Re: UK science answers

From: gordon brown (
Date: Tue May 06 2003 - 13:50:27 EDT

  • Next message: Robert Schneider: "Re: Jesus or Barabbas"

    On Tue, 6 May 2003, Gary Collins wrote:

    > And in a similar vein,
    > This is apparently one of Magnus Magnusson's favourite after-dinner stories, but originally came
    > from the "Engineers Weekly" of Denmark, and illustrates the virtues - and pitfalls - of "thinking for
    > oneself". It concerns the following question in a physics degree exam at the University of Copenhagen:
    > "Describe how to determine the height of a skyscraper with a barometer."
    > One enterprising student replied: "You tie a long piece of string to the neck of the barometer, then lower
    > the barometer from the roof of the skyscraper to the ground. The length of the string plus the length of the
    > barometer will equal the height of the building." This highly original answer so incensed the examiner that
    > the student was failed immediately. The student appealed, on the grounds that his answer was indisputably
    > correct, and the university appointed an independent arbiter to decide the case.
    > The arbiter judged that the answer was indeed correct, but did not display any noticeable knowledge of
    > physics; to resolve the problem it was decided to call the student in and allow him six minutes in which to
    > verbally provide an answer which showed at least a minimal familiarity with the basic principles of physics.
    > For five minutes the student sat in silence, forehead creased in thought. The arbiter reminded him that time
    > was running out, to which the student replied that he had several extremely relevant answers, but couldn't
    > make up his mind which to use. On being advised to hurry up the student replied as follows:
    > Firstly, you could take the barometer up to the roof of the skyscraper, drop it over the edge, and measure the
    > time it takes to reach the ground. The height of the building can then be worked out from the formula H = 1/2gt
    > squared (height equals half times gravity time squared). But bad luck on the barometer.
    > Or if the sun is shining you could measure the height of the barometer, then set it on end and measure the length
    > of its shadow. Then you measure the length of the skyscraper's shadow, and thereafter it is a simple matter of
    > proportional arithmetic to work out the height of the skyscraper.
    > But if you wanted to be highly scientific about it, you could tie a short piece of string to the barometer and swing
    > it like a pendulum, first at ground level and then on the roof of the skyscraper. The height is worked out by the
    > difference in the gravitational restoring force (T> = 2 pi sqr root of l over g).
    > Or if the skyscraper has an outside emergency staircase, it would be easier to walk up it and mark off the height
    > of the skyscraper in barometer lengths, then add them up.
    > If you merely wanted to be boring and orthodox about it, of course, you could use the barometer to measure air
    > pressure on the roof of the skyscraper, compare it with standard air pressure on the ground, and convert the
    > difference in millibars into feet to give the height of the building.
    > But since we are constantly being exhorted to exercise independence of mind and apply scientific methods,
    > undoubtedly the best way would be to knock on the janitor's door and say to him "If you would like a nice new
    > barometer, I will give you this one if you tell me the height of this skyscraper."
    > ....the unfortunate bit of this story is we never find out if the candidate in fact passed on the basis of this answer
    > or was failed for being too cocky!

    I don't know whether this is true or not, but in the version of this story
    that I have heard, the student was Neils Bohr.

    Gordon Brown
    Department of Mathematics
    University of Colorado
    Boulder, CO 80309-0395

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue May 06 2003 - 13:51:03 EDT