World's Oldest Object

[Grom 0]

Now my only question is...how in the world did they date it? ::rolls dice:: Oh yes...4.4 billion years old...give or take. :blink:

 

------------------------

World's Oldest Object to Be Displayed

Friday, April 08, 2005

Assicaited Press

 

MADISON, Wis. — A tiny speck of zircon crystal (search) that is barely visible to the eye is believed to be the oldest known piece of Earth at about 4.4 billion years old. For the first time ever, the public will have a chance to see the particle Saturday at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, where researchers in 2001 made the breakthrough discovery that the early Earth was much cooler than previously believed based on analysis of the crystal.

 

To create buzz about an otherwise arcane subject, the university is planning a daylong celebration of the ancient stone — capped with "The Rock Concert" by jazz musicians who composed music to try to answer the question: What does 4.4 billion years old sound like?

 

"This is it — the oldest thing ever. One day only," said Joe Skulan, director of the UW-Madison Geology Museum (search), where the object will be displayed — under police guard — from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. "The idea of having a big celebration of something that's so tiny — we're playing with the obvious absurdity of it."

 

With the aid of a microscope, anyone will be able to check out the tiny grain, which measures less than two human hairs in diameter.

 

A concert by Jazz Passengers (search), a six-piece group from New York hired to compose music for the event, will follow on Saturday evening. In posters hanging on campus, the concert is advertised as "a loving musical tribute to the oldest known object on Earth."

 

 

Composer Roy Nathanson said the concert will mix humor, jazz music, computer-generated beats, and the occasional rocks being banged together to "follow the geological history of how this zircon came about."

 

"It's an amazing story. The whole thing is something that captures your imagination," said Nathanson, 53, a saxophonist who spent one year composing the performance.

 

Analysis of the object in 2001 by John Valley, a UW-Madison professor of geology and geophysics, startled researchers around the world by concluding that the early Earth, instead of being a roiling ocean of magma (search), was cool enough to have oceans and continents — key conditions for life.

 

"It's not very much to look at because it's so very small. But to me, the miraculous thing about the crystal is that we've been able to make such wide-ranging inferences about the early Earth," Valley said. "This is our first glimpse into the earliest history of the Earth."

 

Valley found that the planet had cooled to about 100-degrees Centigrade less than 200 million years after it was formed. Before the research, the oldest evidence for liquid water on the planet was from a rock estimated to be much younger — 3.8 billion years old.

 

As part of Saturday's event, Valley will display a brand new, $3 million ion microprobe that he and other researchers will use to analyze tiny samples such as the zircon crystal. The hand-built instrument weighs 11 tons and takes up an entire laboratory.

 

Valley, who has tried to obtain the equipment for 22 years, had to travel to Scotland and Australia while he analyzed the zircon to use equipment there. A federal grant is paying for most of the new instrument.

 

After the festivities the object will return to its native Australia with Simon Wilde, professor at Curtin University of Technology in Perth, Western Australia, who made its discovery in 1984. The sample will eventually be put on display at a natural history museum in that country.

[Travis Kroells 0]

Man...I thought we were going to get into a debate between Fred and A9...

 

::walks away disapointed::

[Seiben 0]

Now my only question is...how in the world did they date it? ::rolls dice:: Oh yes...4.4 billion years old...give or take. :blink:

 

Carbon dating.. I saw a show on TV on how they did it, but now I forgot it, lol. :blink:

[Grom 0]

Carbon dating.. I saw a show on TV on how they did it, but now I forgot it, lol. :blink:

Well yes...if you go to Mt. St. Helens right now you can find one month old ash carbon dated at several million years ago. :blink:

[Nicolas Lepage 0]

ermm...someone late for april fool's day there???

 

btw carbon dating is a rather common method also used in archeaology and anthropology...as much as I have a passion for showing up about knowing those utterly useless things I can refrain from doing so publicly (but it's a challenge :blink: )

[STSF Laura 0]

You can only carbon-date things that were once alive, actually. Rocks, they usually use something called the Uranium-Lead (U-Pb) system. This particular piece also used oxygen-isotope analysis, which helped to establish that it formed in the presence of water.

[WxMurray 0]

You can only carbon-date things that were once alive, actually. Rocks, they usually use something called the Uranium-Lead (U-Pb) system. This particular piece also used oxygen-isotope analysis, which helped to establish that it formed in the presence of water.

That's right. You can only Carbon-date organic materials because organic materials are carbon-based. The only non-organic materials that contain lead (I believe, anyway) are carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide.

[Nemesis 0]

That's right. You can only Carbon-date organic materials because organic materials are carbon-based. The only non-organic materials that contain lead (I believe, anyway) are carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide.

Well you can still try!

[Grom 0]

The reality is, dating rocks/lifeforms is all arbitrary, which is why I found this article so...interesting. How is it that humans who have only been around for several thousands of years can determine that a rock has been around for millions? Very simple, you make up a standard...then subject your tests to it. I don't know how old the Earth is...but I don't trust the scientific community either. To me, it's just as plausible that the Earth is several thousands of years old versus several millions of years old. We just don't know.

 

My two cents...

[Nicolas Lepage 0]

The reality is, dating rocks/lifeforms is all arbitrary, which is why I found this article so...interesting. How is it that humans who have only been around for several thousands of years can determine that a rock has been around for millions? Very simple, you make up a standard...then subject your tests to it. I don't know how old the Earth is...but I don't trust the scientific community either. To me, it's just as plausible that the Earth is several thousands of years old versus several millions of years old. We just don't know.

 

My two cents...

Well you could at least make a rough guess. The trick is that you use a non-stable isotope of carbon (C14) which is radioaktive (instead of the "normal" carbon which would be C12, the number indicating the number of neutrons in the core). You know at what rate that specific isotope dissociates and therefore you can tell the age of any given organic compound. True is however that rock generally is not organic but you can use this method,too if you find any organic compound enclosed in it and you assume that because the two were found together they must be of approximately the same age.

By the way theoretically it would be possible to find life that is not carbon but silicon based. The two elements have similar chemical properties.

Now I really start to wonder why I always fail those chemistry exams.

[Dumbass 0]

By the way theoretically it would be possible to find life that is not carbon but silicon based. The two elements have similar chemical properties.

Now I really start to wonder why I always fail those chemistry exams.

Because your chemistry teacher knows about Hortas.

[Grom 0]

Well you could at least make a rough guess. The trick is that you use a non-stable isotope of carbon (C14) which is radioaktive (instead of the "normal" carbon which would be C12, the number indicating the number of neutrons in the core). You know at what rate that specific isotope dissociates and therefore you can tell the age of any given organic compound. True is however that rock generally is not organic but you can use this method,too if you find any organic compound enclosed in it and you assume that because the two were found together they must be of approximately the same age.

By the way theoretically it would be possible to find life that is not carbon but silicon based. The two elements have similar chemical properties.

Now I really start to wonder why I always fail those chemistry exams.

That is how it works in theory, yes. But in practice, it's an interpretive science. In my opinion, dating systems should be both accurate when things that we know the age of already and should be consistent with other dating systems. No dating system(s) that I am aware of accomplishes this.

[Nicolas Lepage 0]

"Science is limited to the work of discovering and applying truths about the material world. If there is a spiritual presence in the material world, physical science will not discover it."

Are you trying to say that if there is a God and earth is created by God there is no use of science to try and find a prove that there is one? Just trying to get it right.

[LoAmi 0]

Firstly, as people have already mentioned: carbon-14 dating becomes more or less useless unless whatever you're dating was once alive, exchanging carbon with the atmosphere, and at one point, ceased doing that. Secondly, carbon-14 has a half-life in the range of a few thousand years, so you can't use it to date anything with any certainty beyond maybe 40,000 yrs. Uranium-Thorium-Lead would work better. Uranium-238 has a half-life of ~4.5 billion years. Thorium-230 has a half-life of ~75,000 years

 

Secondly, this distinction of "interpretive science" vs <name your other type of science here> is very artificial. The only assumption it makes is that unless there's good experimental proof otherwise, physics always worked the same way. In any given case, of course, there may be additional assumptions (say, about a given material), but there is no theoretical problem with scientific interpretation of things that can't be seen in the scientist's lifetime.

 

You may choose to ignore the scientific conclusions and *believe* something else, but, as long as the experiments keep coming back with the same results, whatever you choose to believe is not science. You might find complicated ways to explain the data that agree with your beliefs, but, science also posits Ockham's razor - go by the simplest explanation of the results until an experimental contradiction.

 

As an aside: science claims no infalliability. Many scientists have worked with insufficient data, misinterpreted data, and come to conclusions later shown to be incorrect or inconsistent. Incremental advancement and replacement of old ideas with better ones is part of the process. In this case, "better" means "better supported by the experimental evidence." An old earth happens to be one of those better ideas.

[Dumbass 0]

Are you trying to say that if there is a God and earth is created by God there is no use of science to try and find a prove that there is one? Just trying to get it right.

As many know I don't believe in god, but if there is one I don't see how the existance of such *can* be proven scientifically.

 

Let's say that we were able to prove the existance of a god. What would be the next step? Would science stop there? We would probably try to determine how the god works. We would try to determine how a god could create things, destroy things, and do other things that defy the conventional physics of today.

 

We would then try to replicate the results. In effect, we would try to become gods ourselves. If there is a god do you think he would allow that to happen? What would that say about us if we succeeded? Wouldn't that mean that god is not all-powerful and thus not really a god at all?

 

No, if there is a god, I think he would want to keep his existance unprovable.

[Dumbass 0]

I've seen it, but it's been a while.

[Nicolas Lepage 0]

I've seen the movie,too. but I agree with dumbass. If there is a god and he created us and he was omnipotent he would certainly not let us prove his existence. if we hold that true wouldn't then proving the existence of god do exactly the opposite?

I knew why I stuck to science instead of taking philosophy at school.

[Nicolas Lepage 0]

As an aside: science claims no infalliability. Many scientists have worked with insufficient data, misinterpreted data, and come to conclusions later shown to be incorrect or inconsistent. Incremental advancement and replacement of old ideas with better ones is part of the process. In this case, "better" means "better supported by the experimental evidence." An old earth happens to be one of those better ideas.

Considering that 500 years ago mankind "knew" that the earth was the center of the universe (a theory that was also based on some data) I wonder what scientists in 500 years time will say about what we "know" today.

[Grom 0]

Firstly, as people have already mentioned: carbon-14 dating becomes more or less useless unless whatever you're dating was once alive, exchanging carbon with the atmosphere, and at one point, ceased doing that. Secondly, carbon-14 has a half-life in the range of a few thousand years, so you can't use it to date anything with any certainty beyond maybe 40,000 yrs. Uranium-Thorium-Lead would work better. Uranium-238 has a half-life of ~4.5 billion years. Thorium-230 has a half-life of ~75,000 years

 

Secondly, this distinction of "interpretive science" vs <name your other type of science here> is very artificial. The only assumption it makes is that unless there's good experimental proof otherwise, physics always worked the same way. In any given case, of course, there may be additional assumptions (say, about a given material), but there is no theoretical problem with scientific interpretation of things that can't be seen in the scientist's lifetime.

 

You may choose to ignore the scientific conclusions and *believe* something else, but, as long as the experiments keep coming back with the same results, whatever you choose to believe is not science. You might find complicated ways to explain the data that agree with your beliefs, but, science also posits Ockham's razor - go by the simplest explanation of the results until an experimental contradiction.

 

As an aside: science claims no infalliability. Many scientists have worked with insufficient data, misinterpreted data, and come to conclusions later shown to be incorrect or inconsistent. Incremental advancement and replacement of old ideas with better ones is part of the process. In this case, "better" means "better supported by the experimental evidence." An old earth happens to be one of those better ideas.

First of all, I never stated that I was a young Earth theorist. What I did say is that I find the current standards to be a joke. I will once again reiterate what I said.

 

1. Where is the consistency among systems?

 

2. If a system can't date something correctly that isknown to be a certain age, how can we trust the accuracy of the age of something we don't know?

 

These are viable questions...questions that I've never heard answered very well by the scientific community.

 

The truth of science may be infallaible, but people aren't. Each and every scientist brings a certain level of presuppositions and/or assumptions. For example, the Earth came into existence millions of years ago OR life on Earth evolved from a lower species to its current state. It is not surprising, thereofore, that you have dating systems established with these presuppositions in mind. Grant it...they may be absolutely correct, but to say that it is not science to have alternate assumptions or presuppositions is intellectually dishonest, because "likely" or not...nobody has a clue how old the world is. B)

[Grom 0]

Considering that 500 years ago mankind "knew" that the earth was the center of the universe (a theory that was also based on some data) I wonder what scientists in 500 years time will say about what we "know" today.

An excellent point...once again illustrating how assumptions and agenda can influence scientific output.

[Grom 0]

FYI: I'm going to have to ask you folks not to enter a discussion about religion. It not only is off-topic, but it is a pointless discussion to engage in here.... Everyone has their beliefs and believes there's to be both logical and correct. No argument is going to change that. Thanks! B)

[Nemesis 0]

Considering that 500 years ago mankind "knew" that the earth was the center of the universe (a theory that was also based on some data) I wonder what scientists in 500 years time will say about what we "know" today.

Yeah but 500 years ago if scientists beyond the bible they were thought to be heratics so you can't really make a fair comparison from then and now but it is a good thought. Sorry to say this Grom but one of the largest hinderence to science has been religion apparent throughout history where people who practiced legitimate were forced to do it in hiding.

[LoAmi 0]

1. Where is the consistency among systems?

 

2. If a system can't date something correctly that isknown to be a certain age, how can we trust the accuracy of the age of something we don't know?

...

 

The truth of science may be infallaible, but people aren't.

...

Grant it...they may be absolutely correct, but to say that it is not science to have alternate assumptions or presuppositions is intellectually dishonest, because "likely" or not...nobody has a clue how old the world is. B)

For 1 & 2, I'm not quite sure which data you're referring to. Modern samples *can* be dated correctly (within a decade) by C14. And, some ancient samples with dates known within a few centuries by the historical record can also be dated to within a century by radioactivity. Multiple radiometric methods (even though they both use radioactive decay, they have different sets of assumptions about how the radiation got there in the first place, and what processes affect the calibration of "radiometric time" to "calendar time"), such as U/Th and C-14 can come to the same results within some margin of error on a sample that's conducive to both methods. Admittedly, earth science is quite far from my actual field.

 

I agree that any scientific method should be able to come under question. In fact, if it can't, it's religion, not science.

 

By the way, I think you misread something I wrote. I actually said "science claims no infalliability." Meaning, that when a new theory that explains the experiment better than an old theory comes along, it will replace the old theory (after a period of hard questioning of the new theory). That has happened numerous times in history. Our whole view of the universe from the microscopic to the macroscopic changed during the first half of the twentieth century!

 

And, about presuppositions: it depends on where the presuppositions come from. If they're derived from other evidence, then they're coming from within the scientific system. Otherwise, they aren't. Part of the process of science is questioning those assumptions that come from intuition or personal bias, sometimes arriving at very surprising results (eg, Einsteinian relativity)! Granted, all these types of assumptions get intermixed, but, eventually, they all come under challenge. (Something has to keep scientists employed.)

 

I think "likely" based on known physics gives us a "clue." I'm not willing to accept that we cannot know anything about that which we can't feel directly with our senses. (In fact, sometimes those lead you to unsupportable conclusions as well!)

 

(By the way, this is intended more as a "philosophy of science" post than a "religion" post).

[LoAmi 0]

Yeah but 500 years ago if scientists beyond the bible they were thought to be heratics so you can't really make a fair comparison from then and now but it is a good thought. Sorry to say this Grom but one of the largest hinderence to science has been religion apparent throughout history where people who practiced legitimate were forced to do it in hiding.

By 500 yrs ago, educated people knew that the earth was round. The ancient Greeks figured it out. :-) That said, for an ancient, the idea of a flat earth wasn't a bad assumption. (Granted, that the ancients did not know about empirical science.) For that matter, neither was geocentrism. They fit everything the ancients saw on a day-to-day basis about the world. If I dropped a group of amnesiac empiricists on a desert island, they would probably start with the same set of assumptions as the ancients, and probably make the same sets of mistakes as the ancients on their way to a better view of the universe, aside from the other historical influences that tried to maintain the status quo in the name of maintaining their own power.

[Nicolas Lepage 0]

2. If a system can't date something correctly that isknown to be a certain age, how can we trust the accuracy of the age of something we don't know?

 

It's a fair point but isn't it interesting just to try? I mean if we always just did what we know is possible and never tried to do anything that is believed impossible how could we make progress?

Anyway I think everybody agrees that any estimate concerning the age of the earth can just be a rough guess. I, however, find it interesting to see the possibilities shown by those estimates.

Another thought,if we cannot even determine the age of our own planet how much else is there that we do not know yet?

So just some thoughts I've come up with that i find quite interesting.