Real Science Radio: Deep Wells--Deep Time? 14c There Too?

[Stripe]

Have it your way. :loser:

Someone wake me up when an evolutionist has a valid point to make.

 

[DavisBJ]

Have it your way. :loser:

Someone wake me up when an evolutionist has a valid point to make.

Now that Stripe is back in his crib with his pacifier, I hope he does take his nap and that 6 responds to the specifics of what I asked.

 

[Jukia]

Only if you can show what the ratios were at the time the organism died.

Stripe, what if the C14 dating showed the sample to be 3,000 years old. Would you accept that?

 

[Yorzhik]

C-14 can be formed in different ways. Atmospheric production of C-14 dominates in plants that take in atmospheric CO2, whilst nuclear radiation production dominates in stuff that has been buried a long time (coal/diamonds). The science is clear, but you have rejected it for want of some hard thinking.

You'll have to find another source for C14 in coal and diamonds than radiation. It's been established scientifically that the amount of radiation required to do this is a great deal more than is found with the samples. You'll have to tell us this new source.

 

[DavisBJ]

You'll have to find another source for C14 in coal and diamonds than radiation. It's been established scientifically that the amount of radiation required to do this is a great deal more than is found with the samples. You'll have to tell us this new source.

Maybe this has already been covered, but specifically (from a formal scientific study), how much C14 is detected in coal or diamonds? And, where can I find the scientific study you mention that establishes the amount of radiation that is available to create C14 in diamonds and coal, and how much radiation would be required to create the questionable C14?

 

[gcthomas]

You'll have to find another source for C14 in coal and diamonds than radiation. It's been established scientifically that the amount of radiation required to do this is a great deal more than is found with the samples. You'll have to tell us this new source.

Scientifically established that there is no natural explanation for the origin of C14 in diamonds? I have covered this before, in one of Nazeroids threads, so here it is again. Feel free to reproduce these simple calculations independently, and see if you get similar results.

Let's try some order of magnitude calculations to see if the argument against the uranium source of C14 holds water.

Let's assume only C13 to C14 by neutron absorption. C13 makes up 1.1% of all carbon. Uranium and thorium make up 2 ppm of coal, so we'll use that figure for rock near diamond forming carbon.

That U/Th concentration will give about 3.2e-5 neutrons per kg per second from activation of other nuclei by the alpha emission (WISE calculator output)

The reaction rate per unit volume of C13 to C14 is the number density of carbon, times neutron flux times nuclear cross section.
3.2e-5 neutrons per kg per s gives a flux density of about 0.00042 neutrons per s per square metre, while the cross section is listed as 9 barns. Multiplied together, you get 530 atoms of C14 per second per metre cubed.

In equilibrium with its decay to N14, this gives 1.3e14 atoms of C14 per kg of carbon. Less favourable conditions, such as other neutron absorbers in the rock, will reduce this figure somewhat.

This is a thousand times higher than Baumgartner claimed to see in the diamonds.

Seems like Baumgartner's measurements of carbon dates for the diamonds are well within the noise of the neutron generated C14. So, did the diamonds have C14 they shouldn't have had? Nope. Definitely nope.

Not just 'guesses' Naz. Physics. Look it up. Physics can do calculations you know. Does that surprise you?

 

[DavisBJ]

Let's try some order of magnitude calculations to see if the argument against the uranium source of C14 holds water.

Let's assume only C13 to C14 by neutron absorption. C13 makes up 1.1% of all carbon. Uranium and thorium make up 2 ppm of coal, so we'll use that figure for rock near diamond forming carbon.

That U/Th concentration will give about 3.2e-5 neutrons per kg per second from activation of other nuclei by the alpha emission (WISE calculator output)

The reaction rate per unit volume of C13 to C14 is the number density of carbon, times neutron flux times nuclear cross section.
3.2e-5 neutrons per kg per s gives a flux density of about 0.00042 neutrons per s per square metre, while the cross section is listed as 9 barns. Multiplied together, you get 530 atoms of C14 per second per metre cubed.

In equilibrium with its decay to N14, this gives 1.3e14 atoms of C14 per kg of carbon. Less favourable conditions, such as other neutron absorbers in the rock, will reduce this figure somewhat.

This is a thousand times higher than Baumgartner claimed to see in the diamonds.

Seems like Baumgartner's measurements of carbon dates for the diamonds are well within the noise of the neutron generated C14. So, did the diamonds have C14 they shouldn't have had? Nope. Definitely nope.

Not just 'guesses' Naz. Physics. Look it up. Physics can do calculations you know. Does that surprise you?

Have you vetted this calculation? My concern is that although Baumgardner is a creationist, he has respectable scientific credentials. I can’t help but think that his claim of vastly lower C14 production due to local decay events is based on data and calculations that he would know would come under technical scrutiny. He would know that if his claim is easily falsified then he does no favor to the creationist cause nor to his own reputations as a credible scientist. Your argument becomes much more persuasive if you can show specifically the errors in his data or methodology. If you faced him one-on-one in a debate focused on this local production of C14, what would his critique of your approach be?

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Scientifically established that there is no natural explanation for the origin of C14 in diamonds? I have covered this before, in one of Nazeroids threads, so here it is again. Feel free to reproduce these simple calculations independently, and see if you get similar results.

Shouldn't the neutron cross section for C13 be 0.0009 barns instead of 9?

 

[Yorzhik]

Maybe this has already been covered, but specifically (from a formal scientific study), how much C14 is detected in coal or diamonds? And, where can I find the scientific study you mention that establishes the amount of radiation that is available to create C14 in diamonds and coal, and how much radiation would be required to create the questionable C14?

I'll see if I can get that for you.

 

[Yorzhik]

Scientifically established that there is no natural explanation for the origin of C14 in diamonds? I have covered this before, in one of Nazeroids threads, so here it is again. Feel free to reproduce these simple calculations independently, and see if you get similar results.

Did OEJ's change in barns change the calculation?

 

[gcthomas]

Shouldn't the neutron cross section for C13 be 0.0009 barns instead of 9?

Thanks! It is hard to proof read your own stuff. Looks like I should have stuck to the 14N(n,p)14C reaction which does have a cross section of over a barn, and uranium fission and added the results together.

I wonder why the self proclaimed physics and polymath genius Nazaroo never noticed? :think:

I'll see if I can get that for you.

Baumgardner's article is here on the ICR website.

And an assessment of the work by physicist with a radiocarbon PhD here on TalkOrigins.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Thanks! It is hard to proof read your own stuff. Looks like I should have stuck to the 14N(n,p)14C reaction which does have a cross section of over a barn, and uranium fission and added the results together.

So how does that work out? It's got a much higher neutron cross section for thermal capture, but I'd imagine it isn't nearly as abundant in diamonds or coal as C13. How much N14 is found in a typical diamond? Other than C14 that's already decayed, I wouldn't think there'd be a whole lot.

I wonder why the self proclaimed physics and polymath genius Nazaroo never noticed? :think:

I dunno. I'd never heard of C13 before, so I did a little impromptu research.

 

[gcthomas]

So how does that work out? It's got a much higher neutron cross section for thermal capture, but I'd imagine it isn't nearly as abundant in diamonds or coal as C13. How much N14 is found in a typical diamond? Other than C14 that's already decayed, I wouldn't think there'd be a whole lot.



I dunno. I'd never heard of C13 before, so I did a little impromptu research.

Nitrogen is the biggest contaminant of diamonds, up to a percent or so I think.

Even for the rarer C13 conversion, after the correction it can still account for a significant fraction of what Baumgardner measured, with all the unknowns about the conditions of formation and processing over a long time period. I don't think his calculations are sufficient to reject a long age for the diamonds on the sole basis of C14. For mist scientists in this situation, they'd be looking for other confirming evidence before rejecting all the other strong evidence for an old Earth. Weak evidence is never going to do it.