After each half-life cycle, all✔ halfnonemore of the radioactive nuclei became nonradioactive.
During the experiment, the number of radioactive atoms never increased because a radioactive nucleus likely, but not definitelypossibly, but not likely✔ neverdefinitely becomes radioactive again after it decays.
Your simulation involved 100 atoms and eight half-life cycles. For half-life cycles 9 and later, how many radioactive nuclei would you expect to be present? ✔ 01234510It depends on the cycle.
y-axis is Half-Life Cycles✔ Radioactive AtomsDecayed Atoms.
Why is the regression equation not exactly y = 100 • 0.5n? ✔ Radioactive decay is a random event.Some atoms became radioactive again.Simulation cannot really model half-life.Half-life is not a real thing.
Question text not available
The hypothesis stated that the fraction of nuclei still radioactive after n half-life cycles should be 0.5n. How well does the regression equation support the hypothesis? perfectlyquite stronglysomewhatjust a littlenot at all
You could also graph decay time (in seconds or minutes) vs. number of radioactive nuclei. How would this graph differ from the graph of cycle number vs. number of radioactive nuclei? Check all that apply.
What is the relationship between the number of half-life cycles and the elapsed time in seconds or minutes?
Suppose you could watch radioactive atoms decay. It would probably get quite boring as time went by. Why? Check all that apply.
50%25%12.5%✔ 6.25%
6.750 x 10113.375 x 10111.687 x 1011
A times 0.5 to the n power. StartFraction 0.5 to the n power over A EndFraction. 0.5 to the n power. A plus 0.5 to the n power.




Did you find these answers helpful?