The Golden Ratio in Nature -1

The Golden Ratio in the Human Body Moises Mora Taft College Stats 1510 Online

The Golden Ratio in Nature

Abstract The purpose of this project was to find out whether the human body contains golden ratio proportions. For this project I gathered data from a sample of 30 people. The data I retrieved from the sample were measurements of their arms and faces. Introduction The Golden ratio is visible in many places. The spirals on a sea shell, the number of branches growing on a small plant and even used on famous paintings. What is the golden ratio? The golden ratio comes from the Fibonacci Sequence. The Fibonacci Sequence is a sequence of numbers that are the result of adding the previous two (Various A). You start by adding 0 and 1. Then you add the result with 1 to get 2. After this, you add 2 with the previous number to get three and so on. Eventually you get a sequence {0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,34,55,89,}. From 13 on, you can divide any number by the previous number in the sequence and get what is known as the golden ratio. The golden ratio is approximately 1.61803. The golden ratio is said to be found on the human body as well. The most ideal proportion is equal to the ratio. In this project, I set out to collect sample measurements of the arm and face. With this data I will calculate how close the participants are to the golden ratio. I predict that most of the participants will have a proportion close to 1.61803. Method Thirty participants were chosen at random from the small town of New Cuyama, California, over a three month period. The participants consisted of locals and non-locals above the age of 21. The reason for this was to ensure our sample had a variety of fully grown adults. The data I gathered from them was the distance, in inches, from their elbow

The Golden Ratio in Nature

to the tips of their middle finger (EF) followed by the distance between the elbow to their wrist (EW). From this set of data, I was able to get an arm ratio from every single participant. The second set of measurements I took was the width (FW) of the participants face and the length (FL) of their face. Table 1 shows the raw data from the participants. All measurements were taken with a measuring tape and a 12 ruler. Results I entered the data into my TI-83 calculator. List one contained the measurements I got for the distance from the elbow to finger tips. List two contained the measurements I got for the distance from the elbow to wrist. In list three, I calculated the ratio of list one and two. I set list three to divide list one with list two. The results I got proved my hypothesis wrong. The EF and EW data gave me a mean of 1.6868. It is close to the golden ratio of 1.61803, but there is too much variance. The smallest ratio in the data set was 1.5454 and the largest was 1.8823. Both of these are to far from the golden ratio to be considered close. Table 2 provides the data acquired from the arm ratios. Table 2 N 30 Min 1.5454 Sum 50.6041 Q1 1.6363 Mean 1.6868 Med 1.6742 Pop. SD .0798 Q3 1.7500 Sample SD .0785 Max 1.8823

I repeated the process with the FW and FL data. The results from the face ratios was more extreme than the arm ratios. The mean for the face ratios was 1.3531. This is very far from our expected golden ratio of 1.61803. The smallest ratio in the set was 1.0909 and the largest was 1.6000. None of the ratios came even close. The arms ratio had a less variance

The Golden Ratio in Nature

and some of the ratios came extremely close to the golden ratio. Table 3 contains the results for the face ratios N 30 Min 1.0909 Sum 40.5945 Q1 1.2307 Mean 1.3531 Med 1.3484 Pop. SD .1403 Q3 1.4000 Sample SD .1379 Max 1.6000

Figure 1 contains two box plots comparing the two ratios data sets. The top box represents the arms ratio and shows a fairly normal, bell shaped distribution. The bottom represents the face ratios and is slightly skewed left.. As you can see, the face ratios had more variance and was spread out more than the arms ratio. You can also see how the bottom boxs whisker doesnt come close to the arms median, one of the closest to the golden ratio.

I had predicted that most people would have proportions that would fit the ratio 1.6180. No one was exact but I got a few people who were extremely close. What I did to test my hypothesis was to conduct a t-test on both of the ratio data sets. For both of the data sets, I got a p-value that was less then the alpha I had set up. But, why didnt the data even come

The Golden Ratio in Nature

close to determining if the human body had a golden ratio. Human error could have caused the data to be a bit skewed. Perhaps, if the measurements were taken from the exact start of the joint, the ratios would have been closer to the golden ratio. It seems that the only way to be sure is to collect a few hundred samples of all the available body parts.

The Golden Ratio in Nature

References Golden Ratio (4 October, 2009) Human Body. In Golden Ratio. Retrieved February 26, 2012, from http://goldenratio.wikidot.com/human-body Human Body (n.d) The Human Body. In Phi the golden ratio. Retrieved February 26, 2012, from http://www.goldennumber.net/body.htm Lamb, R. (n.d.) How are Fibonacci numbers expressed in nature?. In How Stuff Works. Retrieved February 26, 2012, from http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/life/evolution/fibonaccinature1.htm Various (A) (24 February, 2012) Fibonacci Number. In Wikipedia. Retrieved February 26, 2012, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fibonacci_number Various (B) (24 February, 2012) Golden Ratio. In Wikipedia. Retrieved February 26, 2012, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio

The Golden Ratio in Nature

Appendix Table 1. Raw Data Person # Elbow to Finger (in.) (EF) 18 17.5 15.5 17.5 18 16.5 17.5 18.5 16.5 16.5 16 15 16 17.5 17 16 17.5 18 Elbow to Wrist (in.) (EW) 11 10.5 9.5 10 11 9.5 10.5 11 10 10 9.5 9 9.5 10 11 9 11 10 Arm Ratio 1.6364 1.6667 1.6316 1.7500 1.6364 1.7368 1.6667 1.6818 1.6500 1.6500 1.6842 1.6667 1.6842 1.7500 1.5454 1.7778 1.5909 1.8000 Face Width (in.) (FW) 5.5 5 5.5 5.5 5 5 6 6.5 5 5 5.5 5 5.5 5.5 6 5.5 6 6.5 Face Length (in.) (FL) 7.5 7.5 7.5 6 8 6 8 8 7.5 8 7.5 7 7 6.5 7 6.5 8 9 Face Ratio 1.3636 1.5000 1.3636 1.09009 1.6000 1.2000 1.3333 1.2308 1.5000 1.6000 1.3636 1.4000 1.2727 1.1818 1.1667 1.1818 1.3333 1.3846

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

16 15.5 17 17 16.5 16 18 17.5 15.5 16 15.5

9.5 10 10 9.5 9 8.5 11 10 9 10 9.5

1.6842 1.5500 1.700 1.7895 1.8333 1.8824 1.6264 1.7500 1.7222 1.6000 1.6316

5 6.5 5 5.5 6 5 6.5 5 5.5 6 6

7 9 7.5 6.5 8 7 8.5 8 7 8 9.5

1.4000 1.3846 1.5 1.1818 1.3333 1.4000 1.3077 1.6 1.2727 1.33 1.5833

The Golden Ratio in Nature

30

17

10.5

1.6190

6.5

1.2308

Table 2. Arm Ratio 1-variable statistics N 30 Min 1.5454 Sum 50.6041 Q1 1.6363 Mean 1.6868 Med 1.6742 Pop. SD .0798 Q3 1.7500 Sample SD .0785 Max 1.8823

Table 3. Face Ratio 1-variable statistics N Sum 30 Min 1.0909 40.5945 Q1 1.2307

Mean 1.3531 Med 1.3484

Pop. SD .1403 Q3 1.4000

Sample SD .1379 Max 1.6000

Figure 1. Ratio box plots.

Null hypothesis: Mu = 1.61803 Alt. hypothesis: Mu does not equal 1.61803 Alpha= 0.05 Figure 2. Arm ratio Normal Plot to satisfy the T-test assumption

The Golden Ratio in Nature

T-test on a ti-83 plus gave a P-Value of 5.867E-5 therefore, we reject the null hypothesis. Same hypothesis as above. Figure 3. Face ratio Normal Plot to satisfy the T-test assumption

T-test on ti-83 plus gave a P-Value of 3.006E-11 Therefore, we reject the null hypothesis.