Diamonds and carbon dating
Let's assume that we're dealing with a relatively short-lived radionuclide which produces a steady stream of decay events at a reasonably fast rate, in which case we can simply point a single Geiger counter at it, and work out what proportion of these events we are actually capturing, because that proportion will be the ratio of the solid angle subtended by your Geiger counter, divided by the solid angle of an entire sphere (this latter value being 4π).When we have computed this ratio (let's call it R), which will necessarily be a number less than 1 unless we have surrounded your sample with a spherical shell of Geiger counters, we then start collecting count data, say once per second, and plotting that data. -14-dating C14 is found in diamonds, oil, dinosaurs. Even if there was no C14 left, you´d get the occassional outlier in background radiation. This means that at some point your radiation from C14 would be less than the fluctuations in background, making it untdetectable.With this limitation in mind, however, it is still possible to deduce a number of salient facts about radionuclide decay, which I shall now present.Initially, the determination of the decay law was performed empirically, by observing the decay of various radionuclides in the laboratory, taking measurements of the number of decay events, and plotting these graphically, with time along the x-axis, and counts along the y-axis.
As well as the most familiar modes of decay, namely α and β decay, other decay modes exist, and a full treatment of the various decay modes possible, along with the underlying quantum physics, is beyond the scope of this exposition, as it requires a detailed understanding of the behaviour of the appropriate quantum operators, and as a corollary, a detailed understanding of the behaviour of Hilbert spaces, a level of knowledge that is, sadly, not widespread.
What methods do they use and how do these methods work?
In this article, we will examine the methods by which scientists use radioactivity to determine the age of objects, most notably carbon-14 dating.
But some some scientists made a C14 test on them, and the result was that they are some thousands of years old. Unless somebody wants to use this to make a case against C14 dating.
These are very old, and that`s why we don`t use C14 dating for them. Generally that´s interpreted as an outlier in background radiation.
These are very old, and that`s why we don`t use C14 dating for them. Since one of the perennial canards that defenders of valid science have to endure on these forums, a canard that is practically a masturbatory obsession with creationists, is the "radionuclide dating is based upon assumptions" canard, I thought it apposite to produce this post, for the specific purpose of destroying this canard once and for all.