⎦∫= (37.29) inin eeAV 0 ⎥⎦ ⎤⎢⎣ ⎡ ++−= ωωωω ω ωωωω V A e eω ω ω ωω ω ω ω ω − − − +⎡ ⎤− −= +⎢ ⎥− +⎢ ⎥⎣ ⎦= If the atomic system is bathed into a radiation field of frequency ,inni ωωω −== which implies that according to the Bohr condition (37.16), the transition from state to state describes a process of induced absorption, where the energy of the system is increased by energy transfer from the radiation field to the atom. If 00 in εε > ,ni inω ω ω= = − the second term on the right-hand side of Eq.(37.29) grows without limit, so that the first term can be neglected.
The nondecay probability Q(t) for a Lorentzian energy distribution peaked at E0{\mathit{E}}_{0}E0​ with full width at half maximum equal to \ensuremath{\Gamma} is given in atomic units by QL{\mathit{Q}}_{\mathit{L}}QL​(t)=exp(-\ensuremath{\Gamma}t). However, the Lorentzian distribution includes energies in the range -\ensuremath{\infty}\ensuremath{\le}E\ensuremath{\le}\ensuremath{\infty}. On physical grounds, this distribution must be truncated at some minimum energy E=0. In this paper, Q(t) is derived for a properly normalized truncated Lorentzian energy distribution. To aid the analysis, the average lifetime \ensuremath{\tau}(tmin{\mathit{t}}_{\mathrm{min}}tmin​) for that fraction of the system that has not decayed by tmin{\mathit{t}}_{\mathrm{min}}tmin​ is also calculated for this system. For a given value of the ratio E0{\mathit{E}}_{0}E0​/\ensuremath{\Gamma}, the function Q(t) shows different behavior in different time regimes; this behavior is presented and the time periods are determined. It is shown that Q(t) falls off linearly at very small t, but at a rate only half as fast as for QL{\mathit{Q}}_{\mathit{L}}QL​(t). Thus this system cannot exhibit the behavior known as Zeno's paradox, but rapid measurements on this system that collapse the wave function back to the original state could, in principle, reduce the decay rate by a factor of 2.
This paper states a narrow interpretive claim about stable and radioactive bound configurations under the matter-side reading of the Timeless Light Model. It introduces no new equations and alters no predictive content of atomic physics, nuclear physics, or quantum mechanics. The claim is that stable and radioactive bound configurations are two presentations of the same structural reading: each is timeless lawful structure in force, registered in spacetime when called on, with registrations governed by lawful content. Stable configurations have no admissible spontaneous decay channel under the operative description; nothing registers, and nothing accumulates. Radioactive configurations have at least one decay channel in their lawful content; channel realizations register along the worldline at rate λ fixed by content. The paper argues that neither stable nor radioactive matter undergoes substance-aging. Stable atoms do not grow older as degraded versions of themselves, and radioactive atoms do not age toward decay. A radioactive nucleus that has not yet realized its decay channel retains the same decay probability per unit proper time in the experimentally dominant exponential regime. Bulk decay curves describe cumulative counting of channel realizations across an ensemble, not individual atomic wear. The result is interpretive only. It preserves the standard exponential-decay law, the standard treatment of stationary states, and the standard predictive machinery of atomic and nuclear physics. Its contribution is ontological: stability and radioactivity are content-level distinctions, not different categories of being.