Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

USAIsAUcountry t1_j2cqfx8 wrote

So no one would notice if the diamond was gone?

253

mic3ttaa OP t1_j2czfhf wrote

maybe if they replace it with a black stone

97

kelldricked t1_j2d8olx wrote

You probaly notice it straight away because suddenly there is something that does reflect light, or nothing which blocks it anymore.

Lets say you have a house on a remote hill with a balcony filled with torches and other lights. As you stand ontop of the balcony you will see loads of stuff barely because everything reflects light. You will see the edges of the forrest. You might not see it well, but you will percieve something.

If we then put a big screen (lets say 2 meters by 2 meters) with this collor somewhere in the edge of the forrest you will suddenly see a square of nothing. It will be visually diffrent because of the contrast. You cant see it, but because you can see the rest barely you still percieve it as something being there.

If we remove the screen then you suddenly would notice the square of nothingness disseapering.

21

DltaDFoxtrot t1_j2dbph1 wrote

Jesse what the fuck are you talking about

90

RichGrinchlea t1_j2dwsld wrote

I'm going for the save here - I think he'd trying to say that you would infer that something was there by the fact that absolutely nothing is there - a null space. Like a black hole you can't see it but infer it's existence by knowing something should be there, even if it's the stars behind it.

This painted diamond I think would be obvious as it would be a big black nothingness in the middle of the room. It's black not invisible.

33

Von_Cheesebiscuit t1_j2ebse4 wrote

Or, in a hell of a lot less words: You can see the very dark black thing. You would be able to notice if you couldn't see the very dark black thing.

12

[deleted] t1_j2fd4it wrote

You will see a black screen, it wouldn’t be nothing, it isn’t invisible. What this paint does is prevent you from perceiving the shape of the object. So from afar all you can see is the 2m x 2m frontal area, you wouldn’t be able to tell the difference between just a screen from any other shape.

2

Philboyd_Studge t1_j2cpvtf wrote

Call it None More Black

74

The_Karaethon_Cycle t1_j2cx8yw wrote

But then what happens when they come out with a blacker black?

9

queensjenn t1_j2e8hlu wrote

Blacker Than the Blackest Black...TIMES INFINITYYYYY!!!!

1

Mazep t1_j2dhskp wrote

It's so black... it's like, how much more black could this be?

5

mic3ttaa OP t1_j2elie7 wrote

00.005% and it's going to absorb 100% of light

2

Mazep t1_j2eln2j wrote

It's a Spinal Tap quote.

3

patfetes t1_j2f1hup wrote

I just read the link 🤣

The previous black was: Vanta Black. Designed by Anish Kapoor. There was an artist who made the pinkest pink and refused to sell it to Anish.

Check the terms and conditions https://culturehustle.com/pages/terms-conditions-delivery-information-and-refunds-policy

2

fulanomengano t1_j2fngyv wrote

Nope, it was invented by Ben Jensen, not “designed” by Fuck Anish Kapoor.

6

patfetes t1_j2fnlac wrote

I can't remember the exact details. But indeed Fuck Anish Kapoor 😅

1

[deleted] t1_j2d5wro wrote

[deleted]

0

nekomoo t1_j2d8tnv wrote

Chocolate so dark that light cannot escape its surface - The Simpsons

3

Odd_Necessary1848 t1_j2corxz wrote

Ventablack is trademarked. But its a similar technology here

65

Martipar t1_j2cry07 wrote

The estate agents Hotblack Desiato* should license their name to it.

*For a long time i thought this was a type of coffee.

31

Vlacas12 t1_j2cu69p wrote

Yes. And then form a band called Disaster Area.

And that number they do. That really huge number. How does it go? "Bwarm! Bwarm! Badeer!!" something, and in the stage act it ends with this ship crashing right into the sun. Ship! Sun! Wham bang! I mean forget lasers and stuff, these guys are into solar flares and real sunburn! Oh, and terrible songs.

10

Monty916 t1_j2d2o4k wrote

Give it a year until the tax problems go away.

4

VantaBlackDobie t1_j2cr506 wrote

Despite my name, I fully appreciate that technological advances have proven otherwise with regards to the subject matter of this thread...

It doesn't mean I'm happy about it though.

That said, I'm still a lovely person. I promise.

14

Minuted t1_j2csubl wrote

I bet you're the type that sucks all the light out of someone's life.

6

Godtiermasturbator t1_j2cwrdm wrote

And then placed it in front of a black backdrop, eliminating any wow factor

10

mic3ttaa OP t1_j2d4gom wrote

that's just to prove how black it is

6

Evnl2020 t1_j2cnvsy wrote

I hereby name you very super dark black.

6

Tank905 t1_j2cwad5 wrote

Black.

TIL its name is Black.

3

intashu t1_j2dnwgy wrote

More of a "dark black" I'd imagine.

3

slickestwood t1_j2e8odf wrote

Blacker than the blackest black times Infinity

2

pickupBeer t1_j2cvf5y wrote

Back in Black or Black to the future

1

BigcatTV t1_j2cxlzy wrote

I name it Steve

1

OldMork t1_j2cxsqy wrote

my ex heart was still darker

1

Then_the_dar t1_j2d0a4c wrote

Jokes on you, there is nothing in there.

1

jppes t1_j2d0lng wrote

Call it veryblack.

1

GriffinFlash t1_j2d2i6y wrote

Since it absorbs almost all light, would it get really hot to touch?

1

Zorkdork t1_j2d761v wrote

It will definitely get hotter faster then other materials, but the amount of energy shining on it generally isn't enough to make it particularly warm to the touch because it's got really low surface area and indoor lights aren't that strong.

However if you coated your car with this stuff and left it out in the summer noonday sun... it would get pretty hot.

It's pretty close to a black body, so you can use those calculations to see roughly how hot it would get depending on how much energy you applied.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body

3

Highpersonic t1_j2d2xek wrote

It shall not ever end up in the hands of Anish Kapoor

1

mic3ttaa OP t1_j2d3u4q wrote

I HAVE A QUESTION NOW, what's the definition of black? something that doesn't reflect light or just something dark? is there something in the universe that absorbs 100% of the light it touches (except black holes)?

1

foofoobee t1_j2ddsch wrote

"Something dark" pretty much by definition is something that doesn't reflect light. How you define "black" depends on the context and just how stringent you want to get with the definition. If you really want to get technical, you might not even say that black holes fully absorb 100% of light. It's true that black holes will effectively absorb all radiation where the wavelength of the radiation is smaller than the diameter of the event horizon (which will typically cover not only light visible to us, but also infrared, ultraviolet, x-rays, radio waves, etc). But black holes will also spit out random photons that are able to escape the event horizon - look up Hawking Radiation. This actually shrinks the black hole each time this happens. So technically, if the black hole doesn't keep getting fed with new energy, it would eventually shrink down and collapse. So, in the (very) long run, even black holes can't be said to 100% absorb light forever!

2

mic3ttaa OP t1_j2dey49 wrote

that's literally rocket science to me but thank you, omw to google.

1

egoncasteel t1_j2d9105 wrote

I will laugh my ass off when they go to clean the diamond and it turns out it was switched for a fake.

1

Extension-Door614 t1_j2dfopg wrote

I was able to experience this once on a tour of the physics building back in 1972 at ISU. They were creating bead of gold oxidized at high temperature and low pressure with oxygen bleed. The bead was to be used in black body radiation experiments. Looking at the bead was like having a hole in your vision. You really could not focus your eyes on it very well.

1

goosebattle t1_j2dfyio wrote

[“Everybody knows that diamonds are the most reflective material on earth,” Strebe told artnet News]

Are we just going to ignore this statement?

1

donald7773 t1_j2dtlq5 wrote

The color had a name. It was spoken and absorbed by the color

1

QSlade t1_j2dtqyl wrote

“Art”

1

LowSlimBoot t1_j2du112 wrote

It’s called fuligin, that color which is darker than black

1

Iridium777 t1_j2dub1v wrote

I think we should call it black.

1

laaldiggaj t1_j2dzy78 wrote

Am I looking at it in the picture? Is it darker than vantablack?

1

Cycleofmadness t1_j2ebbap wrote

If this artist used vantablack, a BMW was also painted in it a couple yrs ago if you google it.

1

bluelion70 t1_j2ek6vy wrote

It’s called “slightly darker black”

1

childofGod423 t1_j2f048u wrote

It could be er cover up the light of God!

1

patfetes t1_j2f128r wrote

Anish Kapoor entered the chat

1

Corohr t1_j2f72py wrote

Does this look black to you too, Jerry?

1

Tonyclifton69 t1_j2fa7s2 wrote

Why is artistic project in quotes?

1

Johannes_P t1_j2fvrnj wrote

More seriously, I wonder how much solar panes would produce additional energy when coated with this.

1

milkysway1 t1_j2dlnct wrote

What about vanta black? That has a nice ring to it.

0

mic3ttaa OP t1_j2dm1dw wrote

It's just written in the article, this black is "blacker" than vantablack :)

3

Crade_ t1_j2dfuw7 wrote

So stupid..

−1

artisnotsubjective t1_j2cp5q8 wrote

Not a color, just texture

−3

NolanSyKinsley t1_j2cwn67 wrote

A texture that removes all color, and the absence of color is.... what's that? Oh, right, black. Butterfly wings are blue and iridescent, but they are not blue at all, they are actually just shiny, the blue comes from their structure refracting light, so to you "it's just a texture" and not a color? or can color be generated by a structure by manipulating light waves?

9

artisnotsubjective t1_j2d13nt wrote

Texture doesn't remove color. The absence of light does. No light equals no color.

−5

mic3ttaa OP t1_j2d3jhx wrote

Black does not reflect any light. A surface is called a reflective black surface if it has practically no diffuse reflection but a small amount of specular reflection. If you illuminate it with a small light source it will appear mostly black but will show a dim image of the light source.

4

paultron10110 t1_j2cqj04 wrote

Well technically all colors are texture/structure based

−2

NolanSyKinsley t1_j2cwxxw wrote

No, not at all, unless you count individual atoms themselves as structures, but even then it is not their structure but their field that emits the light. Blue iridescence on insects, butterflies and birds is created by microscopic structures, vanta black and this absorb all the light with their structure, all other colors are just pigments, the individual atoms emit the specific wavelengths of colors themselves regardless of how they are arranged in a structure.

3