1
   

The Nature of Diamonds

 
 
Reply Thu 27 Aug, 2015 01:57 pm
https://scontent-dfw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpt1/v/t1.0-9/11923258_1630232210567306_8388873826075665088_n.jpg?oh=e1e4c7f46ee2965ec5fb4c916aaf3a19&oe=5667B053
 
Tes yeux noirs
 
  3  
Reply Thu 27 Aug, 2015 02:01 pm
Why are you posting this ****? Radiocarbon dating doesn't work well on objects much older than twenty thousand years, because such objects have so little C-14 left that their beta radiation is swamped out by the background radiation of cosmic rays and potassium-40 (K-40) decay. Younger objects can easily be dated, because they still emit plenty of beta radiation, enough to be measured after the background radiation has been subtracted out of the total beta radiation. However, in either case, the background beta radiation has to be compensated for, and, in the older objects, the amount of C-14 they have left is less than the margin of error in measuring background radiation. Cosmic rays form beta radiation all the time; this is the radiation that turns N-14 to C-14 in the first place. K-40 decay also forms plenty of beta radiation. This radiation cannot be totally eliminated from the laboratory, so one could probably get a "radiocarbon" date of fifty thousand years from a pure carbon-free piece of tin. However, this fact doesn't at all invalidate radiocarbon dates of objects younger than twenty thousand years and is certainly no evidence for the notion that diamonds, coals and oils or whatever might be no older than fifty thousand years.

0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Trace minerals for diamonds - Question by batalhadematos
Diamond Engagement Ring - Question by aaronwest
India's diamond industry is still shaken by attack - Discussion by BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The Nature of Diamonds
Copyright © 2018 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 11/17/2018 at 02:44:25