Saturday, March 12, 2022

Pi Day: Is there a Connection Between Meandering Rivers and Pi?

                     Welcome back!


        Partial Ellipsis of the Sun has been on a bit of a hiatus

but we're back just before Pi Day, 3/14/23.  You'll notice new comment form verbiage near your comment box. We're hoping for more regularity in our posts in 2023 as we approach our ten year blogiversary this October.

       

   


      A 1996 article in Science by Hans-Henrik Stolum posited that theoretically there may be a connection between the average overall lengths of rivers and pi. The authors saw an average variability in "wiggliness" or meandering vs. a straight line that approached 3.14. Noting the circular nature of the bends (which often become oxbows over time) compared to a straight line, this seems plausible.   





I was curious that this correlation has not been cited in extensive further research. This 2015 article by James Grime discusses those results:






   "Of the many weird and wonderful facts about pi, one of my favourites is a surprising connection between the number 3.14 and the world around us.

    It’s about rivers. Or more precisely, the bendiness of rivers.

    One can measure how “bendy” a river is by measuring its total length and dividing by straight route from its source to mouth, this measure is called “sinuosity”. So a totally straight river would have a sinuosity of 1, while very bendy rivers can have very high sinuosity, with no limit to how high it can go."



      Hans-Henrik Stølum, in the 1996 paper cited above, used empirical data and simulation to study the behavior of a river’s form over time, noting that the value of sinuosity tended to oscillate between a low-value of 2.7 and a high-value of 3.5, but with an average sinuosity of 3.14.

      "Stølum justified this result using fractal geometry. This is the idea that if the bends of a river can be approximated by arcs of circles, and the little wiggles of a river by arcs of smaller circles, then the sinuosity of the river can be calculated to be pi."




        After looking at Google Earth and other sources, including crowdsourcing via PiMeARiver.com for a small sample of only 258 rivers, Grime found the average sinuosity was 1.94.

        The close distribution of the data is evidence that the average sinuosity of rivers is around 1.94 in his small data set.

         "Bends in rivers are caused by erosion. As the water moves faster on the outside of a bend more erosion occurs, while soil deposits on the inside of a bend. This causes bends in rivers to become increasing more wild, increasing its sinuosity – until the bend becomes so extreme that the water can take a shortcut, cutting of the bend and forming an oxbow lake."



        "The formation of an oxbow lake results in that section of the river suddenly becoming straight, lowering sinuosity. So it is erosion and the formation of oxbow lakes that are the two driving forces behind a river’s sinuosity. Over time this results in rivers behaving chaotically, with the value of sinuosity oscillating between high and low values. It was while studying this chaotic behavior that Stølum first noticed the value of pi."





        "If the true value of average river sinuosity is smaller than pi, maybe we need to consider another mathematical constant? Like the golden ratio, aka phi (1.618)  which is also found in the fractal behavior of nature. This phi value of 1.618; the ratio of pi/phi is 3.14/1.618 we get 1.94." Grimes questions "Coincidence, or something more?"

           Or -- we definitely need more data!



         Simon Singh discusses pi and rivers in his book Fermat's Enigma: The Epic Quest to Solve the World's Greatest Mathematical Problem.

          Citing Stølum’s finding, Singh notes:

"The number pi was originally derived from the geometry of circles, and yet it reappears over and over again in a variety of scientific circumstances. In the case of the river ratio, the appearance of pi is the result of a battle between order and chaos. Einstein was the first to suggest that rivers have a tendency toward an ever more loopy path because the slightest curve will lead to faster currents on the outer side, which will in turn result in more erosion and a sharper bend. The sharper the bend, the faster the currents on the outer edge, the more the erosion, the more the river will twist, and so on. However, there is a natural process that will curtail the chaos: increasing loopiness will result in rivers doubling back on themselves and effectively short-circuiting. The river will become straighter and the loop will be left to one side, forming an oxbow lake. The balance between these two opposing factors leads to an average ratio of pi between the actual length and the direct distance between source and mouth."


           Chaos and order:   What are your thoughts on pi and rivers?


            HAVE A GREAT PI DAY!

 

44 comments:

  1. Hmmm, I'm not sure why the blog time/date stamp was not updated to today, 3/8/23.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It seems to me, based on no numerical analysis at all, that the sinuosity of a river has to depend on things like the flow rate, variability of flow, and the "hardness" (strength, resistance to erosion) of the land through which it's flowing, which would imply that the concept of "average" sinuosity wouldn't be very meaningful.

    Welcome back, WW!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. jan, I tend to agree with you. The lab results from the 1996 study didn't account for varying materials.

      Welcome back to you, too!

      Delete
    2. In concert with flow rate and variability of flow...

      Delete
    3. And somewhat related is the amount of additional scouring materials (e.g. rocks) that are being carried from upstream.

      Great to see PEOTS again!

      Delete
    4. I wonder why it had me as Anonymous above...

      Delete
  3. Not all who meander are rivers. Consider Swiss International Air Lines Flight 161, a daily Boeing 777 from Tokyo to Zurich. All things being equal, commercial planes usually fly a Great Circle route, in this case a bit under 6000 miles, straight across Russia, the Baltics, Poland, and Germany. But, Russia's at war, and most Western airliners are avoiding overflights. Okay, then, a little dogleg around North Korea, then across China, Mongolia, the Stans, Georgia, Turkey, Romania, etc. Adds about 900 miles. But, no. What that flight's been doing instead is head northeast from Japan, skirting Kamchatka, then hang a sharp left over the Bering Sea and head northwest over the Arctic Ocean, and then down over Norway, adding over 1900 miles to the Great Circle distance. Why?

    At first, I thought they were also avoiding China, but, no, they fly to China, over the Stans, etc. Then, I thought to wonder about what the jet stream is doing now. Turns out, it actually favors that weird arctic route. I haven't confirmed this idea with any Swiss flight dispatchers, but I know that commercial flights have been using the jet stream for the past 70 years.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What a bizarre Arctic route! Thanks for that link.

      Delete
  4. Yesterday, Israel launch Ofek-13, the latest in a series of reconnaissance satellites, from an airbase on the Mediterranean coast.

    While most satellites are launched eastward to gain a boost from the Earth's rotational speed, Ofeq satellites are launched westward (in retrograde orbits), because Hebrew is written from right to left.

    (Actually, to avoid flying over, and dropping spent rocket stages over, populated land areas.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You had me for a moment. Especially since I'm in April Fool's Day mode today.

      Delete
  5. Can I climb up on this soapbox for a moment to complain about a couple of space lies in the news?

    First, despite their headlines, NASA isn't sending anyone to the moon any time soon. Certainly not the diverse group of four men/woman/white/Black/American/Canadian astronauts they just named. At best, they home to be going near the moon sometime next year, or more likely, the year after that. No moon rocks or, really, any new scientific data coming back from that trip. Just 4 people in a can going where plenty have gone before. Which maybe would be okay if this were just one small step awaiting only delivery of the almost-ready-to-go moon lander needed for those last few miles to the surface, except that doesn't exist.

    Which brings me to lie #2, Elon Musk's SpaceX upcoming Starship orbital test. Which isn't going to be an orbital test at all, but a sub-orbital, almost-once-around test of the craft that's the basis of SpaceX's Starship HLS (Human Landing System) moon lander. It's gonna launch eastward from the Tex/Mex border (this ain't Israel, after all), and, without the usual required orbital circularization burn or de-orbit (retro) burn, will land in the Pacific. Much less delta-V needed than a real flight to orbit, and no test of the ability to start or restart engines in space. (There's some reason to believe that Musk is thinking of trying to commercialize suborbital Starship flights.)

    This is the 50-meter tall (plus booster) craft that, under Musk's plan, is going to land astronauts on the moon (don't worry about that big step; it'll have an elevator to get them to the surface), and take them off again, in a single stage. It'll get to lunar orbit after being refuelled in Earth orbit by between 4 and 14 tanker versions of the same basic Starship, after which the astronauts will transfer from an Artemis spacecraft, to which they'll return for the trip home. Easy peasy.

    By the time of Apollo 8 (the 1968 version of the Artemis mission NASA just announced), the design of the Apollo Lunar Module had been nailed down, and versions flown uncrewed several times. This time, all NASA has is vaporware.

    Flame off.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. jan, I had only heard of the first space lie. The second one is a doozy. Thanks for getting on your soap box at PEOTS!

      Delete
    2. That should have been "hope", not "home", above.

      Also, Musk's Starship looks too much like a Buck Rogers rocket to be taken seriously.

      Delete
    3. If SpaceX moved their launch pad just 2000 feet east, they'd solve this problem.

      Delete
    4. The most unfortunate placement of the launch pad made an unnecessary mess. Who oversees these decisions? Why wasn't this outcome planned for and avoided? (I could not read the whole article but I think I know the answer).

      Delete
    5. For all large rockets (e.g., Saturn V, Space Shuttle, and the new Space Launch System for Artemis), NASA has always used a massive sound suppression system, involving huge amounts of water being dumped into a pit below the base of the launch pad. The water is turned instantly to steam, absorbing the acoustic energy and preventing damage to the pad and, more importantly, the rocket itself. (An early Shuttle launch, before improvements to the sound suppression system, resulted in the loss or damage of over 150 of the heat shielding tiles from the Orbiter.)

      A thousand feet from the SpaceX launch pad is the shore of the Gulf of Mexico. Building a launch pad a little ways out into the water, with an inexpensive bridge or causeway to the SpaceX facilities, would eliminate the fallout from the launch (and much of the noise), and might leave enough of the rocket intact for a successful flight.

      Delete
    6. It's not like Musk had no clue that this might be a bad idea. He tweeted on October 7, 2020, "Aspiring to have no flame diverter in Boca, but this could turn out to be a mistake".

      Delete
    7. Musk had a clue...but did not care.

      Delete
  6. Replies
    1. More frightening news. Although, the humor in naming AMOC with that initialism is much appreciated.

      Delete
  7. [From today's Metropolitan Diary, in the New York Times]

    The Elusive Ellipsis

    From Park Slope to Poughkipsiss,
    Better fear the sly Ellipsis,
    Since this piece of punctuation acts borracho, boozed, besotted.
    Vaguely vacuous? Contraire!
    Knows full well why it is there,
    Disingenuous, duplicitous and dotted.

    These egotistical ellipses,
    They do not shoot from their hipsees,
    Omitting words and phrases that to them reek of redundance.
    While parentheses appease you,
    (Adding meaning, sure to please you)
    Ellipsis says, “Cut to the chase, enough is not abundance.

    Who needs words that are superfluous,
    Like chocolate on a Charlotte Russe,
    When anyone can understand the clues in context lurking.”
    And so, they never hesitate,
    To edit and manipulate:
    “You do not need to spell it out when dialogue is working.”

    Truth be told, it’s tough to fathom,
    Had I a choice, I’d really rathom,
    Simply finish up the sentence though the meaning is implicit.
    Reader, draw your own conclusion,
    And eschew the rude intrusion,
    Eclipsis the ellipsis and you will not be complicit.

    I could go on and on, but why?
    I took the road less traveled by,
    And that has made all the inference …

    — Lou Craft

    ReplyDelete
  8. So, I picked my granddaughter up from school yesterday, and noticed her pink leggings were printed with "ScIENCe is cool" down on leg, with the letters of "science" in boxes made to look like elements of the periodic table. "Sc" was identified as element 21, Scandium, "I" as Iodine atomic number 53, "E" as Electrone, 99, "N" as Nitrogen, 7, and "Ce" as Cerium, 58. Wait, what? "Electrone?" Element 99 is Einsteinium, symbol "Es". I can find no reference anywhere to "Electrone". I did find that the symbol proposed for Einsteinium was originally just "E', before IUPAC changed it to "Es". I also learned that, as the element was first identified (along with element 100, Fermium) by Albert Ghiorso's group at Cal , in fallout from the Ivy Mike H-bomb test, which had been developed as part of a project codenamed "Panda", that the name "Pandamonium" was proposed, but never taken too seriously. A group in Sweden also synthesized elements 99 and 100 at about the same time, but the Berkeley group's priority was recognized.

    Any ideas where the kids' pants maker came up with "Electrone"? Could that have been what the Stockholm physics group wanted to call element 99? Should I not be reading my granddaughter's tights so critically?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I looked around around a bit for "Electrone" and also came up empty. What a weird concoction. It is cool to see the "ScIENCe is cool" on leggings, though. Lots and lots of them on Etsy.

      Delete
  9. OK, it's over 12 years old, but the Antikythera mechanism is, like, our third favorite thing, after tardigrades and honeycombs.

    If you're obsessive, a little searching turns up assembly instructions, as well as a video of a much simpler version that required 3-d printing custom plastic gears (because, for some reason, Lego doesn't make gears with a large prime number of teeth).

    ReplyDelete
  10. So cool. And yes, those are the top three favorite things here.

    ReplyDelete
  11. What's an Antarctican sound like?

    (Short answer: other Antarcticans.)

    I'd imagine the convergence they report is greater among members of a linguistically heterogenous group, like international Antarctic scientists, than among other isolated groups that start out speaking more similarly. (Do long-duration ISS astronauts and cosmonauts develop Russo-American accents?)

    I know one of the researcher cited in the references.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I guess this makes the Chicxulub crater impact The Little Whack?

    The first thing that occurred to me, watching the impact animation, was that that didn't look like the rocky Earth I'm familiar with. "O, that this too too solid flesh would melt." That must have been quite a whack!

    ReplyDelete
  13. jan, I was only able to read a few paragraphs before hitting the paywall. Ozone Ouch!

    ReplyDelete
  14. Thanks, jan! Those are fun. Quite the wingdings!

    ReplyDelete
  15. Don't know why I haven't stopped by sooner.

    ReplyDelete

So glad you visited Partial Ellipsis of the Sun! Please leave a comment and come back soon!