RATE project

Helium diffusion experiments givenuclear evidence for a young world

“1.5 billion years” of nuclear decayoccurred between4,000 and 8,000 years ago

Updated !

D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D.Institute for Creation Research

Tiny “zircon” crystals in the Earth’scontinental crust are radioactive

Zirconium Silicate, ZrSiO4

75µm

Contain Uraniumand Thorium atoms

The radioactivity makes helium

Eighthelium

atoms

Nuclear decay in zircon

U-238

Pb-206

The helium is still in the zircons

Fenton Hill, New MexicoLos Alamos geothermal site

Radioisotope age: “1.5 Billion years”

Helium retained in Zircons% of “1.5 Billion” year’s worth:

0.127739305

1.223935024

1719729003

2715121702

581059601

Helium(%)

Temp.(ºC)

Depth (meters)

Sample

The helium diffuses out of the zircons

HeliumAtom

Lightweight Fast-movingSlippery

Crystal Atoms

Wiggles through crystalLeaks through cracks around crystals

The hotter the crystal, the faster the diffusion

Pure Crystal

Defects

Temperature (°Kelvin)33340050066610002000Infinity

Inverse Temperature, 1000 / T0 0.5 1 1.5 2 3

Diff

usio

n R

ate

Hot Cold

2.5

Typical “Arrhenius” plot:Diffusion ratevs. temperature

We needed ratedata for zircon

Before 2001, only one measurement of helium diffusion in zircon was in printMagomedov (1970)“Study of the mechanism of radiogenic productmigration in zircon”,Geokhimiya 2:263-267.

Magomedov’s data were ambiguousWhat does

mean?

Interpreting “ln D” makes a big difference

lneD

lne(D/a2)

log10D

1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0

10–14

10–12

10–10

10– 8

10– 6

10– 4

1000 / Temperature (ºK)

D(c

m2 /s

ec)

In 2000 we assumed this— very fast diffusion

Russian zircon interpretations

Zircons are embedded in biotite, a dark mica

Biotite

Zirc

on

Biotite might slow down diffusionHelium-in-biotite rateshad not been measured

So in 2000 we commissioned experiments on biotite

We developed two theoretical models

Predicted biotite rates required to retain observed helium for:

1. 6000 years (Creation)

2. 1.5 Billion years (Uniformitarian)

Zircon

Biotite

We published the predictions in the year 2000

In 2001 we found zircon was more important

1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0

10–14

10–12

10–10

10– 8

10– 6

10– 4

lneD

lne(D/a2)

log10D

1000 / Temperature (ºK)

D(c

m2 /s

ec)

2001 zircon data agreedwith lowest Magomedovinterpretation

2001 Nevada Zircons

So we started zircon experimentsand changed models to zircon

Russian zircon interpretations

Biotite data 10 x aboveCreation model

10 -23

10 -21

10 -19

10 -17

10 -15

10 -13

10 -11

1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6

2001 Nevada1970 Russian

re-interpreted

UniformitarianModel

CreationModel

D(c

m2 /s

ec)

1000 / Temperature (°K)

Zircon creation model within 0.5% of biotite

Defect line

Still needed Jemezzircon measurements 100,000 x

difference

Published zircon data approached creation model

We extracted minerals from core samplesCore samples fromsame borehole & depths

Crushed, sieved, separated

Fenton Hill site GT2Jemez Granodiorite750 meters & 1500 metersLos Alamos National Laboratory

ICR Geology Laboratory, andActivation Laboratories, Ontario

Extracted zircons were like Gentry’s

An expert measured the helium diffusion rates

Didn’t know sponsors, goals, or sites

10 -23

10 -21

10 -19

10 -17

10 -15

10 -13

10 -11

1.5 2 2.5

2002 Data2003 Data

Uniformitarian

Jemez Zircon Data

July, 2003Lengths 50-75 µmLower temperatures

Creation Model

D(c

m2 /s

ec)

1000 / Temperature (°K)

Shown in ICC paper

Model

New !

Our new zircon data strongly support creation

New data give a more accurate diffusion age

0.1

1.2

17

27

58

Helium(%)

7.97 × 10-16

1.87 × 10-16

5.49 × 10-17

1.09 × 10-17

_____

Measured D(cm2/s)

7330

5730

2400

7270

Age(years)

277

239

197

151

105

Temp.(ºC)

5

4

3

2

1

Sample

Estimated Age: 5680 ± 2000 years

10 -23

10 -21

10 -19

10 -17

10 -15

10 -13

10 -11

1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

Cooler formation? Would require refrigeration!Loophole # 1

– 36°C+105°C

Data extrapolationUniformi-tarian

Model

D(c

m2 /s

ec)

1000 / Temperature (°K)

Model extrapolation

141°C

249°C+277°C

1.5 Gyr requires:> 140°C cooler most of the time

To– 100°C

Loophole # 2

Much helium outside zircons? Data say “no”

BiotiteZirc

on

zircon: 1320 nmol / ccbiotite: 7 nmol / cc

Czircon >> Cbiotite

Helium at 1490 meters:

Diffusion always fromgreater to lesser C

4He diffusingout of zircons

Loophole # 3

Big Gentry error? Our data support his

~ 80957502002

2715121702

0.127739305

1.223935024

1719729003

4212414922003

581059601

Helium(%)

Temp.(ºC)

Depth (meters)

Sample

30

40

50

60

100 110 120 130 140 150 160

Helium Retention%

Temperature (°C)

Our 2003 Data1

2

Loophole # 4

“Closure” temperature? Low and not relevantC

losu

re

Ope

ning

Tclosure

Tem

pera

ture

Hel

ium

Time

Time

ClosureInterval << 1.5 Gyr

10 -17

10 -16

10 -15

1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6

Jemez zirconclosure temps

128°C

-170°C197°C

105°C

277°C

D(c

m2 /s

ec)

1000 / T (°K)

Two zircon “clocks” disagree by millionsSummary

Nuclear decay:1.5 billion years

Helium diffusion:4000 to 8,000 years

We suggest nuclear decay rate change in past

Conclusion

RATE helium diffusion experimentssupport the young world of Scripture

5680 years± 2000 years