Comments on: Is it true that no two snowflakes are alike?

By: Amy W

Amy W — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 12:04:00 +0000

I assume it is theoretically possbile for two snowflakes to be the same, aslthough I would not like to go look for them. I also assume it is theoretically possible for two people to have the same left index-finger fingerprint, but I would not like to go look for them either.

By: gary

gary — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 02:40:00 +0000

Hey y’all

Let me try this counter argument that there have been two snowflakes that are exactly the same on a atomic level.

Suppose there is a mole of atom(10^23) in a millimeter of water and say that this is the size of an average snowflake. We make the simplifying assumption that the this represents on the order or the number of different atomic configurations.

The size of antartica is is 14million kilometers. So if we suppose that it snows once a year covering the area of antartica then you get something on the order 1.4 × 10^19. Also suppose that the average age of the earth is measured on the order of billions of years. Add another 9 to the 10^19 and you get 10^28. Of course the number of combinations of 10^23 is much much bigger. But we do get close to it. If you consider the possibility of snow bearing planets you get even closer.

The fact that you get similar configurations on a macroscopic level tends to imply a much smaller search space than is usually assumed.

-opengre

By: Bob

Bob — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 19:30:00 +0000

John and Kell have it exactly right. It’s absurd to compare anything at the atomic level. I’d dare say that nothing larger than 1mm cubic volume could ever be exactly alike, man or nature made.

By: tanys

tanys — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 12:10:00 +0000

I’m pretty sure you know very well that
the www is the greatest technological creation in modern history. kosher-restaurants.tarew.co.cc

By: J. Acai

J. Acai — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 11:56:00 +0000

i think it’s all about chaos theory…no two can be alike!

By: Kell

Kell — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 10:50:00 +0000

I’m sorry, but that just seems a bit silly to point out that any structure, no matter how similar at first glance, is actually constructed differently at an atomic level. I’d be interested in knowing what structures *would* be *exactly* alike, once you take it down to an atomic level.

By: John

John — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 10:45:00 +0000

I don’t think this is really accurate. True, no snowflake will be identical when comparing them on an atomic level.

But then, you could say no 2 leaves would ever be identical on the atomic level. Or rocks. Or ice cubes.

By: JM

JM — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 10:13:00 +0000

Fascinating short article, thank you!

Something I’ve always wondered – when snowflakes with apparent symmetry are studied, is the symmetry perfect all or much of the time? The picture above shows perfectly symmetrical dendrites and sectored plates. I can understand that the physical conditions (temperature, pressure etc) are identical across the snowflake when it is being formed, which might result in uniform growth, but if perfect symmetry of shape is often seen, how does the snowflake ‘know’ what is happening to it as a whole so that it can ‘make’ the growth symmetric? If, as I guess, it doesn’t, are such ‘perfect’ snowflakes the exception rather than the rule? Are snowflakes with fractured symmetry seen?

By: southern california guy

southern california guy — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 08:55:00 +0000

what are snowflakes?

By: Benji

Benji — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 08:39:00 +0000

Ha ha – this is awesome. I used to joke around with people and say that I recently read about scientists who actually discovered two snowflakes that were alike. (As if anyone is actually looking)

Anyway, if you follow the logic of the Caltech professor that on “the molecular level” they are different, then you could say that no two of anything are the same (with the exception of very basic molecules)