Please Explain This

[doushantuo]

A while back I posted on the Oklo nuclear reactor.

Now,one of the more interesting features about this phenomenon is that it has allowed the study of (and thus the putting of constraints on)decay constants* from approximately 2 billion years ago.

*and other constants as well(Hubble's,Planck's,Fermi's).

FYI :The decay rate λ of radioactive nuclide depends on nuclear constants. For example, in the case of high Z and small decay energy δ the β-decay rate λβ is highly sensitive to the value of α. The estimate of the “sensitivity” s gives [1] s ≡ δλβ λβ .δα α = −(2Z + 1)(2 + p 1 − α2Z2) · A −1/3 · 0.6[MeV /∆] For the transition 187 75 Re →187 76 Os (T1/2 ≈ 40 billion years, ∆ = 2.5 keV), this estimate gives s = −2 · 104 . 

More on the subject:

1-s2.0-S0969804317303822-main.pdf

Applied Radiation and Isotopes 134 (2018) 6–12

Is decay constant?
S. Pomméa,⁎, H. Stroha, T. Altzitzogloua, J. Paepena, R. Van Ammela, K. Kossertb, O. Nähleb,
J.D. Keightleyc, K.M. Ferreirac, L. Verheyend, M. Bruggemand

 

[doushantuo]

To the left: Fossilized tree from the Fremouw lagerstatt (Triassic of Antarctica)

to the right: Uranium abundances at Oklo.

Note the differences between the 235 and 238 Uranium isotopes ,consistent with the age of the Oklo deposit

[Duppa]

Wow too much information for my brain to absorb haha. Thanks for all that Doushantou. I might start with the earlier articles you recommend, where do I go to download a copy? I'm very interested in checking that out and it looks as though I might even understand it haha. 

[Duppa]

As for your last post, I don't know exactly what I'm looking for in the table as it's a whole new language to me. Could you please point out what you are referring to? I did look but I don't know if those differences are considered a big margin or very similar? 

Thanks again 

[doushantuo]

a threefold difference in abundance in isotopes is significant

[Duppa]

OK, so what does that suggest? 

I hope you don't think I'm stupid, I'm just very interested but haven't ever done any studies on this subject. 

[doushantuo]

I seldom/very rarely/Hardly ever think people are stupid,do NOT worry about that

[Duppa]

Awesome I was just reading the PDF and what I got is: the decay rates are very stable and not affected by environmental factors? Is that correct? 

[doushantuo]

haven't read it myself yet*

The decay constants of elements important in petrology/geochrolonology are constantly being (re)calibrated.

We(the people of Earth)need to have EXCELLENT temporal constraints on the miscellanous processes(core differentiation,outgassing,heat flow,formation of the crust,

past plate tectonics(or lack of it),etc

*which sounds slightly weird,I know

BTW: the Rimstedt/Kowalewski 2003 article is subscriber content/paywalled

THAT one i HAVE read

[Duppa]

OK, sweet I'll check that out! 

[Archie]

22 hours ago, Duppa said:

 I have heard scientific evidence has been found for increasing carbon levels from the beginning of the industrial revolution

We know from analyses of air bubles in ice cores that for the last 800,000 years levels have fluctuated between 180ppm during ice ages and 280ppm during warmer interglacial periods which is the level it was at prior to the industrial revolution. The latest measurement in December 2019 was 412ppm making current atmospheric CO2 levels the highest known in the last 800,000 years.

[Duppa]

2 hours ago, Archie said:

We know from analyses of air bubles in ice cores that for the last 800,000 years levels have fluctuated between 180ppm during ice ages and 280ppm during warmer interglacial periods which is the level it was at prior to the industrial revolution. The latest measurement in December 2019 was 412ppm making current atmospheric CO2 levels the highest known in the last 800,000 years.

That is just crazy and scary at the same time! How can anyone possibly deny that human activity has increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere? 

[FlyingRPh]

11 hours ago, Duppa said:

That is just crazy and scary at the same time! How can anyone possibly deny that human activity has increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere? 

My .02: lets (please) not get into the anthropegenic climate change debate. There are a multitude of theories and unfortunately, neither side of the debate is completely honest with the data. We dont need to start that fight here (IMHO).

[Duppa]

46 minutes ago, FlyingRPh said:

My .02: lets (please) not get into the anthropegenic climate change debate. There are a multitude of theories and unfortunately, neither side of the debate is completely honest with the data. We dont need to start that fight here (IMHO).

Haha nah not here to debate anything. That is just a massive increase in such a shot period. But that is only looking at the particular sample you mentioned

[FlyingRPh]

5 minutes ago, Duppa said:

Haha nah not here to debate anything. That is just a massive increase in such a shot period. But that is only looking at the particular sample you mentioned

LOL No problem, Im just sick of politics already and its still almost 10 months until our elections here...

 

That being said, I have enjoyed the refresher on carbon dating and seeing your photos. If I found something like that, I would have my cement saw out there taking out a slab to bring home.

[Duppa]

Don't give me ideas like that lol

I was just so interested on how it came to be, it got my imagination going and yes it was great for people to share their knowledge of carbon dating! 

I like to appoch things with an open mind because science has not always been correct in the past. We use the best known methods we have, same as what they did hundreds of years ago. Who knows what the human race would have discovered in hundreds of years to come

[Archie]

2 hours ago, Duppa said:

 I like to appoch things with an open mind because science has not always been correct in the past

While the findings of science change as new evidence comes to light (such as with regards to the age of the earth) the fact that it changes its mind when new evidence comes to light is really a strenghth rather than a weakness of it. What science does is to try to create models that best explain observations of the universe and make accurate predictions about it, rather than state facts   

[Duppa]

Yes I'd have to agree with that. When someone comes out with a new theory/concept/finding it may not be readily accepted by the scientific community. It has to be proven to an extent that it cannot be refuted before being generally accepted. This is a good thing. 

[Duppa]

I went back for another look with a fresh set of eyes after all the information obtained from this forum. I can now see how it was layed down in sediment and compacted in sandstone. The only odd thing is how it protrudes out at one end. I would have expected it be flush with the sandstone, or maybe it is just harder than it? 

[Scylla]

22 hours ago, FlyingRPh said:

My .02: lets (please) not get into the anthropegenic climate change debate. There are a multitude of theories and unfortunately, neither side of the debate is completely honest with the data. We dont need to start that fight here (IMHO).

Great rhetorical trick:

False equivalency now stop all debate.

[JohnJ]

Regardless, that is one debate for which there are thousands of other places online...than TFF.

[FlyingRPh]

4 hours ago, Scylla said:

Great rhetorical trick:

False equivalency now stop all debate.

THIS:

1 hour ago, JohnJ said:

Regardless, that is one debate for which there are thousands of other places online...than TFF.

 

[FlyingRPh]

17 hours ago, Duppa said:

I went back for another look with a fresh set of eyes after all the information obtained from this forum. I can now see how it was layed down in sediment and compacted in sandstone. The only odd thing is how it protrudes out at one end. I would have expected it be flush with the sandstone, or maybe it is just harder than it? 

And yet, you still didnt saw it out yet

 

[non-remanié]

2 hours ago, JohnJ said:

Regardless, that is one debate for which there are thousands of other places online...than TFF.

 

Summary of last few posts:

 

1) an incredibly dubious equivalency claim that challenges an overwhelming consensus is put forth

 

2) he then preemptively claims that to contradict his equivalency claim is tantamount to "politics"

 

3) mod basically clicks "like" on equivalency claim 

 

4) another poster points out the clear rhetorical trick 

 

5) above mod warns that all subsequent discussion must cease but wants dubious claim he liked to remain

 

 

If you want to shut down debate, so be it, but the only fair thing to do is delete EVERYTHING beginning with the post in which a guy made a very big unevidenced claim and then preemptively stated that if anyone contradicts him he's claiming "politics". 

[FlyingRPh]

2 hours ago, non-remanié said:

 

Summary of last few posts:

 

1) an incredibly dubious equivalency claim that challenges an overwhelming consensus is put forth

 

2) he then preemptively claims that to contradict his equivalency claim is tantamount to "politics"

 

3) mod basically clicks "like" on equivalency claim 

 

4) another poster points out the clear rhetorical trick 

 

5) above mod warns that all subsequent discussion must cease but wants dubious claim he liked to remain

 

 

If you want to shut down debate, so be it, but the only fair thing to do is delete EVERYTHING beginning with the post in which a guy made a very big unevidenced claim and then preemptively stated that if anyone contradicts him he's claiming "politics". 

Man, I wish I had your ability to read my thoughts. I merely tried to point out that I am firmly in the "undecided" category with climate change. My personal opinion is that it is in fact changing, I'm just not completely convinced yet that humanity is 100% the cause of it.

 

And I wasn't saying my wariness is because I think its all political grandstanding; my point being is that in the hyper-partisan environment that we currently find ourselves here in the US, I come to TFF to look at cool pics and read about other people's adventures. Nothing more, nothing less. I apologize if my typing doesn't carry as much eloquence as yours or @Scylla