The Other Isotope of Carbon

Carbon-14 is the famous isotope of carbon. It’s the one used for identifying the age of long dead things via the technique called radio-carbon dating. Less well known is the other isotope, carbon-13. Like “regular” carbon, carbon-13 has a stable nucleus and does not decay, writes Nick Lane in Oxygen. But carbon-13 too has found to be of use in identifying the age of something: the age of life itself, i.e., when life started on earth. Here’s that story.

 

Since neither carbon-12 nor carbon-13 decays, their ratio on or in the earth has remained constant at 99.89 to 1.11. Lane calls it the “unadulterated background ratio”. The process that can change that ratio (even by small amounts) are living things, “and so far as we know, only by living things”. Let’s see how that happens.

 

Take photosynthesis. It prefers to use carbon-12 over carbon-13. Why? Because the lighter isotope needs (slightly) less energy to set off the reaction involved. Which leads to the following consequence:

“The faster rate at which carbon-12 bonds are cracked means that organic matter becomes enriched in carbon-12 relative to carbon-13.”

In turn, that means:

“When the remains of plants, algae or cyanobacteria are buried in sediments, their extra carbon-12 is buried with them.”

 

Now flip that point around: if organic matter took some excess carbon-12 to its grave (literally), and the ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-13 is constant, it means:

“More carbon-13 is left behind as carbonates in the oceans or rocks, or as carbon dioxide in the air.”

That’s just maths: If there’s more of one isotope in one part (organic matter), then there has to be more of the other isotope in another part (inorganic matter).

 

Organic matter doesn’t survive for too long, certainly not on the scale of billions of years. That means organic remains can’t be found or used to detect how long back life may have started on earth. But rocks do survive for long periods. The oldest sedimentary rocks on Earth have been reliably dated to an age of 3.85 billion years old. And those rocks were found to have a 2-3% higher concentration of carbon-13 than the “unadulterated background ratio”.

 

Combine that with everything you read in this blog, and you understand why scientists came to the conclusion that “life existed on earth more than 3.85 billion years ago”. (Of course, there’s other data from other sources too which aligns with this date).

 

The ingenuity of the thought process behind all this is very impressive indeed. It also shows that life, no matter how primitive or complex, from its very beginning, always changed the environment. (This isn’t a defence for the damage we humans are inflicting on the environment today; it’s just an observation).

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Europe #3 - Innsbruck

The last city we visited in Europe was Innsbruck in the Austrian Alps. After the cold and windy experience (at times) of Paris and Netherlands, Innsbruck was a wonderful change – it didn’t feel that cold, it was not windy all of which made it easy to walk around. Something absolutely necessary given how scenic the place is.   Since the hotel check-in time was much later in the day, we left the baggage and went to the Swarovski HQ-cum-museum about an hour by bus from Innsbruck. The crystal exhibits were brilliant – colorful, bright, shiny. Jewellery aside, it was a display of what one can do with crystals. While my wife and daughter loved the jewellery, I liked the superhero themed exhibits of Batman, Spiderman, the Hulk, and Star Wars. We didn’t buy anything there, though we did buy stuff in the Swarovski store in Innsbruck – jewellery, not the superhero stuff.   Innsbruck is a major tourist attraction during the skiing season but now in summer, we saw many groups of ...
Read more

Why we Deceive Ourselves

In their book, The Elephant in the Brain , the authors describe this weird aspect of deception that we practice: deceiving ourselves! That is so weird: “If our minds contain maps of our worlds, what good comes from having an inaccurate version of these maps?” The Sigmund Freud school of thought treats self-deception as a defense mechanism, “a way for the ego to protect itself”. The mind seeks to protect itself from anxiety and other negative emotions. Many object to this reasoning: since accurate information is so critical to our survival, surely distorting information would be dangerous. Wouldn’t the goal of protecting our self-esteem have been better achieved by making the brain’s self-esteem mechanism stronger instead? The new school of thought explains self-deception as “primarily outward-facing, manipulative, and ultimately self-serving”. This is based on Thomas Schelling’s work on game theory: “In a variety of scenarios, limiting or sabotaging yourself is the winn...
Read more

Chess is too Boring

“Chess has problems at the grandmaster level...They're not getting a great game”, wrote Christian Donlan . Amen to that: Anand and his challenger, Magnus Carlsen drew their first game in just 16 moves. It gets worse: games between the top 20 end in draws 60% of the time. And Donlan adds that “games often end in resignation when an actual victory starts to loom on the distant horizon.” That often means that the average player (or fan) often has no clue why one guy won (since he can’t see that far ahead)! Then there’s all that memorization (of openings, of end games and everything in between). All that memorization is sort of against the spirit of the game, says Zachary Burns, “We want it to be a game of creativity and positional play.” Many have tried to change the rules of the game in the past for these exact reasons, including Bobby Fischer with his Chess960 variant. More recently, David Sirlin tried to make things interesting via his variant, Chess 2. So what are his c...
Read more