The Spaghetti Constant

Published June 22nd, 2009 by Bobby Henderson

I work as a scientist in the area of coating nanotechnology, or more precisely in the development of so called nano sputtering methods. Nano sputtering is a way to position single atoms or clusters of many atoms onto a surface to form a pattern with a nanometer thickness. Often the result is rather random; it is a little bit like firing off a shotgun against a wall with the atoms as shots. My research is aiming for methods to fine-tune the sputtering in order to achieve a desired pattern and thickness instead of just a random pattern, and I did recently a quite fantastic discovery I would like to disclose at your web site. An important parameter is the Diertmann-Zeigler value (d/z value) which easily can be understood as the lateral spin energy of the atom when the Möbier coefficient is set to 1 in the equation below:

When the d/z value is continually changed from 0.24 (which is focal zero point) to 9.56 (which is van Haank’s theoretical maximum) the achieved atom pattern should according to the theory be totally random. However, according to my findings there is one single value (d/z = 1.115) which does not give a random pattern, but always exactly the same pattern (see below).

The d/z value 1.115 is equal to π/e and obviously a natural constant which I hereby would like to denominate the spaghetti constant s.

Dr. Erik Ronne

60 Responses to “The Spaghetti Constant”

  1. OxkhamsRazor says:


  2. Dr. Erik Ronne says:

    Pip said “…which easily can be understood as the lateral spin energy of the atom when the Möbier coefficient is set to 1 in the equation below:” Right. Piece of cake. That didn’t make my brain explode or anything…

    Pip: I do admit that it is a rather rough (but indeed commonly accepted) approximation to simply set the Möbier coefficient to 1, and I do also understand that it might make the intuitive interpretation of the equation somewhat less obvious. However, without this approximation the mathematics become considerably more complex and the d/z value would only be possible to calculate by iterative methods. My feeling is that these calculations would be of less interest at this website, but if requested I would not hesitate to make them available for the community.

  3. CharlesV says:

    All hail his Noodly Holiness!

    In all seriousness, I don’t really understand how and why this particular atom pattern is being formed. I can’t really tell whether it is a true phenomenon or whether it is just a joke made for this website.

    But if it IS true, and there is now a constant that will be colloquially (or officially) called the spaghetti constant, I must give this my personal seal of approval and say that that IS ABSOLUTELY EPIC!

    o/ FSM

  4. Alison Robin says:

    @Luis- This is satire. Or it’s not. Because you can see how serious we are all the time (Eyeroll).

    @The Doctor- We owe you for this, but it’s been a long time since I’ve done any serious studying of anything “nano.” :( I need to dig out my old textbooks, but I think I got the gist of what you have said.

  5. waldo says:

    on seeing this i have remembered that a good friend of mine, while goofing off in his calc class made a very very good and detailed equation of the All Powerful FSM now i wish i had taken a picture but i must say this is a beautiful set proof

    Pastafarian M, Waldo

  6. Captain Red Tom says:

    That Noise war me brains fizzlin’ out like a sea-moistened torch Maitee! Alas, I be naught but I simple Pirate Captain and not a doctor is Physics, But the main picture be apparent!
    Long Live the FSM!
    Cap’m RedTom

  7. Francesc says:

    The FSM keeps playing with my data, or maybe Excel -Bill Gates again, I knew the maccarroni got him!- don’t want to acknowledge the True. Fact is, I keep having 1.16 as the result of Pi/e.

  8. Adrien Wayne says:

    Conversion is easy as 1, 2, 3 !!! All hail the FSM!!!

Leave a Reply