Recalculate the age of the solar system

The equation that is still used to calculate the age of the solar system is at risk of being rewritten. The latest measurements show that one of the equations' assumptions - the assumption of the ratio of uranium isotopes that exist in the same physical mass of celestial bodies - is wrong.

'From the 1950s, or even before that, no one could find any difference' - Professor Gregory Brennecka of Arizona State University University said. 'But so far we have been able to accurately measure that tiny difference.'

These differences mean that the estimated age of the solar system will probably be reversed by about 1 million years or more. Previous estimates suggest that the solar system is about 4.5 billion years old, a number . "inaccurate" to 1 million years ago has no meaning at all.Even with recent calculations most, when the age of the solar system is calculated to be 4,5672 billion years, the 1 million year figure is still too small, however, it is extremely significant in understanding the embryonic period of solar system.

The co-author of the paper, Dr. Meenakshi Wadha said: 'The planets are usually formed in about 10 million years at most. So when you want to learn about the events that occurred during that time period, 1 million years are extremely important. '

The study also found evidence to support the idea that low-mass supernovae (low-mass supernova) exploded as soon as the solar system was born that provided heavy elements to form planets. .

The geochemistry calculates the age of a rock by measuring the amount of radioisotopes in it. Because radioactive elements always decay into baby elements at a constant rate, scientists can predict the age of a rock by comparing isotopes.

Solar system illustration.

The currently accepted method of calculation is based on a comparison of lead 206, a child element of uranium 238 and lead 207, a child element obtained from the decay of uranium 235.

This method of calculation is based on a constant rate of uranium 238 and uranium 235. The previous measurements agreed on this ratio of 137.88, and this assumption allows to lose 1 variable in the calculation equation, reducing the calculation volume is much lighter. In addition, lead isotope measurements are easier and highly accurate, the age of the solar system estimated by this method is thought to be extremely accurate.

Gerald Wasserburg, professor of geology at Caltech, commented on this assumption: 'We are all sitting on a two-legged chair and still thinking we are on balance. But it turns out it's not like that. '

There are many reasons to doubt this hypothesis. First, there is no theoretical argument that supports this hypothesis. Furthermore, measurements based on other isotopes yield similar results and are different from the results of the lead method.

To verify this hypothesis, Brennecka and colleagues took samples from the Allende meteorite and measured the ratio between Uranium 258 and 235. New modern devices allowed them to measure with greater precision than all. both measurements so far.

And Brennecka's measurements, along with colleagues from Frankfurt, Germany, all showed an excess of uranium 235. That means that to calculate the age of the solar system, geochemists will need to calculate the amount of Uranium 235 and 238 before embarking on their age.

'That does not mean that the current method is meaningless' - co-author Ariel Anbar said. 'But if you really want to calculate the exact age of the solar system, you will suddenly realize there are a few other variables that you need to consider.'

The team also identified the amount of uranium 235 that was derived from another radioactive element, Curium, which existed only in the early part of the solar system and was only produced in a number of super explosions. special stars.

Professor Andrew Davis from the University of Chicago commented: 'This is an important step. There have been many failed experiments before, but this experiment was successful. I think this will be an important piece of the problem. '