Radioactive Decay: Calculating Age of Archaeological Sample

  • Thread starter Thread starter frankR
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Decay Radio
AI Thread Summary
Libby's development of radioactive carbon dating is based on the uniform production of C-14 by cosmic radiation, which has a disintegration rate of 15.0 disintegrations per gram per minute. Upon the death of an organism, C-14 decays with a half-life of 5730 years. A sample with a disintegration rate of 0.03 indicates that multiple half-lives have passed since the organism's death. The calculations confirm that the sample is approximately 51,374 years old, which aligns with the effective range of C-14 dating. The discussion highlights the importance of understanding half-lives in determining the age of archaeological samples.
frankR
Messages
91
Reaction score
0
Libby's observation that all the carbon in the world's living cycle is kept uniformly radioactive through the production of C-14 by cosmic radiation led to his development of the radioactive carbon dating method. Samples of carbon in the life cycle have been found to have a disintegration rate of 15.0 disintegrations per gram per minute. Upon death of the living organism, the life cycle ceases and the C-14 in the material decays with a half-life of 5730 years. If an archaeological sample was determined to have a disintegration rate of 0.03 disintegrations per gram per minute, how old is the sample?


This problem is killing me.

So far the real thing I've been able to find is how long the sample has been dead:

t = ln(2 &lambda No)/lambda

No = the initial number of radioactive nuclei

Can I get a hint?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Well, you know that the total C-14 content decreases by a factor 1/2 during one half-life. This is of course also true for the disintegration rate. Now, you know that the disintegration rate has gone down from 15.0 to 0.03. How many half-lifes did that take?
 
Originally posted by arcnets
Well, you know that the total C-14 content decreases by a factor 1/2 during one half-life. This is of course also true for the disintegration rate. Now, you know that the disintegration rate has gone down from 15.0 to 0.03. How many half-lifes did that take?

That's an interesting way to look at the problem.

I'll see what I can do with that.

Thanks
 
I get:

t = 1.62 x 1012s

Is this correct?

Thanks

Edit:

Which is 51374 years.

I just looked up how old C-14 dating is good too. It said 50,000 years. So it looks like I'm right.

This problem was easy, I don't know why I struggled with it so much!
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by frankR
Is this correct?
Yes.
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top