Diamonds are soft and other scientific missunderstandings

[OdeFinn]

You are either misreading them or you're simply don;t understand them at all.

They do not support your claim that diamonds are soft.

Well, you can answer this, is sound traveling thru diamond? If answer is yes, then diamonds are soft in terms of physics. Second sound wave investigation wouldn't be on table if first sound wave isn't passing it. First sound wave is explained on other attached document (physical movement of solid), second wave hypothesis claims are on are on second(thermal waves on solid).

 

[Scaff]

Well, you can answer this, is sound traveling thru diamond? If answer is yes, then diamonds are soft in terms of physics. Second sound wave investigation wouldn't be on table if first sound wave isn't passing it. First sound wave is explained on other attached document (physical movement of solid), second wave hypothesis claims are on are on second(thermal waves on solid).

Utter and complete bollocks, and no the sources don't support that at all.

Harder substances transmit sound better as the molecular structure is tighter and more firmly bonded. and sound travels via the vibration of the molecular structure.

Harder substances transfer sound better than softer ones.

https://www.nde-ed.org/EducationResources/HighSchool/Sound/speedinmaterials.htm


http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae20.cfm

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/65580/why-does-sound-move-faster-in-solids

I can keep going until the end of time with these.

 

[Scaff]

I've moved the posts above to a new thread, as its dragging another off-topic.

The basic claim being made is that because sound travels through diamonds quickly it means that they are soft in 'physics'.

I disagree.

 

[DesertPenguin]

As someone who majored in music and aced a class in the science and physics of sound, I can say that @Scaff is 100% correct.

A good example is that sound dampening materials used in studios are usually very soft foams for exactly these reasons. It doesn't resonate the sound as well as the hard wooden/sheet rock walls.

 

[Famine]

We've already done this one. It was bollocks then and it remains bollocks now.

 

[Tornado]

"I know what oversteer is"

 

[Johnnypenso]

"Camber works you just don't know the magic tuning principles to get it to work like I do" (paraphrasing)

 

[KungFury]

Are soft diamonds the new blood diamonds or did I miss something

 

[LeMansAid]

Consider sound absorption, sound reflection, and sound transmission properties. Diamond would have low absorption, high reflection, and high transmission.

That + that + that = hard.

 

[UKMikey]

Looks like this issue is doubly done and (diamond) dusted.

I'm all for an @Scaff versus idiot confused poster of the week thread however.

 

[TheGeologist]

It seems this issue is over, but I must get my two cents in. I'm not sure why anyone is describing diamonds being hard or soft with physics... The hardness of a diamond is best described geologically, as it is a mineral.

For mineral hardness, geological sciences uses the Mohs scale of mineral hardness. The Mohs scale is based on the ability of mineral to scratch another.

This chart goes from 1-10, with one being the softest and 10 being the hardest. Diamond charts at 10.

 

[Small_Fryz]

Rock, Paper,.............DIAMONDS I WIN!

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

It seems this issue is over, but I must get my two cents in. I'm not sure why anyone is describing diamonds being hard or soft with physics... The hardness of a diamond is best described geologically, as it is a mineral.

For mineral hardness, geological sciences uses the Mohs scale of mineral hardness. The Mohs scale is based on the ability of mineral to scratch another.

This chart goes from 1-10, with one being the softest and 10 being the hardest. Diamond charts at 10.

Simple because you can use physics to describe the reasoning for various material properties and their static and dynamic traits...

OP did it in a very backwards illogical way is all. Simple way I suppose would be doing it the method you do it in your field of study.

 

[Imari]

Well, you can answer this, is sound traveling thru diamond? If answer is yes, then diamonds are soft in terms of physics. Second sound wave investigation wouldn't be on table if first sound wave isn't passing it. First sound wave is explained on other attached document (physical movement of solid), second wave hypothesis claims are on are on second(thermal waves on solid).

Congratulations on demonstrating that you don't understand how sound works. That's a real achievement.

 

[OdeFinn]

The basic claim being made is that because sound travels through diamonds quickly it means that they are soft in 'physics'.

Kinda yes, but you're adding your own into it.

Sound is a energy form, it's not a thing, it is a energy wave which makes things move, moving thing can be any material which contains particles, in my example I used diamonds.

Relatively observing this phenomenon you know at solid material like i.e. Steel will carry sound wave thru it, this travel will happen by particles of steel colliding each other, physical movement of particles.
Same thing is when sound is traveling on plain air, same thing particles colliding each other and this physical movement carry wave form of sound energy.
And same on water.
And same on any material which can carry sound energy wave, which is a real physical energy.
This same happens on diamonds too.

So if you believe at air is soft because it can transfer sound waves, then will every other material be also soft because the reason for sound wave carrying capabilities is identical particle movement, no difference in actual physical action, just difference in material.
This lead to simple conclusion on relative perspective of material softness, sound energy wave is able to bend/push/stretch material so it can't be hard because it changes it form, so it must be soft.

 

[DQuaN]

Just about every substance will carry sound. The only thing that won’t is a vacuum. Are you saying that “nothing” is the only actual “hard thing”???

 

[Johnnypenso]

Kinda yes, but you're adding your own into it.

Sound is a energy form, it's not a thing, it is a energy wave which makes things move, moving thing can be any material which contains particles, in my example I used diamonds.

Relatively observing this phenomenon you know at solid material like i.e. Steel will carry sound wave thru it, this travel will happen by particles of steel colliding each other, physical movement of particles.
Same thing is when sound is traveling on plain air, same thing particles colliding each other and this physical movement carry wave form of sound energy.
And same on water.
And same on any material which can carry sound energy wave, which is a real physical energy.
This same happens on diamonds too.

So if you believe at air is soft because it can transfer sound waves, then will every other material be also soft because the reason for sound wave carrying capabilities is identical particle movement, no difference in actual physical action, just difference in material.
This lead to simple conclusion on relative perspective of material softness, sound energy wave is able to bend/push/stretch material so it can't be hard because it changes it form, so it must be soft.

Are you getting confused by sounds transmitted through the air and then through a material vs. sound transmitted through vibrations from direct contact with the material? For example, if you stand outside a steel bank vault that is closed and scream at the top of your lungs, no one inside will hear you. If you tap on that same bank vault door with a penny, someone inside will hear that.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

Why is it that some nugget of insanity like this always pops up right after the GTPlanet Awards?

relative

Insert Inigo Montoya image.

By your reasoning, sound deadening is "hard" — or as @DQuaN points out — nothing is.

It's fascinating how far someone will go and to avoid admitting they were wrong about something, but rewriting reality to suit your argument is a rarely-travelled path.

 

[Imari]

Kinda yes, but you're adding your own into it.

Sound is a energy form, it's not a thing, it is a energy wave which makes things move, moving thing can be any material which contains particles, in my example I used diamonds.

Relatively observing this phenomenon you know at solid material like i.e. Steel will carry sound wave thru it, this travel will happen by particles of steel colliding each other, physical movement of particles.
Same thing is when sound is traveling on plain air, same thing particles colliding each other and this physical movement carry wave form of sound energy.
And same on water.
And same on any material which can carry sound energy wave, which is a real physical energy.
This same happens on diamonds too.

So if you believe at air is soft because it can transfer sound waves, then will every other material be also soft because the reason for sound wave carrying capabilities is identical particle movement, no difference in actual physical action, just difference in material.
This lead to simple conclusion on relative perspective of material softness, sound energy wave is able to bend/push/stretch material so it can't be hard because it changes it form, so it must be soft.

Good lord, this is insane. Intermolecular energy transmission and intermolecular bonding are related but not even remotely interchangeable. You might as well claim that everything is soft because heat makes the molecules move around. If the molecules are moving, it can't be hard, right?

Not only is that a profound misunderstanding of what "soft" is, it's a ridiculous creation of this generic definition of a material property that serves no functional purpose other than to get you out of admitting that you were talking super premium bollocks with added tessellation.

And not for the first time, as others have pointed out. In this particular argument, you're falling behind the physical understanding held by the average five year old.

I'm not even going to get into the fact that you're claiming that the mechanism of sound transmission is identical in gases and solids.

 

[Scaff]

Kinda yes, but you're adding your own into it.

Sound is a energy form, it's not a thing, it is a energy wave which makes things move, moving thing can be any material which contains particles, in my example I used diamonds.

Relatively observing this phenomenon you know at solid material like i.e. Steel will carry sound wave thru it, this travel will happen by particles of steel colliding each other, physical movement of particles.
Same thing is when sound is traveling on plain air, same thing particles colliding each other and this physical movement carry wave form of sound energy.
And same on water.
And same on any material which can carry sound energy wave, which is a real physical energy.
This same happens on diamonds too.

So if you believe at air is soft because it can transfer sound waves, then will every other material be also soft because the reason for sound wave carrying capabilities is identical particle movement, no difference in actual physical action, just difference in material.
This lead to simple conclusion on relative perspective of material softness, sound energy wave is able to bend/push/stretch material so it can't be hard because it changes it form, so it must be soft.

Your now either being dogmatically absurd or simply have no idea what you are going on about.

I've already provided a number of links and explained this a number of times over a period of years!

The more dense a substance is and the more rigidly the molecular bonds are, the better it is able to transmit sound.

The less dense a substance is and the less rigidly the molecular bonds are, the worse it is able to transmit sound.

These are both directly inverse to how hard or soft they can be considered using the Mohs scale of hardness, as the denser a substance is and the more rigid its molecular bonds are the higher is scores on the Mohs scale, and the less dense it is and the less rigid its molecular bonds the softer it is.

Now give the comparison between diamonds which score 10 on the Mohs scale and are an excellent conductor of sound, and air (which is so lacking in density and molecular rigidity that it can't even be measured on Mohs scale) and is a rubbish conductor of sound!

That's aside from the fact that you are assuming that the transfer of sounds occurs identically in gases and solids (it doesn't) or that for sound to travel through a solid it needs to change form (it doesn't).

Diamonds are objectively and scientifically hard, air is a gas and as such falls so far below the criteria we would use to define 'soft' that you argument is patently absurd. You don't get to redefine established scientific terms just because you are too stubborn to acknowledge that you are simply wrong.

 

[Danoff]

Some people think that hot water turns to ice faster in the freezer.

 

[Scaff]

Some people think that hot water turns to ice faster in the freezer.

Oooooo, that's a good one.



The jury's still very much out on that in my view.

 

[Dennisch]

Are these diamonds mined on a flat earth?

 

[MatskiMonk]

Some people think that hot water turns to ice faster in the freezer.

Where else are you going to put hot water to make ice?



<trollface>

 

[Danoff]

Where else are you going to put hot water to make ice?



<trollface>

Yup, to finish the thought - some people think that hot water turns to ice faster in the freezer than cold water turns to hot water in the oven. (j/k... obviously)

 

[Imari]

Where else are you going to put hot water to make ice?

A volcano. The water will be colder than the volcano and will therefore turn to ice.

Am I right physics potato doodlefish?

 

[OdeFinn]

Just about every substance will carry sound. The only thing that won’t is a vacuum. Are you saying that “nothing” is the only actual “hard thing”???

Actually you're on the point. (But don't take this ass claim of vacuum is by hard).

Are you getting confused by sounds transmitted through the air and then through a material vs. sound transmitted through vibrations from direct contact with the material? For example, if you stand outside a steel bank vault that is closed and scream at the top of your lungs, no one inside will hear you. If you tap on that same bank vault door with a penny, someone inside will hear that.

Air is also a mixture of particles, there's only bonus on directional travel path of sound waves, that's only difference on "gas" vs "solid". Same physical particle collision happens in air.

Why is it that some nugget of insanity like this always pops up right after the GTPlanet Awards?



Insert Inigo Montoya image.

By your reasoning, sound deadening is "hard" — or as @DQuaN points out — nothing is.

It's fascinating how far someone will go and to avoid admitting they were wrong about something, but rewriting reality to suit your argument is a rarely-travelled path.

Now it's hard to realise your status on this, I'm not rewriting anything, I just happen to look things way deeper than ordinary flatfoot John Doe.

That's aside from the fact that you are assuming that the transfer of sounds occurs identically in gases and solids (it doesn't) or that for sound to travel through a solid it needs to change form (it doesn't).

Directional differences, nothing else, same particle collision. (Which I hinted on my post already)

Diamonds are objectively and scientifically hard, air is a gas and as such falls so far below the criteria we would use to define 'soft' that you argument is patently absurd. You don't get to redefine established scientific terms just because you are too stubborn to acknowledge that you are simply wrong.

It is just matter of perspective, you define "soft" like ordinary John Doe, same thing where this all started.
Shall we take quantum tunneling to this also?

 

[Scaff]

Directional differences, nothing else, same particle collision. (Which I hinted on my post already)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_sound#Compression_and_shear_waves

It is just matter of perspective, you define "soft" like ordinary John Doe, same thing where this all started.

Nope, but then again you still haven't provided a single source to support your claim (and no the last ones didn't).

However by all means provide a details of an ISO standard that supports you claim.

While you are at it please state on your chosen hardness scale which of the following would be described as hard, and to what degree:

• Diamond
• Lead
• Steel

Now please explain which will transmit sound better and why.

Then provide a comparison of hardness vs ability to transmit sound.

Shall we take quantum tunneling to this also?

Given how much you get wrong about the basic principals of physics I would not recommend it.

 

[Imari]

Air is also a mixture of particles, there's only bonus on directional travel path of sound waves, that's only difference on "gas" vs "solid". Same physical particle collision happens in air.

No, it doesn't. What's the difference between a gas and a solid that accounts for the marked difference in their physical properties? When you know the answer to that, you'll know why the particle collisions cannot be identical.

I just happen to look things way deeper than ordinary flatfoot John Doe.

No, you just happen to not have learned basic physics or chemistry and somehow have come to the conclusion that whatever theory you have made up is more correct than that of learned people who have studied the science for decades.

But hey, don't let me derail you on your way to a Nobel Prize.

Directional differences, nothing else, same particle collision. (Which I hinted on my post already)

Still nope. What is it that actually collides in this case? Protons/neutrons and electrons are both incredibly tiny, so how do they manage to somehow hit each other? Wouldn't that be incredibly statistically unlikely?

Shall we take quantum tunneling to this also?

PLEASE explain quantum tunneling. We all need a good giggle. Is it because of the quantum moles?

 

[Danoff]

Given how much you get wrong about the basic principals of physics I would not recommend it.

(but hot water would freeze faster)