Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: April 18, 2024, 4:04 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Research shows radiometric dating still reliable (again)
#1
Research shows radiometric dating still reliable (again)
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2...091510.php

Recent puzzling observations of tiny variations in nuclear decay rates have led some to question the science of using decay rates to determine the relative ages of rocks and organic materials. Scientists from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), working with researchers from Purdue University, the University of Tennessee, Oak Ridge National Laboratory and Wabash College, tested the hypothesis that solar radiation might affect the rate at which radioactive elements decay and found no detectable effect.

Atoms of radioactive isotopes are unstable and decay over time by shooting off particles at a fixed rate, transmuting the material into a more stable substance. For instance, half the mass of carbon-14, an unstable isotope of carbon, will decay into nitrogen-14 over a period of 5,730 years. The unswerving regularity of this decay allows scientists to determine the age of extremely old organic materials—such as remains of Paleolithic campfires—with a fair degree of precision. The decay of uranium-238, which has a half-life of nearly 4.5 billion years, enabled geologists to determine the age of the Earth.

Many scientists, including Marie and Pierre Curie, Ernest Rutherford and George de Hevesy, have attempted to influence the rate of radioactive decay by radically changing the pressure, temperature, magnetic field, acceleration, or radiation environment of the source. No experiment to date has detected any change in rates of decay.

Recently, however, researchers at Purdue University observed a small (a fraction of a percent), transitory deviation in radioactive decay at the time of a huge solar flare. Data from laboratories in New York and Germany also have shown similarly tiny deviations over the course of a year. This has led some to suggest that Earth's distance from the sun, which varies during the year and affects the planet's exposure to solar neutrinos, might be related to these anomalies.

Researchers from NIST and Purdue tested this by comparing radioactive gold-198 in two shapes, spheres and thin foils, with the same mass and activity. Gold-198 releases neutrinos as it decays. The team reasoned that if neutrinos are affecting the decay rate, the atoms in the spheres should decay more slowly than the atoms in the foil because the neutrinos emitted by the atoms in the spheres would have a greater chance of interacting with their neighboring atoms. The maximum neutrino flux in the sample in their experiments was several times greater than the flux of neutrinos from the sun. The researchers followed the gamma-ray emission rate of each source for several weeks and found no difference between the decay rate of the spheres and the corresponding foils.

According to NIST scientist emeritus Richard Lindstrom, the variations observed in other experiments may have been due to environmental conditions interfering with the instruments themselves.

"There are always more unknowns in your measurements than you can think of," Lindstrom says.

###

* R.M. Lindstrom, E. Fischbach, J.B. Buncher, G.L. Greene, J.H. Jenkins, D.E. Krause, J.J. Mattes and A. Yue. Study of the dependence of 198Au half-life on source geometry. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment. doi:10.1016/j.nima.2010.06.270

Reply
#2
RE: Research shows radiometric dating still reliable (again)
Only creationist morons say it isn't.

Which sort of defuses the whole discussion.
Reply
#3
RE: Research shows radiometric dating still reliable (again)
Well, this is good news. I'd hate to see what stink would be created by the religious community if even one extra neutrino or neutron were emitted or altered because of Solar activity, but it looks like that possibility is gone too, even if the change was <0.0001% over a billion years and changed no data.

Luckily, any chance of radiometric dating being inaccurate is gone out the window.
If today you can take a thing like evolution and make it a crime to teach in the public schools, tomorrow you can make it a crime to teach it in the private schools and next year you can make it a crime to teach it to the hustings or in the church. At the next session you may ban books and the newspapers...
Ignorance and fanaticism are ever busy and need feeding. Always feeding and gloating for more. Today it is the public school teachers; tomorrow the private. The next day the preachers and the lecturers, the magazines, the books, the newspapers. After a while, Your Honor, it is the setting of man against man and creed against creed until with flying banners and beating drums we are marching backward to the glorious ages of the sixteenth centry when bigots lighted fagots to burn the men who dared to bring any intelligence and enlightenment and culture to the human mind. ~Clarence Darrow, at the Scopes Monkey Trial, 1925

Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first. ~Ronald Reagan
Reply
#4
RE: Research shows radiometric dating still reliable (again)
If there was a slight discrepancy ( more than likely caused by refined measuring techniques than anything else ) I doubt it would be enough to magically change 4.5 billion years to 6,000.

That would require, well, "magic." No problem for our rationally-challenged friends but simply not possible for us more enlightened types to handle.
Reply
#5
RE: Research shows radiometric dating still reliable (again)
If results of radioactive dating is indeed significantly effected by solar neutrinos, then we should observe a significant discrepency between the radioactive ages of materials that orbits at different distances from the sun, since the intensity of solar neutrino flex decreases with square of the distance from the sun. We should already have hints of that from the meterors that falls to earth since they came from different orbital histories and should have been exposed to significantly different amount of solar neutrinos over the life of solar system. I've not heard that radioactive dating of meteorites have produced major discrepencies in age from meteror to meteror.

Reply
#6
RE: Research shows radiometric dating still reliable (again)
(October 14, 2010 at 6:15 pm)Chuck Wrote: If results of radioactive dating is indeed significantly effected by solar neutrinos, then we should observe a significant discrepency between the radioactive ages of materials that orbits at different distances from the sun, since the intensity of solar neutrino flex decreases with square of the distance from the sun. We should already have hints of that from the meterors that falls to earth since they came from different orbital histories and should have been exposed to significantly different amount of solar neutrinos over the life of solar system. I've not heard that radioactive dating of meteorites have produced major discrepencies in age from meteror to meteror.

Indeed, they are remarkably consistant. He's beating a dead horse.
'The difference between a Miracle and a Fact is exactly the difference between a mermaid and seal. It could not be expressed better.'
-- Samuel "Mark Twain" Clemens

"I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the scriptures, but with experiments, demonstrations, and observations".

- Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)

"In short, Meyer has shown that his first disastrous book was not a fluke: he is capable of going into any field in which he has no training or research experience and botching it just as badly as he did molecular biology. As I've written before, if you are a complete amateur and don't understand a subject, don't demonstrate the Dunning-Kruger effect by writing a book about it and proving your ignorance to everyone else! "

- Dr. Donald Prothero
Reply
#7
RE: Research shows radiometric dating still reliable (again)
Indeed,

He's actually now beating a pile of bloody, wobbly giblets that used to be a horse.

Plus, the creationist bull shot he points to as proof is full of massive issues and poor assumptions.

I'm sure we wont here that from him though.

Sam
"We need not suppose more things to exist than are absolutely neccesary." William of Occam

"Our doubts are traitors, and make us lose the good we oft might win by fearing to attempt" William Shakespeare (Measure for Measure: Act 1, Scene 4)

AgnosticAtheist
Reply
#8
RE: Research shows radiometric dating still reliable (again)
(November 16, 2010 at 4:33 am)Sam Wrote: Indeed,

He's actually now beating a pile of bloody, wobbly giblets that used to be a horse.

Plus, the creationist bull shot he points to as proof is full of massive issues and poor assumptions.

I'm sure we wont here that from him though.

Sam

No, he seems to prefer to stay in his own cozy threads, oblivious to all the other wonderful threads others posts on these forums.
'The difference between a Miracle and a Fact is exactly the difference between a mermaid and seal. It could not be expressed better.'
-- Samuel "Mark Twain" Clemens

"I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the scriptures, but with experiments, demonstrations, and observations".

- Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)

"In short, Meyer has shown that his first disastrous book was not a fluke: he is capable of going into any field in which he has no training or research experience and botching it just as badly as he did molecular biology. As I've written before, if you are a complete amateur and don't understand a subject, don't demonstrate the Dunning-Kruger effect by writing a book about it and proving your ignorance to everyone else! "

- Dr. Donald Prothero
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  NASA: Asteroid Could Still Hit Earth in 2068 WinterHold 52 4337 November 7, 2020 at 2:42 pm
Last Post: WinterHold
  Shroud of Turin more legit after research? orthodox-man 48 7415 April 9, 2018 at 3:35 pm
Last Post: Neo-Scholastic
  Are Scientists Still Looking for the Higgs Boson? Rhondazvous 24 8276 July 18, 2017 at 4:48 am
Last Post: Alex K
  Dr. Graham Phillips research on meditation Little Rik 3 945 June 12, 2016 at 6:15 am
Last Post: Lucanus
  Scientific Dating Blondie 22 3981 October 21, 2015 at 7:30 am
Last Post: Cyberman
  [split] Radiometric Dating Creatard 92 16346 November 26, 2014 at 8:40 am
Last Post: Cyberman
  Still think our place in the cosmos is special? Cyberman 1 1290 October 3, 2012 at 2:20 pm
Last Post: Minimalist
  Neutrinos still travel faster than light Welsh cake 46 16680 December 16, 2011 at 3:35 pm
Last Post: Pete
  Still....well over 6,000 in either case! Minimalist 2 890 August 17, 2011 at 5:24 pm
Last Post: paintpooper
  Radiometric Dating littlegrimlin1 20 9694 November 28, 2009 at 2:20 am
Last Post: littlegrimlin1



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)