the-disc-does-not-care
Drawn at its defaults, in how far the rule reaches. It takes no options at all, so every essay calling it gets this exact drawing.
Called by 6 essays
the blast radius of changing it
The angle is an output
137.5° is not a constant of nature. It is where a rule settles — a rule that places each new element as far as it can from the ones already there, contains no reference to the golden ratio, and reaches the same answer from starting angles a hundred and sixty degrees apart.
Where the angle comes fromThe bifurcation diagram
Sweep the one parameter of the rule and the settled angle traces a diagram — a broad golden branch, a transition, and a two-whorl regime at exactly half a turn. The famous constant is one branch of it, which is a more useful thing to know than the constant.
Where the angle comes fromDroplets with no biology in them
Douady and Couder dripped magnetised ferrofluid into a dish of silicone oil, and got spiral phyllotaxis with Fibonacci parastichy numbers out of a system containing no cells, no genes and no plant. That is the strongest evidence the pattern is physics — and the clearest warning about what a model can claim.
Where the angle comes fromThe tree and the attractor
The dynamical model settles on the golden angle over a range of one parameter and on the Lucas angle outside it, and it cannot reach the low-growth end at all. The lattice tree reaches everywhere, has no dynamics in it, and produces the same two angles as limits of two paths. Two routes, one pair of numbers.
Where the angle comes fromThe exponent that barely matters
A code comment on this site claimed since its foundation phase that the repulsion's falloff exponent hardly changes the answer. It could not be tested, because the function that would have taken it never passed one down. Tested at last, it is true on a disc — by three and a half degrees across a sixteenfold range — and on a stem it decides whether there is a pattern at all.
Where the angle comes fromTwo shapes, one threshold
Read in the same unit, an exponential falloff and a gaussian one disagree about where the lattice ends by half. The quantity they agree on turns out to be one the previous phase measured for an unrelated reason — and it agrees with a bracket left by a sweep of a completely different parameter.