Thu Jan 9 11:11:42 1997

From owner-tc-list  Thu Jan  9 11:11:42 1997
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id LAA26617; Thu, 9 Jan 1997 11:08:45 -0500
X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com
Message-Id: 
In-Reply-To: 
 
References: 
 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 10:06:54 -0700
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
From: "Robert B. Waltz" 
Subject: Re: Ms half-lives
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 2204

On Thu, 9 Jan 1997, "James R. Adair"  wrote:

>Tim's discussion of ms half-lives is interesting and thought-provoking, 
>though I think some caveats must be kept in mind.  The radioactive decay 
>analogy works only to the extent that conditions of ms destruction remain 
>constant over time.  So, for example, rampant destruction of mss during a 
>persecution would skew the data, as would changes in technology (shift 
>from uncial to minuscule script, introduction of paper, invention of 
>printing).  If these factors can be taken into consideration, however, I 
>would think that the assumption of a more or less constant rate of ms 
>destruction between the fourth and the fifteenth centuries might be 
>valid.  What kind of boundaries did you have in mind, Tim?

Since I'm on deadline today, I haven't had time to read and respond
to Tim's remarks in detail. But let me offer a thought.

The objection here boils down to saying, "Sometimes things happen."
Which is precisely true, but not the point.

Take the decay of radioactive atoms. If you look at one atom
of, say, U-238, you *cannot* predict when it will break down.
But if you observe enough of them, you can say that -- no matter
*what* happens -- after about 5 billion years (the half-life of
U-238), half of them will be gone.

Tim is not stating a thesis ("manuscripts break down after 500
years," or the like). He is stating an observation and making
a hypothesis. In fact, he is almost certainly right, too: In
a large enough universe of manuscripts, they *will* break down
in a pattern approximating radioactive decay.

Radioactive decay is a statistical process. It is absolutely
uniform when you are working with trillions of atoms. When
you are dealing with tens of thousands of manuscripts, you will
see bumps and valleys in the graph. (Just as you would if you
tracked the decay of tens of thousands of radioactive atoms.
There aren't enough of them.) This has no effect on the rule.

Unsolicited testimonial, based on incomplete data -- but at least
it is the comment of someone trained in physics. (For once,
something I'm *supposed* to know something about. :-)

Bob Waltz
waltzmn@skypoint.com

Back