The Error of Radiometric Dating Theory

Introduction

Radiometric Dating employs scientific theory rather than scientific fact

Theory

Methodology

Isochron

Types

Assumptions

Assumption: The decay rate of the parent isotype throughout history has remained constant.

Assumption: There is no contamination of the sample.

Historic Mortar Samples: “Over the last decades, important advancements have been made in the application of the 14C dating methods to lime mortar samples, including the use of lime lumps instead of generic pieces of mortar. However, a relevant number of results in disagreement with the chronological framework of the related archaeological cases are published every year without a clear understanding of the reasons for such results. This suggests that further developments to the methodology are needed. The commentary argues that to further develop this particular application of the 14C dating method, a new, more holistic approach is needed that moves away from the very “applied” approach that dominated the last decades and focuses more on the causes of contamination and the mechanism of the reactions involved.” (Pesce, 2023)

Quaternary Volcanic Rocks: “The 40Ar/39Ar age of 54 ± 7 ka is distinctly different from the zircon crystallization and eruption ages, and is considered to be inaccurate due to a possible issue with sample contamination or excess argon.” (Lee, 2024)

Phytoplankton: “For phytoplankton resting stages, longevity of thousands to millions of years has recently been reported. However, contamination during sediment sampling could distort these estimates, and this risk has not been systematically evaluated.”

Old Carbon: “Our results suggest that old carbon contamination is possible over a wide area, potentially leading to over-estimation of eruption ages by years, decades or more, cautioning against over-reliance on wiggle-match ages that are not corroborated by other lines of evidence.” (Holdaway, 2021)

Assumption: The Daughter isotope was absent at the origination of the sample.

Flaws

Flaw: The deep water cycle, migration of magma, and crustal migration of isotopes can introduce new isotopes into samples.

Flaw: Under the Closed-System requirement for radiometric dating, it is assumed that no parent or daughter isotope was lost or gained during or since the formation of the material.

Open System Behavior: “Estimation of the accuracy can be done through measurement of standards with known, certified ages and evaluating how far our measure is from the certified value. However, such measurements do not guarantee that sample ages are accurate, if, for instance, unknown samples are affected by open system behavior. Several parameters may affect the accuracy of an age determination as it will be discussed below. Precision indicates the uncertainty that we can attach to an age that we have measured and usually depends on limitations of the analytical tools used.” (Chiaradia, 2023)

Temperature Diffusion Effect: “All the points above bear on the fundamental question of what exactly are we dating when we apply a radiometric clock to a mineral? In ideal cases, where the mineral has remained a closed system since its formation, the answer is that we are dating the time elapsed since the mineral crystallised. In other cases, the radiometric age may reflect the time since the mineral cooled to a temperature below which diffusion of the parent and daughter isotopes becomes so slow that the mineral acts as a closed system. This temperature is known as closure temperature (Dodson 1973 ). Because the closure temperature depends on crystal structure, grain size of the crystal, and atomic size of the diffusing isotope, there is a wide range of closure temperatures (from  >  900 to  <  100 ℃ ) for the different radiometric dating systems applied to different minerals (Fig. 2 ).” (Chiaradia, 2023)

Chronological Uncertainty: “Individual radiocarbon-date densities do not represent duration or through-time variation in a process that produces radiocarbon samples – they represent chronological uncertainty. It follows, then, that sums or aggregates of individual date densities also reflect chronological uncertainty in some way. Currently, to our knowledge, no attempts have been made to derive accurate point-wise interpretations for the established proxies, which leaves open crucial questions about how chronological uncertainty affects point-wise comparisons.” (Carleton, 2021)

Generic Sampling and Taphonomic Bias: “We review Australian studies, focussing on sampling bias and taphonomic bias, finding that (i) time-averaged radiometric data cannot simply be correlated across regions, and (ii) sedimentology imposes genuine constraints upon what can be known. Internationally, flaws in SPD use occur in all main research phases, and most importantly, at the initial phase of defining research questions, logic and general approach. Major problems stem from not planning to obtain a sound understanding of the variability of past sedimentary environments, potential occupation sites and site formation processes. Thus, cultural inferences are too often made from archaeological data without due consideration of the natural processes that may explain the data.” (Ward, 2021)

Flaw: There is inconsistency in results when using different methods of radiometric dating.

“The authors measured a series of carbon-14 ages in southern Jordan tree rings, with established calendar dates between 1610 and 1940 A.D. They found that contemporary plant material growing in the southern Levant shows an average offset in radiocarbon age of about 19 years compared the current Northern Hemisphere standard calibration curve…..Applying their results to previously published chronologies, the researchers show how even the relatively small offsets they observe can shift calendar dates by enough to alter ongoing archaeological, historical and paleoclimate debates.” (Cornell University, 2018)

Flaw: Radiocarbon dating (C-14) is prone to error in dating old objects due to the limited half-life of 5,730 years.

The Extensively Proven Unreliability of C-14 Dating: “It is apparent that if 14C measurements were perfect for both (i) the calibration curve and (ii) for the dendro-sequenced time-series dated, and if (iii) the relationship between the calendar and 14C timescales was monotonic, then there should be 0-error because (ii) should perfectly match (i) at the correct temporal placement and there is no possibility for ambiguity (given iii). However, none of these conditions applies in reality. Instead, variable precision is obtained depending on a combination of the structure (shape) of the 14C calibration curve versus the quality, density and length of the dated time-series. While the identification of several solar energetic particle (Miyake) events (e.g. 660 BCE; 774, 993 CE) (Miyake et al., 2012, 2013; Park et al., 2017) has allowed wiggle-matching to an annual, or even sub-annual, precision (Kuitems et al., 2020, 2021; Oppenheimer et al., 2017; Philippsen et al., 2021; Wacker et al., 2014), these exist for only some restricted time periods (for all currently recognized events see Brehm et al., 2022, 2021) and in most cases cannot be relied on to provide high-resolution dates.” (McDonald, 2023)

Conclusion

References