Accept no imitations: Chemist protests appearance of fake snowflakes

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American


'Tis the season for snowstorms and for the holiday-themed artwork that references them. Snowflakes abound these days, even in places not buried in last weekend's East Coast blizzard—in advertisements, on Christmas cards, on paper cutouts made by schoolchildren.

But at least one scientist has a gripe: many of those so-called snowflakes bear little resemblance to the real thing. Specifically, these stylized flakes often have four, five or eight corners, whereas the real things have six, a structural trait that arises from water's crystallization into a hexagonal lattice when frozen.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


"Unfortunately, the grand diversity of naturally occurring snow crystals is commonly corrupted by incorrect 'designer' versions," chemist Thomas Koop of Bielefeld University in Germany writes in a brief missive to Nature published in the December 24/31 issue. (Scientific American is part of Nature Publishing Group.) As Koop points out, the six-sided nature of snowflakes has long been known. In 1611, for instance, German astronomer Johannes Kepler presented his patron with a unique gift to mark the new year: a treatise called On the Six-Cornered Snowflake.

One researcher who would likely second Koop's complaint is Kenneth Libbrecht, a physicist at the California Institute of Technology. Libbrecht maintains snowcrystals.com, a Web site devoted to snowflake photography and physics; the site even features a "morphology diagram" that shows how humidity and temperature converge to direct the formation of various snowflake types—all of them hexagonal. See some of Libbrecht's photographs, which show natural six-cornered snowflakes to be as intricate and lovely as anything an artist could dream up, in this 2008 slide show.

Nevertheless, the counterfeit flakes continue to proliferate—including, as Koop notes, in Nature's own advertising campaigns. "We who enjoy both science and captivating design," he writes, "should aim to melt away all four-, five- or eight-cornered snow crystals from cards, children's books and advertisements." But, despite his holiday grievance, the chemist is no grinch: "Let's welcome this as an opportunity to share a discussion about the true beauty of science over a mug of hot punch."

An example of an offending "designer" snowflake: ©iStockphoto/magicinfoto

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe