PDA

View Full Version : Carbon dating sf GGWS



Capablanca-Fan
23-12-2012, 04:41 PM
But this is Jono we're talking about. He will try to persuade you that there is significant debate among scientists whether the world is more than 6000 years old.
Of course, with all the evidence for it (http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth), such as DNA in dino bones (http://creation.com/dino-dna-bone-cells) and C-14 in coal and diamonds (http://creation.com/diamonds-a-creationists-best-friend).

Desmond
23-12-2012, 05:11 PM
Of course, with all the evidence for it (http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth), such as DNA in dino bones (http://creation.com/dino-dna-bone-cells) and C-14 in coal and diamonds (http://creation.com/diamonds-a-creationists-best-friend).
:lol:

Rincewind
23-12-2012, 05:57 PM
Of course, with all the evidence for it (http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth), such as DNA in dino bones (http://creation.com/dino-dna-bone-cells) and C-14 in coal and diamonds (http://creation.com/diamonds-a-creationists-best-friend).

That is too funny. As already amply demonstrated here (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=8694&page=13) your whole argument is bogus anyway. And you can add to that it is circular! Since Allentoft et al (which you use to 'prove' DNA cannot last that long) is fundamentally based on radiocarbon dating. So you are using a paper that relies heavily on radiocarbon dating to cast doubt on the validity of radiocarbon dating. Now that makes sense (to a brain-dead creationist). :lol:

pax
23-12-2012, 10:50 PM
Of course, with all the evidence for it (http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth), such as DNA in dino bones (http://creation.com/dino-dna-bone-cells) and C-14 in coal and diamonds (http://creation.com/diamonds-a-creationists-best-friend).

Well done Jono, what a comprehensive demonstration of the lack of scientific evidence for your eccentric opinions.

pax
23-12-2012, 10:57 PM
The staggering hypocrisy of this is rather amusing:


Ages of millions of years are all calculated by assuming the rates of change of processes in the past were the same as we observe today—called the principle of uniformitarianism. If the age calculated from such assumptions disagrees with what they think the age should be, they conclude that their assumptions did not apply in this case, and adjust them accordingly. If the calculated result gives an acceptable age, the investigators publish it.

Examples of young ages listed here are also obtained by applying the same principle of uniformitarianism. Long-age proponents will dismiss this sort of evidence for a young age of the earth by arguing that the assumptions about the past do not apply in these cases. In other words, age is not really a matter of scientific observation but an argument about our assumptions about the unobserved past.

The assumptions behind the evidences presented here cannot be proved, but the fact that such a wide range of different phenomena all suggest much younger ages than are currently generally accepted, provides a strong case for questioning those accepted ages (13.7 billion years for the universe and 4.54 billion years for the solar system).

... (for example)

Human history is consistent with a young age of the earth

Human population growth. Less than 0.5% p.a. growth from six people 4,500 years ago would produce today’s population. Where are all the people? if we have been here much longer?

Capablanca-Fan
24-12-2012, 02:32 AM
The staggering hypocrisy of this is rather amusing:
Typical atheopathic fact-free accusation.

Rincewind
24-12-2012, 09:36 AM
Typical atheopathic fact-free accusation.

Typical brain-dead creationist, you just didn't understand Pax's point.

You can't rail against uniformitarianism on the one hand and then claim that the present population is proof of a young earth as a it gives a 6 people to present population in 4.5 ky.

pax
24-12-2012, 10:30 AM
Typical atheopathic fact-free accusation.

Don't mind me, I'm just part of the conspiracy of science determined to deny the reality of a young Earth.

Kevin Bonham
24-12-2012, 05:43 PM
The staggering hypocrisy of this is rather amusing:

The staggering stupidity of the last bit even without the hypocrisy is likewise - especially given what we know about changes in the rate of population growth at particular times.

Ian Murray
24-12-2012, 07:33 PM
The staggering stupidity of the last bit even without the hypocrisy is likewise - especially given what we know about changes in the rate of population growth at particular times.

http://sphotos-h.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/c0.0.403.403/p403x403/73808_374033166021412_916355278_n.jpg

Capablanca-Fan
25-12-2012, 04:18 AM
The staggering stupidity of the last bit even without the hypocrisy is likewise - especially given what we know about changes in the rate of population growth at particular times.
The staggering bigotry and moronicity of the atheopaths is breathtaking. The main article referred to (http://creation.com/where-are-all-the-people) discussed all that.

Capablanca-Fan
25-12-2012, 04:19 AM
You can't rail against uniformitarianism on the one hand and then claim that the present population is proof of a young earth as a it gives a 6 people to present population in 4.5 ky.
Addressed in the article (http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth):

Ages of millions of years are all calculated by assuming the rates of change of processes in the past were the same as we observe today—called the principle of uniformitarianism. If the age calculated from such assumptions disagrees with what they think the age should be, they conclude that their assumptions did not apply in this case, and adjust them accordingly. If the calculated result gives an acceptable age, the investigators publish it.

Examples of young ages listed here are also obtained by applying the same principle of uniformitarianism. Long-age proponents will dismiss this sort of evidence for a young age of the earth by arguing that the assumptions about the past do not apply in these cases. In other words, age is not really a matter of scientific observation but an argument about our assumptions about the unobserved past.

The assumptions behind the evidences presented here cannot be proved, but the fact that such a wide range of different phenomena all suggest much younger ages than are currently generally accepted, provides a strong case for questioning those accepted ages (13.7 billion years for the universe and 4.54 billion years for the solar system).

Also, a number of the evidences, rather than giving any estimate of age, challenge the assumption of slow-and-gradual uniformitarianism, upon which all deep-time dating methods depend.

Ian Murray
25-12-2012, 07:10 AM
I particularly liked the article on carbon dating of diamonds. Not mentioned was the fact that only organic material can be carbon dated. Diamonds are not organic, and are dated by other means.

Capablanca-Fan
25-12-2012, 07:31 AM
I particularly liked the article on carbon dating of diamonds. Not mentioned was the fact that only organic material can be carbon dated. Diamonds are not organic, and are dated by other means.
What would you know? The fact that they have C14 proves that they have been around much less than the claimed billions of years, otherwise all the C-14 they contained would have disintegrated. C-14 is supposed to date once-living things, since after death, they are not supposed to equilibrate with the environment any more. But anything with carbon is fair game.

Desmond
25-12-2012, 07:45 AM
Whet would you know? The fact that they have C14 proves that they have been around much less than the claimed billions of years, otherwise all the C-14 they contained would have disintegrated. C-14 is supposed to date once-living things, since after death, they are not supposed to equilibrate with the environment any more. But anything with carbon is fair game.
:lol: Nit.

Ian Murray
25-12-2012, 08:07 AM
Whet would you know? ...
More than you. it seems. Even one of your sites, Science against Evolution (http://scienceagainstevolution.info/v15i8e.htm), agrees with me:

Carbon 14 can’t be used to date diamonds because carbon 14 dating tells how long it has been since something died. Since diamonds were never alive, it doesn’t work

Other isotopic dating methods give ever-increasingly accurate age measurements than the 50K-year upper limit for C-14, e.g.:

...Age determinations using radioactive isotopes have reached the point where they are subject to very small errors of measurement, now usually less than 1%. For example, minerals from a volcanic ash bed in southern Saskatchewan, Canada, have been dated by three independent isotopic methods (Baadsgaard, et al., 1993). The potassium/argon method gave an age of 72.5 plus or minus 0.2 million years ago (mya), a possible error of 0.27%; the uranium/lead method gave an age of 72.4 plus or minus 0.4 mya, a possible error of 0.55%; and the rubidium/strontium method gave an age of 72.54 plus or minus 0.18 mya, a possible error of 0.25%. The possible errors in these measurements are well under 1%. For comparison, 1% of an hour is 36 seconds. For most scientific investigations an error of less than 1% is insignificant.

As we have learned more, and as our instrumentation has improved, geoscientists have reevaluated the ages obtained from the rocks. These refinements have resulted in an unmistakable trend of smaller and smaller revisions of the radiometric time scale. This trend will continue as we collect and analyze more samples....

http://www.agiweb.org/news/evolution/datingfossilrecord.html

Capablanca-Fan
25-12-2012, 08:28 AM
More than you. it seems.
Doubt it; you're a leftatheopathic agitprop-generator, not a scientist.


Even one of your sites, Science against Evolution (http://scienceagainstevolution.info/v15i8e.htm), agrees with me:
Not one of my sites!



Carbon 14 can’t be used to date diamonds because carbon 14 dating tells how long it has been since something died. Since diamonds were never alive, it doesn’t work
This guys is as clueless as IM. C-14 dating measures the amount of C-14 in something. Then with assumptions made about the initial amount, and a closed system, they interpret the remaining C-14 as that left over after X years of decay since the system became closed. For living things, this closure is assumed to be death. With diamonds, the closure is probably when the diamond was quenched into its lattice.

Other isotopic dating methods give ever-increasingly accurate age measurements than the 50K-year upper limit for C-14, e.g.:
Yes, after about 50ka (probably up to 100ka with AMS), there should be no C-14 left. So if there is detectable C-14, then the sample must be under that age. See a Ph.D. nuclear physicist explain (http://creation.com/jim-mason-nuclear-physicist#c14).

Desmond
25-12-2012, 09:33 AM
More than you. it seems. Even one of your sites, Science against Evolution (http://scienceagainstevolution.info/v15i8e.htm), agrees with me:Commendable of you to try, but I don't see much point in spoonfeeding Jono the very information he has gone out of his way to ignore and/or misrepresent.

Rincewind
25-12-2012, 09:41 AM
So if there is detectable C-14, then the sample must be under that age.

Or it has been contaminated somehow in the last 50,000 years.

Kevin Bonham
25-12-2012, 10:38 AM
The staggering bigotry and moronicity of the atheopaths is breathtaking. The main article referred to (http://creation.com/where-are-all-the-people) discussed all that.

In this case I was not aware that the quote by pax included a section that was linked. But in any case, the main article is pseudodemographic rubbish. Its evidence about population change rates in the distant past is confined to "data from the Bible" (a discredited source on demography anyway since it has people living for several centuries in spite of the complete lack of verification from other sources) concerning people breeding like rabbits after the alleged Flood.

The article's attempt to knock down the evolutionary account relies on an argument based on the consequences of a 0.01% growth rate. In considering the alternative possibility that for the great majority of the species' time on earth the population was neither rising nor falling - on a long term basis - but simply in equilibrium at a relatively low level as are a great many other species with a wide range of reproductive strategies, the best it can do is this footnote:


Even if the population were a million, the low reproductive rate would not be sufficient to eliminate harmful mutations. The mutational load alone would have ensured extinction.

(which is then referred to more dodgy creationist arguments, and on it goes ...)

Ian Murray
26-12-2012, 08:35 AM
C-14 dating measures the amount of C-14 in something. Then with assumptions made about the initial amount, and a closed system, they interpret the remaining C-14 as that left over after X years of decay since the system became closed. For living things, this closure is assumed to be death. With diamonds, the closure is probably when the diamond was quenched into its lattice.
With diamonds being formed 100-200 km below the surface (if your CMI article can be believed), it is not possible to make any assumptions about the ratio of C-14 to C-12 and C-13 in that environment because no-one has any idea what the ratio is or was at that depth. Carbon dating only works for atmospheric-based carbon.

See a Ph.D. nuclear physicist explain (http://creation.com/jim-mason-nuclear-physicist#c14).
One being paid by Creation Ministries who - surprise, surprise - spouts the party line.

Rincewind
26-12-2012, 09:30 AM
The following is well worth seeing...

iGDrq8rikJc

Capablanca-Fan
26-12-2012, 02:16 PM
With diamonds being formed 100–200 km below the surface (if your CMI article can be believed),
This is standard understanding, not just by creationists. Just check a phase diagram for carbon: you will see why high pressure is needed to make diamond the most thermodynamically stable form of carbon, but then it must be quenched to a lower temperature so it won't anneal to graphite when pressure is lowered.


it is not possible to make any assumptions about the ratio of C-14 to C-12 and C-13 in that environment because no-one has any idea what the ratio is or was at that depth. Carbon dating only works for atmospheric-based carbon.
Again clueless. None of these considerations matter. The fact is, there should be no detectable C-14 in diamonds that were formed even a million years ago, let alone over a billion. No matter how much C-14 the diamond started with, it still would have decayed. My proof (http://creation.com/diamonds-a-creationists-best-friend#r3) should be simple enough even for you.


One being paid by Creation Ministries who—surprise, surprise—spouts the party line.
I.e. IM, the scientific ignoramus that he is, can't answer this real expert's points. He took a lower salary to work for CMI.

Desmond
26-12-2012, 02:29 PM
Carbon dating only works for atmospheric-based carbon.
Exactly, as has been known for the better part of 30 years, that the source of C14 is not the same.

Excess carbon‐14 abundances in uranium ores: Possible evidence for emission from uranium‐series isotopes (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1985/GL012i010p00737.shtml)

Capablanca-Fan
27-12-2012, 03:12 AM
Exactly, as has been known for the better part of 30 years, that the source of C14 is not the same.

Excess carbon‐14 abundances in uranium ores: Possible evidence for emission from uranium‐series isotopes (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1985/GL012i010p00737.shtml)
I addressed this under Objection 2 (http://creation.com/diamonds-a-creationists-best-friend#objections):

The 14C was produced by U-fission (actually it’ cluster decay of radium isotopes that are in the uranium decay chain). This was an excuse proposed for 14C in coal, also analysed in Dr Baumgardner’s paper, but not possible for diamonds. But to explain the observed 14C, then the coal would have to contain 99% uranium, so colloquial parlance would term the sample ‘uranium’ rather than ‘coal’.

Desmond
27-12-2012, 04:01 AM
I addressed this under Objection 2 (http://creation.com/diamonds-a-creationists-best-friend#objections):

The 14C was produced by U-fission (actually it’ cluster decay of radium isotopes that are in the uranium decay chain). This was an excuse proposed for 14C in coal, also analysed in Dr Baumgardner’s paper, but not possible for diamonds. But to explain the observed 14C, then the coal would have to contain 99% uranium, so colloquial parlance would term the sample ‘uranium’ rather than ‘coal’.
Except that that doesn't address it. :hmm:

Capablanca-Fan
28-12-2012, 01:01 PM
Except that that doesn't address it. :hmm:
It does, as you would realize if you had any qualifications in nuclear physics (as I do).

Desmond
28-12-2012, 01:14 PM
It does, as you would realize if you had any qualifications in nuclear physics (as I do).Evidently those with actual qualifications don't rate Baumwotzit's apologetical musings, else he would have published them in a journal that didn't have "Creation" in the title. :lol:

Capablanca-Fan
29-12-2012, 02:41 AM
Evidently those with actual qualifications don't rate Baumwotzit's apologetical musings, else he would have published them in a journal that didn't have "Creation" in the title. :lol:
He would have, if the censorship of challenges to evolutionary/uniformitarianism were not so rigid. Once again, that "explanation" you cite cannot account for the observed amounts of 14C in these samples. That is, because only 1 or 2 in a billion decays of nuclides in the 238U decay chain is a cluster decay that produces 14C, "The average value of 14C atoms/uranium atom is (2.2±0.5)×10^−15". The amount of observed 14C in the coal or diamonds, if produced this way, would imply that the sample was about 99% 238U.

Desmond
29-12-2012, 06:22 AM
He would have, if the censorship of challenges to evolutionary/uniformitarianism were not so rigid.This garbage might fool your ignorant masses but it doesn't fool me. If his paper furthers the knowledge of mankind it will want to be published and journals will want to publish it. If it is just apologetical musings, then the only place you'll find it will be in some "Creation" magazine.

You're right, I am not an expert in this area, so I cannot determine the veracity of these musings without spending considerable time. That is why I would only bother if it has passed the gate of peer review, so that those people who are experts find it to be an acceptable standard. By all means if it is true, publish it. But we both know that's not going to happen.

Ian Murray
29-12-2012, 07:08 AM
The flaws in Baumgardner's findings are analysed here (http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/carbon-kb.htm).

Meanwhile four billion year old zircons encasing diamonds (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20394852/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/diamond-find-could-shed-light-early-earth/) have been found in WA. (Four billion years is a media rounding; the peer-review paper (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v448/n7156/full/nature06083.html) dates the zircons age range as 3,058 ± 7 to 4,252 ± 7 million years.

Capablanca-Fan
30-12-2012, 05:19 AM
The flaws in Baumgardner's findings are analysed here (http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/carbon-kb.htm).
Nothing that Dr Baumgardner hasn't already addressed (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/11/30/feedback-rate-contamination).


Meanwhile four billion year old zircons encasing diamonds (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20394852/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/diamond-find-could-shed-light-early-earth/) have been found in WA.
How do they know? Let's see them radiocarbon-date the diamonds, or analyze the helium (http://creation.com/helium-evidence-for-a-young-world-continues-to-confound-critics) or argon in the zircons (http://creation.com/argon-diffusion-age), because it's likely that far too much of these radiogenic gases have been retained for them to be even millions of years old.

Desmond
30-12-2012, 10:07 AM
The flaws in Baumgardner's findings are analysed here (http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/carbon-kb.htm).

thanks

Ian Murray
31-12-2012, 07:29 AM
How do they know? Let's see them radiocarbon-date the diamonds, or analyze the helium or argon in the zircons, because it's likely that far too much of these radiogenic gases have been retained for them to be even millions of years old.

Jack Hills, Western Australia (http://austhrutime.com/jack_hills.htm)


An outcrop of similar age to Mt Narryer, but 80 km to the east.

The Canadian Shield is one the most extensive ancient rock formations on Earth, and the rocks of the Acasta Gneiss, east of Great Slave Lake, at 4.03 billion years were thought to be the oldest rocks on Earth. Since then 4.276 billion year old detrital zircons from the Narryer Gneiss Terrane, of the Yilgarn Craton, Western Australia, at Jack Hills near Mt Narryer, were found. Detrital zircons have now been found at Jack Hills that date to 4.404 billion years +\- 8 million years. Their oxygen isotope ratios and the presence of micro inclusions of SiO2 indicate that they formed in molten granite in the presence of liquid water. This indicates that they are the oldest known instance of continental crust and liquid oceans.

Episodes, Journal of the International Union of Geological Sciences
Volume 24, No.2
June 2001

Review of the oldest (440-3600 Ma) geological and mineralogical record: Glimpses of the beginning
Allen P. Nutman, Clark R. L. Friend, and Vickie C. Bennett

Known occurrences of rocks from the first billion years (?3550 Ma) form a minuscule ~10,000 Km2 of Earth's surface. The largest areas are in Greenland (Itsaq Gneiss Complex), Labrador and Western Australia, with smaller ones elsewhere in Greenland and in Antarctica, China and the Acasta area, Canada (containing the oldest-known terrestrial rocks at ~ 4030 Ma). 4000-4400 Ma detrital zircons in sediments at Mt Narryer and the Jack Hills, Western Australia are another important part of the first billion years record. The Itsaq Gneiss Complex (Greenland ) has the largest domains of least strain and migmatisation, with the most recognisable (amphibolite facies) sedimentary, volcanic and plutonic structures. These show a "normal" Earth by ~ 3800 Ma, with a hydrosphere, life and division of the lithosphere into granitic and mafic components of unremarkable composition. There is no apparent geological evidence for the effects of impacts. Isotopic and petrographic work on ancient Western Australian zircons implies granites and hydrosphere were present on Earth 4400-4200 million years ago. Isotopic studies of first billion years rocks and minerals show that juvenile granitoids were added repeatedly to continental crust in the Archaean, core formation occurred in the first 100 million years and also the mantle differentiated early on into chemically distinct domains.
...

Internal zoning and U–Th–Pb chemistry of Jack Hills detrital zircons: a mineral record of early Archean to Mesoproterozoic (4348–1576 Ma) magmatism • ARTICLE
Pages 251-279

Magmatic processes were important on the nascent Earth during the first 500 million years (Ma) after accretion, yet the causes and timing of this early magmatism are largely unconstrained, as no rocks from this period have been discovered. Rare >4000 Ma detrital zircons from Western Australia preserve the only direct geologic evidence of this early magmatism. To understand the genesis and history of these zircons, we present the results of a combined ion and electron microprobe, and SEM study of the age, Th–U chemistry, cathodoluminescence (CL) zoning patterns, and inclusions for a population of detrital zircons from Jack Hills, Western Australia, with 207Pb/206Pb ages ranging from 4348 to 1576 Ma. The majority of the zircons preserve primary growth features discernable by CL imaging, such as oscillatory and sector zoning, have Th/U ratios from 0.1 to 1.0, and several contain granitic mineral inclusions. Thus, aside from age they are largely indistinguishable from zircons produced in common felsic magmas. The Jack Hills zircons are therefore remnants of igneous rock-forming events that pre-date the rock record by up to 400 Ma. The 207Pb/206Pb age distribution pattern for zircons older than 3800 Ma from Western Australia suggests that early Archean magmatism was punctuated, both in terms of high frequency events and conspicuous gaps. The variable age distributions within different rock units in the Jack Hills demonstrate that Early Archean zircons were derived from multiple source rocks; samples from Eranondoo Hill contain up to 12% >4000 Ma zircons, suggesting either that the source rocks were nearby or represent a large terrane. Furthermore, younger 3700–3400 Ma rims on 4300–4000 Ma zircons are evidence that >4000 Ma crust survived long enough to participate in younger Archean tectonic events in the Yilgarn Craton of Western Australia. Mesoproterozoic igneous zircons in a quartzite 50 m from Eranondoo Hill are attributed to either sedimentation or tectonic interleaving of younger sediments no earlier than 1576 Ma. This previously unrecognized Proterozoic (or younger) geologic history calls into question previous estimates of the age of the Jack Hills sediments and demonstrates the heterogeneous distribution of >4000 Ma grains within the belt.

Ian Murray
31-12-2012, 07:56 AM
As for the Jack Hills diamonds, the Nature full text can be found here (http://ehis.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?sid=6eb6daa2-6f87-4735-8d16-aa1346026b5a%40sessionmgr115&vid=1&hid=103&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=anh&AN=26299635). Extract:

METHODS SUMMARY
Raman spectroscopy. Laser-Raman spectra were collected with a Jobin Yvon HR800 dispersive Raman spectrometer using the 532nm line of a 14mW Nd-YAG laser. The scattered Raman light was analysed with a 1003objective in 180u backscatter geometry and a charged-coupled device (CCD) detector after being dispersed by a grating of 600 groovesmm21. The diamond inclusions were remeasured for quantitative determination of the position and width of the first order diamond band with a spectral resolution of 1.1 cm-1 (near 1,330 cm-1) using a grating of 1,800 groovesmm-1.

Raman images of the diamond-graphite-(quartz) composite inclusion (Fig. 3c) as well as measurements of the diamond powder were performed with an ISA LabRam dispersive Raman spectrometer using the 632.187nm line of a He-Ne laser and a grating of 1,800 groovesmm-1, yielding a spectral resolution of 1.6 cm-1.

Sensitive high-resolution ion microprobe (SHRIMP). The filtered (O2 2) beam with intensity between 2 and 3 nA was focused on the surface of samples into ,20 mmspot. Secondary ions were passed to the mass spectrometer operating at a mass resolution (M/DM) of ,5,000. Each analysis was preceded by a 2 min raster to remove the Au coating. The peak-hopping data collection routine consisted of five scans through the mass stations, with signals measured by an ion counting electron multiplier. Pb/U ratios were calibrated using an empirical correlation between Pb1/U1 and UO1/U1 ratios, normalized to the Curtin University standard (a 564-Myr-old Sri Lankan zircon). The 0.8–1.6% error obtained from the multiple analyses of Pb/U ratio on the standard during individual SHRIMP sessions was added in quadrature to the errors observed in the unknowns.

Capablanca-Fan
04-01-2013, 09:15 AM
As for the Jack Hills diamonds, the Nature full text can be found here (http://ehis.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?sid=6eb6daa2-6f87-4735-8d16-aa1346026b5a%40sessionmgr115&vid=1&hid=103&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=anh&AN=26299635). Extract:
[INDENT]METHODS SUMMARY
Raman spectroscopy. Laser-Raman spectra were collected with a Jobin Yvon HR800 dispersive Raman spectrometer using the 532nm line of a 14mW Nd-YAG laser. The scattered Raman light was analysed with a 1003objective in 180u backscatter geometry and a charged-coupled device (CCD) detector after being dispersed by a grating of 600 groovesmm21. The diamond inclusions were remeasured for quantitative determination of the position and width of the first order diamond band with a spectral resolution of 1.1 cm-1 (near 1,330 cm-1) using a grating of 1,800 groovesmm-1.
Well, that's my sort of science (laser-Raman spectroscopy)! I also used a Jobin–Yvon Raman spectrometer for my Ph.D. work and published papers (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0584853994001766). Used a gas (Kr) laser though because it could be tuned to a number of excitation frequencies, and I mainly wanted the red one because the photons are less energetic. These guys used basically the same laser setup as in green laser pointers: the Nd-YAG actually is an infrared laser emitting at 1064 nm, then some non-linear optics generate a second harmonic ("frequency doubling") in the green. (Actually it would have been handy to have compact solid state lasers in my day; the gas lasers are bulky and awkward).

I don't know what this has to do with the age though.

Rincewind
04-01-2013, 03:55 PM
I don't know what this has to do with the age though.

That seems to be a common theme.