Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Astronomers Discover Earth-Sized Diamond

samzenpus posted about 2 months ago | from the we're-going-to-need-a-bigger-setting dept.

Space 112

ygslash (893445) writes Astronomers at the National Radio Astronomy Observatory announced that they have discovered what appears to be the coolest white dwarf ever detected. The white dwarf is formerly a star similar to our own sun which, after expending all of its fuel, has cooled to less than a chilly 3000 degrees Kelvin and contracted to a size approximately the same as Earth. A white dwarf is composed mostly of carbon and oxygen, and the astronomers believe that at that temperature it would be mostly crystallized, forming something like a huge diamond.

cancel ×

112 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Clarke says... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47319761)

Lucy is here. I repeat, Lucy is here.

Re:Clarke says... (0)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 2 months ago | (#47319897)

You haven't been modded up yet? There is indeed no justice in the world.

Re:Clarke says... (0)

DoubleJ1024 (1287512) | about 2 months ago | (#47320247)

My kingdom for mod points. I had them every day for a week and a half and now nothing.

Re:Clarke says... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47323033)

Kayne may buy it for Kim to wear to go with her Earth-sized butt.

I discovered an upside down diamond (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47319775)

I discovered an upside down diamond in your moms pants. It wasn't Earth sized but your mom sure was! She made me look like a white dwarf!

DeBeers (3, Funny)

Ol Olsoc (1175323) | about 2 months ago | (#47319787)

Is really pissed

Re:DeBeers (1)

mshaver (43970) | about 2 months ago | (#47319849)

They already have their lawyers working on claiming all mining rights.

Re:DeBeers (3, Insightful)

nschubach (922175) | about 2 months ago | (#47319851)

Nah, they are just preparing to send a ship to claim it so they can send millions of underpaid miners to chip off some more diamonds to throw away to keep the price artificially high.

Re:DeBeers (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | about 2 months ago | (#47320963)

I suspect this is where they they have been dumping those diamonds.

Re:DeBeers (1)

zlives (2009072) | about 2 months ago | (#47319973)

why would they be pissed? this is their longterm storage facility for pricing reasons!!

Re:DeBeers (4, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | about 2 months ago | (#47320233)

They're pissed that we found the place where they dump the surplus so they could claim that diamonds were rare.

Just don't tell De Beers (4, Informative)

JoshuaZ (1134087) | about 2 months ago | (#47319799)

Considering that the high price of diamonds is a combination of the De Beers monopoly together with their massive PR campaigns to a) make people use diamonds as formal symbols of affection and b) to make people unwilling to sell them second-hand once they've been owned, they should be worried. On the other hand, this is 900 light years away, so maybe they'll just lobby against any research into FTL travel.

Re:Just don't tell De Beers (5, Funny)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 2 months ago | (#47319825)

Is your relationship cold, shriveled and almost unimaginably distant? Astronomical diamonds may be for you!

Is your relationship worth (letting some expendable poor person handle the) dying for? Good, honest, terrestrial diamonds will express the depth of your affection, even as they increase the depth of our giant pit-mines!

Re:Just don't tell De Beers (0)

zlives (2009072) | about 2 months ago | (#47319999)

hehe wish had mod points today

Re:Just don't tell De Beers (2)

OzPeter (195038) | about 2 months ago | (#47320327)

Is your relationship cold, shriveled and almost unimaginably distant? Astronomical diamonds may be for you!

Is your girlfriend upset that you didn't call the International Star registry and get a star named after her (written in book form in the library of congress) like all of her girlfriends did? Was she upset that you didn't care that much for her?

Well now is your chance to redeem yourself. Don't just name any old star after your girlfriend, get a star sized diamond named after her! If diamonds are a girls best friend, then after doing this you'll never have to "[sudo] make me a sandwich" again, as she'll be thanking you for the rest of her life (well .. maybe until her battery runs down). And all of her friends boyfriends will look up to you like "you da man, dawg!!!!"

Call now .. there's only a limited supply (of paper certificates that we bought in bulk)

Re:Just don't tell De Beers (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47319845)

900 light years? Then for sure don't tell them about the one "only" 40 LY away [astrobio.net] .

Re:Just don't tell De Beers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47319869)

Or, looked at in terms of individual responsibility, women are easily impressed by shiny things, and men enjoy a pleased woman. This video lecture pretty much covers it. [youtube.com]

Re:Just don't tell De Beers (1)

Talderas (1212466) | about 2 months ago | (#47323345)

The top five things women judge each other on when they first meet.

#5 - Their boobs.
#4 - Their ring.
#3 - Their weight.
#2 - Their purse.
#1 - Their hair.

Re:Just don't tell De Beers (3, Funny)

reboot246 (623534) | about 2 months ago | (#47320105)

De Beers? I don't care if you tell them, but whatever you do, don't tell my girlfriend.

Re:Just don't tell De Beers (2)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 2 months ago | (#47320159)

Dwarf? Diamond?

"Boss! De Beers!"

I'll buy it if the seller pays for shipping (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47319805)

n/t

Re:I'll buy it if the seller pays for shipping (1)

xuchilpaba (3645217) | about 2 months ago | (#47319819)

can you send the amount to my paypal account?

Re:I'll buy it if the seller pays for shipping (2)

confused one (671304) | about 2 months ago | (#47320209)

How do you plan to handle delivery? An Earth sized chunk of carbon might require delicate handling as it is drop shipped on your home. BTW, a signature will be required.

Re:I'll buy it if the seller pays for shipping (2)

dreamchaser (49529) | about 2 months ago | (#47323197)

Just imagine the shipping costs, seeing as the density of a white dwarf is 109 kg/m3, about 200,000 times that of the Earth!

Make sure you insure the package too.

...like a diamond in the sky? (5, Funny)

uCallHimDrJ0NES (2546640) | about 2 months ago | (#47319807)

Scintillate, Scintillate, Diminutive Stellar Orb,

How inexplicable to me it seems the stupendous problem of your existence.

Elevated at such an immeasurable distance in an apparently perpendicular direction from this terrestrial planet which we occupy,

Resembling in thy dazzling and unapproachable effulgence, a gem of purest carbon set solitaire in a university of space.

Re:...like a diamond in the sky? (1)

Thanshin (1188877) | about 2 months ago | (#47322307)

That is wonderful. Thank you.

Re:...like a diamond in the sky? (1)

martin-boundary (547041) | about 2 months ago | (#47322399)

Thank you. My faith in humanity had been shatnered, but now I feel sufficiently complemented again.

Can it play Crysis? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47319821)

That's all anybody really cares about at this point.

Units (5, Insightful)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | about 2 months ago | (#47319859)

3000 degrees Kelvin

Isn't it supposed to just be "3000 Kelvin"?

Re:Units (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47320041)

3000 degrees Kelvin

Isn't it supposed to just be "3000 Kelvin"?

Yes. Next question!

Re:Units (2)

geekoid (135745) | about 2 months ago | (#47320145)

Nope.
It's suppose to be 3000 degrees from Kevin

Re:Units (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47320173)

Yes.

Re:Units (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47320577)

3000 degrees Kelvin

Isn't it supposed to just be "3000 Kelvin"?

Does it really matter?

Re:Units (1)

ClickOnThis (137803) | about 2 months ago | (#47320739)

3000 degrees Kelvin

Isn't it supposed to just be "3000 Kelvin"?

Does it really matter?

It does if you want to employ SI-unit conventions correctly.

In fact, the convention is to use kelvin (lower-case k) for the name of the unit, and K (upper case) for the abbreviation.

Re:Units (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47320993)

Actually, if you want to apply SI correctly then 'K' is not an abbreviation, it's a unit symbol. Abbreviations are a language construct (and depend on the language), symbols are those things you use in mathematics.

So, if you ever see "kph", remember it has very little to do with SI.

Re:Units (1)

ClickOnThis (137803) | about 2 months ago | (#47321527)

Good point. Thanks.

Re:Units (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47321173)

Given that this thing isn't actually diamond, just something like diamond, I don't think we need to worry about proper SI naming and such.

Units (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47322627)

Nope. Units' names are lowercase, even if they were named after a person (and so their symbols are uppercase). It's Ãoe3000 kelvinà or 3000 K.

Units (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47322641)

æseriously, Slashdot? Unicode is still a problem in 2014?

Re:Units (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47323531)

I know Kelvin. I would hate to think of 3000 of him.

Kelvin (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47319867)

not "degrees Kelvin"

Liz (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47319877)

Haul that thing back for Liz Taylor. Oh, wait.

Greenbank telescope may be defunded (1)

FeriteCore (25122) | about 2 months ago | (#47319907)

From the article:

Kaplan and his colleagues found this stellar gem using the National Radio Astronomy Observatoryâ(TM)s (NRAO) Green Bank Telescope (GBT) and Very Long Baseline Array (VLBA), as well as other observatories.

From wikipedia [wikipedia.org] :

The National Science Foundation (NSF) Astronomy Portfolio Review committee chaired by Daniel Eisenstein of Harvard University recommended in August 2012 that the Robert C. Byrd Green Bank Telescope should be defunded over a five year period.[9] Further information on this divestiture can be found on the AUI webpage and at www.savethegbt.org.

In the fiscal year 2014 budget, the US Congress did not recommend divesting the Green Bank Telescope. The Telescope is looking for partners to help fund its $10 million annual operating costs.

DIAMONDS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47319921)

How do they go from crystalized carbonmonoxide to a diamond? The diamond crystal lattice is exceptionally strong and only atoms of nitrogen, boron and hydrogen can be introduced into diamond during the growth at significant concentrations (up to atomic percents).
If it's "mostly" oxygen and carbon it's not a diamond. That's simple chemistry.

Re:DIAMONDS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 2 months ago | (#47320271)

So it is ... dry ice?

Re:DIAMONDS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY (2)

ddt (14627) | about 2 months ago | (#47320361)

If it's been gradually cooling for billions of years, I imagine that might create annealing-like conditions where the oxygen and carbon separate with the heavier solid oxygen at the core and a diamond lattice outside. So maybe it's diamond shell with a refreshing solid oxygen center?

Re:DIAMONDS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY (4, Informative)

Required Snark (1702878) | about 2 months ago | (#47322505)

Warning: ACTUAL PHYSICS, not typical Slashdot half-assed speculation.

This class of white dwarf stars are a mixture of primarily oxygen and carbon. Depending on the mass the amount of carbon and oxygen are roughly the same, but sometimes there is more oxygen. As the star cools it goes through a phase transition where the core becomes crystallized. This releases heat through two mechanisms: heat of crystallization and the release of gravothermal energy.

The inner crystallized section is enhanced in oxygen. The outer fluid mantel is enriched in carbon. Calling this a diamond is simply wrong. Perhaps at some point in the distant future one of these will cool and part of it will become a form of crystal carbon, but considering that the cooling time without mantle carbon crystallization is on the order of 10 Gigayears, it is not likely this has happened yet considering that the universe is around 13.6 gigayears old.

http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/486/1/413/fulltext/34903.text.html [iop.org]

The Cooling of CO White Dwarfs: Influence of the Internal Chemical Distribution

White dwarfs are the remnants of stars of low and intermediate masses on the main sequence. Since they have exhausted all of their nuclear fuel, their evolution is just a gravothermal process. The release of energy only depends on the detailed internal structure and chemical composition and on the properties of the envelope equation of state and opacity; its consequences on the cooling curve (i.e., the luminosity vs. time relationship) depend on the luminosity at which this energy is released.

The internal chemical profile depends on the rate of the 12C(, )16O reaction as well as on the treatment of convection. High reaction rates produce white dwarfs with oxygen-rich cores surrounded by carbon-rich mantles. This reduces the available gravothermal energy and decreases the lifetime of white dwarfs.

In this paper we compute detailed evolutionary models providing chemical profiles for white dwarfs having progenitors in the mass range from 1.0 to 7 M, and we examine the influence of such profiles in the cooling process. The influence of the process of separation of carbon and oxygen during crystallization is decreased as a consequence of the initial stratification, but it is still important and cannot be neglected. As an example, the best fit to the luminosity functions of Liebert et al. and Oswalt et al. gives an age of the disk of 9.3 and 11.0 Gyr, respectively, when this effect is taken into account, and only 8.3 and 10.0 Gyr when it is neglected.

Re:DIAMONDS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY (1)

ygslash (893445) | about 2 months ago | (#47323943)

Warning: ACTUAL PHYSICS, not typical Slashdot half-assed speculation...

Calling this a diamond is simply wrong. Perhaps at some point in the distant future one of these will cool and part of it will become a form of crystal carbon, but considering that the cooling time without mantle carbon crystallization is on the order of 10 Gigayears, it is not likely this has happened yet considering that the universe is around 13.6 gigayears old...

OP here. Not claiming to know much about this; I just pointed out the NRAO announcement. But I assume that NRAO does have people that know something about the physics here.

They are not saying that the white dwarf is 3000 K - they would have detected it directly then. They are saying that it must be cooler than that, perhaps much cooler. Thus, they are speculating that this is an extremely old object, and that it may indeed have cooled enough to reach temperatures at which there would be carbon crystallization.

Wat (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47319923)

Carbon + Oxygen @3000K = CO2. Diamond burns in the presence of oxygen at those kind of temperatures and pressures.

Re:Wat (1)

NoKaOi (1415755) | about 2 months ago | (#47320017)

FTA:

Astronomers believe that such a cool, collapsed star would be largely crystallized carbon, not unlike a diamond.

But I'm sure you know more about it than these folks with PhDs in astronomy.

Re:Wat (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47320239)

Well I'm sure I know more chemistry than those astronomers, yes :) You are working under the assumption that since they know a field of science, they are experts in ALL fields of science. It's like trusting a proctologist to give you brain surgery :) It's simple chemistry, the areas are physically so big, something larger than that physically won't fit.

Re:Wat (-1, Troll)

sexconker (1179573) | about 2 months ago | (#47320321)

It's like trusting a proctologist to give you brain surgery :)

It's a well-known fact that when a liberal needs brain surgery he goes to a proctologist. I'm sure the same would apply to most slashdotters.

Re:Wat (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47324159)

Win

Re:Wat (0)

NoKaOi (1415755) | about 2 months ago | (#47320525)

It's like trusting a proctologist to give you brain surgery

No, it's not. If we were talking about general chemistry, then it's like getting medical advice about the brain from a proctologist vs. somebody who took biology 101 in college. The proctologist still went to medical school and completed a residency which included a neurology rotation. However, in this case, these astronomers specialize in determining the composition of ginormous things, so it's pretty safe to assume that they're a bit more informed in that area than a typical physics major, and especially more than some anonymous coward that likely only took high school chemistry and physics (and maybe read a couple of Wikipedia pages) or at best a few classes of chemistry and/or physics in college.

Yes, I know, I took the bait and I'm feeding the troll.

Re:Wat (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47320407)

He certainly knows more chemistry than them. Hell, he probably took chemistry in high school while it was still capable of being taught. Unfortunately, the distinction between chemistry and astonomy is lost on someone that gets information from slashdot. You're a real dope. The worst kind. Just because everyone YOU meet is smarter than you means nothing. STFU MORON.

Re:Wat (1)

Grow Old Timber (1071718) | about 2 months ago | (#47321681)

not unlike a diamond. There you see it's just "not unlike one" Quartz.

Wat (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47322279)

It's doubtful that the behavior of these elements under the perfect vaccuum prevailing on Earth's surface and in its mantle will carry over to their behavior at the surface of a collapsed star. Carbon atoms have a nominal radius of about 133 picometers. Under white dwarf conditions carbon atoms are compressed to more like 1pm, which is a good deal less than even the Bohr radius of the innermost 1S electrons.

Any regular lattice that forms under these conditions might happen to be tetragonal but I doubt it has anything to do with what we call diamond.

Re:Wat (1)

ygslash (893445) | about 2 months ago | (#47323965)

They didn't say it's 3000K. They said it's not 3000K, because otherwise they would have detected it directly. It's cooler than 3000K, perhaps much cooler.

let me be the first to say.... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47319943)

I call dibs.

Re:let me be the first to say.... (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 2 months ago | (#47320277)

You can't call dibs in a bidding war!

Re:let me be the first to say.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47321677)

Then make this a dibbing war!

In other news -African Warlords to build spaceship (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47319949)

SSIA

Not a diamond, and not like a diamond (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47319977)

Diamonds are almost entirely carbon, where as this has a significant portion of oxygen in it, so this wouldn't actually form a diamond structure. This sort of headline bait is rather annoying.

Re:Not a diamond, and not like a diamond (1)

arth1 (260657) | about 2 months ago | (#47320223)

True. This would be amorphous carbonia, which is basically a crystalline form of carbon dioxide under high pressure. It's no more diamond than what you exhale.

Re:Not a diamond, and not like a diamond (1)

sexconker (1179573) | about 2 months ago | (#47320349)

Diamonds are almost entirely carbon, where as this has a significant portion of oxygen in it, so this wouldn't actually form a diamond structure. This sort of headline bait is rather annoying.

So... diamondillium or diamondium?

Hey it's the planet (1)

NotSoHeavyD3 (1400425) | about 2 months ago | (#47320023)

from the Sega CD version of Dungeon Explorer .(There's an obscure reference.)

Re:Hey it's the planet (1)

DudemanX (44606) | about 2 months ago | (#47321525)

Great game. Probably still my favorite Gauntlet clone. It was for TurboGraphix16 though and not any Sega system.

Dungeon Explorer is on Wii Virtual Console.

Actually they released a Sega-CD version (1)

NotSoHeavyD3 (1400425) | about 2 months ago | (#47321985)

It was one of a couple of TG-16 games they did on the Sega-CD. Funny thing was even though Lords of Thunder was basically the same game as the Duo-CD version the Sega-CD version of Dungeon Explorer was a totally new game.

Pawn or sell? (2)

Snotnose (212196) | about 2 months ago | (#47320035)

Lemme call a buddy of mine to see what he can tell me about this.

Units (1)

vanyel (28049) | about 2 months ago | (#47320047)

I wonder how many carats that is...

Units (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47320235)

About 1.90644415 Ãf-- 10^19

If so, my question is (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 2 months ago | (#47320061)

Is it just one diamond, or a pile of diamonds? If a pile, how [ir]regular?

I mean, in theory. I know we haven't been there.

If she's not going to live forever, (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47320101)

Why buy her a diamond?

Re:If she's not going to live forever, (1)

sexconker (1179573) | about 2 months ago | (#47320381)

Why buy her a diamond?

There are only 2 reasons to buy diamonds - to cut hard stuff and to make a crazy laser weapon.

Re:If she's not going to live forever, (1)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | about 2 months ago | (#47320833)

Or, to convince the kind of person stupid enough to think a diamond is important to enter a relationship with you.

Dimond Planet (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47320377)

From the desk of "If you liked it you should have put a ring on it"... comes the diamond for the ring.

That's some serious bling (1)

robbiedo (553308) | about 2 months ago | (#47320523)

Hoper Kanye doesn't see this.

That's great. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47320771)

Now all I need is a sun-sized gold band, and finally my girlfriend might be happy.

Chilly 3000K? (1)

Chas (5144) | about 2 months ago | (#47320943)

Sure, maybe by stellar object standards, that's quite cool.

But an object that's rocking out at nearly 5000F isn't something I'd classify as "chilly".

Re:Chilly 3000K? (1)

bigfinger76 (2923613) | about 2 months ago | (#47321041)

whooosh?

In other news... (1)

Patent Lover (779809) | about 2 months ago | (#47320945)

De Beers to launch deep space rocket. Estimated cost? Two months salary.

Planet Midnight Anyone (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47320947)

Anyone up for a bus tour?

In other news (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47320973)

Russia announces it has developed a method to turn diamonds into energy with a 73% efficiency..
elsewhere...
NASA announces it has received substantial funding to get "Americans into space exploration"

Only way it's gonna happen....

And she still didn't give me a BJ... (1)

Snufu (1049644) | about 2 months ago | (#47321013)

Boeing Jet, in return. I always wanted one of those.

Any uses for a big diamond? (1)

dcooper_db9 (1044858) | about 2 months ago | (#47321155)

Assuming some day in the distant future humans could reach deep into space, could a really big diamond serve any functional purpose?

Re:Any uses for a big diamond? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47324365)

To cut through a really large piece of glass...

Gravity? (1)

bejiitas_wrath (825021) | about 2 months ago | (#47321169)

How much of a gravitational pull would there be on this object? Could you approach it closely or would that be a bad idea?

Re:Gravity? (1)

meglon (1001833) | about 2 months ago | (#47321331)

It's a white dwarf.

and the companion a mass 1.05 times that of the Sun.

It's gravitational pull, not including the pulsar's, would be almost the same as our suns.

Re:Gravity? (1)

amaurea (2900163) | about 2 months ago | (#47322407)

But since its much smaller, the surface gravity would be much greater (you can go deeper into its gravitational well before you reach its surface). The sun has a surface acceleration of 275 m/s^2, or about 28 g. This white dwarf would have a surface acceleration of 3.33 Mm/s^2, or 3.3e5 g, more than ten thousand times higher. Attempt no landings there.

Re:Gravity? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47322591)

Yes, but only at the radius the Sun has. At the radius of this white dwarf, which is Earth sized, which is about 100 times smaller, the surface gravity would therefore be 100-squared, so 10,000 times as strong. Now the Sun has 11g at the surface (Earth about 1g), so this object has 110,000g at the surface.
If your mass is about 75 kg, it would be like you would weigh 8,25 million kg on Earth.
This is why you would certainly not survive being on this white dwarf's surface, because it would turn you into a small layer of extra stuff. The surface gravity of this dwarf is why carbon has turned into diamond in te first place.

Re:Gravity? (1)

meglon (1001833) | about 2 months ago | (#47322713)

Yes, Amaurea right above your post laid that out pretty well, as do you.... but the OP didn't specify surface gravity. You would feel roughly the same effects (gravitationally) from it as you would from our sun at the same distance from center of mass; you'd simply be able to get much closer to center of mass on a white dwarf, baring being fried from the radiation output.

Quartz anyone? (1)

Grow Old Timber (1071718) | about 2 months ago | (#47321667)

May the Quartz be with you. Really It has to be one of the most common minerals on earth. It just looks like a diamond.

Diamond? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47321715)

Aren't those the things that cost a shitload of money that cash for gold stores can't do anything with?

You may all be missing the bigger picture. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47321825)

Hey, y'all supposed to be nerds, geeks, and general fans of science, right?

You're all focusing on the material, and there's something much more important. Isn't it supposed to take TRILLIONS of years for a white dwarf to cool to such a low temperature? Either someone got the math wrong, or (as I've suspected for a while now,) the universe is a whole hell of a lot fucking older than the Big-Bangers think. I think of them as "Young-Universe" Cosmologists, I'm pretty sure the Big Bang Theory is not much more than a re-telling of the "Genesis" story, but with names and dates changed, and volition on the part of that which "created" everything removed.

Oh, and who's to say which allotrope of carbon it is? It could be not-diamond at all, but an earth-sized, very dirty Buckminster-fullerine. Guess that wouldn't be as sexy though. Anyway... I'm looking forward to the moment when they start studying this thing and realize some of the other implications of this find.

IF, (and it's a big if, I'll grant,) I'm right, you can think of this as geologists discovering a 9 billion year old rock in some place that isn't an obvious meteor impact site. Or carbon-dating a human-like skeleton and it turning out to be 35 million years old. Either it means your method of computing how old something is is WRONG, or how old you thought something (the human race, the earth, or the universe itself) is.

correction... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47322117)

Hmm... I don't know where I got the "trillions of years" to cool off number, but I can't find it now. I stand by my belief that the Big Bang folks are wrong, but it appears this isn't really evidence of that, I think maybe the figure was for cooling to near absolute zero, and 3000 Kelvins is a far fuckin' cry from 0. Umm... never mind, I guess. :-/

Thing of the curse on that baby! (1)

MouseTheLuckyDog (2752443) | about 2 months ago | (#47321963)

After all all big diamonds have curses on them!

Re:Thing of the curse on that baby! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47322479)

Yeah, mines attached to some nag that pumps out a kid every so often.

I wish I never found that diamond :(

dibs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47322601)

can I be first to call dibs.... :)

FARNSWORTH (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47323123)

According to this blinking light, the tentacles are made of electro-matter, matter's bad-ass grandma. Nothing from our universe can penetrate it. Not diamondium, not diamondillium, not even your wife's pound cake, Hermes! [to Wernstrom] She's a terrible cook. Anyway, we're all dead.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>