Slashdot Mirror
Mathematician Theorizes a Crystal As Beautiful As A Diamond
Roland Piquepaille writes "Why are diamonds so shiny and beautiful? A Japanese mathematician says it's because of their unique crystal structure and two key properties, called 'maximal symmetry' and 'strong isotropic property.' According to the American Mathematical Society (AMS), he found that out of all the crystals that are possible to construct mathematically, just one shares these two properties with the diamond. So far, his K4 crystal exists only as a mathematical object. And nobody knows if it exists — or if it can be synthesized."
that the women won't think it as beautiful as a (natural) diamond!
My UID is prime... is yours?
A Japanese mathematician has been found dead in his laboratory. Police say they suspect the killers to be jewelry-wearing silhouettes.
...too bad it wants to erase all life.
Play Command HQ online
I can assure you that the diamond cartel will make sure there's plenty of disinformation spread if they are able to be produced. If I were him, I'd be quited worried about some nasty thugs showing up on my doorstep.
just as the price of diamonds are threatened by artificial sources, questions about funding evil regimes, and anger at diehard debeers monopolies, promising that men can give women what they want for only $10 someday, this mathematician a**hole comes along with a totally new need-to-have impossible-to-obtain subtance that guys must fork over big bucks for
curse you, mathematics!
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
The reason diamonds are so beautiful is that every one of them represents gallons and gallons of blood and broken bones laying in the bottom of a diamond mine. Nothing is quite as shiny as pure human misery.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
The difference with diamonds here is that not only do they have a documented mathematical structure, but they can also already be constructed artificially. But hey, he might just be the guy who takes the second place for... erm... a kind-of-diamond-looking artificial crystal. It would be interesting to know if any other properties than a fancy look could in theory be attributed to this one thanks to its structure.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
"4 points, in which any two vertices are connected by an edge." Isn't that a tetrahedron?
There are tetrahedral crystals. The last picture on that page is an unusually nice one.
The possible crystal forms for an element depend on the bond angles, and I don't think carbon will hold a stable tetrahedral lattice. Not sure, though.
The value of diamonds has nothing to do with actual aesthetics. Of course, a dimond with a good cut and clarity is worth more, but it's not what makes people want them for jewelry, it's conspicuous consumption, little more.
After all, look at the value of often superior synthetics. Or look how people's taste for pearls rapidly decreased as the price decreased.
Of course, diamonds have plenty of other uses, but there is no shortage of them for that, seeing as DeBeers grinds up diamonds for industrial possess in order to keep the supply artificially low.
> I don't think carbon will hold a stable tetrahedral lattice.
Tetrahedral, good call. What do you get when you put carbon atoms into a tetrahedral lattice? Surprise: diamonds!
http://www.iit.edu/~felfkri/report_files/image005.jpg
This article doesn't even say what this new-fangled structure *is*...
It also adds a personal touch to it..
crystal lattice as diamond...?
...ought to be butt ugly.
Diamond isn't stable, like glass, it just takes billions of years to lose it's shape, or something like that.
K4 crystals? 'Some places that's what people use for money. They're easy to carry, and they don't wear out.' -- Klaatu
I deny that I have not avoided attaining the opposite of that which I do not want.
I've got a 1.1ct brilliant cut round diamond with strong flourescence, and a brand new 200mW 532nm (green) laser pointer (and a .25ct diamond of the same shape). What can I do with them that's as fun for me as getting the diamonds was for my wife?
--
make install -not war
To get things out of the way: Yes, I am structural chemist, I did RTFA and I am not a native english speaker, so please bear with my broken english.
I don't want to comment so much on the mathematical part of the paper, which might be interesting, but on the chemistry, which is non-sensical.
First of all the style of the article is very un-scientific. Note how often he mentions how pretty this crystal structure is. This is completely subjective and I don't see how this structure is prettier than many others. There is many fascinating structures and I don't think this or the diamond lattice are the most fascinating ones.
Then the assumption that the prettyness of diamond is a direct result from the crystal structure is silly. Someone else noticed that Silicium (and also Germanium and Tin) have exactly the same crystal structure - and they are not "pretty".
He doesn't mention space group nor atomic positions, which are absolutely fundamental when talking about a crystal structure.
Now even if the crystal would form like he describes (with 1/3rd double bonds), there is just no way this would ever look anything like a diamond. The electronic structure is completely different - diamond is an insulator, a classic dielectric material, whereas this, due to its double bonds and it's extendef pi-electron system, would be a classical conductor. It would probably look like graphite.
But, and this is the worst point, which even someone who only did very basic (highschool?) chemistry should immediately note, the compound can never form in this way. That's the first thing you learn about double bonds: they're flat or nearly flat. Admittedly, in fullerene and carbon nano-tubes, there is a certain curvation (making them not as stable as graphite), but if you look at this crystal structure, the double bonds have a dihedral angle of about 90 degrees. It's totally impossible to obtain this compound and everybody with scientific education should know this. The molecular orbitals can't form this way.
All in all I have no idea how it comes that this non-scientific non-sensical article is published by the AMS. Maybe you could make something out of the math part, but all the babble about prettiness and chemistry has to go.
I thought that diamonds were beautiful because they had a high index of refraction? Or was I mistaken?
We'll probably find out when this thing is eventually synthesized, at great cost, that it looks greyish brown, opaque, smells of sulphur, has no valuable electronic characteristics and is best used for plugging holes in trees with.
Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
No way man, the TV says diamonds are forever.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
The next question is...will this K_4 crystal be as hard as a diamond is, or will it be just a lookalike? From what I could tell from TFA, it seems to be the latter.
I invoke the Omega Directive!
Please step away from your workstations.
/(bb|[^b]{2})/ , that is the question;
If the symmetry and isotropy give diamonds their shine, why are crystals of
for instance Si, Ge, Sn not as beautiful? They have the same isotropy and crystal structure.
And why is a low-symmetry sapphire prettier than high-symmetry table salt?
I would guess high index of refraction, and the lack of absorption of optical wavelengths are the more relevant properties.
(see any textbook on crystallography, or for instance http://cst-www.nrl.navy.mil/lattice/ )
I don't know if this crystal will be possible to synthesize or not, but it doesn't matter. The schematic alone will be sufficient to cause a feedback loop that will destroy the entire Borg collective.
What makes you think that glass isn't stable? (link, link)
I have an archeologist friend who works with Roman glass found along the Silk Road. Looks perfectly stable to me (well, at least those pieces that aren't smashed to bits).
As a state gets corrupt, its laws multiply; the most corrupt states have the most numerous laws. (Tacitus, Annales 3:27)
If one looks at the K-4 crystal picture, it is composed of objects that have 3 connections. Carbon can't be used, as it likes to form 4 bonds, and the resulting two single and one double bond would deform the symmetry. The Nitrogen family on the periodic table like to form 3 bonds with symmetry. Phosphorus is also in the same column, but it can form up to 5 bonds, and I think would be troublesome to use to form the crystal.
..........FULL STOP.
You know what's funny? I look at a diamond, and I see a nice shiny thing, but nothing to get excited about. It's just not that pretty. I can't imagine spending much money on one.
expandfairuse.org
On the whole Diamond vs K-4 debate...K-4 sounds to tecky. To sell it I propose "DiTriamond" as a better name. Triamond is half a hexagon, and Di is 2, and it sounds alot like Diamond so woman will want it. I would not market it as man made especially but as "The rarest most pure substance in the universe" and let them draw their own conclusions. Anyone know how hard it is os might be on the Mohs scale? Or even its electrostatic absorbtion rate cause thats how most jem testing is done. Well, up to the top 1% of the market anyway, and then its gamma absorsion etc.
"Persistance is Fertile" - Me. I can quote myself if I want to.
It is well known that before the ad-campaign of mid 20th diamonds were not that much in "demand". Heck, it is well known that before the oversupply of the 19th century diamond were relatively rare. Look at wiki for more detail.
quote The De Beers diamond advertising campaign is acknowledged as one of the most successful and innovative campaigns in history. N. W. Ayer & Son, the advertising firm retained by De Beers in the mid-20th century, succeeded in reviving the American diamond market and opened up new markets, even in countries where no diamond tradition had existed before. N.W. Ayer's multifaceted marketing campaign included product placement, advertising the diamond itself rather than the De Beers brand, and building associations with celebrities and royalty. This coordinated campaign has lasted decades and continues today; it is perhaps best captured by the slogan "a diamond is forever". End Quote
Source wiki
Despite being in over surplus from mid 19th to mid 20th, diamond were not that popular and high in demand.
in such context "And diamonds have always been in demand." the always is too much. If you change that to mid 20th century onward, you will be right.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
The only reason diamonds are expensive is because of the cartels which tightly control the supply.
These people have millions of diamonds stockpiled and only release as many as needed to keep the price high. They could flood the market tomorrow if they wanted to.
No sig today...
Indeed, at room temperature and pressure, diamond is not thermodynamically stable with respect to graphite. So yes, under standard conditions, a diamond will turn into graphite, just incredibly slowly.
Don't those conditions mean that "K4 == diamond"? Unless diamonds are impossible to "construct mathematically", then if there's only one that shares two of diamond's properties, then that one must be diamond.
So I can say that it exists, it can be synthesized, but if your fiancee catches you, you're not as smart as it looks.
--
make install -not war
Actually, if this wasn't already part of a PR coup, it will become one very soon. "Scientist proves that diamonds are the prettiest existing crystals" is a great way to remind people to buy diamonds, and give them a good excuse for conspicuous consumption too.
The part about another crystal which could theoretically be as pretty, only it doesn't exist (and, as another poster noted, can't possibly exist because electrons aren't shared that way, plus it would be opaque) is just that extra bit of "science" to make it easier to swallow. It lets people feel that they've connected the dots themselves to reach your conclusion.
I mean, "scientist proves that diamonds are the prettiest possible thing in the universe" is a superlative, plus you're feeding people your message a bit heavy handed. Some will resist it. "Scientist proves that only one thing could be prettier, except it doesn't exist in nature" lets people go, "haha, silly scientist, but in the meantime, out of the things one can actually buy, diamonds are the prettiest, right?" Only now it's their own conclusion, and they won't fight it. In fact, they'll feel all smug and smart about it.
Sad to say, that's how PR works.
PR isn't marketing. PR is marketing's evil stealthy brother. It loves to masquerade as news, science studies, etc. Marketing plants the seeds, but PR ploughs your mind first.
Marketing just goes and tells you "Buy Mars chocolate bars, they're great." PR comes and tells you, "Scientists prove that chocolate is good for you! Valuable enzymes found in cocoa beans!" (Except, what they don't tell you, those enzymes are no longer present in chocolate.) That was an actual PR stunt sponsored by Mars.
Marketing just tells you "The suit is back! Buy Men's Warehouse suits, they look all professional and stuff!" PR goes and tells you "The suit is back! Here's a ton of interviews with managers swearing that they'd never hire someone who doesn't wear a business suit 24/7." That was an actual PR stunt debunked that was linked to even on Slashdot.
So, anyway, they write some piece of news and then carpet bomb sites and newspapers with it. A lot of newspapers, especially local ones, are even happy to just print whatever PR sends them, because it's written well and it's more interesting than local "raccoon found in Mr Smith's car" stuff. So pretty much any PR agency can get you in those. A really good one can get you on TV and on Reuters. Those tend to be a lot more expensive.
And faked scientific studies aren't new stuff either. A _lot_ of PR stuff is published as stuff backed by science and (pseudo)maths. The way that goes is, some PR hack writes some pseudo-science babble. It doesn't have to make any sense. It can add different units, or claim that a theoretical crystal is pretty when the electron structure would make it a metal, and thus look like Tin. It doesn't matter. If you can spot that, you're not in their target demographic anyway. Then it starts fishing for people with a Dr or Prof title who'll sign it. A lot say "fuck off", but eventually one has nothing to lose, noone takes him seriously anyway, and he could use the money. He'll take the pie in the face for their money.
Now I'm not saying that this particular paper is necessarily PR. It could be, but it also could be just someone who wanted to see his name in a journal. But even if it wasn't written as PR for the diamond cartel, that cartel could very easily use it as PR if they need some. Far from sending someone to kill him, they're probably happy right now.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Actually, iirc, diamonds undergo 'decompression' over time, loses its crystalline shape, and becomes 'ordinary' carbon. Think 'coal'.
Takes a while though. Longer than human civilization has been around. MUCH longer.
The mathematics only explain why they are shiny; they are "so beautiful" because of a stupendous advertising campaign started in the 50s.
sic transit gloria mundi
Scientists theorize what would happen if they touched a cloud
Name...That...Autocomplete!
In Brasil, the engagement ring is the same as the wedding band; usually, it's a 14-ct to 18-ct gold plain ring.
Both nubents wear it on the right ring finger during the engagement period, and switch it to the left ring finger in the marriage cerimony.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
I haven't RTFA as I could only read the abstract (which I just about understood being a former chemist).
I couldn't tell whether he's just re-discovered Lonsdaleite, which is similar to diamond but based on hexagonal close packing rather than cubic close packing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lonsdaleite
Can anyone who's read (and understood) the whole article comment on that?
Cue Dilithium and Kryptonite jokes ...
from the to-stupid-for-words dept.
There was a study about old stained glass in european churches, which showed that such glass is slightly larger on the bottom. Conclusion was that glass is not stable. however, it was mentionned that maybe stained glass anufacturers just made it larger on the bottom.
They may not be Blood Diamonds(tm), but most of 'em sure are bloody. The vast majority of diamonds come from South Africa and Botswana where the labor record is less than glowing. Sure, it's not Congo, but only precious few diamonds come from places like Canada and Australia where labor standards are at least slightly above appalling.
But I always believed that a diamond was so "shiny, sparkly, and beautiful" because of it's high refractive index. That's also why moissanite (which is often used a less expensive substitute for diamonds in jewelry) has such a similar "fire".
...that diamonds were "shiny and beautiful" because the cut pattern was optimized for the refractive index of the material and the final shape of the stone - so you'd get the most reflection & refraction - and that other cuts are optimized for the various materials used in fake stones to try to maximize the same effects.
Diamond is just a very ordered lattice, and it sounds to me like this mathematician is just out to get his name published.
"It's time to take life by the cans." ~ Bender ("Bendin' in the Wind", ep. 3-13)
The diamond companies screwed the native people in Northern Canada too. When BHP opened up their mine they asked some of the native elders for a name in their language. They said call it Ekati, so the company did. Much later after the mine had been named the elders were asked what is the maeaning of Ekati?. They simply said Ekati means "I Take" spelled backwards.
yeah, they mentioned something about Bond angles
Isn't a diamond a crystal?
Am I the only one who does not understand why diamonds are considered beautiful and desirable? I admit, fancily cut diamonds can be interesting and neat to look at, and I can appreciate the skill required to produce them, but I have never seen one that I have considered beautiful. Perhaps I have simply never seen a decent, beautifully cut diamond.
I think that gold is beautiful, onyx is beautiful, opals and sapphires are beautiful, but diamonds have no color, and seem industrial and cold to me.
Or the application of a blow torch. I'm not sure if a regular butane lighter will do it or not.
I was about to post the same complaint, that Si has the same structure as C diamond. But then again, by the author's definition of "pretty", Si is pretty. It has extremely high symmetry in it's lowest energy state. It also happens to be a ridiculously useful chemical element.
Silicon also has at least a dozen other phases it can form at high pressure and temperature, some of which are even metallic. That might also qualify as pretty according to an emergent complexity definition.
There's evil in the world! Don't do anything!!! Seriously though, if wrongdoing exists, then go after the wrongdoing. You shouldn't destroy a whole industry because of a few bad guys. You silly liberals should take a closer look at what you did to the fur industry. Not that you'd ever admit you were a bunch of idiots.
Of course, any woman that doesn't accept you as life-partner because you didn't spend enough money on her engagement item is superficial, materialistic trash anyway.
Perhaps this superficiality is instinct-motivated? Might it be a little more forgivable in that case?
If a man buys an expensive diamond for his woman, it means two things:
1) He has enough resources to be a good provider, otherwise he wouldn't be able to afford it.
2) He values her enough that he is willing to expend resources in large amounts to please her.
If a woman is interested in raising kids, she has a very natural incentive to filter out men who won't be good providers. I think doing otherwise would be quite silly, in fact. Furthermore, if she is going to be spending the rest of her life (or at least a significant portion of it) with someone, she has very good reason to make sure she is important to him, and that he will be making her happiness one of his high priorities. Inasmuch as actions speak a lot louder than words, buying an expensive shiny trinket is not an altogether bad acid test.
Just a thought (or two).
I've heard of terror groups misusing charitable donations. Guess if you give to charity, you are fostering an atmosphere of giving, which the terrorists can exploit. So stop giving to any cause or you will be helping the terrorists.
Maybe we just haven't been seeing what we're looking at?
``Tension, apprehension & dissension have begun!'' - Duffy Wyg&, in Alfred Bester's _The Demolished Man_
No value to the receiver? How would that be selected for by evolution? You know what most women would actually prefer over a diamond? A down payment on a house. A nice little nest to raise some babies in says, "trust me, I'll provide for you." A sparkly gem that costs as much as a down payment on a house says, "I'm an idiot who will make poor choices about resource allocation without consulting you first." That is why marketing of diamonds is geared towards convincing men tosurprise a woman with a diamond. If they'd asked first, most women would say, "No, I'd like a house more than a sparkly rock." This is from DeBeers own research on the subject.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
The activation energy for the conversion of diamond to graphite is so high, it is KINETICALLY stable at room temperature. Just because the valley is lower on the other side, water does not flow up Mount Everest.
I'm aging rapidly, I bought a new game and had no idea if my machine was good for it.
Stable yes. Forever, no. People are frequently surprised when they find their diamond rings with empty settings after a house fire. Where did my diamond go? Well, it burned. But diamonds are forever!
CO2, the allotrope of carbon ...
I personally would still look through the ashes so - my first guess would be the diamond fell out of the prongs when the metal started to expand.
I'm aging rapidly, I bought a new game and had no idea if my machine was good for it.
They are great - really hard, top thermal conductivity, good electrical insulator, fair amount of other interesting characteristics (esp for the semiconductor and optoelectronics industry). I also believe the coefficient of friction of diamond is very low in some scenarios.
So the problem is they are still expensive and hard to make in huge sizes.
In the old days aluminium was very expensive (even more than gold), now they're used for cheap cutlery.
I hope something like that will happen to diamond soon. Then we can use it for stuff like heatsinks (diamond has one of the best the thermal conductivity of all substances) and other stuff which diamond would be great for if not for the cost.
Naturally companies like Apollo Diamond will want to milk things while they can.
I hope some companies in China will start making cheaper and bigger versions, if nobody else does.
As jewellery I think diamond is not that great.
Diamonds She'll pretty much have to
At least not in the sense of true peer reviewed research. But on the other hand 1) this can be verified through other resource. Check your local library or other web site. 2) a wiki source is better than no source of info at all. Because at least you can contest that info , by providing a contrary source of info. Which then can start the discussion. In absence of contrary evidence, I would say the info wiki gave us was reliable.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Is it too late for me to point out that Diamond is Carbon bonded tetrahedrally (sp?)?
Carbon is a good base element for stuff because it 'wants' to have 4 bonds.
Graphite is a hexagonal planar latice with the 4th bond connecting between layers. Because it's not 'supported' by other bonds like the ones in the latice, graphite tends to shear along the plane.
Diamond has all 4 bonds connected in a fully supportive rigid structure. The rigidity is so great that it transfers heat incredibly well for a non-metallic element.
This probably isn't totally correct, but it's what I remember from Chemistry...
Hey, y'know, we should all start a competing Diamonds Are For Heatsinks campaign.
A quick google reveals gold mines producing >30X more gold per ton mined than good diamond mines produce. Could diamond prices have anything to do with this?
As any organic chemist will tell you, the preferred conformation of carbon is tetrahedral. There is almost no strain in the bonding angles or lengths in a diamond lattice which leads to an extremely stable structure. The bonding pattern in diamonds is about as low in energy as you can get for carbon.
Mordor Jewelers is not responsible for ring getting current owner killed, nor will there be any responsibility for alteration of the owner to a gollum like appearance.
Ring may also bind to other rings in darkness. Also may find other rings and rule over them. Not responsible for types of other rings, nor of the of ruling of the afore mentioned rings.
Ring is used, and did have prior owner, the "Dark Lord" who of course sits on a "Dark Throne". Mordor Jewelers is in no way associated withe the Dark Lord or his Dark Throne.
When caring for your ring, it is suggested that you avoid places like Mordor, and melting may occur if dropped into magma in Mt. Doom. Loss of ring in this manner is not the fault of Mordor Jewelers, nor will any reimbursement be merited.
Mordor is also not at fault if husband starts ignoring you, and you feel like he doesn't even see you anymore. Last but not least, one size fits all.
Sauron, Saruman, and Smeagol Solicitors
The uneven thickness was due to the production process that involved pouring a molten silica blob on a spinning disc and cutting out squares out od the resulting plate, current process involves distribution on a molten metal (lead I think) bath. I can't care to look up links but if you want to check out please do
Mi domando chi à il mandante di tutte le cazzate che faccio - Altan
Yep. Diamonds are what is known as a four-neighbor three-dimensional (4N3D) mesh in computer architecture. They have the same crystal structure as other elements in the same column of the periodic table (most notably Silicon). The hardness that these crystals share comes from the very rigid lattice structure. 4N3D meshes are like triangular trusses built in three dimensions. Really, really strong.
Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
Probably not as lovely as diamonds, but they're the nicest quartz crystals I've ever seen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herkimer_diamond
Mathematician comes up with diagram which might not exist in reality. Film at 11.
CO2 is the product when diamond is exposed to oxygen. Allotropes of carbon include graphite, diamond and the fullerenes.
Want to give something costly and that the recipient probably doesn't need?
The perfect gift? Chemotherapy!
After giving this gift, the recipient will think of you for each and every day of their (remaining) life!
So who gets the ring?
Interesting article about what happens when engagements are called off. Note the value of "used" diamond rings.
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
While the beauty of gems is subjective, the one reason that diamonds are attractive is the high index of refraction of the material, which causes total internal reflection. Light from sources around the room can bounce around several times before it exits, giving the gem a "sparkle". The cut of the diamond can enhance this. The crystal structure determines which cuts are possible and which cuts give the best sparkle. But creating artificial gems with the same crystal structure will not give the same "sparkle" effect if the crystal does not have a high enough index of refraction to cause total internal reflection.
"Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire." -- William Butler Yeats
Think of a caltrop. Then connect each end of a caltrop to another caltrop.
it has electrolytes! it has what plants need!
But let's compare:
- Buying diamonds: supports an industry that fund slavery and wars of genocide. Leads to extensive Human misery, and keeps Africa poor and backwards, as well as providing a breeding ground for extremism that may one day become a very serious problem for western nations... not to mention preventing the development of a potentially huge market for western goods, ultimately hindering our own economic success.
- Using Bittorrent: potentially puts the RIAA and MPAA out of business, resulting in there being two fewer lobby groups corrupting the democratic process and paying to have our rights taken away. Musicians have to spend more time touring, which benefits us consumers and creates far more jobs than producing and selling albums ever could. The entire economy benefits as a result.
People who aren't goddam fucking morons can tell that these things are radically different.But yes, you should be against supporting any market that fuels warfare, genocide, and slavery. You don't particularly need to avoid supporting the heinous act of sharing though.
Diamonds weren't in demand until the 20th century. Before that, they were just another gemstone, notable for being extremely hard. It took very deliberate marketing to change that. And you bought into it. Sad, really.