Physicists explain the long, useful lifetime of carbon-14
Iowa State University physicists, left to right, Pieter Maris and James Vary have used supercomputing power to solve the puzzle of the long, slow decay of carbon-14. That long half-life makes carbon-14 a useful tool to determine the ages of skeletons and other artifacts. Credit: Photo by Bob Elbert/Iowa State University
The long, slow decay of carbon-14 allows archaeologists to accurately date the relics of history back to 60,000 years.
And while the carbon dating technique is well known and understood (the ratio of carbon-14 to other carbon isotopes is measured to determine the age of objects containing the remnants of any living thing), the reason for carbon-14's slow decay has not been understood. Why, exactly, does carbon-14 have a half-life of nearly 6,000 years while other light atomic nuclei have half-lives of minutes or seconds? (Half-life is the time it takes for the nuclei in a sample to decay to half the original amount.)
"This has been a very significant puzzle to nuclear physicists for several decades," said James Vary, an Iowa State University professor of physics and astronomy. "And the underlying reason turned out to be a fairly exotic one."
The reason involves the strong three-nucleon forces (a nucleon is either a neutron or a proton) within each carbon-14 nucleus. It's all about the simultaneous interactions among any three nucleons and the resulting influence on the decay of carbon-14. And it's no easy task to simulate those interactions.
In this case, it took about 30 million processor-hours on the Jaguar supercomputer at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee. Jaguar has a peak performance of 2.3 quadrillion calculations per second, a speed that topped the list of the world's top 500 supercomputers when the carbon-14 simulations were run.
The research project's findings were recently published online by the journal Physical Review Letters.
Vary and Pieter Maris, an Iowa State research staff scientist in physics and astronomy, are the lead authors of the paper. Collaborating on the paper are Petr Navratil of TRIUMF (Canada's National Laboratory for Particle and Nuclear Physics in Vancouver) and the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California; Erich Ormand of Lawrence Livermore National Lab; plus Hai Ah Nam and David Dean of Oak Ridge National Lab. The research was supported by contracts and grants from the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science.
Vary, in explaining the findings, likes to remind people that two subatomic particles with different charges will attract each other. Particles with the same charges repel each other. Well, what happens when there are three particles interacting that's different from the simple addition of their interactions as pairs?
The strong three-nucleon interactions are complicated, but it turns out a lot happens to extend the decay of carbon 14 atoms.
"The whole story doesn't come together until you include the three-particle forces," said Vary. "The elusive three-nucleon forces contribute in a major way to this fact of life that carbon-14 lives so long."
Maris said the three-particle forces work together to cancel the effects of the pairwise forces governing the decay of carbon-14. As a result, the carbon-14 half-life is extended by many orders of magnitude. And that's why carbon-14 is a very useful tool for determining the age of objects.
To get that answer, Maris said researchers needed a billion-by-billion matrix and a computer capable of handling its 30 trillion non-zero elements. They also needed to develop a computer code capable of simulating the entire carbon-14 nucleus, including the roles of the three-nucleon forces. Furthermore, they needed to perform the corresponding simulations for nitrogen-14, the daughter nucleus of the carbon-14 decay. And, they needed to figure out how the computer code could be scaled up for use on the Jaguar petascale supercomputer.
"It was six months of work pressed into three months of time," Maris said.
But it was enough for the nuclear physicists to explain the long half-life of carbon-14. And now they say there are more puzzles to solve:
"Everybody now knows about these three-nucleon forces," Vary said. "But what about four-nucleon forces? This does open the door for more study."
Provided by
Iowa State University
-
From lemons to lemonade: Reaction uses carbon dioxide to make carbon-based semiconductor,
32 comments
-
Thioridazine kills cancer stem cells in human while avoiding toxic side-effects of conventional cancer treatments,
3 comments
-
SpaceX private rocket blasts off for space station (Update),
42 comments
-
Climate scientists say they have solved riddle of rising sea,
31 comments
-
Research team claims to have found evidence Lake Cheko is impact crater for Tunguska Event,
18 comments
-
The Global Positioning System !
1 hour ago
-
A Question relating Power
2 hours ago
-
Writing a book so im learning about things, i have some general questions please read
4 hours ago
-
Question about induced E field.
5 hours ago
-
Charging a capacitor in a tesla coil
5 hours ago
-
Water Rocket
9 hours ago
- More from Physics Forums - General Physics
More news stories
Is a classical electrodynamics law incompatible with special relativity?
(Phys.org) -- The laws of classical electromagnetism that were developed in the 19th century are the same laws that scientists use today. They include Maxwell’s four equations along with the Lorentz la ...
Landmark calculation clears the way to answering how matter is formed
(Phys.org) -- An international collaboration of scientists, including Thomas Blum, associate professor of physics, is reporting in landmark detail the decay process of a subatomic particle called a kaon ...
May 25, 2012 |
4.2 / 5 (21) |
47
|
Lying in wait for WIMPs: Researchers seek to dramatically increase sensitivity of Large Underground Xenon detector
Although it's invisible, dark matter accounts for at least 80 percent of the matter in the universe. No one knows what it is, but most scientists would bet on weakly interacting massive particles, or WIMPs.
May 23, 2012 |
4 / 5 (7) |
15
|
Hall effect at the speed of light: How can you demonstrate relativistic effects with your mobile phone?
The relativistic Hall effect describing objects rotating at speeds comparable with the speed of light has been reported.
May 21, 2012 |
4.3 / 5 (3) |
8
Cloak of invisibility: Engineers use plasmonics to create an invisible photodetector
A team of engineers at Stanford and the University of Pennsylvania has for the first time used "plasmonic cloaking" to create a device that can see without being seen - an invisible machine that detects light. It is the first ...
May 21, 2012 |
4.8 / 5 (16) |
7
|
Browser wars flare in mobile space
The browser wars are heating up again, but this time the fight is for dominance of the mobile Internet.
Scientist: Evolution debate will soon be history
(AP) -- Richard Leakey predicts skepticism over evolution will soon be history. Not that the avowed atheist has any doubts himself.
Dell tablet leak: 10.1-inch display, two-battery choice
(Phys.org) -- Headline after headline talks about vendors tablets in the wings as likely number-one contenders for the iPad. Such claims have justifiably been taken with a grain of salt, considering ...
SpotterRF debuts Radar Backpack Kit (w/ Video)
(Phys.org) -- SpotterRF has announced a special radar backpack kit designed to enhance situational awareness for soldiers on the ground. The company says its special radar is designed for warfighters as part ...
SpaceX capsule has 'new car' smell, astronauts say (Update)
SpaceX's Dragon cargo vessel smells like a new car, said astronauts at the International Space Station after opening the hatches Saturday following the spacecraft's landmark mission to the orbiting lab.
Thousands of shellfish found dead in Peru
Thousands of crustaceans were found dead off the coast of Lima following the mystery mass death of dolphins and pelicans, the Peruvian Navy said Friday.
May 26, 2011
Rank: 4.6 / 5 (9)
May 26, 2011
Rank: 3.5 / 5 (8)
Lets not make it a religion vs. atheism issue. There are plenty of religious people that do accept an old Earth.
May 26, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (7)
May 26, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
Next?
\end sarcasm
May 26, 2011
Rank: 1.5 / 5 (6)
Assuming atmospheric C-14 concentrations to be equal through out time is a huge assumption. Libby warned of the weaknesses of the method. In the absence of a solid dating method, it seems people have grasped this one while simultaneously releasing its weaknesses.
May 27, 2011
Rank: 4.2 / 5 (11)
I didn't see that done. What is that is bothering you? People preferring facts to fantasy?
Not an assumption that anyone made as we can only measure back to about 70,000 years and it has been calibrated by trees to over 8,000 and a lake to over 30,000 years.
The weaknesses are known and fully dealt with.>>
May 27, 2011
Rank: 4.3 / 5 (12)
It seems that you want to be vague about the weaknesses and pretend that you are the only that knows of them.
Be specific. Just what weakness do YOU see as having been overlooked by the people that know and use the methods? Pretending that there is a controversy where there is none is a typical Creationist trick. This sort of disingenuous behavior as advocated by the Discovery Asylum has always struck me as a fitting the usual definitions of the sin of false witness.>>
May 27, 2011
Rank: 4.3 / 5 (11)
This challenge is probably a waste of time. Only one Creationist in dozens has any guts.
Ethelred
May 27, 2011
Rank: 4.6 / 5 (9)
So since you are so sure that I am wrong how about you grow some conjones and post some evidence to support those ones. Evidence that shows there a world wide flood covering the highest mountain will do nicely to kick off the debate.
I think I won't hold my breath waiting. Instead I will give PS3 ones at a geometrically increasing rate for each one.
So that is 1 then 2 then 4 and for the other thread that will be 8. total is 15 ones for you PS3. Unless you are willing to back up those ones with an actual discussion. 24 Hours starting at 3AM Pacific. Then the ONES will start. And if you give THIS a one I will give an extra doubling so that will 16 and 32 for another 48 ones.
I can back all the ones I give out.
Ethelred
May 27, 2011
Rank: 1.4 / 5 (5)
This was not some fly by night study. It was top flight organizations, ie similar to NIST and Harvard, Caltech, MIT, etc---the like.
Very prestigious, very system-centric.
As in:NOT A JOKE.
Look it up.
May 27, 2011
Rank: 4.3 / 5 (6)
Lets see what information do have for that search YOU are unwilling to do.
NEW particles (condition?)
emitted from the sun
mincemeat of any attempt to use carbon - I that crap is safe to ignore for the search. I doubt 'mincemeat' was used in any study outside a rather bad kitchen.
You couldn't be bothered to post a link?
Fortunatly 'NEW particles' was enough. And it isn't corroborated AND it doesn't change C14 because that has been calibrated with tree rings and a lake that has regular layering on an anual basis for the last 30,000 years. So the 'particle' hasn't effected C14 significantly if at all. I doubt that its a new particle, an unsuspected effect of one neutrino or another seems a bit more likely.
For instance
http://news.disco...cle.html
More
May 27, 2011
Rank: 4.6 / 5 (10)
Next
The key there is that it averages out over the year and decay rates are produced by experiment not by theory. For a short lived isotope it might be significant but C14 has a long half life and had to measured for a long time to get the accuracy needed.
This is the Stanford article
http://news.stanf...310.html
And a link to hmmm oh yes right here. And I not only remember it I posted on it. There are 175 posts.
http://www.physor...438.html
And this one considers the dating implications. Doesn't see any real problem.
http://dinosaurc1...ecay.htm
More
May 27, 2011
Rank: 4.6 / 5 (10)
Next time post your own links.
Ethelred
May 27, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
My question about the reliability was a genuine one. I was honestly trying to not be sarcastic or snarky. I guess I should have said YECs. The last line is just a joke. That's it.
I really thought there was another argument they had, but I can't remember.
The more dead air I hear, the more I am convinced that this is the only evidence against YECs anyone ever need. It's also more evidence at the total disrespect given to the sum of human scientific knowledge. If you don't trust this, anything is suspect. Science seems simply ignored by YECs. Because of this, they should be no more relevant or respected than the craziest conspiracy theorist. It's possibly the most far fetched conspiracy theory of all time to think our whole body of /knowledge/ is suspect.
May 27, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (5)
See Marjon, Kevin and many others here for examples. I think that trying to denigrate science is why there is so much overlap between Creationists and the Global Warming deniers. Science shows their beliefs wrong so instead of trying to use science to support them they try make it didn't happen.
Ethelred
May 28, 2011
Rank: 2.3 / 5 (3)
This would, obviously, via logic, remain true until human understanding extends to the scope of the issue, which is an answer that logically assumes some form of infinity, with regard to knowledge of the full state of the universe.
Ie, right now we have some interesting theories within a small bubble of understanding and a lot of darkness beyond that. A darkness that will, by it's very nature, at some time in the future and 'at any given time', reduce known theories to rubble of some sort.
Logic states that if one desires to find the new, they should consider that the highest success rates in finding the new...will occur when one steps completely outside the known theoretical (there are no 'laws' in the universe) parameters.
The considerations that the find 'brings' to the table breaks the frame of reference.
Start again. At the bottom.
May 28, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
"In one experiment, a team at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Ind., was monitoring a chunk of manganese-54 inside a radiation detector box to precisely measure the isotopes half-life. At 9:37 p.m. on December 12, 2006, the instruments recorded a dip in radioactivity. At the same time, satellites on the day side of the Earth detected X-rays coming from the sun, signaling the beginning of a solar flare."
I hate the idea of giving the "Inelegant Design" dead-enders any ammo (so many self inflicted wounds) but The cause is unknown and seems to be linked the suns output of ?; Neutrinos was one guess
Rgds
James
Seems you beat me to it :(
May 28, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
Let's pretend. (Kids of all ages do.) Let us begin...
Born Agains, unit! There is hope!
Feyman, (paraphased) has risen from the dead, not Jesus Christ!
Let us hear from Feyman repeating himself (paraphrased):
"You know guys, it has always bothered me. Decay.
The computer broke a sweat. And Nature did this in a blink of eye -(Actually faster than that. You all know what I mean.)
Either our language to describe Nature is really shitty and correct anyway, or we really do need to clean up our language."
;)
May 28, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
I never rate. Well, almost never.
The rating encourages misuse.
(Those clever enough to exploit social anxiety disorder.) lol
May 29, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (4)
Maybe. Maybe its just an unexpected property of some flavors of neutrinos. Neutrinos changing kind was surprising so why not some other stuff.
That is NOT logical.
Or we have some useful theories that work most of the time pretty well. It might be that the Universe is just a bunch of properties with no particular reason for being except that can.
More
May 29, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (5)
There is an appropriate line in the Princess Bride. I don't think that word means what you seem to think it means. Logic that is.
Sure isn't what Einstein did with SR. He assumed that Maxwell's theories of electromagnetism should be universal no matter what speed you were traveling at. In some sense he was trying to keep Maxwell IN the box.
More
May 29, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (4)
Would you care to clarify that just a bit? That is a meaningless noise unless you can tell us what the hell you mean by 'bottom'. Does it mean that you are an ass man? As opposed to a top or boob guy? Or perhaps you like to deal cards from the bottom. We can go a lot ways from something so vague. If the bottom requires research at the Plank level I am afraid you should look into long term cryosleep as the energies involved are way beyond what can be done in the Solar System much less a lab on Earth.
Ethelred
May 29, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (6)
YECs do practise science. They just make a certain distinction between what is observable and testable in the present versus what one needs to infer about the past based on certain assumptions.
As for Carbon-14 dating: it's actually a veritable force in the YECs armoury against evolutionary thought. For instance, most if not all carbon containing fossils still have C-14 in them, despite all protests and squirms by evolutionists. The problem for evolutionists is that because everything seems to contain C14 [ and a lot of these studies were done by evolutionists] they can't just write it off as contamination. This is the dirty little secret that is not openly spouted in the media.
Perhaps you should go and read what YECs have to say about C-14 before dissing them in public. Have a look at their websites creation dot com and answers in genesis dot com. Then come back and tell the world about it.
May 29, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (5)
No. They try to obfuscate the truth.
They make up bad assumptions and make inferences based on their religious beliefs.
What an utter lie. YECs have NEVER used C14 dating to prove the Earth is young. They simply tell lies about it.
Like that one. Its a lie. Anything over 70,000 years old can't be C14 tested.
Telling the truth is not squirming.
More
May 29, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (5)
But you can't post a case to support you so there isn't anything to write off.
Its a plain lie.
I have. They lie. A lot. They lie about ALL dating. Even tree ring dating.
Seen them. They lie.
So how about YOU post a link that supports that claim of stuff over 70,000 years old, thus disproving YEC, with C14. Contaminated artifacts need not apply. You claimed ALL and that the REAL scientists have done the work in some cases. So give a link.
Ethelred
May 30, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (4)
Now, AGAIN, for the unteenth time: If the universe is only 6000 years old, why is it that we see objects BILLIONS of light years old?
Poof! I just made Kev disappear.
May 30, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Inconceivable!!!!
I don't get this EXTREME distrust of the inferences. Yeah, we can't be 100% about any individual inference. However, the body of knowledge all fits so well. It supports itself. That, to me, trumps any singular argument that merely "castes doubt" on an individual scientific claim. It's not like the YEC's arguments are rock solid, either. There's doubt on both sides of any of these evo/cre topics. It's actually the number of undebatable topics on the evo side that make YEC's a rather small opponent.
May 30, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
Still cracking away at it. Please forgive me for taking my time with it. I can't just waste a whole day reading YEC sites. So far, my question is, what are the assertions YOU think are still valid? So far, I've seen a lot that Ethelred has responded to, and I'm inclined to believe those. I've seen some unsupported claims afaik like:
May 30, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
what I got when I read the articles (and the comments). Of
course, it wasn't all science, because some number of the
articles were just press releases posing as science.
Physorg is more problematic these days. The invasion of the
believers was bad enough, but now an Atheist has used the
comment section to call out Believers for another stupid
tag-team grudge match.
It's just more noise. I posit that no Believer or Atheist has
ever changed their position in these discussions. What is the
point of having that discussion here?
If I wanted to listen to what the Believers said, I'd go to
Church or watch some charlatan on TV. Please don't encourage
them to speak here.
May 30, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
@CSharpner
The antagonist took offense at the spelling:
Unteenth vs. umpteenth.
Surely, the untenable position that your logic was responsible for a non reply, defies logic.
:)
May 31, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (5)
It's almost cerainly true that no participants in the debates here have or will change their minds on thr creationists vs evolutionists scuffles, but the question of what is the point has been brought up before, pondered, discussed, and concluded that when someone posts something wrong or illogical, the responsible thing to do is to publicly respond for the benefit of other readers who may not be tied to one side or the other.
My particular responses to kev are to explain the failed logic of his posts, the correct logic, then to make him go away by asking the same question that guarantees he stops posting on that thread (the opposite of feeding)
But, as for requesting the YECs to join in, which is certainly feeding the trolls, and I try to avoid it (continued...)
May 31, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (5)
I have a hard time complaining when someone does feed the trolls because the entertainment value is so high. And for that, I apologize, even though I try not to feed the trolls, but probably do from time to time and just can't help but enjoy watching the feeders make minced meet of the YECs arguments. :)
May 31, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)