How can we determine the age of ancient substances using radiocarbon dating?

  • Thread starter Thread starter dumbadum
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
Radiocarbon dating determines the age of ancient substances by measuring the decay of carbon-14, which has a half-life of approximately 5730 years. The decay rate, expressed in disintegrations per minute (dpm), indicates how many carbon-14 atoms are decaying into stable nitrogen-14 atoms. When a plant dies, it stops absorbing carbon-14, and the remaining amount decreases exponentially over time. By comparing the current disintegration rate to that of living plants, one can calculate the age of the sample. Understanding the principles of radioactive decay and applying the appropriate formulas allows for accurate age estimation of ancient materials.
dumbadum
Messages
23
Reaction score
0
I was doing a question which gave the decay rate of the ancient substance as 13.2dpm. The question asked that assuming living plants now has a disintegration rate of 15.3 dpm, and the half-life of carbon-14 is 5730 years, what is the age of the ancient substance.

I went on the internet, and got a question similar to this:
Charcoal @ stone Henge has C14 in concentration which produced 8.2dpm/gram
normal C14 from a tree is 13.5 dpm/g
half life of C14 is 5568 years,
what is the age of the charcoal.
There was a solution on the website which went something like this:

Law of radioactive decay:
Radioactive decay at rate that is proportional to the amount of radioactive material present.

d/dt (decay(t)) = -kdecay(t)
t=0 at the time when stone henge is built
decay(0) = 13.5
decay(t) = 13.5 x 10^(-kt)
13.5x10^(-k5568)=0.5(13.5)
Then I just got so confused...
Please explain how exactly to start a question regarding radioactive decay and what is disintegration per minute per gram?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
as far as the last part, what is disintegration per minute per gram -

its just how many radioactive c-14 atoms are disintegrating into stable N-14 atoms per minute, per gram. If you have twice as many grams, there will be twice as many radioactive decays going on.

The radioactive c14 is created by a reaction with the sun's rays and normal nitrogen in the atmosphere. A plant absorbs this radioactive carbon through photosynthesis while it is alive. When it dies this C14 begins to decay. After 5730 years, half of it will be decayed. After another 5730 years another half will be decayed (1/4 of the orginal amount). Then 1/8 , 1/16 etc.

So its an exponential curve when you plot out how many disintegrations are occurring at different dates. That's what those formulas represent. So plug the nums in and you should come up with something.
 
Here is a graph of the decay. At the very left side the tree has just died. They know about how much C14 is in it at that time. My measuring how much C14 is in it years after, you can approx its age. You measure this by counting how many disintigrations per minuit per gram are occurring.


http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/Images/ae403a.gif

PHP:
ddd


use this site for the math

http://math.usask.ca/emr/examples/expdeceg.html
 
Last edited:
thank you!
 
Thread 'Confusion regarding a chemical kinetics problem'
TL;DR Summary: cannot find out error in solution proposed. [![question with rate laws][1]][1] Now the rate law for the reaction (i.e reaction rate) can be written as: $$ R= k[N_2O_5] $$ my main question is, WHAT is this reaction equal to? what I mean here is, whether $$k[N_2O_5]= -d[N_2O_5]/dt$$ or is it $$k[N_2O_5]= -1/2 \frac{d}{dt} [N_2O_5] $$ ? The latter seems to be more apt, as the reaction rate must be -1/2 (disappearance rate of N2O5), which adheres to the stoichiometry of the...
I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...
Back
Top