Re: Radioactive decay

["John S. Denker" <jsd@MONMOUTH.COM>]

Ludwik Kowalski wrote:
> A simulation does not "demonstrate" the law,

I'm beginning to think we have a deep-seated
difference in philosophy, on top of a disagreement
about the physics of radioactivity.

If you've got the right law, and you do the right
simulation, it is sometimes a very powerful way of
demonstrating the law.

An even stronger statement:  if there's something wrong
with the law, sometimes a simulation is the very best
way to falsify the law, to show what's wrong.

=============

I also re-emphasize that the "law"
         N=No*exp(-lambda*t)            (1)

is not and never has been the fundamental law governing
radioactive decay.  The law should be stated in terms
of probability.  Equation (1) is an expression for the
average N under certain conditions.

Paste a note on the wall over your desk:  probabilities
converge to averages, but the convergence is slow.

Maybe you wish the laws of physics were written in terms
of averages, but Mother Nature disagrees with you.

> Only real experiments validate laws.

I still disagree.

Open your eyes!  The pencil-tossing experiment serves
beautifully to falsify the interpretation you have
placed on equation (1).

> By the way, that is the essence of scientific
> methodology; by mutual agreement of scientists.

Well, then that methodology doesn't exist, by its
own definition, because I'm a scientist and I
disagree with it.

Case in point:  for many years the consensus among
scientists was that the notion of continental drift
was wrong.  Was that a scientific conclusion?  I think
not.  I think that was the essence of an unscientific
process.