Speaker 1: Hey Daniel, it's been a long time. Did you have
Speaker 1: a nice holiday with your family? We did, thank you
Speaker 1: very much. We did some of our favorite holiday traditions. Oh,
Speaker 1: like like you cooked specific meals that you only cook
Speaker 1: once a year or something like that. Well, you know,
Speaker 1: one of our favorite holiday traditions is a little bit unusual.
Speaker 1: It's trash Day, like when you roll your bins to
Speaker 1: the street because I call that Tuesday. Does that count
Speaker 1: as a holiday? CD? No? No, No. Trash Day is
Speaker 1: a much bigger deal. It's when you take all the
Speaker 1: stuff out of your closets, decide what you actually need,
Speaker 1: and donate or throw away the rest of it. Oh,
Speaker 1: I bet you find some real treasures. You know, every
Speaker 1: year we try to go one layer deeper into the
Speaker 1: archaeology of our closets. Do you think you'll ever reach
Speaker 1: the back. I'm not even convinced a back exists anymore.
Speaker 1: It might just be like an infinite stack of useless junk. Well,
Speaker 1: maybe you'll get lucky and it will have compressed for
Speaker 1: long enough that it will become diamonds or something, or
Speaker 1: be a black hole in there that'll just eat you.
Speaker 1: That's not lucky, that's less lucky. That's still interesting. Hi.
Speaker 1: I'm Daniel. I'm a professor at UC Irvine and a
Speaker 1: particle physicist, and I love throwing stuff away. I'm Kelly
Speaker 1: Wayder Smith. I'm a parasitologist with Rice University, and I
Speaker 1: love throwing stuff away. But my family doesn't know. Do
Speaker 1: you guys have arguments about how many nostalgic elements to keep? Yes,
Speaker 1: that might be the thing we argue about the most often. Actually,
Speaker 1: And are you ever right where they really need something?
Speaker 1: And you're like, Hi, you shouldn't have thrown away that
Speaker 1: melon baller. I knew we would come in Andy very rarely.
Speaker 1: And also, you know, with things like Amazon, it could
Speaker 1: show up at your house in less than a day.
Speaker 1: So even if I'm wrong, you can just get a
Speaker 1: new melon baller. That's true. Amazon has undermined your argument.
Speaker 1: That's right, That's right. You can always just use the spoon.
Speaker 1: Am I right? Well? I feel like you might appreciate
Speaker 1: the melonballer, but you'll appreciate the lack of the melonballer
Speaker 1: even more. You know, nothing is better than negative space.
Speaker 1: If you've succeeded in like cleaning out a closet or
Speaker 1: cleaning out some corner of your room, and then you
Speaker 1: can just appreciate the emptiness. I agree, I like not
Speaker 1: trimping over things in the middle of the night because
Speaker 1: I get up a lot the middle of the night.
Speaker 1: I value that well. Welcome to the podcast Daniel and
Speaker 1: Jorge Explain the Universe, in which we explore the meaning
Speaker 1: of nothingness and the very fabric of space itself. We
Speaker 1: take the whole universe apart from the junk in your closets,
Speaker 1: to the junk between your toes, to the junk that
Speaker 1: fills the whole cosmos. We want to understand it. We
Speaker 1: want to take it apart. We want to understand what
Speaker 1: it means when it's there and it's not there, and
Speaker 1: how it all got to be the way that it is.
Speaker 1: So what are we working on today? Then? Today we
Speaker 1: are thinking about the universe as a sort of mystery.
Speaker 1: I like to think of physicists as like detectives trying
Speaker 1: to crack the murder mystery of the universe, Like what
Speaker 1: happened here? We are showing up at the scene and
Speaker 1: wondering how did it all get to be the way
Speaker 1: that it is? And today you get to be the
Speaker 1: forensic scientist that dates the dead body. That's always a
Speaker 1: good character. That's right, because when you show but the scene,
Speaker 1: you want to understand what happened. You want to put
Speaker 1: things in order. You want to say, what this happened,
Speaker 1: then that happened, then the other happened, like the Solar
Speaker 1: system formed and then the Earth cooled and then life
Speaker 1: evolved on the planet, or the Big Bang happened, and
Speaker 1: then helium formed, and then much much later stars happened.
Speaker 1: The whole point of doing science is to put the
Speaker 1: universe in some sort of order. That's what a story is.
Speaker 1: And I'm a firm believer in the philosophy that human
Speaker 1: thinking is mostly about storytelling. And so in order to
Speaker 1: do that, you have to figure out why, how old
Speaker 1: is stuff, what came before what other stuff? You need
Speaker 1: to have dates and clocks and times if you're going
Speaker 1: to unravel the murder mystery of the universe. And there's
Speaker 1: a lot of different ways that we've done that throughout
Speaker 1: the years, and some of them work better for particular
Speaker 1: kinds of mysteries than others. So what sort of mysteries
Speaker 1: are we solving today? Well, of course we are interested
Speaker 1: in the mysteries of deep time. What happened in the
Speaker 1: first few moments of the universe. How long has the
Speaker 1: Earth been around? And what's been going on? How did
Speaker 1: everything come together? One of my favorite things about dating
Speaker 1: stuff is discovering those surprises, those realizations like wow, oh
Speaker 1: my gosh, the Earth is so much older than anybody
Speaker 1: ever imagined, or that the universe is shockingly old, or
Speaker 1: you know, for some people the universe might be shockingly young.
Speaker 1: Maybe some people bought the universe had been around forever
Speaker 1: or trillions of years. So anytime you get one of
Speaker 1: these dates, it's this glorious moment where you get to
Speaker 1: like pin down the universe and say, ah, now I
Speaker 1: know something about you, and that like eliminates a bunch
Speaker 1: of possibilities. When you're a reader digesting a mystery novel,
Speaker 1: you have like lots of different options in your head.
Speaker 1: Maybe it was this person, maybe it was that person,
Speaker 1: maybe it was this third person. And as you get clues,
Speaker 1: you get to eliminate possibilities, which finally reveals to you
Speaker 1: the truth, right, what actually happened in the universe. The
Speaker 1: story is revealed by elimination, and so those clues are
Speaker 1: absolutely essential. But you're right, Kelly, that there's lots of
Speaker 1: different ways to date things in the universe, and today
Speaker 1: we're gonna be focusing on something a little bit more recent,
Speaker 1: how we can use physics to understand fairly recent history
Speaker 1: here on Earth. Oh, that sounds a lot less disgusting
Speaker 1: than using flymaggots. Fly maggots, what are you talking about?
Speaker 1: That's for dating things like you know, dead bodies that
Speaker 1: you find like what stage are the fly eggs that
Speaker 1: have been laid on the body? So that's you know,
Speaker 1: we're working with like days to weeks there. So are
Speaker 1: we working on that skill or are we working like
Speaker 1: past the writing DiPT in phase. Definitely past the rotting
Speaker 1: corpse phase. But I think you put your finger on
Speaker 1: a really interesting point, which is that there are all
Speaker 1: these clocks build into nature, right like maggots take a
Speaker 1: certain amount of time to digest a corpse, or rocks
Speaker 1: take a certain amount of time to cool, and these
Speaker 1: clocks are things we can take advantage of in order
Speaker 1: to figure out how old things are, how long they've
Speaker 1: been digesting, or how long they've been cooling, or how
Speaker 1: long they've been radioactively decaying. We don't get to like
Speaker 1: design these things go back in the past and like
Speaker 1: leave clocks in place to tell us how long things took. Instead,
Speaker 1: we have to just take advantage of the clocks that
Speaker 1: we find. And some of these clocks, as you say,
Speaker 1: are really short lived, like they tell us about things
Speaker 1: that happened just for over weeks. Some of them can
Speaker 1: tell us about things that happened for billions of years,
Speaker 1: and other ones can tell us about things that happened
Speaker 1: in the last ten fifty thousand years, which is a
Speaker 1: super interesting time for the story of human civilization, how
Speaker 1: we got to be who we are. And of course,
Speaker 1: it turns out physics plays a big role. I love
Speaker 1: learning about this topic because it's so exciting to me
Speaker 1: how we figure out what tools are the best ones
Speaker 1: to use to explore the past. And I specifically like
Speaker 1: hearing about sort of physics and chemistry sorts of tools
Speaker 1: because my sense is that they're a little bit less
Speaker 1: susceptible to uncertainty. So, for example, you know, temperature can
Speaker 1: impact how fast those flies are developing. But maybe today
Speaker 1: you're going to explain to me that chemistry and physics
Speaker 1: aren't that straightforward either. It turns out to be a
Speaker 1: twisty and complicated topic. And of course sewage is involved. Yea,
Speaker 1: my wife is very happy to hear about that. And
Speaker 1: so today on the podcast, we'll be answering the question
Speaker 1: how does radiocarbon dating work? Well, should we start by
Speaker 1: seeing what the listeners think? Yes, absolutely, I was curious
Speaker 1: to hear what people had to say about this. Radiocarbon
Speaker 1: dating is something I think a lot of people have
Speaker 1: heard about. It's on television all the time, and we
Speaker 1: date this and we date that. But I was wondering
Speaker 1: if people like really understood the mechanism of it, like
Speaker 1: what the physics is of these clocks? Why is there
Speaker 1: a clock? Why does it start when you die? And
Speaker 1: how do we read it out? So thanks very much
Speaker 1: to everyone who participates in this segment of the podcast,
Speaker 1: sharing your thoughts without a chance to prepare. If you
Speaker 1: would like to participate in the future, please don't be shy.
Speaker 1: I'll be gentle. It's fun. Just write to me two
Speaker 1: questions at Daniel Njorge dot com. So before you hear
Speaker 1: these answers, think to yourself, do you know how radiocarbon
Speaker 1: dating works? Here's what people had to say. If we
Speaker 1: find some animal spoon, let's say some dinosaur spone, but
Speaker 1: it inside the Earth, and then we calculate the amount
Speaker 1: of carbon cfteen specifically present in it. Through those calculations,
Speaker 1: we can easily calculate the age of that skeleton. I've
Speaker 1: heard it get called carbon fourteen dating before, so that
Speaker 1: makes me think that it has something to do with
Speaker 1: the isotope and the decay of that carbon. Adam, you
Speaker 1: can do tet the age of organic objects by looking
Speaker 1: at the ratio of carbon isotopes. I feel like carbon
Speaker 1: dating is when like two particles of carbon or like connected.
Speaker 1: I don't know, I don't really know anything about that.
Speaker 1: I felt like the answers to these fell into two camps.
Speaker 1: People who sounded like they really knew what they were
Speaker 1: talking about and people who had maybe not even heard
Speaker 1: of carbon dating. And to me, that's it's sort of
Speaker 1: interesting that it's like an either or scenario, like maybe
Speaker 1: either you're into the kinds of TV shows that this
Speaker 1: is shown in, or maybe you're not watching and cis
Speaker 1: or what was that ship bones where the archaeologist was
Speaker 1: doing carbon fourteen dating? Yeah, what do you think? I
Speaker 1: was pretty tickled by the answer that suggested that, like
Speaker 1: carbon fourteen atoms are like hooking up. You know, they're
Speaker 1: like on Tinder, He's still finding each other and making magic.
Speaker 1: It was a clever the cuff response there. Yeah, I
Speaker 1: like our listeners are funny, funny people, absolutely, and I
Speaker 1: had a lot of fun digging into the details of this.
Speaker 1: This is not something I use in my research and
Speaker 1: so not something i'd really ever wrapped my mind around.
Speaker 1: And one of my favorite things about this podcast is
Speaker 1: that I get an excuse to go off and learn
Speaker 1: about something I always wanted to understand but never really
Speaker 1: given myself the time to dig into. So thanks for
Speaker 1: the listener who suggested this topic. How can listeners suggest
Speaker 1: topics to you? Just shoot you an email. Absolutely, if
Speaker 1: there's something you'd like to understand, please just write to
Speaker 1: me to questions at Daniel and jorhe dot com. We
Speaker 1: put it on our list and we get to every
Speaker 1: single one eventually. And I'm with you. There are a
Speaker 1: few things I enjoy more than an excuse to study
Speaker 1: a topic that's interesting that isn't part of my research program.
Speaker 1: I know, And it's weird that sometimes you feel like
Speaker 1: you need an excuse, you know, you don't just like
Speaker 1: get to slice off a few hours of your day
Speaker 1: and go read about how something works. For some reason,
Speaker 1: I feel like I have to give myself the opportunity
Speaker 1: and having to do a podcast on it, explained of
Speaker 1: the books is a good excuse to go and actually
Speaker 1: learn how something works. That is one of the weird
Speaker 1: things about academia. You don't feel like you have a
Speaker 1: lot of time to just sit and think. But I too,
Speaker 1: have created a bunch of tricks in my life, you know, like, oh,
Speaker 1: I'm going to write a book about ten emerging technology,
Speaker 1: so I have to read about all of them and
Speaker 1: so yeah, but at least we have these tricks, all right.
Speaker 1: So what is carbon fourteen? Right? So, radiocarbon dating or
Speaker 1: carbon fourteen dating uses this weird form of carbon called
Speaker 1: carbon fourteen. And when we say carbon fourteen, that number
Speaker 1: fourteen tells us how many nucleons there are in the atom.
Speaker 1: So remember that an atom has electrons around it, and
Speaker 1: in the nucleus there are protons and neutrons. Now, usually
Speaker 1: carbon has six protons and six neutrons, and so that's
Speaker 1: carbon twelve. That's like the vanilla kind of carbon, the
Speaker 1: kind that makes up most of you. And if it's
Speaker 1: in carbon dioxide, and everywhere in the atmosphere. So that's
Speaker 1: carbon twelve, which is stable. Carbon fourteen is a weird
Speaker 1: version of carbon. It's still carbon, So there are six
Speaker 1: protons inside, but there's two extra neutrons, so it's like
Speaker 1: a heavier nucleus. So that's what carbon fourteen is. And
Speaker 1: do those neutrons want to stay there or do they
Speaker 1: want to escape? So you know, the stability of the
Speaker 1: nucleus is a really interesting and complicated question. Some collections
Speaker 1: of protons and neutrons are stable. You can build carbon
Speaker 1: twelve and have it sit in space and come back
Speaker 1: a billion years later and it'll still be carbon twelve.
Speaker 1: Other constructions are not stable, Like you had two more
Speaker 1: neutrons and all of a sudden you have carbon fourteen.
Speaker 1: It's not stable. It will fall apart after a few
Speaker 1: thousand years. And this all comes down to how those
Speaker 1: protons and neutrons like to put themselves together inside the nucleus.
Speaker 1: Remember that the nucleus is only protons and neutrons, and
Speaker 1: the protons are positively charged. The neutrons are neutral, of course,
Speaker 1: and so initially you might wonder, like, well, how does
Speaker 1: the nucleus stay together anyway? It's all positive charges. Why
Speaker 1: don't they just blow each other apart? And there is
Speaker 1: that desire, right, They definitely are pushing against each other,
Speaker 1: But on the other hand, they're held together by a
Speaker 1: much stronger force. The strong nuclear force sticks the protons
Speaker 1: and the neutrons all together. So it's a delicate balance
Speaker 1: in some cases between the strong force sticking it together
Speaker 1: and the electromagnetic force trying to push it apart. You
Speaker 1: have one prototon and one neutron held together by the
Speaker 1: strong nuclear force. That's stable. And then when you've got
Speaker 1: extra neutrons floating around so that they don't pair evenly,
Speaker 1: is that what makes it unstable? Yeah, that's right. You
Speaker 1: can actually think about the construction of the nucleus in
Speaker 1: a similar way to how we think about electron orbitals.
Speaker 1: You remember learning in like high school chemistry. The electrons
Speaker 1: aren't all just buzzing around the nucleus the same way.
Speaker 1: It's like one in the lowest energy level and another
Speaker 1: one in the next energy level. They sort of fill
Speaker 1: up and they get to like more and more elaborate
Speaker 1: orbitals as they get to higher and higher energy. Well,
Speaker 1: the nucleus is constructed sort of in the same way.
Speaker 1: The picture you often have of the nucleus is just
Speaker 1: like a scoopful of protons and neutrons, But that's not
Speaker 1: really very accurate. It's more like there are shells, you're
Speaker 1: like an inner core or protons and neutrons have clicked together,
Speaker 1: and then you can surround that with another layer of
Speaker 1: like protons and neutrons, and the most stable atoms are
Speaker 1: the ones where those layers are filled. You've like clicked
Speaker 1: in all the protons and neutrons. It's sort of like
Speaker 1: making a roman arch. When you have all the bricks together,
Speaker 1: they click together to make a very stable structure. If
Speaker 1: you're just missing one, then it can be very unstable.
Speaker 1: So I didn't do great in high school chemistry? Is
Speaker 1: the reason that that sounds new to me? Because we've
Speaker 1: learned this in the twenty plus years since I've been
Speaker 1: in high school? Or is that something we usually just
Speaker 1: sort of, you know, skip over in high school, or
Speaker 1: what's the story there? How long have we known that? Well?
Speaker 1: I think we're gonna have to interview your high school
Speaker 1: chemistry teacher to really find the answer to that. Let's
Speaker 1: dig deep into your past. In fact, we have them
Speaker 1: here on the podcast Surprise Surprise is Your Life, Kelly,
Speaker 1: I don't think they like to be very much. Let's
Speaker 1: move on. No, my high school chemistry teacher would not
Speaker 1: be happy to hear from me either. I think it's
Speaker 1: a combination of both things. We have understood what's going
Speaker 1: on in the nucleus much much better in the last
Speaker 1: few decades because we've been shooting stuff at it and
Speaker 1: breaking it up and seeing what's inside of it, and
Speaker 1: it's a hard project. We've also been building heavier and
Speaker 1: heavier nuclei to understand, like what are the limits of stability?
Speaker 1: How many protons and neutrons can you stick together and
Speaker 1: have something which will stick around for billions of years.
Speaker 1: We have a whole podcast episode about what are the
Speaker 1: heaviest stable atoms And we think, for example, there might
Speaker 1: be an island of stability where you get like hundreds
Speaker 1: of protons and neutrons stuck together to make new super
Speaker 1: heavy stable elements nobody's ever seen before. So it's a
Speaker 1: complex field of study and it's probably not taught in
Speaker 1: high school chemistry because it's evolving, and also because it's messy,
Speaker 1: and I don't think that high school sophomores aren't necessarily
Speaker 1: ready for it. I'm not sure that I was ready
Speaker 1: for the electron stuff either, But all right, so these
Speaker 1: things aren't stable, and every once in a while the
Speaker 1: neutrons get picked out. How long are we talking before
Speaker 1: the neutrons get picked doubt? Does it take like weeks? Years, millennia?
Speaker 1: What are we looking at? So every atom is different. Uranium,
Speaker 1: for example, has a half life which is like the
Speaker 1: age of the Earth, but carbon fourteen only lasts about
Speaker 1: fifty seven hundred years. Now, remember when we say that,
Speaker 1: we don't mean that there's like a little clock inside
Speaker 1: every carbon and when the time expires, it dies. What
Speaker 1: we mean is that that's how long it takes, like
Speaker 1: a population of carbon atoms for half of them to decay.
Speaker 1: Each individual one might take longer or less time, because
Speaker 1: fundamentally it's a quantum mechanical effect. There's a randomness to
Speaker 1: win these things decay. So like five seven hundred years,
Speaker 1: that's much longer than any of us live. And so
Speaker 1: certainly there was no scientists who was sitting around, you know,
Speaker 1: watching these things for five thousand, seven hundred years. How
Speaker 1: do we figure something like that out? That's a great question,
Speaker 1: And you know if it did take fifty seven hundred
Speaker 1: years for every carbon atom to decay, then you couldn't
Speaker 1: measure that half life without waiting for the first one
Speaker 1: to decay, would literally take thousands of year years After
Speaker 1: one thousand years or three thousand years, you would have
Speaker 1: seen none decay, and you still wouldn't know is the
Speaker 1: half life five thousand years or five billion years right?
Speaker 1: And you wouldn't get ten year. You need a very
Speaker 1: understanding department chare that's right. And so it's the statistical
Speaker 1: nature of that, the randomness that really helps you because
Speaker 1: even though the half life is five thousand, seven hundred years,
Speaker 1: after one hundred years, there is a chance that a
Speaker 1: few of them will have decayed. So all you need
Speaker 1: is like a lot of carbon atoms, millions and billions
Speaker 1: and zillions. Unfortunately, there are a lot of them around,
Speaker 1: and you just watch for a few years or even
Speaker 1: a few months, and a few of them will decay,
Speaker 1: and from that you can extrapolate. Right as soon as
Speaker 1: you start to see some of them decay, you know
Speaker 1: how likely it is for any of them to decay,
Speaker 1: and from that you can calculate how long it would
Speaker 1: take for half of them to decay as a decay
Speaker 1: is does it go from carbon fourteen the carbon thirteen,
Speaker 1: the carbon twelves, or does it go right from fourteen
Speaker 1: to twelve? Does it lose two neutrons all in one step?
Speaker 1: So actually, carbon fourteen doesn't decay to carbon twelve. What
Speaker 1: it does when it decays is that it goes to nitrogen.
Speaker 1: Like normal nitrogen is nitrogen fourteen, but it has seven protons.
Speaker 1: So you go from something which has eight neutrons and
Speaker 1: six protons that's carbon fourteen, into something that has seven
Speaker 1: neutrons and seven protons. So you take one of the
Speaker 1: neutrons and you do a beta decay into a proton,
Speaker 1: and now carbon fourteen has flipped into nitrogen fourteen. And
Speaker 1: to me, this is really cool because this is the
Speaker 1: quantum mechanics of it. Like carbon fourteen is not totally stable,
Speaker 1: but it's also not totally unstable, like it will stick
Speaker 1: around for a long long time. It's like a particle
Speaker 1: trapped in a little potential well, and nitrogen fourteen is
Speaker 1: other state it can flip into is also a little
Speaker 1: potential well. And like classically, if you had a particle
Speaker 1: trapped in a little well, it could never get out.
Speaker 1: So what happens is that this atom switches from one
Speaker 1: state to another state even though there's like a potential
Speaker 1: barrier in between it. It does this by quantum tunneling.
Speaker 1: It's like an electron stuck in one little hole that
Speaker 1: ends up in another little hole, even though it doesn't
Speaker 1: have the energy to go over the barrier. So carbon
Speaker 1: fourteen turns into nitrogen fourteen through this random quantum mechanical
Speaker 1: tunneling process that lets a switch from one state to
Speaker 1: a lower energy state without having enough energy to actually
Speaker 1: go over the barrier in between them. That's another thing
Speaker 1: I'm amazed we ever managed to figure out. I know,
Speaker 1: so like quantum mechanics is happening all over the place
Speaker 1: in the atmosphere right in front of us. That's crazy.
Speaker 1: So where do we get carbon fourteen in the first place? Yeah,
Speaker 1: carbon fourteen only sticks around for a few thousand years.
Speaker 1: So you might wonder, like the Earth is billions of
Speaker 1: years old, why do we have a new carbon fourteen?
Speaker 1: And the only reason we do is that we have
Speaker 1: a source of it, right, this new carbon fourteen being
Speaker 1: made all the time, and of course it comes from space.
Speaker 1: The Earth is not just sitting out in empty space.
Speaker 1: Space is very far from We're being inundated with high
Speaker 1: energy particles all the time, from the Sun, from black
Speaker 1: hole accretion disks, from other galaxies. All sorts of stuff
Speaker 1: are smashing into the Earth all the time. And then
Speaker 1: we call these things cosmic rays, and when they hit
Speaker 1: the upper atmosphere, they cause all sorts of reactions. They
Speaker 1: smash into stuff and they change it. What happens is
Speaker 1: a cosmic ray will smash into like a proton that's
Speaker 1: in nitrogen, which is seven P seven N, and convert
Speaker 1: it into a neutron. So you have nitrogen fourteen smash
Speaker 1: banging with a proton, and you end up with carbon
Speaker 1: fourteen because one of those protons has gotten converted into
Speaker 1: a neutron. WHOA Okay, And that's all happening in the
Speaker 1: atmosphere and not happening much on Earth, Is that right?
Speaker 1: That's right, It's happening mostly in the upper atmosphere. Cosmic
Speaker 1: rays can't just fly through the atmosphere. They interact with particles.
Speaker 1: It's sort of like running into a crowd, right, You're
Speaker 1: going to bang into all the other particles. Because cosmic
Speaker 1: rays they're just particles. They sound spooky and weird, but
Speaker 1: they're just particles. So these things are created in the
Speaker 1: atmosphere and then they sort of drift down to the
Speaker 1: rest of the planet. Okay, all right, so now we
Speaker 1: know how we get carbon fourteen, and we should take
Speaker 1: a break and when we come back, we'll talk about
Speaker 1: how it goes from the atmosphere to being incorporated into
Speaker 1: living things. And we're back. Okay. So carbon fourteen, made
Speaker 1: by cosmic rays in the atmosphere, falls down towards the
Speaker 1: living stuff that lives below. And then what happens, Daniel,
Speaker 1: So carbon fourteen interacts with oxygen in the atmosphere to
Speaker 1: make carbon dioxide, and so now you have these special
Speaker 1: molecules of carbon dioxide. Most of the carbon dioxide in
Speaker 1: the atmosphere has carbon twelve in its normal stuff, but
Speaker 1: about one in a trillion has a carbon fourteen atom,
Speaker 1: So it's carbon fourteen plus two normal oxygens. And this
Speaker 1: is just floating out there around in the atmosphere. And
Speaker 1: so when plants, for example, do photosynthesis and they breathe
Speaker 1: in carbon dioxide, most of the time they're breathing in
Speaker 1: normal vanilla carbon dioxide, but sometimes one in a trillion
Speaker 1: to get the extra spicy version of carbon dioxide that
Speaker 1: has carbon fourteen in it, so they take it in
Speaker 1: and then when you eat your impossible burger, which is
Speaker 1: made out of plants, you're eating that carbon fourteen that
Speaker 1: got incorporated into the plant. So do plants have more
Speaker 1: carbon fourteen than animals because they're sucking so much of
Speaker 1: it out of the atmosphere or is that not how
Speaker 1: it works? Carbon fourteen definitely flows through the sort of biosphere,
Speaker 1: and its richest at the source. Like if you go
Speaker 1: into the upper atmosphere, that's the highest fraction of carbon fourteen.
Speaker 1: As you get further and further away from the source,
Speaker 1: you get less and less carbon fourteen because it starts
Speaker 1: to decay. Now it decays a really, really slowly, So
Speaker 1: like most plants and most animals on the surface have
Speaker 1: about as much carbon fourteen in them as exist in
Speaker 1: the upper atmosphere. Like the bottom of the ocean, the
Speaker 1: deep ocean doesn't interact with the atmosphere as often, and
Speaker 1: so the rate of carbon fourteen down there is much
Speaker 1: less because it takes longer to get down there, and
Speaker 1: by the time it does, some of it has decayed.
Speaker 1: And so like deep ocean animals tend to have less
Speaker 1: carbon fourteen than like birds that live in the high
Speaker 1: atmosphere or you know, cows that live on the surface.
Speaker 1: We can actually map the carbon fourteen fraction over the
Speaker 1: biosphere and see how that flows. Okay, And so in general,
Speaker 1: we're also not really interested in like you know, there
Speaker 1: are one hundred units of carbon fourteen in a tree.
Speaker 1: We're interested in the relative amounts of carbon twelve compared
Speaker 1: to carbon fourteen. Is that right? So it's about relative
Speaker 1: amounts as opposed to absolute quantities. Yeah, exactly. And this
Speaker 1: is the really fascinating bit about carbon fourteen. Right. First
Speaker 1: of all, it's a natural clock. It's this thing that
Speaker 1: happens in the universe. You create carbon fourteen, you have
Speaker 1: about fifty seven hundred years until it decays. The fascinating
Speaker 1: thing about carbon fourteen is that we use it to
Speaker 1: date when something dies, right, we can tell when something
Speaker 1: has died. And when I first heard about this, I thought, what,
Speaker 1: how does like the carbon know that you've died. Is
Speaker 1: it like as soon as you die your carbon fourteen
Speaker 1: atoms start ticking or something. I thought that was really weird,
Speaker 1: because you know, life and death is this holistic property
Speaker 1: of an object, and like the carbon fourteen doesn't care
Speaker 1: if you're alive or dead. Right, So the reason that
Speaker 1: carbon fourteen is sensitive to your moment of death is
Speaker 1: because of what you stop doing when you die, which
Speaker 1: is you stop breathing and you stop eating, so you
Speaker 1: stop getting new carbon fourteen. So all the carbon fourteen
Speaker 1: in your body is always decaying. Like that clock started
Speaker 1: when the cosmic array hit in the upper atmosphere, and
Speaker 1: maybe it took a few hundred years before you ate
Speaker 1: that carbon fourteen, and so that clock has already started.
Speaker 1: What doesn't happen anymore when you die is that you
Speaker 1: don't get any fresh carbon fourteen, and so now the
Speaker 1: carbon fourteen in your body is decaying and it's not
Speaker 1: being replaced. So something that died a long time ago
Speaker 1: will have almost no carbon fourteen in it. If you
Speaker 1: died ten minutes ago, you still have a lot of
Speaker 1: carbon fourteen in you. So it's not really like the
Speaker 1: moment of death. It's more like the moment you stopped
Speaker 1: participating in the biosphere, which I guess is really the
Speaker 1: same thing. Do you like the microbes that break you
Speaker 1: down put some more carbon fourteen in there to mess
Speaker 1: the clock up a little. I guess it doesn't matter,
Speaker 1: because if the half life is five thousand, seven hundred years,
Speaker 1: we're talking about like a week or two of microbes
Speaker 1: messing up the values. Yeah, good question. I guess it
Speaker 1: depends a little bit if they're aerobic or an aerobic. Right,
Speaker 1: are they consuming CO two? I'll have to ask a
Speaker 1: microbiologist about that. Check in with my wife about it later.
Speaker 1: I thank you, no one. Yeah, that's right, that's very convenient.
Speaker 1: And so this has a really interesting history. It was
Speaker 1: like in the forties that people figured out, oh maybe
Speaker 1: this is possible. People were studying carbon fourteen just from
Speaker 1: like a chemistry point of view, like what is this stuff?
Speaker 1: How long does it last? And at the time, you know,
Speaker 1: we didn't really understand the nucleus very well. People were
Speaker 1: making estimates for how long it might last, and the
Speaker 1: measurements they made were really surprised, and they discovered, oh,
Speaker 1: my gosh, this stuff lasts a lot longer than we thought.
Speaker 1: They expected to have a much shorter half life, like
Speaker 1: tens or hundreds of years, so when they discovered that
Speaker 1: it has a half life of almost six thousand years,
Speaker 1: they were surprised. But it also opened up this really
Speaker 1: cool possibility. Why were they surprised, Like, did we expect
Speaker 1: that half lives would be like similar between objects on
Speaker 1: the periodic table and they ended up not being similar. Yes,
Speaker 1: there are reason they were surprised, or just sometimes sizes surprising.
Speaker 1: They were surprised because we just didn't understand the nucleus
Speaker 1: of the atom very well. I mean, this is the forties, right,
Speaker 1: Quantum mechanics were very very new, and so all of
Speaker 1: our calculations of how things work in the nucleus were
Speaker 1: very very rough and a lot of handwaving. I mean
Speaker 1: even today, it's not easy to do these calculations to say,
Speaker 1: like what would be the mass of this particle or
Speaker 1: how stable would that be. You know, we have theories
Speaker 1: about whether the super heavy elements would be stable, but
Speaker 1: we can't say these things for certain because we don't
Speaker 1: know how to do a lot of these calculations. Because
Speaker 1: the strong nuclear force is very complicated. It's very very strong,
Speaker 1: which means the calculations are very very sensitive to getting
Speaker 1: things wrong. It's a kind of calculation where if you
Speaker 1: start to get things a little bit wrong, the wrongness
Speaker 1: gets amplified by the strength of the force instead of
Speaker 1: like a decaying away. Like with gravity, if you get
Speaker 1: the location of an asteroid a little bit wrong, it's
Speaker 1: not going to propagate to becoming really really wrong later
Speaker 1: on because gravity is so weak, so you can make
Speaker 1: approximations and mostly get the right answer at least for
Speaker 1: the foreseeable future. With the strong force, as soon as
Speaker 1: you get something a little bit wrong, everything goes totally wrong.
Speaker 1: So the short version is that nuclear physics is hard. Well,
Speaker 1: that's not surprising, and so maybe they shouldn't have been
Speaker 1: surprised because nuclear physics is hard. Okay. So you had
Speaker 1: mentioned at the top of the show that sewage was
Speaker 1: gonna come into the story at some point, and so
Speaker 1: I'm hoping that now that we're talking about, you know,
Speaker 1: when we figure out the whole carbon fourteen thing, is
Speaker 1: this when we get to talk about the sewage. This
Speaker 1: is when we get to talk about the sewage. Absolutely yea.
Speaker 1: So it was in mid nineteen forties and Willard Libby,
Speaker 1: who was at Berkeley, learned about these results that carbon
Speaker 1: fourteen was surprisingly long lasting, and he thought, hey, that
Speaker 1: would be a really cool way to figure out how
Speaker 1: long something has been dead. And so what he did
Speaker 1: is he moved to a new job at the University
Speaker 1: of Chicago and he proposed this idea. He said, oh,
Speaker 1: maybe this will work. And the first thing they did
Speaker 1: was to study methane from the Boston sewage system. Right,
Speaker 1: So methane is a gas, right, that's produced when sewage
Speaker 1: basically ferments. Right, my grooves are consuming your sewage. And
Speaker 1: so they gathered this and they measured the carbon fourteen
Speaker 1: fraction in methane basically from Boston's dark matter, and then
Speaker 1: they compared that to how much carbon fourteen there was
Speaker 1: in methane from fossil fuels, right, Like the methane that
Speaker 1: maybe you burn in your house comes from plants that
Speaker 1: died millions and millions and millions of years ago. And
Speaker 1: what they found is no surprise to us now, is
Speaker 1: that the methane from the Boston sewis system has a
Speaker 1: lot of carbon fourteen and the methane from fossil fuels
Speaker 1: has none. All Right, So that's beginning to tell us
Speaker 1: the limits for how we can use carbon fourteen for dating.
Speaker 1: But I'll know you said that Libby had moved to Chicago,
Speaker 1: but he looked at the Boston sewage is there, just like,
Speaker 1: is Boston sewage the best sewage? Why did you travel
Speaker 1: all the way to Boston? Was the Chicago sewage wasn't
Speaker 1: disgusting enough. I'm sure those people who live in Boston
Speaker 1: are very proud of their sewage. I have a little
Speaker 1: glimpse into this because of my wife's research. You know,
Speaker 1: she studies the microbes and sewage, and it can be
Speaker 1: surprisingly tricky to get access to it. So I suspect
Speaker 1: it's just a question of like politics and access. Not
Speaker 1: every waste management system is interested in having scientists like
Speaker 1: dig around in their facility, while others are you free
Speaker 1: to share the science gold that is flowing through their pipes?
Speaker 1: Politics and sewage? Yeah, so I suspect they had a
Speaker 1: good Boston connect, you know, for some real primo Boston
Speaker 1: sewage got it okay. So so by the time you
Speaker 1: ask petroleum, there's no carbon fourteen and you start losing
Speaker 1: carbon fourteen when you die. So can you use this for?
Speaker 1: Is this helpful for like certain kinds of fossils? What
Speaker 1: kind of things that we use this for? So far,
Speaker 1: you can use this for basically anything that's died in
Speaker 1: the last maybe fifty thousand years, because those things were
Speaker 1: accumulating carbon fourteen as they were alive and participating in
Speaker 1: the biosphere, and as soon as they died, then they
Speaker 1: stopped and the carbon fourteen started to decay away. Now,
Speaker 1: things that are much much older than that, they just
Speaker 1: have zero carbon fourteen. So you can't tell is this
Speaker 1: thing one hundred thousand years old or one hundred million
Speaker 1: years old or four billion years old, because you just
Speaker 1: get zero. So what you got to do is measure
Speaker 1: the carbon fourteen to carbon twelve ratio in your thing,
Speaker 1: and then you can extrapolate back to when did this
Speaker 1: thing last have the sort of normal rate of carbon fourteen?
Speaker 1: Got it all right, So dinosaurs are out, but helpful
Speaker 1: for things like human archaeology questions exactly. Human archaeology was
Speaker 1: really like revolutionized this subject. The first time that they
Speaker 1: used it was actually to date some Egyptian tombs. These
Speaker 1: are some things that archaeologically we already knew what the
Speaker 1: dates were based on writing and other analysis, Like archaeologists
Speaker 1: already knew when somebody had been buried, and now they
Speaker 1: were able to take a sample and measure the carbon
Speaker 1: fourteen fraction in like a piece of linen or in
Speaker 1: a piece of wood from the tomb and independently establish
Speaker 1: the date of the death of that object, like here's
Speaker 1: when the tree that formed this plank must have been killed,
Speaker 1: or here's when this plant was harvested to make this linen.
Speaker 1: And that's really powerful. It's like a completely separate clock
Speaker 1: that lines up archaeologically with your records. Okay, So one,
Speaker 1: that's awesome, and two I bet this has been used
Speaker 1: at some point in ways that have made people angry,
Speaker 1: like people who thought they had a thing that was
Speaker 1: old but it ended up not being that old, or
Speaker 1: the other way around. But before I ask you about that,
Speaker 1: let's take another quick break. All right, So has this
Speaker 1: method been used in a way that ended up making
Speaker 1: people like why do I feel like you're digging for
Speaker 1: the controversy here? Keey? Well, you know it makes good radio.
Speaker 1: It does absolutely. Yeah, this is a really cool technique
Speaker 1: and it's powerful because they can date things to like
Speaker 1: within a few decades. You know. The thing is that
Speaker 1: there's a lot of carbon in living stuff, and the
Speaker 1: more carbon you have, the more preciser measurement can be.
Speaker 1: So you can like pin down to within a few
Speaker 1: decades when something died, and for example, when people discovered,
Speaker 1: like the Dead Sea Scrolls, these ancient scrolls outside of
Speaker 1: Jerusalem that have been in the desert for who knows
Speaker 1: how long, and what may have been one of the
Speaker 1: earliest written records of you know, the books of the Bible.
Speaker 1: People wanted to know like, are these real? Are they
Speaker 1: actually thousands of years old? Or is this like a
Speaker 1: forgery from last week that's been stained with tea? And
Speaker 1: so they were able to use radiocarbon dating to confirm
Speaker 1: that these things were one thousand, nine hundred and seventeen
Speaker 1: years old, which really told people like, these are an
Speaker 1: ancient relic. You know, these are not created recently, or
Speaker 1: at least the materials on which they were made are
Speaker 1: fairly old. So either it's a really old book or
Speaker 1: it's new writing on a really old sheet of paper. Well,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna have to give you that. That's awesome. That's
Speaker 1: not what I asked. I asked you for controversy that
Speaker 1: you gave me confirmation. But still all right, so that's
Speaker 1: pretty awesome. Well this controversy. Also, you may have heard
Speaker 1: about the Shroud of Turin. This is this piece of
Speaker 1: cloth that I think is held in Milan. That's supposed
Speaker 1: to have like the face of Jesus on it, and
Speaker 1: the mythology around it is that it wrapped to Jesus's
Speaker 1: corpse and was sort of imprinted by the power of
Speaker 1: his un don't know, spiritual personality with his face. And
Speaker 1: so this is a relic that's been celebrated in people
Speaker 1: like pilgrimage to go and see it, and so they
Speaker 1: radiocarbon dated it and discovered Oops, it's actually from the
Speaker 1: fourteenth century, which means it's pretty old. It's like six
Speaker 1: hundred years old. But the plants that made this shroud
Speaker 1: were grown and planted like fourteen hundred years after Jesus died.
Speaker 1: That's disappointing. Is it safe to assume that there are
Speaker 1: people who don't buy the science on this to this day? Oh? Absolutely,
Speaker 1: the way people deny evolution or that the Earth is
Speaker 1: round or the dinosaurs existed well before humans. There are
Speaker 1: people who say radiocarbon dating is not reliable and that
Speaker 1: you can't use it, especially, you know, when it contradicts
Speaker 1: their belief. The thing I love about the Shroud of
Speaker 1: Tern story is not just that it reveals that the
Speaker 1: whole thing is a hoax, but it's an ancient hoax.
Speaker 1: The hoax is now hundreds of years old, right, the
Speaker 1: hoax itself is of historical interest. That's how old it is. Right,
Speaker 1: A six hundred year old hoax is pretty cool. Okay,
Speaker 1: it's not the face of g but wow, that's really
Speaker 1: cool insight and like what people were doing and why
Speaker 1: they wanted to do it and all sorts of stuff.
Speaker 1: I love how like today's mundanity, right, and even lies
Speaker 1: can turn into something fascinating for future anthropologists. Yeah, know,
Speaker 1: humans have enjoyed messing with each other for a really
Speaker 1: long time. It's good to know that. But it is
Speaker 1: tricky to date things with carbon fourteen because it turns
Speaker 1: out that the assumption we made at the beginning that
Speaker 1: like carbon fourteen is produced in the upper atmosphere and
Speaker 1: spreads around mostly evenly to everything, it's not exactly true,
Speaker 1: and so you got to like make some corrections and
Speaker 1: calibrations to get things as precise as you'd like. So, like,
Speaker 1: how not exact are we talking here? Like you know
Speaker 1: the flies that you find in bodies? I think things
Speaker 1: like temperature impact development time. How many things impact our
Speaker 1: ability to date things based on carbon fourteen? And are
Speaker 1: they things that we can learn about and control for
Speaker 1: or no, yes, absolutely we can learn about them. And
Speaker 1: it's like a whole field of people calib rating carbon
Speaker 1: fourteen dating. We first discovered this actually when carbon fourteen
Speaker 1: dating got some Egyptian tombs wrong, like some of them
Speaker 1: were bang on the archaeological records, and other ones that
Speaker 1: archaeologists were pretty sure about. Radiocarbon dating got a little wrong,
Speaker 1: and people thought, hmm, that's weird. I wonder what it means.
Speaker 1: And so they discovered a few interesting effects. For example,
Speaker 1: carbon fourteen production is not constant over time. If you
Speaker 1: want to assume that you can extrapolate backwards from the
Speaker 1: carbon fourteen ratio today to the carbon fourteen ratio when
Speaker 1: this object died, you have to assume the carbon fourteen
Speaker 1: is being replenished at the same rate over time. But
Speaker 1: it turns out that it's not that there's a variation
Speaker 1: in the carbon fourteen rates in the atmosphere. Whoa is
Speaker 1: that because cosmic rays hit us at different rates? Is
Speaker 1: this like a solar Now that's not a solar wind thing?
Speaker 1: Do we know? Yeah? Why? I am confused. It's really
Speaker 1: interesting and there's some cool physics there. One is that, yes,
Speaker 1: cosmic rays have sort of like seasons that are not
Speaker 1: holy constant. It's sort of like the solar weather. You know,
Speaker 1: where these cosmic grays come from depend on like magnetic
Speaker 1: fields and the galaxy. You know, what's going on with
Speaker 1: the objects that are created them. So there's those kinds
Speaker 1: of effects. But we can actually measure that in independent
Speaker 1: ways because they can look at super ancient trees, right.
Speaker 1: Trees are really cool because they grow and they add rings,
Speaker 1: and those new rings interact with the biosphere, but the
Speaker 1: old rings don't. So every year a tree is basically
Speaker 1: like taking a sample of the carbon fourteen fraction in
Speaker 1: the atmosphere and storing it forever. And so if you
Speaker 1: slice open a really old tree and look back at
Speaker 1: the carbon fourteen fraction in each of the rings, you
Speaker 1: can get like a history of the carbon fourteen fraction
Speaker 1: at the time that the tree was growing. Do you
Speaker 1: not happen to know what the oldest tree we've done
Speaker 1: that on is. Are we talking about like hundreds of
Speaker 1: years worth of data? A thousands. We have lots that
Speaker 1: are hundreds of years and a few that are thousands
Speaker 1: of years, and so that really helped us calibrate like
Speaker 1: the more recent fluctuations in carbon fourteen. But also humans
Speaker 1: have really altered the carbon fourteen fraction in the atmosphere.
Speaker 1: For example, we've been burning a lot of fossil fuels
Speaker 1: over the last couple of hundred years. Fossil fuels have
Speaker 1: carbon but no carbon fourteen, so we've been releasing a
Speaker 1: lot of carbon twelve into the atmosphere, really bringing down
Speaker 1: the carbon fourteen fraction in the atmosphere. So, like, human
Speaker 1: effects have really changed this and made it more complicated
Speaker 1: to interpret the past. Wow. So like if you were
Speaker 1: an alien trying to age stuff that was happening down
Speaker 1: here on Earth, and you wanted to age something you know,
Speaker 1: thousands of years from now that happened during our period,
Speaker 1: it would be a mess. It would be a mess
Speaker 1: if you didn't have ways to calibrate it. And so fortunately,
Speaker 1: like trees can help us understand these things. Because trees
Speaker 1: have been around for hundreds of years since, we can
Speaker 1: understand the effect the humans have had on the carbon
Speaker 1: fourteen fraction in the atmosphere. But more confusingly, we've had
Speaker 1: effects in both directions. So burning fossil fuels lowers the
Speaker 1: carbon fourteen fraction because you're pumping out super old carbon
Speaker 1: where everything has already decayed. But nuclear testing in the
Speaker 1: atmosphere increases the carbon fourteen fraction because it makes new
Speaker 1: carbon fourteen. Is all this radiation and all the products
Speaker 1: of the nuclear testing makes lots and lots of carbon fourteen,
Speaker 1: much more than it's made from cosmic rays. So like
Speaker 1: in the middle of this century, we had like twice
Speaker 1: as much carbon fourteen in the atmosphere as we usually do.
Speaker 1: Where the worst that'll be another interesting problem for the
Speaker 1: aliens to solve. Then where did all this carbon fourteen
Speaker 1: come from? Oh, they were setting off nuclear weapons in
Speaker 1: the sky, of course there were. It's fascinating because there's
Speaker 1: two sides to that. Archaeologists are frustrated by that because
Speaker 1: we're like poisoning the historical record and making it harder
Speaker 1: to figure out when things came from. But geologists actually
Speaker 1: really like it because it's like a really bright signal.
Speaker 1: They're like, Okay, cool, we can use this to calibrate
Speaker 1: and we can tell when something happened because the so
Speaker 1: much carbon fourteen in that layer. So geologists, I think
Speaker 1: would like us to be like regularly nuking the atmosphere
Speaker 1: in predictable and periodic ways because it leaves like this
Speaker 1: ruler back in the record. You know, I know a
Speaker 1: geologist I think is not quite that self interested, but
Speaker 1: I can imagine him thinking that that's a silver lining
Speaker 1: of an awful thing. Humans are complicated. So yeah, so
Speaker 1: you have to take all this into account, and you
Speaker 1: have to know, like what was the rate of carbon
Speaker 1: fourteen in the atmosphere over the last few thousand years.
Speaker 1: And you also have to take into account where you
Speaker 1: have found something. If you found it in the deep ocean,
Speaker 1: then it was going to get less carbon fourteen to
Speaker 1: begin with, and then if you found it in the
Speaker 1: upper atmosphere. Also, the different hemispheres of Earth have different
Speaker 1: depositions of carbon fourteen because there's different like patterns of winds,
Speaker 1: and the North and the South hemisphere actually have totally separate,
Speaker 1: independent wind systems that don't really mix very well. So
Speaker 1: there's less carbon fourteen in the southern atmosphere because it's
Speaker 1: like more surface area of ocean which sucks up more
Speaker 1: carbon fourteen, and there's more carbon fourteen in the northern
Speaker 1: hemisphere where this is less ocean surface. Do you have
Speaker 1: any sense for like for the hemisphere thing, are we
Speaker 1: talking like if you didn't correct for that, you'd be
Speaker 1: off by about ten years or a thousand years, or
Speaker 1: it just kind of depends on a lot of other
Speaker 1: stuff too. These all are really small effects, and everybody
Speaker 1: wants really precise dating of things, you know, down to
Speaker 1: the decades, and so this is the kind of thing
Speaker 1: that happens in science. First, you have a very approximate effect.
Speaker 1: You're like, okay, let's just assume carbon fourteen is constant
Speaker 1: everywhere and over time. What do we get? Oh my gosh,
Speaker 1: it can teach us something already. Then you start to
Speaker 1: hone in on the details you want, like the second
Speaker 1: digit to be accurate, and then the third, and then
Speaker 1: the fourth, and by now we're like, you know, seventy
Speaker 1: years into this research project, we're getting down to the
Speaker 1: nitty greedy details. So a lot of these things will
Speaker 1: affect our estimate for the dates of things by decades
Speaker 1: or maybe up to hundreds of years, not thousands of years.
Speaker 1: It's not going to like up end everything we thought
Speaker 1: we knew. We also need a really precise estimate of
Speaker 1: the half life of carbon fourteen, right, we have to
Speaker 1: be able to calibrate this clock to know how long
Speaker 1: does it take carbon fourteen two decay? And as you said,
Speaker 1: you can't wait around for five thousand years, which would
Speaker 1: be the best way to get an accurate measurement. But
Speaker 1: people have been developing more and more precise experiments with
Speaker 1: like larger samples of carbon fourteen, So they actually had
Speaker 1: to update the official half life of carbon fourteen from
Speaker 1: fifty five sixty eight later to fifty seven thirty so
Speaker 1: a change of like one hundred and fifty years. And
Speaker 1: this is super fascinating because it then required a change
Speaker 1: of all the archaeological dates. Like all the archaeologists who
Speaker 1: thought that their thing was data to a certain date. Oops,
Speaker 1: they got updated because the nuclear physicists or the chemists
Speaker 1: got the number wrong. Does that mean that you get
Speaker 1: to redo all of your publications with the updated date
Speaker 1: and double the number of lines you have on your
Speaker 1: CV because in that case, thank you physicists. It means
Speaker 1: that there's a bunch of papers out there with old
Speaker 1: dates that we now like no need corrections. You can't
Speaker 1: just read the old pay in archaeology and take the
Speaker 1: dates and face value. You have to know when that
Speaker 1: date was calculated. Like what effects did they take into account?
Speaker 1: And what effects do we now take into account? So
Speaker 1: the whole thing has gotten really really complicated. That is frustrating,
Speaker 1: but it also has been an enormous boon to archaeology.
Speaker 1: I mean, what a powerful tool, Like anything that was alive,
Speaker 1: now you can date the moment of its death. And
Speaker 1: that's not a perfect tool, right, It still thinks like
Speaker 1: when was this metal forged? Well, we can't tell because
Speaker 1: it was never alive. It doesn't participate in the carbon biosphere,
Speaker 1: So you can't date like jewelry, you know, or swords
Speaker 1: or stuff like that, but you can look at what
Speaker 1: else is in a grave and you can tell maybe
Speaker 1: when that person died. And before this, archaeologists had much
Speaker 1: more rudimentary methods. You know, they had this like layer
Speaker 1: method where they would like count down from the ground
Speaker 1: and try to like find things that they knew happened
Speaker 1: that they could use to like sandwich when their relics
Speaker 1: might have been buried. So it was very, very rough.
Speaker 1: And now we have this whittle measure for these objects
Speaker 1: when they died. It's super powerful. It's super powerful. But
Speaker 1: I wonder if there was also a generation of scientists
Speaker 1: who are like, you know, the whole reason I got
Speaker 1: into archaeologies because I don't want to be in the lab,
Speaker 1: and now I have to be in the lab to
Speaker 1: get these dates. But on the other hand, I think
Speaker 1: we all benefit when we get to more accurate, precise information. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think that's probably true. After this was discovered, very rapidly,
Speaker 1: a bunch of labs were set up around the world
Speaker 1: to start doing radiocarbon dating. So it's not the kind
Speaker 1: of thing that like a typical archaeologist so does in
Speaker 1: the field, or every archaeologist has their own radiocarbon setup.
Speaker 1: It's a little bit of an involved process. What you
Speaker 1: have to do is measure the carbon fourteen ratio. In
Speaker 1: the old days, what they did was just sort of
Speaker 1: like count the radiation emitted because it's emitting beta rays
Speaker 1: when it's decaying. So that was the old strategy. More
Speaker 1: recently they have a more precise strategy which uses mass spectrometer.
Speaker 1: So it takes a sample of it, accelerates it bends
Speaker 1: it through a magnetic field, and then it'll bend more
Speaker 1: if it has low mass ass unless if it has
Speaker 1: high mass. So it gives you like a spectrum of
Speaker 1: the mass of the object that you're sampling, and you
Speaker 1: can tell how much carbon fourteen, how much carbon twelve
Speaker 1: is in there. You don't have to wait for the
Speaker 1: carbon fourteen to decay, so you're getting to take advantage
Speaker 1: of all the carbon fourteen in there, not just the
Speaker 1: ones that happen to be decaying as you're watching. So
Speaker 1: these are pretty specialized techniques now, and I think most
Speaker 1: archaeologists like will send a sample to the lab rather
Speaker 1: than like doing it themselves. So I think you still
Speaker 1: have like old school Indiana Jones types out there in
Speaker 1: the field, gathering stuff, plundering sites, civilization exactly. Oh man,
Speaker 1: the ethics of archaeology not something I want to get into. Yeah,
Speaker 1: nuralistic was science, Yeah, but then sending those samples to
Speaker 1: a lab to do the dating. So you probably have
Speaker 1: like a division. You know, you have the radiocarbon archaeologists
Speaker 1: in the lab and the folks who are not in
Speaker 1: the lab. Okay, well, let's step away from the ethical
Speaker 1: quandaries presented to us by archaeology and talk about dinosaurs.
Speaker 1: So sorry, So we've we've established, unfortunately early on, that
Speaker 1: carbon fourteen is not help for dinosaurs. Is there something
Speaker 1: we can use if we're interested in when a dinosaur bone,
Speaker 1: you know, when the dinosaur died. Dinosaurs are tricky, absolutely,
Speaker 1: because this clock has all run out. All carbon fourteen
Speaker 1: that was in dinosaurs has now decayed. So what you
Speaker 1: need are longer clocks. We did an episode about using
Speaker 1: uranium to date stuff because there's this cool relationship between
Speaker 1: uranium and lead. Uranium two thirty eight and uranium two
Speaker 1: thirty five has half lives of more than a million years,
Speaker 1: and so they're useful for dating stuff that's super duper old.
Speaker 1: And when they form, this cool thing happens. They get
Speaker 1: these zircon crystals zi r c N, And when those
Speaker 1: zircon crystals form, they reject any lead and they like
Speaker 1: expel lead from inside the crystal. So when they're formed,
Speaker 1: they're like lead free, but they do take uranium in them,
Speaker 1: and uranium decays into lead, so each one is like
Speaker 1: a little hawk. Could you pick up a zircon crystal
Speaker 1: and measure how much lead is inside of it, you
Speaker 1: can tell when it was formed. So now we're dating
Speaker 1: like when a rock cooled into these crystals, which is
Speaker 1: pretty cool. That's awesome, And so then you measure in
Speaker 1: the rock around the fossils or something. Yeah, exactly. Now,
Speaker 1: dinosaur bones don't have this stuff in them, but sometimes
Speaker 1: around the dinosaur bones there's like cooled magma, so this
Speaker 1: igneous rock. Because fossils only form in sedimentary rock. But
Speaker 1: if you have like layers of igneous rock above and
Speaker 1: below your fossil, then you can use the zircon crystals
Speaker 1: in those rocks to figure out when those crystals were
Speaker 1: formed and therefore racket your dinosaur bones, so you can
Speaker 1: tell roughly when it must have existed. Yea science. Science.
Speaker 1: I was always puzzled as a kid when people would
Speaker 1: talk about like the age of rocks. I'm like, what
Speaker 1: does that mean? Like when is a rock born? Right,
Speaker 1: it's not. Rock was never alive. And there's only later
Speaker 1: that I understood that they're talking about when the rock cooled.
Speaker 1: Because you have like that block of magma. It was
Speaker 1: still basically rock. It was just like liquid rock. But
Speaker 1: it's when it's cooled into a rock and formed crystal.
Speaker 1: That's what they're interested in. That's what they're measuring. It's
Speaker 1: like saying, how old is my ice cube? Well, you know,
Speaker 1: the water in it has been water forever, but it's
Speaker 1: only been an ice cube since you put it in
Speaker 1: the freezer last Tuesday. So that's like the age of
Speaker 1: your ice cube in the same way. It's a good
Speaker 1: way to explain it. So yeah, that's the story of
Speaker 1: radiocarbon dating, this incredible cool process where clocks are created
Speaker 1: in the upper atmosphere and then drift down into the
Speaker 1: biosphere inhaled by plants eaten by you and then stop
Speaker 1: ticking and as soon as you stop eating and breathing.
Speaker 1: Thanks very much Kelly for joining us on this trip
Speaker 1: into debunking the Shroud of Turn and confirming the Dead
Speaker 1: Sea scrolls. Thanks for bringing me along up the trip.
Speaker 1: I had a great time, all right, and thanks everyone
Speaker 1: for listening, And if you have questions about how something works,
Speaker 1: please don't be shy, right to us to questions at
Speaker 1: Dangel and Jorge dot com. Tune in next time. Bye,
Speaker 1: Thanks for listening, and remember that Daniel and Jorge Explain
Speaker 1: the Universe is a production of iHeartRadio or more podcast
Speaker 1: from my heart Radio visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts,
Speaker 1: or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.