Scientists Have Finally Sampled the Most Abundant Material On Earth

Wait till they see water! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-01 12:30 · Score: -1

That'll be really impessive

Re:Wait till they see water! by bjohnson · 2014-12-01 12:41 · Score: 5, Insightful

Compared to the volume of the rest of the planet, much of it consisting of, you guessed it, bridgmanite, water is a very thin film on the surface....water is about 0.02% of the total earths' mass
Re:Wait till they see water! by ihtoit · 2014-12-01 12:42 · Score: 3, Interesting

actually the total amount of water would only cover the entire surface with a uniform layer one fifteenth of one percent the total radius of the planet. Water is in fact, therefore, pretty scarce on Earth.

--
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
Re:Wait till they see water! by rudy_wayne · 2014-12-01 12:57 · Score: 5, Funny

I thought stupidity was the most abundant material on earth.
Re:Wait till they see water! by vux984 · 2014-12-01 13:02 · Score: 4, Insightful

Water is in fact, therefore, pretty scarce on Earth.
That's like arguing the material a balloon is made of is scarce on a balloon. Its true that there's not much of it in the total volume of a balloon. But it still makes up pretty much 100% of the surface area ON a balloon.
Similarly bridgmanite is pretty rare on the surface, even if it is the most common by far when you start looking further down.
Re:Wait till they see water! by careysub · 2014-12-01 13:59 · Score: 4, Interesting

Water is in fact, therefore, pretty scarce on Earth.
That's like arguing the material a balloon is made of is scarce on a balloon. Its true that there's not much of it in the total volume of a balloon. But it still makes up pretty much 100% of the surface area ON a balloon.
...
Two strikes for you - first you make a poor analogy (In a completely deflated state the rubber is the entire volume and mass of the balloon), and second you missed the opportunity to make it a car analogy.
A better analogy would be that paint (or enamel) is pretty scarce on a car since such a tiny fraction of its total mass consists of paint, even though us "surfacists" consider the paint a very important characteristic of the car.

--
Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
Re:Wait till they see water! by turbidostato · 2014-12-01 14:29 · Score: 4, Funny

Wooosssh!
Re:Wait till they see water! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-01 14:41 · Score: 0

Look inside yourself, and there you will find it.
Re:Wait till they see water! by dreamchaser · 2014-12-01 14:45 · Score: 2

No, just on reddit.
Re:Wait till they see water! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-01 14:54 · Score: 0

Similarly bridgmanite is pretty rare on the surface, even if it is the most common by far when you start looking further down.
That sentence should start with "conversely" rather than "similarly". Similarly implies that balloon rubber and bridgmanite are rare and common in the same places. Conversely would correctly indicate that they are rare and common in opposite places.
Re:Wait till they see water! by Crudely_Indecent · 2014-12-01 15:04 · Score: 0

It is the most abundant material on Facebook.

--

"Lame" - Galaxar
Re:Wait till they see water! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-01 15:21 · Score: 1

There's more water on Europa than on Earth.
Re:Wait till they see water! by TWX · 2014-12-01 16:00 · Score: 1, Insightful

I donno, lately I'm finding more tech news and geek/fandom interests by browsing reddit/all than I find on Slashdot.

--
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Re:Wait till they see water! by savuporo · 2014-12-01 16:06 · Score: 0

Just a small technical quibble. Intelligence is of course quantifiable and limited resource. Stupidity however has no bounds, it's abundance therefore cannot really be measured.

--
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slashdot.org Errors found while checking this document as HTML5!
Re:Wait till they see water! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-01 16:07 · Score: 0

Stupidity is a force.
Re:Wait till they see water! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-01 16:40 · Score: 1

Water is indeed one of the most common molecules in the universe. This makes perfect sense since its two components, hydrogen and oxygen, are the first and third most common elements, and second most common, helium, does not readily form molecules.
Water is vanishingly rare on Earth compared to the universe at large.
Re:Wait till they see water! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-01 17:46 · Score: 0

Too bad about the distance and temperature, eh? I'll bet that as you typed your comment you were wearing your bathing suit and snorkel, and speed dialing Elon Musk to "take me with you!!!"
Re:Wait till they see water! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-01 18:09 · Score: 3, Funny

Yes, that is the sound of a fast moving electric car!
Re:Wait till they see water! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-01 19:29 · Score: 0

I prefer it with "similarly".
However, I would have rather he continued "nitrogen gas is pretty common on the surface, even if it less common when you start looking further down". I think he could have focused on things near the surface, which could have been a useful reference guide.
Then, maybe come on to things that are below the surface in a separate post.
Re:Wait till they see water! by flyneye · 2014-12-02 00:09 · Score: 1

They sampled the most abundant material on Earth....WELL, how did it taste?

--
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
Re: Wait till they see water! by mnemotronic · 2014-12-02 00:48 · Score: 0

MPU!

--
The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
Re:Wait till they see water! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-02 01:30 · Score: 0

educated stupid
Re:Wait till they see water! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-02 01:37 · Score: 0

actually the total amount of water would only cover the entire surface with a uniform layer one fifteenth of one percent the total radius of the planet. Water is in fact, therefore, pretty scarce on Earth.
Earth Radius = 6,371 km (Wikipedia), 1% = 63.71 km, 1/15th = 4.24 km. That layer seems plenty deep to me, but check my math...
Re:Wait till they see water! by ihtoit · 2014-12-02 02:15 · Score: 1

that's roughly equivalent to the wax layer on the skin of an apple.

--
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
Re:Wait till they see water! by boristdog · 2014-12-02 02:23 · Score: 0

Really? I don't see the N word used in the comments to tech articles on Reddit, just Slashdot. /. needs better moderation.
Re:Wait till they see water! by jbengt · 2014-12-02 02:28 · Score: 1

. . . water is about 0.02% of the total earths' mass.
Does that include the water recently found in ringwoodite?
Re: Wait till they see water! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-02 02:35 · Score: 3, Funny

Or the sound of a deflating balloon
Re:Wait till they see water! by butalearner · 2014-12-02 02:36 · Score: 2

Actually, TFA links to an earlier article that discusses a sample of ringwoodite (the transition layer material between upper and lower mantles) that had water trapped inside it. The whole thing was encased by a diamond that emerged in Brazil. They claim that it "confirms predictions from high-pressure laboratory experiments that a water reservoir comparable in size to all the oceans combined is hidden deep in Earth’s mantle." The ringwoodite sample was 1.5% water by weight, so water is still a small percentage of Earth's mass, but there is more than just surface water.
Re:Wait till they see water! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-02 03:38 · Score: 0

1.3 billion cubic km spread over the surface of the earth gives a depth of about 2.5 km, or closer to one thirtieth of the Earth's radius, which seems more reasonable since the average depth of the oceans is on the order of 3.5 km and they contain most of the surface water.
Re:Wait till they see water! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-02 05:21 · Score: 0

Too bad about the distance and temperature, eh?
That doesn't change anything, Europa still has more water than Earth, regardless of it being frozen or an astronomical distance away. The Sun still has a crap ton of hydrogen, even though it is far away varies from really hot to extremely hot. Understanding what is out there contributes to understanding the formation of the Earth and geology of parts of the Earth that are difficult to get to.
Re:Wait till they see water! by OhSoLaMeow · 2014-12-02 06:41 · Score: 1

actually the total amount of water would only cover the entire surface with a uniform layer one fifteenth of one percent the total radius of the planet. Water is in fact, therefore, pretty scarce on Earth.
How many libraries of Congress is that?

--
They can take my LifeAlert pendant when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.
Re:Wait till they see water! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-03 13:43 · Score: 0

Your wooosssh just got lapped. Take it out of 'Reverse' there sonny boy before you endanger everyone lapping you ...

KM vs MILES by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-01 12:33 · Score: 0, Troll

Love that the diagrams are in kilometers and the article talks in miles!
Quality!

Let me guess by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-01 12:34 · Score: -1

If this mineral was on an asteroid it would be the most important and valuable substance in the universe. But since it was found on "this rock", all the Space Nutters will come in and tell us how unimportant this is...

Re:Let me guess by Tablizer · 2014-12-01 12:40 · Score: 2

Unobtainium has been obtained? Now it's "Misnamedium".

--
Table-ized A.I.
Re:Let me guess by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-01 12:59 · Score: 1

You will never see that happen, just as you have never seen any of the strawman garbage you attribute to "space nutters" said by any actual person.
Re:Let me guess by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-01 13:14 · Score: 0

You autistics have a hard time with sarcasm, humor, and parody, eh? As for the "strawman garbage"; every time I point you to a post full of Space Nutter delusion, I never hear or see from you again.
Until the meds run out, it seems.
How's it feel to know all the sci-fi garbage you drank with a firehose as a kid will never, ever come true?
Here's a Nutter at work:
http://science.slashdot.org/co...
It's a fucking movie, not a millennial plan for the entire species, you delusional fruitcake.
Re:Let me guess by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-01 13:37 · Score: 0

every time I point you to a post full of Space Nutter delusion, I never hear or see from you again.
This has never happened. On the rare occasions you actually cite a post, you ALWAYS lie about what that post is actually saying. Case in point:

It's a fucking movie, not a millennial plan for the entire species, you delusional fruitcake.
Nothing in his post suggested that it was or was intended to be "a millennial plan for the entire species", you worthless liar.
Re:Let me guess by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-01 14:14 · Score: 0

"How to save the human race"
You silly, absurd human being.
Re:Let me guess by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-01 14:29 · Score: 0

You deliberately took that out of context, to pretend that it was something that the poster was advancing as a real belief in the plausibility of the events of a science-fiction film.
You have failed, as you always fail without exception, to find any Space Nutters.
Now you shriek your inadvertent confession that you are the liar you are always shown to be. Again.
Re:Let me guess by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-01 14:48 · Score: 0

Can you explain how that quote was "out of context" when the entire context was about a movie that talked about ... the whole human race?
It's hard to argue logically with your kind of delusion. Go back to your Star Trek boxed set and masturbate to some 1960s space propaganda posters.
You guys are sad. I'm trying to help you get a grip on reality without medication. Can't you see I'm here to help you lot?
Re:Let me guess by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-01 17:28 · Score: 0

Hmm, cat got your tongue, you depressed, misanthropic, delusional fruitcake?
Re:Let me guess by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-01 17:31 · Score: 0

You made me laugh pretty bad, I forgot to link to you the Master File of Space Nuttery:
http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the...
http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the...
No Space Nutters there either, I guess?
So did you send your job application to be Musk's chief eunuch ball washer in his Mars condo?
Re:Let me guess by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-01 18:03 · Score: 0

Addressing each of your screaming tantrums in order:

Can you explain how that quote was "out of context" when the entire context was about a movie that talked about ... the whole human race?
Yes, the context is a movie. Therefore, his statement about the movie applies to the movie, and not to anything else. You cannot explain how his statement is a suggestion that the physics of the movie are realistic, or that its events are plausible. You screamed your admission to this, by making no attempt and instead trying to push the burden of proof onto me when you know it's entirely on you, and that you failed to meet it as you always do.

It's hard to argue logically with your kind of delusion. Go back to your Star Trek boxed set and masturbate to some 1960s space propaganda posters.
Here, once again, you resort to accusing me of saying things you know I've never said, making up strawman arguments and pretending I hold them, so that you can validate your delusions of being the lone island of sanity. You're screaming at your monitor as you type, begging me to please say we're going to get starships any day now. You want me to be a Space Nutter so badly. But I'm not, and neither is anybody else, and you are enraged by that

Hmm, cat got your tongue, you depressed, misanthropic, delusional fruitcake?
Unlike you, I have a job and things to do besides post on Slashdot. Just because I don't reply within ten minutes doesn't mean you've somehow "beaten" me. The reason you tell yourself that is that you're desperately hoping I will simply go away, because that's the only way you can make an even remotely successful attempt to convince yourself that you've "won". You never will or can, though. You're aware that you've never once made an actual argument of any kind, even against your imaginary Space Nutters - let alone any actual people you've ever encountered.

You made me laugh pretty bad, I forgot to link to you the Master File of Space Nuttery:
I didn't make you laugh. You made yourself laugh. As in, you literally forced an awkward, nervous chuckle out of your throat in a pathetic attempt to distract yourself from the fact that you have - as always - failed to either find or effectively criticize any of your beloved Space Nutters.

http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the... [ucsd.edu]
http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the... [ucsd.edu]
No Space Nutters there either, I guess?
Indeed not, as you admitted by not even trying to find any. Now that I've pointed that out, you will repeat that admission. You will either admit it by continuing this avoidance, or by lying about what someone said again. The option of simply admitting you were completely full of crap the whole time remains open, but you won't take it because you're too emotionally invested in your fantasy of being the gadfly to be honest with yourself.
You have shrieked your confession to being a filthy lying piece of shit, as I said you would. You will now do it again.
Re:Let me guess by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-01 19:47 · Score: 0

You silly, absurd human being.
This, has to be the most profound thing ever said. I truly wish I could friend you. Well, here's hoping you hang around. I like your style, and your substance. You definitely have the nutcases pegged. Unfortunately the nutcases have mod points. Do your best, knock 'em over!
Re:Let me guess by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-02 00:51 · Score: 0

If we could harness their moth-like indignation, we'd have renewable energy solved!
Plus you have to admit, reading the guy's florid prose and psychotic ramblings is a great training aid for reading the DSM-5.
Re: Let me guess by mnemotronic · 2014-12-02 00:55 · Score: 1

Holy Cr@p! Are you implying that Buckaroo Banzai, my hero and spiritual guide, is not real?!!? Well there goes my religion.

--
The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
Re: Let me guess by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-02 00:59 · Score: 0

I know, right? I'm also implying that warp drive, replicators, spaceships, planet-hopping, and friendly talkative aliens are also not real. So planning the entire human race's glorious future among the stars with chemical rockets and Low Earth orbit is a religion, yes.
If at least Space Nutters didn't take themselves so seriously! But they're gloomier than a Russian novelist in a gulag!
Re: Let me guess by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-02 05:13 · Score: 0

Funny, cause we have had space ships for like 50 years, have you been asleep?
Warp Drive is actually currently being proved to exist, the next step is to scale it up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White%E2%80%93Juday_warp-field_interferometer
One you missed, but would probably rage against is reactionless thrusters, and wow, those are being developed too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactionless_drive#Modern_approaches
You may think people are nutters for believing that we can do things in space and actually pushing the boundaries of our knowledge. I think you are a nutter for thinking that what we know now is all we will ever know.
Re:Let me guess by TangoMargarine · 2014-12-02 07:46 · Score: 1

How's it feel to know all the sci-fi garbage you drank with a firehose as a kid will never, ever come true?
Sweet, we found someone who can prove a negative! Somebody get me the entire math community on the phone.

--
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
Re: Let me guess by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-02 16:16 · Score: 0

vs. the World Crime League or it never happened!
or wait, would that actually be the new testament of Banzai-ism?
Hmm, I find your ideas intriguing and would like to subscribe to your newsletter!

Most abundant material on /. is by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-01 12:34 · Score: -1

TROLLS!

Re:Most abundant material on /. is by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-01 13:30 · Score: 0

Trolls aren't a "material," they're a vector. Dumbass bullshit, on the other hand, is a material.

Does is start with SHI? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-01 12:34 · Score: -1

And end with T?

(Mg,Fe)SiO3 by Noah+Haders · 2014-12-01 12:35 · Score: 5, Informative

some info not in the summary or article:

Formula: (Mg,Fe)SiO3
System: Orthorhombic
Name:
Named in 2014 by Chi Ma and Oliver Tschauner in honor of Percy Williams Bridgman [April 21, 1882 Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA - August 20, 1961 Randolph, New Hampshire, USA], winner of the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1946 for his work in high-pressure physics.

Re:(Mg,Fe)SiO3 by PPH · 2014-12-01 17:19 · Score: 4, Interesting

Interesting.
But the summary is slightly misleding. The stuff they found came from a shocked meteorite. And it fits the theoretical models of the makeup of the lower mantle. But it sounds like we still haven't gotten a significant sample from inside the earth to validate the theory.

--
Have gnu, will travel.
Re:(Mg,Fe)SiO3 by shri · 2014-12-01 19:22 · Score: 3, Informative

Not just "sounds like"... they've got nothing other than speculation which confirms earlier speculation.

Tschauner’s description of bridgmanite gives us no such insights about the inside of the Earth, other than to confirm what scientists believed to have been true for quite some time: The mineral exists, and it can occur naturally under highly pressurized conditions.
Re:(Mg,Fe)SiO3 by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-01 22:43 · Score: 2, Informative

The original article in Science has considerably more detail too, although it's behind a paywall.
Re:(Mg,Fe)SiO3 by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-02 00:50 · Score: 0

There is no shortage of solidified granite and basalt on the surface. We know what the mantle is made of.
Re:(Mg,Fe)SiO3 by jbengt · 2014-12-02 02:33 · Score: 2

You might know what atoms make it up (no actual samples from the deep, yet) but you don't know how they combine and interact unless you create the high temperatures and tremendous pressures of the lower mantle.
Re:(Mg,Fe)SiO3 by PPH · 2014-12-02 04:29 · Score: 3, Interesting

This was sort of my point. It is my understanding that the correct structure of Bridgemanite is not stable on the surface of the earth. So what we find lying around are samples that have been cooled and decompressed.
One of my hobbies involves hardening and annealing metal. And time at temperature is a critical factor (fast vs slow cooling) to produce the desired material characteristics. So I'm not convinced that the stuff inside a meteorite, which experiences these extremes for only a few seconds correctly duplicates something that has been exposed for a few billion years.

--
Have gnu, will travel.
Re:(Mg,Fe)SiO3 by Gliscameria · 2014-12-02 04:29 · Score: 1

This always gets me. We've been to space and sent stuff outside of the solar system, but we haven't even dug a significantly deep hole in our own planet.

--
X
Re:(Mg,Fe)SiO3 by Russ1642 · 2014-12-02 05:27 · Score: 1

Space travel is hard, and so is digging a very deep hole. Hard things to do must all be equally hard, therefore it's weird that we haven't dug a hole to sample this stuff. 100% bomb proof logic you've got there.
Re:(Mg,Fe)SiO3 by Gliscameria · 2014-12-02 11:05 · Score: 1

I'm not talking about digging a hole a thousand miles down, but we haven't even gone 10 miles. There's talk of mining asteroids when we haven't punched through the top 1% of the surface of our own planet.

--
X
Re: (Mg,Fe)SiO3 by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-02 14:15 · Score: 0

Watch movies.
Re:(Mg,Fe)SiO3 by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-03 02:31 · Score: 0

I'm not talking about digging a hole a thousand miles down, but we haven't even gone 10 miles. There's talk of mining asteroids when we haven't punched through the top 1% of the surface of our own planet.
That's because they don't want to dig deep down into earth. They don't want us to discover the mole-people.
Re:(Mg,Fe)SiO3 by RockDoctor · 2014-12-03 23:14 · Score: 1

But it sounds like we still haven't gotten a significant sample from inside the earth to validate the theory.
Nor is it going to happen. You'll need to get to a depth of around 650km below surface, and get your sample THEN quench it through a temperature range of around 500+Kelvin to prevent it from decomposing into other materials as it's passing through the pressure-temperature regimes between it's natural environment and the surface.
Remember : this is mineralogy : the composition of a material is not the only thing that is important - the crystalline structure is important too. As would have been plain to you the first time you compared calcite (CaCO3) and aragonite (CaCO3) under crossed polarising filters in the microscope.
To make this material in the laboratory, you need a diamond anvil press to squeeeze a few cubic microlitres to the appropriate pressure, then ramp the pressure with laser heating. Bring it to surface and your diamonds are likely to explode from the thermal stresses before you manage to quench your sample.
That is why they had to go to the very high strain rates and heating and cooling rates generated in a meteorite impact.
Of course we could drill for a sample. Just doing a quick calculation ... 650km if 5x4.276in drill pipe is around 19,714,153 kg of Unobtanium drill pipe (if it has density and stiffness comparable to steel, at temperatures in dull orange heat). When you've fulfilled that order for Unobtanium, we'd need a few thousand tonnes more for the surface drilling equipment. I have no idea whatsoever how you're going to solve the quenching problem. Nor, for that matter, how you're going to stop the bottom of the hole spalling off and collapsing on your nice shiny Unobtanium drill string. Nor what you're going to use for a drilling fluid (probably that gaseous warp drive coolant that fucked Spock over?)
The Russians took almost 20 years to drill to almost 12.3km depth on the Kola peninsula, while the German KTB in Bavaria took 8 years to get to 9.1km. It's not easy drilling.

--
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Re:(Mg,Fe)SiO3 by RockDoctor · 2014-12-03 23:23 · Score: 1

The two challenges are very different. In one, you have the problems of low temperatures and ambient pressures of up to atmosphere or several (unless you specifically want to pump something up, such as a fuel tank ; but typically, they're kept cold to keep the pressures low) ; on the other hand, you're dealing with temperatures up in the red to orange heat (which softens all materials, but softens some more then others) and confining pressures in the megabars.
We do have the materials for the former ; we don't have the materials for the latter. We don't even have hints of the materials for the latter (unless you know something different).

--
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"

Summary is wrong by ShieldW0lf · 2014-12-01 12:40 · Score: 5, Informative

Technically, it's not "on Earth", it's "in Earth".

--
-1 Uncomfortable Truth

Re:Summary is wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-01 12:53 · Score: 0

Actually, some of it *is* on the Earth; at least some samples are. It's not like they dug a hole to examine it there and say "Sorry, boys, but we gotta leave this thing in the Earth if we're gonna say 'It's in Earth.'"
Re:Summary is wrong by gl4ss · 2014-12-01 18:50 · Score: 1

well the sample they tested was never inside earth.
it's on earth now though it was in space before..

--
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Re:Summary is wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-02 03:15 · Score: 0

could also say it "is Earth".
Re:Summary is wrong by r_jensen11 · 2014-12-02 05:58 · Score: 1

Technically, it's not "on Earth", it's "in Earth".
I prefer "of Earth"
Re:Summary is wrong by uvajed_ekil · 2014-12-02 06:41 · Score: 1

Actually, some of it *is* on the Earth; at least some samples are. It's not like they dug a hole to examine it there and say "Sorry, boys, but we gotta leave this thing in the Earth if we're gonna say 'It's in Earth.'"
No, if you're talking about the sample mentioned in the article, that is not even from Earth to begin with, so it can not even be safely assumed to be identical to lower mantle material. Some meteorites may be similar, but until we examine actual mantel bridgmanite we're not truly confirming anything. So as far as we know, there has still been no mantle bridgmanite found on Earth.

--
This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
Re:Summary is wrong by slew · 2014-12-02 07:26 · Score: 1

Actually, some of it *is* on the Earth; at least some samples are. It's not like they dug a hole to examine it there and say "Sorry, boys, but we gotta leave this thing in the Earth if we're gonna say 'It's in Earth.'"
FWIW, the bridgmanite samples in question (technically a phase of a perovskite crystal structure mineral) does not exist outside the pressure/temperatures which occur *in* the earth which is why samples have never been discovered *on* the earth before (although they certainly have likely existed, no-one has discovered/isolated them before). The interesting thing about this sample is that we didn't have to create the pressure/temperature (apparently 24 gigapascals and 2300 kelvin) in order to form it as these conditions were temporarily created when the meteorite impacted earth.
It would kind of be like if nobody had seen a diamond before, but they were theorized to exist, and someone held up amorphous coal and said it was a sample of diamond because it was just carbon. Of course even though diamonds take somewhat high temperature and pressure to create, it isn't too high, so there are an abundance of diamond fields that exist on the surface of the earth w/o any digging required, so this is kind of a bad example from a scarcity point of view, but from a phase mineral structure point of view, hopefully that "clarifies" it...
The downside is that although this discovery is consistent with the theory of bridgmanite, we still don't have a sample of bridgmanite created in its natural environment *in* the earth, so we still don't know if this is what is actually there. To dredge up the diamond analogy again, there is of course another carbon mineral that is even stronger than cubic diamond called lonsdaleite (aka hexagonal diamond) that can form under higher temperature/pressure conditions like meteorite strikes. So, since this is merely consistent with theory and not an actual sample, apparently, the jury is still out if this sample is representative of bridgmanite or perhaps there's yet another configuration of perovskite that occurs deep inside the earth we haven't figured out yet...
To create another analogy, it's kinda like how we keep on finding all sorts of carbon nano{tube,sheet,fibres} configurations that we haven't discovered before that have unique and potentially useful properties.
Re:Summary is wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-02 16:08 · Score: 0

to a certain degree it IS Earth

Cool by YodaDaCoda · 2014-12-01 12:42 · Score: 0

But is it actually of any practical use to us?

Re: Cool by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-01 12:49 · Score: 2, Funny

It is to the Vogons.
Re:Cool by Trepidity · 2014-12-01 12:55 · Score: 1

Hard to say at this point. I'd classify this under "basic science". We have a lot of scientific models that this research touches on: models of what the earth's interior looks like, of how rocks change under pressure, of crystal structures, etc. And in turn, a lot of practical work is based at least in part on current scientific understanding material science. So improving our understanding of basic geology is probably good for practical applications in the long term. But it's not directly applicable in the near term, as some kind of breakthrough where you're going to find houses or shoes built out of wonder-material "bridgmanite".

--
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Re: Cool by vogonity · 2014-12-01 13:21 · Score: 5, Funny

We wrote some poems about it.
Re: Cool by jfdavis668 · 2014-12-01 13:54 · Score: 2

Is it green? Ode to a lump of green putty I found in my armpit one midsummer's morning.
Re:Cool by turbidostato · 2014-12-01 14:26 · Score: 1

Of course cool.
They couldn't touch it at its usual temperature!
Re: Cool by Kjella · 2014-12-01 14:28 · Score: 1

Ye gods, send in the Vogon Constructor Fleet to make it quick and painless.

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Re:Cool by SharpFang · 2014-12-01 19:50 · Score: 1

Yep, construction filler (earth crust would collapse without it, or at least encompass small area) and a significant contribution to Earth's gravity.

--
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Re: Cool by zwarte+piet · 2014-12-02 02:04 · Score: 1

Pain is insignificant next to the power of the force.
Re: Cool by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-02 07:01 · Score: 0

You, sir, waited a long time to make that joke. I salute you. While covering my ears. How? You figure it out.

Not settled science? by nicoleb_x · 2014-12-01 12:52 · Score: 1

I'm guessing that this is not settled science (whatever that is) and that at most they have a model to justify their model.

i don't like that name by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-01 12:52 · Score: 0

how about "dark mineral"?

Re:i don't like that name by swinefc · 2014-12-01 13:36 · Score: 1

How about Unobtainium?

And... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-01 12:53 · Score: 0

It's delicious! A little bit crunchy though.

Re:And... by BenSchuarmer · 2014-12-01 13:01 · Score: 1

Isn't that the stuff that Aussies make sandwiches out of?
Re:And... by freeze128 · 2014-12-01 13:03 · Score: 1

It's ice cream!
Re:And... by SharpFang · 2014-12-01 19:54 · Score: 1

No! I refuse to believe Earth has over 30% vegemite filling!

--
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Re:And... by quenda · 2014-12-02 01:13 · Score: 1

No! I refuse to believe Earth has over 30% vegemite filling!
It'd explain why the oceans are so salty.

What's wrong with calling it by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-01 12:59 · Score: 0

Liquid hot magma?

Re:What's wrong with calling it by osu-neko · 2014-12-01 13:22 · Score: 1

Well, for the most part, it's not liquid.

--
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
Re:What's wrong with calling it by zwarte+piet · 2014-12-02 02:11 · Score: 1

Microwave before use
Re:What's wrong with calling it by Convector · 2014-12-02 02:39 · Score: 1

It's not liquid, it's not hot, and it's not magma.
Re:What's wrong with calling it by uvajed_ekil · 2014-12-02 06:43 · Score: 1

No, it should be pretty hot down in there. But not liquid.

--
This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.

I admit, I was wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-01 13:13 · Score: 0

My two guesses were high fructose corn syrup, and partially hydrogenated soybean oil

Re:I admit, I was wrong by Alien1024 · 2014-12-01 17:26 · Score: 1

No, this is about Earth, not Mars.

Wild guess by PopeRatzo · 2014-12-01 13:29 · Score: 1

The most abundant material on Earth didn't have a name

How about "Gamer Tears"

--
You are welcome on my lawn.

Re:Wild guess by Jane+Q.+Public · 2014-12-01 16:06 · Score: 1

Well, at least that's actually material.

I think the most abundant thing would have to be idiocy. But it's not really a material substance, so you can't quite put your hands on it... no matter how much you might want to.

Bridgmanite, also known as... by Irate+Engineer · 2014-12-01 13:45 · Score: 1

...dirt.

--

Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!

Vote for Bernie in 2016!

mod 0p by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-01 13:58 · Score: -1

shitheads. *BSD There's no are atten3ing a bunch of retarded How is the GNAA don't want to feel

The most abundant material on Slashdot ... by CaptainDork · 2014-12-01 14:11 · Score: 0

... is untroll when you surf at (Score:2) band above.

--
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.

Bridgmanite? by sconeu · 2014-12-01 14:28 · Score: 1

The Bayonne Bridgemen Drum and Bugle Corps must be thrilled!!!

--
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.

Scientists Have Finally Sampled by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-01 14:58 · Score: 0

the Most Abundant Material In* Earth

Also known as ... by PPH · 2014-12-01 16:46 · Score: 1

... nougat.

--
Have gnu, will travel.

Re:Also known as ... by Culture20 · 2014-12-01 18:17 · Score: 1

... nougat.
"It's what makes your planet so delicious" - Galactus
Re:Also known as ... by zwarte+piet · 2014-12-02 02:05 · Score: 1

Gnugat?

Geek Culture by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-01 17:50 · Score: 0

Please keep geek culture and fandoms far, far away from here.

Most Slashdot articles seem to hit Hacker News first, but Slashdot's discussion system is (imo) somewhat better. For one thing, HN has no support for HTML -- personally I find inline links invaluable. Also, even with a certain degree of moderation abuse, Slashdot is very effective at bringing good comments to the fore. I prefer the D1 discussion system, but D2 isn't that bad either. One point that I consider to be absolutely vital is that humor is accepted and encouraged here. Hacker News has its serious pants on all the time, and Reddit I feel is often not serious enough, or the seriousness is drowned by highly-voted humor.

It's been years since I've watched much television, or been able to see very many movies. It's been damn near a decade since I had a computer good enough to run games. I've spent most of the last few years hanging out and partying on Caribbean beaches, but with the rest of my free time I like creating things and learning new and strange things about programming computers. I moved back to the Real World(tm) lately, and I was very excited to see a Queer Geek (don't judge) meetup in my local area, until I realized that they meant people who have seen Firefly and were into superhero movies. I do things, I make things, I have adventures, I follow new tech, and I have no interest in semi-social culture consumers.

If you're into that sort of thing, good for you. Slashdot is pretty indiscriminate, but it definitely is more in the "tech news" category than fandom, and I hope that never changes.

Re:Geek Culture by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-02 11:07 · Score: 0

Depends on the Subreddit. The Robotics Subreddit is pretty good. Then R tech and others get stuff much more quickly then slashdot. The OS and admin subs are much better as well.
If you aren't interested in the Nerdcore culture, don't sub to those subreddits and remove stuff like R Gaming from your subs.
Slashdot is turning slowly into a place where old farts complain about new tech they find pointless and complain about liberals.

These words don't mean what you think they means by HellYeahAutomaton · 2014-12-01 18:40 · Score: 1

abundant - existing or available in large quantities; plentiful.
sample - a small part or quantity intended to show what the whole is like.

How can something plentiful be completely inaccessible?
Yes, they correctly sampled a meteorite, they did NOT sample from the earth.

Sorry, but just because it exists in an asteroid, doesn't mean it is abundant on, or in earth.
Jason Koebler should have a lot more critical thinking in an article as important as this purported discovery.

Re:These words don't mean what you think they mean by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-01 19:51 · Score: 1

How can something plentiful be completely inaccessible?

Well, it could for example be something blocking access to it.

No-one is arguing that the sun doesn't have plenty of mass. I still consider it highly inaccessible and don't think that we will be able to get a core sample anytime soon.

pronunciation by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-01 21:32 · Score: 0

Presumably 'tis pronounced "brid-gma-nite"

Re:These words don't mean what you think they mean by offerk · 2014-12-01 23:31 · Score: 1

> abundant - existing or available in large quantities; plentiful.

...

> How can something plentiful be completely inaccessible?

The key word is "or". I.e. you can condense the above definition to read (for this case): "Abundant: existing in large quantities". Doesn't have to be accessible.

--
I learn from all my mistakes, I intend to be a genius at the end of my life.

Re:These words don't mean what you think they mean by reboot246 · 2014-12-01 23:42 · Score: 2

I was thinking along the lines of: females are plentiful, but for a lot of slashdotters they're completely inaccessible.

Article appears to be incorrect. by AbRASiON · 2014-12-02 00:15 · Score: 1

I believe the most abundant material on earth is not infact what they claim at all. I believe the most abundant material is actually these.
http://virulentwordofmouse.fil...

Silly scientists by M0j0_j0j0 · 2014-12-02 01:53 · Score: 5, Funny

The obvious and accpted name should be, Alotofite

Re:Silly scientists by q4Fry · 2014-12-02 05:48 · Score: 1

Bullshite.

How silly! by Rambo+Tribble · 2014-12-02 03:26 · Score: 1

Everyone knows the most abundunt material is phlogiston!

Re:How silly! by wonkey_monkey · 2014-12-02 05:03 · Score: 1

Luminiferous ether!

--
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Re:How silly! by Rambo+Tribble · 2014-12-03 03:09 · Score: 1

Ether way.

'On' or 'In' Earth? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-02 14:11 · Score: 0

English nazi's chime in.

C'mon man say what you mean... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-03 02:02 · Score: 0

Nano!

Unobtainium by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-03 06:49 · Score: 0

Did they have to move a bunch of blue people out of the way to get to it?

Re:These words don't mean what you think they mean by PPH · 2014-12-03 16:28 · Score: 1

How can something plentiful be completely inaccessible?

Women. To Slashdotters.

--
Have gnu, will travel.

Slashdot Mirror

Scientists Have Finally Sampled the Most Abundant Material On Earth

128 comments