#A Huge Burst Of Gamma rays Hit Earth--And No one Noticedlast year Japanese scientists found evidence that in 775 AD Earth was hit with a sudden blast of high-intensity radiation--a blast carrying about 10000 times the energy of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima. Clearly something catastrophic had occurred in Earth's cosmic neighborhood but whatever it was it apparently went undetected by the 350 million people living on our planet at the time: the historical records contain no mention of strange celestial events that year catastrophic or otherwise. The event is recorded instead in the amount of radioactive carbon trapped in the annual growth rings of some of the world's oldest trees. Carbon's key radioactive isotope carbon-14 forms when energetic particles enter Earth's atmosphere and collide with nitrogen atoms. Since trees take in both carbon-14 and its stable relative carbon-12 the relative levels of carbon-14 in their growth rings give scientists a way of measuring the amount of high-energy particles entering Earth's atmosphere in a given year. When analyzing two ancient Japanese cedars last year the scientists found that the amount of carbon-14 present in their 775 AD growth rings was shockingly large. It's normal for levels of carbon-14 to fluctuate--they rise and fall on an 11-year cycle with the waxing and waning of solar flares. But for the entire 3000-year record there are no other spikes as steep as the one in 775. So what could have caused the massive burst of radiation and the high influx of energetic particles that led to the elevated levels of carbon-14 in the atmosphere? At first two possibilities seemed the most likely: The radiation either came from an especially intense solar flare or the explosion of a nearby star. The scientists ruled out the solar flare hypothesis for two reasons. First flares of the required magnitude would have sparked an unforgettable display of the northern lights but as mentioned no such phenomenon was recorded. Second--and perhaps more importantly--such flares would also have destroyed the Earth's ozone layer exposing all of life to harsh radiation and probably setting in motion a mass extinction event. On to the next possibility. A nearby supernova would have sent gamma rays flying in all directions. Those rays would have created high-energy particles in our atmosphere which could then go on to form the carbon-14 present in such abundance in the Japanese cedars. But in order to send out enough gamma rays to do the trick the supernova would have had to be bigger and brighter than other historical bright spots that were documented in fact. Yet again no record of a 775 supernova exists. And even if people had missed somehow an exploding star that star's remnants would still be out there today giving out a faint glow that could be picked up by telescopes. Scientists have identified already 11 such remnants in our Galactic neighborhood but none are the right age to have caused the 775 spike. When they found that neither solar flares nor supernovae could explain the carbon-14 anomaly they had found the researchers published their discovery and let the mystery stand. But now a group of researchers from Germany has come up with a plausible cause: a short-duration gamma ray burst produced by the collision of two nearby neutron stars. Though immensely powerful (we're talking two 10-mile wide boulders each with the mass of our sun) the collision would only have been visible from Earth for about a day which could explain why the event wasn't recorded. The scientists have identified five neutron stars that could have caused the massive burst and their step is to take a detailed look at those candidates. Wait! So the formation of radioactive isotopes isn't a steady process? This could cause us to change our assumptions about dating methods. Or not because naturalism is about taking the evidence to where you want it to be instead of following it to where it points...But for the entire 3000-year record there are no other spikes as steep as the one in 775...Why is the record 3000 years; no longer or shorter; why 3000?..the collision would only have been visible from Earth for about a day which could explain why the event wasn recorded t...How do they know this is why the event wasn recorded t? Are they sure no one notice? Interesting article though!!!HULK SMASH@bagpipeswhile I applaud you for your strict adherence to the skepticism of the scientific method I would caution you that there is a line to be drawn between keeping critique of a scientific theory or process open so as to continual improve it and/or quantify it's shortcomings...and obstructionism aimed at killing theories and tools because they are not perfect or cannot be empirically proven through testing. I've watched a number of the discussions you've had here providing very strong views about the inadequacies of some scientific theories and processes and I've often gotten the impression you don't think they should be used at all until they can be proven beyond doubt. Of course I think anyone in the business of science prefers directly observable testable theory but that just simply isn't possible or practical in many situations. I hope you understand this reality and the necessity to move forward with the'90%solution'on occasion as little as we like it. You often make it very difficult to agree with you as much as I understand what you're trying to say. With this article as well I cant help but feel you're latching on to any variable or unknown and waving it around like a flag saying you're methods are incorrect! Well yes...in the most basic sense they are wrong much in the same way every applied science is wrong; every technique tool instrument we use in applied science and engineering requires some level of assumption to bring the tool to a practically usable level. That is why we quantify the known variability in our instruments and techniques...but we do not disavow them until they are shown either entirely wrong or less accurate than is needed to support the function we use them for. With that said...It has already been known for quite some time that certain radiometric dating processes (of which C-14 is only one) are susceptible to error from external variables and that there are mechanisms by which additional radiological material can be added to the sample which we generally assume as a closed system. This is not a new revelation so I'm unsure of the'gotcha!''tone of your comment. There are various calibration curves to account for the varying presence of solar radiation and other known sources. As anomalies like the one detailed in this article are found they are incorporated if they have an appreciable effect. This article in fact is a perfect example of just one of the many controls used to limit error from these kind of fluctuations; tree ring studies and sedimentary cores can often be used to identify variations in the atmospheric concentrations of whichever isotope is being used and estimate and /or control the resulting error. This is less helpful in dating on more geological time scales but the various radiometric dating techniques used on those scales have other means of control but result in a much less accurate estimation of age in spite of those controls. All the same an error of a million years may be acceptable if you're dating out in the hundreds of millions or billions of years. While I agree that there are a number of variables that we simply cant capture in radiometric dating techniques and that we make educated assumptions in order to complete the tool with a reasonable level of accuracy I don't see that this invalidates the techniques or their results as you often insinuate in your comments on these articles (please correct me if I read you wrong). Otherwise you may be horrified at how your car the airplane you may have flown in or the building you work in were designed. Engineers LOVE assumptions. Layla. I agree that Wanda`s bl0g is impossible last monday I bought a gorgeous BMW 5-series after having made $7872 this-past/4 weeks and-just over ten k this past-month. without a doubt it is the most comfortable work I've had. I started this 10-months ago and practically straight away began to bring home more than $84 per/hr. I went to this site...NYDAILY5. Buzz70. comrobot i guess the record they were speaking of is the one from old Japanese cedars. Cedars are known to reach 2000+years even in other parts of the world. 3000 years must be pretty much the max though. The reason they would assume the event to be recorded is most likely because of the chinese astronomers. For many hundred years the chinese governement had a large number of clerks dedicated to astronomy. Their (spotless and perfect) records mostly survived until this day. They pretty much never missed any phenomenon. Imho even if it was visible for just a day it should show up i their records. Maybe not if it happened to a location close to the Sun during daylight during summer though. iambronco still there are many flaws to C14 dating . i am not saying it is wrong to work with it or that it doesn't work but it is not as reliable as many believe it to be. C14 works on the assumption that everything always was the same way it is now especially solar activity and our atmosphere. However there were many changes in both solar activity and our atmosphere. And then there are still local variances . i have heard of live animals to be tested as 2000 years old (though i have no reference). That does not neccesarily mean that C14 is worthless but imho you can only rely on it if you have a second dating method confirming your calculations. Also part of the problem is scientists reporting findings based on flawed research as fact. Since most people do not look into the details of a study or other body of research they do not question it. It would be better if media reported scientific findings along with the limitations of the test/report/study/researchi for one was largely unaware of the limitations of carbon 14 dating until recently. The scientific community should correct media outlets when data are reported as fact when it may not be. Until something is proven without a doubt it is still a hypothesis . Or perhaps they think it is better the way it is. This way their work is published as fact among the lay people of the world therefore funding is easier to secure and people are more likely to believe the results. In other words it is in the order of self preservation that they allow the media to contort their words. Also notice how quickly the scientific community responds when the media get something wrong which hurts said community. Prove me wrong.@@Addl The 2000 year old live animals you cite was from testing mollusk shells. The carbon in mollusk shells is dissolved from calcium carbonate in water. Thus the measurement was an average of when the carbon formed not the age of the animal. For this reason radiocarbon dating only works for organisms that obtain their carbon from air via carbon dioxide. Even organisms that eat aquatic organisms should be calibrated to account for this (for example a seal that was dated to be 1400 years old. Shouldn't it be pretty easy for them to expose some 775 A d. soil in the neighborhood of their 3000 year old trees and do a direct uranium timeline abstract from that? Seems logical that any structures in Japan from that era??that are still standing are likewise good places to look for corroborative or disqualifying evidence. There should be expected an spike or radical drop in the magnetic field of local pottery from that time as well correct? 4. 54 Billion Earth has been here. 3000 years is such a tiny gap of time lol. soy sauce was reported first being used in Japan in 775:@@Robot--I think the way I stated the 3000-year record was misleading. The tree-ring record actually goes back 12000 years and includes measurements from thousands of currently living forests as well as lots of long-dead trees that have been preserved in bogs and other decay-proof environments. I mentioned the 3000-year record because for this study the researchers had to be able to see how carbon-14 levels changed from one year to the next but the 12000-year record has only a five year resolution (measurements were taken from every fifth tree-ring; my guess as to the reason why is that carbon-14 dating is quite expensive and the purpose of the record is actually to help calibrate radiocarbon dating so they didn't need to have annual resolution). Over the past 3000 years there have been 3 sharp spikes in carbon-14 levels over a short period of time. Scientists have gone already back and obtained annual tree-ring data for those other two events and it turned out that the carbon-14 spikes occurred over a few years and could be explained by solar activity. Not so of course for the 775 spike. Also@monkeybuttons while it's true that carbon-14 dating isn't perfectly precise this study was based on tree rings which doesn't suffer from the same uncertainties. Yes they were measuring the carbon-14 in tree-rings but they weren't using the carbon-14 to tell them how long ago the event happened. They were measuring the relative change in the isotope from one year to the next. As a side note that may interest@Bagpipes100: the reason scientists amassed this giant carbon record from trees in the first place is so that they could find out how carbon-14 inputs changed over time and then build a calibration curve to make radiocarbon dating more accurate. Before 12000 years that record consists of data from marine sediments. This method not only allows scientists to get more accurate ages but also to say exactly how certain they can be. All carbon-14 dates are given with a plus or minus x years. Emilyelert THANK YOU for the information!!!No one even noticed...except for the poor time traveller that was trapped back then due to the EMP of that sucker...nightawkich If he is timetravel more likely he has an extreme life span too. You should look him up and see how he is? LO O

< Back - Next >

Overtext Web Module V3.0 Alpha
Copyright Semantic-Knowledge, 1994-2011