Celestia Forums

The star BPM 37093, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BPM_37093 from what I understand has a lot of carbon and such, and has apparently a good fraction of it's mass crystalized. (I merely use the Wikipedia link to let other people know what star I am talking about, I am not using it as a source of information).

I am curious as to what this star would look like. I'm sure it's not going to resemble some gleaming clear crystal, but I don't really have any idea what it's real appearance would be like. Anybody have any idea?

red.

edit: Haha (laughs @ self), I meant "redundant", not the colour, in reference to my original posting which I edited because, well, it had become redundant.

Oh yes! a few billions tons of D F diamonds!! De Beers is in trouble!

Chuft-Captain wrote:white

EDIT: bright white

green.

Are you implying that I can envision

and reguard it as scientific accuracy??

Has it ever occured to any of the people using this forum that when somebody asks a question, all the want is an honest, helpful answer. The idea may be quite foreign to some of you, but not everybody loves rediculous comments that do not contribute to answering the question. As Selden as said before, if you have nothing constructive to add, refrain from posting. I am rather tired of the nonsense in this forum.

Now I ask again, what would such a star look like?
Any ideas as the surface behavior/granule patterns/etc.
Atmosphere? What would it's behavior be like?

Hungry4info

you are looking for an answer that nobody has, for such an exotic object. That may explain why you're getting funny responses.

EDIT : That star is, apparently, at only 53 LY from us, and it isn't in Celestia's database. Sad.

Hungry4info wrote:Has it ever occured to any of the people using this forum that when somebody asks a question, all the want is an honest, helpful answer. The idea may be quite foreign to some of you, but not everybody loves rediculous comments that do not contribute to answering the question. As Selden as said before, if you have nothing constructive to add, refrain from posting. I am rather tired of the nonsense in this forum.

Now I ask again, what would such a star look like?
Any ideas as the surface behavior/granule patterns/etc.
Atmosphere? What would it's behavior be like?

I doubt that anyone here has any more idea than you do what this star would look like. You'd be better off using a search engine to see if anything has been published. My guess would be that not enough is known about this star to answer your question in a useful way.

- Hank

There's an artist picture there :

http://www.answers.com/topic/bpm-37093

and here's a first STC definition for it (please, check my numbers. This is just a preliminary) :

HUHO ! I just found an article about that star, by one of my good old teachers (Gilles Fontaine, from the University of Montreal) :

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/ucp/We ... ge=content

Gilles gave a very good course on Statistical Mechanics, at UdM, when I was an undergraduate student. He's a world leader in white dwarfs.

Here's a white dwarfs database :

http://www.astronomy.villanova.edu/WDCatalog/index.html

In the left column, click on the WD1236-495 designation. You'll get lots of technical info on that star. I've selected the data from my own physics teachers (reference HL) :

HL Bergeron,P., Wesemael,F., Lamontagne,R., Fontaine,G., Saffer,R.A., Allard,N.F., 1995,ApJ,449,258.

It just happens that I know pretty well Fran?§ois Wesemael and Gilles Fontaine.

So here's the STC definition, according to them :



The distance was taken from another source. I'm really not sure for the pulsation period. I found 192 sec in the paper given below, and 600 sec from another source.


Interestingly, the article here :

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi- ... etype=.pdf

gives an effective temperature of 12670 K for that star, while Celestia gives 12600 K !

Cham wrote:...gives an effective temperature of 12670 K for that star, while Celestia gives 12600 K !

... now do you understand why it's white?

Twinkling in the sky is a diamond star of 10 billion trillion trillion carats, astronomers have discovered.

The cosmic diamond is a chunk of crystallised carbon, 4,000 km across, some 50 light-years from the Earth in the constellation Centaurus.

It's the compressed heart of an old star that was once bright like our Sun but has since faded and shrunk.

Astronomers have decided to call the star "Lucy" after the Beatles song, Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds.

http://www.click2finding.com/click2.asp ... rophysics/

safertr wrote:Twinkling in the sky is a diamond star of 10 billion trillion trillion carats, astronomers have discovered.
The cosmic diamond is a chunk of crystallised carbon, 4,000 km across, some 50 light-years from the Earth in the constellation Centaurus.
It's the compressed heart of an old star that was once bright like our Sun but has since faded and shrunk.
Astronomers have decided to call the star "Lucy" after the Beatles song, Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds.

Why do you copy literally large sections of stuff without citing the sources??

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3492919.stm

Everyone in this forum knows perfectly well how to Google.

Bye Fridger