Sciencemadness Discussion Board - Diamond may not be hardest natural substance.

Diamond may not be hardest natural substance.

Spart - 20-12-2011 at 19:07

I found this small article pretty interesting. I have yet to research into it a little more deeply, but I thought it was pretty interesting that Diamond may not be the hardest natural substance on Earth because it is indeed widely regarded as such.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16610-diamond-no-longe...

This article was produced in 2009, so perhaps they were proven wrong, but for all I have found so far, they could be right. It's odd because I have never been taught anything other than Diamond being the hardest natural substance of Earth. As far as I know, it seems to be widely unknown that it may not be the hardest natural substance on Earth,

If anyone could provide some insight or information on this topic that would be great.

[Edited on 21-12-2011 by Spart]

AndersHoveland - 20-12-2011 at 19:31

Several years ago I actually tore apart my chemistry professor's model of the lattice structure of diamond and rearranged it into a "new hypothetical allotrope of carbon", and speculated to my teacher about how crystals of such a new allotrope could be formed (I proposed growing them on a different compound with a similar crystal structure). So now I learn that this hypothetical compound I imagined actually exists- "Lonsdaleite" (hexagonal diamond), which has a wurtzite structure (conveniently for me, there was also a lattice structure of wurtzite next to my teacher's diamond structure, this in fact was what gave me the idea to begin with

). Apparently wikipedia did not have an entry for "Lonsdaleite" at that time.

Thanks Spart for bringing this to my attention!

The interesting thing about the lattice structure of hexagonal diamond is that it appears virtually identical to diamond when a model is made. The difference in geometry is very subtle. The best way I can describe the difference is to take two carbon atoms, from a "ball and stick" kit, stuck together and studed with sticks in the normal tetrahedral bond angles for tetravalent carbon. Rotate the two carbon atoms relative to eachother. When the sticks from the two carbon atoms "overlap", this is the "hexagonal diamond" structure. When the sticks from the two carbon atoms are in "opposite" orientations, this is the configuration found in "normal diamond", the latter of which is obviously more favorable.

The problem seems to be actually making Lonsdaleite in more than microscopic quantities.

[Edited on 21-12-2011 by AndersHoveland]

fledarmus - 21-12-2011 at 06:19

Wow - essentially an "all boat" conformation of cyclohexane rings, instead of the adamantite "all chair" conformation! An interesting thought...

White Yeti - 28-12-2011 at 07:38

β-C3N4 is a hypothetical substance predicted to be harder than diamond. Unfortunately it's a hypothetical substance, that is, even more expensive than diamond. Here's what it looks like:

As a tangent, boron sub-oxide is also very interesting diamond-like substance. As a matter of fact, it may be the easiest diamond-like substance for the amateur to make in a lab (relatively speaking).

ibro - 29-3-2012 at 12:23

I still think it is..

neptunium - 30-3-2012 at 05:20

in nature (not limited to earth) there is other harder things than diamonds.
a neutron star contain degenarate matter as dense as a nuclear core . it would be (if it could be handled) harder much denser and heavier than diamond.

White Yeti - 30-3-2012 at 11:45

Quote: Originally posted by neptunium

in nature (not limited to earth) there is other harder things than diamonds.
a neutron star contain degenarate matter as dense as a nuclear core . it would be (if it could be handled) harder much denser and heavier than diamond.

Maybe denser, but harder? I'm not so sure. According to wikipedia, particles in a neutron star are held together by gravity, the weakest force of them all...

White Yeti - 20-4-2012 at 12:34

Pertinent articles of potential interest to the discussion:
http://phys.org/news/2011-10-superhard-carbon.html
http://phys.org/news/2010-11-super-hard-carbon.html

turd - 21-4-2012 at 04:38

Quote: Originally posted by White Yeti

Maybe denser, but harder? I'm not so sure. According to wikipedia, particles in a neutron star are held together by gravity, the weakest force of them all...

WTF am I reading!? This must be one of the most illogical things ever posted on this site. From the above mentioned article:

Quote:

The pressure increases from 0.3 to 16×10³⁴ Pa from the inner crust to the center.[16]

White Yeti - 21-4-2012 at 12:35

If you think that just because something is incredibly dense that it will also be extremely hard, then mercury should be harder than elemental boron.

We cannot agree upon the hardness of neutron stars because we don't even know what the center is made up of. Even then, which part of the star do you want to consider? The crust, the outer core, the core?

You can't even MEASURE the hardness of a neutron star. You can give an approximation, but that's about it.

turd - 21-4-2012 at 15:05

Jeez. It's hard, but I will refrain from bringing the obvious pun.

You didn't even understand what I said. When I say your posting is unbelievably illogical, then I'm attacking your reasoning not your conclusion (not that it is a correct conclusion). A conclusion can only be right or wrong. Yet, you answered by defending your conclusion instead of your reasoning - with even more illogical nonsense.

Quote: Originally posted by White Yeti

If you think that just because something is incredibly dense that it will also be extremely hard, then mercury should be harder than elemental boron.

Nobody said that neutron stars are hard because they are dense. That's an argument YOU made up. What you did is called attacking a straw man and it's lame and transparent.

You said that you think that neutron stars are not hard because gravity is a weak force, with reference to Wikipedia. But the same article (did you read it?) said that the pressure in a neutron star is on the order of 1034 Pa(sic!). In case you fail to realize it: pressure is force per surface. The forces in a neutron star are absolutely incredible. In consequence your reasoning is stupid.

Quote:

You can't even MEASURE the hardness of a neutron star.

So what? Just because something can't be measured directly it does not exist? That's silly and you certainly don't want to start a discussion on epistemology given your track record in drawing conclusion. (Note: the whole thread is about materials according to simulations - neutron stars certainly are more real than that.).

If there are parts in a neutron star that behave somehow like a solid, then this matter withstands friggin' 1034 Pa. Do you seriously believe you could put a dent in that by applying a force that wouldn't totally demolish any diamond on earth? So whatever your definition of hardness is - this matter is certainly orders of magnitude harder.

Quote:

You can give an approximation, but that's about it.

More nonsense. Is that seriously supposed to be an argument? In physics everything is an approximation. If value a is approximated to 1±0.01 and value b is approximated to 10^10±5, then b still is orders of magnitude larger than a, despite being only approximated very roughly.

Honestly, this is your problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect.
Before learning physics, try to learn how to construct an argument. Nothing in your posting substantiated your position. It was just random, unsorted thoughts.

White Yeti - 21-4-2012 at 16:17

Quote: Originally posted by turd

You said that you think that neutron stars are not hard because gravity is a weak force, with reference to Wikipedia. But the same article (did you read it?) said that the pressure in a neutron star is on the order of 1034 Pa(sic!). In case you fail to realize it: pressure is force per surface. The forces in a neutron star are absolutely incredible. In consequence your reasoning is stupid.

I said that gravity is a weak force as compared to all the other fundamental forces. Compare gravity to the strong force that keeps hadrons together. I'm willing to bet that individual baryons are "harder" than any part of a neutron star because of the tremendous strength of the strong force (10³⁹ stronger than gravity).

watson.fawkes - 21-4-2012 at 18:03

Quote: Originally posted by White Yeti

I'm willing to bet that individual baryons are "harder" than any part of a neutron star because of the tremendous strength of the strong force (10³⁹ stronger than gravity).

Hardness is an attribute of solid materials. How is it that you have come to suppose that either hadrons or neutron star materials are in a solid phase?

turd - 21-4-2012 at 22:54

Quote: Originally posted by White Yeti

Again, you are trying to weasel out of the situation by completely misrepresenting what you said. This is not very smart, since your posting is still visible on the same page:

Quote:

Maybe denser, but harder? I'm not so sure.

You disputed the assertion that neutron start are harder than diamonds.

Quote:

According to wikipedia, particles in a neutron star are held together by gravity, the weakest force of them all...

And your reasoning was that gravity is a weak force. This reasoning is silly and proves a complete lack of grasp of physics on your part.

Now that isn't terrible per se - everybody has a brain fart every once a while and started as a noob. But your complete lack of self-critisism and the extreme overrating of your own abilities is annoying. Both make you useless as a scientist and you should try to get rid of these attributes as soon as possible. But the worst is the way you try to turn around your arguments. That's downright offensive: it's assuming that your dialog partner is stupid. You can try these stunts with your high-school peers, but not here.

White Yeti - 22-4-2012 at 04:24

Quote: Originally posted by turd

Now that isn't terrible per se - everybody has a brain fart every once a while and started as a noob. But your complete lack of self-critisism and the extreme overrating of your own abilities is annoying. Both make you useless as a scientist and you should try to get rid of these attributes as soon as possible. But the worst is the way you try to turn around your arguments. That's downright offensive: it's assuming that your dialog partner is stupid.

Yes, I know what I say is not brilliant. I have a hard time admitting it. FYI I do criticise myself and I don't hold up my arguments to a high esteem either, I'm just trying not to lose face. Apparently, I've been doing the opposite. I'm not assuming anyone is stupid, if I really wanted to argue with stupid people, I'd pick on people in another forum.

I apologise.

turd - 22-4-2012 at 09:39

No need to apologize - stupid is probably one of the nicer things I've been called here.

At the risk of sounding pompous: The road to success is paved with failure.

hyfalcon - 3-10-2012 at 19:03

Space elevator anyone?

zed - 4-10-2012 at 14:59

Beam me up Scotty!

Me and the boys down at the feed store, have always assumed that Boron Nitride was a lot harder than diamond. Turns out it was, sort of.

Also, the way I remember it, Boron Nitride might be water soluble.
So, as hard as it is, its usefulness might be limited.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2009/02/boron-nitride-harder-...

[Edited on 4-10-2012 by zed]

[Edited on 4-10-2012 by zed]

Oscilllator - 10-10-2012 at 02:12

Time to revive a dead thread!

Quote: Originally posted by zed

Beam me up Scotty!

Me and the boys down at the feed store, have always assumed that Boron Nitride was a lot harder than diamond. Turns out it was, sort of.

Also, the way I remember it, Boron Nitride might be water soluble.
So, as hard as it is, its usefulness might be limited.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2009/02/boron-nitride-harder-...

[Edited on 4-10-2012 by zed]

[Edited on 4-10-2012 by zed]

How would that make it not useful? you could dissolve it in water than precipitate it out and get razor-sharp crystals, or you could coat a drill-bit etc. having something harder than diamond that was water-soluble would be way more useful!