Radioactivity and Earth´s Age

For a long time the apparent discrepancy between the age of earth and the age of the cosmos posed a great problem to geologists and astronomers alike.

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American


For a long time the apparent discrepancy between the age of earth and the age of the cosmos posed a great problem to geologists and astronomers alike.

Geologists had calculated, using methods like erosion or sedimentation rates, ages for earth spanning from just three million to 15 billion years. Physicists and astronomers, based mostly on the motion and energy consumption of stars, calculated an age for the universe spanning from 20 million to 10 billion years - so in many models of the cosmos earth seemed to be too young or too old to fit in.

In August 1893, during a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, geologist Charles D. Walcott (1850-1927) summarized the debate as follows:


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


"Of all subjects of speculative geology, few are more attractive or more uncertain in positive results than geological time. The physicists have drawn the lines closer and closer until the geologist is told that he must bring his estimates of the age of the earth within a limit of from ten to thirty millions of years. The geologist masses his observations and replies that more time is required, and suggests to the physicist that there may be an error somewhere in his data or the method of his treatment."

In 1896 the French physicist Henri Becquerel (1852-1908), based on Conrad Röntgen's research on artificially inducedX-rays, discovered that naturally occurring elements, like uranium, also emit rays and in 1897 Polish physicist Marie Curie (1867-1934) coined the term radioactivity to describe this energy of unknown origin.

Fig.1. High-energy rays, derived from radioactive decay, form a halo of alteration around a mineral grain in the larger biotite-crystal, image from J. JOYLE (1909): Radioactivity and geology, an account of the influence of radioactive energy on terrestrial history.

Her husband, Pierre Curie (1859-1906), realized that this energy coming from the radioactive decay of elements and minerals found in earth´s rocks would significantly slowing down the cooling of the entire earth. As the calculation of many physicists for earth´s young age was based on the assumption of a steadily cooling earth, however as there was now a source of energy and heat, earth was cooling far more slowly than thought and therefore could be quite old. Radioactive decay or another similar long-lasting and high-energy source (nuclear fusion was discovered later) could also explain how stars could produce light and heat for very long periods of time, so the notion that stars or the sun had to be young (in most calculations younger than earth) could also be dismissed.

But even better - the discovery of radioactivity provided not only indirect evidence of an old earth, but by measuring the constant energy production it was also possible to calculate the exact age of a mineral, of a rock and even of earth - may also of the solar system and the cosmos, dating extraterrestrial matter in the form of meteorites… … (to be continued).

Bibliography:

LEWIS, C.L.E. (2002): Arthur Homes´ unifying theory: from radioactivity to continental drift. In OLDROYD, D. R. (ed.) 2002. The Earth Inside and Out: Some Major Contributions to Geology in the Twentieth Century. Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 192: 167-183

My name is David Bressan and I'm a freelance geologist working mainly in the Austroalpine crystalline rocks and the South Alpine Palaeozoic and Mesozoic cover-sediments in the Eastern Alps. I graduated with a project on Rock Glaciers dynamics and hydrology, this phase left a special interest for quaternary deposits and modern glacial environments. During my research on glaciers, studying old maps, photography and reports on the former extent of these features, I became interested in history, especially the development of geomorphologic and geological concepts by naturalists and geologists. Living in one of the key area for the history of geology, I combine field trips with the historic research done in these regions, accompanied by historic maps and depictions. I discuss broadly also general geological concepts, especially in glaciology, seismology, volcanology, palaeontology and the relationship of society and geology.

More by David Bressan

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe