29 Sep 17
When scientists say the earth 4 billion years old, are they referring to the planet or the materials the planet is made of?
If earth is 4 billion years old, wouldn't it stand to reason that what composes the earth is even older? Or, were earth's materials formed at roughly the same time?
On a side note: since atoms are made from stars, is our sun producing new atoms as well? Or are atoms made only in certain types of stars? Also, can scientists tell how old an atom is, meaning if it was a newly formed atom or one that's existed for billions of years?
Originally posted by @vivify
When scientists say the earth 4 billion years old, are they referring to the planet or the materials the planet is made of?
If earth is 4 billion years old, wouldn't it stand to reason that what composes the earth is even older? Or, were earth's materials formed at roughly the same time?
On a side note: since atoms are made from stars, is our sun pr ...[text shortened]... d an atom is, meaning if it was a newly formed atom or one that's existed for billions of years?
When scientists say the earth 4 billion years old, are they referring to the planet or the materials the planet is made of?
the planet.
If earth is 4 billion years old, wouldn't it stand to reason that what composes the earth is even older?
if what you mean by "what composes the earth" is the chemical elements, yes. And MUCH older.
But if what you mean by "what composes the earth" is the various rock types, then I believe the answer is "it's complicated".
since atoms are made from stars, ...
hydrogen atoms aren't made by stars. Generally only the atoms of the heavier elements come from stars.
is our sun producing new atoms as well?
new KINDS of atom from other kinds of atoms, yes.
Also, can scientists tell how old an atom is, meaning if it was a newly formed atom or one that's existed for billions of years?
No. Atoms don't 'age' although some eventually suddenly 'decay' into different kinds of atom. Although we can deduce that the highly unstable radioactive ones are extremely unlikely to be very old, that isn't because they 'age', because they don't.
29 Sep 17
Originally posted by @humyNo. Atoms don't 'age' although some eventually suddenly 'decay' into different kinds of atom. Although we can deduce that the highly unstable radioactive ones are extremely unlikely to be very old, that isn't because they 'age', because they don't.When scientists say the earth 4 billion years old, are they referring to the planet or the materials the planet is made of?
the planet.If earth is 4 billion years old, wouldn't it stand to reason that what composes the earth is even older?
if what you mean by "what composes the earth" is the chemical elements, yes ...[text shortened]... e ones are extremely unlikely to be very old, that isn't because they 'age', because they don't.
Does this mean an atom will exist forever?
Thank you for your help.
29 Sep 17
1 edit
Originally posted by @vivifyAn atom can undergo various kinds of nuclear reactions. For instance two hydrogen atoms can fuse to form a helium atom, a process that fuels most of our sunlight. One can also, for instance, remove electrons from atoms in order to ionize them, a process that also occurs naturally.
[b]No. Atoms don't 'age' although some eventually suddenly 'decay' into different kinds of atom. Although we can deduce that the highly unstable radioactive ones are extremely unlikely to be very old, that isn't because they 'age', because they don't.
Does this mean an atom will exist forever?
Thank you for your help.[/b]
Atoms in the same quantum state are indistinguishable and there is no way to measure their "age." To estimate the age of e.g. the Earth other methods are used.
Originally posted by @vivifyThat simple question is a surprisingly difficult one to answer.
Does this mean an atom will exist forever?
I have heard of one theory that not even said 'stable' atoms are totally stable over something like a trillion trillion trillion trillion years and every atom will eventually decay to pure energy within something like that massive time period squared BUT don't know if that theory has any scientific credence at all. (ANYONE? )
I have also heard of a prediction based on computer simulations of the future of our universe that every atom in the universe will gradual over something like a trillion trillion trillion trillion years end up in black holes and thus be destroyed.
So I would guess the answer might be that no atom will exist forever but not sure of what the fate of most atoms would be.
29 Sep 17
Originally posted by @humyUnless the other end of the black hole is a big bang of a new universe, then everything is eventually recycled.
That simple question is surprisingly difficult to answer.
I have heard of one theory that not even said 'stable' atoms are totally stable over something like a trillion trillion trillion trillion years and every atom will eventually decay to pure energy within something like that massive time period squared but don't know if that theory has any scientific ...[text shortened]... r might be that no atom will exist forever but not sure of what the fate of most atoms would be.
03 Oct 17
Originally posted by @fabianfnasNo, this is the science forum. They are the ones who assume God does not exist.
Who are they? The creationists?
Nice side step of the question.
03 Oct 17
Originally posted by @eladarSo you say that 'they' are the scientists, they who has a clue?
No, this is the science forum. They are the ones who assume God does not exist.
Nice side step of the question.
And then we have 'creationists' who doesn't have a clue, those who answer 'goddidit' or use words like 'faith' and are sworn enemies of science and rationality?
If this is your point, then I cannot agree more.
Originally posted by @fabianfnasOh that is a joke.
Who are they? The creationists?
They figuring out the source of atoms and energy ...how? From reading the Bible with a literal interpretation and sacrifice some good plump succulent lambs and, when they tried all that and noticed it doesn't work, pray to God to just tell them.
03 Oct 17
Originally posted by @fabianfnasI take it the answer is no.
So you say that 'they' are the scientists, they who has a clue?
And then we have 'creationists' who doesn't have a clue, those who answer 'goddidit' or use words like 'faith' and are sworn enemies of science and rationality?
If this is your point, then I cannot agree more.
04 Oct 17
Originally posted by @eladarThe Big Bang.
Have they figured out the source of atoms and energy yet?
What caused the big bang? No-one knows.