Golden Ratio Project: Phase Two

Stats 1510 Day Brian Jean By: Briana Lemmons

ABSTRACT

In this research project, I completed an analysis to nd out if the Golden Ratio

(1.618) does or does not in fact exist in the human body. To do this, I collected three different ratios from many people. I collected this data based on age, gender, and ethnicity and ran the appropriate tests to come to my conclusion.

INTRODUCTION

The Golden Ratio, also known as Phi, or 1.618, is known to show up in many

places of our daily lives. Many people believe that nature is constructed with the Golden Ratio, while others believe the Golden Ratio there by chance. The Golden Ratio can easily be calculated by dividing two signicant numbers. In this experiment, I decided to calculate three different types of Golden Ratios that are found on humans. My rst ratio calculated was Total Height of the person divided by their Height from Foot to Belly Button. My second ratio calculated was distance from Finger to Elbow divided by the distance from the Wrist to Elbow. My third ratio calculated was the Length of Face divided by the Width of Face. My hypothesis is that nature is, in fact, constructed with the Golden Ratio. I hypothesize that my data I collect for each Golden Ratio will prove this thought to be true.

METHODS

After conducting some research on the Golden Ratio, I decided to work with

three different ratios, as stated in the Introduction. My population of interest consists of 80 people, in which I broke down into groups. I separated the 80 people by Age, Gender, and Ethnicity. There are two groups within each Age category: Male and

Figure 1.1

Female. In each of these Gender

categories are Ethnic groups: Hispanic and White. : Males and Females. Figure 1.1 shows the breakdown of the groups, and also identies the sample size of each group to make up the population of interest. Both Age groups have an equal amount of people measured in the group, so all people selected to t each age group is representative of that age group. In Taft, Males make up almost half of the population, and Females make up almost half of the population. Also, the ethnicities "Hispanic" and "White" are dominant ethnicities in the town of Taft. Therefore, it's reasonable to assume that each sample is representative of the population. After choosing a population size, I went out and measured my population. Using a measuring tape, and calculating in inches, I carefully measured each of the three ratios on each individual. I entered my data into TC Stats and calculated each ratio in TC Stats. I then produced all of the necessary graphs to display my data.

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL RESULTS

LEGEND
RATIOS Ratio #1 Ratio #2 Ratio #3 Total Height / Height from Foot to Belly Button. Finger to Elbow / Wrist to Elbow. Length of Face / Width of Face.

AGE: Figure 2.1 (Box Plot for Grade School Ages)

Figure 2.2 (Summary Statistics for Grade School Age Group)

Figures 2.1 and 2.2 represent the Age category for Grade School (14yr - 18yr),

with a sample size of 40, which includes both genders of both ethnicities. This box plot gives us a lot of necessary information to answer our hypothesis. Looking at Figure 2.1 we see that Ratio #1 is bell shaped and seems to be the closest to the Golden Ratio. Ratio #2 is skewed left and is shown to have data that is very spread out, which could mean that it's far from the Golden Ratio. Ratio #3 is slightly skewed left and seems to

(DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL RESULTS Contd.)

have data just under the Golden Ratio. Figure 2.2, in many ways, is more valuable than the box plot because it is easier for the human eye to understand since it is in chart form and the numbers aren't displayed in graph form. Looking at the Summary Statistics in Figure 2.2, we can conclude that Ratio #1 is the closest to the Golden Ratio, while Ratio #2 is the farthest.

LEGEND
RATIOS Ratio #1 Ratio #2 Ratio #3 Total Height / Height from Foot to Belly Button. Finger to Elbow / Wrist to Elbow. Length of Face / Width of Face.

Figure 2.3 (Box Plot for College Age Group)

Figure 2.4 (Summary Statistics for College Age Group)

Figures 2.3 and 2.4 represent the Age category for College Age (19yr - 25yr),

with a sample size of 40, which includes both genders of both ethnicities. Looking at

(DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL RESULTS Contd.)

Figure 2.3 we see that looks very similar to gure 2.1. Looking at the box plot, Ratio #1 is bell shaped and seems to be the closest to the Golden Ratio. Ratio #2 is skewed left and is shown to have data that is very spread out, which could mean that it's far from the Golden Ratio. Ratio #3 is skewed right seems to have data just under the Golden Ratio. Looking at the Summary Statistics in Figure 2.4, we can conclude that Ratio #1 is the closest to the Golden Ratio, while Ratio #2 is the farthest.

LEGEND
RATIOS Ratio #1 Ratio #2 Ratio #3 Total Height / Height from Foot to Belly Button. Finger to Elbow / Wrist to Elbow. Length of Face / Width of Face.

GENDER: Figure 3.1 (Box Plot Males)

Figure 3.2 (Summary Statistics for Males)

(DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL RESULTS Contd.) Figures 3.1 and 3.2 represent the Gender category for Males, with a sample size of 40, which includes both ages and ethnicities. Figure 3.1 is different from what we've seen so far in the box plot graphs. There is no data below 1. When we look at Ratio #1 on the box plot, we notice it is bell shaped, and seems to be close to the Golden Ratio. Ratio #2 is skewed right and seems to have data just under the Golden Ratio. Ratio #3 is skewed left and is difcult to judge if it's close to the Golden Ratio or not. Looking at the Summary Statistics in Figure 3.2, we can conclude that Ratio #1 is the closest to the Golden Ratio, while Ratio #3 is the farthest.

LEGEND
RATIOS Ratio #1 Ratio #2 Ratio #3 Total Height / Height from Foot to Belly Button. Finger to Elbow / Wrist to Elbow. Length of Face / Width of Face.

Figure 3.3 (Box Plot Females)

Figure 3.4 (Summary Statistics for Females)

(DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL RESULTS Contd.)

Figures 3.3 and 3.4 represent the Gender category for Females, with a sample

size of 40, which includes both ages and ethnicities. When we look at the box plot, we notice Ratio #1 is bell shaped, and seems to be close to the Golden Ratio. Ratio #2 is skewed left and seems to have data right around the Golden Ratio. When we look at Ratio #3 on the box plot, we notice that the mean and the 3rd Quartile are the same. We also notice that Ratio #3 is skewed right and is difcult to judge if it's close to the Golden Ratio or not. Looking at the Summary Statistics in Figure 3.4, we can conclude that Ratio #1 is the closest to the Golden Ratio, while Ratio #3 is the farthest. ETHNICITY:

LEGEND
RATIOS Ratio #1 Ratio #2 Ratio #3 Total Height / Height from Foot to Belly Button. Finger to Elbow / Wrist to Elbow. Length of Face / Width of Face.

Figure 4.1 Box Plot (Hispanic)

Figure 4.2 (Summary Statistics for Hispanic)

(DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL RESULTS Contd.)

Figures 4.1 and 4.2 represent the Ethnicity category for Hispanic ethnicities,

with a sample size of 40, which includes both ages and genders. When we look at Ratio #1 on the box plot, we notice that Ratio #1 is bell shaped, and seems to be close to the Golden Ratio. Ratio #2 is skewed left and seems to have data right around the Golden Ratio. Ratio #3 is skewed right and looks like the data might be right under the Golden Ratio. Looking at the Summary Statistics in Figure 4.2, we can conclude that Ratio #1 is the closest to the Golden Ratio, while Ratio #3 is the farthest.

LEGEND
RATIOS Ratio #1 Ratio #2 Ratio #3 Total Height / Height from Foot to Belly Button. Finger to Elbow / Wrist to Elbow. Length of Face / Width of Face.

Figure 4.3 Box Plot (White)

Figure 4.4 (Summary Statistics for White)

(DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL RESULTS Contd.) Figures 4.3 and 4.4 represent the Ethnicity category for White ethnicities, with a

sample size of 40, which includes both ages and genders. When we look at Ratio #1 on the box plot, we notice that Ratio #1 is bell shaped, and seems to be close to the Golden Ratio. Ratio #2 is skewed left and seems to have data right above the Golden Ratio. Ratio #3 is bell shaped and the data is hard to determine. Looking at the Summary Statistics in Figure 4.4, we can conclude that Ratio #2 is the closest to the Golden Ratio, while Ratio #3 is the farthest.

INFERENTIAL STATISTICAL RESULTS

Ratio #1: After conducting a 1-Sample T-test on this ratio, the following data was recorded: P-Value: 5.526 E-05 C.I.: (1.5859,1.6063) This ratio has a very low P-Value, and the Golden Ratio (1.618) is nowhere to be

found in the C.I., so that suggests that there are some differences in this particular ratio. I will continue by conducting a 2-Sample T-test with each group to gure out where the differences are within this ratio. Ratio #2: After conducting a 1-Sample T-test on this ratio, the following data was recorded: P-Value: 0.18060 C.I.: (1.6036,1.6911) This ratio has a very high P-Value, and the Golden Ratio (1.618) is located within

the C.I., so that suggests that this ratio is very similar to the Golden Ratio. Ratio #3: After conducting a 1-Sample T-test on this ratio, the following data was recorded: P-Value: 7.868 E -18 C.I.: (1.3925, 1.4610) This ratio has a very low P-Value, and the Golden Ratio (1.618) is nowhere to be

found in the C.I., so that suggests that there are some differences in this particular ratio. I will continue by conducting a 2-Sample T-test with each group to gure out where the differences are within this ratio.

(INFERENTIAL STATISTICAL RESULTS Contd.) Determining Differences: The groups that I plan to compare are: Age, Gender, and Race. I will compare these groups with Ratio #1 and Ratio #3 (not Ratio #2, because the Golden Ratio was located within the Condence Interval) to see if there are any differences between the groups.

Assumptions for a 2-Sample T-test: 1. The sample data was obtained from two independent populations. (YES. This assumption is satised.) 2. The distributions of both populations are normal. (YES. This assumption is satised by the CLT.)

RATIO #1: (Comparing College Age v.s. Grade School Age) F-test P-Value: 0.7372 This P-Value is very high so we will pool the variances. The P-Value for the 2-Sample T-test is 0.4813 CONCLUSION: Since the P-Value is so high, that suggests that there is a difference somewhere in this ratio that is making the value go far from the Golden Ratio value of 1.618.

(Comparing Male v.s. Female) F-test P-Value: 0.3640 This P-Value is very high so we will pool the variances. The P-Value for the 2-Sample T-test is 0.7431 CONCLUSION: since the P-Value is so high, that suggests that there is a difference somewhere in this ratio that is making the value go far from the Golden Ratio value of 1.618.

(INFERENTIAL STATISTICAL RESULTS Contd.) (Comparing White v.s. Hispanic) F-test P-Value: 0.5962 This P-Value is very high so we will pool the variances. The P-Value for the 2-Sample T-test is 0.7134 CONCLUSION: Since the P-Value is so high, that suggests that there is a difference somewhere in this ratio that is making the value go far from the Golden Ratio value of 1.618.

RATIO #3: (Comparing College Age v.s. Grade School Age) F-Test P-Value: 0.3620 This P-Value is very high so we will pool the variances. The P-Value for the 2-Sample T-test is 0.3762 CONCLUSION: Since the P-Value is so high, that suggests that there is a difference somewhere in this ratio that is making the value go far from the Golden Ratio value of 1.618.

(Comparing Male vs Female) F-test P-Value: 3.386 E-08 This P-value is very low, so we will not pool the variances. The P-Value for the 2-Sample T-test is 0.0765. CONCLUSION: Even though this P-Value is close to alpha, it's still higher than the value of alpha so that suggests that there is a difference somewhere in this ratio that is making the value go far from the Golden Ratio value of 1.618.

(Comparing White v.s. Hispanic) F-test P-Value: 0.0613 This P-Value is very high so we will pool the variances. The P-Value for the 2-Sample T-test is 0.3514 CONCLUSION: Since the P-Value is so high, that suggests that there is a difference somewhere in this ratio that is making the value go far from the Golden Ratio value of 1.618.

Bibliography

Angie Greek (2007, November 23). The Golden Mean. Retrieved February 15, 2012 from http://youtu.be/2zWivbG0RIo

Biziarek (2007, May 11). The Fingerprint of God. Retrieved February 21, 2012 from http://youtu.be/-Ibc8sD5sgw

Bricke321 (2008, September 25). Golden Ratio. Retrieved February 12, 2012 from http://youtu.be/fmaVqkR0ZXg

High Flying Dutchman (2008, September 18). Golden Ratio in Human Body. Retrieved February 17, 2012, from http://youtu.be/085KSyQVb-U

Kahn Academy (2011, October 5). The Golden Ratio. Retrieved February 12, 2012, from http://youtu.be/5zosU6XTgSY

Science Vs. Evolution (2010, May 10). The golden ratio in the human face. Retrieved February 17, 2012 from http://youtu.be/Wy6cqVUloJQ

Yaratilistr (2010, March 28). Golden Ratio in Human Body 1.618. Retrieved February 09, 2012 from http://youtu.be/PNQk_GJuZQo

Appendix

Turned in hand-written Appendix.