How old is the earth carbon dating
“This (work) shows unequivocally for the first time that there is indeed a real problem in the uranium/lead evolution in meteorites, in that in each of these meteorites there is now insufficient uranium to support the lead isotope composition.
“It therefore follows that the whole of the classical interpretation of the meteorite lead isotope data is in doubt, and that the radiometric estimates of the age of the Earth are placed in jeopardy.” In plain language, the radiometric estimates for the age of the earth are lacking real foundations.
These ratios for many lead ores are plotted in Fig. The lowest ratios are taken to be the most ancient ores, formed at the beginning, billions of years ago and separated from further radiogenic enrichment. They show that widespread contamination and differentiation from various sources of lead have occurred during the more than one thousandfold concentration into the present lead ore deposits. There is no discontinuity whatever between results lying in the time clock zone and those lying in the alteration zone. Since there is no reason why the alteration zone should not extend into what is classified as the time clock zone (apart from a belief in 4.5 b.y.), the majority of the data can be explained as indicating a history of geochemical alteration.
Higher ratios are formed as the lead is fed by ageing uranium ore bodies. old lead fed continuously by uranium occurs at a lead-206 to lead-204 ratio of 18.5, which is taken as the present ratio for common lead. 3 since they have negative ages, that is, ages extending billions of years into the future, in some cases. Therefore the ores lying in the time clock zone are not necessarily any more a reflection of age than those lying in the alteration zone and ones lying in the alteration zone cannot possibly be time indicators.
The values they assumed were based on the lead isotope ratios observed for three meteorites.
Since meteorites have not proved to be the ancient objects from the sky that one might imagine, it is surprising that they should be assumed to give the primordial lead composition on Earth.
magazine has been continuously published since 1978, we are publishing some of the articles from the archives for historical interest, such as this.
Because it is not generally appreciated that the assumptions on which the radiometric estimates are based are a virtually impossible sequence of events, let us refresh our minds on the fundamentals of the method by turning to the hourglass analogy (Fig. This system of measuring time works well providing that: Since radioactive decay constants are believed to be unalterable, the requirement of an absolutely reproducible rate is hopefully met.
Since 1955 the estimate for the age of the Earth has been based on the assumption that certain meteorite lead isotope ratios are equivalent to the primordial lead isotope ratios on Earth.
In 1972 this assumption was shown to be highly questionable.
There is a large body of discordant data but concordant data are scarce.
In 1955 a symposium on radiometric dating was held from which the following was given in the summary: “Radioactive ‘dating’ has been perhaps the most widely publicised of geochemical techniques, but of several known dating methods based on radioactivity, only C-14 dating has developed to the point where it yields consistently reliable ages.Lead-206 and lead-207 are also believed to be present in primordial lead since there is insufficient uranium to account for all the lead.