Slashdot Mirror
Moon Younger Than Previously Thought
TaeKwonDood writes "Analysis of a piece of lunar rock brought back to Earth by the Apollo 16 mission in 1972 has shown that the Moon may be much younger than previously believed. Researchers say that the findings allow for one of two possibilities: the moon is 200 million years younger than previously thought, or the theory that the moon used to be a molten ocean is wrong."
God just made it that way. He's God. He's makes moons however he wants.
Thought he was only 91-year-old.
Please, no "that's no moon" jokes this time. It's getting old. Not as old as previously thought, but still damn old.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
That's not the only thing that turns out to be younger than you thought.
TFA says: Once we removed the contamination, we found that this sample is almost 100 million years younger than we expected," says researcher James Connelly of the Centre for Star and Planet Formation.
Come on /., doesn't anybody verify facts / articles anymore ??
Analysis of your post shows that both the star wars reference and "first post" were made earlier than I had originally expected, which is to say I thought the first post would be about subluxations.
Shouldn't all of the moon matter (silicon, magnesium, iron, etc.) be just as old as earth components from the previous supernova and nebula that created the solar system anyway? Most matter is fused within seconds of solar implosion and explosion. Since it is still taking meteor impacts, we could say it is perpetually new if it is a matter of age in that regard.
Lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in My sight, shall snuff it.
From the article:
The team analysed the isotopes of the elements lead and neodymium to place the age of a sample of a FAN at 4.36 billion years. This figure is significantly younger than earlier estimates of the Moon’s age that range to nearly as old as the age of the solar system itself at 4.567 billion years.
So when they say 200 million years younger, that means 4.3 byr instead of 4.5 byr. I'm sure this is interesting to those in the field, but I don't think that counts as "much younger".
It's because of all of the sun exposure.
We all know it was created just a few thousand years ago on day 4.
NASA could have saved the trip if they'd just asked the local priest!
The moon's age depends on a great many variables. For example, what do you define as being "the moon"? There was a recently discussed theory that there were actually TWO moons originally that collided at relatively low speed to form one final mass. Assuming this to be true, then this could be from either of the two "original" moons or from rock that formed in consequence of the collision. (That gives you one very large body collision, right there.)
We know that the moon did indeed have a liquid core very early on, so volcanic activity and other rock-melting levels of energy were around. They might well have lasted a few hundred million years and it's just possible that something like that could disrupt whatever calculations are being made.
With silica (a major component of the moon's surface) you can establish how long the material has been on the surface, but I don't believe that dating technique is good for timescales of billions of years and it's useless if the silica is more than a millimeter or so below the surface, which you're going to get on an object bombarded by meteorites and assorted other solar system debris. There's a variety of other techniques for directly measuring the age of materials, but I honestly couldn't tell you any that are both staggeringly accurate AND work over unimaginable timescales. Hell, most direct measurements (thermofluorescence) are damn good but still not what I'd call "staggeringly accurate" and don't work well beyond timeframes a hundred thousand times smaller than this.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
She's 43, according to Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_Zappa
Cripes, I fail big time! 2 million is not 200 million!
It is my understanding that the surface is composed of meteorites that hit long after the core formed. Dating the surface should not give you the age of the moon as a whole unless it's uniform in composition. If you do the same to date the Earth, then creationists will have plenty more fuel to support their story.
Oh, the day is correct. Now, the month, on the other hand....
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
he doesnt look anywhere near 200 million years old.
Good people go to bed earlier.
The nutcase Young Earth Creationalists over at Conservapedia will be happy! Too bad we couldn't prove it was 6,000 years old, but don't worry, science is always eventually wrong so eventually someone will prove it's as young as we say!
Check out my sci-fi book "Lacuna" at http://goo.gl/MVxX8
Please change "use to be" to "used to be".
TROLLLLLLLL!
We'll never make it.......oh! we made it! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWf3iJjqYCM&list=FL7kKrE4eTs17mQl7eyvJIOg
Which, in my mind, is different form saying "there was no magma ocean", because it lets open the possibility of "what if the rock is the crystallization product of a younger magma ocean and reached the moon from elsewhere?"
If I'm wrong, where/what am I mistaking?
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
According to the soil sample I was provided, I believe there is truth to the fact that the cow really DID jump over the moon.
But at least I can see a scientist and ask them questions (and get answers).
"Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"
Well, old Qfwfq was right.
While I can accept your believe in a God, I must say NO.
Magnets do not work through science. We know how they work through science. They work through generating an magnetic field.
Gravity doesn't work through science. Science will one day figure out how it works (at least, that's my belief). There are some theories, but science requires proof.
The sun doesn't work through science. We know it's gives light because of fusion because of science.
Scientists have admitted the previous calculations of the age of the moon were incorrect. They have given a new number which can be contested and disputed, if you provide some evidence. The conclusion you draw is (most probably on purpose) the wrongest one possible.
Science is about admitting you could be wrong, but believing you are right (based on evidence or searching for that evidence).
That's the difference between science and religion: science can be proven wrong.
Now, that doesn't prove religion to be wrong. It may be there is a God, that he created everything and that he created "proofs" of other explanations to lead men astray. But I believe that isn't the explanation. I believe science can find the explanation. In that science can be viewed as a religion, but the fundamental difference is that science can be proven wrong.
Ah, but the world is far to complex to explain in a couple of paragraphs.
Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
It is a moon. This article is about the actual moon. It's not because it has the word "moon" in it that the thatsnomoon tag is required. If the article were about a melon shaped like the moon, it deserves the thatsnomoon tag. But now it is about the actual moon. It is a moon. It is THE moon!
I think you completely missed his point (or I am missing it and yours, too ;)).
I didn't see him saying a God is a more believable solution to our problems and questions. I also didn't see him state that scientists have not admitted they were wrong.
All he said was that many people treat science with the same dogmatic fervour others treat their deities with.
And on that count, he's absolutely right.
If you say that religious writings must be questioned because they have been created by humans, then questioning scientific studies must be allowed just as much, because they are human creations as well that can be influenced by other factors than merely wanting to find 'the truth'. Something they just want to find a very specific truth. One must remain wary of that.
On that note, intelligent design, in a true scientists eye, will hold the same merit as the theory of evolution until one of the two is supported by facts and a deeper understanding of the world. Both could, essentially, have a lot of support going, one could pull ahead only to be overtaken by the other again.
The point of science is to NEVER say "Well, we know enough now to not have to question it anymore, AT ALL!"
Sure, you can rest comfortably in the assumption that, with all the evidence, you're probably on the right track, but you simply MUST keep an open mind for new facts and arguments. THAT is science.
Please tell us more - I long to feel the sound of your voice through your typings. Have you looked in the mirror yet ? Please do. Because you're worth it. It must be so great to be you.
O it's not ? Then why all the assumptions about the rest of us ?
Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
Religious people just see the universe as a majestic creation deserving awe, wonder and further study.
Some religious people just see the universe as a majestic creation deserving awe, wonder and further study.
Other religious people see it as "the stuff that God put around us so we've got somewhere to be".
Equally some atheists (such as myself) see the universe as a majestic thing deserving awe, wonder and further study.
Other atheists see it as "the stuff that happens to be around us so we've got somewhere to be".
I just take fault with people on both sides to whom the universe is a closed book.
So do I... but I think it's dishonest to say that the religious see the beauty in the universe more than atheists. I would even contend it's the other way around. Many "famous" atheists have expressed quite loudly their awe at the beauty of this universe we live in, and many atheists are so because they're the "questioning types" who are also inherently MORE likely to want to study it further than the "non questioning types" (note: I'm not saying all religious folk are the non-questioning type, but I would put good money down that the percentage is higher).
My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
It sounds like they are assuming that they just happened to grab one of the oldest pieces of rock on the moon, or that the moon solidified all at once and there were never any later events (volcanoes, large body collisions). If you happened to grab the wrong piece of rock on Earth, say from a recently-erupted volcano, you would determine that the earth was only about a week old...
True. The problem is actually a bit more complex. The system needs to remain "closed". Each radiometric dating method has a different set of circumstances under which it will remain "closed. K-Ar begins getting reset by heating to temp achievable in your kitchen. Rb/Sr requires a much more substantial heating event. The minerals in a single specimen can yield different dates. This can happen when for example a zircon in a granite gets "recycled" via subduction and re-erupted.
Earth is rife with examples. Kistler found that Lamoille canyon region of the Ruby Mts. had been partially "reset" by a post formation heating event, with K/Ar and Nd/Sm and Rb/Sr yielding different dates. Fleck examined some Siderites from the Idaho region that yielded Rb/Sr dates several multiples of the age of the universe. They had been "washed" by hydrothermal fluids, profoundly altering the ratio. In each case the geochronologist used the geologic principals to reconstruct the history and deduce the correct age, and appropriateness of the method to the sample.
On the Moon, we lack such history. With only one exception, the astronauts were not geologists. They did not have the time to explore in enough detail to gather the needed info. They mostly wandered around and collected stuff on the surface. These samples could have been ejecta from a late arriving meteorite, or partially reset by some similar means.
Crystallization causes a zeroing of the isotopic clock. In other words, if a crystal of all potassium is formed, it will contain some potassium-40 isotopes, but no argon-40. This is used to determine when the rock was initially formed. As time passes, potassium-40 decays into argon-40 with a half life of 1.3 billion years. So, if a crystal contains a 1:1 ratio, or 50% (1 half life) potassium-40 to argon-40, the rock was formed 1.3 billion years ago. If it is 25% potassium-40 to 75% argon-40, the rock was formed 1.3 billion years ago.
Of course, the problem with this in planetary dating is that A) you have to assume the crystals were formed exactly when the planet/moon formed, which likely is not the case, since it requires, however brief, a period of cooling for the crystals to form and B) you have to find the rocks that first formed, aka, the oldest rocks.
There is also the problem of margin for error, but this is usually small enough to not really matter. If something is 4 or 5 billion years old, having a 100-200 million year margin for error is still pretty small. The other issue is to use as many of these clocks as possible to find out where they all tend to synchronize. In this case, they used lead and neodymium. And their change was no more spectacular, really, than the Shroud of Turin being dated either 1250 or 1350 AD. We can still say it was around 1300 AD (ignoring the "it caught on fire" contamination theory).
More info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating
I8-D
Well ... no. If only you hadn't picked ID you'd have been OK.
What you say is true as far as it goes - competing scientific theories are compared by gathering evidence and seeing which matches best. The bit you're missing is a little thing called "falsifiability".
A theory is only a true scientific theory if you are able to define what would be required to disprove it. TOE has this property - all you need is to find some lifeform that indisputably could not have got to where it is today through evolution.
Since an all-knowing omnipotent being can, by definition, counter any attempt to disprove his/her/its existence - ID is not and cannot be a scientific theory.
In case you think this is just sophistry, this actually happened to Newton's Theory of Gravitation not so long ago - Newton's theory held sway for centuries, but was displaced by General Relativity when it was discovered that (among other things) Newton's theory could not account for the precession of Mercury, whereas GR accurately predicts this effect.
Don't you wish you hadn't wasted 3 seconds of your life reading this sig?
... give or take 4.5 billion years. Well, more give than take.
The world is made by those who show up for the job.
Saying "I believe these scientists" is not the same as "This is fact and if anyone ever tries to change that I will start a war". People do not believe current scientific facts with the same fervour as religious "facts". Scientific studies are questioned by humans. That is the definition of peer review which is the base of the scientific method.
In a true scientists eye ID and evolution will not hold the same merit. There is evidence of evolution, there is none of ID. If there were some peer reviewed evidence of ID then "true" scientists would take it seriously enough to look into.
No one talks with caveats on everything they say but that does not mean those caveats are not there. Welcome to the ambiguous nature of natural language.
If we define religion as the belief in an omnipotent entity / entities that can never be wrong, and whose smallest whim is the absolute word of law
This would only capture a minute fraction of actual religion and then mostly the Judaeo-Christian-Islamic part. Most religions in human history have had gods as fallible and definitely not all-knowing.
I prefer it that way, myself. I detest the "God is ALWAYS right, totally perfect, omnipotent and all knowing and therefore my religion is CORRECT on absolutely EVERYTHING and *your* religion is a stinking pile of doggy doo." attitude of monotheists.
Pantheists tend to be a little more tolerant; after all the gods can be wrong so hey... maybe these other people who believe in other gods could be right.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
Electrons have been detected and visualized using scientific instruments. Which, in normal speech would be said: "scientists can see electrons". Which one of you was the smug one again?
Pantheists tend to be a little more tolerant; after all the gods can be wrong so hey... maybe these other people who believe in other gods could be right.
It's almost amazing how much respect a little humility can garner a person isn't it? :-)
Cool post bro, highfive \o
Wasn't it just brought up that a long time ago we had two moons and they collided togethet. Maybe that happened around 200 million years after the moon was made? The rock they got was from when the two moons collided and made a new crust? Just a thought.
This would only capture a minute fraction of actual religion and then mostly the Judaeo-Christian-Islamic part. Most religions in human history have had gods as fallible and definitely not all-knowing.
To the GP's credit, the the Judaeo-Christian-Islamic religions do account for a pretty significant chunk of people on the planet (about 3.5 billion people).
If you say that religious writings must be questioned because they have been created by humans, then questioning scientific studies must be allowed just as much, because they are human creations as well that can be influenced by other factors than merely wanting to find 'the truth'. Something they just want to find a very specific truth. One must remain wary of that.
Yeah, that's kinda the point of science. For instance, I just read an article about the age of the moon, where some scientists analysed some moon rocks and now think that the Moon is younger than was previously thought.
All he said was that many people treat science with the same dogmatic fervour others treat their deities with. And on that count, he's absolutely right.
Many people use religion as an excuse to kill other people. Did you have a point there?
Is 1563649 a prime number?
Just to put it into perspective, 200 MY younger would be a little less than 5% younger than previously theorized.
The "first components to freeze out" bit is anchored in lab experiments where you melt stuff, then let it cool and ... err ... see what ... freezes ... out ... first. Technically fiddly, but conceptually not terribly demanding.
The models of the composition (and temperature) of the putative magma ocean, and even the epoch (time) of the Giant Impact, are conceptually more challenging and more open to uncertainty. Which, to be honest, I'd have to read the paper to know more about what they're actually looking at.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
the article states that the sample is 100 million years younger than previously thought, not 200 as the title here would indicate. I was also wondering what are the chances (if even possible that it's been mistaken) that the sample is actually the remnant of something that collided with said moon , say like about 100 million years after it was 'born'. Is that possible? Can something like that even be scientifically checked for certainty ? Is this something like nasa has conclusive evidence that something might have happened ?
Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?