Potassium Argon Dating doesnt work at all

I don't know any of the details at all but I understand the age is getting pinned down a bit better now and is 13.7 Gyr +- 200 Myr %
Astronomy News - Space Science - Articles and ImagesThis is a secondary source and I don't know any of the details. However, the public releases on this are much more "definite" than such things are usually stated so I think this is getting it narrowed down (finally).I've not seen any rebuttals to this yet but it is pretty new. Does anyone have a deeper insight?

Reading the article the range you gave is the range where the best accuracy may be obtained and suggests that +/1% in measurement accuracy converts into +/-4% dating accuracy in that range. All this means is that the measurement errors will have a greater effect on the error bars for dates outside the range. But there is absolutely no reason to assume that geologists are not aware of this issue whatsoever. I suggest you withdraw you attack on geologists on the grounds that it is completely unfounded.

Hi Manny,There are a couple places in his message where Christie has his numbers wrong. He appears to know precisely what he's talking about, but I'm guessing he was going from memory and so some of the numerical quantities he mentions are a little off.One of these places is where he says, "A rough calculation shows that it is best to use a method on samples with age between 0.5 and 3.5 half-lives of the crucial radioactive decay." I don't know what calculation he is using, but this is an extremely conservative and narrow range. Most dating techniques that rely soley on decay can handle a range from 0.05X to 10X the half-life, as long as there's sufficient material to date.About the K-Ar method, on page 93 of The Age of the Earth Brent Dalrymple writes, "Measurable quantities of ⁴⁰Ar accumulate in as little as 50 ka [thousand years] or so." This is about a tenth the 550 million years mentioned by Christie. Christie's 550 million year minimum figure must be wrong because K-Ar dating is one of the most popular techniques for dating layers from the age of the dinosaurs, and that era only began about 250 million years ago. If K-Ar dating only worked for material older than 550 million years ago, as Christie states, then paleontologists couldn't be using K-Ar dating for dating material from the age of the dinosaurs. Since they use it all the time for this purpose, Christie's numerical value is in this case wrong. Let me repeat what I said earlier - the numerical errors that appear in a couple of places in Christie's message do not detract at all from his general message, with which I agree.I recently read an article about the accuracy of information on the Internet. In a study college students were asked to use the Internet to answer certain non-trivial questions. Very few students went to the trouble to make sure the same information was available at more than one site, and consequently many obtained incorrect answers. Usually if you check just two sites you'll find disagreements, and then you'll have to track down who is right and who is wrong. This takes much longer, of course, and most students, even when working on an assignment apparently, don't do this.--Percy

I'll accept your criticism on my lack of understanding of the science of geochronology. And while I admit I'm no scientist, I do not admit to complete ignorance of the subject.For example, our bodies contain enough radioactive potassium alone to cause us to create a false-positive test for Radon gas in one of those in-home canisters. All we need do is place it near a spot where we regularly spend a lot of time.We now know that the amount of radiation hitting the poles of our planet differs greatly in nature and quantity, compared to that which hits the equator and temperate zones. The Northern and Southern light shows attest to this fact. Is it a coincidence that the "oldest" rocks are those found at deeper levels?We also know that shielding plays an important role in keeping things from "becoming radioactive". Astrophysicists can determine the effectiveness of different materials and thicknesses of those materials in order to develop the most cost-effective shielding for spacecraft.What's so bad about extrapolating the concept of shielding (known to protect things in space) to the earth's crust? In other words, what impact do the layers of rock have on the amount of radiation penetrating to deeper layers. Is this effect not measurable? Why do geologists and geochronologists refuse to even consider this effect? Hence my comment about heads in sand...For those who think I'm out on a limb, consider the following:"Because the geomagnetic field provides shielding against incoming cosmic rays, its strength determines the amount of this radiation that reaches the upper atmosphere. Reactions with these cosmic rays produces radioactive isotopes of certain elements such as 10Be, 14C, 36Cl, 3He, and others that are useful for dating and correlating geologic materials. Fluctuations in magnetic field strength, however, determine the amount of nuclides produced at any given time and uncertainties in production rates are a major factor affecting the accuracy of age determinations. By accurately determining geomagnetic paleointensity through time, the production rates of the cosmogenic nuclides can be established more closely, thus enhancing the various dating methods."Taken from :
USGS URL Resolution Error Page

Thanks, Percy. This is definitely something I need to begin doing. (Cross-check information from multiple sources on the web)Also, thanks for the analysis on appropriate ranges for dating techniques.

And exactly that technology is being used to date, for instance, how long the rocks around the Grand Canyon have been on the surface. 36Cl and 3He, at least, build up in near-surface (to a meter or two down) rock in a readily-modelled manner. Look up "cosmogenic isotopes."

Good read. Unfortunately, I get the same feeling whenever I listen to people claim that we're zeroing in on the actual age of the universe.There was a time when scientists started claiming that we'd learned all there was to know, and the rest was "unknowable". Then along came the 20th century...Personally, I'm in favor of taking a step back in just about every scientific discipline and look at what the other disciplines are able to assert as fact. In truth, this desire led me to this website, where I'd hope to find some good starting points to look at what all of the different disciplines within science now assert as fact.Am I the only one who feels frustrated, thinking that we have too many "specialists"? They seem to be taking us down extremely deep ratholes, due to the fact that their work is based on assumptions that have, in the meantime, been overturned by other scientists outside their sphere of knowledge.This phenomenon (of specialism) was not a problem just 50 years ago. But with the advent of the computer and the Internet, it's just too easy to spot the incongruities between different scientific communities.Maybe it's always been like this... and the Internet is simply making it more visible to the non-scientists (like me)?

Thanks, this is exactly the type of info I've been looking for. It will take me some time to read through the sites that came up.

At the leading edge of disciplines, especially faster moving ones, there is often some confusion for the layperson. (In fact, there may be some for the specialists in the field too) That is one reason for wanting to keep in mind that the information may be more or less tentative, keep checking on the latest results and either dig a little deeper yourself or, if you don't know enough about it, to check what others in the field say about the latest results.In any discipling the leading edge pretty well has to be conducted by specialists. It just takes too much effort and knowledge. However, there always seems to be another specialist who jumps in with good critism of any new result. That's why I'd like to hear from such specialists on this new 13.7 Gyr date.It seems pretty credible in spite of all that. It is right in the range that the universes age has been bouncing around in for decades. Those earlier ones always had pretty large error bars. This one, very interestingly, doesn't. That is encouraging.We can't be expert in all this stuff. That's a bit frustrating but history has shown that the process sorts the errors out eventually. In the meantime all we can say is that the very best estimate available is this 13.7 Gyr figure.Your frustration with some much stuff, a lot of which you don't understand, is understandable but not a very good reason for ignoring the work. The thing to do is watch for other specialists opinion of the work.

This is an interesting statement. I'm not aware of any very good cases (any in fact). Could you talk about some examples?Generally it is other specialists in the field which seem to overturn ideas. Not those outside the field.

Hi Manny,You seem to be expressing a general feeling of unease with the state of modern science. Because you're not specific I can only respond that it seems fine to me. How do you tell when there are too many specialists? One man's rathole is another man's treasure trove, and more than a few scientific discoveries have been made by scientists going over previously well-trod ground.But the last part that I quoted is the truly interesting portion. Can you identify any branches of science whose tenets, findings or assumptions conflict with one another in such a way as to cast the science into doubt?--Percy

quote:

---

I'll accept your criticism on my lack of understanding of the science of geochronology. And while I admit I'm no scientist, I do not admit to complete ignorance of the subject.

​

For example, our bodies contain enough radioactive potassium alone to cause us to create a false-positive test for Radon gas in one of those in-home canisters. All we need do is place it near a spot where we regularly spend a lot of time.

---

Sounds like an urban legend to me. Most of these tests involve collecting Ra gas. I did not know that radon was part of the 40K decay scheme...

quote:

---

We now know that the amount of radiation hitting the poles of our planet differs greatly in nature and quantity, compared to that which hits the equator and temperate zones. The Northern and Southern light shows attest to this fact. Is it a coincidence that the "oldest" rocks are those found at deeper levels?

---

Deeper levels of what?

quote:

---

We also know that shielding plays an important role in keeping things from "becoming radioactive". Astrophysicists can determine the effectiveness of different materials and thicknesses of those materials in order to develop the most cost-effective shielding for spacecraft.

---

And?

quote:

---

What's so bad about extrapolating the concept of shielding (known to protect things in space) to the earth's crust? In other words, what impact do the layers of rock have on the amount of radiation penetrating to deeper layers.

---

Well since the atmosphere and the magnetic field of the earth eliminate enough cosmic radiation to allow life on earth, I would imagine that a few inches of rock and soil might be even more effective. So, in fact, we have extrapolated the concept of shielding to show that it really should have little effect on carefully collected samples for K-Ar dating.

quote:

---

Is this effect not measurable? Why do geologists and geochronologists refuse to even consider this effect? Hence my comment about heads in sand...

---

How do you know that they haven't? Perhaps it has been considered and rejected.

quote:

---

For those who think I'm out on a limb, consider the following:

​

"Because the geomagnetic field provides shielding against incoming cosmic rays, its strength determines the amount of this radiation that reaches the upper atmosphere. Reactions with these cosmic rays produces radioactive isotopes of certain elements such as 10Be, 14C, 36Cl, 3He, and others that are useful for dating and correlating geologic materials. Fluctuations in magnetic field strength, however, determine the amount of nuclides produced at any given time and uncertainties in production rates are a major factor affecting the accuracy of age determinations. By accurately determining geomagnetic paleointensity through time, the production rates of the cosmogenic nuclides can be established more closely, thus enhancing the various dating methods."

​

Taken from :
USGS URL Resolution Error Page

---

Please not that all of these are effected at high altitudes in the earth's atmosphere. Could you please show us where someone has taken a K-Ar sample at 100,000 feet in elevation?

I think I'd have to call that an urban legend, too, in the absence of a cite: 40K decays by beta particles, which are pretty wimpy radiation...

Hi Manny, First, here on the ground we're pretty completely shielded from cosmic rays by the atmosphere. Cosmic rays do not penetrate through the atmosphere to cause any significant nuclear transformations on or beneath the ground.Second, the passage you quote is actually referring to dating techniques using isotopes of carbon, beryllium and chlorine that can only be produced cosmogenically. K-Ar dating, on the other hand, is based upon the decay of already-existing potassium-40 into argon gas.It's important to understand the difference between the two techniques. C-14 dating is based upon cosmogenically produced C-14. Cosmic rays collide with atoms of N-14 in the atmosphere and transform it into C-14. The constant production of C-14 by this process produces a relatively constant concentration of C-14 within our atmosphere, and this C-14 becomes incorporated into all life along with normal C-12 carbon. Because the ratio of C-14 to C-12 is relatively constant, and because C-14 decays to C-12 with a half-life of roughly 5730 years, and because an organism's intake of carbon ceases at death, the ratio of C-14 to C-12 tells us how long ago the organism died.K-Ar dating is based upon the decay of K-40 already present within the earth to argon gas. The proportion of K-40 to normal potassium is constant within nature. Once magma cools to form igneous rocks the potassium is locked into the rock matrix, and over time the K-40 decays to argon so that the ratio of K-40 to normal potassium tells us the amount of time that has passed since the rock has cooled. Cosmic rays have no impact on either the production or decay of K-40.--Percy

Could you get to the point of you post?You seem to be suggesting a bunch of ways that some measurement techniques might be made less accurate. However, wild speculation isn't of much value at all. This is exactly the kind of discussions that practitioners in these areas have over coffee.When they think them through a bit more and do a few back of envelope calculations they may find an area for a bit of research.If I'm reading between the lines of your posts correctly you're suggesting that you can think of some issue that hasn't been covered. Why in the world do you think you can do that?