Little-known facts about radiometric dating

Scientist Realizes Important Flaw in Radioactive Dating

---

If the effects of diffusion can be taken into account, it will require an elaborate model that will most certainly require elaborate assumptions. Hayes suggests a couple of other approaches that might work, but its not clear how well. So what does this mean? If you believe the earth is very old, then most likely, all of the radioactive dates based on isochrons are probably overestimates. How bad are the overestimates? Most likely, the effect will be dependent on the age.

I would think that the older the sample, the larger the overestimate. As a young-earth creationist, I look at this issue in a different way. Certainly not enough to justify the incredibly unscientific extrapolation necessary in an old-earth framework. This newly-pointed-out flaw in the isochron method is a stark reminder of that.

Navigation menu

A good isochron was supposed to be rock-solid evidence pun intended that the radioactive date is reliable. We now know that it is not. Wile, I was waiting for you to comment on this, because I wanted to ask if you think this problem can be extrapolated to other isotopes such as lead and argon. If so, it seems to be a pretty big deal. As I said, carbon dating is an exception, but most other modern radiometric dates are produced using an isochron.

Are the samples we see in the RATE study, for example, just anomalies, existing on the ends of the bell curve, or are these indicative of an endemic misunderstanding of the process? Are there any theories that could account for the accelerated decay rate or how the daughters could have gotten in to the samples?

Thus, any significant amount of daughter product will produce a very old date. In my view, if two different dating schemes give significantly different answers, then either one of them is wrong or both of them are wrong. Scientists exclude what we think are anomalous data all the time. Unfortunately, that discarded data might be what gives us real insight.

Young-earth creationists have a hard time explaining the general results of long-lived isotopes and their daughter products being present. On the other side, old-earthers have a hard time explaining all the discordance.

If radioactive dating is so reliable, why do different methods yield different results? Why are some of those differences really, really large? As is often the case, there are problems on both sides. The side you end up coming down on often depends on which problems you are most comfortable trying to deal with. Physicists already theorize that dark matter would affect nuclear decay rates; what if the leftover energy went to the dark matter?

The heat problem occurs everywhere there are radioactive isotopes, so throughout the crust and mantle of the earth, for example. The dark matter would have to be there in order to take the heat. You can think of dark matter here as a lot like the luminiferous ether: Since its interaction with normal matter is incredibly weak, it can very easily pass through the earth. Not to mention that different models of dark matter would lead to different interactions. Are we able to calculate the mass of the earth from our knowledge of its contents, and not just the gravitational force we detect?

I think if there were much dark matter in the earth, it would be noticeable.

Radiometric dating

We also know the overall composition of the crust and mantle from samples. Thus, the only real unknown is the composition of the core. Using the mass and all those other measurements, we deduce that the core is mostly iron with some nickel. I fear it is more a matter of philosophy rather than hard science: The problem with that, is that, in the first case, there appear to be no transitional fossils when there should be millions , and to make the assumption previously herein stated, evolutionary conclusions are more akin to a combination of wishful thinking combined with a sympathetic magic mindset, than to observable examples.

Evolution is taught as established fact, and scientific enquiry is severely trammelled by those who prefer a status quo. Every fossil between organisms alive now and abiogenesis is a transitional fossil, Tony. There are also transitional fossils and organisms in the misguided definition of the word you are using. I admire your faith, Cromwell. Yet you state it as fact. Then, you claim that all fossils are a transition between that unrealistic event and the life we see now. Thanks for writing an informative article. Error bars have their place, but you are correct in pointing out that they are often misunderstood not only by the general public, but by scientists who are not savvy in radiometric dating.

You must create an account to continue watching

I would have worded this sentence differently: I am not convinced that differential diffusion of isotopes will be all that significant. After all, fractionation of light elements, such as oxygen, provides us with all sorts of insights into geologic processes because the mass difference between O and O is rather significant, whereas the mass difference between Sr and Sr is not all that great, in terms of ratios.

The differences are even less significant for more massive isotopes such as in samarium-neodymium dating Nd and Nd If fractionation does turn out to be important for isochrons, one would expect that there would be a trend, with lighter nuclides e. Rb-Sr being more affected than heavier nuclides e. I am also wondering if Dr.

This method of dating has also been used to study artifacts that have received a great deal of public attention, such as the Shroud of Turin , the Dead Sea Scrolls , Egyptian tombs, and Stonehenge. Radioactive dating is a method of determining the approximate age of an old object by measuring the amount of a known radioactive element it contains.

22 Comments

Rocks as well as fossil plants and animals can be dated by this process. It has given paleontologists a person specializing in the study of fossils as well as geologists a person specializing in the study of the origin, history, and structure of Earth a powerful way of dating ancient objects. Until the discovery of radioactive dating , scientists had no way of approximating how old any part of Earth was. Once the principle behind this method was discovered, however, it became possible to gather reliable information about the age of Earth and its rocks and fossils.

Radioactive Dating

Radioactive dating was not possible until , when the radioactive properties of uranium a radioactive metallic element were discovered by French physicist a person specializing in the study of energy and matter , Antoine Henri Becquerel — When a substance is described as radioactive, it means that at the subatomic relating to parts of an atom level, some parts of it are unstable.

When a substance is described as unstable, it means that it has a tendency to break down or decay. During this decay, one substance actually changes into another and radiation is released. As long ago as , the American chemist Bertram B. Boltwood — suggested that knowledge of radioactivity might be used to determine the age of Earth's crust.

Radiometric dating Facts for Kids | cellotonica.com

He suggested this because he knew that the end product of the decay of uranium was a form of lead. Since each radioactive element decays at a known rate, it can be thought of as a ticking clock. Boltwood explained that by studying a rock containing uranium, its age could be determined by measuring its amounts of uranium and lead. The more lead the rock contained, the older it was. Although this was a major breakthrough, Boltwood's dating method made it possible to date only the oldest rocks.

This is because uranium decayed or changed into lead at such a slow rate that it was not reliable for measuring the age of rocks that were younger than 10,, years old. Another drawback was that uranium is not found in every rock. A later method that used rubidium which changes into strontium proved more useful because it is found in nearly all rocks, although it still was not useful for younger specimens.

Perhaps the best method for rock dating is the potassium-argon method.

Search form

This method proved useful to date rocks as young as 50, years old. In another dating breakthrough occurred. The American chemist Willard F. Libby — discovered the radiocarbon method for determining the age of organic materials. Called the carbon dating technique, this ingenious method used the simple knowledge that all living plants and animals contain carbon a nonmetallic element that occurs in all plants and animals. Libby also knew that while most of this carbon is a common, stable form called carbon, a very small amount of the total carbon is radioactive carbon All plants absorb carbon during photosynthesis the process in which plants use light energy to create food , and animals absorb this carbon by eating plants or eating other animals that ate plants.

Libby also found that as long as an organism remains alive, its supply of carbon remains the same. However, once the organism dies, the supply stops and the carbon in its body begins to decrease according to its own rate of decay. Libby realized that this could be a practical dating tool.

• free egyptian dating sites
• hook up nike plus shoes
• speed dating sur bordeaux
• hots matchmaking time
• ex husband dating after divorce