Posted on 04/04/2017 1:44:46 PM PDT by fishtank
Scientist Realizes Important Flaw in Radioactive Dating
Apr. 3, 2017
In beta decay, a neutron turns into a proton by emitting a beta particle, which is an electron (click for credit) As someone who has studied radioactivity in detail, I have always been a bit amused by the assertion that radioactive dating is a precise way to determine the age of an object. This false notion is often promoted when radioactive dates are listed with utterly unrealistic error bars. In this report, for example, we are told that using one radioactive dating technique, a lunar rock sample is 4,283 million years old, plus or minus 23 million years old. In other words, there is a 95% certainty that the age is somewhere between 4,283 + 23 million years and 4,283 – 23 million years. That’s just over half a percent error in something that is supposedly multiple billions of years old.
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.drwile.com ...
Yes. But not credibly which is what we are waiting for. And as you personally just admitted is the case...by trying to get away with a pithy quip in lieu of the non-existent credible answer.
And those effects are perfectly in line with the standard model (i.e.: not in a region of extreme dilation).
I tried radioactive dating once but she glowed in the dark and it kept me awake at night.
OK so let’s discuss why it appears you believe that particle physics isn’t infested with the same types of politicized pseudoscience as are other fields.
I raised the issue of the Higgs boson because it’s such a glaring example of mysticism (at outrageous expense, and at the expense of much more promising studies) in particle physics.
Since you are, by your own claim, adept at recognizing crackpot theories, then you should be quite capable of recognizing things like the Higgs boson (or various ridiculous aspects of Big Bang theory such as cosmic inflation and black holes) as one.
So that begs the question: how is the political alignment of “scientists” along the axis of existing, institutionally-supported theories that either have already been falsified or are unfalsifiable (and thus not science at all) any different whether the field is particle physics, or meteorology?
Not an evolutionist, but that picture does not show evolutionary theory.
The theory is not that chimps turned into humans.
The theory is that all living primates (e.g., humans and chimps) had common ancestors. So that’s why the in-between are not here. There is no “in-between” humans and chimps.
It’s more like “really distant cousins”, not grandpa and grandson.
The picture kind of the Star Treky idea of evolution — that things “get better.” A lot of evolutionist think that way (and the picture is obviously very common misunderstanding). But it’s a flawed representation.
“Things get better” is not the theory, however. It’s that whatever traits that permit a species to have babies that live to have babies gets reinforced over the generations.
Just for a micro example, Shetland ponies were normal horses from a shipwreck. The generations got smaller and stouter over each generation because being small and stout helped horses survive and have babies in the cold and with limited food. (The big ones froze or starved and thus did not have babies.) Over time, this was reinforced such that subsequent generations were very small.
Again, not an evolutionist, but at least get the theory you are attacking correct.
I’ve been following the discussion for 30 years. I used to be on your side of it. I studied both at length. I changed my mind to “what _is_, and evidence of what _was_, is sufficient proof of what happened insofar as we can understand it; God is not constrained by the limited understanding of the goat-herders inspired to write His word to an audience of limited understanding.” I won’t deny what there is plainly evidence of, and am not cocky enough to pretend I know exactly how apparent conflicts are resolved.
Your claim “not credibly” is a cognitive dissonance answer, steadfastly refusing ALL answers, no matter how thorough & correct, because they clash with your axioms. I could build a freakin’ time machine and take you back and introduce you to Ug the Neanderthal - and you’d deny. Please show me wrong; how could one _possibly_ present what you would consider a credible answer? ...or will you refuse to take “yes” for an answer (a clear tell for cognitive dissonance)?
Since the electron last fall the women I’ve dated have been so negative it’s repelling.
No, let’s discuss why I should read the lead article in its entirety.
BTW: I think superstring theory is nonsense, Higgs Bosons require more energy to produce than we can at this stage of human engineering, cosmic inflation is obvious, and black holes are quite believable but involve fringe mathematics & scientific observations we haven’t made out yet (mostly because they’re buried in a black hole).
> No, let’s discuss why I should read the lead article in its entirety.
OK, the article makes a pretty damn good point about the impact of environmental factors on the ratios of the specific element isotopes and how that affects the reliability of this method of dating rocks, which makes it worth your time.
” In this report, for example, we are told that using one radioactive dating technique, a lunar rock sample is 4,283 million years old, plus or minus 23 million years old. In other words, there is a 95% certainty that the age is somewhere between 4,283 + 23 million years and 4,283 – 23 million years. That’s just over half a percent error in something that is supposedly multiple billions of years old.”
Very misleading statement. The article he references gives an uncertainty of the age of the rock sample as about 250 million years ....
No bias here ...
Does it address the antineutrino mentioned above in post #37?
In the diamond reference he gives it states “In the former case the anomalously high age (6.0 Gyr) casts doubt on the assumption of uniformity in the isotopic abundance of 40K.”
No bias with the author?
No, because the antineutrino is not relevant.
The article is not long and you will get your answers faster by reading it than by getting it secondhand.
Took my date to the movies one time. She glowed in the dark.
People all around us complaining.
We left early, and I dropped her.
Last radioactive date I ever had.
A flaw in radioactive dating? Mutant kids?
Ahem...
From the article:
“However, a recent paper by Dr. Robert B. Hayes has pointed out a problem with isochrons that has, until now, not been considered.”
http://www.ans.org/pubs/journals/nt/a_39676
This was the paper that Rob was telling me about when I bumped into him a few months ago at the nuclear conference.
It’s a good reminder that radioactive dating can be far more imprecise than we expect. I’m not sure how that helps Creation Science. It might explain AWAY a 60-million year-old T-Rex (younger than the 65-milion year-old extinction event). But while it may help explain that “anomalous” diamond that appears to be 6 billion years old, it certainly doesn’t explain why almost every rock formed (apart from recent, identifiable volcanic rock) appears older than 7,000 years.
I find it easier to believe that God made a universe that genuinely appears old, than that EVERY claim of science which purports to show an old Earth is a deceit.
I never take sides in scientific arguments until either misconduct is observed, failures in covering all aspects are observed, or other bias unaccompanied by confession when claims are upended.
And I give very little weight to the age of a scientific theory. Many theories have stood the test of time and that's a good sign but it does not mean they are Gospel. As a matter of fact, most scientific studies are conducted to EXTEND an existing theory or finding which in itself is a statement of a theory's or finding's incomplete coverage.
For example, Wiles states the existing error bars consider only the source of error as the estimate of the number of atoms of elements in the measurements.
"Of course, that error estimate is complete nonsense. It refers to one specific source of error – the uncertainty in the measurement of the amounts of various atoms used in the analysis."
Does Wile list other sources of error that have been handwaved away in the past? What is the history of the debate of radiocarbon dating? There have been plenty of arguments, not always polemical. So I would have these questions in mind as I continued reading his statements.
If I saw the first hint of an unwillingness or inability of Wiles to lay out where the holes are in error measurement of this subject, then I, like you, would cease to read and report it to the thread.
But you have referred to Wiles as a "nobody". You might not realize Einstein was also a 'nobody' and one that was viewed negatively for many years until one scientist approved his theories and results for publication. But up until that point, there were plenty of people in the established hierarchy of science that were dismissive of Einstein's views.
The Wright Brothers also suffered from dismissal by establishment aerodynamic researchers.
So you see, your dismissal is not science, it is not informative, not contributing anything of value. It is merely a polemical gesture embedded in some sort of misguided arrogance.
So what does Wiles say about other sources of error that he appears to claim are not accounted for? Well, I guess that would entail reading what Wiles has to say. Gee, Duh.
Wiles is referring to an estimate of the age of lunar rock as published in 2014 in Philosophical Transactions A of the Royal Society, a pub known to me and which has held a good amount of prestige and adherence to scientific integrity.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4128267
So Wiles is challenging these folks, and that's Ok. But it's a big league challenge, this is big-league stuff, not minor league. But in Wiles's corner is the observation of change in human demographics and human turnover in the field of serious science. By that, I mean that on occasion, not frequent but enough to cause problems, is the observation that young scientists brought up by older scientists are often timid never bothering to question the assumptions of their older mentors.
That can result, and in fact, has resulted in history, in the carrying forward of weak or incomplete assumptions to and by new generations of young scientists. If I knew the lead scientist personally as a fine scientist of great integrity, I would give the benefit of the doubt and be done with it. But even then, I could be very wrong and my scientist friend could be wrong if he is not current. And with today's technology, it's easy to fall behind when even a few months behind can result in erroneous findings.
So at this point, I would choose one of two steps to follow next: either research the background of the authors of their Royal Society published manuscript, or I would continue to read Wiles and see if I could detect a fatal step in his analysis or assumptions. As he is challenging these authors and hence, the editors of a publication which is viewed with esteem, I will go after Wiles first.
So Wiles continues:
"Most likely, that is the least important source of error. If those rocks really have been sitting around on the moon for billions of years, I suspect that the wide range of physical and chemical processes which occurred over that time period had a much more profound effect on the uncertainty of the age determination."
True in general but he has offered no specific details or references. So his statement here neither gains or loses points. I'll treat it as a transition point as he continues:
"This is best illustrated by the radioactive age of a sample of diamonds from Zaire. Their age was measured to be 6.0 +/- 0.3 billion years old. Do you see the problem? Those who are committed to an ancient age for the earth currently believe that it is 4.6 billion years old. Obviously, then, the minimum error in that measurement is 1.4 billion years, not 0.3 billion years!"
This is good but no references are given. But I will assume this is part of his working knowledge and hence, give him the benefit of the doubt. But again, no points gained or lost.
"Such uncertainties are usually glossed over, especially when radioactive dates are communicated to the public and, more importantly, to students."
Well, now I am warming up to be impressed because he is aware of how students who go on to become senior scientists on their own in life are sometimes guilty of carrying forward errors of their mentors. Yep, nobody or not, he's showing he can pack a punch.
"Generally, we are told that scientists have ways to analyze the object they are dating so as to eliminate the uncertainties due to unknown processes that occurred in the past.
Yep, but I am wishing he would get to the point which he does in the next sentence.
"One way this is done in many radioactive dating techniques is to use an isochron. However, a recent paper by Dr. Robert B. Hayes has pointed out a problem with isochrons that has, until now, not been considered."
Ok, so now he's thrown a knockout punch to the boys and girls at the Royal Society and to those at JPL NASA by way of the lead author R.W. Carlson. Whoa! But before emailing Carlson (rcarlson@lively.jpl.nasa.gov, and yes, he would reply to me given my credentials, and my cultivated and refined academic supercilious snobbery), let's see if Wiles's punch lands lethally.
To Wiles's credit, he links to the paper by Hayes which I will take a quick look at to get a sense of its quality.
http://www.ans.org/pubs/journals/nt/a_39676
The first thing I note is the date of the Hayes paper. It looks like February 2017, pretty dadgum recent and that means Carlson may not have benefitted from the Hayes findings if there is any benefit in them. Carlson is a scientist using radiocarbon dating tools but it doesn't mean he waits for advances in more precise radiocarbon measurements to reach his lab offices. He uses what's available here and now, not what's coming down the pike.
The Hayes paper is also published in 'Nuclear Technology' by the American Nuclear Society. So now we have an even bigger heavyweight entering the ring. I know from experience that radiocarbon instrument technology is led by scientific members of the American Nuclear Society and that NASA scientists are in general, actually in almost every case, beneficiaries of such advances, not creators of such.
So Wiles has just racked up major points and it looks like Carlson as an old dog scientist needs to learn some new tricks.
But let's see how to summarize what Hayes is calling attention to:
"Some quality considerations for use in isotopic dating are presented to identify and correct heretofore unidentified overestimate scenarios. These include to a lesser degree the statistical interpretation issues with linear-least-squares fitting results but more importantly the isotope effect in the individual components of the isochron coefficient ratios. By taking into consideration the isotope effect (differential mass diffusion rates) when measuring isotopic ratios from very old samples, the distribution dependency in the coefficient ratios will cause a bias if isotopic diffusion rates are not identical throughout a sample. The isotope effect is that isotopes having a smaller atomic mass will diffuse faster throughout a medium than will their heavier counterparts causing concentration gradients of their ratios even when there are no contributions from radioactive decay. The application to Rb/Sr dating is evaluated and shown to result in expected age overestimates when isotopic ratios are employed to linearize the isochron. A suggested method to test for this effect is argued to require rigorous statistical analysis. An associated optimal sampling technique would involve using single-grain etching. It is also shown that the only method to fully eliminate the isotope effect is to not use isotopic ratios at all in radioisotopic dating as the physics do not require the use of isotopic ratios for geochronological dating. However, without the ratios, the data are inherently noisy."
Yep, I would say Wiles has called out Carlson's team at NASA to get caught up. And they will I am sure.
Now as to ctdonath2's propensity to exaggerate a small wanker, I will leave him, her, or cis with a few words of wisdom that does not originate from my elite, esteemed, scientific PhD background (of which I am a total snob, tsk, just ask me) but rather originated in my officer's training as a Rickover selectee where I was subjected to a drill instructor in my first few weeks where I was thinking I would surely die of this Neanderthal. His life enduring snorts of wisdom that remain driven into my genetic makeup to this day as an affront to my well-deserved entitled membership in the Society of Arrogant Bastards, went as thus:
1. When you are asked a question and you don't know the answer, say "I DON'T KNOW"!
2. When you are participating in a discussion and you don't know anything about the subject, "ASK A QUESTION"!
3. When you are asked to participate and you're not qualified to lead a discussion, "SHADDUP"!
That is all.
On behalf of our Boss, we would like to thank you for doing such a good job of causing those who like to study the earth and cosmos to turn away from our Adversary.
Keep up the good work!!
Sincerely,
Screwtape, Beelzebub & Co.
Oh, I thought this was about dating a crazy leftist woman.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.