How far can carbon dating go

  • Create your free account
  • Carbon-Dating Clock Reset
  • Answers to Creationist Attacks on Carbon-14 Dating
  • How Accurate is Carbon Dating?
  • Carbon dating, rate of decay, how far can we go?
  • Radiocarbon dating

How far can you go back in time, and assume an accurate sample with carbon dating? It seems limited, how can an observer know the state of the decay of a certain molecular structure even , calendar years ago? Could there be other influences that would affect the rate of decay of carbon 14? If it has generally been established as a constant, at what point does the “constant” break down? The constant, that is the Strong Nuclear Force, is absolute.

Create your free account

How far can you go back in time, and assume an accurate sample with carbon dating? It seems limited, how can an observer know the state of the decay of a certain molecular structure even , calendar years ago? Could there be other influences that would affect the rate of decay of carbon 14? If it has generally been established as a constant, at what point does the “constant” break down? The constant, that is the Strong Nuclear Force, is absolute. It’d have to be, it’s what controls radioactivity and all other nuclear reactions.[rs_table_products tableName=”Best Dating Websites”]

If we surmise that the Strong Nuclear Force can change, then we have to explain why the Sun is still there. A bit in one way, the rate of fusion goes through the roof and the Sun blows itself apart. A bit in the other, the rate of fusion drops and the Sun collapses. Where “A bit” is a few parts in a trillion or less, most likely very much less. Carbon has a half-life of 5, years so decays fairly quickly to unusable proportions.

We also need to calibrate how much carbon it had to begin with. To do that we need records of how much was being made from nitrogen. To do that we need samples of atmospheric gas, from ice cores or solar activity from tree rings, etc. If we’re a bit depleted in nitrogen, then we know it’s become carbon We can get reasonable accuracy to 50, years, better accuracy more recently.

This calibration is what limits the accuracy because we know that with a given amount of carbon, it absolutely will decay at a very tightly controlled rate. Thanks, Hat Monster. Now, on to the next question, who held the stop watch at the Big Bang? Unfortunately, I was not able to attend that event, due to prior schedule conflicts. Originally posted by spoof: Oh, I remember you being there. You were just to hot to be sapient.

Originally posted by Hat Monster: Isn’t beta decay controlled by the weak force? Originally posted by Chuckles: Yes, it’s all coalescing now, unfortunately, it merely seems like a dream. Science cannot tell time. It can set a frame, or a parameter for the occurence of one event or another, but it has only the most recent reference for the age of any matter whatsoever. Short version? We have only arbitrary concepts of the age of matter as we know it. That’s, to be as nice as I can, a pile of bullshit tall enough to be an aviation hazard.

Originally posted by UserJoe: Also the reason that the neutrino and it’s antiparticle interact infrequently. That’s right, it’s the weak force that governs beta decay. My error, but doesn’t detract from the post’s content. The CMB. The technique for carbon dating is being refined to the point it is believed that reasonable accuracy may be achieved back to , years ago.

Carbon dating works, btw, by comparing the ratio of C 14 to C The further back you go, the harder it gets to discern that difference accurately. Now, I’m interested to know what other radio-isotopes we can use to date old stuff. Like old rocks, for instance. From wikipedia: Isotopic systems that have been exploited for radiometric dating have half-lives ranging only about 10 years e. Also, I believe potassium-argon is fairly common dating mechanism.

Here is wikipedia’s page on the topic: Radiometric dating they have a whole slew of dating mechanisms. OK, I’ll admit it’s a pile of bullshit, however, if you can’t date anything with physical evidence even to , years, then no one has any idea how old lots of things are. It’s all extrapolation. I’m not pushing some creationist angle here, they just like to pick nice “round” numbers.

No, I’ll take scientific observations any day of the week, it’s just that so much of science must, as a discipline, base their observations on the painstaking recording of observable physical data. When no observer is present, can we comfortably assume anything about the physical state of the universe at a time when no recorded physical data is available? To merely observe the physics of atomic structures in the “here and now” and then state that “it’s always been like this”, seems somewhat presumptive.

That’s not true. The statement was that you can’t use C dating for accuracy of over , years. However there are lots of other methods for radiometric dating available. Physical data like rock layers? Like types of rocks? Like physical processes? Like the speed of light? Do you have a testable theory as to why this would not be the case? Science can provide rationale for the dating stated. Doubting simply so you can wag your finger and say “Nuh uh” isn’t having an open mind — it’s simply being contrary.

Originally posted by zeotherm: Radiometric dating they have a whole slew of dating mechanisms Excellent, thankyou. Yes, science bases its theories and concepts around concrete facts. Even if there was some sort of Watcher race that stood in front of me and said that he was alive 10 billion years ago and bore witness to the birth of my planet, I would still insist on evidence. As a scientist, word of mouth means absolute nothing to me.

Scientific statements need to be backed up by actual data. Well, I think you are putting the cart before the horse. Forget your miffed dismissal of the current thought on the history of the universe. You postulate that the laws of physics may not be constant. The next step, using the scientific method, would be to come up with an experiment that would elicit a recordable change.

In this specific case, try to manipulate the environment around a radioactive element to effect a change in the half-life constant. Now take that to the next step, to effect such a change you would need to effect the Weak Force directly within an atom or group of atoms. So a revised, and more scientific, of your OP would be: Can the Weak Force within an atom be effected?

Are half-life constants truely constant? I have no idea what the answer is off the top of my head, but my intelligent guess says that this topic has already been researched and literature exists on it. It was no doubt an important question when dating first took off. I find ranty non-scientific curt dismissals of theories with this sort of attitude half baked and highly aggravating.

It’s like a little kid turning their nose up their parent cause they think they know better. Originally posted by BuckG: Grrr Very much so. It’s even more aggravating when you look at the attitude that it tends to come with: Therefore, I am actually considering more than you are , which makes me better than you mere “scientists”. I don’t care if I have no idea how you could be wrong, I am smarter merely by suggesting you are mistaken.

Grrr Ouch. Fair enough, instead of opinionating, we’ll just stick with the data from here on out. As it should be. Therefore, I am actually considering more than you are, which makes me better than you mere “scientists”. Good question. As Hat Monster already pointed out, if these things were only slightly different from what they are now, the universe would be a vastly different place. There was a special on PBS about the universe, particles, strign theory, etc that covered this topic quite well.

Basically, by making even a small change in any fundamental particle, the whole puzzle gets tossed out the window. A good number of the subatomic particles we know about were calculated mathematically before they were ever discovered via observation. Heck, this is exactly why we are building the LHC. I don’t think it was The Elegant Universe, but it could have been. Not really.

How far can you go back in time, and assume an accurate sample with carbon dating? It seems limited, how can an observer know the state of. As for the effective range of C14, it’s ~50, years, though it can sometimes be pushed back a little farther (the half life of C14 is years.

May 03 Read May 02 Read Apr 23 Read May 01 Read Apr 21 Read

After reading this section you will be able to do the following: As you learned in the previous page, carbon dating uses the half-life of Carbon to find the approximate age of certain objects that are 40, years old or younger.

Radiocarbon dating also referred to as carbon dating or carbon dating is a method for determining the age of an object containing organic material by using the properties of radiocarbon , a radioactive isotope of carbon. The method was developed in the late s by Willard Libby , who received the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his work in

Answers to Creationist Attacks on Carbon-14 Dating

Just how old is that pretty little fossil? Carbon dating can provide an answer — maybe. Scientists have only been able to use the technology to go back about 21, years. Before that, the accuracy of the dating technique gets hazy. Not anymore. Late last month, scientists armed with tree rings, coral and microfossils reset the carbon-dating clock, allowing researchers to confidently date materials from as long as 26, years ago.

How Accurate is Carbon Dating?

Radiocarbon dating can easily establish that humans have been on the earth for over twenty thousand years, at least twice as long as creationists are willing to allow. Therefore it should come as no surprise that creationists at the Institute for Creation Research ICR have been trying desperately to discredit this method for years. They have their work cut out for them, however, because radiocarbon C dating is one of the most reliable of all the radiometric dating methods. This article will answer several of the most common creationist attacks on carbon dating, using the question-answer format that has proved so useful to lecturers and debaters. Cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere are constantly converting the isotope nitrogen N into carbon C or radiocarbon. Living organisms are constantly incorporating this C into their bodies along with other carbon isotopes. When the organisms die, they stop incorporating new C, and the old C starts to decay back into N by emitting beta particles. The older an organism’s remains are, the less beta radiation it emits because its C is steadily dwindling at a predictable rate. So, if we measure the rate of beta decay in an organic sample, we can calculate how old the sample is.

July 10,

Seventy years ago, American chemist Willard Libby devised an ingenious method for dating organic materials. His technique, known as carbon dating, revolutionized the field of archaeology.

Carbon dating, rate of decay, how far can we go?

This site uses cookies from Google and other third parties to deliver its services, to personalise adverts and to analyse traffic. Information about your use of this site is shared with Google. By using this site, you agree to its use of cookies. Read our policy. Registration is free, quick and easy. You’ll be able to read more articles, watch more videos and listen to more podcasts. It takes less than a minute and it’s completely free. By Ida Emilie Steinmark 20 November Physical science is helping archaeologists close in on the real answers behind the mysteries of human evolution, finds Ida Emilie Steinmark. Based at the University of Wales Trinity St David, he has devoted his career to studying the Quaternary period — the last 2. Though originally a field reserved for archaeologists, physical scientists like Walker are showing that they also have crucial contributions to make.

Radiocarbon dating

Очень хорошо, прямо сейчас туда загляну. Спасибо, что помогли. Дэвид Беккер повесил трубку. Альфонсо XIII. Он усмехнулся.

Такой список выдает только принтер Фонтейна. Ты это отлично знаешь. – Но такие сведения секретны. – У нас чрезвычайная ситуация, и мне нужен этот список. Бринкерхофф положил руки ей на плечи. – Мидж, ну пожалуйста, успокойся.

Один шанс к миллиону. У меня галлюцинация. Когда двери автобуса открылись, молодые люди быстро вскочили внутрь. Беккер напряг зрение. Сомнений не. В ярком свете уличного фонаря на углу Беккер увидел. Молодые люди поднялись по ступенькам, и двигатель автобуса снова взревел. Беккер вдруг понял, что непроизвольно рванулся вперед, перед его глазами маячил только один образ – черная помада на губах, жуткие тени под глазами и эти волосы… заплетенные в три торчащие в разные стороны косички.

Да, – сказал голос.  – Мой человек ликвидировал его, но не получил ключ. За секунду до смерти Танкадо успел отдать его какому-то туристу. – Это возмутительно! – взорвался Нуматака.  – Каким же образом вы выполните обещание об эксклюзивном… – Не волнуйтесь, – спокойно ответил американец.

Наверное, Испания напомнила мне о том, что по-настоящему важно. – Помогать вскрывать шифры? – Она чмокнула его в щеку.  – Как бы там ни было, ты поможешь мне с моей рукописью. – Рукописью. – Да.

Why Carbon Dating Might Be in Dangerp{text-indent: 1.5em;}

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *