History of radioactive dating

The interplay of these forces is simple. Some configurations of the particles in a nucleus have the property that, should they shift ever so slightly, the particles could fall into a lower-energy arrangement with the extra energy moving elsewhere. One might draw an analogy with a snowfield on a mountain: While friction between the snow crystals can support the snow's weight, the system is inherently unstable with regards to a lower-potential-energy state, and a disturbance may facilitate the path to a greater entropy state that is, towards the ground state where heat will be produced, and thus total energy is distributed over a larger number of quantum states.

Thus, an avalanche results. The total energy does not change in this process, but because of entropy effects, avalanches only happen in one direction, and the end of this direction, which is dictated by the largest number of chance-mediated ways to distribute available energy, is what we commonly refer to as the "ground state. Such a collapse a decay event requires a specific activation energy. In the case of a snow avalanche, this energy classically comes as a disturbance from outside the system, although such disturbances can be arbitrarily small. In the case of an excited atomic nucleus , the arbitrarily small disturbance comes from quantum vacuum fluctuations.

A nucleus or any excited system in quantum mechanics is unstable, and can thus spontaneously stabilize to a less-excited system. This process is driven by entropy considerations: The energy does not change, but at the end of the process, the total energy is more diffused in spacial volume. The resulting transformation alters the structure of the nucleus. Such a reaction is thus a nuclear reaction , in contrast to chemical reactions , which also are driven by entropy, but which involve changes in the arrangement of the outer electrons of atoms, rather than their nuclei.

Some nuclear reactions do involve external sources of energy, in the form of collisions with outside particles. However, these are not considered decay. Rather, they are examples of induced nuclear reactions.

Radiometric Dating and the Geological Time Scale

Nuclear fission and fusion are common types of induced nuclear reactions. Radioactivity was first discovered in , by the French scientist Henri Becquerel while working on phosphorescent materials. These materials glow in the dark after exposure to light, and he thought that the glow produced in cathode ray tubes by X-rays might somehow be connected with phosphorescence.

So, he tried wrapping a photographic plate in black paper and placing various phosphorescent minerals on it. All results were negative until he tried using uranium salts. The result with these compounds was a deep blackening of the plate. However, it soon became clear that the blackening of the plate had nothing to do with phosphorescence because the plate blackened when the mineral was kept in the dark. Also, non-phosphorescent salts of uranium and even metallic uranium blackened the plate. Clearly there was some new form of radiation that could pass through paper that was causing the plate to blacken.

At first, it seemed that the new radiation was similar to the then recently discovered X-rays. However, further research by Becquerel, Marie Curie , Pierre Curie , Ernest Rutherford , and others discovered that radioactivity was significantly more complicated. Different types of decay can occur, but Rutherford was the first to realize that they all occur with the same mathematical, approximately exponential, formula. As for types of radioactive radiation, it was found that an electric or magnetic field could split such emissions into three types of beams.

For lack of better terms, the rays were given the alphabetic names alpha , beta , and gamma ; names they still hold today. It was immediately obvious from the direction of electromagnetic forces that alpha rays carried a positive charge, beta rays carried a negative charge, and gamma rays were neutral. From the magnitude of deflection, it was also clear that alpha particles were much more massive than beta particles. Passing alpha rays through a thin glass membrane and trapping them in a discharge tube allowed researchers to study the emission spectrum of the resulting gas, and ultimately prove that alpha particles are in fact helium nuclei.

Other experiments showed the similarity between beta radiation and cathode rays; they are both streams of electrons , and between gamma radiation and X-rays, which are both high energy electromagnetic radiation. Although alpha, beta, and gamma are most common, other types of decay were eventually discovered. Shortly after discovery of the neutron in , it was discovered by Enrico Fermi that certain rare decay reactions give rise to neutrons as a decay particle.

Isolated proton emission was also eventually observed in some elements.

Shortly after the discovery of the positron in cosmic ray products, it was realized that the same process that operates in classical beta decay can also produce positrons positron emission , analogously to negative electrons. Each of the two types of beta decay acts to move a nucleus toward a ratio of neutrons and protons which has the least energy for the combination. Finally, in a phenomenon called cluster decay, specific combinations of neutrons and protons other than alpha particles were found to occasionally spontaneously be emitted from atoms.

Still other types of radioactive decay were found which emit previously seen particles, but by different mechanisms. An example is internal conversion, which results in electron and sometimes high energy photon emission, even though it involves neither beta nor gamma decay. The early researchers also discovered that many other chemical elements besides uranium have radioactive isotopes. A systematic search for the total radioactivity in uranium ores also guided Marie Curie to isolate a new element, polonium , and to separate a new element, radium , from barium ; the two elements' chemical similarity would otherwise have made them difficult to distinguish.

The dangers of radioactivity and of radiation were not immediately recognized. Acute effects of radiation were first observed in the use of X-rays when the Serbo-Croatian-American electric engineer, Nikola Tesla , intentionally subjected his fingers to X-rays in He published his observations concerning the burns that developed, though he attributed them to ozone rather than to the X-rays.

Fortunately, his injuries healed later. The genetic effects of radiation, including the effects on cancer risk, were recognized much later.

Creation v. Evolution: How Carbon Dating Works

It was only in that Hermann Joseph Muller published his research that showed the genetic effects. In , he was awarded the Nobel prize for his findings. Before the biological effects of radiation were known, many physicians and corporations had begun marketing radioactive substances as patent medicine, much of which was harmful to health and gave rise to the term radioactive quackery; particularly alarming examples were radium enema treatments, and radium-containing waters to be drunk as tonics.

Marie Curie spoke out against this sort of treatment, warning that the effects of radiation on the human body were not well understood Curie later died from aplastic anemia, assumed due to her own work with radium, but later examination of her bones showed that she had been a careful laboratory worker and had a low burden of radium; a better candidate for her disease was her long exposure to unshielded X-ray tubes while a volunteer medical worker in World War I. By the s, after a number of cases of bone-necrosis and death in enthusiasts, radium-containing medical products had nearly vanished from the market.

Radionuclides can undergo a number of different reactions. These are summarized in the following table. A nucleus with atomic weight A and a positive charge Z called atomic number is represented as A, Z. Radioactive decay results in a reduction of summed rest mass , which is converted to energy the disintegration energy according to the formula. This energy is released as kinetic energy of the emitted particles. The energy remains associated with a measure of mass of the decay system invariant mass, inasmuch the kinetic energy of emitted particles contributes also to the total invariant mass of systems.

Thus, the sum of rest masses of particles is not conserved in decay, but the system mass or system invariant mass as also system total energy is conserved. In a simple, one-step radioactive decay, the new nucleus that emerges is stable. C undergoing beta decay to N and K undergoing electron capture to Ar are examples. On the other hand, the daughter nuclide of a decay event can be unstable, sometimes even more unstable than the parent. If this is the case, it will proceed to decay again. A sequence of several decay events, producing in the end a stable nuclide, is a decay chain.

Ultrapure uranium, for instance, is hardly radioactive at all. After a few weeks, however, the unstable daughter nucleides accumulate—such as radium—and it is their radioactivity that becomes noticeable. Of the commonly occurring forms of radioactive decay, the only one that changes the number of aggregate protons and neutrons nucleons contained in the nucleus is alpha emission, which reduces it by four.

Thus, the number of nucleons modulo 4 is preserved across any decay chain. In an alpha decay, the atomic weight decreases by 4 and the atomic number decreases by 2. In a beta decay, the atomic weight stays the same and the atomic number increases by 1. In a gamma decay, both atomic weight and number stay the same. A branching path occurs when there are alternate routes to the same stable destination. One branch is usually highly favored over the other. These are the four radioactive decay series. The members of this series are not presently found in nature because the half-life of the longest lived isotope in the series is short compared to the age of the earth.

According to the widely accepted Big Bang theory, the universe began as a mixture of hydrogen-1 75 percent and helium-4 25 percent with only traces of other light atoms. All the other elements, including the radioactive ones, were generated later during the thermonuclear burning of stars—the fusion of the lighter elements into the heavier ones. Stable isotopes of the lightest five elements H, He, and traces of Li, Be, and B were produced very shortly after the emergence of the universe, in a process called Big Bang nucleosynthesis.

These lightest stable nuclides including deuterium survive to today, but any radioactive isotopes of the light elements produced in the Big Bang such as tritium have long since decayed. Isotopes of elements heavier than boron were not produced at all in the Big Bang, and these first five elements do not have any long-lived radioisotopes.

Thus, all radioactive nuclei are, therefore, relatively young with respect to the birth of the universe, having formed later in various other types of nucleosynthesis in stars in particular, supernovae , and also during ongoing interactions between stable isotopes and energetic particles. For example, carbon, a radioactive nuclide with a half-life of only 5, years, is constantly produced in Earth's upper atmosphere due to interactions between cosmic rays and nitrogen.

Radioactive materials and their decay products—alpha particles 2 protons plus 2 neutrons , beta particles electrons or positrons , gamma radiation, and the daughter isotopes—have been put to the service of humanity in a great number of ways. At the same time, high doses of radiation from radioactive materials can be toxic unless they are applied with medical precision and control.

They are applied by geologists in the same sense that a "null hypothesis" is in statistics -- not necessarily correct, just testable. In the last or more years of their application, they are often valid, but geologists do not assume they are.

Radiometric Dating and the Geological Time Scale

They are the "initial working hypotheses" to be tested further by data. Using these principles, it is possible to construct an interpretation of the sequence of events for any geological situation, even on other planets e. The simplest situation for a geologist is a "layer cake" succession of sedimentary or extrusive igneous rock units arranged in nearly horizontal layers.

In such a situation, the " principle of superposition" is easily applied, and the strata towards the bottom are older, those towards the top are younger. For example, wave ripples have their pointed crests on the "up" side, and more rounded troughs on the "down" side.

Many other indicators are commonly present, including ones that can even tell you the angle of the depositional surface at the time "geopetal structures" , "assuming" that gravity was "down" at the time, which isn't much of an assumption: In more complicated situations, like in a mountain belt, there are often faults, folds, and other structural complications that have deformed and "chopped up" the original stratigraphy.

Despite this, the "principle of cross cutting relationships" can be used to determine the sequence of deposition, folds, and faults based on their intersections -- if folds and faults deform or cut across the sedimentary layers and surfaces, then they obviously came after deposition of the sediments. You can't deform a structure e. Even in complex situations of multiple deposition, deformation, erosion, deposition, and repeated events, it is possible to reconstruct the sequence of events.

Even if the folding is so intense that some of the strata is now upside down, this fact can be recognized with "way up" indicators. No matter what the geologic situation, these basic principles reliably yield a reconstructed history of the sequence of events, both depositional, erosional, deformational, and others, for the geology of a region.

This reconstruction is tested and refined as new field information is collected, and can be and often is done completely independently of anything to do with other methods e. The reconstructed history of events forms a "relative time scale", because it is possible to tell that event A occurred prior to event B, which occurred prior to event C, regardless of the actual duration of time between them.

Sometimes this study is referred to as "event stratigraphy", a term that applies regardless of the type of event that occurs biologic, sedimentologic, environmental, volcanic, magnetic, diagenetic, tectonic, etc. These simple techniques have widely and successfully applied since at least the early s, and by the early s, geologists had recognized that many obvious similarities existed in terms of the independently-reconstructed sequence of geologic events observed in different parts of the world.

One of the earliest relative time scales based upon this observation was the subdivision of the Earth's stratigraphy and therefore its history , into the "Primary", "Secondary", "Tertiary", and later "Quaternary" strata based mainly on characteristic rock types in Europe. The latter two subdivisions, in an emended form, are still used today by geologists. The earliest, "Primary" is somewhat similar to the modern Paleozoic and Precambrian, and the "Secondary" is similar to the modern Mesozoic. Another observation was the similarity of the fossils observed within the succession of strata, which leads to the next topic.

As geologists continued to reconstruct the Earth's geologic history in the s and early s, they quickly recognized that the distribution of fossils within this history was not random -- fossils occurred in a consistent order. This was true at a regional, and even a global scale. Furthermore, fossil organisms were more unique than rock types, and much more varied, offering the potential for a much more precise subdivision of the stratigraphy and events within it.

The recognition of the utility of fossils for more precise "relative dating" is often attributed to William Smith, a canal engineer who observed the fossil succession while digging through the rocks of southern England. But scientists like Albert Oppel hit upon the same principles at about about the same time or earlier.

In Smith's case, by using empirical observations of the fossil succession, he was able to propose a fine subdivision of the rocks and map out the formations of southern England in one of the earliest geological maps Other workers in the rest of Europe, and eventually the rest of the world, were able to compare directly to the same fossil succession in their areas, even when the rock types themselves varied at finer scale. For example, everywhere in the world, trilobites were found lower in the stratigraphy than marine reptiles. Dinosaurs were found after the first occurrence of land plants, insects, and amphibians.

Spore-bearing land plants like ferns were always found before the occurrence of flowering plants. The observation that fossils occur in a consistent succession is known as the "principle of faunal and floral succession". The study of the succession of fossils and its application to relative dating is known as "biostratigraphy". Each increment of time in the stratigraphy could be characterized by a particular assemblage of fossil organisms, formally termed a biostratigraphic "zone" by the German paleontologists Friedrich Quenstedt and Albert Oppel.

These zones could then be traced over large regions, and eventually globally. Groups of zones were used to establish larger intervals of stratigraphy, known as geologic "stages" and geologic "systems". The time corresponding to most of these intervals of rock became known as geologic "ages" and "periods", respectively. By the end of the s, most of the presently-used geologic periods had been established based on their fossil content and their observed relative position in the stratigraphy e.

These terms were preceded by decades by other terms for various geologic subdivisions, and although there was subsequent debate over their exact boundaries e. By the s, fossil succession had been studied to an increasing degree, such that the broad history of life on Earth was well understood, regardless of the debate over the names applied to portions of it, and where exactly to make the divisions.

All paleontologists recognized unmistakable trends in morphology through time in the succession of fossil organisms. This observation led to attempts to explain the fossil succession by various mechanisms. Perhaps the best known example is Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection. Note that chronologically, fossil succession was well and independently established long before Darwin's evolutionary theory was proposed in Fossil succession and the geologic time scale are constrained by the observed order of the stratigraphy -- basically geometry -- not by evolutionary theory.

For almost the next years, geologists operated using relative dating methods, both using the basic principles of geology and fossil succession biostratigraphy. Various attempts were made as far back as the s to scientifically estimate the age of the Earth, and, later, to use this to calibrate the relative time scale to numeric values refer to "Changing views of the history of the Earth" by Richard Harter and Chris Stassen. Most of the early attempts were based on rates of deposition, erosion, and other geological processes, which yielded uncertain time estimates, but which clearly indicated Earth history was at least million or more years old.

A challenge to this interpretation came in the form of Lord Kelvin's William Thomson's calculations of the heat flow from the Earth, and the implication this had for the age -- rather than hundreds of millions of years, the Earth could be as young as tens of million of years old. This evaluation was subsequently invalidated by the discovery of radioactivity in the last years of the 19th century, which was an unaccounted for source of heat in Kelvin's original calculations. With it factored in, the Earth could be vastly older. Estimates of the age of the Earth again returned to the prior methods.

The discovery of radioactivity also had another side effect, although it was several more decades before its additional significance to geology became apparent and the techniques became refined. Because of the chemistry of rocks, it was possible to calculate how much radioactive decay had occurred since an appropriate mineral had formed, and how much time had therefore expired, by looking at the ratio between the original radioactive isotope and its product, if the decay rate was known.

Many geological complications and measurement difficulties existed, but initial attempts at the method clearly demonstrated that the Earth was very old. In fact, the numbers that became available were significantly older than even some geologists were expecting -- rather than hundreds of millions of years, which was the minimum age expected, the Earth's history was clearly at least billions of years long. Radiometric dating provides numerical values for the age of an appropriate rock, usually expressed in millions of years. Therefore, by dating a series of rocks in a vertical succession of strata previously recognized with basic geologic principles see Stratigraphic principles and relative time , it can provide a numerical calibration for what would otherwise be only an ordering of events -- i.

The integration of relative dating and radiometric dating has resulted in a series of increasingly precise "absolute" i. Given the background above, the information used for a geologic time scale can be related like this: A continuous vertical stratigraphic section will provide the order of occurrence of events column 1 of Figure 2. These are summarized in terms of a "relative time scale" column 2 of Figure 2.

Geologists can refer to intervals of time as being "pre-first appearance of species A" or "during the existence of species A", or "after volcanic eruption 1" at least six subdivisions are possible in the example in Figure 2. For this type of "relative dating" to work it must be known that the succession of events is unique or at least that duplicate events are recognized -- e. Unique events can be biological e. Ideally, geologists are looking for events that are unmistakably unique, in a consistent order, and of global extent in order to construct a geological time scale with global significance.

Some of these events do exist. For example, the boundary between the Cretaceous and Tertiary periods is recognized on the basis of the extinction of a large number of organisms globally including ammonites, dinosaurs, and others , the first appearance of new types of organisms, the presence of geochemical anomalies notably iridium , and unusual types of minerals related to meteorite impact processes impact spherules and shocked quartz.

These types of distinctive events provide confirmation that the Earth's stratigraphy is genuinely successional on a global scale. Even without that knowledge, it is still possible to construct local geologic time scales. Although the idea that unique physical and biotic events are synchronous might sound like an "assumption", it is not. It can, and has been, tested in innumerable ways since the 19th century, in some cases by physically tracing distinct units laterally for hundreds or thousands of kilometres and looking very carefully to see if the order of events changes.

Geologists do sometimes find events that are "diachronous" i. Because any newly-studied locality will have independent fossil, superpositional, or radiometric data that have not yet been incorporated into the global geological time scale, all data types serve as both an independent test of each other on a local scale , and of the global geological time scale itself. The test is more than just a "right" or "wrong" assessment, because there is a certain level of uncertainty in all age determinations. For example, an inconsistency may indicate that a particular geological boundary occurred 76 million years ago, rather than 75 million years ago, which might be cause for revising the age estimate, but does not make the original estimate flagrantly "wrong".

It depends upon the exact situation, and how much data are present to test hypotheses e. Whatever the situation, the current global geological time scale makes predictions about relationships between relative and absolute age-dating at a local scale, and the input of new data means the global geologic time scale is continually refined and is known with increasing precision. This trend can be seen by looking at the history of proposed geologic time scales described in the first chapter of [Harland et al, , p.

The unfortunate part of the natural process of refinement of time scales is the appearance of circularity if people do not look at the source of the data carefully enough. Most commonly, this is characterised by oversimplified statements like:. Even some geologists have stated this misconception in slightly different words in seemingly authoritative works e.

When a geologist collects a rock sample for radiometric age dating, or collects a fossil, there are independent constraints on the relative and numerical age of the resulting data. Stratigraphic position is an obvious one, but there are many others.

Radiometric Dating

There is no way for a geologist to choose what numerical value a radiometric date will yield, or what position a fossil will be found at in a stratigraphic section. Every piece of data collected like this is an independent check of what has been previously studied. The data are determined by the rocks , not by preconceived notions about what will be found.

Every time a rock is picked up it is a test of the predictions made by the current understanding of the geological time scale.

You must create an account to continue watching

The time scale is refined to reflect the relatively few and progressively smaller inconsistencies that are found. This is not circularity, it is the normal scientific process of refining one's understanding with new data. It happens in all sciences. If an inconsistent data point is found, geologists ask the question: However, this statistical likelihood is not assumed, it is tested , usually by using other methods e.

Geologists search for an explanation of the inconsistency, and will not arbitrarily decide that, "because it conflicts, the data must be wrong. If it is a small but significant inconsistency, it could indicate that the geological time scale requires a small revision. The continued revision of the time scale as a result of new data demonstrates that geologists are willing to question it and change it. The geological time scale is far from dogma.

Keep Exploring Britannica

If the new data have a large inconsistency by "large" I mean orders of magnitude , it is far more likely to be a problem with the new data, but geologists are not satisfied until a specific geological explanation is found and tested. An inconsistency often means something geologically interesting is happening, and there is always a tiny possibility that it could be the tip of a revolution in understanding about geological history.

Admittedly, this latter possibility is VERY unlikely. There is almost zero chance that the broad understanding of geological history e. The amount of data supporting that interpretation is immense, is derived from many fields and methods not only radiometric dating , and a discovery would have to be found that invalidated practically all previous data in order for the interpretation to change greatly.

So far, I know of no valid theory that explains how this could occur, let alone evidence in support of such a theory, although there have been highly fallacious attempts e. It contains a mixture of minerals from a volcanic eruption and detrital mineral grains eroded from other, older rocks. If the age of this unit were not so crucial to important associated hominid fossils, it probably would not have been dated at all because of the potential problems. After some initial and prolonged troubles over many years, the bed was eventually dated successfully by careful sample preparation that eliminated the detrital minerals.

Lubenow's work is fairly unique in characterising the normal scientific process of refining a difficult date as an arbitrary and inappropriate "game", and documenting the history of the process in some detail, as if such problems were typical. Another example is "John Woodmorappe's" paper on radiometric dating , which adopts a "compilation" approach, and gives only superficial treatment to the individual dates.

Among other problems documented in an FAQ by Steven Schimmrich , many of Woodmorappe's examples neglect the geological complexities that are expected to cause problems for some radiometrically-dated samples. This section is important because it places a limit on the youngest age for a specific ammonite shell -- Baculites reesidei -- which is used as a zonal fossil in western North America. It consistently occurs below the first occurrence of Bacultes jenseni and above the occurrence of Baculites cuneatus within the upper part of the Campanian, the second to last "stage" of the Cretaceous Period in the global geological time scale.

The biostratigraphic situation can be summarized as a vertically-stacked sequence of "zones" defined by the first appearance of each ammonite species: About 40 of these ammonite zones are used to subdivide the upper part of the Cretaceous Period in this area. Dinosaurs and many other types of fossils are also found in this interval, and in broad context it occurs shortly before the extinction of the dinosaurs, and the extinction of all ammonites.

The Bearpaw Formation is a marine unit that occurs over much of Alberta and Saskatchewan, and it continues into Montana and North Dakota in the United States, although it adopts a different name in the U. The numbers above are just summary values.

Other examples yield similar results - i. The results are therefore highly consistent given the analytical uncertainties in any measurement.