If decay rates changed?

[RickG]

You can calculate the half-life if you measure your initial mass and the mass you have after a certain time, of course that would also require a number of repetitions to lessen the confidence interval

As for the advanced physics, I don't know. I hope someone will be able to answer it for you

It's as simple as solving the equation for "half-life". The four equations below are all the same, it's just a matter of solving for the unknown. In other words, what you said.

 

[philadiddle]

There is nothing in what you quoted about radioactive decay. So just what is it you have a problem with?

Yes, nothing that I quoted was about decay, but earlier in the thread you said that decay rates are calibrated, which is wrong. Maybe you meant something else, but either way it was pointed out that you were incorrect about that. You ignored the criticisms and instead preached at them. How do you think that looks to others here?

Maybe your focus was meant to be on the fact that the amount of C14 varies due to the sun's rays. This is true, however, you don't need to just trust the experts. You can investigate what the experts say. The curves they come up with for ages and the methods to arrive at those curves are published. Here is an example:

http://digitalcommons.library.arizo...umber3/azu_radiocarbon_v46_n3_1029_1058_v.pdf

 

[philadiddle]

Unfortunately, this basic algebra doesn't negate the possibility of a changing half life, which is what I'm really after here.

 

[Michael]

Like you said, close but not correct. Decay rates DO NOT CHANGE. It so happens that cosmogenic radionuclides can exhibit a very small oscillation due to fluxes of cosmic rays from the sun. An oscillation is not a decay rate change.

BTW, none of those that oscillate are used in radiometric dating.

I would certainly agree with you that the *average* decay rate is consistent, but unfortunately I can't agree with your suggestion that they do not change for each and every element. At least some elements do seem to be influenced by external conditions, most likely solar conditions. I would willingly concede however that such seasonal fluctuation could not possibly justify YEC, or any massive rate changes in recent times. It is however an oversimplification to suggest that they do not change. Oversimplifying the issue will only lead to more "doubt" on the part of "skeptics" of decay rates IMO. I'd rather we just lay all the cards on the table up front.

 

[RickG]

Unfortunately, this basic algebra doesn't negate the possibility of a changing half life, which is what I'm really after here.

But direct observation does. Supernovae produce a number of radionuclides. Measuring gamma ray frequencies of decay rates of those isotopes millions of light years away are the same as presently measured on Earth.

1. Emery, G. T., 1972. Perturbation of nuclear decay rates. Annual Review Nuclear Science 22: 165-202.
2. Fujii, Yasunori et al., 2000. The nuclear interaction at Oklo 2 billion years ago. Nuclear Physics B 573: 377-401.
3. Greenlees, Paul, 2000. Theory of alpha decay. http://www.phys.jyu.fi/research/gamma/publications/ptgthesis/node26.html
4. Knödlseder, J., 2000. Constraints on stellar yields and Sne from gamma-ray line observations. New Astronony Reviews 44: 315-320. [astro-ph/9912131] Constraints on stellar yields and SNe from gamma-ray line observations
5. Krane, Kenneth S., 1987. Introductory Nuclear Physics. New York: Wiley.
6. Meert, Joe, 2002. Were Adam and Eve toast? ROASTING ADAM-Creationism's Heat Problem
7. Nomoto, K. et al., 1997a. Nucleosynthesis in type 1A supernovae. [astro-ph/9706025] Nucleosynthesis in Type Ia Supernovae
8. Nomoto, K. et al., 1997b. Nucleosynthesis in type II supernovae. [astro-ph/9706024] Nucleosynthesis in Type II Supernovae
9. Perlmutter, S. et al., 1998. Discovery of a supernova explosion at half the age of the universe and its cosmological implications. Nature 391: 51-54. [astro-ph/9712212] Discovery of a Supernova Explosion at Half the Age of the Universe and its Cosmological Implications
10. Prantzos, N., 1999. Gamma-ray line astrophysics and stellar nucleosynthesis: perspectives for INTEGRAL. [astro-ph/9901373] Gamma-Ray Line Astrophysics and Stellar Nucleosynthesis: Perspectives for INTEGRAL
11. Renne, P. R., W. D. Sharp, A. L. Deino, G. Orsi and L. Civetta, 1997. 40Ar/39Ar dating into the historical realm: Calibration against Pliny the Younger. Science 277: 1279-1280.
12. Shlyakhter, A. I., 1976. Direct test of the constancy of fundamental nuclear constants. Nature 264: 340. http://sdg.lcs.mit.edu/~ilya_shl/alex/76a_oklo_fundamental_nuclear_constants.pdf
13. Thielemann, F.-K. et al., 1998. Nucleosynthesis basics and applications to supernovae. In: Nuclear and Particle Astrophysics, J. Hirsch and D. Page, eds., Cambridge University Press, p. 27. [astro-ph/9802077] Nucleosynthesis Basics and Applications to Supernovae

 

[Elendur]

It's as simple as solving the equation for "half-life". The four equations below are all the same, it's just a matter of solving for the unknown. In other words, what you said.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

This is close to what I'm looking for. However, it only seems to measure the amount that should be there given the half life. I thought that more advanced physics could calculate the half life based on the energy of the atom, and that if the half life was different then the energy of the atom would be different and would somehow mess up physics. But maybe I'm wrong about this.

It can be done on a case-by-case basis, but I think it's an intractable problem to do it for a general atom (I could be wrong). Ultimately, it boils down to energy: the less energetically stable the current configuration, the more likely radioactive decay will occur. Since this stability is fundamentally tied to the strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force, electromagnetic force, and the various properties of all the particles involved - the spin, charge, mass, etc, of the quarks, leptons, bosons, etc.

 

[Doveaman]

I would certainly agree with you that the *average* decay rate is consistent, but unfortunately I can't agree with your suggestion that they do not change for each and every element. At least some elements do seem to be influenced by external conditions, most likely solar conditions. I would willingly concede however that such seasonal fluctuation could not possibly justify YEC, or any massive rate changes in recent times. It is however an oversimplification to suggest that they do not change. Oversimplifying the issue will only lead to more "doubt" on the part of "skeptics" of decay rates IMO. I'd rather we just lay all the cards on the table up front.

Yeah, me too. It would certainly help my skepticism.

 

[Elendur]

Yeah, me too. It would certainly help my skepticism.

Even if things were a whopping 50% off, creationism wouldn't be a bit more plausible.

 

[RickG]

Even if things were a whopping 50% off, creationism wouldn't be a bit more plausible.

Not to mention that numerous non radiometric dating methods demonstrate an earth well over 6,000 years.

 

[Elendur]

Not to mention that numerous non radiometric dating methods demonstrate an earth well over 6,000 years.

Exactly.

 

[Doveaman]

Even if things were a whopping 50% off, creationism wouldn't be a bit more plausible.

How many years off could it be exactly?

 

[The Engineer]

How many years off could it be exactly?

As RickG mentioned (repeatedly!), the dating methods aren't off.

 

[RickG]

As RickG mentioned (repeatedly!), the dating methods aren't off.

I think the most fascinating dating method is ice core chronology. In many instances it is so robust that seasons are even detectable in chronologies.

 

[Doveaman]

As RickG mentioned (repeatedly!), the dating methods aren't off.

RickG also mentioned, "Decay rates DO NOT CHANGE".

Credibility shot.

 

[The Engineer]

RickG also mentioned, "Decay rates DO NOT CHANGE".

Credibility shot.

I'm pretty sure he meant they haven't changed over the course of history for no reason, because that's what our debate was all about.

Again, you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[RickG]

RickG also mentioned, "Decay rates DO NOT CHANGE".

Credibility shot.

Quite the contrary Doveman. My post you linked explains the cause of the oscillation which is based entirely on the position of Earth's orbit around the sun as suggested by the link also provided there. Additionally, you are ignoring the fact that over the period of a year or more when averaged,these oscillation goes away. So, if any of those isotopes were used in radiometric dating, they would be just as accurate as those that do not oscillate.

Furthermore, I find it absolutely incredible, that someone who time and time again through their posts has demonstrated that they know little to nothing about the basics of radioactive decay of radionuclides questions my credibility. Master of Science in Physical Earth Science, Univ. of Memphis, 1977, over 25 years as a research chemist. What is your academic background and experience?

Again, I ask you to try to understand what is presented and ask questions, rather than blindly criticize something you know nothing about other than from deliberately misrepresented sources.

 

[philadiddle]

I think the most fascinating dating method is ice core chronology. In many instances it is so robust that seasons are even detectable in chronologies.

Even though ice core sampling is incredibly robust, they still have to find a way to deny it:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7594269/

 

[RickG]

Even though ice core sampling is incredibly robust, they still have to find a way to deny it:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7594269/

They do try but all their claims are totally absurd and exhibit a complete ignorance of the processes involved.

 

[Michael]

FYI, I thought this article was pretty timely.

Advance warning system for solar flares hinges on surprising hypotheses

In 2006, nuclear engineer Jere Jenkins of Purdue University noticed a change in the decay rate of a radioactive sample 39 hours before a solar flare. Since joined by a Purdue University professor of Physics named Ephraim Fischbach, Jenkins' subsequent research has reinforced the discovery, using two samples of the same isotope, chlorine 36, in two separate experiments in two different labs.

.......

Purdue's proposed detector uses a sample of manganese 54 which is monitored with a gamma-radiation detector as it decays into chromium 54. It's hoped that anomalies in the rate of decay would indicate forthcoming solar flares. A US patent has been filed to protect the idea.

Apparently it's their hope to actually "predict" solar flare events this way, although it's not clear why it would work.