Carbon 14 Decay

Radioactive decay of carbon 14 can be ued to estimate the age of an ancient artefact. The nucleus of Carbon 14 atom is unstable emitting high energy electron (beta particle) decaying into Nitrogen 14 atom.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• carbon
• decay
• half
• life
• nucleus
• 14

[DeSwiss]

Laboratories around the globe have confirmed that the rate of radioactive decay—once thought to be a constant and a bedrock of science—is no longer a constant. Something being emitted from the sun is interacting with matter... with the startling potential to dramatically change the nature of the very Earth itself. Exactly what has scientists so on edge is the fact that the natural rate of decay of atomic particles has always been predictable.

news.stanford.edu/news/2010/au­gust/sun-082310.html

[gregrutz]

@crazy77iii The rate of decay which is determined by the Weak Nuclear Force. One of the basic forces of nature.

[devilnvadies]

how can i explain this in a lecture ...help plzz

[mikrotuber]

@crazy77iii - That was my question, too. I think this process is, as far as we know, indeterministic. We can only say, as a statistical generalization, that half of the atoms in a particular sample will have decayed within the stated period. We can't say for sure when any particular atom will decay. *Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong about this!*

[crazy77iii]

@ :18 seconds the narrorator states that the " AT SOME TIME, the unstable nucleus emits a 1- charged Beta Particle...." What determines the "At some time"? WHEN is this TIME? Is it known???????

please respond ASAP, with whatever info or lack thereof you have.... It will be greatly appreciated!!!! Thanks!

[sleazybtd]

@nightcrawlercyp Looks like you got carbon dating correct.

Carbon dating can't be used to date fossils because there's no carbon left in the fossil when they're found. When you need to date fossils, you use other radiometric dating techniques like uranium-lead, potassium-argon, or any of the dozen or so methods. Those methods have a half life of millions or billions of years. They're work similarly to the carbon-14 method. Normally, several techniques are used to reduce the chances of error.

[nightcrawlercyp]

@sleazybtd then why it is used to date things that supposed to have lived more than 60.000 years like dinosaurs? and I do understand it: as a c14 degrades it releases radiation.the quantity of c14 that can emit radiation becomes half after about 5700 years. Correct me if I am wrong!

[sleazybtd]

@nightcrawlercyp Science is a competitive field. When one scientist writes a paper, other scientists read the paper, and nit-pick it to find every mistake that the writer made, including using carbon dating inappropriately.

By the way, watch the video again. Carbon dating is only good for objects up to 60,000 years.

And by your words, it's obvious that you don't understand how radiometric dating in general, works. Read up on the topic before dismissing it.

[nightcrawlercyp]

@sleazybtd no, I believe many people choose to ignore them. Because otherwise I believe (and you can only contradicty me by using numbers not words) that you cannot use carbon dating to date something a bilion of years old let along bilions and bilions of years.

[sleazybtd]

@nightcrawlercyp In times of extreme cold, tree rings are still produced, but the rings are significantly smaller.

Carbon-14 dating is a tool, and like every tool, it has its limitations. Any idiot can bring a sample to a lab to be carbon-dated, but if he used it in an inappropriate way (contamination or inappropriate samples), then the scientific paper he writes will be laughed at and tore up.

Do you think you're the only one who knows that dating techniques have limitations?