I was trying to think, how is sync connected to happiness, and it occurred to me that for some reason we take pleasure in synchronizing. We like to dance together, we like singing together. And so, if you'll put up with this, I would like to enlist your help with a first experiment today. The experiment is -- and I notice, by the way, that when you applauded, that you did it in a typical North American way, that is, you were raucous and incoherent. You were not organized. It didn't even occur to you to clap in unison. Do you think you could do it? I would like to see if this audience would -- no, you haven't practiced, as far as I know -- can you get it together to clap in sync?
我試著想,同步跟快樂有什麼關連, 然後我想到因為某些原因,我們在同步時感到愉悅。 我們喜歡一起跳舞、一起歌唱。 所以,如果你們願意的話,我想要請你們幫忙 今天的第一個實驗。實驗是這樣的: 我發現當你們拍手時, 你們以一個典型的北美方式拍手。 也就是說你們是喧鬧且沒有規則的。 你們是沒有規律的。你們根本沒有想到要一致的拍手。 你們覺得你們做得到嗎?我想要看看在座的各位, 且據我所知你們沒有練習過, 是否可以一致地拍手。
(Clapping)
(拍手)
Whoa! Now, that's what we call emergent behavior.
哇嗚!那是我們叫做意外的行為。
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
So I didn't expect that, but -- I mean, I expected you could synchronize. It didn't occur to me you'd increase your frequency. It's interesting.
我沒有預期會如此,應該說,我預期你們可以一致地拍手。 但我沒想到你們會越拍越快。 這很有趣。
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
So what do we make of that? First of all, we know that you're all brilliant. This is a room full of intelligent people, highly sensitive. Some trained musicians out there. Is that what enabled you to synchronize? So to put the question a little more seriously, let's ask ourselves what are the minimum requirements for what you just did, for spontaneous synchronization. Do you need, for instance, to be as smart as you are? Do you even need a brain at all just to synchronize? Do you need to be alive? I mean, that's a spooky thought, right? Inanimate objects that might spontaneously synchronize themselves. It's real. In fact, I'll try to explain today that sync is maybe one of, if not one of the most, perhaps the most pervasive drive in all of nature. It extends from the subatomic scale to the farthest reaches of the cosmos. It's a deep tendency toward order in nature that opposes what we've all been taught about entropy. I mean, I'm not saying the law of entropy is wrong -- it's not. But there is a countervailing force in the universe -- the tendency towards spontaneous order. And so that's our theme.
我們從中得到什麼?首先,我們都知道各位是非常聰明的。 這是一個充滿高智商人們的房間,非常敏銳。 在座有一些受過訓練的音樂家。 這是讓你們能夠同步的原因嗎? 或者稍微認真點來說, 讓我們問問自己,你們剛剛做的事,也就是自發的同步, 最基本上需要甚麼。 你們需要,舉例來說,像你們這樣聰明嗎? 又或你們需要有腦袋才能達成同步嗎? 你需要活著嗎?我的意思是,這是有點恐怖的想法,對吧? 無生命物體間可以自發同步。 這是真的。事實上,我今天想要試著解釋同步化有可能是一種, 甚至可能是主要的自然力量。 它從次原子尺度延伸到天文尺度。 它是大自然趨於規律的推手, 與我們所學關於亂度的概念相反。 我的意思是,我沒有說亂度定律是錯的,它沒有錯。 但有個跟它抗衡的力量-- 趨動自發規律的傾向,也就是我們的主題。
Now, to get into that, let me begin with what might have occurred to you immediately when you hear that we're talking about synchrony in nature, which is the glorious example of birds that flock together, or fish swimming in organized schools. So these are not particularly intelligent creatures, and yet, as we'll see, they exhibit beautiful ballets. This is from a BBC show called "Predators," and what we're looking at here are examples of synchrony that have to do with defense. When you're small and vulnerable, like these starlings, or like the fish, it helps to swarm to avoid predators, to confuse predators. Let me be quiet for a second because this is so gorgeous. For a long time, biologists were puzzled by this behavior, wondering how it could be possible. We're so used to choreography giving rise to synchrony. These creatures are not choreographed. They're choreographing themselves.
現在,進入主題,讓我從你們一開始聽到 要談自然界同步化可能想到的東西開始講起, 也就是壯觀的例子當鳥兒們一同飛 或是魚群整齊地游動。 他們不是特別聰明的動物, 但我們等下可以看到他們呈現美妙的芭蕾。 這是從BBC的節目Predators(獵食者)中擷取的, 我們看到的是跟防禦有關的同步化的例子。 當你很小很容易受傷害的時候,就像那些歐掠鳥, 或是像魚時,跟同伴一同移動可以避開掠食者,或使掠食者困惑。 讓我安靜一下因為這實在是太美麗了。 有很長的一段時間,生物學家為這種行為感到困惑, 不了解這怎麼可能。 我們很習慣編舞能創造同步。 但這些動物沒有被編舞。 他們是為自己編舞。
And only today is science starting to figure out how it works. I'll show you a computer model made by Iain Couzin, a researcher at Oxford, that shows how swarms work. There are just three simple rules. First, all the individuals are only aware of their nearest neighbors. Second, all the individuals have a tendency to line up. And third, they're all attracted to each other, but they try to keep a small distance apart. And when you build those three rules in, automatically you start to see swarms that look very much like fish schools or bird flocks. Now, fish like to stay close together, about a body length apart. Birds try to stay about three or four body lengths apart. But except for that difference, the rules are the same for both.
直到今天科學才開始瞭解這是如何進行的。 我會給你們看一個由Ian Kuzan,一個牛津的科學家做的電腦模擬, 模擬成群活動是怎麼運作的。 有三個簡單的規則。 第一,所有個體只感受到離他們最近的個體。 第二,所有個體會對齊。 第三,他們之間會互相吸引, 但之間也會保有一些距離。 當你把這些規則設定進去, 就可以看到集體活動的現象, 與魚群和鳥群活動非常類似。 魚兒們喜歡緊密的在一起,個體之間大約一個身體遠。 鳥兒們個體之間則有三到四個身體遠。 但除了距離不同外,規則是一樣的。
Now, all this changes when a predator enters the scene. There's a fourth rule: when a predator's coming, get out of the way. Here on the model you see the predator attacking. The prey move out in random directions, and then the rule of attraction brings them back together again, so there's this constant splitting and reforming. And you see that in nature. Keep in mind that, although it looks as if each individual is acting to cooperate, what's really going on is a kind of selfish Darwinian behavior. Each is scattering away at random to try to save its scales or feathers. That is, out of the desire to save itself, each creature is following these rules, and that leads to something that's safe for all of them. Even though it looks like they're thinking as a group, they're not. You might wonder what exactly is the advantage to being in a swarm, so you can think of several.
但當獵食者加進來時,一切都改變了。 所以有第四個規則:當獵食者來時,閃開。 在這個模擬中,你看到獵食者攻擊。 被捕食者往各個方向散開, 然後個體間的吸引力又把他們帶回來, 所以有分開又重新形成的現象。 這在自然界中是看得到的。 記住,雖然看起來每個個體互相幫忙, 但事實上只是個自私的達爾文行為。 每個個體只是為了保護自己的鱗片或羽毛而逃走。 也就是說,為了要救自己, 每個個體遵循這些規律, 然後達成可以救整個群體的目的。 雖然看起來他們是以一個群裡來思考,但他們不是的。 你可能會想他們群裡行動的好處到底是什麼? 你可以想到好幾個。
As I say, if you're in a swarm, your odds of being the unlucky one are reduced as compared to a small group. There are many eyes to spot danger. And you'll see in the example with the starlings, with the birds, when this peregrine hawk is about to attack them, that actually waves of panic can propagate, sending messages over great distances. You'll see -- let's see, it's coming up possibly at the very end -- maybe not. Information can be sent over half a kilometer away in a very short time through this mechanism. Yes, it's happening here. See if you can see those waves propagating through the swarm. It's beautiful. The birds are, we sort of understand, we think, from that computer model, what's going on. As I say, it's just those three simple rules, plus the one about watch out for predators.
就像我說的,如果是群體行動,你是那個不幸被獵食的個體機會 相對於一小群體大大降低。 有很多眼睛可以看到危險。 你看這個歐掠鳥的例子 當遊隼鷹要攻擊他們時, 恐懼波可以向外延伸, 將訊息傳遞到很遠的地方。 你會看到--我看看,應該是在最後面會出現--好像沒有。 利用這個方法,訊息可以在很短的時間內 被傳到超過半公里遠的地方。 是的,在這裡發生。 看你是不是可以看到那些波在群體中傳播。 很漂亮的。這些鳥兒,從電腦模擬中, 我們覺得我們有點瞭解發生了什麼事。 就像我說的,就是那三個規則, 再加上小心掠食者。
There doesn't seem to be anything mystical about this. We don't, however, really understand at a mathematical level. I'm a mathematician. We would like to be able to understand better. I mean, I showed you a computer model, but a computer is not understanding. A computer is, in a way, just another experiment. We would really like to have a deeper insight into how this works and to understand, you know, exactly where this organization comes from. How do the rules give rise to the patterns?
感覺沒有任何神祕的地方。 但在數學的層面上,我們沒有辦法完全理解。 我是個數學家。我們想要更深入的瞭解。 我的意思是,我給你們看了一個電腦模擬,但電腦不會理解。 電腦,在某方面來說,也只是另一個實驗。 我們很想要更深入理解這怎麼運作的, 你知道的,就是這樣的組織結構是哪裡來的。 怎麼由規律形成模式?
There is one case that we have begun to understand better, and it's the case of fireflies. If you see fireflies in North America, like so many North American sorts of things, they tend to be independent operators. They ignore each other. They each do their own thing, flashing on and off, paying no attention to their neighbors. But in Southeast Asia -- places like Thailand or Malaysia or Borneo -- there's a beautiful cooperative behavior that occurs among male fireflies. You can see it every night along the river banks. The trees, mangrove trees, are filled with fireflies communicating with light. Specifically, it's male fireflies who are all flashing in perfect time together, in perfect synchrony, to reinforce a message to the females. And the message, as you can imagine, is "Come hither. Mate with me."
有一個例子使我們開始去瞭解多一點, 這個例子是螢火蟲。 如果你在北美看到螢火蟲, 就像北美的很多其他東西一樣, 他們是互不相干的個體。他們忽略其他個體。 他們自己做自己的,自己亮自己暗, 跟鄰居沒有任何關係。 但在東南亞,像是泰國或馬來西亞或婆羅州, 公螢火蟲會美妙地合作。 你每晚都可以在河畔看到。 在這些樹叢、紅樹林中,充滿著用光來溝通的螢火蟲。 更明確的說,公螢火蟲會一起閃爍, 完全同步化的,來增強傳給母螢火蟲的訊息。 這個訊息,就像你想像的,是「來這裡,跟我交配。」
(Music)
(音樂)
In a second I'm going to show you a slow motion of a single firefly so that you can get a sense. This is a single frame. Then on, and then off -- a 30th of a second, there. And then watch this whole river bank, and watch how precise the synchrony is. On, more on and then off. The combined light from these beetles -- these are actually tiny beetles -- is so bright that fishermen out at sea can use them as navigating beacons to find their way back to their home rivers. It's stunning. For a long time it was not believed when the first Western travelers, like Sir Francis Drake, went to Thailand and came back with tales of this unbelievable spectacle. No one believed them. We don't see anything like this in Europe or in the West. And for a long time, even after it was documented, it was thought to be some kind of optical illusion. Scientific papers were published saying it was twitching eyelids that explained it, or, you know, a human being's tendency to see patterns where there are none. But I hope you've convinced yourself now, with this nighttime video, that they really were very well synchronized.
等一下我要給你們看僅包含一隻螢火蟲的慢速影片, 來讓你們更加瞭解。這是單一鏡頭。 然後亮,然後暗--在三十分之一秒中達成。 然後看整個河畔的影片,看整個同步化有多精準。 亮、更多亮、然後暗。 這些小蟲發出的光亮相加起來--而且他們只是小蟲-- 足以讓在外海的打魚人 利用這些光亮來作為回家指路的燈塔。這是非常驚奇的。 當西方旅遊者,像是Sir Francis Drake, 第一次從泰國帶回這不可置信的故事時, 沒有人相信這樣的事情。 沒有人相信他們。 在歐洲或是在西方我們看不到任何類似的現象。 而且很長的一段時間,就算這已經被建檔, 大部份的人認為是視覺幻象。 一些發表的科學文獻說這是眼皮震顫, 也就是說,人類傾向看到一些 不存在的模式。 但我希望你們看了這段影片後會相信 這些螢火蟲真的是同步化了。
Okay, well, the issue then is, do we need to be alive to see this kind of spontaneous order, and I've already hinted that the answer is no. Well, you don't have to be a whole creature. You can even be just a single cell. Like, take, for instance, your pacemaker cells in your heart right now. They're keeping you alive. Every beat of your heart depends on this crucial region, the sinoatrial node, which has about 10,000 independent cells that would each beep, have an electrical rhythm -- a voltage up and down -- to send a signal to the ventricles to pump. Now, your pacemaker is not a single cell. It's this democracy of 10,000 cells that all have to fire in unison for the pacemaker to work correctly.
好,現在的問題是,我們需要活著 才能有這樣的自發性規律嗎? 我已經暗示了答案是否定的。 恩,你不需要是一整個生命體。 你可以只是一個單細胞。 就像是,打個比方來說,你心臟的節律細胞。 他們讓你活著。 每一個心跳都跟節律點這個重要的地方有關。 這個區域包括了一萬個獨立的細胞,每個有自己的 電波規律--電壓上升及下降-- 來傳遞訊號使心室加壓輸血。 好,你們的節律點不是一個單一的細胞。 是一個一萬個細胞組成的民主社會,其中每個細胞需要同時激發 才能使整個節律點運作正常。
I don't want to give you the idea that synchrony is always a good idea. If you have epilepsy, there is an instance of billions of brain cells, or at least millions, discharging in pathological concert. So this tendency towards order is not always a good thing. You don't have to be alive. You don't have to be even a single cell. If you look, for instance, at how lasers work, that would be a case of atomic synchrony. In a laser, what makes laser light so different from the light above my head here is that this light is incoherent -- many different colors and different frequencies, sort of like the way you clapped initially -- but if you were a laser, it would be rhythmic applause. It would be all atoms pulsating in unison, emitting light of one color, one frequency.
我不想讓你們覺得同步化永遠是好的。 如果你有癲癇,你腦中就有幾十億個細胞,或至少幾百萬的細胞, 以一個病態的方式同步放電。 所以這個傾向規律的現象不一定是好事。 你不需要有生命。你也不需要是個細胞。 舉例來說,如果你們看雷射如何運作, 這會是個原子間的同步。 在雷射光中,讓雷射光跟我頭頂上的這個光不一樣的就是 我頭上的光是不同相的, 有很多不同的顏色和不同的頻率, 有點像是你們一開始拍手的樣子。 但雷射光就好像是你們有規律的拍手。 所有的原子一起同步震動, 發出同一個顏色的光,一種頻率。
Now comes the very risky part of my talk, which is to demonstrate that inanimate things can synchronize. Hold your breath for me. What I have here are two empty water bottles. This is not Keith Barry doing a magic trick. This is a klutz just playing with some water bottles. I have some metronomes here. Can you hear that? All right, so, I've got a metronome, and it's the world's smallest metronome, the -- well, I shouldn't advertise. Anyway, so this is the world's smallest metronome. I've set it on the fastest setting, and I'm going to now take another one set to the same setting. We can try this first. If I just put them on the table together, there's no reason for them to synchronize, and they probably won't.
接下來是我的演講中最大膽的一部份, 就是我要示範無生命物體如何同步。 請為我屏住呼吸。 我這裡有兩個空的水瓶。 這不是Keith Barry做魔術表演。 這是一個笨手笨腳的人在玩幾個水瓶。 我這有一些節拍器。 你們可以聽到嗎? 好,所以我有一個節拍器, 而且它是世界上最小的節拍器。好,我不該打廣告。 不論如何,這是世界上最小的節拍器。 我把它設定在最快的地方,然後我要拿 另外一個節拍器也在最快的設定。 我們可以先試這個。如果我只是把這兩個同時放在桌上, 沒有什麼原因會讓他們同步,且他們應該不會。
Maybe you'd better listen to them. I'll stand here. What I'm hoping is that they might just drift apart because their frequencies aren't perfectly the same. Right? They did. They were in sync for a while, but then they drifted apart. And the reason is that they're not able to communicate. Now, you might think that's a bizarre idea. How can metronomes communicate? Well, they can communicate through mechanical forces. So I'm going to give them a chance to do that. I also want to wind this one up a bit. How can they communicate? I'm going to put them on a movable platform, which is the "Guide to Graduate Study at Cornell." Okay? So here it is. Let's see if we can get this to work. My wife pointed out to me that it will work better if I put both on at the same time because otherwise the whole thing will tip over. All right. So there we go. Let's see. OK, I'm not trying to cheat -- let me start them out of sync. No, hard to even do that.
或許你應該要聽聽他們。我來站到這裡。 我希望他們會慢慢變成不同步 因為它們的頻率沒有完全相同。 是吧?他們不同步了。 他們同步了一陣子,然後慢慢分開了。 這是因為他們沒有溝通。 現在,你們可能會覺得這是個奇怪的想法。 節拍器怎麼會溝通? 好,他們可以透過機械力量溝通。 所以我要給他們一個這麼做的機會。 我也要把這個上緊發條。他們要如何溝通呢? 我要把他們放在一個可以移動的平面上, 就是「康乃爾研究生手冊」。好嗎?就是這樣。 我們來看看這樣有沒有用。 我太太告訴我把兩個同時放上去比較會成功, 因為不這樣的話,整個架構會翻倒。 好,就是這樣。讓我們看看。我沒有試圖作弊, 讓我讓它們一開始不同步。不行,連這樣都很難。
(Applause)
(掌聲)
All right. So before any one goes out of sync, I'll just put those right there.
好。在任何一個不同步之前,我還是把它們放在那裡。
(Laughter) Now, that might seem a bit whimsical, but this pervasiveness of this tendency towards spontaneous order sometimes has unexpected consequences. And a clear case of that, was something that happened in London in the year 2000. The Millennium Bridge was supposed to be the pride of London -- a beautiful new footbridge erected across the Thames, first river crossing in over 100 years in London. There was a big competition for the design of this bridge, and the winning proposal was submitted by an unusual team -- in the TED spirit, actually -- of an architect -- perhaps the greatest architect in the United Kingdom, Lord Norman Foster -- working with an artist, a sculptor, Sir Anthony Caro, and an engineering firm, Ove Arup. And together they submitted a design based on Lord Foster's vision, which was -- he remembered as a kid reading Flash Gordon comic books, and he said that when Flash Gordon would come to an abyss, he would shoot what today would be a kind of a light saber.
(笑聲) 現在,這看起來可能有點不切實際, 但這樣具影響力地傾向同步化的力量, 有時會有一些無法預期的結果。 且一個明確的例子是 2000年在倫敦發生的事。 千禧橋本來應該是倫敦的驕傲-- 泰晤士河上一座美麗的天橋, 倫敦百年來第一座橫過泰晤士河的橋。 那時為了這座橋的設計有一個很大的比賽。 最後得獎的是一組不尋常的組合: 是TED精神--一個建築家, 有可能是英國最棒的建築家:Lord Norman Foster-- 和一個藝術家兼雕刻家:Sir Anthony Caro; 和一個工程公司:Ove Arup。 他們一起以Lord Foster的願景為基礎送出一份設計案, 就是--他記得當他還是個小孩時,他看了Flash Gorden的漫畫書, 他說Flash Goder從深淵中出來時, 他會射出一個現在應該叫做光劍的東西。
He would shoot his light saber across the abyss, making a blade of light, and then scamper across on this blade of light. He said, "That's the vision I want to give to London. I want a blade of light across the Thames." So they built the blade of light, and it's a very thin ribbon of steel, the world's -- probably the flattest and thinnest suspension bridge there is, with cables that are out on the side. You're used to suspension bridges with big droopy cables on the top. These cables were on the side of the bridge, like if you took a rubber band and stretched it taut across the Thames -- that's what's holding up this bridge. Now, everyone was very excited to try it out. On opening day, thousands of Londoners came out, and something happened. And within two days the bridge was closed to the public. So I want to first show you some interviews with people who were on the bridge on opening day, who will describe what happened.
他會從深淵中射出光劍,形成一道光, 然後尋著這道光爬出來。 他說:「那是我想要給倫敦的意像。 我想要在泰晤士河上造一道光。」 所以他們建造了這道光, 且那是一條很細的鋼鐵, 有可能是世界上最平最細的吊橋, 僅有兩條在兩旁的鋼索。 你們很習慣看到吊橋上面有粗大的鋼索。 但這座橋的鋼索是在旁邊, 有點像是拿條橡皮筋拉開在泰晤士河兩側, 成為這座橋。 好,大家都很興奮要試試看。 啓用日當天,好幾千倫敦人來到這裡,但某件事發生了。 兩天之內,這座橋就不對外開放了。 我想要先給你們看一些訪問, 訪問啓用日當天在場的人們,他們會告訴你發生了什麼事。
Man: It really started moving sideways and slightly up and down, rather like being on the boat.
男:他開始橫向移動,有一點上下搖晃, 像是在坐船一樣。
Woman: Yeah, it felt unstable, and it was very windy, and I remember it had lots of flags up and down the sides, so you could definitely -- there was something going on sideways, it felt, maybe.
女:是的,感覺不穩定,而且那時風很大, 我記得當時有很多旗子在橋邊,所以可以感覺到風。 當時也有橫向移動,感覺上有。
Interviewer: Not up and down? Boy: No.
記者:沒有上下嗎?男孩:沒有。
Interviewer: And not forwards and backwards? Boy: No.
記者:也沒有前後擺動?男孩:沒有。
Interviewer: Just sideways. About how much was it moving, do you think?
記者:就只有橫向的。大約移動多少,你覺得?
Boy: It was about --
男孩:大概是--
Interviewer: I mean, that much, or this much?
記者:我的意思是,這麼多?還是這麼多?
Boy: About the second one.
男孩:大概第二個。
Interviewer: This much? Boy: Yeah.
記者:這麼多?男孩:是阿。
Man: It was at least six, six to eight inches, I would have thought.
男:至少有六到八英寸,我覺得。
Interviewer: Right, so, at least this much? Man: Oh, yes.
記者:是的,所以,至少這麼多?男:喔是的。
Woman: I remember wanting to get off.
女:我記得很想要離開。
Interviewer: Oh, did you? Woman: Yeah. It felt odd.
記者:是嗎?女:是的,感覺很奇怪。
Interviewer: So it was enough to be scary? Woman: Yeah, but I thought that was just me.
記者:所以是夠強讓人感到害怕的?女:是的,但我當時覺得只是我而已。
Interviewer: Ah! Now, tell me why you had to do this?
記者:喔!那麼告訴我為什麼你要這麼做?
Boy: We had to do this because, to keep in balance because if you didn't keep your balance, then you would just fall over about, like, to the left or right, about 45 degrees. Interviewer: So just show me how you walk normally. Right. And then show me what it was like when the bridge started to go. Right. So you had to deliberately push your feet out sideways and -- oh, and short steps?
男孩:我們需要這麼做才能保持平衡。 因為如果你沒有保持平衡, 你有可能摔倒,就是說向左向右,大概45度這樣。 記者:那麼示範給我看你怎麼正常走路。好。 然後再示範給我看當時在橋上怎麼走路的。好。 所以你必須刻意把腳往旁邊踩而且 喔,很小的步伐?
Man: That's right. And it seemed obvious to me that it was probably the number of people on it.
男:是的,而且感覺是理所當然的, 有可能是因為在上面有很多人。
Interviewer: Were they deliberately walking in step, or anything like that?
記者:那他們有刻意這樣走嗎?或是像這樣嗎?
Man: No, they just had to conform to the movement of the bridge.
男:沒有,他們就是要配合橋的晃動。
Steven Strogatz: All right, so that already gives you a hint of what happened. Think of the bridge as being like this platform. Think of the people as being like metronomes. Now, you might not be used to thinking of yourself as a metronome, but after all, we do walk like -- I mean, we oscillate back and forth as we walk. And especially if we start to walk like those people did, right? They all showed this strange sort of skating gait that they adopted once the bridge started to move. And so let me show you now the footage of the bridge. But also, after you see the bridge on opening day, you'll see an interesting clip of work done by a bridge engineer at Cambridge named Allan McRobie, who figured out what happened on the bridge, and who built a bridge simulator to explain exactly what the problem was. It was a kind of unintended positive feedback loop between the way the people walked and the way the bridge began to move, that engineers knew nothing about. Actually, I think the first person you'll see is the young engineer who was put in charge of this project. Okay.
Steven Strogats:好,所以那稍微地告訴你們發生了什麼事。 想像這座橋就是我們剛剛用的平面。 想像這些人就是剛剛的節拍器。 現在,你可能不習慣想像自己是節拍器, 但無論如何,我們走路像--我的意思是,我們在走路時前後震動。 而且尤其是我們開始像那些人那樣走路。 他們都有那種奇怪的溜冰步伐 且只要橋一開始晃動他們就會那樣走。 讓我給你們看那座橋影片片段。 而且,在我給你們看過啓用那天橋的樣子,你們會看一段有趣的影片, 裡面述說一個劍橋的造橋工程師叫做艾倫馬洛畢做的工作, 他解釋了橋發生了什麼事, 且建造了模擬橋來解釋問題在哪。 這有點像是人走路的樣子和橋移動的樣子間 一個非刻意的正向回饋, 這是工程師們不知道的。 事實上,我想你會看到的第一個人 是一個負責這個計劃的年輕工程師。好。
(Video) Interviewer: Did anyone get hurt? Engineer: No.
(影帶):記者?有任何人受傷嗎?工程師:沒有。
Interviewer: Right. So it was quite small -- Engineer: Yes. Interviewer: -- but real?
記者:好。所以它很小。工程師:是的。記者:但是真實的?
Engineer: Absolutely. Interviewer: You thought, "Oh, bother."
工程師:當然。記者:你想「喔,糟糕」
Engineer: I felt I was disappointed about it.
工程師:我當時覺得很沮喪。
We'd spent a lot of time designing this bridge, and we'd analyzed it, we'd checked it to codes -- to heavier loads than the codes -- and here it was doing something that we didn't know about. Interviewer: You didn't expect. Engineer: Exactly.
我們花了很多時間設計這座橋,且我們有分析它, 我們確認它符合建築設計規範--比規範還能承受更多重量-- 但它卻這樣做了我們不知道的事。 記者:你沒有預期會這樣。工程師:完全沒有。
Narrator: The most dramatic and shocking footage shows whole sections of the crowd -- hundreds of people -- apparently rocking from side to side in unison, not only with each other, but with the bridge. This synchronized movement seemed to be driving the bridge. But how could the crowd become synchronized? Was there something special about the Millennium Bridge that caused this effect? This was to be the focus of the investigation.
旁白:最戲劇化且最驚人的片段 是看到一整個群體,幾百人, 明顯地一同左右搖擺, 不是只跟旁邊的人,而是跟著整座橋。 這樣的同步化動作似乎是讓整座橋晃動的原因。 但群眾怎麼會變成同步化呢? 這千禧橋有什麼特別的因素讓它產生這樣的效果嗎? 這是調查的重點。
Interviewer: Well, at last the simulated bridge is finished, and I can make it wobble. Now, Allan, this is all your fault, isn't it? Allan McRobie: Yes.
記者:恩,至少模擬橋已經做好了,且我可以讓它擺動。 現在,艾倫,這是你的錯對吧?艾倫馬羅畢:是的。
Interviewer: You designed this, yes, this simulated bridge, and this, you reckon, mimics the action of the real bridge?
記者:你設計了這個,對吧,這座模擬橋, 而且你認為它可以模擬真正的橋?
AM: It captures a lot of the physics, yes.
艾:它包含了大部份的物理現象。是的。
Interviewer: Right. So if we get on it, we should be able to wobble it, yes?
記者:好,所以如果我們到上面去,它應該也會擺動,對吧?
Allan McRobie is a bridge engineer from Cambridge who wrote to me, suggesting that a bridge simulator ought to wobble in the same way as the real bridge -- provided we hung it on pendulums of exactly the right length.
艾倫馬羅畢是一位來自劍橋的造橋工程師,他寫信給我 說一座模擬橋 應該要和真實的橋一樣會擺動-- 只要我們把它掛在一樣長的擺錘。
AM: This one's only a couple of tons, so it's fairly easy to get going. Just by walking. Interviewer: Well, it's certainly going now.
艾:這個只有幾頓重,所以應該很容易讓它動起來。 只要走一走就行。記者:是的,它的確在動了。
AM: It doesn't have to be a real dangle. Just walk. It starts to go.
艾:不需要是什麼擺盪,只要走路,它就會開始動。
Interviewer: It's actually quite difficult to walk. You have to be careful where you put your feet down, don't you, because if you get it wrong, it just throws you off your feet.
記者:其實走路挺難的。 你需要很小心你的每一個步子, 因為如果你踩錯了,你就會跌倒。
AM: It certainly affects the way you walk, yes. You can't walk normally on it.
艾:他當然影響到你如何走路。是的,你沒有辦法正常走路。
Interviewer: No. If you try and put one foot in front of another, it's moving your feet away from under you. AM: Yes.
記者:沒錯,如果你試圖將一隻腳放在另一隻前面, 它就會把你的腳從你下面移開。艾:是的。
Interviewer: So you've got to put your feet out sideways. So already, the simulator is making me walk in exactly the same way as our witnesses walked on the real bridge.
記者:所以你一定要把腳放在旁邊。 所以,這個模擬已經讓你跟在橋上一樣的方式行走, 而且我們的見證者是在真的橋上走過的人。
AM: ... ice-skating gait. There isn't all this sort of snake way of walking.
艾:...滑冰式步伐。不像我們平常的走路方式。
Interviewer: For a more convincing experiment, I wanted my own opening-day crowd, the sound check team. Their instructions: just walk normally. It's really intriguing because none of these people is trying to drive it. They're all having some difficulty walking. And the only way you can walk comfortably is by getting in step. But then, of course, everyone is driving the bridge. You can't help it. You're actually forced by the movement of the bridge to get into step, and therefore to drive it to move further.
記者:更真實一點的模擬, 我要模擬開放日的人群,音控小組。 它們的指令:照正常走路。 很有趣的是這些人中沒有一個試著去擺動它。 他們在上面走路都有困難。 唯一可以舒適地走法就是一同踏出步伐。 但如果這樣,所有人就會對橋用力。 你沒有辦法阻止的。你被橋的動作控制住, 且走路的同時也讓橋移動更大。
SS: All right, well, with that from the Ministry of Silly Walks, maybe I'd better end. I see I've gone over. But I hope that you'll go outside and see the world in a new way, to see all the amazing synchrony around us. Thank you.
SS:好,最後留一個「踩八字步的部委」的東西, 或許我應該結束。我已經超時了。 但我希望你們會走出這裡然後以新的眼光看世界, 看我們周圍這些美妙的同步現象。謝謝。
(Applause)
(掌聲)