I know my qusetion may be so stupid, but I really interest history of "daughter nuclide" .
By "daughter nuclide" I mean "progeny" which is a decay products.
Why don't call it "son nuclide"? ;D
I just got a clue that is associated with Maria Skłodowska-Curie.
But no complete information about the history of daughter nuclide.
Thanks :)
Quote from: Marssim on Mar 08, 2010, 09:51
It's a maternal line of descent,...
The "paternal" line as represented by the various induced decays is complicated and highly variable to source of origin and pedigree,....
The maternal line, whether induced or spontaneous, is always known,....
You always know who the child's mother is, the father is an assumption,...
ergo,...the maternal line of descent is always known or knowable,....ergo daughter products,...
Ah, but the parentage is not the question. You can tell the maternal lineage no matter the gender of the child, so whether you call it a son or daughter should make no difference. Also, the original nuclide is just called the 'parent' not the 'mother' which would make more sense if that theory held water.
Quote from: Marssim on Mar 08, 2010, 09:51
It's a maternal line of descent,...
The "paternal" line as represented by the various induced decays is complicated and highly variable to source of origin and pedigree,....
The maternal line, whether induced or spontaneous, is always known,....
You always know who the child's mother is, the father is an assumption,...
ergo,...the maternal line of descent is always known or knowable,....ergo daughter products,...
Quote from: RDTroja on Mar 08, 2010, 11:27
Ah, but the parentage is not the question. You can tell the maternal lineage no matter the gender of the child, so whether you call it a son or daughter should make no difference. Also, the original nuclide is just called the 'parent' not the 'mother' which would make more sense if that theory held water.
Wow!!! you guys are good, but I think I can hear the faint sound of tap dancing in the back ground. 8)
Just a guess, but it may have originated from biology, from cell division. I beleive that goes from parent to daughter as well.
Quote from: RDTroja on Mar 08, 2010, 11:27
Ah, but the parentage is not the question. You can tell the maternal lineage no matter the gender of the child, so whether you call it a son or daughter should make no difference. Also, the original nuclide is just called the 'parent' not the 'mother' which would make more sense if that theory held water.
This only makes sense at the final stable isotope. As most of the "daughters" too go through a decay process, hence making them "mothers", we know that they HAVE to be female in nature. Otherwise the "birth" would be impossible. Now the final, stable, form at the end of the decay chain can be a "son" or "daughter", we just won't know as they don't "reproduce". ;D
PS: Sorry I could not resist :-X
Quote from: Marssim on Mar 08, 2010, 12:45
There are induced and spontaneous processes,...
Induced would infer sexual reproduction,....
Spontaneous would infer asexual, or (as a former Catholic) immaculate,....
And, as only a daughter could immaculately produce progeny,....
It is a maternal line of mothers and daughters until the last stable isotope is produced,....
Now, at the time stability is arrived at the arguement could be made that the stable isotope is by definition a male isotope,....
But, somewhere I feel a cosmic smiting racing towards my head so I'm just gonna back away from the discussion now,....... :P 8)
To save you from a cosmic smiting I would offer up that the stable isotope is unenergetic and lazy, hence a fully developed and mature MALE :D
I thought in nature if you have a mother but do not know who the father is you're referred to as a bast_ _ _ (don't want to offend anyone). Which would explain why the term 'daughter' was used (it's 'nicer' although 'progeny' would be more politically correct).
P.S. I couldn't help it either.
Great theory Marssim, but I like the 'immaculately produced progeny' theory better. ;D