What Determines Absolute Dates in Radiometric Dating?

  • Thread starter Thread starter david13579
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on determining absolute dates through radiometric dating, specifically evaluating the influence of parent and daughter isotopes. Participants debate whether the accumulation of daughter isotopes, loss of parent isotopes, or loss of daughter isotopes affects dating results. There is uncertainty about the role of lost daughter isotopes in changing the ratios used for dating. Ultimately, the consensus leans towards the idea that all factors (A, B, and C) are relevant, suggesting the answer is D. Understanding the interactions between isotopes is crucial for accurate absolute dating.
david13579
Messages
19
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Which measurement would help determine absolute dates by radiometric means?

A. the accumulation of the daughter isotope
B. the loss of parent isotopes
C. the loss of daughter isotopes
D. all three of these
E. A&B only

Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution


My guess is that it is E since radio dating is measuring the ration of the original isotope versus the new one but I am not sure.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
So you think loss of daughter isotopes doesn't influence dating result?

Does it change the ratio?

I must admit I am not sure how to understand "absolute date" in this context, so I can be thinking wrong.
 
Borek said:
So you think loss of daughter isotopes doesn't influence dating result?

Does it change the ratio?

I must admit I am not sure how to understand "absolute date" in this context, so I can be thinking wrong.

How I see it is x becomes y and y becomes z but the way I see it y and z and both daughters and the ratio of y and z together versus x is what would give the age. Ie, how I see it no daughters are lost. I'm not sure though which is why I ask for help.
 
Each isotope ratio gives separate answer - and each answer should be identical. However, if any of the daughters is lost, it changes all ratios for all isotopes were one isotope is above and one is below the daughter in the chain.
 
So the answer is D, all of the above?
 
If I understand the question correctly - yes.
 
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...

Similar threads

Back
Top