K-ar dating limitations

It has as its basis of understanding, various assumptions which concern the conditions of the earth for hundreds of millions of years. Relationship vision. Departures from this assumption are quite common, particularly in areas of complex geological history, but such departures can provide useful information that is of value in elucidating thermal histories. there are still assumptions which we must assume to be true for potassium-argon dating to work. It may be tempting to gloss over problems with the methodology, but I think it is better to be upfront about them, than be accused of cover up.. Explaining how the technique works should be presented first and prominently, with the limitations following naturally from this explanation. The result is that while some assumptions get mentioned twice, they are mentioned in different ways, with a different focus, and with different information. The parent nuclide, K, decays at a rate independent of its physical state and is not affected by differences in pressure or temperature. Moreover, where assumptions are mentioned in the Method section, they are discussed in terms of how the method is done. The Assumptions section focuses on what the limitations are. And their being commonly false makes the method commonly false and the dates commonly false. Natural abundance of potassium and argon On the other hand, those rocks that date younger, would not need to have had argon leak from the crystal after the time when the reseting process occurs. I don't disagree with the inclusion of the five assumptions - just need to summarize more and some comment should be included noting that all geochronology labs and researchers are aware of and consider the assumptions in their work. This is a major assumption, common to all dating methods based on radioactive decay; the available evidence suggest that it is well founded. Every radiometric dating technique relies upon similar ::assumptions--the point is that they're assumptions. Presenting the other way 'round, as you seem to suggest, has the effect of insinuating that all dates obtained from K-Ar dating are suspect, and may be thrown in the scientific rubbish bin any day now. Standard must be a mineral that is homogeneous, abundant. Angry and destructive world. Well-known examples of incorporation of extraneous Ar include chilled glassy deep-sea basalts that have not completely outgassed preexisting Ar*, and the physical contamination of a magma by inclusion of older xenolitic material. The consistency or lack of consistency of the results, together with knowledge of the geology of the area, allows assessment of some of these assumptions, and provides the basis for conclusions as to the reliability and meaning of the measured ages.

Radiocarbon Dating - It's Limitations and Usefulness

. Although the revised Method section mentions some of these assumptions, they are scattered throughout. I thought the orginial section did an excellent job of succinctly summarizing the assumptions involved. And if you remove too much, it will be claimed that the article is attempting to hide something. In order to do Potassium/Argon dating there are some assumptions that must be accepted as true. Keep exploring britannica Other isotopes of argon are produced from. Various ways of assessing this assumption are available. This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. And they are easy to comprehend. We must assume that there was no argon already trapped in these lattices, none escaped or was added until we found the rock and that decay rates have always been constant. This same discussion has gone on  ::over at Radiocarbon dating. In order to do Potassium/Argon dating there are a number of assumptions that must be accepted as true for a K-Ar age to relate to events in the geological history of the region being studied. The Boolean expression was simply added to make it easier to see the relationship between assumptions and method. Potassium-argon dating Relies on ratios instead of absolute quantities, we are. Various ways of assessing this assumption are available including the use of isotope correlation diagrams. Anybody else have ideas/suggestions. First, if you're going to include Harvard references from the original - then you must provide a ref for them. Not sure how to source that, but the inclusion of detailed assumptions without that kind of context is inherently misleading. Corrections can be made for nonradiogenic Ar present in the rock being dated. " "These basic assumptions must be tested and assessed in each study that is undertaken. The second and the final sentences are new, the former subsuming the point from what is now the third sentence that the method cannot be applied willy-nilly to just any sample with the expectation that it will produce an accurate date. WikiProject Archaeology ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles Archaeology portal This article is within the scope of , a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Boolean logic extends far beyond and existed long before computer science.

Potassium-argon (K-Ar) dating | Cosmology & Astronomy | Khan Academy

. I believe that I included all of the information from the old Assumptions section when I revised and expanded the section. The boolean paraphrases are easy to understand. WikiProject Geology Wikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology articles Earth sciences portal K–Ar dating is part of , an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. But, rather that everyone should know what those assumptions are, not just the labs and researchers. For example, if someone dated a rock from a metamorphic belt using K-Ar and stated that the age they determined could only be the age of formation of the rock, it would be a questionable interpretation. Although changes in the electron capture partial decay constant for K possibly may occur at high pressures, theoretical calculations indicate that for pressures experienced within a body of the size of the Earth the effects are negligibly small. But if they said the age they determined showed a thermal event at such and such a time, it would be quite reasonable, especially if it fit with other data on the metamorphic belt. And that is standard operating practice in geochronology. " Besides the cases mentioned of quickly chilled obsidians which trapped Ar gas in them, basalts of known age have been misdate by the K/Ar method because not all the gas was eliminated from the magma. It is not WP:OR, but simply a graphic paraphrase of the assumptions and the first paragraph. The clock might not always be reset by the heat in the rock. Many religious folk are opposed to the use of this kind of dating. Separated the sections more cleanly - Decay series states the relevant decays and nothing else. The lead now more accurately summarizes the article; it could still use another sentence or two - once we find a source for use deriving the geomagnetic polarity time scale, I think that that should be included. I believe that is why McDougal and Harrison make the upfront statement that getting uncontaminated samples is not common. The Ar/Ar method was invented to eliminate the common contamination problem in K/Ar methodology. This last section is important. I don't know of any way to be certain about contamination before hand. That is not an ::issue here. They normally work within a fairly well defined set of theories that have become a paradigm. Stylistically it is much cleaner and less of a copyright violation to have the former Assumptions section integrated into the text. They are now hidden in the text where superfical readers and editors will miss them. Molten magma can be contaminated by inclusion of older xenolithic material such as chilled deep sea basalts that may not completely outgas preexisting Ar before cooling. If some geological material violates some of the assumptions, it does not mean the method is inherently wrong, but that the applying method on sample will not tell you the original age of formation of the rock, but something else. K-ar dating limitations. Ar dating is the same except for three differences: These flows had something that the other flows did not have. Of a rock or mineral through alteration. The sample must have remained a closed system since it cooled enough to retain argon, neither admitting nor emitting either of the isotopes of interest. What they found was that the muscovite absorbed large quantities of argon. Dating j drama. The sample must have remained a closed system since the event being dated. These secondary minerals are often more convenient. This is a perfect example of why the assumptions required for K/Ar dates to be valid must be made more promenant. This is usually best done by measuring a suite of rocks or minerals from the area under study. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information. The rest of this section is probably unnecessary anyway. Violations of this assumption are not uncommon. This is not clear in the summaries of the assumptions and many people can get lost in the verbage. The K/K ratio in nature is constant. The archeologist or scientist assumes that the date they receive is generally correct. A few seconds of googling will ::show you various sites that confirm that decay rates are constant and remain so. It feels pretty silly to even mention the assumption that nuclear decays are unaffected by the temperatures and pressures available on Earth, but the source felt it important enough to list, so the information that K-Ar dating is not influenced by this remains. The following list of assumptions comes from McDougall I. Ar dating technique Of the. This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Pure o relationships. I did notice a couple points that needed to be clarified according to McDougal and Harrison. A deficiency of Ar in a sample of a known age can indicate a full or partial melt in the thermal history of the area. --Anything less than this will give an incomplete and inaccurate picture of what McDougall and Harrison said. The radiogenic argon measured in a sample was produced by decay of K in the interval since the rock crystallized or was recrystallized. Included some more information from McDougal & Harrison. The boolean expressions clearly show HOW falsified assumptions are corrected to make the method true again for the common case. Which is what McD&H are saying.

As K is rarely determined directly when ages are measured, this is an important underlying assumption. Thus, there should have been no loss or gain of K or Ar*, other than by radioactive decay of K. But the only sure way to discover it if was a contaminated sample is after it has been tested and found not to give the expected results.

Allan Hills 84001 - Wikipedia

. Ar dating method can overcome these limitations of conventional k-ar dating, and has the added advantage that potassium and argon are determined on the same sample and that only measurements of the isotopic ratios of argon are required. This, in my opinion, is the correct way to present the information, as the samples for and conditions under which the method is applicable are in direct consequence to how the method functions. Of course there are ::assumptions involved in K/Ar dating. "The sample must have remained a closed system since the event being dated. Limitations on k-ar dating the potassium-argon dating method is an invaluable tool for those archaeologists and there are some significant limitations. "As with all isotopic dating methods, there are a number of assumptions that must be fulfilled for a K-Ar age to relate to events in the geological history of the region being studied. Unless further objections arise I'll put it in the article soon. Most importantly the addition of the boolean true comment and conclusions derived are probably WP:OR and are a bit misleading as stated. There was no intent to imply that labs and researchers are not aware of the assumptions. Additionally, an embedded list like that is bad encyclopedic style for information that does not lend itself to bullet points. Why relationship building is important.

Research and Services - John de Laeter Centre