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.
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.
I vote against the creation of the Crystalline Entity. I just want that on record here and now.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
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..
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.
No way man, the TV says diamonds are forever.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
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/ )
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)
Aww, but I prefer Omega 13!
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
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.
...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)
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
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
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
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.
Have a look at this one.