-2

In my textbook, it is written that $α$-decay only occurs in heavier nuclei. But why? Why is that so? There is literally no explanation given in my textbook as to why this is true. Please explain. Would greatly appreciate it!

Maurice
  • 28,241
  • 3
  • 29
  • 61
  • 5
    I have growing feeling you may confuse CH SE site with an online interactive course of chemistry. At doubts over your textbook, I advice you to think, search online and other sources well, read them, think again, and then think more. If not enough, ask with the explicit summary of your intermediate results of your prior effort. Without it, your questions may get frequently closed. – Poutnik Apr 25 '21 at 14:22
  • 1
    Define "heavier". – Nilay Ghosh Apr 25 '21 at 14:27
  • Heavier means "with an atomic number greater than $83$" . – Maurice Apr 25 '21 at 14:45
  • 2
    @Pranita In practice, this mode of decay has only been observed in nuclides considerably heavier than nickel, with the lightest known alpha emitters being the lightest isotopes (mass numbers 104–109) of tellurium (element 52). Exceptionally, however, beryllium-8 decays to two alpha particles (Wikipedia) – Nilay Ghosh Apr 25 '21 at 14:46
  • First, this is a better fit for Physics.SE. Second, why fixate on number 83? Is this a number you came up with, or is there a reference, since α-decay is also possible for lighter elements? Third, a nitpick: particle symbols are always upright and it makes no sense to use MathJax to denote them in text; there is no upgreek macro yet and in math mode all Greek letters are slanted, which is a wrong notation. – andselisk Apr 25 '21 at 15:57
  • @Poutnik actually I am an Indian student studying in Class 12 and preparing for a pre-medical exam called National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET). This year is very crucial for me as I am preparing for NEET and willing to be a doctor. So, I don't get much time for researching stuff (I have only 1 year). So, I ask my doubts (not homework questions) in this site as this is an amazing website with great people who clear my doubts instantly! Thank you so much Poutnik! You have helped me a lot in chemistry! I don't have a good chemistry teacher. I wish I could meet you someday in real life. – Pranita Baruah 1 Apr 25 '21 at 17:40
  • @Poutnik, also I don't get time to write all the stuff I have come up with so far with my answer. You can google up NEET and see how hard the exam is. – Pranita Baruah 1 Apr 25 '21 at 17:42
  • @Pranita The exam toughness dosen't decide the eligibility of a question. Although I believe this was a valid question about a concept and not a homework question. – Nisarg Bhavsar Apr 26 '21 at 04:27
  • The premise is bluntly false as, for examples, ⁸Be decays to two alpha particles and ⁸B to two alphas and β⁺ (see Poutnik’s answer for more details). – Incnis Mrsi Apr 27 '21 at 17:25

2 Answers2

6

A general equation for the alpha decay is $$\ce{A -> B + ^4_2He + $\Delta E$}$$

You can check whether the decay is possible by calculating $\Delta E$ as $$\Delta E=\left(m_{\ce{A}}-m_{\ce{B}}-m_{\ce{He}}\right)c^2$$

The alpha particle has a relatively high binding energy of $28.296\ \mathrm{MeV}$ ($7.074\ \mathrm{MeV}$ per nucleon). However, when going down from $\ce{A}$ to $\ce{B}$, some binding energy is lost. The alpha decay is possible if this lost binding energy is less than $7.074\ \mathrm{MeV}$ per nucleon.

You should already know that the graph of the binding energy per nucleon has a maximum at around iron. For heavier nuclides, the binding energy per nucleon is decreasing. So the increase of total binding energy is not linear but levels out a bit. If this increase per nucleon falls below $7.074\ \mathrm{MeV}$, alpha decay becomes possible.

From the graph of total binding energy, we can see that alpha decay should be possible starting at a mass number of $A=142$. In fact, alpha decay was observed for $\ce{^142_58Ce}$.

Loong
  • 4,813
  • 1
  • 20
  • 45
3

Generally, lighter nuclei have too high nuclear bonding energy to allow alpha particles to escape.

For heavy elements, coulombic repulsive forces weakens the overall bonding, that leads to alpha radioactivity.

Exception are all nuclei with nucleon number 5 or 8 that quickly decay, forming an alpha plus a nucleon, resp. 2 alpha particles(eventually after beta decay )

Aside of the above exceptions, the lightest alpha emitter is $\ce{^{104}_{52}Te}$, probably because the target $\ce{^{100}_{50}Sn}$ nucleons have double magic numbers 50 + 50. Isotopes with proton or neutron count equal to magic numbers are often especially stable.

Poutnik
  • 41,273
  • 3
  • 49
  • 106
  • 1
    Yes. But why is this limit fixed at this number 83 ? Why 83 ? – Maurice Apr 25 '21 at 14:48
  • 1
    If it was 81 or 87, would you ask why 81 or 87? :-) At some proton number, the nuclear/EM force balance must have its threshold. – Poutnik Apr 25 '21 at 15:24
  • 2
    If it was 81, 87, 52, or 2000, I would ask the same question. Why is there a limit here ? Why should it have a threshold indeed ? Even Beryllium-8 emits two alphas ! – Maurice Apr 25 '21 at 16:45
  • Rather, 8Be cracks into 2 halves. Alpha has exceptionally low energy. 83 is the proton number of the first unstable element (not counting Tc and Pm) 209Bi has the halftime approx 10^19 years. – Poutnik Apr 25 '21 at 17:35
  • I knew all what you say. The main problem is why. Why a threshold for alpha radioactivity ? There is no threshold for beta radioactivity. Why for alpha ? – Maurice Apr 25 '21 at 18:12
  • Beta radioactivity need not to overcome strong nuclear force. – Poutnik Apr 25 '21 at 18:27
  • 1
    @Maurice I asked once long time ago, why all radioactive series terminate at lead? Why exactly lead? Why not other metals? In fact, I got 2 very beautiful answers. Turns out, there is no threshold. You can theoretically reach hydrogen from radioactive decay but it will take an immense amount of time for the decays to happen (more than the age of universe). – Nilay Ghosh Apr 26 '21 at 03:15
  • @NilayGhosh. Wonderful answer. Thank you ! – Maurice Apr 26 '21 at 08:53
  • @Maurice Very most of nuclei would not have energy to do so. Even $\ce{^{209}_{83}Bi}$ which does have that energy would take billion times the universe age. All the process of big stars life, leading from hydrogen to iron, would not be spontaneosly reverted back. – Poutnik Apr 26 '21 at 09:38