The golden ratio

The proportions of the golden ratio pop up in all sorts of places. They are a handy shortcut to make something we seem to innately find pleasingly proportioned. In Nature, the golden spiral abounds across the shell of the nautilus, the spiral of strawberry seeds, the spikes of cacti, and hurricanes. It’s found in the Pyramids and the Parthenon, the Mona Lisa, violins, photography and, very deliberately, in corporate logos. No wonder it’s sometimes called the golden ratio of beauty. There’s a pleasing simplicity to the equation too, where the ratio of the long over the short dimension is the same as both added together over the long dimension.

Check out some golden ratio examples . Even Trump .

Published 7 Nov 2016

A weekly sketch by email

Learn something new in a sketch each Sunday

Sketchplanations in a book! I think you'll love Big Ideas Little Pictures

Prefer to listen?
Try the podcast

Like Sketchplanations?
Support me on Patreon

Keep exploring

Square cube law illustration with volume increasing faster than length and an elephant, an ant carrying a giant leaf and a child on the monkey bars as examples

The Square-Cube law

Hofstadter’s Law

The coastline paradox

The Writer's in the Writing. The Artist's in the Art.

Detecting prostate cancer summary - how screening for prostate cancer has changed DRA, PSA blood test and MRI screening compared in the old way and new way

Detecting prostate cancer: old way, new way

Metcalfe’s Law

For years, I’ve wondered at how as a kid I found the monkey bars in a playground (often a jungle gym in the US) so much easier to swing on than I do as an adult. And I see our kids swinging around easily on them, while now it’s hard for me just to hang off them. The reason why is partly to do with the square-cube law. The square-cube law is the deceptively simple observation that as you scale up dimensions — say, as you get taller — then area of the object increases proportional to the square of the length, while volume increases proportional to the cube of length. This fundamental relationship has enormous significance in the sizes and shapes of animals and the limits of how big trees can get and how big we can build our bridges and buildings. Because the strength of our bones, muscles or wooden beams is proportional to their cross-sectional area, this means that while the strength of a larger object, assuming the same proportions as the smaller one, increases according to the square of a length, the weight (from the volume it takes up) increases according to the cube of a length. So, relative strength decreases as size increases. Some corollaries are therefore that children’s small size relative to the area of their muscles and bones makes them relatively stronger than adults and so they can more easily support their weight as they swing on the monkey bars. In the same way, press ups are harder for bigger people than they are for smaller. And while an ant has tiny spindly legs, those legs could easily support 50 other ants of its size, whereas for an elephant to support its own weight it needs chunky legs — not spindly ones — and there’s no chance it could get close to carrying 50 other elephants on its back. It’s also part of the reason short trees can be spindly, but big sequoias have relatively chunkier trunks, and we need increasingly strong materials to build bigger and bigger skyscrapers compared to the shed in your garden. Galileo discussed this back in 1638, and it still requires some getting your head around today. For this and other fascinating insights of scaling check out Scale, by Geoffrey West. Also see: Buoyancy…For years, I’ve wondered at how as a kid I found the monkey bars in a playground (often a jungle gym in the US) so much easier to swing on than I do as an adult. And I see our kids swinging around easily on them, while now it’s hard for me just to hang off them. The reason why is partly to do with the square-cube law. The square-cube law is the deceptively simple observation that as you scale up dimensions — say, as you get taller — then area of the object increases proportional to the square of the length, while volume increases proportional to the cube of length. This fundamental relationship has enormous significance in the sizes and shapes of animals and the limits of how big trees can get and how big we can build our bridges and buildings. Because the strength of our bones, muscles or wooden beams is proportional to their cross-sectional area, this means that while the strength of a larger object, assuming the same proportions as the smaller one, increases according to the square of a length, the weight (from the volume it takes up) increases according to the cube of a length. So, relative strength decreases as size increases. Some corollaries are therefore that children’s small size relative to the area of their muscles and bones makes them relatively stronger than adults and so they can more easily support their weight as they swing on the monkey bars. In the same way, press ups are harder for bigger people than they are for smaller. And while an ant has tiny spindly legs, those legs could easily support 50 other ants of its size, whereas for an elephant to support its own weight it needs chunky legs — not spindly ones — and there’s no chance it could get close to carrying 50 other elephants on its back. It’s also part of the reason short trees can be spindly, but big sequoias have relatively chunkier trunks, and we need increasingly strong materials to build bigger and bigger skyscrapers compared to the shed in your garden. Galileo discussed this back in 1638, and it still requires some getting your head around today. For this and other fascinating insights of scaling check out Scale, by Geoffrey West. Also see: Buoyancy

Newer

RRandom

Older