Resolving the Age Discrepancies of Meteorite Dating: A Scientific Analysis

  • Thread starter Thread starter scatterbrain8
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Meteorite
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on reconciling three different age measurements of a meteorite: a rubidium-strontium age of 4.5 billion years, a gas retention age of 1.5 billion years, and a cosmic ray exposure age of 10 million years. The consensus suggests that the meteorite formed 4.5 billion years ago, as the rubidium-strontium dating reflects the time of solidification. The gas retention age indicates a more recent event, likely due to impacts or heating that caused gas loss, while the cosmic ray exposure age pertains to a much shorter timeframe of surface exposure. Differentiation within the meteorite may also affect the interpretation of these ages. Ultimately, the rubidium-strontium age is considered the most reliable for determining the meteor's formation time.
scatterbrain8
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
You find a meteorite and measure a rubidium-strontium age of 4.5 billion years. However, the gas retention age of the meteorite is 1.5 billion years, and the cosmic ray exposure age of the meteorite is 10 million years. When did the meteor form? How can you reconcile the three different age measurements?



Attempt at solution: So I'm not entirely sure about this because I don't really know anything about rubidium-strontium dating, but I think that the meteor formed 4.5 billion years ago. The gas retention age would only allow us to date back to the last time the meteor had been struck hard or had been heated up enough to allow gas to escape, so this wouldn't give us an accurate measure of the age of the meteor. The cosmic ray exposure would also doesn't give us an accurate measure of the age because cosmic rays only penetrate up to about a meter. In addition, differentiation in the meteorite would probably throw this age off as the elements on the meteor that were initially exposed to the sun may have moved to somewhere else inside the meteorite by now.

Is my guess right? Or would the rubidium strontium age only tell us the age of the rock particles that formed the meteorite?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
thanks, i think I've got it now.
 
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