Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Here is my interest in learning about the source of Carbon 14(The Stuff I think they use for Carbon Dating). I might even be asking the question wrong, but here goes.

Source of the Elements?
Does not science say that matter through fusion has brought to us the chemicals of the periodic table? And with each level of fusion the temperature grows raising the diameter of the inferno? Logically to me from this perspective could carbon elements have been created from the original black star of the universe? For if all matter explodes from a single location, does not logic say that as the original element grew hotter and hotter more of the elements where given to us?

Carbon Made Before the Big Bang?
Now if Carbon molecules survived within this inferno of nuclear activity while the higher elements where in process, could not those same carbon elements gathered therefore some forms of Carbon 14? For truly from that perspective a carbon molecule would have much more intense receiving of radiation considering that all the stars of the universe pounded a specific molecule, yet after the expansion of the sky those elements would then receive less radiation? Would not a 100 thousand million extra stars change calculations figured for the rate of the single star used in the calculation for carbon 14 dating?

  • Could Carbon 14 have been created before the Big Bang or did it only get created after the making of the world? Or something else all together?

Just curious, and want to learn. Thanks for helping me understand.

share|cite|improve this question

closed as off-topic by Ross Millikan, Brandon Enright, Qmechanic Jun 25 '14 at 6:16

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

  • "We deal with mainstream physics here. Questions about the general correctness of unpublished personal theories are off topic, although specific questions evaluating new theories in the context of established science are usually allowed. For more information, see Is non mainstream physics appropriate for this site?." – Ross Millikan, Brandon Enright, Qmechanic
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

I suggest picking up an introductory cosmology textbook. In front of basically every question mark here is a huge misconception. The basic answer is no. We have a good understanding of when nuclei and atoms of any kind formed, and it's nowhere near the very beginning of the universe. Carbon is a decent while after that. – Robert Mastragostino Jun 25 '14 at 3:08
Your understanding of the big bang as an explosion like a supernova is not accurate at all. The rest of your question is based on severe misunderstandings of other aspects of radiation, carbon 14, and you understanding of where carbon 14 on Earth comes from. – Brandon Enright Jun 25 '14 at 4:25
Where so I learn this understanding of when nuclei and atoms are formed? If the big bang is not similar to a supernova, what was it similar to? Where do I learn where Carbon 14 on Earth comes from? – Decrypted Jun 25 '14 at 11:24
Radioactive isotopes on earth come from a number of sources. Those with long enough half lives (say 500 million years or so) have been around since the earth was formed. They were formed in supernovae. Uranium (238 and 235) and Thorium (232) have isotopes that are long enough and start a decay chain. There are a number of isotopes that are formed along the way. Carbon 14 is formed in the atmosphere as a result of cosmic rays. Other isotopes are produced in nuclear reactors. – Ross Millikan Jun 26 '14 at 3:11
@Onlyheisgood. I've been pleased with the information on competing theories and the historical development of the Big Bang Theory found in "Before the Big Bang by Brian Clegg" I've read about 3/4 of it thus far. I also recommend perhaps starting with the wikipedia article. There's a lot of primer information there that will help you understand the theory. – fredsbend Jan 28 '15 at 0:04
up vote 5 down vote accepted

NO Near the big bang temperatures were high enough that nuclei were not important. The binding energies of nuclei were trivial compared to the temperature. There was a sea of (as currently understood) quarks and gluons, so nuclei may have formed for a short time, but would break apart immediately. The best understanding is that what came out was protons and neutrons, which fused into some helium, deuterium, and lithium, but little of anything else. This question looks like it is trying to justify a universe only a few thousand years old, which is not appropriate here. The scientific evidence shows little Carbon-14 at that stage.

share|cite|improve this answer
Why do they consider that the protons and neutrons fused into helium, deuterium, and lithium skipping Hydrogen? If temperature was not an issue, what theory explains the reason for the fusion to occur? – Decrypted Jun 25 '14 at 11:29
They didn't skip hydrogen. Protons are hydrogen. The ones that didn't fuse into anything else (about 75% of them) eventually captured electrons and became hydrogen-1 – Ross Millikan Jun 25 '14 at 13:42
Carbon-14 has a half-life of only 5730 years, so any that is around now has been produced long past the big bang. In fact, what we see is produced by cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere. – Ross Millikan Jun 25 '14 at 13:52
How did they determine that was the age of the half-life? – Decrypted Jun 26 '14 at 2:07
You can take a lump of carbon, measure what fraction is mass 14 in a mass spectrometer, and count the beta rays that come off the large lump. – Ross Millikan Jun 26 '14 at 3:07

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.