Consider, carbon dating not possible are mistaken

Posted by: Maurr Posted on: 04.07.2020

thanks for explanation

By using our site, you acknowledge that you have read and understand our Cookie Policy , Privacy Policy , and our Terms of Service. It only takes a minute to sign up. This is for a book. An ancient, badly damaged, base has been found in the asteroid belt. The base has been open to the vacuum of space, although a large proportion of the base is within the body of the asteroid and not on the surface, so has been protected from solar radiations and micro-meteor impacts. I wanted the protagonists to discover remains in the base that will allow them to get a rough age but I don't know the limits of carbon dating or if it would even be possible, given the overall conditions caused by a hard vacuum. I don't know if carbon dating is a viable option and, if it isn't, does another another field of science offer a plausible way of getting to the age of the base?

This is called the point of equilibrium. To illustrate: If you were trying to fill a barrel with water but there were holes drilled up the side of the barrel, as you filled the barrel it would begin leaking out the holes. At some point you would be putting it in and it would be leaking out at the same rate. You will not be able to fill the barrel past this point of equilibrium. In the same way the C is being formed and decaying simultaneously.

At why possible the uninitiated, carbon dating how generally assumed to be a sure-fire way to predict the age of any organism that possible lived on our planet. Without understanding the mechanics of it, we put our blind faith in the words of scientists, why how us that carbon dating is a reliable method of determining the ages of almost. The carbon decays with its half-life of 5, years, while the amount of carbon remains constant in the sample. By looking at the ratio of carbon to carbon in the sample and comparing it to the ratio in a living organism, it is possible to determine the age of a formerly living thing fairly precisely. Nothing on earth carbon dates in the millions of years, because the scope of carbon dating only extends a few thousand years. Willard Libby invented the carbon dating technique in the early s. The amount of carbon 14 in the atmosphere today is about%.

A freshly created earth would require about 30, years for the amount of C in the atmosphere to reach this point of equilibrium because it would leak out as it is being filled. Tests indicate that the earth has still not reached equilibrium. There is more C in the atmosphere now than there was 40 years ago. This would prove the earth is not yet 30, years old! This also means that plants and animals that lived in the past had less C in them than do plants and animals today.

where can find

Just this one fact totally upsets data obtained by C dating. Animals eat the plants and make it part of their tissues. A very small percentage of the carbon plants take in is radioactive C When a plant or animal dies, it stops taking in air and food so it should not be able to get any new C The C in the plant or animal will begin to decay back to normal nitrogen.

The older an object is, the less carbon 14 it contains. One gram of carbon from living plant material causes a Geiger counter to click 16 times per minute as the C decays. A sample that causes 8 clicks per minute would be 5, years old the sample has gone through one half-life and so on.

Assured, that carbon dating not possible absolutely not

Although this technique looks good at first, carbon dating rests on at least two simple assumptions. These are, obviously, the assumption that the amount of carbon 14 in the atmosphere has always been constant and that its rate of decay has always been constant.

not understand And

Neither of these assumptions is provable or reasonable. An illustration may help: Imagine you found a candle burning in a room, and you wanted to determine how long it was burning before you found it.

excellent phrase opinion

You could measure the present height of the candle say, 7 inches and the rate of burn say, an inch per hour. In order to find the length of time since the candle was lit, we would be forced to make some assumptions.

We would, obviously, have to assume that the candle has always burned at the same rate, and assume an initial height of the candle.

Remarkable, the carbon dating not possible All

The answer changes based on the assumptions. Similarly, scientists do not know that the carbon decay rate has been constant. They do not know that the amount of carbon 14 in the atmosphere is constant. Present testing shows the amount of C in the atmosphere has been increasing since it was first measured in the s. This may be tied in to the declining strength of the magnetic field.

In addition to the above assumptions, dating methods are all subject to the geologic column date to verify their accuracy. If a date obtained by radiometric dating does not match the assumed age from the geologic column, the radiometric date will be rejected.

Apologise, carbon dating not possible due time

The so-called geologic column was developed in the early s over a century before there were any radio- metric dating methods. Two major changes are hydrogen-based power units have replaced all fossil fuels and inter-solar system travel is viable but only just starting using ships powered by EM Drives. The technology basis for the base builders is highly advanced; viable interstellar travel capabilities, for example.

Not sure I understand the reasons for this being put on hold as it would appear to fit in to the "Effects of events or world elements, including biology, technology and magic, on specific cts of that world's societies, cultures, and environment" caveat of the exchanges rules.

On Earth this is comparatively "easy". But out in space, this can become really tricky, especially so if the material has its origins outside our solar system. Further complicating this is that ionizing cosmic radiation affects how radioactive materials are, adding a significant count of radiation that messes up the baseline. On Earth our atmosphere decreases this effect significantly, but it is still significant enough that we must consider it.

Jan 02,   Carbon dating is reliable within certain parameters but certainly not infallible. When testing an object using radiocarbon dating, several factors have to be considered: First, carbon dating only works on matter that was once alive, and it only determines the approximate date of death for that sample.

For your purposes, what your protagonists can do is to compare material found deep inside the base, that can be concluded had its origins on the surface of the same asteroid. A simple geological and then chemical analysis can conclude this with ease.

They then do a radiometric comparison with surface material that stayed exposed to cosmic radiation, with the material that was deep inside, and thus shielded. With this your protagonists can get a ballpark figure of the age of the base that puts them within one or two magnitudes of its true age, i. There are other substances apart from carbon we can do this on, providing different time scales, ranging from decades to billions of years.

Carbon dating not possible

Carbon dating is problematic, as you need to know level of Carbon 14 in the atmosphere at the time the animal or plant you are studying died. But there are other radiometric dating methods which might work. The simplest thing would perhaps be if they found a machine similar to a radioisotope thermoelectric generatorwhich is a device that uses a radioactive substance to create electricity. It is today used to power interplanetary probes, among other things.

Carbon 14 Dating Problems - Nuclear Chemistry \u0026 Radioactive Decay

If the protagonists find a device powered by say plutonium, they can look at the ratio of plutonium, uranium and lead to infer the number of years since the plutonium was refined. This is similar to uranium-lead dating which is a dating method that can determine the age of rocks that are from a million year old to several billion. The base may also have a derelict nuclear reactor, similar to that of nuclear-powered submarines today.

reserve, neither

You can have the protagonists do a similar analysis here. Edit: A generator using Americum makes for more straightforward dating, see discussion below. How about if an artifact is found that dates the base.

Something like a calendar left by the occupants of the base and one of your characters puzzles out how to read it. Maybe something related to position of the stars relative to the solar system or something. One option is to use meteorite impacts. Over thousands of years meteorites would cause a roughening of surfaces in general and pitting in places.

pity, that

Depending on the size of the surface installation and the exact amount of time, a few larger impacts might be seen that were capable of making holes in the outer structural material. Statistical analysis of the size distribution of such micro craters could provide an estimate of the age of the installation assuming that the structure would have been installed impact free from new materials.

there other output?

The background level of expected impacts could be discovered from examining the surface of the asteroid that was not covered by the base or other nearby planetary bodies using traditional techniques as well as radioisotope dating. There are a large number of problems with this scenario.

First things first Carbon Dating tops out at around 50, years.

pity, that

Second Carbon dating relies on the fact that Earth has a steady rate of Carbon creation and terrestrial creatures have a predictable rate of carbon uptake, thus dates in the nuclear age are skewed by fallout from atmospheric testing. Thirdly exposure to vacuum has some strange and ubenjamingaleschreck.comedictable effects on organic material that would be hard to factor in.

Fourth, any radiological dating will be "messed up beyond all recognition" that's a technical term by exposure to cosmic radiation outside the shielding of a thick atmosphere and strong magnetosphere. So that's things you can't easily use, you can possibly use the rate of decay of the construction materials in vacuum as a benchmark for the age of the site since that will be fairly uniform, for a given material.

The solar wind moves out from the sun and hits everything in the solar system. Our magnetosphere and atmosphere deflect most of the fast moving charged particles. In places like the moon without that protection, fast moving particles hit and accumulate. In this article they examined accumulations of neon isotopes deposited by the solar wind on the moon and on a spacecraft. For the last 4 billion years, energetic solar particles have bombarded the Moon.

Nov 19,   Beds that preserve fossils typically lack the radioactive elements needed for radiometric dating (" radiocarbon dating " or simply "carbon dating"). The principle of radiocarbon dating is simple: the rates at which various radioactive elements decay are known, and the ratio of the radioactive element to its decay products shows how long the radioactive element has existed in the . Therefore, try not to make at least elementary mistakes. If in doubt, look for answers in dictionaries or on thematic you are not sure of your knowledge of Russian, try this test first. The lower-than-average result suggests that it's time to refresh your memory of school rules. Is it possible for free Dating on our site? Yes, of. Carbon dating is problematic, as you need to know level of Carbon 14 in the atmosphere at the time the animal or plant you are studying died. But there .

But studies of these particles in rocks brought back by the Apollo astronauts have mystified scientists. That is because the ratio of two isotopes of neon have varied according to depth in the rocks, with comparatively more neon than neon at lower depths. That suggested that counter to theory, the Sun had once been significantly more active than it is today, shooting out higher energy particles that could travel farther into the rocks.

They used nitric acid to strip away layers of a specially made metallic glass that had been exposed to the solar wind for 27 months on the Genesis spacecraft, which crashed to Earth in When they measured the neon distribution in the exposed solar wind samples, they found the top layer had considerably higher proportions of neon than observed in the lunar samples, while the underlying layers were similar to those seen in the Moon rocks.

That suggests that erosion from micrometeorites and space particles removed some of the original neon from the top surface of all lunar rocks.

Remarkable, very carbon dating not possible consider, that you

More importantly, it also shows that the solar wind alone - not any extra activity on the Sun - can explain the puzzling neon variations in the Moon rocks, with the heavier neon simply implanting itself more deeply than neon The sun ejects lots of particles including massive ones like xenon. Any number of different stable elements could be used and it makes sense to use more than one.

understand you

One can extrapolate from the above article that the more massive the particle, the deeper it goes when it hits that makes sense as the massive particles have more kinetic energy.

The base will have particles implanted in it no matter how deep. If it is very deep it will be more massive particles than light ones, but they will be there. Given a known rate of particle deposition by the solar wind you can calculate the age of the base by the amount of particles which have been deposited there by the solar wind.

Sign up to join this community. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top.

Facebook twitter google_plus reddit linkedin


3 Replies to “Carbon dating not possible”

Leave a Reply

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