Dating methods continue to get better and better.

[RickG]

A new dating method of ultrasensitive isotope trace analysis has been recently developed, Atom Trap Trace Analysis (ATTA), has captured the attention of the Earth Science community.

This method is based on the technique of laser manipulation of neutral atoms used to count individual 85Kr and 81Kr atoms present in a natural krypton gas sample with isotopic abundances in the range of 10(-11) and 10(-13), respectively. The method is free of contamination from other isotopes and elements and can be applied to many different isotope tracers for a wide range of applications.

Here are a few papers discussing the method and its applications.

http://indigo.uic.edu/bitstream/handle/10027/10893/1-s2.0-S0016703712003067-main.pdf?sequence=2
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1101/1101.2933.pdf
http://www.phy.anl.gov/atomic/PUBS/pub2000-07.pdf

 

[RickG]

No comments, discussion, questions? I'm disappointed, especially from the 'old earthers' looking for that silver bullet. This is cutting edge stuff.

 

[JasonClark]

No comments, discussion, questions? I'm disappointed, especially from the 'old earthers' looking for that silver bullet. This is cutting edge stuff.

I'm sure creationists would say it's just Satan doing a better job at telling lies through scientists, the more scientists know or find out the more Satan becomes involved and God it would seem is unable or unwilling to stop him.

 

[RickG]

I'm sure creationists would say it's just Satan doing a better job at telling lies through scientists.

I would prefer discussion of the method, that's why I included the links to full papers describing the method and its uses. Please, let's stick to the science. Thanks.

 

[lifepsyop]

The method is free of contamination from other isotopes and elements and can be applied to many different isotope tracers for a wide range of applications.

Really. Then that means any dating result that is ever obtained with this method must be held as correct, right? With this method, the researcher will never be able to blame a bad result on something nature did to corrupt the sample. Is that your position?

 

[RickG]

Really. Then that means any dating result that is ever obtained with this method must be held as correct, right? With this method, the researcher will never be able to blame a bad result on something nature did to corrupt the sample. Is that your position?

You will never skin you knee if you keep it covered with thick padding, but if you take the padding off and fall on your knee you can skin it. Right? The method is completely unaffected by any contamination from other isotopes and elements. That doesn't mean it cannot be misused either through negligence or deliberate misuse.

 

[lifepsyop]

You will never skin you knee if you keep it covered with thick padding, but if you take the padding off and fall on your knee you can skin it. Right? The method is completely unaffected by any contamination from other isotopes and elements. That doesn't mean it cannot be misused either through negligence or deliberate misuse.

So there will never be any case where a bad "date" is blamed on some natural interference, right? I just want to be clear.

 

[RickG]

So there will never be any case where a bad "date" is blamed on some natural interference, right? I just want to be clear.

That is not what I said. Please review my previous post.

 

[Loudmouth]

So there will never be any case where a bad "date" is blamed on some natural interference, right? I just want to be clear.

Will there ever be a case where you accept the overwhelming evidence that contradicts your claims?

 

[RickG]

I'm a bit surprised with the lack of responses concerning this new method, especially from those who support radiometric dating. If you want a holy grail of dating methods, this is it. The method has many applications, here's one with ice cores.

Up to now dating ice cores beyond 800,000 years has been restricted with traditional methods of layer counting through stable isotope analysis or impurities. Don't misunderstand those are excellent methods but they do have their limits. With the ATTA method, ice up to 1.5 million years can be dated very accurately as it does not depend upon layer counting.

Here's why. First, krypton being a noble gas is not chemically reactive. Second, due to its long residence time, 81Kr is a well-mixed atmospheric gas. Third, the method does not rely on sporadically occurring tephra, meteorite, or organic inclusions in the ice but is widely applicable, as all glacial ice contains trapped air. Fourth, it does not require continuous or undisturbed ice stratigraphy as I previously mentioned. And last but not least, in contrast to 14C, 81Kr does not suffer from in situ cosmogenic production in the ice.

 

[essentialsaltes]

No comments, discussion, questions? I'm disappointed, especially from the 'old earthers' looking for that silver bullet.

The silver bullet arrived decades ago. Though interesting in its own right, talking about this new technique here is beating a dead werewolf.

 

[RickG]

Since the introduction of the AATA method, recent developments with instrumentation in the past few years (ATTA-3) has become an incredibly refined technique. This new instrument can not only measure to a sensitivity of parts-per-trillion (PPT), but parts-per-quadrillion (PPQ) as well.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.286.5442.1139
http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.103001
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gca.2012.05.019
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2013.09.002

 

[Doveaman]

I'm a bit surprised with the lack of responses concerning this new method, especially from those who support radiometric dating.

I think they came to realize that bad dates will still be blamed on natural interference no matter the method.

 

[RickG]

I think they came to realize that bad dates will still be blamed on natural interference no matter the method.

What natural interference? Could you be more specific?

 

[Split Rock]

Some creationist arguments are unaffected by this new technique:
1. You can't prove the sample was always in a closed system.
2. You can't prove that radioactive decay rates haven't changed over time.

These are two of the more popular anti-isotope dating arguments, also, btw.

 

[Split Rock]

What natural interference? Could you be more specific?

I think he means the inference that only natural laws are involved.

 

[RickG]

Some creationist arguments are unaffected by this new technique:
1. You can't prove the sample was always in a closed system.
2. You can't prove that radioactive decay rates haven't changed over time.

These are two of the more popular anti-isotope dating arguments, also, btw.

1. Post #10.

"Here's why. First, krypton being a noble gas is not chemically reactive. Second, due to its long residence time, 81Kr is a well-mixed atmospheric gas. Third, the method does not rely on sporadically occurring tephra, meteorite, or organic inclusions in the ice but is widely applicable, as all glacial ice contains trapped air. Fourth, it does not require continuous or undisturbed ice stratigraphy as I previously mentioned. And last but not least, in contrast to 14C, 81Kr does not suffer from in situ cosmogenic production in the ice."​

2. If decay rates had changed in the past, the physical structure of those radionuclides would be different from those after the change, which would be more than obvious upon examination of the two. The fact that no change in physical properties is observed is verification that decay rates have not changed. For example, there are 4 naturally occurring decay series (235U Series, 232Th Series, 238U Series, 237Np Series), that utilize different decay paths through the process. If decay rates had changed in the past we would find differences in the series of each of those 4 radionuclide decay paths. Here's a graph:

Conversely, creationists arguments cannot show any indication of decay rate changes. It is only an unsupported assertion. The ball is in their court to show how decay rates have changed in the past. This of course is not to be confounded by well known and observed oscillations that occur is some cosmogenic radionuclides with respect to the position of the Earth during its elliptical orbit around the sun, which are small and do not affect any radiometric dating method.

 

[ananda]

This assumes that time is fixed. It is not.

Quantum principles acknowledge that the "future" or "present" can change the "past".

 

[Split Rock]

This assumes that time is fixed. It is not.

Quantum principles acknowledge that the "future" or "present" can change the "past".

dad.... is that you?

 

[ananda]

dad.... is that you?