Billion-fold radiometric decay

[NIF]

Hi all. I remember a while back I introduced myself as a new member... and then needed to disappear for two weeks. well, the two weeks turned into something like 4 months, But Im back now

for a while anyway. so excuse me if I don't respond to posts daily.

 

anyway

here is a link to an article describing how radiometric decay can be sped up significantly by the removal of electrons from around the atom.

after reading the article, discuss what implications this will have on accurate radiometric dating, and thus on the accurace of the theory of evolution.

 

http://creation.com/billion-fold-acceleration-of-radioactivity-demonstrated-in-laboratory

 

also, please completely ignore the second half of the article titled "A Creation Week scenario". this forum is neither the time nor the place to be discussing the theological implications. we shall focus on the scientific implications here. If you strongly feel the need to bring God or Religion into the debate, then feel free to use this link and open a new thread in the Teological forums.

 

for those who want an overview of the article:

basicly...the normal, natural, state of an atom (a) is with the same amount of electrons orbiting the atom as there are protons within the neucleus. And a fully ionised atom (b) is one where all orbiting electrons have been stripped away. The energy required to escape an atom when the electron shell is filled (a) is greater than the energy required for the electron to jump to a vacant spot in an electron shell (b)

Thus, if you strip away the electrons... the decay rate increases. if that happens then the "age" of a radiometric material also increases.

 

discuss:

[swansont]

Basically zero effect. These are completely ionized atoms. Where would you see this in nature?

[Moontanman]

Completely ionized atoms would never be a part of a life form nor would completely ionized atoms be a significant part of the solid earth. The decay daughter elements would not stay around to be measured if it all started out as plasma and so you would never see a uranium lead ratio that could be based on uranium plasma decaying into lead plasma. to say this in any way negates radioactive dating ignores reality completely...

[overtone]

This has nothing to do with the "accuracy" (?) of the current standard theory of evolution,

 

(which is not dependent on (and was not formulated with respect to) any particular technique of estimating the age of ionized plasmas, for starters).

 

Why was this posted in Biology?

Edited December 29, 2012 by overtone

[NIF]

Surely you don't think that it has no effect on evolution. I agree that such atoms would not stick around for very long at all, therefore would have a negligible effect.

If we assume a linear relationship. if full electrons have a normal decay rate, and no electrons have a billion fold decay rate, then half electrons should yield half a billion fold decay rate. The implications are not limited to a fully ironised atom

 

So what say you about the concept of decay rate increase of 2% ? Or 200% ?

[swansont]

Surely you don't think that it has no effect on evolution. I agree that such atoms would not stick around for very long at all, therefore would have a negligible effect.

If we assume a linear relationship. if full electrons have a normal decay rate, and no electrons have a billion fold decay rate, then half electrons should yield half a billion fold decay rate. The implications are not limited to a fully ironised atom

 

This is a matter of science. You don't just assume a linear relationship, you need a model that predicts it and you confirm it experimentally. Where is your model and your confirmation?

[NIF]

Sorry if this is in the wrong forum. I saw 'evolution' and put it there

I blame my noobishness.

 

I would be grateful if the admin could move this to the correct forum. We may as well have the right kind of people reading/replying to this thread

[Moontanman]

NIF, you are missing something very important here, the "radioactive clock" doesn't start until the material in question has stopped exchanging material with the outside environment. Plasma's do not keep the decay products from escaping, the idea that radioactive decay of plasma is accelerated has no connection what so ever with radiometric dating.

 

Radiometric dating works by measuring the ratio between the original radioactive element and it's decay products, this doesn't start until the material has solidified. As long as the decay products can escape the "clock" doesn't start, it starts when the material in question stops exchanging material with the outside environment.

 

The decay rate of plasma no matter how fast or slow it is has no bearing on radiometric dating because the decay products do not stay with the material but easily escape into the surrounding environment...

[overtone]

Surely you don't think that it has no effect on evolution.

Anything physical will have some kind distant association with anything else physical, but other than that I see no particular connection. That's what I said, and yes I do think that.

 

The decay rate of plasma no matter how fast or slow it is has no bearing on radiometric dating because the decay products do not stay with the material but easily escape into the surrounding environment.

The basic problem is simpler than that: this poster thinks that problems with radiometric dating would somehow influence the current standard theory of evolution.

[Moontanman]

Anything physical will have some kind distant association with anything else physical, but other than that I see no particular connection. That's what I said, and yes I do think that.

 

The basic problem is simpler than that: this poster thinks that problems with radiometric dating would somehow influence the current standard theory of evolution.

 

 

Yes, even if radiometric dating was wrong evolution would still be mostly right and creationism would still be demonstrably false...

[NIF]

Thank you all for your replies.

judging by some of your responses, I think it is best if I clarify my personal views and also the the tangent I was wishing my question to follow:

Yes, even if radiometric dating was wrong evolution would still be mostly right and creationism would still be demonstrably false...

I would like to point out that proving creationism to be 'demonstrably false' (which you have claimed but not backed up, I might add) is no more a valid argument for evolution accuracy then if I was to make the same claim in reverse.
its like claiming babies come from stalks because they don't grow in the cabbage patch.

this poster thinks that problems with radiometric dating would somehow influence the current standard theory of evolution.

very true, and with just reason.
if a fossil is found and then dated to be 10 million years old, that fossil will then influence the 'evolutionary model' for species in the area.
on the reverse side, if a 'dino' was dated as being only 200 years old... that then throws a spanner in the works for evolutionists until they decide "it somehow survived for x years without evolving. amazing..."
go and read any evolution forum at random. I can guarantee you will find someone use radiometric dating, either directly or indirectly, as supporting evidence for the accuracy of the evolutionary model.

all this being said, you are right that strictly speaking evolution could still exist even if you completely reshuffled the fish-frog-monkey-man timeline of WHEN things evolved. But that will still change the 'standard theory of evolution.'

The decay rate of plasma no matter how fast or slow it is has no bearing on radiometric dating because [......]

I am sorry for not being more clear with my OP.
yes, I did use plasma as the example for increase rate of decay. yes, plasma is rare and short lived in nature. what I failed to get across is that this is only the upper bracket.
a key point I was trying to bring forward is that an atom of a lesser charge will see a decay rate increase of a lesser amount.
I will say that again... it will see a decay rate increase...

my intended question was never meant to be about the plasma. it was meant to be about the possibility of an increase in the rate of decay of "radiometric clocks".
a change in decay rate of any type will make the 'clocks' inaccurate. and depending on the material, the charge amount, the time the charge is held, the temp.... will all change the decay rate. thus "rate" is no longer a constant......................... I feel like I'm going around in circles with this explanation. I believe you are smart enough to ascertain both my intended meaning and the implications of it.


so, with all of this in mind:
do the rest of you share overtones view that the radiometric dating method will not "somehow influence the current standard theory of evolution."

[swansont]

yes, I did use plasma as the example for increase rate of decay. yes, plasma is rare and short lived in nature. what I failed to get across is that this is only the upper bracket.

a key point I was trying to bring forward is that an atom of a lesser charge will see a decay rate increase of a lesser amount.

I will say that again... it will see a decay rate increase...

 

my intended question was never meant to be about the plasma. it was meant to be about the possibility of an increase in the rate of decay of "radiometric clocks".

a change in decay rate of any type will make the 'clocks' inaccurate. and depending on the material, the charge amount, the time the charge is held, the temp.... will all change the decay rate. thus "rate" is no longer a constant......................... I feel like I'm going around in circles with this explanation. I believe you are smart enough to ascertain both my intended meaning and the implications of it.

 

But you haven't presented any evidence that this is true. You have assumed a linear interpolation without any justification for doing so.

[Moontanman]

You have assumed that decay rates in plasma have any connection to radiometric dating. Several different types of radiometric data support each other along with the geological column and the fossil record. Nothing supports creationism.

 

Decay rates in plasma have nothing to do with radiometric dating because plasma is not dated. For radiometric dating to be suspect you would have to show how radioactive decay can be affected in solid rock, there is no evidence to support this...

 

 

I would like to point out that proving creationism to be 'demonstrably false' (which you have claimed but not backed up, I might add) is no more a valid argument for evolution accuracy then if I was to make the same claim in reverse.
its like claiming babies come from stalks because they don't grow in the cabbage patch.

 

 

 

 

It is easy to show that modern animals did not come into existence as they are now, You will find no bunny rabbits in the Cambrian era, so creationism is false...

 

 

 

a key point I was trying to bring forward is that an atom of a lesser charge will see a decay rate increase of a lesser amount.
I will say that again... it will see a decay rate increase...

 

Can you show some evidence of that?

 

my intended question was never meant to be about the plasma. it was meant to be about the possibility of an increase in the rate of decay of "radiometric clocks".
a change in decay rate of any type will make the 'clocks' inaccurate. and depending on the material, the charge amount, the time the charge is held, the temp.... will all change the decay rate. thus "rate" is no longer a constant......................... I feel like I'm going around in circles with this explanation. I believe you are smart enough to ascertain both my intended meaning and the implications of it.

 

 

Again no evidence of this is or has been seen, if such an effect was happening it would be easy to detect.... and no such effect has been detected...

Edited December 30, 2012 by Moontanman