Slashdot Mirror


Massive Diamond Found Orbiting Pulsar

HairyNevus writes "A recent survey of pulsars has revealed a fascinating discovery of a millisecond pulsar in system PSR J17191438 that has stripped a nearby white dwarf star down to its very core. Although no longer visible, is still has the mass of Jupiter. The remaining core rotates its neutron star companion with a period of just under 2 hours, indicating extremely close proximity. Given this distance, scientists have calculated that the substance of the core must be very compact, and, without building up the point, they conclude it is made of diamond. One thing I found misleading about the article is that it refers to the core as having 'the size of Jupiter' and 'the mass of Jupiter.' Given their different densities (diamond vs. mostly helium), it would seem clear that their size (i.e. volume) differs."

204 comments

  1. Better Press Release by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Informative

    One thing I found misleading about the article is that it refers to the core as having 'the size of Jupiter' and 'the mass of Jupiter.'

    Here's the correct Science Journal link and here is a better press release from the Max Planck Institute that clarifies:

    For the newly discovered pulsar, known as PSR J1719-1438, the astronomers noticed that the arrival times of the pulses were systematically modulated and concluded that this is due to the gravitational pull of a small orbiting companion, a planet. These modulations can tell astronomers several more things about the companion. First, it orbits the pulsar in just two hours and ten minutes, and the distance between the two objects is 600,000 km - a little bit less than the radius of our Sun. Second, the companion is so close to the pulsar that if its diameter was any larger than 60,000 km (less than half the diameter of Jupiter) it would be ripped apart by the gravity of the pulsar.

    So it appears that the article saying "size equivalent to Jupiter" (volume?) is wrong if the Max Planck Institute is correct in saying that its diameter has to be less than half the diameter of Jupiter.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:Better Press Release by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless, of course, they're talking about mass when they say "size."

    2. Re:Better Press Release by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Which would just be a failure to understand English?
      Size never means mass, it always means volume or set of dimensions. Perhaps not in all dimensions at once aka items claimed to be "size of a credit card" but are in fact far thicker.

    3. Re:Better Press Release by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People writing about science shouldn't throw around words carelessly, but for things that are normally spec'd by their mass the term 'size' is conversationally interchangeable with dimentions.

      If you ask the size of a diamond most jewelers will respond in units of carats, which is mass. If you ask the size of a fish a guy caught he will usually respond in units of mass.

    4. Re:Better Press Release by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

      OK we know how big it is.

      Is it flawless?

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    5. Re:Better Press Release by harperska · · Score: 1

      I think this is a deficiency in English, actually. On one hand, you have a word "size", which is defined to mean an object's physical dimensions. On the other hand, there is a linguistic need for a word generically meaning "how much of it there is" without specifying which measurement is meant. To the casual non-physicist, it doesn't matter if an object has a comparable diameter to Jupiter, or a comparable mass to Jupiter. All they care about is that it is comparable to Jupiter - i.e. "pretty damn big, but not like star big, more like Jupiter big". The word closest to this concept is "size". So until a new word is coined that generically means "how big", then I maintain that "same size as Jupiter" is correct in this case.

    6. Re:Better Press Release by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

      Carats is both volume and mass. Diamonds have a fixed density.

    7. Re:Better Press Release by Baloroth · · Score: 1

      I think by "size" the article actually means "mass". Not technically accurate, but at least they don't say "volume". The writer of the article does seem to be pretty clear that it has Jupiter's mass and not its volume.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    8. Re:Better Press Release by Cstryon · · Score: 1

      I have to disagree. If I hear same size as Jupiter, I think same dimensions. Trying to determine if that was my educated opinion, or if that was a common sense opinion, I asked my Mom, who knows very little about this stuff I told her we have 2 balls that weigh 2 pounds each, one is a beach ball, and one is a golf ball. Which one is bigger? She answered the Beach ball, but understood that they weigh the same.

      Regardless of the common understanding (or misunderstanding), we should be clear that mass and size are 2 different measurements.

      --
      Indoctrinate : to instruct especially in fundamentals or rudiments Educate : to develop mentally, morally, or aestheti
    9. Re:Better Press Release by Rakshasa-sensei · · Score: 1

      Also you can't just go around saying helium has different density to diamond, as the density of diamond is 3.53 g/cm^3 and Jupiter is 1.33 g/cm^3... Which means that since a planet like Jupiter would not grow much in size due to gravity until its mass was more than circa 12x Jupiter masses, which is when fusion gets ignited.

      So helium could have the same density as diamond, depending on the location of each.

    10. Re:Better Press Release by 517714 · · Score: 1

      What size turkey did you have for Thanksgiving? My family had a 13 pound turkey. Was yours 18", or 300 cubic inches, or what?

      --
      The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
    11. Re:Better Press Release by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By my calculations that's about 0.15% C which seems really fast for a body that size to be moving. I'd love to know what sort of relativistic effects are at play.

    12. Re:Better Press Release by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      How do they know it is not a black hole or a neutron star?

    13. Re:Better Press Release by st0nes · · Score: 1

      It also says 'rotates' when it means 'orbits'. Not very good writing.

      --
      Tempora mutantur, nos et mutamur in illis
    14. Re:Better Press Release by Serpents · · Score: 1

      Which would just be a failure to understand English?

      Note that the Max Planck Institute is located in Germany so I'd say it's safe to assume that whoever wrote this is not a native speaker of English, hence the ambiguity.

    15. Re:Better Press Release by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 1

      Not at this scale they don't. Diamond like everything else does compress. Significantly at these scales and pressures.

      --
      The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
    16. Re:Better Press Release by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So it appears that the article saying "size equivalent to Jupiter" (volume?) is wrong if the Max Planck Institute is correct in saying that its diameter has to be less than half the diameter of Jupiter.

      Never mind that! Can you imagine the size of the woman who owns this ring!? Fuck me that's one big black hole!

    17. Re:Better Press Release by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      GP was speaking about how diamonds are commonly measured, no the possible diamond in the article.

    18. Re:Better Press Release by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would be nice if other OR ALL sites had moderation / metamoderation. :)

    19. Re:Better Press Release by RobertLTux · · Score: 1

      when we are talking about a "diamond" that measures in the TeraCarats i think it would not matter if it had "flaws" that qualified as BOULDERS since you could buy the whole fracking planet with it (DeBeers* would lay waste to entire countries if somebody could figure out how to mine that Diamond).

      * or any of the major GemHouses

      --
      Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
    20. Re:Better Press Release by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

      I think they'd lay waste to countries that wanted to retrieve it!

      That is, if you assume a diamond has value because of it's rarity when found without flaws, above certain sizes...

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    21. Re:Better Press Release by tm2b · · Score: 1

      You're not an astrophysicist. I met your mom isn't, either.

      Seriously, this isn't a matter of common sense, but of a scientific jargon / English mismatch, it happens all the time. In the context of astronomy, it's completely normal to talk about size in terms of mass rather than spatial units. If somebody asked what size a star was, an answer of "5.6 solar masses" would be a perfectly acceptable answer.

      --
      "It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny
  2. damn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Now my wife will want it

    1. Re:damn by Eponymous+Hero · · Score: 1

      next best thing, just name it after her

      --
      insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
    2. Re:damn by Dunbal · · Score: 3, Funny

      Too bad, DeBeers already bought it. Gotta keep those diamonds out of the wrong hands.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    3. Re:damn by newcastlejon · · Score: 1

      Bought it? Are you sure they didn't just lay claim to it?

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
    4. Re:damn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In other news, the DeBeers company has managed to construct a rocket to launch a probe that will apply a diamond plaque labeled "Property of DeBeers" on a recently discovered planet made of diamonds.

    5. Re:damn by newcastlejon · · Score: 1

      They'll have to find it first! And they won't be able to do that with Google or TFA since the latter doesn't say where or even how far away it is and the former just returns page after page after page of the same press release copied verbatim.

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
    6. Re:damn by mikael · · Score: 1

      It would like something out of the Red Dwarf series or HHTTG to have some intergalactic civilization to dedicate an entire millienium to polishing this planet into a perfect cut diamond, only for it to be demolished to make way for an intergalactic highway.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    7. Re:damn by TheInternetGuy · · Score: 0

      They say it is a planet, but I say it's most likely a ring world

      --
      If my comment didn't sound as good in your head as it did in mine, then I guess we all know who's to blame
    8. Re:damn by plj · · Score: 1

      Don't think so; this brings mrs. Vandergilt to my mind.

      --
      “Wait for Hurd if you want something real” –Linus
    9. Re:damn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now my wife will want it

      That's one big ring. Wife's got a bit of a weight issue huh?

    10. Re:damn by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

      's/want/demand/' :>

  3. A diamond that big? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Time for a celebration, I'll get De Beers in

  4. Diamonds are not rare, not even on Earth. by Kenja · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Regardless of what the De Beers group wants you to think, diamonds are not that rare. Carbon is the most common element around.

    Still, its kinda nifty to see such a large chunk of the stuff.

    --

    "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    1. Re:Diamonds are not rare, not even on Earth. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Diamonds on earth, outside the ground, and outside vaults controlled by De Beers are kept rare, though.

    2. Re:Diamonds are not rare, not even on Earth. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Regardless of what the De Beers group wants you to think, diamonds are not that rare. Carbon is the most common element around.

      So if you had a 10-carat diamond, you would cheerfully give it to me in exchange for 100 carats of carbon powder?

    3. Re:Diamonds are not rare, not even on Earth. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes, but if you go with a synthetic diamond, you aren't getting Genuine Blood Diamonds (TM) from third-world countries. The infused suffering makes their sparkle brighter.

      Or you're not getting Genuine Not Blood Diamonds (TM) from the same company that brought you Genuine Blood Diamonds.

    4. Re:Diamonds are not rare, not even on Earth. by buchner.johannes · · Score: 2

      Regardless of what the De Beers group wants you to think, diamonds are not that rare. Carbon is the most common element around.

      Hydrogen is the most common element, not Carbon. Or was that a hyperbole?

      --
      NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
    5. Re:Diamonds are not rare, not even on Earth. by Riceballsan · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Well they are actually rediculously common, were it not for a very very large percentage of the supply in the hands of a handfull of companies, and making a perfect undetectable forgery of a diamond is extremely easy with the right equipment. Without the right lobying and rules, forcing all manufactured diamonds to have a watermark to be distinguished as "fake", and having the actual supply in control of a handful of companies that intentionally release the supply slowly to keep demand high, Diamonds could easilly become cheaper then copper.

    6. Re:Diamonds are not rare, not even on Earth. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Goldman's following this business model and will soon have all commodities priced artificially higher(happening since 1999). Now, they would be 'players' even if Gramm-Leach-Bliley is repealed(WHFO) or Volcker is watered down enough to make a suitably neutered paper tiger.
      Mo money

    7. Re:Diamonds are not rare, not even on Earth. by msauve · · Score: 1

      "Carbon is the most common element around."

      No, in the universe, that would be hydrogen. Carbon is 4th in abundance. It's much farther down the list if you just consider the earth.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    8. Re:Diamonds are not rare, not even on Earth. by newcastlejon · · Score: 3, Funny

      Perhaps the parent meant on Earth, but that's also wrong, or perhaps they meant just the crust... nope, still wrong. Or maybe it's the entire Universe? Nope, distant fourth.

      Care to enlighten us Kenja?

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
    9. Re:Diamonds are not rare, not even on Earth. by guspasho · · Score: 1

      Obviously it's hyperbole, but it ignores the distinction between carbon and diamonds. Diamonds here on Earth are relatively rare. And if you count this star or remnant as a single diamond, then they are still rare. Unless parent can explain his point about De Beers tricking everyone or whatever.

    10. Re:Diamonds are not rare, not even on Earth. by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Hydrogen, helium, lithium and trace amounts of everything else.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    11. Re:Diamonds are not rare, not even on Earth. by Anguirel · · Score: 1

      DeBeers allegedly have lots of diamonds that they hold in vaults to reduce supply and artificially drive up costs. And apparently bought rough diamonds from competitors to maintain monopoly control. As they have in the past acted to control supply in that fashion, it would not be surprising if they continue to do so, and continue to lie tot he world that diamonds are as rare as they claim them to be. Along with probably lying about the "supply running low" as diamond mines are fully exploited, and purposely reducing production to allow the mines to be operated longer.

      I have no idea how much of that is accurate, but it seems to come up any time diamonds are mentioned.

      --
      ~Anguirel (lit. Living Star-Iron)
      QA: The art of telling someone that their baby is ugly without getting punched.
    12. Re:Diamonds are not rare, not even on Earth. by idontgno · · Score: 3, Funny

      I bet he meant that carbon is the most abundant element in diamonds. That's pretty much true.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    13. Re:Diamonds are not rare, not even on Earth. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      making a perfect undetectable forgery of a diamond is extremely easy with the right equipment

      Actually, the easiest way to detect a manufactured diamond is precisely that it is so unnaturally perfect. Any natural diamond, no matter how "perfect" it is, has microscopic imperfections. Of course, you'd need to be a trained jeweler with special equipment to tell, but it's not at all undetectable.

    14. Re:Diamonds are not rare, not even on Earth. by Toonol · · Score: 0

      If you average earth and that thing together, we're about 90% diamond.

    15. Re:Diamonds are not rare, not even on Earth. by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      DeBeers has almost total control over diamond production (there are only a handful of mines worldwide that are not DeBeers controlled). They produce more than they sell, and stockpile the rest, creating artificial scarcity. Their marketing department is also responsible for a large proportion of the demand for diamonds. Despite what people think of as a long-standing tratition, prior to DeBeers marketing the hell out of them, diamonds weren't often used in engagement rings. Check your great grandparents rings, if they're still around - they probably have ruby, sapphire, amethyst or emerald settings.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Beers#Diamond_monopoly

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    16. Re:Diamonds are not rare, not even on Earth. by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      I'll go with most common free atomic solid?

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    17. Re:Diamonds are not rare, not even on Earth. by emt377 · · Score: 1

      Hydrogen, helium, lithium and trace amounts of everything else.

      Lithium??? I must be missing an internal joke here. The third most abundant element of course is oxygen. In order: H, He, O, C.

    18. Re:Diamonds are not rare, not even on Earth. by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      You're quite right. Major brainfart there. Was thinking nucleosynthesis.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    19. Re:Diamonds are not rare, not even on Earth. by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      When De Beers started diamonds were rare mainly because people did not know where to find them. In the last while prospectors have discovered where to look and diamonds have become much more common. I equate this to the price of aluminum. When it was first smelted aluminum was extremely expensive due to the difficulty in refining. It was even used as the cap on the Washington Monument due to the expense. Once the electrolysis process was discovered the price of aluminum plummeted. The price of diamonds should have as well but De Beers keeps it up.

      De Beers popularized diamonds and have continued to perpetuate the rarity myth. One of their common practices is to not sell diamonds to anyone who buys from someone else. This is also a permanent ban; buy from someone else and you can never buy from De Beers again.So a diamond merchant has to stake his livelihood on independent diamond distributors and risk ruin if the distributors can not come through. De Beers also restricts the amount of diamonds they sell too keep the price high. This has decreased somewhat since 2000 when several large players including Canada and Russia started selling diamonds outside the De Beers monopoly.

    20. Re:Diamonds are not rare, not even on Earth. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suggest we name it Planet Carol Channing.
      Diamonds!

    21. Re:Diamonds are not rare, not even on Earth. by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>Actually, the easiest way to detect a manufactured diamond is precisely that it is so unnaturally perfect. Any natural diamond, no matter how "perfect" it is, has microscopic imperfections. Of course, you'd need to be a trained jeweler with special equipment to tell, but it's not at all undetectable.

      I've never understood why a "natural" diamond should be worth more money, anyway. (Though the good artificial ones are actually quite expensive, too.) Given the rather nasty record of the DeBeers cartel, I'd rather not ever give them any money.

      My wife, bless her soul, refused a diamond entirely. We ended up going to Japan instead.

    22. Re:Diamonds are not rare, not even on Earth. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're "rare" in that they're hard to come by because DeBeers is an illegal monopoly that stockpiles and controls their distribution.

    23. Re:Diamonds are not rare, not even on Earth. by st0nes · · Score: 1

      Will their marketing department be first against the wall when the revolution comes?

      --
      Tempora mutantur, nos et mutamur in illis
    24. Re:Diamonds are not rare, not even on Earth. by petman · · Score: 2

      He's not wrong, from a certain POV. He said 'common', not 'abundant'. One definition of common is 'most familiar'. In fact, as I look around from where I sit, most of the stuff I see are made from carbon-based materials - papers, plastics, fabric, wood. So, in a sense, carbon is the most common i.e. familiar.

    25. Re:Diamonds are not rare, not even on Earth. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Man-made ones are pretty cheap and perfectly good for most purposes, especially tools. People only buy the "genuine" ones because they want something expensive and exclusive so it makes sense to limit the supply, but if utility is all you want then there are plenty of cheap sources.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    26. Re:Diamonds are not rare, not even on Earth. by Rakshasa-sensei · · Score: 1

      So tell me... What is "unnatural" with the diamond orbiting that neutron star, which is likely more 'perfect' than any made by humans?

    27. Re:Diamonds are not rare, not even on Earth. by d3ac0n · · Score: 1

      Why would it be more likely to be perfect?

      if anything, i would think it LESS likely to be perfect due to tidal stresses on it because of it's close orbit to it's parent star.

      Frankly, I don't understand why it's being called a "planet" at all. It seems quite clear to me that the only known way to obtain a pure carbon body of this size is via thermonuclear fusion over long periods of time. It's the only way to obtain enough heat and pressure to turn the entire body into a diamond. IE: This "planet" is almost certainly the husk of a dead star, orbiting the husk of another dead star.

      It's more creepy than beautiful when you think of it. Two corpses orbiting one another as they drift through space. Depressing.

      --
      Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
    28. Re:Diamonds are not rare, not even on Earth. by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      Not only this, but they've aggressively targeted companies that produce man-made diamonds, trying to claim that they are somehow inferior. When they realized they couldn't claim this, they started claiming that the perfect diamonds that other companies made were inferior because DeBeers "natural diamonds" had flaws in them. (This isn't even getting into allegations of mobster-esque death threats.)

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    29. Re:Diamonds are not rare, not even on Earth. by pnewhook · · Score: 1

      It's the only way to obtain enough heat and pressure to turn the entire body into a diamond. IE: This "planet" is almost certainly the husk of a dead star, orbiting the husk of another dead star.

      That's exactly what the article said it was..

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    30. Re:Diamonds are not rare, not even on Earth. by JSBiff · · Score: 1

      "And apparently bought rough diamonds from competitors to maintain monopoly control."

      It's not unusual for someone to attempt to 'corner' a market in a commodity - but, the problem is, whoever tries to do so usually goes broke, because they run out of money without ever being able to fully consume the supply - because more diamonds would be mined and manufactured every day, so De Beers would have to buy far more diamonds than they sell *every day*.

        On top of that, they would have to buy them at 'wholesale' prices that are a significant fraction of the retail cost, else those competitors could probably make more money on the open market than selling them 'cheap' to De Beers.

      Even with artificially elevated prices due to the controlled market, De Beers would be creating a bubble which must eventually crash spectacularly when De Beers goes bankrupt from the on-going losses they'd be incurring thus controlling the market, and can no longer afford to keep cornering the market, at which point the price would drop significantly, and De Beers would be stuck with (millions? hundreds of millions?) of diamonds that are worth far less than De Beers payed for them, and De Beers would never be able to recover their losses.

      How is that a credible theory again? Either diamonds are scarce enough De Beers can profitably corner the market, or they are common. I don't see how you can have it both ways?

    31. Re:Diamonds are not rare, not even on Earth. by JSBiff · · Score: 1

      Honestly, I think De Beers best marketing strategy is just to play on some "cheap psychology" - that is to say, when someone is trying to buy a special ring or other piece of jewelry to be a special gift, it doesn't seem so special if they bought a 'cheap' diamond.

      I think they can continue to convince people to pay inflated prices for diamonds, just because people don't *want* to buy "cheap" diamonds and give those as gifts, and be seen as giving a cheap gift.

      So, they can use the 'branding' thing to their advantage even in a world of cheap commodity diamonds. I mean, you *can* buy a cheap watch. But, you can also buy a Rolex. People still buy Rolexes and other 'luxury brands' of items simply so that they can be seen to have bought 'the best', instead of the 'cheapest'.

    32. Re:Diamonds are not rare, not even on Earth. by emt377 · · Score: 1

      Heh, yeah - I thought it was either a joke or the wrong neuron fired. :)

    33. Re:Diamonds are not rare, not even on Earth. by Nyder · · Score: 1

      Regardless of what the De Beers group wants you to think, diamonds are not that rare. Carbon is the most common element around.

      Still, its kinda nifty to see such a large chunk of the stuff.

      Exactly how did you see it?

      The scientist are just basicly guessing it's made of diamond, they don't actually really know. Sure, it's an educated guess, but whats the harm? Not like we can go verify it.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    34. Re:Diamonds are not rare, not even on Earth. by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      Luckily, my wife gets upset with me if I buy her expensive jewelry. She thinks I'm wasting money that could be better spent elsewhere. So if I bought her a "cheap" imitation diamond, I'd be showing how frugal I am. Win-win!

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  5. Obligatory by Ironchew · · Score: 4, Funny

    These planets are a diamond dozen.

    1. Re:Obligatory by Wraithlyn · · Score: 1

      Nice pun. When I reddit I thought I was on a different site for a second.

      --
      "Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
  6. Value by Doodlesmcpooh · · Score: 1

    How much would a diamond the size of Jupiter be worth? Obviously if you could get it to earth somehow then diamond would be the most abundant material we have so it would be worthless but at todays prices I wonder how much it would be worth.

    1. Re:Value by fiordhraoi · · Score: 1

      Probably not worth a whole lot once it gets close enough to Earth to destroy it (destroy Earth, that is). :)

    2. Re:Value by Forty+Two+Tenfold · · Score: 2

      About 20,999,999.9769 BitCoins.

      --
      Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
    3. Re:Value by djdanlib · · Score: 2

      It wouldn't be sold in one piece. You can bank on that. Also, I bet ownership and "land" claims would be a really hot topic.

      If it were feasible to get it to a nearby stable orbit and not wreck the Earth or any of our stuff in the process, then it would cost an immense amount at first. Prices would get progressively lower as the technology evolved to "mine" and transport the pieces. The market would reach its saturation point eventually, too.

      Space diamonds would probably always cost more than diamonds originating here on the planet, though, because of how expensive it is to safely retrieve objects from space.

    4. Re:Value by bongey · · Score: 1

      Very crude estimate
      mass of Jupiter = 1.8987 × 10^30 grams
      1/2 carat = .1 gram = worth $ 1,650 USD http://diamondregistry.com/price.htm
      Or about $16,500 per gram USD .
      Estimate value :
      31.32855 x 10^33
      or
      31,328,550,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
      but I think diamond would be worthless if there were that much diamond, you probably couldn't give it away.

    5. Re:Value by Haedrian · · Score: 1

      If you get it to an orbit around earth, wouldn't it act like a more shiny moon? Or would it not sparkle?

    6. Re:Value by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They said it was a diamond, they didn't say it was a vampire.

    7. Re:Value by rossdee · · Score: 1

      Now work out the cost of getting it out of the gravity well of that pulsar. I don't even think the Enterprise D could pull it away with a tractor beam.

    8. Re:Value by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Probably very little because of its relative density. Diamond needs to be workable and light to be suitable for jewelry usage. This one is unlikely to be either, and even if it was workable, having a small ring that weighs kilograms, and earrings that rip your ears off don't make for good accessories.

    9. Re:Value by ae1294 · · Score: 1

      I don't even think the Enterprise D could pull it away with a tractor beam.

      They would need to use a multi-phase tracker beam while diverting all power from the warp drive and most from life support. Perhaps even use a modified shuttle to create a warp bubble around the object to reduce its mass. Or they could just ask Q to do it.

    10. Re:Value by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Shine on you crazy, diamond!"

    11. Re:Value by bejiitas_wrath · · Score: 1

      But what about building diamond semiconductors and revolutionizing the electronics industry? Would diamond be a very good material to build a chip with? It worked in a SciFi short story I read once where they were harvesting diamonds from the core of Neptune... They were the size of a VW.

      --
      liberare massarum ex ignorantia, clausa descendit molestie.
    12. Re:Value by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see what you did there.

    13. Re:Value by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Couldn't they reverse the polarity of the neutron flow, then cross the streams?

    14. Re:Value by guspasho · · Score: 1

      It would be worth exactly what you can get someone to pay for it. No less, no more.

      Ask a stupid question...

    15. Re:Value by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      "Honey, I just found out that ring you gave me had diamonds in it! You told me they were cut glass! You liar, you cheat!"

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    16. Re:Value by Haedrian · · Score: 1

      Well played. That was hilarious

    17. Re:Value by camperdave · · Score: 1

      How much would a diamond the size of Jupiter be worth?

      Do you want that in Flainian Pobble Beads, or Triganic Pu?

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    18. Re:Value by Haedrian · · Score: 1

      What they'd need is Wesley Crusher on board.

      The little [expletive] can solve everything.

    19. Re:Value by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      TO be fair he IS supposed be the first person to take the next step in human evolution.......the Traveler thing and all..

      --
      Good-bye
    20. Re:Value by nitehawk214 · · Score: 2

      It would be worth exactly what you can get someone to pay for it. No less, no more.

      Ask a stupid question...

      It would cost whatever DeBeers wanted to charge for it.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    21. Re:Value by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but I think diamond would be worthless if there were that much diamond, you probably couldn't give it away.

      Energy companies already have patents on outrageously expensive processes that refine the diamond into gasoline. Its estimated that once enough reserves have been refined, the resulting product fuel will be be slightly more expensive than traditional petroleum-based gasoline. This new untapped fuel source is estimated to give us an 50 extra years of fuel once Earth's oil is entirely depleted.

    22. Re:Value by ae1294 · · Score: 1

      TO be fair he IS supposed be the first person to take the next step in human evolution.......the Traveler thing and all..

      The next step in human evolution is to be gay? Somehow I don't think that is going to work out...

    23. Re:Value by br4nd0nh3at · · Score: 0

      I'd say make it a mini-Death Star. We can scorch the universe.

    24. Re:Value by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So we've gone from Natalie Portman, Naked and Petrified, Covered in Hot Grit to Stephanie Meyers' Twilight in just 14 years? sad. so sad.

    25. Re:Value by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Given that it has about the mass of Jupiter, it would be earth which would orbit this planet, not the other way round. (Actually, both would orbit the common center of mass, of course, but that would be much closer to this planet's center than to earth's center.) In other words, earth would be the moon in that case.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    26. Re:Value by AmonTheMetalhead · · Score: 1

      Now there's an argument against evolution!

    27. Re:Value by black+soap · · Score: 1

      Don't tell anybody, but I am planning a secret mission to carefully break off a chunk and use it as the galaxy's largest magnifying lens. I don't have to sell my chunk of diamond, citizens of earth will pay me to keep it turned elswhere.

  7. Jupiter is 90% Hydrogen by databaseadmin · · Score: 1

    Jupiter is 90% Hydrogen.

    Mostly in a metallic form.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter

  8. Don't tell my wife by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    she'll want it mounted on her anniversary ring

  9. Arthur C. Clarke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    genious.

    1. Re:Arthur C. Clarke by newcastlejon · · Score: 0

      I don't know about genius, but at least he could spell.

      I suggest you buy a new Mac; the iOS-style spellchecker really comes in handy despite occasionally mangling perfectly corpulent words.

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
    2. Re:Arthur C. Clarke by voidphoenix · · Score: 1

      I don't know about genius, but at least he could spell.

      I suggest you buy a new Mac; the iOS-style spellchecker really comes in handy despite occasionally mangling perfectly corpulent words.

      I do not think it means what you think it means.

    3. Re:Arthur C. Clarke by iluvcapra · · Score: 1

      Newcastlejon's usage accurate, it embiggens me to say...

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    4. Re:Arthur C. Clarke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know about genius, but at least he could spell.

      I suggest you buy a new Mac; the iOS-style spellchecker really comes in handy despite occasionally mangling perfectly cromulent words.

    5. Re:Arthur C. Clarke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoo-to-the-fucking-oosh!

  10. Old Spice man says... by stonegrid · · Score: 2

    Look again, the planets are now diamonds.

    1. Re:Old Spice man says... by Jorth · · Score: 1

      I am slightly creeped out that I heard that perfectly in my head...

  11. Time for a renaming... by Zephyn · · Score: 5, Funny

    We've just got to name the pulsar "Lucy" now.

    1. Re:Time for a renaming... by arthurpaliden · · Score: 1

      Nope, name it Liz....

    2. Re:Time for a renaming... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neil...

    3. Re:Time for a renaming... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That has already been done...
      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/3492919.stm

  12. Jodrell Bank by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here's the Jodrell Bank / University of Manchester press release: http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/news/2011/DiamondPlanet/

  13. How many carats? by rstanley · · Score: 0

    My girlfriend wants to know! ;^)

    You all know women, and their obsession with size! ;^) Of Diamonds of course! What did you think I meant? ;^)

    1. Re:How many carats? by tedgyz · · Score: 1

      That was my first thought. How can I get this for my wife? We all know what a man's best friend is, and the women have it. A big diamond is one way to get it.

      --
      "No matter where you go, there you are." -- Buckaroo Banzai
    2. Re:How many carats? by war4peace · · Score: 1

      We all know what a man's best friend is, and the women have it. A big diamond is one way to get it.

      You're talking about dogs, right?

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    3. Re:How many carats? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I count 3.

    4. Re:How many carats? by omnichad · · Score: 1

      If it has the mass of Jupiter, then Google tells me it's 9.4935 × 1030 carats

  14. Excellent news by Kittenman · · Score: 2
    Now we'll get private companies saying "hey, if we get into space there is some serious money to be made". That's how we'll finally get there, for keeps. And I'm serious. The future of space is in the hands of corporations, not governments. And that's how it should be.

    Pity I won't be around to see it, but can't have everything.

    --
    "The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
    1. Re:Excellent news by dragonhunter21 · · Score: 1

      A big hunk of carbon light years away? There's better incentives than that out there, for sure. Maybe if it was a giant tank of rocket fuel...

      --
      Sent from my CR-48
    2. Re:Excellent news by dnahelicase · · Score: 1

      Now we'll get private companies saying "hey, if we get into space there is some serious money to be made". .

      Just to let you know, I will gladly sell you a deed for some land on the new diamond planet! Get in now before all the parcels are sold out!

      Space is limited, but you will receive a certified verified framed deed for your own acre of diamond land, along with your name listed in "who's who in planet sized diamond owners"

      Act now! Get in on the ground floor! Put your money in something solid, like diamond planets! We do layaway!

    3. Re:Excellent news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But corporations are a legal fiction created by Gubmints. Given that Gubmints can't do anything good, Corporations must be Teh Evul, right?

    4. Re:Excellent news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "And I'm serious. The future of space is in the hands of corporations, not governments. And that's how it should be."

      like corporations are so much more ethical.

    5. Re:Excellent news by Benjamin+Shniper · · Score: 1

      That's correct. Asteroids have trillions of dollars worth of minable minerals. After being hollowed out, they make reasonably good habitats as they can hold oxygen inside.

      So we could turn asteroids into mines, factories, and even houses.

    6. Re:Excellent news by paulo.casanova · · Score: 1

      Hummm, size of Jupiter but made of solid carbon? I wonder what the gravity would be like... my calculations say ****waaaaay**** big :) It wouldn't be very useful to get a piece of terrain there I guess :)

      Oh, yeah, and you still have to avoid the gravity pull/radiation from the pulsar... Minor stuff, tho, if your greed for diamond is big enough :)

    7. Re:Excellent news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Diamonds are valuable because they are perceived as being 'rare'. You tow a planet sized diamond back to earth, and the market would vaporize. Could you imagine what would happen to our economy if we found an unlimited source of gold or oil? I think the corporations would be more interested in NOT bringing the planet diamond back, and are more likely to go out there to blast it further out into space.

    8. Re:Excellent news by Arcaeris · · Score: 1

      The future of space is in the hands of corporations, not governments. And that's how it should be.

      Did you not see Aliens or are you just that naive?

  15. Just make sure by Haedrian · · Score: 1

    That the missus doesn't read this article. Otherwise I know what she'll want for her birthday.

  16. Sing along time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Twinkle, twinkle little star
    How I wonder what you are
    Up above the world so high,
    A freaking diamond in the sky,
    Twinkle, twinkle... wait. What now?

    Wow.

    1. Re:Sing along time by Medievalist · · Score: 1

      Starkle, starkle, little twink
      what the heck I are you think!

      or

      Twinkle, twinkle, little bat!
      How I wonder what you're at!
      Up above the world you fly,
      Like a tea-tray in the sky.
      Twinkle, twinkle--

      THE COMMENTER HAS BEEN CLUBBED UNCONSCIOUS FOR YOUR SAFETY.

      Stay calm and carry on!

  17. Dibs! by alamandrax · · Score: 1

    I called dibs. This planet is now mine. If you want a piece of it. You have to pay me. I called dibs first. Remember it. And you better believe it.

    --
    'tis but a scratch.
    1. Re:Dibs! by newcastlejon · · Score: 1

      I'll only consider honouring your claim if you can hammer your flag into this solid diamond planet (assuming you can even reach it). Good luck with that.

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
  18. Is it really diamond? by Xerxes314 · · Score: 2

    The phase diagram of carbon at extreme temperature and pressure is pretty much unknown. We don't even have any really good studies of liquid carbon. So it's entirely possible the core of such a white dwarf would be made of some other phase of carbon. See, for example, this figure of the carbon phase diagram from density functional theory, showing that over a terapascal, diamond is unstable. Stuff is not the same at the core of a star (even a small one) as in your backyard.

    1. Re:Is it really diamond? by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      This planet-sized diamond is actually an ultra-rare form of diamond? This just keeps getting better and better!

      Serious question from someone with only college physics: if one were to somehow extract this liquid carbon from the white dwarf, would it cool off/ depressurize /decondense to form diamond? Graphite? Or is that so theoretical that no one has a good idea?

    2. Re:Is it really diamond? by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      not so serious answer from someone with no degree:
      I have no freaking idea, but:
      If you slowly depressurize it you get graphite, if it's rapid you get diamond (based on how kimberlite pipes form and bring diamond up with them?)

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    3. Re:Is it really diamond? by Xylantiel · · Score: 4, Informative

      The answer is no it is not diamond.

      One issue is the one you point out, that the correct crystalline structure at high densities/pressures is not a diamond lattice. There is also the pesky fact that the inner portions of white dwarf stars are made of carbon and oxygen.

      One could actually go on and on because diamond is a covalently bonded crystal, while this stuff will be a degenerate electron gas containing an ionic crystal, much more like a crystalline metal.

      I study white dwarf stars for a living (yes really) and calling this stuff diamond is just idiotic.

    4. Re:Is it really diamond? by Warma · · Score: 1

      Yes, but did you note that the institute's press release put the lower bound of the density of that object at that of Platinum. Ie. this is not a real white dwarf, but a remnant of the core of a star. If only a tiny fraction of the original mass is present, as they postulate, I see reason why the remaining matter would be degenerate. The gravity well might not be deep enough for that.

      This has no bearing on whether it is actually diamond, though. Your notion of the presence of oxygen is correct and I have no clue what happens to CO-compounds in that kind of pressures.

    5. Re:Is it really diamond? by GRS1915+105 · · Score: 2

      As another astronomer who studies compact stellar remnants like white dwarfs (I tend to focus on the even denser neutron stars and black holes), I thought I'd add my two cents.

      If you look closely at the Science paper, you'll also find that they can't rule out that the companion to the pulsar is a Helium white dwarf, so it might not even be dominated by carbon/oxygen. We can also quibble about calling the low-mass white dwarf a planet, and in fact I had a long debate yesterday with a fellow astronomer about this very fact. While it's true that its mass is similar to those of planets, this is really the remnant of what was once a star. Its evolution to get to this point is extremely different from what most people (and astronomers) think of as planets.

      Finally, I'll point out that careful examination of the original paper also shows that this may not be the only known such object. This pulsar (rapidly spinning neutron star pointed our way)+ white dwarf is one example of an ultracompact X-ray binary. (The most extreme example of these systems has a white dwarf orbiting a neutron star every 11 minutes!). Some of the other ultracompact X-ray binaries could also be carbon/oxygen white dwarfs with masses less than 13 times the mass of Jupiter (i.e., what some astronomers loosely define as the upper limit for a "planet").

      I would not go so far as to call the press release idiotic. It has done a good job of bringing attention to this discovery, which is still extremely cool, even if "Planet Bling" is far from being true. Science communicators have a difficult job in walking the fine line between promotion and detailed argument.

    6. Re:Is it really diamond? by GRS1915+105 · · Score: 2

      I'd just like to point out that you are not quite right.

      You're correct that this is the remnant of a star, but then again that is true for all white dwarfs.

      Actually, this is a real white dwarf. But it's easy to get confused. Degeneracy pressure operates non intuitively. As a degenerate object loses mass, its radius will increase. Thus low-mass degenerate objects have a lower density than what astronomers typically talk about for a white dwarf.

      This object is actually the core of a white dwarf, where the white dwarf has loss much of its mass. The mass was transferred onto the neutron star, which is why it has spun up to become a millisecond pulsar.

  19. twinkle twinkle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    little star...
    like a stripped nearby white dwarf
    in the sky...

  20. This isn't diamond the way you're thinking by MMORG · · Score: 3, Informative

    This isn't diamond in any sense that we usualy think of it. Yes, it's carbon atoms, and yes, they're "crystallized", but the core of a white dwarf is composed mostly of electron-degnerate matter where all of the electrons have been disassociated from their parent atoms and all the nuclei clump together, floating in a sea of electrons. This stuff has a density of roughly 1000 kilograms (2,200 lbs) per cubic centimeter. I imagine it would *catastrophically* decompress if you could teleport a chunk of it back to earth. It's not diamond.

    1. Re:This isn't diamond the way you're thinking by ae1294 · · Score: 1

      So... what you're saying is it's a "Diamond BOMB"! Get me the defence department STAT! We must acquire this new weapon before the commies...

    2. Re:This isn't diamond the way you're thinking by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      I imagine it would *catastrophically* decompress if you could teleport a chunk of it back to earth.

      It's cool, we'll teleport it first to some other country, and then pay off the government in the form of space-diamonds.

    3. Re:This isn't diamond the way you're thinking by LordLimecat · · Score: 3, Funny

      I imagine it would *catastrophically* decompress if you could teleport a chunk of it back to earth

      I imagine people would pay to see that; I know I would.

    4. Re:This isn't diamond the way you're thinking by seven+of+five · · Score: 1

      Metallic carbon?

    5. Re:This isn't diamond the way you're thinking by Benjamin+Shniper · · Score: 2

      Teleportation is a good point. How could we possibly get a spaceship that close to a pulsar? Maybe our spaceship is made out of diamonds to begin with?

      Hmm... It would be an ideal place for a planetary computer. You have a diamond, or maybe "metalic carbon" substrate for a planet the size of jupiter.
      Then you have a pulsar clock, and powersource.

      Perhaps that's really what we are looking at?

      -Ben

  21. It's just carbon by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    We have that shit here too.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  22. Clarke strikes back by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

    2010: Odyssey Two, written in the early 1980s, featured Jupiter having a diamond core.

    --
    Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    1. Re:Clarke strikes back by Daetrin · · Score: 1

      Actually, it was "2061" (which was written in the mid to late 80s.) The... prospectors? sent a transmission to their allies back on earth using "Lucy" as a prearranged code word to indicate that they should... start doing whatever it was they planned to do in the stock market if their hypothesis about the diamond's existence was confirmed.

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    2. Re:Clarke strikes back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, 2010 is the novel you're looking for.

      There was a chapter in 2010 that told of how the newly-discorporated David Bowman took a trip down through Jupiter, passing by the sort of life-forms that were postulated by Carl Sagan in the Cosmos series all the way down to the planet's core, which was a diamond as big as the Earth. There was also a post-script at the end of the book explaining where Clarke got the idea.

      Ok, so not a main plot point, but definitely a featured article.

    3. Re:Clarke strikes back by scharkalvin · · Score: 1

      Guess you're BOTH right. In 2010 Jupiter implodes into a star and there are flashbacks about Bowman. In 2061 a mission is sent to Jupiter's moons where shards of Diamond are discovered, thrown out of Jupiter's core when the planet imploded into a star. In 3001 Jupiter burns out (actually such a small star should have a very long life, not just 1000 years).

  23. Value by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The first thought that jumps into my mind is the obligatory "ca-ching" factor of hypothetically attempting to harvest/sell something like this. ....... but then I realized it was hundreds of times the size of Earth, and would just end up flooding the market. You'd eventually be able to buy real diamonds out of the gumball machines at WalMart,

  24. Wow it exists? by NotSoHeavyD3 · · Score: 1

    It reminds me of an old Sega-CD game called Dungeon Explorer where you can wish for great wealth at the end and you just get stuck on a planet sized diamond. (Sort of a "Be careful what you wish for, you might get it.)

    --
    Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
  25. Ooohhhh!! by jamiesan · · Score: 4, Funny

    PSR J1719-1438 went to Jared.

  26. Minecraft by devphaeton · · Score: 1

    You know when you've been playing too much Minecraft when you try to calculate how many pickaxes it would take to mine it, and how big of a diamond block castle you could construct with it.

    --


    do() || do_not(); // try();
    1. Re:Minecraft by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      Well?!? What do your calculations reveal?

  27. what took them so long? by trb · · Score: 1

    it should have been pretty easy to find, after all, a diamond that large should be all sparkly.

  28. Mass vs. size bothers you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The remaining core rotates its neutron star companion with a period of just under 2 hours

    That's odd.

    By the way, does it orbit the star, too?

  29. Meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Looks tiny from here.

    Husband didn't go to Jared...

  30. Dibs! by interkin3tic · · Score: 0

    I call dibs on it. It's mine. As soon as someone finds a way to get there, I'll let them have half the diamond they can carry back.

  31. Obligatory Old Spice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This pulsar is now diamonds!

    1. Re:Obligatory Old Spice by game+kid · · Score: 1

      I'm in a starship. *whistle*

      --
      You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
  32. Great now my wife will complain more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought I had heard enough about how other people had bigger diamond stone on their finger now.
    This will be the new standard. You bought me this tiny itty bitty rock and someone else has one
    the size of Jupiter. I want one that is at least a quarter of that.

  33. Is this the plot of the next... by roc97007 · · Score: 1

    ...Austin Powers movie?

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  34. Star as a gift by roman_mir · · Score: 1

    So all those times I've said to girls: "I am giving you that star over there, shining in the sky as a gift", I was actually giving them the biggest diamonds of all times. They should have been thanking me for that, not running away.

  35. Just one by Slashdotgirl · · Score: 1

    Just one of Lucy's Diamonds in the sky.

    Kind regards
    Slashdotgirl
    PS Apologies to Lennon and McCartney

    --
    The more I know, the less I know
  36. Diamonds are forever!!! by Dutchmaan · · Score: 1

    If this country were run by women, NASA would be well funded through this discovery... or... it's the lair of a James Bond villain.. I don't care which you choose.

  37. The Diamond Planet Midnight! by 5hoom · · Score: 1

    Better watch out for extonic sunlight when lowering the leisure palace from orbit. Oh, and it is probably inhabited by the odd unnamed voice-stealing malevolent entity. Looks like Doctor Who was right all along.

  38. Article is very poorly written by bullok · · Score: 1

    Let me dust of the old astronomy degree here...

    Major problems:

    • White dwarf matter is nothing like normal matter. It is electron degenerate matter. The atomic number of the original atoms no longer mean much, if anything, so calling this a "diamond" is as far beyond stupid as degenerate matter is beyond the densities that you and I are familiar with in every day life. The core of a white dwarf is compressed so far, that the electrons and nuclei are crammed together much closer than their charges would like them to be. But, gravity has won this contest and pushed the electrons and nuclei VERY close together. There are no more "atoms" in a white dwarf, so calling it "carbon" is a stretch. This stuff would make a block of pure uranium look less substantial than a wispy puff of hydrogen. Normal rules for chemistry no longer apply.
    • A white dwarf would typically have about the mass of our sun, with the approximate volume of earth. There is no way that there is a white dwarf the "size of Jupiter" anywhere. Anything that large made of white dwarf matter would collapse into a black hole. So, it might be the "mass of Jupiter". But, that means it must have started out much more massive, and been whittled down by some process. I'm not certain that close proximity to a pulsar could do that. This stuff is held together VERY strongly by gravity. Pulling it apart might be possible, but... given the lousy writing in the rest of the article, I'm not convinced that they got this part correct, either.
    • This stuff is not any kind of "crystal". A crystal has to be a regular lattice of some sort. Electron degenerate matter doesn't do lattices. I suppose if it were cooled enough, it might settle down into something vaguely like a crystal. But the universe isn't old enough (by MANY orders of magnitude) for a white dwarf to have cooled off enough to be anything but a horrifyingly dense seething mass of gooey hellfire. Even when it does cool off, calling it a "crystal" would be like saying I'm hot like Natalie Portman, because we both have nice eyes - there's more bullshit than truth in that statement.
    • The science that "inspired" this article is probably fine. But, the article is crap.

    1. Re:Article is very poorly written by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 1

      Probably most important to note is that the abstract suggests a minimum density of 23 g cm-3. Wikipedia's value for diamond density is 3.5 g cm-3.

      This object is close to an order of magnitude more dense then diamond. Interestingly (since I was looking things up) - Osmium, the densest naturally occurring element is 22.59 g cm-3 (at room temperature, according to wikipedia).

      Of course, this object is a gravity well in it's own right so I really doubt it's very homogenous in composition.

    2. Re:Article is very poorly written by 50000BTU_barbecue · · Score: 1

      Um, since opposite charges attract, I would suppose there's more to it than just "electrons and nuclei are crammed together much closer than their charges would like them to be", and I invoke the Pauli exclusion principle. AFAIK this is all about electron shell degeneracy.

      --
      Mostly random stuff.
    3. Re:Article is very poorly written by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Just one quibble, "size" is a very generic term of measurement, it can apply to volume, mass, weight, whatever. Which it means is taken from the context of what is being measured. Dictionaries fall back on words like "magnitude" and "extent" to define "size."

      So while your comment may be insightful, it is also incorrect.

    4. Re:Article is very poorly written by 517714 · · Score: 1

      much closer than their charges would like them to be. But, gravity has won this contest

      I tend to be rather skeptical of those who personify inanimate objects, but anthropomorphism of subatomic matter makes your arguments highly credible.

      --
      The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
    5. Re:Article is very poorly written by bullok · · Score: 1

      Oops. You're absolutely right. It's not charges keeping them apart. My brain segfaulted.

    6. Re:Article is very poorly written by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      You're missing something obvious - most of the star has gone so its gravity will be a lot less. Perhaps the core would revert to near normal matter under these cirumstances?

      "Pulling it apart might be possible,"

      Neutron star matter in turn makes white dwarf matter look like a wispy puff of h2. It could easily pull apart a white dwarf.

  39. Seriously? No Vinge references? by The+Master+Control+P · · Score: 1

    I read this whole thread waiting for someone to refer to the mountain-sized blocks of diamond in A Deepness In The Sky and you all fucking let me down.

    1. Re:Seriously? No Vinge references? by Incisa · · Score: 1

      Machine Intelligence? I too was surprised that no one in the Slashdot crowd has mentioned the possibility of this being a Machine Intelligence world. SciFi writers have speculated that diamond structures/networks would be the most efficient environment for computing. When MIs emerge (I don’t like the term AI – if it is intelligent there is nothing artificial about it), the ultimate ecosystem would be a diamond planet. Obligatory Wiki Refs: The Science - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen-vacancy_center The Speculation - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrioshka_brain The SciFi - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computronium Any obligatory Simpsons Quotes?

  40. A Jupiter Brain ? by mbone · · Score: 1

    It has been hypothesized (by Anders Sandberg and others) that an advanced intelligence might convert a Jupiter sized mass into one large diamond computational substrate - a "Jupiter brain." Now this object is rather larger than Sandberg predicts :

    "...a compact diamond structure would have a maximum radius on the order of 9760 km, somewhat larger than the Earth. Having the density doubles the possible radius and quadruples the mass, which suggests a trade-off between internal delays and computing power"

    but this super-brain could presumably power itself from the nearby neutron star (thereby solving another problem mentioned by Sandberg), and surely could figure out some means of making the larger structure stable, maybe by rotation.

    So, if this object was a "Jupiter brain," how could we tell from here ?

    1. Re:A Jupiter Brain ? by The+Living+Fractal · · Score: 1

      Well, if it's a male brain there should be some galactic-sized pr0n projection nearby... how closely have we really looked at the pulses coming out of that pulsar??

      --
      I do not respond to cowards. Especially anonymous ones.
  41. Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe that Middle Earth elf can print one out on his 1300$ cardboard box with surplus printer parts in it? It's a replicator after all.

  42. "Good news everyone!" by Slutticus · · Score: 1

    "We're delivering a package to the diamond planet PSRJ17!" That's a pretty good Futurama episode premise if I ever saw one!

    1. Re:"Good news everyone!" by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Indeed, my first thought.

  43. Proposed Name: Midnight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Avoid the Xtonic radiation (from the pulsar I presume)

    Funny how the craziest things in Sci-Fi can turn out to be real.

    Refer to the planet Midnight from the Dr. Who series.

    http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Midnight

  44. Diamond iceberg (diamonbergs?) in fiction by wronski · · Score: 1

    There were also diamond icebergs in Arthur C Clarkes 2061. Admittedly, a pretty mediocre book, both compared to 2001 and 2010 and to ADitS. And lets not forget F. Scott Fitzgeralds A diamond as big as the Ritz...

  45. Obligatory Avatar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Next, scientists will discover an asteroid made of unobtanium

  46. Karats are too small... by evought · · Score: 1

    ...they'll have to be measured in pumpkins.

  47. It a White Point Star diamond!!! by madhi19 · · Score: 1

    They found Gallifrey or what left of it.

  48. Dupe from Dr. Who by icemanwol · · Score: 1
  49. Slartibartfast... by thrill12 · · Score: 1

    ...must have gotten an order in again. I wonder when we find the golden planet, with some nice fjords, of course.

    --
    Slashdot: stuff for news, nerds that matter, matter for news, stuff that nerd
  50. Update by bakes · · Score: 1

    Update - after further examination it has been revealed that the body in question is in fact a giant cubic zirconia.

    --
    Ho! Haha! Guard! Turn! Parry! Dodge! Spin! Ha! Thrust!
  51. what's a good replacement? by ThorGod · · Score: 1

    Yeah, yeah, diamonds aren't rare and we can even build them to whatever size in the lab.

    But, what's a rock, that's not a diamond, that a girl's likely to be proud of (i.e. it looks pretty and is as expensive).

    I know you can get rubies and what have you in any size, but they don't have the same marketing power. What I'm thinking of is a rock/mineral that's rare and primarily only known about by geologists.

    --
    PS: I don't reply to ACs.
  52. Finally!!! by CoolHnd30 · · Score: 1

    A reason for greedy corporations to invent faster than light space travel for us! Now we're getting somewhere.

  53. This was foretold in an Isaac Asimov story... by RealGene · · Score: 1

    ..which I'm trying to remember the title of. It played off on the Beatles song Lucy in the Sky (with Diamonds).

    --
    Mission: To provide products that consume time and energy as entertainingly as permitted by the laws of thermodynamics.
    1. Re:This was foretold in an Isaac Asimov story... by RealGene · · Score: 1

      Whoops. It wasn't Asimov, I think it was published in Asimov's Science Fiction.

      --
      Mission: To provide products that consume time and energy as entertainingly as permitted by the laws of thermodynamics.
    2. Re:This was foretold in an Isaac Asimov story... by RealGene · · Score: 1

      Never mind. It was A.C. Clarke, as clearly identified above...

      --
      Mission: To provide products that consume time and energy as entertainingly as permitted by the laws of thermodynamics.
  54. Oh god by ZeroExistenZ · · Score: 1

    My girlfriend asked me a diamon ring, I hope this news never reaches her, this news will render my arguments invalid...

    --
    I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1
  55. Prove it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nuff said.

  56. The size of jupiter... not it's atmosphere. by choke · · Score: 1

    What -is- the size of jupiter? The observed size is an artifact of the high albedo of the atmosphere.

    --
    "No good deed goes unpunished"
  57. Stupid Scientists... by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 1

    Oil dammit! Not diamond, oil!

    --
    Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
  58. What just happened? by base_chakra · · Score: 1

    Look at the supernova; now at the white dwarf; back to the pulsar; magnetic fields; back to the white dwarf. Is it condensing? What's the period of the pulsar? Look again. The star is now diamonds.

  59. Re:if it would be real than by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The phase diagram of carbon at extreme temperature and pressure is pretty much unknown. We don't even have any really good studies of liquid carbon. So it's entirely possible the core of such a white dwarf would be made of some other phase of carbon. See, for example, this figure of the carbon phase diagram from density functional theory, showing that over a terapascal, diamond is unstable. Stuff is not the same at the core of a star (even a small one) as in your backyard.

    The phase diagram of carbon at extreme temperature and pressure is pretty much unknown. We don't even have any really good studies of liquid carbon. So it's entirely possible the core of such a white dwarf would be made of some other phase of carbon. See, for example, this figure of the carbon phase diagram from density functional theory, showing that over a terapascal, diamond is unstable. Stuff is not the same at the core of a star (even a small one) as in your backyard.

    we can see all the ultravoilet rays which will come from it
     

  60. Reminds me of 2010 by axlrosen · · Score: 1

    In the novel 2010 by Arthur C. Clarke (the follow up to 2001), Jupiter is revealed to have a diamond the size of the earth at its core.