Conducted a thought experiment with a statue coming to life. Gravitational waves. Generation of gravitational waves
They are used in areas such as philosophy and theoretical physics, when it is impossible to conduct a physical experiment.
They provide good food for thought and force us to reconsider what we take for granted.
Here are some of the most famous thought experiments.
Scientific experiments
1. Monkey and hunter
“The hunter watches the monkey in the tree, takes aim and shoots. The moment the bullet leaves the weapon, the monkey falls from the branch to the ground. How should a hunter aim to hit a monkey??
1. Aims at the monkey
2. Aim above the monkey's head
3. Aim below the monkey
The result may be unexpected. Gravity acts on the monkey and the bullet at the same speed, so no matter how fast the bullet travels (taking into account air resistance and other factors), the hunter must aim at the monkey.
The result can be seen in this computer simulation
2. Newton's cannonball
In this thought experiment, you need to imagine a cannon located on a very high mountain, which fires its core at an angle of 90 degrees to the Earth.
The diagram shows several possible trajectories for a cannonball, depending on how fast it will travel when launched.
If it moves too slowly, it will eventually fall down to Earth.
If it is very fast, it can free itself from Earth's gravity and head into space. If it reaches average speed, then will move in Earth's orbit.
This experiment played a major role in the study of gravity, laying the foundation for the creation of satellites and space flights.
Experiment example
3. The mystery of the Kavka toxin
“An eccentric billionaire offers you a vial of a toxic substance that, if you drink it, will cause you excruciating pain for a day, but will not be life-threatening and will not have any long-term consequences.
A billionaire will pay you $1 million the next morning if you intend to drink a toxic substance at midnight tomorrow at noon. However, you don't have to drink the toxin to get money. The money will already be in your account a few hours before it's time to drink it. But... if you succeed.
All you need to do is intend to drink the toxin at midnight today at noon tomorrow. You may change your mind after you receive the money and not drink the toxin. The question is this: is it possible to intend to drink a toxic substance??
According to American philosopher Gregory Kavka, it would be very difficult, almost impossible, to intend to do something unless we intend to do it. A rational person knows that he will not drink the poison, and therefore cannot intend to drink it.
4. The Blind Man's Riddle
This riddle was asked by the Irish philosopher William Molyneux to the British thinker John Locke.
Imagine that a person who was blind from birth, who learned by touch to distinguish between a cube and a ball, suddenly regained his sight.
Will he be able to using vision, before touching objects, determine what is a cube and what is a ball?
Answer: No. Even though he has gained experience using the sense of touch, it will not affect his vision.
The answer to this question can solve one of the fundamental problems of the human mind.
For example, empiricists believe that a person is born as a “blank slate” and becomes the sum of all accumulated experience. On the contrary, nativists objected that our the mind contains ideas from the very beginning, which are then activated by sight, sound and touch.
If a blind person suddenly regained his sight and could immediately distinguish between a cube and a ball, this would mean that knowledge is innate.
A few years ago, Professor Pawan Sinha from MIT conducted a study on patients who had their vision restored. The results confirmed Molyneux's assumption.
Experiment (video)
5. The twin paradox
Einstein formulated this problem this way:
“Imagine two twins, Joe and Frank. Joe is a homebody, and Frank loves to travel.
For your 20th birthday, one of them goes on a spaceship into space, traveling at the speed of light. His journey at this speed takes 5 years and he returns when he is already 30 years old. Returning home, he learns that 50 years have passed on Earth. His twin brother has grown very old and is already 70 years old.
Here the law of relativity comes into force, according to which, the faster you move through space, the slower you move through time.
6. Quantum immortality and quantum suicide
In this thought experiment, proposed by American theorist Max Tegmarok, a participant points a gun at himself, which is equipped with a mechanism that measures the rotation of a quantum particle.
Depending on the measurements, the gun may or may not fire. This hypothetical process became known as quantum suicide.
If the many-worlds interpretation is correct, that is, the existence of parallel Universes, then The universe will split into two, in one of which the participant will live, and in the other he will die.
This branching will occur every time the trigger is pulled. No matter how many shots are fired, there will always be a version of the participant in one of the worlds that will survive. Thus, he will acquire quantum immortality.
Scientists' experiments
7. Endless monkeys
This experiment, which is known as “ infinite monkey theorem“, states that if an infinite number of monkeys randomly pressed the keys of an infinite number of typewriters, at some point they would absolutely create the works of Shakespeare.
The main idea is that an infinite number of acting forces and an infinite time will randomly create everything and everyone. The theorem is one of the best ways to demonstrate the nature of infinity.
In 2011, American programmer Jesse Anderson decided to test this theorem using virtual monkeys. He created several million virtual monkeys” – special programs that enter a random sequence of letters. When a sequence of letters matches a word from a Shakespearean work, it is highlighted. Thus, almost a month later he managed to reproduce Shakespeare’s poem “A Lover’s Complaint.”
8. Schrödinger's cat
The Schrödinger's cat paradox is related to quantum mechanics and was first proposed by physicist Erwin Schrödinger. The experiment is that cat locked inside a box along with a radioactive element and a vial of deadly poison. There is a 50/50 chance that a radioactive element will decay within an hour. If this happens, the hammer attached to the Geiger counter will break the vial, releasing the poison and killing the cat.
Since there is an equal chance of this happening or not happening, the cat could be both alive and dead before the box is opened.
The point is that since no one is watching what is happening, a cat can exist in different states. This is similar to the famous riddle that goes like this: “If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, does it make a sound?”
Schrödinger's cat shows the unusual nature of quantum mechanics, according to which some particles are so small that we cannot measure them without changing them. Before we measure them, they exist in superposition—that is, in any state at the same time.
Science experiment:
9. Brain in a flask
This thought experiment permeates many fields, ranging from cognitive science to philosophy to popular culture.
The essence of the experiment is that a certain a scientist removed your brain from your body and placed it in a flask with a nutrient solution. Electrodes were attached to the brain and connected to a computer that generates images and sensations.
Since all information about the world passes through the brain, this computer can simulate your experience.
Question: If it were possible, how could you really prove that the world around you is real, and is not a computer simulation?
All this is similar to the plot of the film “The Matrix”, which was particularly influenced by the “brain in a flask” experiment.
Essentially, this experiment makes you think about what it means to be human. Thus, the famous philosopher Rene Descartes wondered whether it was really possible to prove that all sensations belong to ourselves, and are not an illusion caused by an “evil demon.” He reflected this in his famous statement “Cogito ergo sum” (“I think, and therefore I exist”). However, in this case, the brain connected to the electrodes can also think.
10. Chinese room
The Chinese Room is another famous thought experiment proposed in the 1980s by American philosopher John Searle.
Imagine that a person speaking English was locked in a room with a small slot for letters. The person has baskets with Chinese characters and a textbook with instructions in English, which will help translate from Chinese. Through a crack in the door they hand him pieces of paper with a set of Chinese characters. A man can use a textbook to translate phrases and send a response in Chinese.
Although he himself does not speak a word of Chinese, he can convince those outside that he speaks fluent Chinese.
This experiment was proposed to challenge the assumption that computers or other types of artificial intelligence can think and understand. Computers do not understand the information they are given, but they may have a program that gives the appearance of human intelligence.
Scientists often face a situation where it is very difficult or even simply impossible to test a particular theory experimentally. For example, when it comes to movement at near-light speeds or physics in the vicinity of black holes. Then thought experiments come to the rescue. We invite you to participate in some of them.
Thought experiments are sequences of logical inferences, the purpose of which is to emphasize a certain property of a theory, formulate a reasonable counterexample, or prove some fact. In general, any proof in one form or another is a thought experiment. The main beauty of mental exercises is that they do not require any equipment and often no special knowledge (as, for example, when processing the results of LHC experiments). So make yourself comfortable, we're getting started.
Shroedinger `s cat
Perhaps the most famous thought experiment is the cat experiment (or rather, cat), proposed by Erwin Schrödinger more than 80 years ago. Let's start with the context of the experiment. At that moment, quantum mechanics was just beginning its victorious march, and its unusual laws seemed unnatural. One of these laws is that quantum particles can exist in a superposition of two states: for example, simultaneously “rotating” clockwise and counterclockwise.
Experiment. Imagine a sealed box (large enough) containing a cat, a sufficient amount of air, a Geiger counter, and a radioactive isotope with a known half-life. As soon as the Geiger counter detects the decay of an atom, a special mechanism breaks the ampoule with poisonous gas and the cat dies. After the half-life, the isotope decayed with a probability of 50 percent and remained intact with exactly the same probability. This means that the cat is either alive or dead - as if being in a superposition of states.
Interpretation. Schrödinger wanted to show the unnaturalness of superposition, taking it to the point of absurdity - such a large system as a whole cat cannot be simultaneously alive and dead. It is worth noting that from the point of view of quantum mechanics, the moment when the Geiger counter is triggered by nuclear decay, a measurement occurs - interaction with a classical macroscopic object. As a result, the superposition must decay.
Interestingly, physicists are already conducting experiments similar to introducing a cat into superposition. But instead of a cat, they use other objects that are large by the standards of the microworld - for example, molecules.
Twin paradox
This thought experiment is often cited as a criticism of Einstein's theory of special relativity. It is based on the fact that when moving at near-light speeds, the flow of time in the reference frame associated with the moving object slows down.
Experiment. Imagine a distant future in which there are rockets that can travel close to the speed of light. There are two twin brothers on Earth, one of them is a traveler, and the other is a homebody. Suppose a brother traveler boarded one of these rockets and traveled on it, after which he returned. For him, at that moment, when he was flying at near-light speed relative to the Earth, time flowed more slowly than for his stay-at-home brother. This means that when he returns to Earth, he will be younger than his brother. On the other hand, his brother himself was moving at near-light speed relative to the rocket - which means that the position of both brothers is in some sense equivalent and when they meet they should again be the same age.
Interpretation. In reality, the traveler brother and the stay-at-home brother are not equivalent, so the traveler will be younger, as the thought experiment would suggest. Interestingly, this effect is also observed in real experiments: short-lived particles traveling at near-light speed seem to “live” longer due to time dilation in their frame of reference. If we try to extend this result to photons, it turns out that they actually live in stopped time.
Einstein elevator
There are several concepts of mass in physics. For example, there is gravitational mass - this is a measure of how a body enters into gravitational interaction. It is she who presses us into the sofa, armchair, subway seat or floor. There is an inertial mass - it determines how we behave in an accelerating coordinate system (it forces us to lean back in a subway train leaving the station). As you can see, the equality of these masses is not an obvious statement.
The general theory of relativity is based on the principle of equivalence - the indistinguishability of gravitational forces from pseudo-forces of inertia. One way to demonstrate this is the following experiment.
Experiment. Imagine being in a soundproof, hermetically sealed elevator car with plenty of oxygen and everything you need. But at the same time you can be anywhere in the Universe. The situation is complicated by the fact that the cabin can move, developing constant acceleration. You feel yourself being slightly pulled towards the floor of the cabin. Can you distinguish whether this is due to the fact that the cabin is located, for example, on the Moon or because the cabin is moving at an acceleration of 1/6 of the acceleration of gravity?
Interpretation. According to Einstein, no, you can’t. Therefore, for other processes and phenomena there is no difference between uniformly accelerated motion in an elevator and in the gravitational field. With some reservations, it follows that the gravitational field can be replaced by an accelerating reference frame.
Today, no one doubts the existence and materiality of gravitational waves - a year ago, the LIGO and VIRGO collaborations caught the long-awaited signal from the collision of black holes. However, at the beginning of the 20th century, after the first publication of Einstein's paper on space-time distortion waves, they were treated with skepticism. In particular, even Einstein himself at some point doubted their realism - they could turn out to be a mathematical abstraction devoid of physical meaning. To demonstrate their feasibility, Richard Feynman (anonymously) proposed the following thought experiment.
Experiment. To begin with, a gravitational wave is a wave of changes in the metric of space. In other words, it changes the distance between objects. Imagine a cane along which balls can move with very little friction. Let the cane be positioned perpendicular to the direction of motion of the gravitational wave. Then, when the wave reaches the cane, the distance between the balls first shortens and then increases, while the cane remains motionless. This means they slide and release heat into space.
Interpretation. This means that a gravitational wave carries energy and is quite real. One might assume that the cane contracts and extends along with the balls, compensating for relative motion, but, like Feynman himself, it is constrained by electrostatic forces acting between the atoms.
Laplace's Demon
The next pair of experiments is “demonic”. Let's start with the lesser-known, but no less beautiful Laplace Demon, which allows (or not) to find out the future of the Universe.
Experiment. Imagine that somewhere there is a huge, very powerful computer. So powerful that it can, taking as a starting point the state of all particles of the Universe, calculate how these states will develop (evolve). In other words, this computer can predict the future. To make it even more interesting, imagine that a computer predicts the future faster than it arrives - say, in a minute it can describe the state of all atoms in the Universe, which they will achieve two minutes from the moment the calculation begins.
Suppose we started the calculation at 00:00, waited for it to end (at 00:01) - now we have a prediction for 00:02. Let's run the second calculation, which will end at 00:02 and predict the future at 00:03. Now pay attention to the fact that the computer itself is also part of our fictional Universe. This means that at 00:01 he knows his state at the time of 00:02 - he knows the result of calculating the state of the Universe at the time of 00:03. And therefore, by repeating the same technique, we can show that the machine knows the future of the Universe at 00:04 and so on - ad infinitum.
Interpretation. It is obvious that the speed of calculation implemented in a material device cannot be infinite - therefore, it is impossible to predict the future using a computer. But there are a few important points worth noting. Firstly, the experiment prohibits Laplace's material demon - consisting of atoms. Secondly, it should be noted that Laplace's demon is possible under conditions where the lifetime of the Universe is fundamentally limited.
Maxwell's demon
And finally, Maxwell's Demon is a classic experiment from the thermodynamics course. It was introduced by James Maxwell to illustrate a way to violate the second law of thermodynamics (the one that prohibits the creation of a perpetual motion machine in one of his formulations).
Experiment. Imagine a medium-sized sealed vessel, divided inside by a partition into two parts. The partition has a small door or hatch. Next to her sits an intelligent microscopic creature - Maxwell's own demon.
Let's fill the vessel with gas at a certain temperature - for definiteness, with oxygen at room temperature. It is important to remember that temperature is a number that reflects the average speed of gas molecules in a container. For example, for oxygen in our experiment this speed is 500 meters per second. But in a gas there are molecules that move faster and slower than this mark.
The demon's task is to monitor the speeds of particles flying towards the door in the partition. If a particle flying from the left half of the vessel has a speed of more than 500 meters per second, the demon will let it through by opening the door. If it is less, the particle will not fall into the right half. Conversely, if a particle from the right half of the tank has a speed of less than 500 meters per second, the demon will let it pass into the left half.
After waiting long enough, we will find that the average speed of molecules in the right half of the vessel has increased, and in the left half it has decreased, which means that the temperature in the right half has also increased. We can use this excess heat, for example, to operate a heat engine. At the same time, we did not need external energy to sort the atoms - Maxwell’s demon did all the work.
Interpretation. The main consequence of the demon's work is a decrease in the overall entropy of the system. That is, after the division of atoms into hot and cold, the measure of chaos in the state of the gas in the vessel decreases. The second law of thermodynamics strictly prohibits this for closed systems.
But in reality, the experiment with Maxwell's demon turns out to be not so paradoxical if we include the demon itself in the description of the system. He spends work opening and closing the valve, and also, and this is important, measuring the velocities of the atoms. All this compensates for the drop in gas entropy. Note that there are experiments to create analogues of Maxwell's demons.
Particularly noteworthy is the “Brownian rattle” - although it itself does not separate molecules into warm and cold, it uses chaotic Brownian motion to do work. The ratchet consists of blades and a gear, which can only rotate in one direction (it is limited by a special clamp). The blade should rotate randomly, and it will be able to make a full rotation only if its intended direction of rotation coincides with the allowed rotation of the gear. However, Richard Feynman analyzed the device in detail and explained why it does not work - the average impact of particles in the chamber will be reset to zero.
Vladimir Korolev
W. Edward Deming conducted the red bead experiment in his 4-day seminars. Watch the video of the experiment with red and white beads on this page.
Deming's experiment with red beads. How to conduct an experiment with red and white beads yourself? What is needed to carry out the experiment with red beads conducted by E. Deming?
Training with W. E. Deming's experiment "Red Beads".
“Managers are busy with cheap things,
they ignore the huge losses.”
E. Deming
Experiment with red beads
Dr. Deming's Red Bead Experiment
Deming began the red bead experiment in his first lectures to the Japanese in 1950 to demonstrate the difference between general and special causes of variation. For many years, Deming used the same equipment to experiment with red beads. These basic devices are: a box of white and red beads in a ratio of approximately 4:1 and a rectangular piece of plastic, wood, metal, etc., usually called a spatula, in which 50 vertical depressions are made. A selection of 50 beads is achieved by dipping a spatula into the box.
Source of the description of the experiment: Neave Henry R. “Dr. Deming’s Space: Principles for Building a Sustainable Business” Trans. from English - M.: Alpina Business Books, 2005, pp. 110-115.
Color illustrations and video - S. Grigoriev.
The basic form of the red bead experiment, as demonstrated in the four-day workshops, remained relatively unchanged over several years.
The master invites volunteers from the audience:
- six interested workers (they do not require any special skills: they will be trained and will have to comply with all requirements without questions or complaints);
- two junior inspectors (they only need to be able to count to twenty);
- Chief Inspector (must be able to compare two numbers to see if they are equal or not and be able to speak loudly and clearly);
- registrar (must be able to write accurately and perform simple arithmetic operations).
The workday for each worker is the process of taking a sample (50 beads) from a box using a spatula. White beads are a good product that is acceptable to consumers. Red beads are an unacceptable product. In accordance with the requirements of the master or the wishes of senior management, the task is to prevent more than one to three red beads from entering. The workers are trained by a master (Deming), who gives precise instructions on how the work should be carried out: how to mix the beads, what should be the directions, distances, angles and level of stirring when using the spatula. To minimize variations, the procedure needs to be standardized and regulated.
Workers must follow all instructions very carefully, because the results of their work determine whether they will remain at work.
"Remember, every day you work could be your last depending on how you work. I hope you enjoy your work!"
The control process involves a lot of personnel, but it is very effective. Each worker brings his day's work to the first sub-inspector, who silently counts and records the number of red beads, and then goes to the second sub-inspector, who does the same. The Chief Inspector, also remaining silent, compares the two accounts. If they differ, it means an error has crept in! What's even more concerning is the fact that even if both accounts agree, they may still be wrong. However, the procedure is such that in the event of an error, the inspectors, still independently of each other, must recalculate the result. When the score matches, the chief inspector announces the result and the registrar records it on a slide projected on the screen above. The worker returns his beads to the box - his work day is completed.
The work continues for four days. There are 24 results in total. The master constantly comments on them. He praises Al for reducing the number of red beads to four, and the audience applauds him. He berates Audrey for getting sixteen reds, and the audience laughs nervously. How can Audrey have four times as many defective beads unless she is careless and lazy? None of the other workers can remain calm either, because if Al could do four, then anyone can do it. Al is a definite "worker of the day" and will receive a bonus. But the next day, nine red beads are found on Al because he has calmed down too much. Audrey brings ten: she started off badly, but is now starting to improve, especially after a serious conversation with the master at the end of the first day.
"Stop! Stop the line! Ben just made seventeen reds! Let's have a meeting and try to figure out what's causing the poor performance. This kind of performance can lead to the closure of the business."
At the end of the second day, the foreman has a serious conversation with the workers. As people become more comfortable and experienced, their results should improve.
Instead, following the 54 red beads received on the first day, a whopping 65 were received on the second day. Do the workers not understand their task? The goal is to get white beads, not red ones. The future looks pretty bleak. Nobody reached the goal. They should try to do better.
Depressed workers return to work. And suddenly two glimpses appear: Audrey, continuing to improve her results, reaches seven red beads; Ben is also on the right track, repeating the success of his first day of work - nine reds! However, all others perform worse. The total number of red beads rises again and reaches 67. The day ends without success, like the previous ones. The foreman tells the workers that if significant improvements do not occur, the plant will have to close.
The fourth day begins. We are relieved to find that things have improved thanks to Audrey, who now produces only six red beads*. But overall the day ends with 58 reds, still worse than the first day.
Here are all the results obtained so far:
At this stage, the foreman decides to call on the well-known great achievement of management for help - to save the enterprise, leaving only the best workers. He fires Ben, Carol and John, three workers who made 40 or more red beads in four days, and keeps Audrey, Al and Ed, paying them a bonus and forcing them to work double shifts.
No wonder this doesn't work.
By observing the red bead experiment, we gain a rare advantage: we understand the system well and can be confident that it is controllable. Once we realize this, it becomes clear to us how pointless it is for the master (or anyone else) to do anything to influence results that are supposedly dependent on the workers, but in fact are completely determined by the existing system. All these actions were reactions to purely random variations.
However, suppose we lack understanding of the system. What should we do then? We would then need to plot the data on a control chart and let it tell us about the behavior of the process.
The center line on the map corresponds to the average reading, i.e. 244/24 = 10.2, so calculating 1σ (sigma) gives:
Hence, for the position of the upper and lower control boundaries we have:
10.2 + (3 x 2.8) = 18.6 "midline + 3σ
10.2 - (3 x 2.8) = 1.8 "respectively, the middle line is 3σ
Note S. Grigoriev: To build a control chart, the type chosen was np-map of alternative data. Rules for constructing and formulas for calculating control limits, see the description in GOST R ISO 7870-1-2011 (ISO 7870-1:2007), GOST R ISO 7880-2-2015 (ISO 7870-2:2013) - Statistical methods. Shewhart control charts. If further clarification is required, I will be happy to provide it upon request.
The control chart is shown in the figure below.
This map confirms what we assumed: the process is in a statistically controlled state. Variations are caused by the system. The workers are helpless: they can only give out what the system gives. The system is stable and predictable.
If we do the experiment tomorrow, or the day after tomorrow, or next week, we will likely get a similar range of results.
Rice. Control np-card of the experiment with red beads, conducted on April 2, 2011. at the training seminar by Grigoriev S. Watch the video (8 minutes).
Rice. Comparison of control np maps of experiments with red beads conducted in 1983. E. Deming and in 2011 S. Grigoriev. Please note that in S. Grigoriev’s experiment, a different blade, other beads, other people (workers) were used, the process itself was slightly modified, the time period was 28 years. But the main systemic factor - the ratio of red beads to white ones - remained the same. The control limits from Deming's experiment could be extended 30 years into the future and they would predict the behavior of the process with reasonable accuracy. What does this tell you?
Seminar participants see the pleasure that comes from good results and the grief from bad results, independent of the master’s curses and criticism. They see a trend (like Audrey's tendency to significantly improve her results), they see relatively uniform results (like John's), and they see variable results (like Ben's). They see and hear the master's complaints and lamentations when his useless and meaningless instructions are not followed to the letter. They see workers being compared to each other, when in reality workers have no say in producing results: results are entirely determined by the system within which they work. And the seminar participants also see how workers lose their jobs without any fault on their part, while others receive bonuses without having any special merit (except that the system treats them more loyally).
Deming points out some obvious features of the experiment plus a few others that are less obvious. Thus, the accumulated average values at the end of each of the four days are respectively:
Deming asks the audience what value the average will settle at if the experiment continues. Since the ratio of white to red beads is 4:1, it is clear to those familiar with the laws of mathematics that the answer must be 10.0. But this turns out not to be the case. This would be correct if the sampling was carried out using the random number method. But in reality it is carried out by immersing the blade in the box. This is a mechanical sampling, not a random one, for which mathematical laws apply. As further evidence, Deming cites results obtained by using four different blades over a number of years. For at least two of these, a traditional statistician would rate the results as “statistically significantly” different from 10.0. What type of sampling do we carry out in production processes? Mechanical or random? Where does all this leave those who depend only on standard statistical theory for industrial applications?
Not everything in this experiment provides an example of what not to do. There is an important positive aspect to the way the control process is organized.
At first glance, it contradicts one of the ideas that Deming sometimes discusses in his seminars - and in the control process there is a division of responsibility. In fact, the contributions of each controller to the result are independent of each other; the risk of shared responsibility is reduced to the risk of consensus.
In both the funnel experiment and the red bead experiment, a natural question arises: what can be done to improve things? We already know the answer. Since the system under consideration is in a state of statistical control, real improvements can only be achieved by actually changing it. They cannot be obtained by influencing the outputs, i.e. results of system operation: influencing outputs is only suitable in the presence of special causes of variation. Influencing the results is exactly what rules 2, 3 and 4 in the funnel experiment are aimed at, and all the emotional exclamations of the master in this experiment are also aimed at.
Influencing a system to eliminate common causes of variation is usually a more difficult task than acting to eliminate special causes. Thus, in the funnel experiment, the funnel itself can be lowered or a softer cloth can be used to cover the table in order to absorb some of the movement of the ball after it falls. In the red bead experiment, somehow the proportion of red beads in the box must be reduced - by introducing improvements in upstream stages of the manufacturing process or in the supply of raw materials, or both.
Deming refers to the red bead experiment as "extremely simple." This is true. However, as in the case of the funnel experiment, the ideas conveyed are not so simple at all.
Conducting training seminars, demonstrating experiments that E. Deming demonstrated at his four-day seminars, I am faced with a gap between the knowledge acquired during the training period and the subsequent application of E. Deming’s systems management theory in practice by management. I see one of the main reasons for this circumstance as the unpreparedness of many managers for a full-scale change in management style, and without this transformation is impossible.
Henry Neave estimates that a quarter of a million people attended Deming's famous four-day seminars between 1980 and 1993.
In an interview with E. Deming for The Washington Post, January 1984:
Question:
"You have been very successful in attracting people to these seminars. Isn't that encouraging to you?"
Dr. E. Deming:
"I don't know why that should be encouraging. I want to see what they're going to do. It'll take years."
Watch the original video of the red bead experiment conducted by E. Deming in the last years of his life, video of the Lessons Of The Red Beads lecture and interview with E. Deming.
Red Bead Experiment with Dr. W. Edwards Deming
Lessons Of The Red Beads
Lessons from the Red Bead Experiment
Incredible facts
Thought experiments or hypotheses, often resembling riddles, are used by philosophers and scientists to explain very complex ideas.
They are used in areas such as philosophy and theoretical physics, when it is impossible to conduct a physical experiment.
They provide good food for thought and force us to reconsider what we take for granted.
Here are some of the most famous thought experiments.
Scientific experiments
1. Monkey and hunter
"The hunter watches the monkey in the tree, takes aim and shoots. The moment the bullet leaves the weapon, the monkey falls from the branch to the ground. How should a hunter aim to hit a monkey??
1. Aims at the monkey
2. Aim above the monkey's head
3. Aim below the monkey
The result may be unexpected. Gravity acts on the monkey and the bullet at the same speed, so no matter how fast the bullet travels (taking into account air resistance and other factors), the hunter must aim at the monkey.
2. Newton's cannonball
In this thought experiment, you need to imagine a cannon located on a very high mountain, which fires its core at an angle of 90 degrees to the Earth.
The diagram shows several possible trajectories for a cannonball, depending on how fast it will travel when launched.
If it moves too slowly, it will eventually fall down to Earth.
If it is very fast, it can free itself from Earth's gravity and head into space. If it reaches average speed, then will move in Earth's orbit.
This experiment played a major role in the study of gravity, laying the foundation for the creation of satellites and space flights.
3. The mystery of the Kavka toxin
“An eccentric billionaire offers you a vial of a toxic substance that, if you drink it, will cause you excruciating pain for a day, but will not be life-threatening or have any lasting effects.
A billionaire will pay you $1 million the next morning if you intend to drink a toxic substance at midnight tomorrow at noon. However, you don't have to drink the toxin to get money. The money will already be in your account a few hours before it's time to drink it. But... if you succeed.
All you need to do is intend to drink the toxin at midnight today at noon tomorrow. You may change your mind after you receive the money and not drink the toxin. The question is this: is it possible to intend to drink a toxic substance??
According to American philosopher Gregory Kavka, it would be very difficult, almost impossible, to intend to do something unless we intend to do it. A rational person knows that he will not drink the poison, and therefore cannot intend to drink it.
4. The Blind Man's Riddle
This riddle was asked by the Irish philosopher William Molyneux to the British thinker John Locke.
Imagine that a person who was blind from birth, who learned by touch to distinguish between a cube and a ball, suddenly regained his sight.
Will he be able to using vision, before touching objects, determine what is a cube and what is a ball?
Answer: No. Even though he has gained experience using the sense of touch, it will not affect his vision.
The answer to this question can solve one of the fundamental problems of the human mind.
For example, empiricists believe that a person is born as a “blank slate” and becomes the sum of all accumulated experience. On the contrary, nativists objected that our the mind contains ideas from the very beginning, which are then activated by sight, sound and touch.
If a blind person suddenly regained his sight and could immediately distinguish between a cube and a ball, this would mean that knowledge is innate.
A few years ago, Professor Pawan Sinha from MIT conducted a study on patients who had their vision restored. The results confirmed Molyneux's assumption.
Experiments (video)
5. The twin paradox
Einstein formulated this problem this way:
"Imagine two twins, Joe and Frank. Joe is a homebody, and Frank loves to travel.
For your 20th birthday, one of them goes on a spaceship into space, traveling at the speed of light. His journey at this speed takes 5 years and he returns when he is already 30 years old. Returning home, he learns that 50 years have passed on Earth. His twin brother has grown very old and is already 70 years old.
Here the law of relativity comes into force, according to which, the faster you move through space, the slower you move through time.
6. Quantum immortality and quantum suicide
In this thought experiment, proposed by American theorist Max Tegmarok, a participant points a gun at himself, which is equipped with a mechanism that measures the rotation of a quantum particle.
Depending on the measurements, the gun may or may not fire. This hypothetical process became known as quantum suicide.
If the many-worlds interpretation is correct, that is, the existence of parallel Universes, then The universe will split into two, in one of which the participant will live, and in the other he will die.
This branching will occur every time the trigger is pulled. No matter how many shots are fired, there will always be a version of the participant in one of the worlds that will survive. Thus, he will acquire quantum immortality.
Scientists' experiments
7. Endless monkeys
This experiment, which is known as " infinite monkey theorem", states that if an infinite number of monkeys randomly pressed the keys of an infinite number of typewriters, at some point they would absolutely create the works of Shakespeare.
The main idea is that an infinite number of acting forces and an infinite time will randomly create everything and everyone. The theorem is one of the best ways to demonstrate the nature of infinity.
In 2011, American programmer Jesse Anderson decided to test this theorem using virtual monkeys. He created several million" virtual monkeys" - special programs that enter a random sequence of letters. When the sequence of letters matches a word from Shakespeare's work, it is highlighted. Thus, almost a month later he managed to reproduce Shakespeare's poem "A Lover's Complaint."
8. Schrödinger's cat
The Schrödinger's cat paradox is related to quantum mechanics and was first proposed by physicist Erwin Schrödinger. The experiment is that cat locked inside a box along with a radioactive element and a vial of deadly poison. There is a 50/50 chance that a radioactive element will decay within an hour. If this happens, the hammer attached to the Geiger counter will break the vial, releasing the poison and killing the cat.
Since there is an equal chance of this happening or not happening, the cat could be both alive and dead before the box is opened.
The point is that since no one is watching what is happening, a cat can exist in different states. This is similar to the famous riddle that goes like this: “If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, does it make a sound?”
Schrödinger's cat shows the unusual nature of quantum mechanics, according to which some particles are so small that we cannot measure them without changing them. Before we measure them, they exist in superposition—that is, in any state at the same time.
science experiment
9. Brain in a flask
This thought experiment permeates many fields, ranging from cognitive science to philosophy to popular culture.
The essence of the experiment is that a certain a scientist removed your brain from your body and placed it in a flask with a nutrient solution. Electrodes were attached to the brain and connected to a computer that generates images and sensations.
Since all information about the world passes through the brain, this computer can simulate your experience.
Question: If it were possible, how could you really prove that the world around you is real, and is not a computer simulation?
All this is similar to the plot of the film "The Matrix", which was particularly influenced by the "brain in a flask" experiment.
Essentially, this experiment makes you think about what it means to be human. Thus, the famous philosopher Rene Descartes wondered whether it was really possible to prove that all sensations belong to us and are not an illusion caused by an “evil demon.” He reflected this in his famous statement “Cogito ergo sum” (“I think, and therefore I exist”). However, in this case, the brain connected to the electrodes can also think.
10. Chinese room
The Chinese Room is another famous thought experiment proposed in the 1980s by American philosopher John Searle.
Imagine that a person speaking English was locked in a room with a small slot for letters. The person has baskets with Chinese characters and a textbook with instructions in English, which will help translate from Chinese. Through a crack in the door they hand him pieces of paper with a set of Chinese characters. A man can use a textbook to translate phrases and send a response in Chinese.
Although he himself does not speak a word of Chinese, he can convince those outside that he speaks fluent Chinese.
This experiment was proposed to challenge the assumption that computers or other types of artificial intelligence can think and understand. Computers do not understand the information they are given, but they may have a program that gives the appearance of human intelligence.
Deming began the red bead experiment in his first lectures to the Japanese in 1950 to demonstrate the difference between general and special causes of variation. For many years, Deming used the same equipment to experiment with red beads. These basic devices are: a box of white and red beads in a ratio of approximately 4:1 and a rectangular piece of plastic, wood, metal, etc., usually called a spatula, in which 50 vertical depressions are made. A selection of 50 beads is achieved by dipping a spatula into the box. (Note to statisticians: I deliberately do not use the term "random sample", even though the beads may be well mixed before the spatula is dipped into them.)
The basic form of the red bead experiment demonstrated in the four-day workshops has remained relatively unchanged over the years. Volunteers from the audience are invited:
six interested workers (they do not require any special skills: they will be trained and will have to comply with all requirements without questions or complaints);
two junior inspectors (they only need to be able to count to twenty);
Chief Inspector (must be able to compare two numbers to see if they are equal or not and be able to speak loudly and clearly);
registrar (must be able to write accurately and perform simple arithmetic operations).
The workday for each worker is the process of taking a sample (50 beads) from a box using a spatula. White beads are a good product that is acceptable to consumers. Red beads are not a product
acceptable. In accordance with the requirements of the master or the wishes of senior management, the task is to prevent more than one to three red beads from entering. The workers are trained by a master (Deming), who gives precise instructions on how the work should be carried out: how to mix the beads, what should be the directions, distances, angles and level of stirring when using the spatula. To minimize variations, the procedure needs to be standardized and regulated.
Workers must follow all instructions very carefully, because the results of their work determine whether they will remain at work.
“Remember, every day you work could be your last depending on how you work. I hope you enjoy your work!”
The control process involves a lot of personnel, but it is very effective. Each worker brings his day's work to the first sub-inspector, who silently counts and records the number of red beads, and then goes to the second sub-inspector, who does the same. The Chief Inspector, also remaining silent, compares the two accounts. If they differ, it means an error has crept in! What's even more concerning is the fact that even if both accounts agree, they may still be wrong. However, the procedure is such that in the event of an error, the inspectors, still independently of each other, must recalculate the result. When the score matches, the chief inspector announces the result and the registrar records it on a slide projected on the screen above.
The worker returns his beads to the box - his work day is completed.
The work continues for four days. There are 24 results in total. The master constantly comments on them. He praises Al for reducing the number of red beads to four, and the audience applauds him. He berates Audrey for getting sixteen reds, and the audience laughs nervously. How can Audrey have four times as many defective beads unless she is careless and lazy? None of the other workers can remain calm either, because if Al could do four, then anyone can do it. Al is a definite "worker of the day" and will receive a bonus. But the next day, nine red beads are found on Al because he has calmed down too much. Audrey brings ten: she started off badly, but is now starting to improve, especially after a serious conversation with the master at the end of the first day. Stop! Stop the line! Ben just made seventeen reds! Let's have a meeting and try to understand what is causing the poor performance. This type of work can lead to the closure of the enterprise. At the end of the second day the master
Organization as a system
holds a serious conversation with workers. As people become more comfortable and experienced, their results should improve. Instead, following the 54 red beads received on the first day, a whopping 65 were received on the second day. Do the workers not understand their task? The goal is to get white beads, not red ones. The future looks pretty bleak. Nobody reached the goal. They should try to do better.
Depressed workers return to work. And suddenly two glimpses appear: Audrey, continuing to improve her results, reaches seven red beads; Ben is also on the right track, repeating the success of his first day of work - nine reds! However, all others perform worse. The total number of red beads rises again and reaches 67. The day ends without success, like the previous ones. The foreman tells the workers that if significant improvements do not occur, the plant will have to close.
The fourth day begins. We are relieved to find that things have improved thanks to Audrey, who now produces only six red beads*. But overall the day ends with 58 reds, which is still worse than the first day.
Here are all the results so far: Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Audrey Total 16 10 7 6 39 John 9 11 12 10 42 Al 4 9 13 11 37 Carol 7 11 14 11 43 Ben 9 17 9 13 48 Ed 9 7 12 7 35 Amount per day Total 54 65 67 58 244 At this stage, the foreman decides to call on the well-known great achievement of management for help - to save the enterprise, leaving only the best workers. He fires Ben, Carol and John, three workers who made 40 or more red beads in four days, and keeps Audrey, Al and Ed, paying them a bonus and forcing them to work double shifts.
No wonder this doesn't work.
*Note to traditional statisticians: Under the standard null hypothesis, and given that Audrey received four different scores, there is a 1/4 chance that those scores got better day by day! = 1/24 = 0.024. This is a significant result at more than the 5% significance level! - Approx. auto
Chapter 6. Experiment with red beads
By observing the red bead experiment, we gain a rare advantage: we understand the system well and can be confident that it is controllable. Once we realize this, it becomes clear to us how pointless it is for the master (or anyone else) to do anything to influence results that are supposedly dependent on the workers, but in fact are completely determined by the existing system. All these actions were reactions to purely random variations.
However, suppose we lack understanding of the system. What should we do then? We would then need to plot the data on a control chart and let it tell us about the behavior of the process. The center line on the map corresponds to the average reading, i.e. 244/24 = 10.2, so the calculation gives:
Hence, for the position of the upper and lower control boundaries we have:
10.2 + (3 x 2.8) = 18.6 and 10.2 - (3 x 2.8) = 1.8
accordingly (for similar calculations, see: “Out of the Crisis”, p. 304). The control chart is shown in Figure 17.
This map confirms what we assumed: the process is in a statistically controlled state. Variations are caused by the system. The workers are helpless: they can only give out what the system gives. The system is stable and predictable. If we do the experiment tomorrow, or the day after tomorrow, or next week, we will likely get a similar range of results.
Central
Rice. 17. Red Bead Experiment Data Control Chart
Organization as a system
Seminar participants who are committed to actively absorbing the implications of the red bead experiment can make many interesting observations even before Deming begins summarizing the results. They see the pleasure derived from good results and the grief from bad results, independent of the master's curses and criticism. They see a trend (like Audrey's tendency to significantly improve her results), they see relatively uniform results (like John's), and they see variable results (like Ben's). They see and hear the master's complaints and lamentations when his useless and meaningless instructions are not followed to the letter. They see workers being compared to each other, when in reality workers have no say in producing results: results are entirely determined by the system within which they work. And the seminar participants also see how workers lose their jobs without any fault on their part, while others receive bonuses without having any special merit (except that the system treats them more loyally).
Deming points out some obvious features of the experiment plus a few others that are less obvious. Thus, the accumulated average values at the end of each of the four days are respectively:
Deming asks the audience what value the average will settle at if the experiment continues. Since the ratio of white to red beads is 4:1, it is clear to those familiar with the laws of mathematics that the answer must be 10.0. But this turns out not to be the case. This would be correct if the sampling was carried out using the random number method. But in reality it is carried out by immersing the blade in the box. This is a mechanical sampling, not a random one, for which mathematical laws apply. As further evidence, Deming cites results obtained by using four different blades over a number of years. For at least two of these, a traditional statistician would rate the results as “statistically significantly” different from 10.0. What type of sampling do we carry out in production processes? Mechanical or random? Where does all this leave those who depend only on standard statistical theory for industrial applications?
Not everything in this experiment provides an example of what not to do. There is an important positive aspect to the way the control process is organized. At first glance, it contradicts one of the ideas that Deming sometimes
Chapter 6. Experiment with red beads
considers at its seminars - and in the control process there is a division of responsibility. In fact, the contributions of each controller to the result are independent of each other; the risk of shared responsibility is reduced to the risk of consensus. This issue is discussed in more detail in Chapter 21 (see also rule 4 in the funnel and target experiments).
In both the funnel experiment (see Chapter 5) and the red bead experiment, a natural question arises: what can be done to improve things? We already know the answer. Since the system under consideration is in a state of statistical control, real improvements can only be achieved by actually changing it. They cannot be obtained by influencing the outputs, i.e. results of system operation: influencing outputs is only suitable in the presence of special causes of variation. Influencing the results is exactly what rules 2, 3 and 4 in the funnel experiment are aimed at, and all the emotional exclamations of the master in this experiment are also aimed at.
Influencing a system to eliminate common causes of variation is usually a more difficult task than acting to eliminate special causes. Thus, in the funnel experiment, the funnel itself can be lowered or a softer cloth can be used to cover the table in order to absorb some of the movement of the ball after it falls. In the red bead experiment, somehow the proportion of red beads in the box must be reduced - by introducing improvements in upstream stages of the manufacturing process or in the supply of raw materials, or both.
Deming refers to the red bead experiment as "extremely simple." This is true. However, as in the case of the funnel experiment, the ideas conveyed are not so simple at all.
Loading...
