Astronomers found a relatively close white dwarf crystalizing into a giant diamond

[Daniel Sims]

Astronomers recently discovered signs that a white dwarf star about 104 lightyears from Earth is slowly crystalizing into a diamond the size of a planet. The finding strengthens existing theories about the ultimate fate of most stars.

Data from the European Space Agency's Gaia telescope suggests the white dwarf is gravitationally tied to a system of three stars called HD 190412, making it a quadruple-star system. Observations suggest the core is undergoing crystallization, which may be obscuring its true age. While the other stars in the system might be 7.3 billion years old, the white dwarf could be around 4.2 billion years old. The study, from researchers in Australia, Canada, the UK, and the US, is available on arXiv, but is not yet peer-reviewed, so readers should take it with a grain of salt for now.

White dwarfs are a late stage in the stellar lifecycle, occurring after a star has run out of hydrogen fuel. At that point, in stars with a low-to-moderate amount of mass, fusion reactions shed their outer layers, leaving behind an extremely dense white dwarf that compresses the mass of a star into a volume similar to Earth. Meanwhile, when larger and more massive stars deplete their fuel, their immense weight collapses into black holes.

White dwarfs are initially extremely hot from the original core's residual thermal energy, but gradually cool down and crystalize because they no longer have a source of energy. Eventually, they become cold, dark, diamond-like objects called black dwarfs.

Scientists theorize this process takes far longer than the 13.8 billion years that have passed since the Big Bang, so no black dwarfs are thought to exist yet. This will be the final state of about 97 percent of the Milky Way galaxy's stars, including the Sun.

According to the theory of the heat death of the universe, white dwarfs will be the last stars to shine after other stars and galaxies dissipate. This will lead to a dark age where only black dwarfs and black holes remain.

The discovery of a star undergoing crystallization so close to our solar system will help astronomers better understand its course and how common such stars are. It is currently estimated that out of the 100 nearest stars, fewer than 10 are white dwarfs.

Masthead: artist's impression of debris orbiting a white dwarf

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/99040-astronomers-found-relatively-close-white-dwarf-crystalizing-giant.html

 

[p51d007]

Look for the company DeBeers to secure the rights to that, so they can keep the price of diamonds
inflated <G>

 

[pac71]

Just curious as to the basis for which you think the paper should "be taken as a gain of salt"?

Perhaps if you don't have a reason to call their findings into doubt that you clearly state this is your opinion. Or even better, simply stick to the facts and state it has not been peer reviewed or has been submitted for peer review.

It is important not to let opinion and reporting to colour actual science.

 

[Aus spot]

Just curious as to the basis for which you think the paper should "be taken as a gain of salt"?

Perhaps if you don't have a reason to call their findings into doubt that you clearly state this is your opinion. Or even better, simply stick to the facts and state it has not been peer reviewed or has been submitted for peer review.

It is important not to let opinion and reporting to colour actual science.

I think we have a case of halo scientist. What they have said is spot on. The research has not been peer reviewed and any research that has not been peer reviewed is to be taken with a grain of salt. Thats not to say we don’t believe them, just that we don’t bet the farm on it until there is scientifically consensus.

The study is more a theory as we can’t confirm any of the thoughts. So the peer review is confirming the theory does not contradict existing theory and the method is sound. The later talk about dark stars that don’t exist is also pure theory.

Many scientific studies make many claims. They also are fully or partially debunked when peer reviewed. Science particularly scientific theory is not a black and white space and what we understand is constantly changing.

So like everything we read, take it with a grain of salt.

 

[pac71]

I think we have a case of halo scientist.

Not a halo scientist. Just trying to not mix opinion as facts in journalism.

 

[Aus spot]

Not a halo scientist. Just trying to not mix opinion as facts in journalism.

You are demonstrating a lack of understanding of the scientific process. All scientists take anything with a grain of salt that has not been reviewed, and then sometimes they experiment to disprove said work.

The words “take it with a grain of salt” are not just part of the scientific process but should be part of any reporting of all unverified theories in the non scientific media. It is not a personal opinion.

You have demonstrated via your comments that you are blindly accepting an untested theory. This is the danger of reporting non peer reviewed science to the masses.

 

[ID10T]

The same people that believe everything started from nothing in the big boom right.

Check the Electric Universe and Thunderbolts project, if you really want to see where the science leads.