Radiometric Dating

Last updated: February 2, 2026

How scientists measure the age of rocks and comparison of multiple dating methods

What Is Radiometric Dating?

Radiometric dating measures how long radioactive elements in rocks have been decaying. Think of it like a stopwatch that started ticking when the rock formed. Scientists can read this "stopwatch" because radioactive decay happens at predictable, measurable rates.

The method works because certain unstable atoms (called "parent" isotopes) break down into stable atoms (called "daughter" isotopes) at known speeds. By measuring how many parent and daughter atoms are in a rock sample, scientists can calculate how long the decay process has been happening.

Factors Supporting Radiometric Dating

Several independent factors are cited in support of radiometric dating:

How Different Methods Work

Scientists use several different "clocks" based on different radioactive elements. Each method works best for certain types of materials and time ranges:

Carbon-14 (Radiocarbon Dating)

Best for: Recently living things (wood, bone, shells, cloth)

Time range: 300 to 50,000 years ago

How long to decay halfway: 5,730 years

Accuracy: Usually within 2-5% of the true age

Why it works: All living things absorb carbon-14 from the atmosphere. When they die, the carbon-14 starts decaying at a known rate.

Potassium-Argon (K-Ar) and Argon-Argon (Ar-Ar)

Best for: Volcanic rocks and certain minerals

Time range: 100,000 to 4.6 billion years ago

How long to decay halfway: 1.25 billion years

Accuracy: Usually within 2-5% of the true age

Why it works: Potassium decays into argon gas, which gets trapped in crystals when rocks cool.

Uranium-Lead (U-Pb)

Best for: Zircon crystals and other uranium-rich minerals

Time range: 1 million to 4.6 billion years ago

How long to decay halfway: 4.5 billion years (U-238) / 704 million years (U-235)

Accuracy: Often within 0.1-1% of the true age

Why it's special: Uses two different uranium isotopes as a built-in double-check.

Rubidium-Strontium (Rb-Sr)

Best for: Many types of igneous rocks

Time range: 10 million to 4.6 billion years ago

How long to decay halfway: 48.8 billion years

Accuracy: Usually within 1-3% of the true age

Lutetium-Hafnium (Lu-Hf)

Best for: Certain rock-forming minerals

Time range: 50 million to 4.6 billion years ago

How long to decay halfway: 37.1 billion years

Accuracy: Usually within 1-2% of the true age

Samarium-Neodymium (Sm-Nd)

Best for: Very old rocks and meteorites

Time range: 100 million to 4.6 billion years ago

How long to decay halfway: 106 billion years

Accuracy: Usually within 1-2% of the true age

How Scientists Test Whether the Methods Work

Before relying on any dating method, scientists test it thoroughly. Here are approaches used to evaluate radiometric dating results:

Test #1: Multiple Methods on the Same Rock

When scientists use different radioactive elements to date the same rock, they should get the same answer if the methods work correctly. Here are real examples:

These methods employ completely different types of radioactive decay. Close agreement across methods is consistent with constant decay rates.

Test #2: Built-in Error Detection

Isochron dating provides an internal consistency check. Scientists analyze multiple samples from the same rock formation and plot the results on a graph. Valid results should form a straight line:

These near-perfect straight lines indicate that the samples have not been significantly contaminated and are consistent with dating method validity.

Test #3: Comparison with Known Dates

Scientists can test their methods by dating things with known ages:

Do Decay Rates Change Over Time?

This is a central question in evaluating radiometric dating. Scientists have developed multiple approaches to assess whether decay rates have remained constant over time:

The Oklo Natural Nuclear Reactor

In 1972, scientists discovered something remarkable in Oklo, Africa: a natural nuclear reactor that operated 2 billion years ago. This ancient reactor left behind isotope patterns that act like a "fossil record" of nuclear decay rates.

By analyzing these patterns, scientists determined that nuclear decay rates 2 billion years ago were consistent with today's rates - within 0.01% accuracy (Shlyakhter 1976). Alternative scenarios proposing significantly faster decay rates in the past would predict substantially different Oklo isotope patterns.

Laboratory Testing

Scientists have tested whether extreme conditions can change decay rates by subjecting radioactive materials to:

Result: Decay rates change by less than 0.1% under even these extreme conditions. Normal geological processes cannot significantly alter decay rates.

Supernova Evidence

Supernova SN1987A exploded 168,000 years ago. The gamma rays it produced from radioactive decay matched exactly what scientists predicted based on laboratory-measured decay rates. This shows that decay rates were the same 168,000 years ago as they are today.

Constraints on Decay Rate Changes

Nuclear decay is governed by the fundamental forces that hold atoms together. Significant changes in decay rates would require corresponding changes in the basic laws of physics. Such changes would affect:

Real-World Examples Where We Can Check the Results

Dating methods can be evaluated by comparison with known historical dates or other independent measurement approaches. Examples of such comparisons include:

Event/Sample Radiometric Date Known/Independent Date How Close?
Mount Vesuvius eruption 1,925 +/- 94 years ago (Ar-Ar) 1,940 years ago (historical records) Within 0.8%
Santorini eruption 3,350 +/- 10 years ago (C-14) 3,370 +/- 20 years ago (archaeology) Within 0.6%
Hawaiian lava flows 460,000 +/- 10,000 years (K-Ar) 462,000 +/- 12,000 years (magnetic record) Within 0.4%
Greenland ice layers 110,400 +/- 2,000 years (10Be dating) 110,570 +/- 500 years (counting annual layers) Within 0.15%
Japanese lake sediments 52,800 +/- 370 years (C-14) 52,690 +/- 230 years (counting annual layers) Within 0.21%

The Most Precisely Dated Materials: Meteorites

Why Meteorites Are Important

Meteorites are pieces of the early Solar System that haven't been altered by weather or geological processes. They're like time capsules from when the Solar System formed.

When scientists use multiple dating methods on the same meteorite, they get remarkably consistent results:

These four completely different methods agree within 0.01%. Such tight agreement across distinct approaches suggests methodological validity.

Archaeological Confirmations

Radiometric dating results typically align with historical records and archaeological evidence:

Modern Techniques That Increase Accuracy

Concordia Dating: A Built-in Double Check

Concordia analysis uses uranium-lead dating with a special twist. Uranium decays to lead in two different ways (238U to 206Pb and 235U to 207Pb), both happening in the same crystal. If the crystal hasn't been disturbed, both decay systems should give the same age. If they don't match, scientists know something went wrong and can identify what happened.

The World's Oldest Known Materials

Jack Hills zircons from Australia are among the oldest known pieces of Earth's crust. Using concordia analysis, multiple laboratories have dated these crystals at 4.404 +/- 0.008 billion years old (Wilde 2001). Different labs obtaining consistent results demonstrates precision in modern dating techniques.

Advanced Laboratory Equipment

Modern dating uses incredibly sophisticated instruments that can measure tiny amounts of isotopes with extraordinary precision:

Answering Common Questions and Concerns

Question 1: "How can we know decay rates were always the same?"

Answer: Several approaches provide information on this question:

Question 2: "What if the starting conditions were different?"

Answer: Modern methods employ approaches that address starting conditions:

Question 3: "What about contamination affecting the results?"

Answer: Multiple approaches exist for detecting and assessing contamination:

Question 4: "Why do different labs sometimes get different results?"

Answer: Well-conducted analyses generally produce consistent results across laboratories:

References


Back to Science | Home