Carbon 14 Dating Problems - Nuclear Chemistry & Radioactive Decay
Вставка
- Опубліковано 22 чер 2024
- This nuclear chemistry video tutorial explains how to solve carbon-14 dating problems. It discusses how to estimate the age of an expired piece of wood based on the radioactive decay of the C-14 isotope which undergoes beta decay. It discusses how to use two formulas given the carbon-14 decay rate in counts per minute per gram to estimate the age of the sample. This video contains plenty of examples and practice problems.
How To Balance Nuclear Equations:
• How To Balance Nuclear...
Alpha, Beta, & Gamma Decay:
• Alpha Decay, Beta Deca...
Half Life Chemistry Problems:
• Half Life Chemistry Pr...
Carbon-14 Dating Problems:
• Carbon 14 Dating Probl...
___________________________________
Nuclear Binding Energy & Mass Defect:
• Nuclear Binding Energy...
Nuclear Chemistry & Radioactive Decay:
• Nuclear Chemistry & Ra...
General Chemistry 2 Final Exam Review:
• General Chemistry 2 Re...
SAT Chemistry Subject Test Review:
• SAT Chemistry Subject ...
____________________________________
Coordinate Covalent Bond:
• What is a Coordinate C...
Complex Ions & Ligands:
• Complex Ions, Ligands,...
Naming Coordination Compounds:
• Naming Coordination Co...
Beer Lambert's Law:
• Beer Lambert's Law, Ab...
Crystal Field Theory:
• Crystal Field Theory
___________________________________
ACT Math Practice Test:
• ACT Math Test Prep
Final Exams and Video Playlists:
www.video-tutor.net/
Full-Length Videos and Worksheets:
/ collections
Chemistry PDF Worksheets:
www.video-tutor.net/chemistry...
Next Video: ua-cam.com/video/eLwraf_A80U/v-deo.html
Chemistry PDF Worksheets: www.video-tutor.net/chemistry-basic-introduction.html
Final Exams and Video Playlists: www.video-tutor.net/
Full-Length Math & Science Videos: www.patreon.com/mathsciencetutor/collections
5kauuúi7y66⅝😊¹😅7
Very qualitative explanation and demonstration, thank you.
very easy to understand. thank you!
Thanks.
Thank you so much...🤗🤗
Don't forget to include the calculations for the variables of solar flares that have accelerated the decay rates.
Thank youuuuuu!!!!!!
Carbon 14 in the atmosphere is not constant
How do we know that that the decay rate and absorption rate is constant?
For all you keyboard warriors, this is just a tutorial for how calculations are done based on relative objects, and assumed values given from the context of the question, so students can learn how to use the formulas.
Need more nuclear chemistry...maybe
Does the heartwood of the tree give you a different c14 date than the outer, living portion of the tree?
I think the bark is dead but the rest of the tree is still living. Even though the tree has new growth rings on the outside it’s still living cellls on the interior.
Damn this Carbon-14 guy has got it rough too.
I love dating carbons
Pump up the volume
Thanks and lots of respect from India.
yu saved me
The theory is nice, but in practice ? and the influence of powerful CME or geomagnetic storms ? how to take a sample? having a mass perfectly known ? putting it in a detector and not miss one decay event ? I don't understand how historians are able to pinpoint exactly one year (especially during the first millenia) for events, and how to be sure Rome avents and Gaul events are in sync ?
Because they are LIARS.
You don't just take carbon dating by itself, its got a 5% margin of error that needs to be taken in conjunction with anthropological/historical evidence. It's the carbon dating in combination with other evidence that gives it power.
@@theophrastusvonhoenheim4022 yes, you combine several clues to converge toward a date approximation. Clues in order or stratification, clues in writing, etc. But if you thing is buried instead of anbandoned there, if your writing is a fiction and not a birth certificate, and if the sun sneezes at this moment, then the dating is off.
You a New Yorker?
This method works wonderful giving the decay rate of the things, or the sum of c14 before hand. But this method is not reliable when the sum is not given ahead of the equation.
Again they assume many factors which is non scientific lol
Remember that c12 is also there and the ratio of c12 and c14 in a living thing is going to be similar to that in the atmosphere (which we can measure). c12 doesn't decay so all you need to do is look at c12 and calculate how much c14 there was before it died (or got cut of from a tree).
@@MrDzoni955 How would that prove that the C14 is decaying at a steady rate over thousands of years though? The c12 would just be a base amount to juxtapose with the c14 but the changes would have to be confirmed over various examples wouldn't they?
@@ThatOneAlbinoMofo We know the rate of decay and it's fixed. c14s half life is always the same. Now this is physics and the math behind it is way to complicated for a layman like me
@@MrDzoni955 I agree, i suppose the issue comes from when we question the concept of "proof " as subjective or objective?
For example,
Radiocarbon dating seems to be a based on subjective inferences rather than objective claims witnessed in action with the of the variables of the "natural" world
I think I all boils down to language when it comes to science, in fact it would be hard for us to discuss these things with beings if energy or of those beings with prolonged lifespans even if they were able to help us prove our methods are correct, that's a huge consideration to play around with
I think thats where doubt comes into play for skeptics like myself, I don't doubt the science, just the certainty of the conclusions as applying by those that reference the research but lack the means to perform the experiment themselves?
you forgot to square the time, was this a mistake?
hey man you hang everything on that evolpropeller shit
How to find age of moon rock?
You have to find out the ratio of stable and radioactive compound.
E.g. radioactive K(potassium)and stable Ar.
When one radioactive K decays, one Stable Ar is formed.
it is the same age as the earth
you going to build a bridge with a massive gap ?
The assumption that C14 is constant is incorrect,
Carbon14 can be affected by a number of different factors or events:
• The strength of Earths magnetic field
• Atmospheric C14 variations between hemispheres
• Burning of fossil fuels as during the industrial revolution caused variations to the C14 in the atmosphere because of human use of fossil fuels (Seuss effect) and decreased sun spot activity (Maunder Minimum)
• Alteration effects such as fractionation (dC13 correction)
• In situ production from N14 within trees
• C12 added to the tree through the uptake of water from the subsurface dolimitic (carbonate) soils this would result in C14 ages obtained which would be much older than they really are.
• Recrystallisation in shells and the marine effect
• Volcanic eruptions contaminating the atmosphere
• Forest fires
• Sun flares
• Lightning storms - Carbon-14 may also be produced by lightning [22][23] but in amounts negligible, globally, compared to cosmic ray production. Local effects of cloud-ground discharge through sample residues are unclear, but possibly significant.
• Nuclear testing
The C14/C12 ratio can never be proven to be a constant.
@Dylan Morrison can you state how much Carbon is stored in Coal, Crude oil and Natural Gas underground? This C12 would have been above ground at some point. Now calculate the C14/C12 ratio and compare it. I would suggest that would change the C14/C12 ratio substantially.
Furthermore,, If the atmosphere were millions of years old then the C14/C12 ratio would be at equilibrium . However we know the ratio is not at equilibrium therefore the atmosphere cannot be millions of years old.
Since C14 is forming faster than it is decaying it is impossible to know the past ratio and get an accurate age calculation by carbon 14 dating.
In addition we know that if a fossil contains carbon 14 then the fossil is less than 60,000 years old. The AMS method claims they can measure to 90,000 years.
The method is calibrated against such data as tree rings and historical items whose dates are known, so all the effects large and small that you list are in effect factored into the calibration. It is also calibrated against other dating methods like thermoluminescence. So far, the assumption that the C14/c12 ratio is roughly constant seems to work out very well.
@@karhukivi OK tell me what the C14/c12 ratio was 6,000 yrs ago. Remember we have a shed load of C12 buried in coal, oil and gas.
BTW I have 3 trees all of the same species (silver birch) planted 15 yrs ago within 10m all had the same watering in the same soil yet all 3 are different diameters ranging from 3.5cm to 15cm. The trees in.my street are pin oaks and they all show different diameters. Either the thickness of rings are different or some have multiple rings. I presented that research to IntCal and I've yet to get a response.
Wuth thermoluminescence
there are many unknowns and many assumptions need to be made, including the amount of radiation ‘stored’ in the mineral at a certain time in the past, that the change in radiation has only been affected by the radiation in the environment, that the radiation in the environment has remained constant, and that the sensitivity of the crystal to radiation has not changed. All these factors can be affected by water, heat, sunlight, the accumulation or leaching of minerals in the environment, and many other causes.
Re: Dendrochronology
"The biggest problem with the process is that ring patterns are not unique. There are many points in a given sequence where a sequence from a new piece of wood matches well (note that even two trees growing next to each other will not have identical growth ring patterns)...."
The extended tree ring chronologies are far from absolute, in spite of the popular hype. To illustrate this we only have to consider the publication and subsequent withdrawal of two European tree-ring chronologies. According to David Rohl, the Sweet Track chronology from Southwest England was ‘re-measured’ when it did not agree with the published dendrochronology from Northern Ireland (Belfast). Also, the construction of a detailed sequence from southern Germany was abandoned in deference to the Belfast chronology, even though the authors of the German study had been confident of its accuracy until the Belfast one was published. It is clear that dendrochronology is not a clear-cut, objective dating method despite the extravagant claims of some of its advocates.
But you're welcome to BELIEVE that.
@@georgebond7777 Science is not about "belief" - that is the domain of religions! Of course there are limitations and assumptions as with many scientific techniques and constant attention is paid to calibration in research publications. If you read a good selection of publications on C14 dating and still cannot accept them, then that is your prerogative and I have no intention to get drawn into an argument about your beliefs - you are welcome to believe whatever you want!
@@karhukivi of course it's about your beliefs. You BELIEVE a dot of nothing exploded caused rock soup to come alive and here you are. Is that science?
Don't BS me mate, yours is as much a belief as mine. Magic without a magician vs Magic with a Magician, now which one is more rational.
@12:12 what you said (N-initial) and what you wrote (N-final) did not match.
Still listening to the rest of this magic
Peace
Wait... so you nitpicked one aspect of this and then wrote the whole thing of?
Found the scholar folks! Can't wait to see your video explain the process yourself!
Oh wait... been a month and nothing from you, who saw fit to comment as if you are actually doing anything worthwhile to prove this "magic"
@@ThatOneAlbinoMofo easy bro. Let's be calm and try to understand what I'm about to explain.
The fact that I caught a minor error in what he said and what he wrote should prove to him just how closely and attentively i watched the video.
As for the magic, it was a bad joke because in reality, 99.9% of humans wont know what he is talking about and yet at the end, he arrives at a "reasonable" conclusion.
Dont know why you got all worked up but chill
Peace
he is a cartoon man fucking immortal
Alrighty, I just spent 30 minutes for the detail of a topic lol
Oh yeah yeah I’m going to fail my science test
FARMER JOHN692 oh yeah yeah
How was the test?
why K = Ln 2/Half Life
when you arent given N(0) and they want you to find how long ago something died xd
C14 half-life is 5730 ± 30 years, who was born ~5730 yrs ago and observed certain amount of C14 decay to half of it's original amount after 5730 ± 30 years?
Nobody. The half-life is simply calculated from the decay constant which is the rate of decay as measured by beta particle emission. T 1/2 - ln(2) / lambda where lambda is the decay constant.
I’m guessing if you have a “large” sample size and then compare the radioactivity after a “long” time period you can extrapolate a accurate picture.
The bigger problem might be the assumption that carbon 14 was at a constant ratio through the last 50,000 years. That’s an assumption they make. It’s also an assumption that the decay rate is a constant through the existence of the universe.
@@karhukivi there’s no decay constant. That’s another pure lie from SOME of the scientific community. In the last 50+ years this so called “constant” has changed quite a bit actually. They also have no clue from prior of these discoveries and thousands of years ago. They are just promoting their religion aka mythology.
@@godloves9163 You are right about religion = mythology!
@@karhukivi yes your religion. Funny that this is your response. Typical from people who pretend to follow science then never provide real scientific evidence. You know DNA able to code itself by random molecules combining together. You seriously believe the mythology that a books can write themselves by random letters falling on a page without intelligence?! You’re religion is actually worse than that of the Egyptians or Greek gods.
Which tree is 18,000 year old 🤔.
Is Mark Wahlberg explaining this?!
😵👍
have you ever bury a bucket of cash ?
Inorganic Chemistry(CHM101)
University of Nigeria Enugu Campus.
College of Medicine
leave it to long you need to dig a mountain to find it
IT really funny how we use only one method for dating everything including wood to rock to metal to earth to fossil to everything base on one theory one method how do we know that is not wrong ?to base all our knowledge and believe on..is that a nail to hang our knowledge on like Evolution too