Roman lead and modern physics

Researchers looking for dark matter signals like to use Roman lead, in particular the lead found in old Roman shipwrecks , which has caused tension between physicists and archaeologists. The reason Roman lead is valuable is that Roman lead is less radioactive than recently mined lead. Lead is primarily used in particle physics experiments as a shielding agent, in that it prevents outside particles from entering a detector and giving false signals. If the lead is radioactive though, the decay of the lead itself will generate noise in the detector. Mined lead is partly made of 210 P b ^{210}Pb , which has a half-life of 22.2 years. If Roman lead was mined 1713 years ago, what is the ratio of the amount of 210 P b ^{210}Pb in the Roman lead now versus when it was mined?


The answer is 5.91E-24.

This section requires Javascript.
You are seeing this because something didn't load right. We suggest you, (a) try refreshing the page, (b) enabling javascript if it is disabled on your browser and, finally, (c) loading the non-javascript version of this page . We're sorry about the hassle.

5 solutions

Chael Kruip
Dec 2, 2013

22.2 years after the Roman lead has been mined, half of the 210 P b ^{210} P_b atoms in it have decayed. The next 22.2 year, half of the remaining atoms has decayed and so on.

The ratio of the amount of 210 P b ^{210} P_b atoms in the Roman lead now vs. when it was mined is therefore given by:

( 1 2 ) 1713 / 22.2 2 77.61 5.91 × 1 0 24 \left(\frac{1}{2}\right)^{1713/22.2} \approx 2^{-77.61} \approx \boxed{5.91\times 10^{-24}}

Now I do not want to be pedantic but I have solved this problem to what I initially read: it was mined in 1713. 1713 years ago is different.

Ioan Polenciuc - 5 years, 7 months ago

Log in to reply

Well you gotta think, the Roman Empire didn't exist in 1713. I know that's not a Physics argument but even from a Physics/Chemistry perspective, when dealing with Isotopes of Lead that decay with a half-life of 22.2 years, starting at 1713, would you even want to use that lead? In that 302 years it would have had only 13.6 half lives Vs. the 77.2 half lives, had it started decaying 1713 years ago.

Arrian Movahhedi - 5 years, 6 months ago

Log in to reply

The fact taht the lead was Roman doesn't itself imply that it was extracted during the Roman Empire. I know that this precision might seem unnecessary and pedantic, but is, in fact, needed.

Nicola Chiarotti - 5 years, 5 months ago

Log in to reply

@Nicola Chiarotti "Roman lead", "old Roman shipwrecks," and "archaeologists" should make it clear that they're talking about ancient Roman materials, not post-Renaissance Italian materials.

Your call for precision is only pedantic if you make it so. "Mined in 1713 years ago" is clearly a typo, and the other context makes it clear that the "in" is the typo.

Brian Egedy - 5 years, 4 months ago

Horribly worded question. You'd think that an app called "brilliant" would have had the brilliance to check spelling and grammar.

Phil Kwarta - 5 years, 2 months ago

XD XD LOL ROFL

Archishman Mukherjee - 5 years, 5 months ago

Same here... I think the question has to be rephrased, we are not taking English test here...

Kh Tang - 4 years, 10 months ago

I think this is a poorly written problem. I got to the point of doing .5^77 (I dropped some sig figs here.) and saw that it was something*10^-24. This for any realistic and normal use is equivalent to zero. I put zero in and got it wrong. If they want the answer in scientific notation it should tell you to write it in a specific format out to a certain number of sig figs. Rather than just marking your answer wrong.

Colby Bird - 5 years ago

Log in to reply

Totally agree. I didn't know how to enter my correct answer.

logical Octopus - 1 year, 5 months ago

Unfortunately it appears poor communication of the question became part of the problem to solve this one...

Adrian Oliver - 5 years, 3 months ago

HAVE U USED A SCI. CALCULATOR .

Sarthak Sarroy - 5 years, 2 months ago

how in the hell do we supposed to enter that number? ffs..

Can Uysal - 4 years, 11 months ago

I got the answer as 2^-77.61 but i had no idea that i could input my answer as 5.91E-24 . I thought it had to be an integer so i answered 0

Ashwin Kumar - 4 years, 11 months ago

By the way, my calculator reads -77.16, not -77.61.

Kh Tang - 4 years, 10 months ago

Lol, I read it as mined in 1713, or like 303 years ago.. lol

Jerry McKenzie - 4 years, 7 months ago

I didn't know how to type the answer!

Log in to reply

That happens to me too! If only someone could reply this

Alejandro Martín Gascó - 2 years, 1 month ago

Who was that idiot who worded that question? Ratio of what to what? Wasn't it hard to say ratio back in Roman times to current minings.

Vadim Shulkin - 3 years, 8 months ago
Milly Choochoo
Dec 3, 2013

If every 22.2 years the amount of Mined lead is cut in half, we can model the situation mathematically as

A(t) = A 0 × ( 1 2 ) t / h A_{0} \times (\frac{1}{2})^{ t/h}

Where A(t) is the amount of Mined lead as a function of time, A 0 A_{0} is the amount of Mined lead you have at the beginning, and h is the half life.

If you were to divide A(t) by A 0 A_{0} , you would get the ratio of the amount of Mined lead now to Mined lead at the beginning. Let's do it with math.

A ( t ) A 0 = A 0 × ( 1 2 ) t / h A 0 = ( 1 2 ) t / h \frac{A(t)}{A_{0}} = \frac{A_{0} \times (\frac{1}{2})^{ t/h}}{A_{0}} = (\frac{1}{2})^{ t/h}

Since 1713 years have passed, we plug in 1713 for t and 22.2 for h , the half life.

This gives you the answer, which is about 5.9139 × 1 0 24 \boxed{5.9139 \times 10^{-24}}

Voilà!

Ahaan Rungta
Dec 3, 2013

Let the number of half-lives that has passed be n n . Then, the ratio is ( 1 2 ) n \left( \dfrac {1}{2} \right)^n . The number of half-lives since the mining is the number of years divided by the half-life time. The number of years is 1712 1712 , so n = 1713 22.2 , n = \dfrac {1713}{22.2}, and our answer is ( 1 2 ) 1713 / 22.2 5.91 × 1 0 24 . \left( \dfrac {1}{2} \right)^{1713/22.2} \approx \boxed {5.91 \times 10^{-24}}.

Bostang Palaguna
Mar 30, 2021

radioactive decay follow first order reaction. d N d t = k N \frac{dN}{dt} = -kN *note: negative is just for convention, indicating that it's actually a decay

by solving the differential equation with N ( 0 ) = N 0 N(0) = N_0 , you would get an equation:

N t = N 0 e λ t N_t = N_0 e^{-\lambda t}

by definition, half-life is the time taken for a radioactive material to decay into half of it's initial value. So by plugging N T 1 / 2 = 1 2 N 0 N_{T_{1/2}} = \frac{1}{2}N_0 and doing simplification, you will get an equation: N t = N 0 e t T 1 / 2 N_t = N_0 e^{\frac{t}{T_{1/2}}}

Plugging the number: T 1 / 2 = 22.2 T_{1/2} = 22.2 and t = 1713 t = 1713 into the calculator and you would get the ratio: N t N 0 = 5.913909291 × 1 0 24 \boxed{\frac{N_t}{N_0} = 5.913909291 \times 10^{-24}}

David O'Connor
Dec 5, 2017

Half-life can be modeled by the first-order differential equation d m d t = r m \frac{dm}{dt} = rm , where m is mass (or amount) of material, since decay rate is proportional to mass. Rearranging and using separation of variables, we find the solution to this equation to be m = C e r t m = Ce^{rt} , where t is time.

By setting an initial condition of 1 for the mass (ie original amount) at time t=0, we find that C is equal to one. We then solve for r, using the condition where m = 1/2 (This is half-life!), and t = 22.2 years:

1 2 = 1 e 22.2 r \frac{1}{2} = 1e^{22.2r}

Taking the natural log of both sides, we find r to be -0.03122. We can now solve the problem: m = e 0.03122 × 1713 = 5.193 × 1 0 24 m = e^{-0.03122 \times 1713} = 5.193 \times 10^-24 years.

0 pending reports

×

Problem Loading...

Note Loading...

Set Loading...