Skip to main content

Chinese whispers on the web

I've never really seen the point of the 'game' Chinese whispers. The one where you pass a whispered message down a chain of people and supposedly at the other end it comes out garbled. But there's one way that the World Wide Web (doesn't it look old fashioned to say 'World Wide Web' now?) can perform an interesting variant on this.

When a few years ago I wrote my book Light Years, I incorporated a little quote from Max Planck. Planck was responsible for the fundamental concept that started off quantum theory - that light comes in little packets or 'quanta' rather than as a continuous wave - but he was not happy with it as a real concept. It was only a fudge to make the maths work.

The quote I used is this:

 The whole procedure was an act of despair because a theoretical interpretation had to be found at any price, no matter how high that may be.

According to lots of  websites (and a fair number of books), Planck wrote this in a letter in 1901. But none of those quoting it ever say who it was a letter to. After some digging around I discovered that almost everything is wrong here. It's not an exact quote, but rather a conflation of two parts of what he wrote with a spurious link. It should read:

In short, I can characterize the whole procedure as an act of despair, since, by nature I am peaceable and opposed to doubtful adventures… a theoretical interpretation had to be found at any price, however high it might be.

This was written by Planck in 1931, 30 years after its usual attribution, in a letter to the American physicist Robert Williams Wood.

Of itself this isn't earth-shattering. The sentiment is right and the date is a nice-to-know rather than anything of great significance. But it illustrates well what happens all too easily online. Someone (it could well be the usually excellent St Andrew's biographies of mathematicians) put the original quote in (perhaps from memory, given the lack of a reference). Other sites copied this. It gradually took on the nature of semi-fact, because quite a few respectable sources had it in this form.

I'm not saying because of this that the web is universally a dubious source of information. There's lots of good stuff out there. But it does show how easy it is for an error to take on a false sense of correctness through repetition. (Climate sceptics take note.)

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope