Using the decay rate of rubidium isotope to determine age of fossils

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on using the decay rate of the rubidium isotope 87-Rb to calculate the age of fossils. The half-life of 87-Rb is 4.9 x 10^10 years, and the ratio of 87-Sr to 87-Rb in the rocks is 0.0100. Participants emphasize the need to use the correct decay equations, specifically the relationship between half-life and decay constant, to find the time it takes for 1% of Rb to decay. The conversation highlights the importance of estimating the age accurately, given the large numbers involved. Understanding the exponential decay formula is crucial for solving the problem effectively.
Helena_88
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Hello! i was just wondering if anyone could help me with this,

The rubidium isotope 87-Rb is a beta emitter with a half life of 4.9 x 10^10 yr that decays into 87-Sr. It is used to determine the age of rocks and fossils. Certain rocks contain a ratio of 87-Sr to 87Rb of 0.0100. Assuming there was no 87-Sr present when the rocks were formed, calculate the age of these fossils.

So far all i can think of doing is taking 1% of the half life as the answer but I'm very uncertain!

Thanks for any help with this :-)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
So the question asks how long does it take for 1% of the Rb to decay.

First of all you need an estimated answer, otherwise with such large numbers you will make a mistake.
The half life is the time it takes for 50% to decay, so we are looking for an answer much much less than the half-life.

Do you know the equation linking half life and decay rate ?
 
half life = ln(2)/decay constant = τln2
 
can i say that
because the ratio is Sr/Rb = 0.01
N/No = e^-λt so
0.01 = e^-λt

then t1/2 =ln/λ then find t?
 
Hmm...

Do you mean \frac{log(2)}{\lambda}?
 
yes i did.
 
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