The Galaxy's Largest Diamond 364
unassimilatible writes "The Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics reports 'to impress your favorite lady this Valentine's Day, get her the galaxy's largest diamond.' A newly discovered cosmic diamond is a chunk of crystallized carbon 50 light-years from the Earth in the constellation Centaurus. It is 2,500 miles across and weighs 5 million trillion trillion pounds, which translates to approximately 10 billion trillion trillion carats, or a one followed by 34 zeros. A cheesy, unrealistic simulation is also available. AP has a story as well."
ppfffttt (Score:5, Insightful)
Quite the sparkle? (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe a more worthwhile story would be on the fact that the entire diamond industry is created by incredibly strict control of the supply, which is kept artificially low to dramatically inflate price. If people knew, and accepted, the truth this wouldn't be considered that much more special than the fact that some other planets are just big, big versions of rocks. Gasp!
Re:closer (Score:2, Insightful)
Numbers (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:ppfffttt (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Formation (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyway, my (educated) guess would be that this given star had enough mass to fuse elements up to carbon, but not further - not enough to sustain its continued existance as a 'star', anyway.
At least, I'm inferring from the article that this star is fast becoming a 'black dwarf' - I could be wrong and this is just a white dwarf in its carbon stage, but by that measure there would certainly be far, far larger diamonds out there (and in great numbers).
Re:Quite the sparkle? (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, the sad thing is that most people seem to already know this but no one does / can do (?) anything to stop them. DeBeers, after all, pretty much controls the majority of diamonds on this planet.
To give DeBeers the slap in the face they need, maybe we should harvest this white dwarf. Heck, just tell Liz Taylor about this and she'll get that "sparkly" diamond almost half as big as she is in no time!
Re:Numbers (Score:4, Insightful)
well i see they took the same amount of time and effort as you did. do you actually know what a number with 34 zeros behind it is called??
no? well then. shut the fuck up - it is in the clearest possible format for most people.
oh and i did bother to google [google.ca] for it and the first result tells me that it is 10 decilion to americans, or 10 000 quintillion to the rest of the world.
dont just bitch, actually try and learn something - its not hard.
stupid (Score:2, Insightful)
when I read about a huge diamond in space, I expect a little more than a white dwarf discovery. Come on, this is ridiculous.
Re:ppfffttt (Score:2, Insightful)
its basically a pun-infested piece stating that 10^34 is bigger than 500.
a lot bigger.
very very much so.
indeed.
Re:Largest diamond? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Numbers (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, it's called n*10^34 by everyone I'd ever discuss such large numbers with. Assigning an arbitrary and inconsistent name (see your US vs. everybody comment) is just plain dumb. Do you think crypto guys convert between decillions and decajillions when discussing collision rates, or that physicists have any interest in petadillions or hexamuphillions other than when they have to write a press release? No. There's a widely used and accurate naming system for numbers - you just use the numbers themselves. It's easy, it's universal, and it's a Good Thing.
Thanks for the sanity. (Score:3, Insightful)
Thanks for bringing some sanity to this discussion. The author of the original story was just trying to get attention, and probably knows nothing about the physics of stars.
in a galaxy far, far away. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Quite the sparkle? (Score:2, Insightful)
No (Score:3, Insightful)