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."
... and only because it doesn't cost as much? I hope not, but I could imagine that. It makes me sick how brainwashed some people are in this regard (let alone others).
Because of all the dirt surrounding the diamond industry, I will never buy one, and when/if I propose to my girlfriend she's getting a ring with any gem other than a diamond. (And not because I'm some cheap-ass.)
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.
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!
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.
If you did want a diamond, there are non-African diamonds out there.
For example, there are Canadian diamonds.
Of course, there are also artificial diamonds, which, if I was getting hitched to a geek girl, I'd consider to be the perfect gift. :D
... and only because it doesn't cost as much? I hope not, but I could imagine that. It makes me sick how brainwashed some people are in this regard
Companies have invested a large amount of time and money to do that brainwashing. So much so that it's become part of our culture (as in everyone knows a wedding ring is a diamond ring...even though in reality the "tradition" is quite new). What's worse is that it understanding these things doesn't change the traditions, and will still want the traditional item.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Oh, what a load of crap. Not all diamonds are blood diamonds. Not "every one" of them. And diamonds have always been in demand. Long before the blood diamonds of Africa. It's okay to be against blood diamonds, but don't go around thinking diamond==blood diamond.
Well duh.
Even so, if you buy a diamond that is not technically a "blood diamond", you are still supporting the market for diamonds and raising the price of those blood diamonds. And unless you are admiring your "good diamond" in private, you are supporting the culture of diamond-lovers.
Which is a long winded and less clever way of saying what the parent poster said.
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.
Ha. Actually, you may be interested to know that advertising for diamond rings is actually targeted (albeit surreptitiously) at men. The message is: Women want a diamond ring. You don't need to ask them if they want it. It's such a deep part of our culture and their psyche that they want one. Just buy one.
The reason for this is, the companies who make money out of diamonds did a survey of couples considering marriage, and asked the women if they wanted a diamond ring. A lot of women knew how expensive it was, and replied that they didn't want a diamond ring, and they'd much rather put the money towards a house, furnishings, a car, etc.
This is obviously bad news for the diamond companies, so a few decades ago, the whole 'Diamonds are a girl's best friend' type advertising campaigns started, the whole purpose of which is to stop the man asking the woman if she'd like a diamond. Because quite often, she'd say no.
It doesn't matter where your diamond in particular comes from. If you buy a diamond at all, you're contributing to the high demand for diamonds. It's the same reason that US oil consumption props up the Saudis, even if we buy more oil from Canada than we do from Saudi Arabia.
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
Thats 3 of the 4 C's, Carat, Clarity, and Color. A bad cut could definately impact the appearance of even a high quality core stone like that, and if the diamond wasn't certified, there's a lot of leeway in what the merchants call color D and no inclusions. (was it truely flawless under a 10x scope (IF or FL) or mearly to the unaided eye? Even w/ a bad cut and "no visible inclusions to the unaided eye, VS2), that would be a $20K stone, $30k if well cut, and was truely "ideal cut" and IF thats an $80k stone discounted.
Man made stones are still having trouble getting past .5 carats when I last checked. Moissanite looks good, but check w/ the one you love before substituting. Its not about the money but about trust, truthfullness, and respecting what she wants. When I spoke to my fiancee about it, and the various trade-offs (she loved that I already knew the trade-offs), we wound up going a non-traditional route that I would never have chosen by myself. I still spent what I budgeted, but the result is both stunning and practical (huge solitaires have lots of impracticalities it turns out); and it now represents not only the promise to marry her but how well we communicate.
You are in a maze of twisted little posts, all alike.