Radioactive Dating — Question 6

Section 42-6 · Physics pages 7102–7103

Question 6 Two isotope clocks can test a shared closure history Two independent radionuclides in one object are assumed to have known initial abundances and a common closure time. Isotope 1 has half-life 1000 y and surviving fraction .250. Isotope 2 has half-life 3000 y and surviving fraction .500. t f different half-lives Schematic; labels, not drawing lengths, specify the data. (a) Calculate the two model ages and test the shared closed-system assumption. (b) If isotope 1 gives the correct age, what surviving fraction should isotope 2 have, and what factor relates its actual initial abundance to the assumed one if initial abundance alone caused the discrepancy?
Show solutionHide solution
Question 6 - Solution Two isotope clocks can test a shared closure history t f different half-lives (a) Method and calculation t1 = 1000 log2(4) = 2000 y, t2 = 3000 log2(2) = 3000 y . t1̸ = t2 ⇒at least one stated common-history assumption fails. (b) Interpretation and further calculation f2,expected = 2−2000/3000 = .62996 . f2,measured = kf2,expected ⇒k = .500/.62996 = .79370 . Physical check Discordance identifies a model inconsistency but does not uniquely diagnose its cause. The initial-abundance interpretation is imposed only for the second part.

Question 6

Two isotope clocks can test a shared closure history

Two independent radionuclides in one object are assumed to have known initial abundances and a common closure time. Isotope 1 has half-life 1000 y and surviving fraction .250. Isotope 2 has half-life 3000 y and surviving fraction .500.

Diagram shown in the original SVG worksheet.

  1. Calculate the two model ages and test the shared closed-system assumption.

  2. If isotope 1 gives the correct age, what surviving fraction should isotope 2 have, and what factor relates its actual initial abundance to the assumed one if initial abundance alone caused the discrepancy?

Question 6 - Solution

Two isotope clocks can test a shared closure history

Diagram shown in the original SVG worksheet.

(a) Method and calculation

t1=1000log⁡2(4)=2000y,t2=3000log⁡2(2)=3000y.\boxed{t_1=1000\log_2(4)=2000\,\mathrm y,\quad t_2=3000\log_2(2)=3000\,\mathrm y}.t1≠t2⇒at least one stated common-history assumption fails.\boxed{t_1\ne t_2}\Rightarrow\text{at least one stated common-history assumption fails}.

(b) Interpretation and further calculation

f2,expected=2−2000/3000=.62996.\boxed{f_{2,\mathrm{expected}}=2^{-2000/3000}=.62996}.f2,measured=kf2,expected⇒k=.500/.62996=.79370.f_{2,\mathrm{measured}}=k f_{2,\mathrm{expected}}\Rightarrow\boxed{k=.500/.62996=.79370}.

Physical check

Discordance identifies a model inconsistency but does not uniquely diagnose its cause. The initial-abundance interpretation is imposed only for the second part.