How to fool carbon 14 dating
Members of the Paleochronology group presented their findings at the 2012 Western Pacific Geophysics Meeting in Singapore, August 13-17, a conference of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) and the Asia Oceania Geosciences Society (AOGS).Since dinosaurs are thought to be over 65 million years old, the news is stunning - and more than some can tolerate.
Critical thinking is a skill that must be practiced, and any ‘expert’ is equally susceptible to being deceived by simple gimmicks.A cotton T-shirt manufactured and tested in 2050 may appear to be the same age as an artifact from the 11th century when dated using the radiocarbon method.A new shirt made in 2100, if emissions continue unabated, could appear to come from the year 100, alongside something worn by a Roman soldier.It's all about the simultaneous interactions among any three nucleons and the resulting influence on the decay of carbon-14.And it's no easy task to simulate those interactions.Credit: Photo by Bob Elbert/Iowa State University And while the carbon dating technique is well known and understood (the ratio of carbon-14 to other carbon isotopes is measured to determine the age of objects containing the remnants of any living thing), the reason for carbon-14's slow decay has not been understood.
Why, exactly, does carbon-14 have a half-life of nearly 6,000 years while other light atomic nuclei have half-lives of minutes or seconds?
Scientific skepticism is applying a critical eye to popular culture and with evidence-based inquiry of supernatural and pseudoscientific claims.
One goal is to inform people about the many hoaxes, frauds, and swindlers out there and how to spot them.
In this case, it took about 30 million processor-hours on the Jaguar supercomputer at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee.
Jaguar has a peak performance of 2.3 quadrillion calculations per second, a speed that topped the list of the world's top 500 supercomputers when the carbon-14 simulations were run.
After the AOGS-AGU conference in Singapore, the abstract was removed from the conference website by two chairmen because they could not accept the findings.