Diamonds

A wip. last updated 10/29/24

First entry: Hello. This narrative is going to be written in the first person voice of me, Andy. Diamonds are a fascinoma [interesting and / or unusual] of enduring styles and ancient teachings. But why? But how? For a good start, diamond's basic chemistry gives us a clue. The classification of two wide scope types of chemistry are "Inorganic Chemistry" and "Organic Chemistry." The latter is often associated with that which is "alive" - DNA - and the former with that which is inanimate - salt. The chemistry of Diamond is [the start of this fascinoma] that which would be associated with the chemistry of alive, living; Organic Chemistry. So one wonders: What is "going on"?

Second entry: The "in a nutshell" short answer is: A lot, and a lot more now that diamonds for use in jewelry can be Lab made [or as someone has astutely framed this environment to be more like a factory than a laboratory, where, in the latter, one would expect the Scientific Method to be the primary process in use and in use for exploration. Where as in a "Lab"  diamond facility it seems that the primary process is the production of a tangible good[s]. However, I do not think that this framing is at all meant to negate that research and development that in part or in fact use the Scientific Method is not ongoing within the facility / enterprise.].

This narrative will be exploring this very interesting and indeed fascinating development that has quite a bit of depth to it [where at the moment I feel like Rodney Dangerfield where he laments to the audience: "I was such an  ugly child." and then someone form the audience immediately retorts " How ugly of a child were you?"] that what might "on the surface" seem one way, for an instant, there is, actually much more to it or it is something else entirely. One could, as in Paul Simon's song entitled "Diamonds On the Soles of Her Shoes" now put diamonds on the soles of shoes. In this context, or of the song, or otherwise, a lot going on. I have an idea of what shape the diamonds might be, but what the cut would be, is definitely still at the very beginning of consideration.

Why this is, will also be explored, but as a hint at the nature of  what the "why" is, as of my checking on this matter about eight months ago, the only diamond cut and shape where the "do the math" has been done [standardized - so as to get the maximal light performance from the diamond] is for the [has a few names] the round brilliant - shape / cut.

Speaking of, [and this is likely the only direct, not in a specific contextual way that reference will be made to these ...] I recently learned that before there were the 4Cs of primary diamond evaluation there were only 3Cs, cut, at first was not included.

From Litwin Diamond Cutters Catalog [late 1950s]

 

Third entry: Is there a difference between natural diamond - mined diamonds for example- and lab diamonds? The answer is yes and no. One type of diamond formed a long time ago, brought to or close to the earth's surface form deep within the earth through volcanic eruptions. But even though these sort of diamonds formed long ago, I would imagine it is possible that "younger" diamonds could exist still deep within the earth.

The technology to make diamonds is relatively new. So time of - when the diamonds formed- is one difference.

Lab and natural diamonds, in a very practical way, are the same in that both are formed by Covalent Carbon to Carbon bonds.There are exceptions, thou, for example, the very rare beautiful blue diamond, whereby some atoms of Boron are incorporated into the diamond - a Boron-Carbon bond giving the the diamond it's blue color. Boron on the Periodic Table of Elements is located one atom before Carbon.

There is an extensive variety of types of imperfections that occur in diamonds, but for our needs, at the moment, we can simply call these inclusions. Given, that this framing is of considerable simplification, but material here, is that I do not believe that one would associate this type of inclusions with lab-diamonds, indeed, expert diamond graders, have developed and are further developing ways to distinguishing a lab diamond from a natural one. For example, a sub- classification of one of the 4 Cs indicates that the vast majority of lab-diamonds are Type II, while a Type II natural diamond is rare. Perhaps more so, diamond experts have developed many Analytical Chemistry techniques that can be used to distinguish lab-grown from natural diamonds. 

Fourth entry:You might be wondering: While there is text about, but only a few images of jewelry with diamonds at this site? [as of 6/28/24]

The primary reason for this "glaring" absence of such, is that it is deliberate. A primary reason for this choice is that what to do with regard to diamonds and to a significant extent, other gemstones, is currently, a type of wonderment.The world of diamonds is undergoing a dramatic change, one that one could suggest, is singular, and not merely a paradigm shift but a paradigm change.

A. Litwin - Andy is going to, as a practical working construct, imagine that what is occurring is a paradigm change. A paradigm change usually does not occur often, but when one does, one phenomena that seems to occur is wonderment [from Andy's perspective] of the wonderful sort.

Discoveries in Physics are a good example, and an exception to the more usual, of, paradigm changes not occurring often.

However, having said, and as indicated, on the Pedigree page, diamond imagery / diamond jewelry is going to start to be present.

But having said, said, there is a good amount of archetype like ideas and concepts to explore and ultimately The Transcendental Shopping Experience will emerge, be emergent as the Complexity Scientists would likely frame it.  

So now having said, said ,said, I imagine many are familiar with the "Big Bang Theory" of how the universe began. Absent form this scientific theory is an explanation of what caused the bang. Certain theological understandings can give an answer as to the cause but irrespective of one's view of this explanation, an articulate Rabbi does state: There was no-thing [nothing] and then something; a point and then two, then three, then everything. A way to diagram this for us on Earth and pertains to us on Earth is:

 

If this is all starting to fit together for you, great. If on the other hand: You wonder?: So what does this have to do with diamonds? Fair enough; but the answer is: Everything. For the moment, it might help, considering that you are on the cusp of the Transcendental Shopping Experience.  

Fifth entry: There is another story in the 7/8/24 WSJ about Fusion energy / Commercial Fusion Energy Reactors and it states that the up tick in investment in Fusion Energy started in 8/21. Apparently a stated goal is to have developed commercial Fusion Reactors within / by10 years forward. Some are not [to put it politely] so enthusiastic that this is a realistically achievable goal or that it will be possible to achieve the development of such a reactor at all.The complement view, is that we are just a few years away form reaching this goal. Andy is with the transcendent view-a few years away. 

Why? discovery, yielding knowledge and understanding has been occurring at ? a logarithmic rate or like a How big a number is 30 Trillion ? for awhile.

Within this, thou, is a serious consideration that in a magnitude comparison to Artificial Intelligence use concerns is a universe greater. In my admittedly, limited, experience with these AI systems they are far,far,far,far away from being able to inference. Given, a machine winning at Chess against a great Chess player is impressive, I am, for the, I imagine, conservatively, the next ten years with Sherlock and not Watson. However, irrespective, last I saw Watson, very impressive too; the product of a lot of hard work and smarts. A good way along toward achieving this "moon shot". Perhaps the new kid on the block: Quantum Computing will help speed up Watson's development.Just a blind guess given my juvenile level of Gorping as to what QC is about / works.

The why for this sentiment is, due to the magnitude of difficulty difference between developing a commercial Fusion Reactor and a Watson that is as a [C.D.] Sherlock. A Sherlock is a universe more difficult to do than the Fusion Reactor.

If at this moment you are thinking that Andy is a contrarian, well then that is a first. Really. If in doubt about this assertion, then please ask my 7th, 8th and 9th grade Latin teacher Mrs. Adams:


Mrs.Vivian Adams at the Taft Museum of Art

Perhaps, if needed, for a second, on the matter, if he is still around, and if I recall his name, you could ask my 10th grade Geometry teacher. It seemed he had the feeling that I was or had lost any interest that I may have had in Euclidean Geometry and so he tossed a book at me about Non-Euclidean Geometry. A transformative moment. I had the feeling that he knew exactly what he had just done. He had a big smile on his face and stared to laugh.Then the Bell rang and he skedaddled to the teachers lounge to have a smoke.

Speaking of wisdom, the opportunity being offered to humanity at this moment is to make the ephemeral wisdom of the heavens tangible. While knowledge and understanding are necessary for using what is now being offered, these alone are not sufficient.

The Rabbi I referenced previously puts it quite eloquently [I get the feeling at this moment that he knows his Geometry, Euclidean and otherwise] basically like this:

There was nothing; no-thing and then a one something. Now at this moment one gets the feeling [and logic] one is on a unidirectional [ one way] choice. That by definition is contextually an oxymoron "choice". Conceptually "forward" is all there is. To "choose" to go "backwards" is not possible. To do so would be to go from some-thing to no-thing.

From one thing and a now a step forward, two somethings. Stated another way, one point and then two points. Connect the two points, and now a line.

The next step is a magical moment. Transcendent. The Complexity Scientist might classify this step as an emergent moment. The most fundamental diamond cut is formed.

No-thing > one point> two points > three points.

one point

two points connected a line

three points,and then connected, a plane. A cut.

I will guess: You are thinking: u u because two points connected can form a line but also an edge.

I concede the "game" you have me checkmated. Well sort of.Because what then forms the edge of the two point line?

[A possibility is that the sequence could be: one point>two points> four points and that these four points could be arranged so as when connected they do not form a planar [same plane] plane. However, a line joining a specific, selected two of these points and then connect them by a line as well, forming two planes. It seems, then, that this possibility gets "squirrely" [less elegant] and more so because it has an "undertow" that suggests the abdication of the passage of time.Even if the distance is a planck length traveled at the speed of light.

But on the other hand, a with a fourth point a Tetrahedron with four planes could be formed. But differing from the Tetrahedral form of Carbon to Carbon atom bonding in diamond where there is a fifth Carbon atom that bonds to four other carbon atoms. One could then look at a "diamond unit" this way although the shape of diamond is classified as Octahedral, with more ways to classify diamond along discipline lines e.g. Crystal Class is Hexotahedral. This chat will eventually "circle back" to this matter, but for now, without, any further ado, "tuck away" the numbers three, four and five.].

Now; what about this before mentioned serious consideration that is of a universe in magnitude.

Well speaking of Sherlock, Sherlock; Sherlock [3 again] solves a case by note of / observation of, (a) what is not their,(b) what did not happen,{c} what was not seen [I imagine you are thinking at this moment, yes, that 3 again].

In the Original Star Trek [putting aside the quirky / seem out of place Galactic scuffles of The Federation and those with the Klingons]

(a) What is not their on the Enterprise? (b) What did not happen their on the Enterprise? (c) What was not seen their on the Enterprise?

The answers to these 3 questions is the heart , Lev, 32 of the nature of the serious consideration of universe magnitude. In the soon to be next entry a set of 3 answers.

I sincerely hope you concur or will soon concur that the preceding entries of backstory-preamble forms a solid foundation for diamonds. And that with this entry we are starting to Rock and Roll and take a look at what "is going on".

What other would one expect and not expect at the Home of the Transcendental Shopping Experience.

Sixth entry: The Three Diamond Laws

(א) Everything is diamond.

(ב) Cut and Polish

(ג) Rough [Technically the diamond [Carbon-Carbon atom bound lattice] substance that fills the volume of a cut and polished diamond is called rough.].

(ד) Light [A restatement of law א].

A 7/12/24 Shabbat Shalom.

Seventh entry: [8/18/24]

(a) What is not their on the Enterprise?

Answer: Money

(b) What did not happen their on the Enterprise?

Answer: Nothing was purchased and or sold.

(c) What was not seen their on the Enterprise?

Answer:The illusion of money. [pun not intended]

For some clarification / elucidation [ of the Answer to of 'c']: the WSJ story of 7/14/24, and then after reading this story; if you do not mind, please send a note explaining how it is that a nation Trillions of dollars in debt can lend money to another country that is also Trillions of dollars in debt and then [for real] charge the in debt country that borrowed the money from the country that is likewise in debt, interest on the money they lent to the other in debt country that they did not have to lend. Confusing ? confused? Could mirage be considered a synonym for illusion? 

Eight entry: It has been about two or so weeks since this page has had an entry and this is because Andy has been mulling over what the next entry should be and where this vector goes. An impulse, [as is evident in previous post{s}]  has been to "rush" into the light, the "sparkle plenty" of it all.

But I do believe that the "slow and steady" approach has a long, long, long track record of it in resulting in a kindness reward.

Similarly as does taking the "long short path" as opposed to the "short long path" [the concept of the "long short path" has it's roots in {as far back as I know of} in the Talmud. Likely, the concept was well know significantly before the Talmudic period where the concept is written out and thus much more widely disseminated.

Further, it is likely that this and other significant, enduring concepts have their origins in a few places where the same insight is independently, of the others, realized / conceived of. They might have lived just 100,000 meters apart or 1,000,000 meters apart. Same, I suspect, could be said for the concept of Monotheism.

There is a statement in the Disney movie by Alice in "Alice in Wonderland" [but not that i can find in the book] where Alice asks the caterpillar; prefaced by statement: "I am lost. Can you please tell me how to get to the Queen's court?" The caterpillar replies: "Whenever, I am lost, I always start at the beginning." The reply "begs the question", by definition, if one is lost, you cannot get back to the beginning - the place where you started from.[ I have, at times, in a situation of being lost, thinking, if only ....]  As an aside, I cannot now, find this dialog in the movie, although I know that I saw and heard it.

To the point of the post [where the proceeding sets the stage for it]: While, for awhile, Andy was at a loss [lost], now not at a loss / lost as in what the next sequence of the story of diamonds will be.

Soon soon soon

Entry nine: It appears from the last entry that what had developed was what the next sequence in this story would be. If at that time it had be developed so as to be "born", alas, this in the time since 9/7/24 of the last post, has been lost. At any rate, I know it was not what I am going to post now, because as of a few days ago I was working o bit on it. The rendering of the model [that will hopefully be available for purchase by 2025 was I am sorry to say, was designed in 2020; late 2020 to give oneself a little "break". Perhaps valid at the time, to choose not to make the jewelry available for purchase was that I did an image search of the shape and found many, many of them. I asked : Does the world really need another rendition, variation of this shape? My answer was no for this reason as well as another. Boy, oh boy, was I wrong.Categorically so, as the correct answer is the complement of my 2020 answer. The world cannot have to many variations, renditions of this shape, shown here:

 

 The matter having to do with diamonds is: What would be your assessment of the quality of the diamond shown? Please click on the full screen view icon:

located in the lower right corner if you would like. It would be fun and interesting to learn of what you think. In fact, with your permission, I would anonymously post  your comment as a part of the next post. You could please use any one of the "Contact Us" choices that are on the "Conant Us" page:  Which I suspect will not be for a few weeks. At that time I will let you know my thoughts on this matter.

To be continued...