[HN Gopher] Scientists Uncover the Universal Geometry of Geology...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Scientists Uncover the Universal Geometry of Geology (2020)
        
       Author : fanf2
       Score  : 58 points
       Date   : 2026-01-01 09:42 UTC (4 days ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.quantamagazine.org)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.quantamagazine.org)
        
       | metalman wrote:
       | all/most materials can be foamed, ALL foam bubbles aproximate a
       | very specific shape where each intersection is at the SAME angle,
       | which is not 90deg so at minimum there are two "universal
       | geometrys", and yes there are natural rock foams.
        
       | az09mugen wrote:
       | We could be in a Minecraft indeed ^^
        
       | gnabgib wrote:
       | (2020) Title: _Scientists Uncover the Universal Geometry of
       | Geology_
        
       | brennanpeterson wrote:
       | Group theory and crystallograpy without either word? I suppose I
       | can look at this as an extension of group theory to glassy and
       | partial.domains, but it doesn't appear to offer much more.
       | 
       | Columnar basalt formation has been understood for a long time, I
       | really don't understand what this explained that wasn't already
       | known?
        
         | kayo_20211030 wrote:
         | It doesn't even explain it particularly well. The reference to
         | a taco cart was unexpected; it wasn't necessary, but an
         | interesting literary device, I suppose. I just feel a good
         | editor could have made it a better explainer. It's all over the
         | place.
        
       | MORPHOICES wrote:
       | Why do distinct systems end up having the same look?
       | 
       | I am often surprised to discover different systems that arrive at
       | the same shapes.
       | 
       | You will find it in nature, but also within.
       | 
       | N/A
       | 
       | Organizational charts.
       | 
       | Patterns of traffic.
       | 
       | Ways to Fail.
       | 
       | Despite different inputs and histories they all yield the same
       | outcome.
       | 
       | I use a mental model of sorts.
       | 
       | Local regulations and limits.
       | 
       | Consistent application of weight.
       | 
       | In the end, only a handful of stable shapes endure.
       | 
       | I'm curious now.
       | 
       | Are we overestimating the uniqueness of our systems?
       | 
       | What design patterns to use in your product?
       | 
       | Have you taken note of shapes showing up in different domains
       | time and again? ~
        
       | talkingtab wrote:
       | This is really cool thinking. The fundamental concept I got out
       | of it, was fracturing something means that it can fit together
       | again, so there is a constraint. Of course, but cool. Thanks!
        
       | jofer wrote:
       | It may not be immediately obvious to folks outside of geoscience,
       | but the main way something like this is useful is as a
       | measure/metric to compare things. Looking at the number of faces
       | of fractured pieces isn't normally something we do often in
       | geology.
       | 
       | Sure, the pieces average 6 faces when materials are relatively
       | homogenous and iostropic (i.e. no preferential direction to break
       | in and no free surface nearby). However, as they note in the
       | article, this isn't always the case. Things like mud flats and
       | other cases with very anisotropic materials and/or free surfaces
       | nearby don't fracture with the same average.
       | 
       | This is a good example of a potential metric that could be used
       | to give some clues about overall material behavior even if all
       | you have are the broken remains.
       | 
       | Fractal dimension is also pretty esoteric. However, it's somewhat
       | widely used in geoscience, even though what we're measuring isn't
       | _actually_ fractal. It's still a very useful comparative metric,
       | though, because it lets us measure how complex an interface or
       | surface is quantitatively and scale-independent.
        
         | 7777777phil wrote:
         | It reminds me of how we use measures like the VIX in finance;
         | not because markets are actually log-normal, but because having
         | a standardized way to compare "choppiness" across different
         | periods is incredibly useful. I like your fractal dimension
         | example too. Even if real coastlines aren't truly fractal,
         | being able to say "this coastline has dimension 1.3 vs 1.7"
         | gives you meaningful information about erosion patterns, wave
         | energy, and rock composition. The cube metric could work
         | similarly for forensic geology.
        
         | boi694206 wrote:
         | nerdy ahh jit needs to sybau
        
       | mmooss wrote:
       | The paper is here:
       | 
       | Gabor Domokos, Douglas J. Jerolmack. Plato's cube and the natural
       | geometry of fragmentation. PNAS (2020)
       | 
       | https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2001037117
       | 
       | Abstract:
       | 
       |  _Plato envisioned Earth's building blocks as cubes, a shape
       | rarely found in nature. The solar system is littered, however,
       | with distorted polyhedra--shards of rock and ice produced by
       | ubiquitous fragmentation. We apply the theory of convex mosaics
       | to show that the average geometry of natural two-dimensional (2D)
       | fragments, from mud cracks to Earth's tectonic plates, has two
       | attractors: "Platonic" quadrangles and "Voronoi" hexagons. In
       | three dimensions (3D), the Platonic attractor is dominant:
       | Remarkably, the average shape of natural rock fragments is
       | cuboid. When viewed through the lens of convex mosaics, natural
       | fragments are indeed geometric shadows of Plato's forms.
       | Simulations show that generic binary breakup drives all mosaics
       | toward the Platonic attractor, explaining the ubiquity of cuboid
       | averages. Deviations from binary fracture produce more exotic
       | patterns that are genetically linked to the formative stress
       | field. We compute the universal pattern generator establishing
       | this link, for 2D and 3D fragmentation._
        
         | mmooss wrote:
         | Voronoi diagrams I see have few if any hexagons (use your
         | favorite mathematical reference or image search). Is that idea
         | that if the points are distributed equidistant in 'alternating'
         | ranks [0], then the diagram is hexagons?
         | 
         | Also, what is "binary breakup" and "binary fracture"?
         | 
         | [0] Alternating ranks: I mean something like the following (is
         | there a better name?):                 .   .   .   .   .   .
         | .   .   .   .   .   .       .   .   .   .   .   .         .   .
         | .   .   .   .
        
           | ducttapecrown wrote:
           | The dots need to be the vertices of equilateral triangles for
           | the Voronoi diagram to be hexagons, the above is a
           | rectangular grid rotated 45 degrees.
           | 
           | You can overlay a regular hexagonal tessellation over a
           | regular triangular tessellation to see this.
        
           | flqn wrote:
           | In context, binary breakup and binary fracture apppear to
           | mean a splitting ofa whole into two parts along a given line
           | or plane
        
       | emil-lp wrote:
       | > Years ago, Domokos had won renown by proving the existence of
       | the Gomboc, a curious three-dimensional shape that swivels into
       | an upright resting position no matter how you push it.
       | 
       | Some researchers are just incredible achievers.
        
       | boi694206 wrote:
       | yo bean headed ahhh needs to release a site like this but its
       | really geometry dash NOW or else...
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2026-01-05 23:01 UTC)