[HN Gopher] Nature Used 57 Recipes to Create Earth's 10,500 "Min...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Nature Used 57 Recipes to Create Earth's 10,500 "Mineral Kinds"
        
       Author : NickRandom
       Score  : 93 points
       Date   : 2022-07-05 11:36 UTC (11 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (carnegiescience.edu)
 (TXT) w3m dump (carnegiescience.edu)
        
       | irrational wrote:
       | > Some 296 known minerals are thought to pre-date Earth itself,
       | of which 97 are known only from meteorites, with the age of some
       | individual mineral grains estimated at 7 billion years--which was
       | billions of years before the origin of our Solar System.
       | 
       | > The oldest known minerals are tiny, durable zircon crystals
       | that are almost 4.4 billion years old.
       | 
       | Isn't the first quote saying the oldest minerals are 7+ billion
       | years old and the second saying the oldest are 4.4 billion years
       | old? Which is it?
        
         | billiam wrote:
         | I think they are saying the earliest extant minerals that
         | crystalized on Earth are zircons that formed within the first
         | 100 my of the planet's formation. The minerals he is talking
         | about show up here on meteorites from elsewhere in the solar
         | systems and predate the planetary nebulae by billions of years.
        
       | sbf501 wrote:
       | As an amateur rockhound, I've always been suspicious of mineral
       | names because there are dozens of things called "-ite" which
       | sound like random words or names suffixed with -ite. After
       | reading this article, with 10,500 minerals, I guess I'm not
       | surprised the names are so silly.
       | 
       | FTA I learned about the real list:
       | 
       | http://mineralogy-ima.org/Minlist.htm
        
         | marcosdumay wrote:
         | AFAIK, the "-ite" suffix literally means "rock", so it's not
         | surprising that you get all kinds of things prefixed to it.
        
       | boffinAudio wrote:
       | So, can we use this knowledge when we eventually get to 16
       | Psyche, find tons of base element minerals, and need to start
       | assembling more sophisticated building-blocks to allow us to
       | manufacture things .. in space?
       | 
       | Hope so.
        
         | at_a_remove wrote:
         | Not even a little.
        
         | JohnHaugeland wrote:
         | No
        
       | [deleted]
        
       | foobarbecue wrote:
       | Wait, so everything reduces down to Heinz condiments? Edit:
       | seriously though what is this about 57... did I miss their joke?
       | It's in the title but not in the article... I have a PhD in
       | geochemistry and the article didn't really make any sense to
       | me... Clustering minerals by formation mechanism and era? Why? I
       | guess I'd have to read the paper.
       | 
       | Edit2: I guess it's just a big reference catalog. Cool.
        
         | at_a_remove wrote:
         | Apparently there are fifty-seven "paragenetic modes," wherein a
         | paragenetic mode is defined as a genesis for the creation of a
         | mineral. One such mode would be condensation directly to a
         | solid from a gas in the context of "condensation at volcanic
         | fumaroles." The bit about pyrites is that there are an
         | astounding twenty-four ways you can make them. So, this looks
         | like a new lens with which to examine and classify minerals,
         | after going through a very large catalog of them tabulating
         | each manner of formation allowed.
         | 
         | Some of them are surface oxidation and weathering, some are
         | stellar (!), and so on. Given that you can arrange at least
         | _some_ of these modes (why paragenetic?) in time order, you
         | could look at what kinds of minerals, whole classes of them,
         | could form and _when_ , or as you put it, what era.
         | 
         | I'm not sure of the utility of this, but then I'm not a
         | geologist. Looks like a nifty classification method. Perhaps
         | you could come up with "Incidence of mineral X ought to be
         | correlated with incidence of mineral Y," although I thought
         | that was already pretty exhaustive.
        
         | a-dub wrote:
         | if you hit the volcanoes directly on the big number 57, they'll
         | release their magma without making a mess.
        
       | [deleted]
        
       | nickhalfasleep wrote:
       | I hate press releases that do not link to the work.
       | 
       | But what a neat study area:
       | https://hazen.carnegiescience.edu/research/evolutionary-syst...
        
         | mncharity wrote:
         | > But what a neat study area
         | 
         | Hazen created mineral evolution as an organizational scaffold
         | to help his intro mineralogy students. And then incrementally
         | pushed it younger, eventually becoming a NOVA episode.
         | 
         | Wielding primary research to create more accessible and
         | powerful content for young students, seems massively
         | underutilized. And very poorly incentivized. The most used
         | college intro astronomy texts can't be bothered to even get the
         | color of the Sun right. What might science education content
         | look like, if it were much more mineral evolution and much less
         | yellow Sun?
        
           | docmechanic wrote:
           | Yes, his book, The Story of Earth, just took the top of my
           | head right off. Just fascinating to think of the co-evolution
           | of minerals and biological life.
           | 
           | This of course, should impact the world building schemes for
           | writers of hard science fiction.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2022-07-05 23:01 UTC)