I, and possibly many others, have a liking for this phrase. It is a great non-sequitur. When people ask 'How long will the job take?' and the one being questioned chooses not to be tied to an exact answer, it is guaranteed to bring the conversation to an abrupt halt when used as a reply.
But this week, BBC's Horizon decided to produce an entire programme on this very subject, and sent off Alan Davies to find a definitive answer. ( For those of you puzzled by the name - he is an actor, comedian and well loved panellist on Steven Fry's QI (Question of Intelligence) quiz.)
Alan went to an ironmonger's shop, and persuaded them to sell him a random length of string, which he cut from their enormous roll. It measured 32cm when stretched against their counter's inbuilt rule.
This could have been the shortest programme the BBC ever broadcast.
However, once the scientists got involved, the result was an hour's worth of fascinating television. It soon became clear, accuracy depends on the method being used - so therefore, does the answer! A Professor got Alan to measure a length of coastline on a map, first with a straight rule, then with his piece of string, finally with a map-measuring device. Three methods each giving a different answer. We were soon into the realm of fractals, as Alan and the Professor drew triangles, in ever decreasing size but ever increasing in number, on the damp sand of a Cornish beach.
From here on the programme took on a science fiction aura, as viewers were shown examples of various standard weights and measures. They started with ancient cubits, then moved all the way through the centuries to an extremely expensive, one metre bar of platinum and iridium. This is kept at a constant temperature to ensure its length remains stable, thus providing a perfect standard metre to use as a comparison.
But there are now far more sophisticated ways of measuring length - by using lasers. A metal marker was held in turn at each end of Alan's string, as a robotic sensor marked these points, before giving an extremely accurate reading. It was marginally short of the 32cm, as the string had by now begun to fray, and Alan had held the markers slightly in from the end as a result! Finally, we saw the most accurate and up to date equipment of all, which uses the speed of light to determine length. According to this, Alan's piece of string equalled three billionths of a second…
From speed of light, we were next embroiled in the mind blowing field of quantum mechanics, where objects are theoretically said to be in several places at once. The length of Alan's string was becoming ever more complex to ascertain. By the end of the programme, as far as my overloaded brain circuitry could understand, it ended in a black hole with a length which stretched to infinity. I think I'll stick with the thirty two centimetre version, thank you, or maybe simply keep to the original question, 'How long is a piece of string?'.
ha, i didn't even know there was an answer for that one (32cm)... i always assumed the intent to be indefinable, indefinate, etc etc
ReplyDeleteWhat I recall with great affection of this phrase is a "Mechanical Drawing" lesson at school. The teacher asked a boy to describe a method for drawing an ellipse. The boy began "You stick two pins at either end of the long axis, then you get a piece of string..." At which point the teacher interrupted to ask: "How long is the string?" He replied: "Twice as long as from one end to the middle." Very cheeky for those days. The teacher leap-frogged over his desk with his blackboard compasses opened in imitation of a bayonet. Very modern for those days!
ReplyDeleteScience lessons and poetry! What a marvellous blog this is. :)
ReplyDeleteI think like with lots of things, the answer is relative and as long as the string buyer and seller agree on their measuring mechanism, there isn't a problem, just some fun mental acrobatics for those who live in ivory towers and drink tea.
jinksy - i was a poor student in school and certainly never understood science at all but i love (as an adult) building the knowledge that wasn't mine back then and overlaying it with the more current understanding. i love fractal geometry, quantum mechanics, the whole idea of relativity and strong theory - well string theory gives me shivers. but it isn't done yet of course - there's more!!!! steven
ReplyDeleteI think you're just stringing us along.
ReplyDeleteOH HOW I MISS THE BEEB!!! And how like them to have a show like this which is actually entertaining as well!! I miss Potter and Dad's Army...oh my, I wish I could see this...maybe BBC(America) will share!
ReplyDeletehugs
Sandi
jinksy...this is a brilliant blog. (Alliteration is accidental there...sorry.) But...I loved it so much...and to think the depths and lengths one can go to....and start with 'how long is a piece of string..'
ReplyDeleteI love this....very much.
Jackie
my my how the wheels will turn...i like your logic
ReplyDeleteGreat post jinksy, I think I will stick to "how long is a piece of string" always loved that answer and didn't have to think very much....I do enjoy those type of TV shows jinksy although we don't get the one you speak of in Canada........:-) Hugs
ReplyDeleteJinksy
ReplyDeleteI missed the programme. Maybe I can catch up on iPlayer.
In the meantime, I like Dave's explanation of "Twice as long as from one end to the middle." Seems to make sense, or it too obvious? Maths was never my strong point.
I used to think that the expression was a bit of a cop out, Jinksy - now, having read your blog I think my brain hurts - i shall not use the phrase lightly ever again!
ReplyDeleteThe "How long is a piece of String" conundrum was accepted logic in the halls of NATO when I worked for them.
ReplyDeleteBut, if you consider the other well accepted theory as to how NATO works, you will not be surprised.
It was often mooted that a task was, "Measured with a micrometer, marked with a piece of chalk and cut with a chainsaw."
A fair description of the workings of that august body in my opinion ...
Fascinating possibilities - thanks for the report! :-)
ReplyDeleteJinksy,
ReplyDeletethank you so much for sending Martin H over to my blog,
I feel truly honoured!
A wonderful weekend to you! :-)
Uh-oh, you lost me along the line, or should I say string?
ReplyDeleteSee, this is why British television is so much more interesting than American TV. You have whimsy.
ReplyDeleteOne of my favourite sayings!
ReplyDeleteA complex explanation though.
Nuts in May
Gosh, I'd probably have enjoyed that programme! Not only for the content, but for the delightful Alan Davies who never fails to endear himself to me with his little-boy charm.
ReplyDeleteSo. The string measured 32cm however you measured it, then? That's funny. LOL!
Jinksy Thank you for visiting my blog yesterday.
ReplyDeleteYou are welcome to participate in the Friday Flash 55. I'm sure I'll Love it...Galen
Hello Jinksy,
ReplyDeleteWe did have that programme on the tv screen but the sound was off at the time, so I'm glad to know the outcome!
WOW!Interesting that a whole program developed around a simple question! I'm with you however, I'll stick with the simpl3 measurement of 32cm
ReplyDeleteI'm chuckling!!!! Throw in several scientists and it all becomes terribly complex!!! My Dad would have loved it!!! But it does sound a bit muddled, and like an intellectual exercise in the absurd...lol...incredibly fun post, Jinksy!!! I'm walking away with a HUGE grin on my face this afternoon...you do find the most fascinating tidbits to write about!!! You never fail to entertain or delight! Love you!! Janine XO
ReplyDeleteI love this kind of programme, when one has no idea where it will go. I think Alan Davies is excellent, especially on QI. Wish I'd seen it.
ReplyDeleteFascinating! I would have loved to see this one. Thanks for sharing the condensed version.
ReplyDelete