From the title one could assume that this article discusses the reasons for appeal of golden ratio, but omits this information completely. There is much talk aboult perceptions and cognitions, but the actual idea that how golden ration fits into this picture, remains unclear. It is so irritating to find articles here that almost tell you the scientific facts behind the story, but then in the end leaves you without any substatial new knowledge.

I have to agree. This lacks any scientific standing. There may be a scientific basis for this idea but it was not enunciated. We are left with an idea rather than a theory.

Did the editor go on Christmas vacation today? This is the second of three articles I've read so far with numerous typos and grammatical errors.

Also the posters above me make a good point. It's a real shame.

I agree, the article does indeed read like little more than a publicity blurb. However, the web site mentioned toward the end (http://www.constructal.org) does contain a link to the PDF version of the relevant paper, presently at the top of the page (the link has a weird URL with spaces, that I can't seem to paste into this post because physorg's forum system messes it up.)

In the paper, take a look at "Figure 2" on page 100 for a quick insight into what the article is talking about. I guess you can read the rest of the paper if you want to know the details...

I've mulled over ideas like this, but admittedly I was floating about six inches off the ground.

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

As we all know, everything that can be invented has been invented. Any attempt to perfectly explain reality must occur in the same amount of time necessary for reality to exist. Since the universe was created by a monstrous, bearded humaniod in 4004BC, any attempt at explanation must require 6,013 years.

It doesn't actually explain the specific dimensions of the golden section (1 to 1.618).

His vision example seems to contradict the existence of a single perfect number since different people have differently spaced eyes and the field of vision for predatory vs non-predatory animals varies dramatically in both extents and proportions. it would indicate something wider than a square but it could be 1 to 1.8 or 1 to 1.2 or lots of other ratios.

There is a mathematical and physical explanation for the golden ratio and why it comes up so much, but applying it to something as complex as the field of vision is an unlikely stretch. Such an extrapolated generalization would be analogous to claiming that competing bee colonies have hexagonal territories because hexagons offer the most efficient consolidation of space with the least area of contention between hives. I suspect the golden section plays a role in vision not because of the eyes, but because of it's commonality.

After the experimental discovery of the golden mean in quantum mechanics there is no room anymore for conventional skepticism. Those who think in conventional terms that golden mean base quantum mechanics is pseudoscience are themselves pseudo scientists. You could say pseudoscience if we are still talking about a theory. On the other hand to deny experimental result confirming the theoretical work of dozens of researchers is pseudo philosophy per se. The golden mean was discovered in relativity by Sigalotti. It is the basis of the first rational explanation of the two slit experiment by the Egyptian Mohamed El Naschie. It underpins high energy physics as discussed by Slovenian Crnjac, Chinese Ji Huan He as well as many of their associates. El Naschie presented the first complete theory of unification based on golden geometry and golden quantum field theory. Golden geometry and topology was developed in Romania by two mathematicians.

A recent magnificent book by a noted Soviet scientist Alexei Stakhov bears witness for the reality and theoretical soundness of the golden mean quantum mechanics. There will be always those who confuse rigorousness with a stubborn narrow mindedness. Those who still are able to claim that anything to do with the golden mean is esoteric and pseudo science is incarnation of narrow-mindedness masquerading in the form of stubborn mathematical rigor.

I am pleased that the truth has prevailed. Nature is now accused of trying to undermine Mohamed El Naschie deliberately. This accusation is not frivolous. How else can we explain the blind vicious attack by certain doubtful blogs on the golden mean work of El Naschie and how Quirin Schiermeier the journalist working for Nature utilized these vicious attacks to write a completely unacceptable article in Nature. Then came the heavenly justice when a German professor von Storch complained on his blog that the Nature article of Schiermeier deliberately misquoted him. He was gentle enough to say that the harm was not great. However in principle the harm could have been great. No one has the right to smear the reputation of anyone whether deliberately or recklessly due to irresponsible journalism. Now to the burning scientific question. How does the golden mean enter into quantum mechanics. The answer is as simple as it is ingenious. Mohamed El Naschie reformulates quantum mechanics in space

It's interesting that the boxes in Bejan's web site do not follow the golden ratio! They are more like 2.5, instead of 1.618.