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. Dr. Erik Ronne says:

    Detcader wrote “According to Wolfram, pi/e = 1.1557273497909217179100931833126962991208510231644158204997…
    You sure it’s 1.155, or 1.115?”

    Your comment on the quotient of п divided with e is relevant and a short explanation is indeed needed. As we all remember from the school book Euclidean trigonometry the approximate value of п is ~3.141592…, hence п/e is equal to ~1.155727349790… Quite correct. I appreciate your sharp-eyed accuracy. However, this approximation is only true in Newton’s classical three dimensional universe, or more precisely at the two dimensional Euclidean surface. In quantum mechanics especially at relativistic speeds close to the speed of light one has to calculate п not only in two or three dimensions but in four with the time as the fourth dimension. This four dimensional room, often called spacetime, exhibits a curvature around gravimetric centrums such as the sputtered gold atoms, as when you place a billiard ball on a rubber sheet. This phenomena will bend the two dimensional Euclidean circle into a so called dis-focal super concave circle, having a slightly different relation between radius and area. From the equation A = r2 * п we can easily calculated the Euclidean п to ~3.1415… However, when the same equation is applied to a super concave circle the approximate value of п will instead be ~3.030884239…, hence giving the sugested spaghetti constant s. To distinguish between the Euclidean п and the relativistic super concave п the latter is sometimes denoted with the pi-character turned upside down: ц. I should of have done that, but I thought it was quite obvious from the context that it was the super concave п I was referring to. Thanks anyway.

    The precision was also brought up to discussion. Both п and ц are irrational and can therefore only be approximated, and that is also true for the d/z value as well as for the proposed spaghetti constant s, at least when the Möbier coefficient is set to 1 (see the discussion in earlier comments). I assume that n.nnn? allude to said irrationality, which I prefer to denote by writing ~n.nnn… If I anywhere in the text has written n.nnn insteat of ~n.nnn… it was simply due to my eagerness to disclose my results, and it should be read ~n.nnn….

  2. Matt says:

    For I have been touched by His Noodley Appendage, Ramen.

  3. Nick says:

    I feel sort of bad saying this, but to those of you who are uncertain as to whether this is true or not, I can assert only that I have found no evidence of either the “Möbier coefficient” or “Diertmann-Zeigler”. Add to that how pi/e is not the stated value (a mistake no self-respecting physicist would make, I assure you), and the evidence is fairly conclusive. I would love to be proved otherwise, though.

    This is a nice idea, and a fairly convincing piece of satire. Perhaps too convincing; it sort of misses the satire mark.

  4. I found Waldo! says:

    Thou shalt be touched by his noodly appearance.

  5. Andrew says:

    This is truly awesome. Thank you for sharing with your fellow pastafarians. Every day my belief in FSM and His Noodly Appendages grows stronger.

  6. Derek says:

    This is undoubtedly the coolest FSM-related thing I have ever heard. Think about how cool it is that of all the nonrandom patterns that could have appeared, the one that did resembles the FSM! Holy Crap, that is so awesome. Especially because the number is π/e, that just adds significance.

  7. Science says:

    you all have got to be kidding me. jesus is more believable than this shit. i dont mean to insult anyones beliefs bu seriously, its just a cluster of dots. this “FSM” is ridiculous

  8. sir jorge says:

    this is insane, truly insane, i love it!

Leave a Reply