Skip to comments.
Astronomers spy 10 billion trillion trillion-carat diamond (Vey Hugh!)
Sac Bee ^
| 2/13/04
| AP - LA
Posted on 02/13/2004 2:33:17 PM PST by NormsRevenge
Edited on 04/12/2004 6:05:42 PM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-66 next last
To: EggsAckley; ovrtaxt
No, EggsAckley............I think ovrtaxt nailed it perfectly.
To: blam
Nuke it! LOL!
I doubt that would scratch it, better try a chunk of antimatter the size of a small moon. ;-)
42
posted on
02/13/2004 5:21:01 PM PST
by
StriperSniper
(Manuel Miranda - Whistleblower)
To: NormsRevenge
Kobe Bryant's wife will have that puppy on her hand by Christmas ;-)
43
posted on
02/13/2004 5:28:10 PM PST
by
varon
To: NormsRevenge
Calling this a diamond is rather a stretch. From
Astronomers Find a Huge Diamond in Space: "It is 2,500 miles across and weighs 5 million trillion trillion pounds, which translates to approximately 10 billion trillion trillion carats, or a one followed by 34 zeros."
That works out to 66647 kg/cc, compared to 0.0035 kg/cc for diamond. ( By my calculation. )
The tremendous density of a white dwarf is possible because all the electrons have been squeezed into conduction bands, leaving the nuclei to interact among themselves. This already happens at the center of the sun, where the density is about 300 times that of water, but there the nuclei are still spread thin, so that they form a gas.
At the higher densities of a neutron star, the nuclei are much closer together and the claim is that they condense into a crystalline phase wherein they retain a regular spacing.
This is nothing to do with diamond, notwithstanding that these are carbon nuclei. The salient feature of diamond is the tetravalent bonding which gives it the eponymous "diamond structure", and this is completely lacking in the white dwarf.
44
posted on
02/13/2004 5:31:40 PM PST
by
dr_lew
To: dr_lew
cool universe indeed ... boggles one's mind sometimes..
45
posted on
02/13/2004 7:19:53 PM PST
by
NormsRevenge
(Semper Fi Mac ... Support OurTroops!)
To: dr_lew
At the higher densities of a neutron star, the nuclei are much closer together and the claim is that they condense into a crystalline phase wherein they retain a regular spacing.Oops. I meant, "At the higher densities of a white dwarf ..."
46
posted on
02/13/2004 8:05:47 PM PST
by
dr_lew
To: NormsRevenge
I just spoke to the International Star Registry people and for a mere $49.95 I have renamed this diamond star for Mrs. Swordmaker.
Beat you all the the punch... and its official too... they "registered it, it in book form, with the US Copyright office"... so there!
47
posted on
02/13/2004 8:25:58 PM PST
by
Swordmaker
(This tagline shut down for renovations and repairs. Re-open June of 2001.)
To: maestro
Very interesting. Maranatha!!
To: dr_lew
dr_lew said:
This is nothing to do with diamond, notwithstanding that these are carbon nuclei. The salient feature of diamond is the tetravalent bonding which gives it the eponymous "diamond structure", and this is completely lacking in the white dwarf. Now, for extra credit...
Would there be a pressure gradient along a radius of the star?
Would the pressure gradient result in a density gradient?
Would the resulting density near the surface allow for anything remotely "resembling" diamond?
To: RightOnline; EggsAckley; Lurker; cyborg; American_Centurion; sphinx; SauronOfMordor; ...
Wow, sorry about the tagline problem. I've been using it for weeks off and on. I also had taglines referring to the Communist Manifesto and Nafta in the same regard, but it seems the FR powers that be have deleted them for me.
Funny, I haven't had issue one with FR administration since I've been here, up until about 2 months ago.
Is it me, am I just suddenly now more offensive and over the top, or does FR have new blood in the Admin group? Perhaps we should all just get castrated and talk like pundits on a cable news channel.
Remember Debbie Schlussel? After 911 she got on TV and stated that the US should work toward a policy of converting Muslims to Christianity. The howling and screaming was deafening. I thought she was absolutely right. Is FR getting to be like that?
50
posted on
02/14/2004 4:15:34 AM PST
by
ovrtaxt
(EXCUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUSE MEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
To: ovrtaxt
If you'll read several of my previous posts, you'll see that I retracted my objections. Sorry.
51
posted on
02/14/2004 6:51:38 AM PST
by
EggsAckley
(...............TROLL PATROL...on duty.........................)
To: NormsRevenge
Are they Sirius?
52
posted on
02/14/2004 6:54:16 AM PST
by
js1138
To: NormsRevenge
DeBeer's is well on their way in plotting a "solution" to not owning this diamond...
53
posted on
02/14/2004 6:55:02 AM PST
by
Guillermo
(It's tough being a Miami Dolphins fan)
To: Sofa King
I think the scientific term for "10 billion trillion trillion" is a gazillion.
54
posted on
02/14/2004 6:57:48 AM PST
by
Guillermo
(It's tough being a Miami Dolphins fan)
To: Guillermo
I though it was 10^34...
55
posted on
02/14/2004 9:44:11 AM PST
by
Sofa King
(MY rights are not subject to YOUR approval http://www.angelfire.com/art2/sofaking/index.html)
To: EggsAckley
Yes, I saw that. I'm glad it grew on you over time! :)
56
posted on
02/14/2004 11:05:27 AM PST
by
ovrtaxt
( We have nothing to fear, except political correctness.)
To: ovrtaxt
Well, my excuse is that I have a raging tooth infection, and when the pain pills wear off, I go nuclear. Bad timing.
To: PetroniDE
Cute cat pic ping
58
posted on
02/14/2004 11:12:06 AM PST
by
anymouse
To: NormsRevenge
Who says there is no reason to go into space? It reminds me of that Bugs and Daffy cartoon where Daffy gets shrunk by the genie and comes after the pearly that Bugs finds in an oyster at the beach. Daffy saying "It's mine, mine, all mine!" :)
59
posted on
02/14/2004 11:12:43 AM PST
by
anymouse
To: Guillermo
I was always told that the proper term for "10 billion trillion trillion" is "leventy jillion."
60
posted on
02/14/2004 11:23:06 AM PST
by
getitright
(often wrong but never in doubt.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-66 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson