Slashdot Mirror


Scientists Have Finally Sampled the Most Abundant Material On Earth

rossgneumann writes: The most abundant material on Earth didn't have a name, and, in fact, hadn't been seen — until now. For the first time ever, scientists have gotten their hands on a sample of bridgmanite, a mineral that is believed to make up more than a third of the volume of the Earth. In a new paper published in Science late last week, Oliver Tschauner of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, and his team describe bridgmanite for the first time.

74 of 128 comments (clear)

  1. (Mg,Fe)SiO3 by Noah+Haders · · 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.

    1. Re:(Mg,Fe)SiO3 by PPH · · 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.
    2. Re:(Mg,Fe)SiO3 by shri · · 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.

    3. Re:(Mg,Fe)SiO3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      The original article in Science has considerably more detail too, although it's behind a paywall.

    4. Re:(Mg,Fe)SiO3 by jbengt · · 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.

    5. Re:(Mg,Fe)SiO3 by PPH · · 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.
    6. Re:(Mg,Fe)SiO3 by Gliscameria · · 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
    7. Re:(Mg,Fe)SiO3 by Russ1642 · · 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.

    8. Re:(Mg,Fe)SiO3 by Gliscameria · · 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
    9. Re:(Mg,Fe)SiO3 by RockDoctor · · 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"
    10. Re:(Mg,Fe)SiO3 by RockDoctor · · 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"
  2. Summary is wrong by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 5, Informative

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

    --
    -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    1. Re:Summary is wrong by gl4ss · · 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.
    2. Re:Summary is wrong by r_jensen11 · · Score: 1

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

      I prefer "of Earth"

    3. Re:Summary is wrong by uvajed_ekil · · 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.
    4. Re:Summary is wrong by slew · · 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.

  3. Re:Let me guess by Tablizer · · Score: 2

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

  4. Re:Wait till they see water! by bjohnson · · 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

  5. Re:Wait till they see water! by ihtoit · · 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
  6. Re: Cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    It is to the Vogons.

  7. Not settled science? by nicoleb_x · · 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.

  8. Re:Cool by Trepidity · · 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".

  9. Re:Wait till they see water! by rudy_wayne · · Score: 5, Funny

    I thought stupidity was the most abundant material on earth.

  10. Re:Let me guess by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  11. Re:And... by BenSchuarmer · · Score: 1

    Isn't that the stuff that Aussies make sandwiches out of?

  12. Re:Wait till they see water! by vux984 · · 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.

  13. Re:And... by freeze128 · · Score: 1

    It's ice cream!

  14. Re: Cool by vogonity · · Score: 5, Funny

    We wrote some poems about it.

  15. Re:What's wrong with calling it by osu-neko · · Score: 1

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

    --
    "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
  16. Wild guess by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

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

    How about "Gamer Tears"

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:Wild guess by Jane+Q.+Public · · 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.

  17. Re:i don't like that name by swinefc · · Score: 1

    How about Unobtainium?

  18. Bridgmanite, also known as... by Irate+Engineer · · Score: 1

    ...dirt.

    --

    Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!

    Vote for Bernie in 2016!

  19. Re: Cool by jfdavis668 · · Score: 2

    Is it green? Ode to a lump of green putty I found in my armpit one midsummer's morning.

  20. Re:Wait till they see water! by careysub · · 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
  21. Re:Cool by turbidostato · · Score: 1

    Of course cool.

    They couldn't touch it at its usual temperature!

  22. Bridgmanite? by sconeu · · 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.
  23. Re: Cool by Kjella · · 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
  24. Re:Wait till they see water! by turbidostato · · Score: 4, Funny

    Wooosssh!

  25. Re:Wait till they see water! by dreamchaser · · Score: 2

    No, just on reddit.

  26. Re:Wait till they see water! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    There's more water on Europa than on Earth.

  27. Re:Wait till they see water! by TWX · · 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.
  28. Re:Wait till they see water! by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  29. Also known as ... by PPH · · Score: 1

    ... nougat.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:Also known as ... by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      ... nougat.

      "It's what makes your planet so delicious" - Galactus

    2. Re:Also known as ... by zwarte+piet · · Score: 1

      Gnugat?

  30. Re:I admit, I was wrong by Alien1024 · · Score: 1

    No, this is about Earth, not Mars.

  31. Re:Wait till they see water! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Yes, that is the sound of a fast moving electric car!

  32. These words don't mean what you think they means by HellYeahAutomaton · · 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.

  33. Re:Cool by SharpFang · · 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
  34. Re:These words don't mean what you think they mean by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  35. Re:And... by SharpFang · · 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
  36. Re:These words don't mean what you think they mean by offerk · · 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.
  37. Re:These words don't mean what you think they mean by reboot246 · · Score: 2

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

  38. Re:Wait till they see water! by flyneye · · 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!
  39. Article appears to be incorrect. by AbRASiON · · 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...

  40. Re: Let me guess by mnemotronic · · 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.
  41. Re:And... by quenda · · Score: 1

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

    It'd explain why the oceans are so salty.

  42. Silly scientists by M0j0_j0j0 · · Score: 5, Funny

    The obvious and accpted name should be, Alotofite

    1. Re:Silly scientists by q4Fry · · Score: 1

      Bullshite.

  43. Re: Cool by zwarte+piet · · Score: 1

    Pain is insignificant next to the power of the force.

  44. Re:What's wrong with calling it by zwarte+piet · · Score: 1

    Microwave before use

  45. Re:Wait till they see water! by ihtoit · · 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
  46. Re:Wait till they see water! by jbengt · · Score: 1

    . . . water is about 0.02% of the total earths' mass.

    Does that include the water recently found in ringwoodite?

  47. Re: Wait till they see water! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Or the sound of a deflating balloon

  48. Re:Wait till they see water! by butalearner · · 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.

  49. Re:What's wrong with calling it by Convector · · Score: 1

    It's not liquid, it's not hot, and it's not magma.

  50. How silly! by Rambo+Tribble · · Score: 1

    Everyone knows the most abundunt material is phlogiston!

    1. Re:How silly! by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      Luminiferous ether!

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

      Ether way.

  51. Re:Wait till they see water! by OhSoLaMeow · · 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.
  52. Re:What's wrong with calling it by uvajed_ekil · · 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.
  53. Re:Let me guess by TangoMargarine · · 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
  54. Re:These words don't mean what you think they mean by PPH · · Score: 1

    How can something plentiful be completely inaccessible?

    Women. To Slashdotters.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.