Solar System Date of Birth Determined

Invisible Pink Unicorn writes "UC Davis researchers have dated the earliest step in the formation of the solar system — when microscopic interstellar dust coalesced into mountain-sized chunks of rock — to 4,568 million years ago, within a range of about 2,080,000 years. In the second stage, mountain-sized masses grew quickly into about 20 Mars-sized planets and, in the third and final stage, these small planets smashed into each other in a series of giant collisions that left the planets we know today. The dates of these intermediary stages are well established. The article abstract is available from Astrophysical Journal Letters."

Re: was-it-on-a-monday dept.

[by Anonymous Coward]

Of course it was. Even then, everything crashed on Mondays.

Re:

[dougisfunny (1200171)]

It has had a pretty good uptime since then.

Re:

[Chris Burke (6130)]

It has had a pretty good uptime since then.

Bah, that's easy when the majority of your system is just running their idle loops! Out of the whole dang system only one core has any active clients, and it's been starting to look a little flakey lately as the client process is gobbling up all the resources.

Margin of Error

[richdun (672214)]

So to borrow from someone else's profound statement, all of our recorded history in well within the margin of error (by 4 orders of magnitude or so).

There's a nice political joke in there for those not yet in their holiday brain coma.

So many gifts..!

[Empiric (675968)]

...to 4,568 million years ago, within a range of about 2,080,000 years.

Similarly, I've discovered my birthday to be defined as subsequent to July.

Re:So many gifts..!

[xPsi (851544)]

...to 4,568 million years ago, within a range of about 2,080,000 years.

Similarly, I've discovered my birthday to be defined as subsequent to July.

At a glance it might seem like a crude measurement, but its really about 4 parts in 10000, which is really quite good. This would be like knowing your birthday to within 4 hours during the year (better than I know my own birthday off the top of my head, to be honest).

Re:So many gifts..!

[powerlinekid (442532)]

Honestly I think the problem is in the way it was expressed. The margin of error looks better if they had stated:
"...to 4,568 million years ago, within a range of about 2 million years"
or
"...to 4,568,000,000 years ago, within a range of about 2,080,000 years"

Its easier to quickly compare the numbers against each other that way.

Re:

[RachaelB (920489)]

Very useful, thank you.

I hadn't considered myself inumerate, but even I was bamboozled by the big numbers. Thanks for the clarification.

Rachael

Re:

[gnuman99 (746007)]

Furthermore, someone that didn't pass his/her science class wrote the article.

4,568 million years ago, within a range of about 2,080,000 years

So, measure the age of the solar system to 1 million years, but then state the error to few orders of magnitude more precise! 2.08 million years. The real error was either 2 million years or some percentage of the original measurement. The real error must not be more accurate than the measurement, so,

4568 +- 2 million years, or
4568.0 +- 2

Re:

[Empiric (675968)]

I wasn't suggesting it wasn't "acceptable". But if we're calling it a "date of birth", mmm... July is party-time.

Profound...(All we are is dust in the wind)

[nebaz (453974)]

To think that the span of a human life is at best about 1/250 millionth of that cycle. Light from distant stars does eventually get here, it just happens on timescales that are beyond imagination.
Such a shame that we occupy such a small blink in the process, and can't witness cosmic events on any larger a level.

Re:Profound...(All we are is dust in the wind)

[by Anonymous Coward]

Nah, you have it backwards. It is not a shame that our lives are short. I find it inspiring that we have come so far despite this shortness, and we have built instruments that let us actually see all those cosmic events, and even put them in perspective ;)

Re:

[spleen_blender (949762)]

Imagine what we may be capable of, what is just over the event horizon.

Harumph, I mean science is serious business that can have no spiritual value whatsoever.

Re:

[Chuck Chunder (21021)]

Such a shame that we occupy such a small blink in the process, and can't witness cosmic events on any larger a level

I dunno, the first few years sound pretty boring.

Re:

[Mr. Underbridge (666784)]

To think that the span of a human life is at best about 1/250 millionth of that cycle.

On nth other hand, consider that by living well into old age, one can have lived through almost 2% of recorded human history. That's a lot, really. So if you chose correctly, it would only take about 50 people to have lived at the time that everything happened.

Just shows in how short a time humans have become what we are.

Re:

[huckamania (533052)]

I don't know if it is a good thing or a bad thing or what the op means, but I don't think the universe will need any help if we ever spread. We've made and continue to make mistakes when it comes to the environment, but we're the only lifeform that can recognize mistakes and try to amend for them. It should also be mentioned that there are plenty of animals that have benefited from the Human Race and not just pets.

We are both a part of nature and responsible for nature. No other lifeform on this planet

4,568 million years divided by 7 days

[JustCallMeRich (1185429)]

Can we break those intermediate steps into seven phases or so and declare each of those a "day", get a copy to the Pope, and settle this whole religion versus science mess now? Or at least build some bridges for the Bible folks and the Science folks to agree to something that makes a little more sense?

Re:

[SpaceLifeForm (228190)]

I doubt the Pope would like the news. It was a Wednesday.

Re:4,568 million years divided by 7 days

[Rude Turnip (49495)]

Psst...it's all the offshoots (I'm looking at you, Baptists) that are causing problems. The Catholic church is rather keen on astronomy an evolution nowadays. Not so much on the gays and condoms, but it's a start.

Re:4,568 million years divided by 7 days

[by Anonymous Coward]

One man says "it is right to protect the children." The other says "it is right to kill three a day." We should clearly compromise - no more then one child a day, two on weekends!

But seriously. No, we can't. We don't compromise between a fiction and hard fact just because lots of people happen to believe the fiction.

Re:

[Colin Smith (2679)]

Or at least build some bridges for the Bible folks and the Science folks to agree to something that makes a little more sense?

WTF?

Bible thumpers: Big imaginary fairy created the world 4,000 years ago.
Science folk: You're insane, it's all in your head, and I have proof.

You think those two views can be reconciled?

What I find bizarre is that religion is not considered a form of mental illness in the US. The thought of one such mentally ill leader having access to the largest stock of nuclear weapons in the world is... disturbing.

MAD is very scary.

[Ungrounded Lightning (62228)]

The thought of one such mentally ill leader having access to the largest stock of nuclear weapons in the world is... disturbing.

It's supposed to be.

The MAD doctrine deters nuclear war by threatening a retaliation that would likely bring down civilization and possibly end the human race and much of life on Earth.

For it to work, US presidents have to put on a show, looking crazy enough that they'd actually do it - but sane enough that the won't shoot first and can be reasoned with on issues that otherwise would have been "solved" by the outcome of a war. (IMHO it's likely the term "Mutually Assured Destruction" was chosen at least partly for the acronym, to help put on this show. Psych warfare was pretty well developed by the start of the Cold War.)

MAD is pretty terrifying. But it reversed the ongoing escalation of wars right after the bombs were proven to work under battle conditions (and two fried cities were substituted for the years of war that had been expected to be necessary to end the Japan part of WWII). It's been over half a century and no nukes have been used in war since those two.

Re:

[UnrefinedLayman (185512)]

two fried cities were substituted for the years of war that had been expected to be necessary to end the Japan part of WWII

Except that the myth of a protracted war with Japan if Hiroshima and Nagasaki hadn't been bombed is only a myth.

• "During the days before that fateful August 6, 1945 [bustingbinaries.com], General Douglas MacArthur learned that Japan had asked Russia to negotiate a surrender. "We expected acceptance of the Japanese surrender daily," one of his staff members recalled."
• "The bomb had not been necessary e [jstor.org]

Re:

[4D6963 (933028)]

What I find bizarre is that religion is not considered a form of mental illness in the US.

Yeah, me too. I wish anyone who thinks or acts differently from me in a way I disapprove would be considered mentally ill, just like the homosexuals back in the day [wikipedia.org].

Tolerance? What the fuck is that?! I brainwash a Jesus-freak and go get a six-pack. On an unrelated note, why do some many people in this country don't like atheists like me? I don't get it..

Re:4,568 million years divided by 7 days

[ajs318 (655362)]

The problem is not that people "think or act differently from me in a way I disapprove". The problem is that people "think or act differently from me" in a way that can be actually harmful to me.

Re:

[wizardforce (1005805)]

they've [fundamentalists] already decided it was 7 literal days and nothing will convince them otherwise. The belief in biblical "days" being symolic of being "eras" of several hundred million year spans doesn't fit in with their literal reading of their holy books. Once that literal context disappears the entire framework of their belief system collapses.

Re:

[khallow (566160)]

Wouldn't work. As I see it, the whole point of having a belief like that is so that you disagree with "Science" and other commonly held beliefs of society. The myth is that you are right and the society is blind in some way to this truth.Ultimately, the point is to disagree. What you disagree about isn't so important.

Yeah, but what day?

[FauxReal (653820)]

I need to know the calendar date so I can convince my boss it's a holiday. In fact, why don't we make it an international paid holiday?

Why does the universe appear empty?

[Dr_Banzai (111657)]

Have you ever wondered why we haven't encountered intelligent life forms other than ourselves? An advanced race with regular slower-than-light starships would be able to colonize an entire galaxy within a few million years (barely an instant on a geological timescale). One possible explanation for our apparent solitude in the universe is that the number of planets with the proper conditions for developing life is vanishingly small. (Read about the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox [wikipedia.org] for other possibilities)

For example Earth's moon creates tides (and tide pools) and stabilizes the earth's seasons and axial tilt. According to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_impact_hypothesis [wikipedia.org] the Moon was created as a result of a chance collision between the proto-earth and a Mars-sized object. Without the presence of the Moon the conditions might have been too harsh to support life.

As we learn more about how the solar system formed we will be better able to predict which stars might have life-bearing planets, so we can begin our own colonization of the galaxy (assuming humans can survive long enough to overcome war, disease and ecological destruction).

Re:

[QuantumG (50515)]

The the vast majority of our galaxy (let alone the rest of the universe) our planet appears empty.

creationism

[bcrowell (177657)]

It's been amusing over the past 10 years to see young-earth creationists squirm about the fact that cosmology has become a high-precision science, with the age of the universe going from having 50% error bars to 1.5% error bars. Now these folks have apparently measured the age of the solar system to within .05%. For a long time, young-earth creationists (YECs) were trying to say that the science was all very uncertain, so you couldn't trust the science. Hmm...now it appears that Archbishop Ussher's date for

Genesis 2:2

[4D6963 (933028)]

to 4,568 million years ago, within a range of about 2,080,000 years

And on the seven hundred fifty-nine million seven hundred three thousand seven hundred seventy-third day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seven hundred fifty-nine million seven hundred three thousand seven hundred seventy-third day from all his work which he had made.

shit

[ucblockhead (63650)]

It's a fucking *long* time until Sunday then.

OK, So What's Its Sign?

[Doc Ruby (173196)]

It's written in the stars...

Maybe "slippery when wet"?

Proof of Birthdate Required

[DavidD_CA (750156)]

This is good news! The Solar System has been bummed out lately 'cause it couldn't prove it's birthday to anyone. All of the other solar systems could get into the cool clubs, but not ours.

Now it's PARTY TIME and the drinks are on Sol!

01-01-1980

[qcs-rf.com (952717)]

You mean the universe didn't start on 01-01-1980?

Re:

[ianezz (31449)]

You mean the universe didn't start on 01-01-1980?

No.

$ perl -MPOSIX -e 'print ctime(0)'
Thu Jan 1 01:00:00 1970
$

Literalist Christian interpretation...

[(arg!)Styopa (232550)]

....isn't that far off then?

4568 million years vs. somewhere around 6000 yrs. That's only 6 orders of magnitude, I mean, really they're just ZEROES.

Re:Margin of Error

[CensorshipDonkey (1108755)]

-- to 4,568 million years ago, within a range of about 2,080,000 years. And i was born 22 years ago, within a range of 10 years Pretty big error (almost 50%)

Incorrect. 2 million years is less than 0.05% of 4.5 billion years. Pretty damn precise, relatively speaking. Read the units on the text you cited.

Re:

[glwtta (532858)]

Read it again, it's 0.045%

Re:Margin of Error

[QuantumG (50515)]

Do you not know what "million" means or can you just not read?

4,568,000,000 years ago, within a range of about 2,080,000 years.

That's an error margin of about 0.046%.

Re:

[QuantumG (50515)]

Wow, seems you can't use a "parent" link.

The guy who I was replying to has been modded into the ground.

Re:

[Empiric (675968)]

...I'm drunk? ;)

Or, we have reached a confluence of realities where "threaded" and "flat" become one...

Probably the first.

Give him a BREAK!

[gardyloo (512791)]

Yeesh, you people are so negative! The hint is right there in his username!

Re:

[Copid (137416)]

Nothing to see here. It is not like the radiometric dating methods are completely speculative and saddled with risky assumptions at all. These dates are solid! 4Ma + or - 2Ma... or maybe + or - 4Ma or 40 trillion years, it is not like we are guessing at all.

Hmmm... I would be very interested in knowing your explanation for the nearly perfect straight line found in the first graph here [talkorigins.org]. If what you say is true, well... I wouldn't expect anything resembling a straight line. In fact, I found that graph to

Re:

[GaryPatterson (852699)]

You need to understand that radiocarbon dating [wikipedia.org] and isochron dating [wikipedia.org] are two different methods of dating an object, although both are based in radiometric dating. A rebuttal of radiocarbon dating is not a rebuttal of radiometric dating or other methodologies, and further a specialist can easily show just about anything to a lay-person, without it necessarily being true.

I'd say that Milton's a crank scientist, but if you believe him can you outline where you disagree with Richard Dawkin's review of Milton's bo

Re:

[Copid (137416)]

Of course it is always good to begin on an insufferably arrogant note.

I apologize. I shouldn't have assumed that you would just be parroting the vague and largely misinformed critiques of anti-evolution fringe cases from the popular press. Now that you've done so, though, I'm going to have to retract that apology.

In it, he outlines the precariousness of the logic underlying radiometric dating, arguing to my satisfaction that the results emitted by such methods don't really mean anything at all, and can

Re:

[blueg3 (192743)]

"This is the kind of unhelpful response that doesn't win any converts to your way of thinking."

Scientists are frequently arrogant, perhaps because the validity of scientific findings are independent of whether or not you or anyone else agrees with them. Simply put, there's no real need for winning converts -- nor is it accurate to write it off as "a way of thinking".

Re:According to to Huckabee, 5000 BC.

[Opportunist (166417)]

God's word maybe never changes. Unless some bible thumper takes it and twists it around, of course. It's amazing how you try to "defend" the words of the Bible by quoting it wrongly.
Twice.
In a single sentence of just seven words.

First: Nowhere in the Bible, it says anything about the world being flat. We read about the waters being divided and the water being told to recede so land can form, but I can't remember a single word stating anything about the shape of Earth.

Second: The bible never ever mentions anything about a timeline or a date for the creation. What happened is that some Bishop in the 4th or 5th century tried to puzzle together a creation date for Earth, based on the various stories told therin and the acting figures, as well as their relation towards each other. Now, first of all he only had a rather bad translation of the original text to work with, second he tried to rely on the dates given (which also were a bit contradicting in the various books) and finally he took human life spans of his time as a standard. He made so many assumptions and filled the blanks with the information and rumors available to him about the ancient kingdoms of the east (which were spotty to say the least, and wrong in many cases) that as a statistician I can only dismiss his "calculations" as guesswork.

So, if you really want to rely on the Bible as the sole authority, you can neither claim that earth is flat nor that it's 5000 years old. Neither is by any means supported by the Book.

Re:

[ChromeAeonium (1026952)]

I'm curious, where does it say that?