放射性碳年代测定法是基于假设?- 江南体育网页版- - - - -地球科学堆江南电子竞技平台栈交换

放射性碳年代测定法是基于假设?

2019 - 07 - 13 - t15:54:40z

< a href = " https://benpiper.com/2011/07/the-truth-about-carbon-dating/ " rel = " nofollow noreferrer " > https://benpiper.com/2011/07/the-truth-about-carbon-dating/ < / > 上面的网站解释说,碳14测定是基于一些假设,如演绎的年龄有机体通过观察碳14的数量在基于时间和计算其年龄应该已经失踪的碳14衰变。然而,这些假设我们错误的,因为大气中的碳12碳14比没有保持不变,科学家们无法知道。它还指出,其他同位素年龄测定方法也有类似的问题,这些测定方法应采取与一粒盐。真的是所有的假设,我们怎么能相信这些日期吗?

约翰回答的放射性碳年代测定法是基于假设?

2019 - 07 - 13 - t21:14:49z

第一个现代碳约会不承担碳同位素比值不变,实际上它是对已知的校准大气浓度的变化,并已自90年。这些< a href = " https://books.google.com/books/about/Radiocarbon_Dating.html?id=SjsSugCVvC0C&source=kp_book_description" rel="nofollow noreferrer">baselines were created using annular tree rings which of course reflect the atmospheric carbon when each ring was grown as well as ice core data. This was an issue with the earliest forms of carbon dating (and carbon dating alone) which is why they tended to have huge error bars. Using this as an argument against modern dating is like complaining that automobiles are unsafe because they lack doors or windscreens, it shows the person has not kept up with the development of the technology. Especially considering even the wiki for carbon dating addresses the issue at length, so it is likely willful ignorance.

Second dating method are checked against each other, using things like tree rings, stratigraphy, fission tracks, etc. The are also checked against multiple samples. If multiple samples from multiple dating methods arrive at similar dates that is very good evidence of accuracy.

Other radiometric dating method don't rely on ambient conditions just basic chemistry so this is a non-issue. If you want to know more about them I suggest you ask a separate question or review the several existing answered questions about them.

回答本·科尔曼的放射性碳年代测定法是基于假设?

2023 - 03 - 15 - t15:12:41z

非常重要意识到碳14测定日期不能用于任何年龄超过100000岁,即使我们今天最先进的技术。江南登录网址app下载半衰期不足够的痕迹(如可衡量的数额)持续很长时间。所以这是一个误称认为碳14测定负责约会岩石、化石等,除此之外的时间框架。 相反,钾氩约会等辐射方法,具有更长的生命的一半。Even with these methods, however, we must remember the concept that we can't "measure" age. It's not a physical property we can observe like mass or volume. The concept behind these methods is to measure current decay rate, and work back from the present proportion of decay elements to find the assumed starting point. We do have to rely on the assumption that decay rates have been concept, that we can accurately estimate the starting element, and that it's been a closed system for the entire time.

So yes, even the most "conclusive" dating methods rely on assumptions. There's no way around it. There is even good reason to reject these assumptions on occasion. For instance, Mt. Saint Helens gave us rocks with known ages because of observation, which we saw to have much larger proportions of decay elements than we typically assume, leading dating methods to date them at millions of years old when in reality they were less than 50 years old.