To determine this, a blank sample of old, or dead, carbon is measured, and a sample of known activity is measured. How can it have different elongations of the constants towards different bodies? Absolute dating Amino acid racemisation Archaeomagnetic dating Dendrochronology Ice core Incremental dating Lichenometry Paleomagnetism Radiometric dating Radiocarbon Uranium—lead Potassium—argon Tephrochronology Luminescence dating Thermoluminescence dating. In , Thomas Higham and co-workers suggested that many of the dates published for Neanderthal artefacts are too recent because of contamination by "young carbon". Another limitation is that this technique can only be applied to organic material such as bone, flesh, or wood. The statement was that you can't use C dating for accuracy of over , years. For example, two samples taken from the tombs of two Egyptian kings, Zoser and Sneferu , independently dated to BC plus or minus 75 years, were dated by radiocarbon measurement to an average of BC plus or minus years.
Yes, I want to follow Jesus. I am a follower of Jesus. I still have questions. Is Carbon Dating Accurate? Only to a certain extent. In order for carbon dating to be accurate, we must know what the ratio of carbon to carbon was in the environment in which our specimen lived during its lifetime. Unfortunately the ratio of carbon to carbon has yet to reach a state of equilibrium in our atmosphere; there is more carbon in the air today than there was thousands of years ago. Furthermore, the ratio is known to fluctuate significantly over relatively short periods of time e. Carbon dating is somewhat accurate because we are able to determine what the ratio was in the unobservable past to a certain extent. By taking a carboniferous specimen of known age that is, a specimen which we are able to date with reasonable certainty through some archaeological means , scientists are able to determine what the ratio was during a specimen's lifetime. They are then able to calibrate the carbon dating method to produce fairly accurate results. Carbon dating is thus accurate within the timeframe set by other archaeological dating techniques. Unfortunately, we aren't able to reliably date artifacts beyond several thousand years.
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 evencalendar 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. 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 source. Where "A bit" is a few parts in a trillion or less, most likely very much less.
Carbon has click at this page 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. EDIT: deleted stuff. Oh, I remember you being there.
You were just to hot to be sapient. Isn't beta decay controlled by the weak force? 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.
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 How far back does carbon dating. The technique for carbon dating is being refined to the point it is believed that reasonable accuracy may be achieved back toyears 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: quote: 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 toyears, 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 overyears. 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.
Here is wikipedia's page on the topic: Radiometric dating they have a whole slew of dating mechanisms Excellent, thankyou. Yes, science how far back does carbon dating 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 pity, find a dating coach well. 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 visit web page 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. It's like a little kid turning their nose up their parent cause they think they know better. Grrr Very much so. It's even more aggravating when you look at the attitude that it tends to come with: "Well, I have an open mind, unlike you.
Therefore, I am actually considering more than you arewhich 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. 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. Not really. Thanks to relativity or, even without it, for a paragraph or two, just observing that there is a speed of light of such-and-so velocitywe can observe continue reading heavens and realize that observing the heavens is also viewing a time machine.
Astrophysics is not my discipline, to say the least, but even though a lot of what we look at it very large, many important things we observe are all still driven by physics. If the basic constants of the universe weren't, in fact, constant, we'd observe effects out there in deep space or maybe not so deep space that would be inexplicable.
If we add relativity to the mix, we have even less reason to expect to see this and, in fact we don't. Because time is relative. No two particles who might have how far back does carbon dating into existence long after the big bang have any idea of what "time" it "really is". How far back does carbon dating, they don't know when to behave according to different laws of phyiscs than those we observe today. It isn't because today is so magical, then, but rather because it isn't "today" everywhere in the universe that allows us to conclude that what physicists claim are constants in terms of particle physics and so on are as they say they are.
And, actual observations back that up. This is all the more remarkable given that we can observe at energy levels and wavelengths that are beyond our ability to directly see.
I suppose we can never know the unknowable, or prove the unprovable. All we can do is measure things.