Slashdot Mirror


Did the Titanic Sink Due To an Optical Illusion?

Hugh Pickens writes "According to new research by British historian Tim Maltin, records by several ships in the area where the Titanic sank show atmospheric conditions were ripe for super refraction, a bending of light that caused a false horizon, concealing the iceberg that sank the Titanic in a mirage layer, which prevented the Titanic's lookouts from seeing the iceberg in time to avoid collision. According to the new theory, Titanic was sailing from Gulf Stream waters into the frigid Labrador Current, where the air column was cooling from the bottom up. This created a thermal inversion, with layers of cold air below layers of warmer air, creating a superior mirage. The theory also explains why the freighter Californian was unable to identify the Titanic on the moonless night, because even though the Titanic sailed into the Californian's view, it appeared too small to be the great ocean liner. The abnormally stratified air may also have disrupted signals sent by the Titanic by Morse Lamp to the Californian to no avail. This is not the first time atmospheric conditions have been postulated as a factor in the disaster that took 1,517 lives. An investigation in 1992 by the British government's Marine Accident Investigation Branch also suggested that super refraction may have played a role in the disaster (PDF, see page 13), but that possibility went unexplored until Maltin mined weather records, survivors' testimony and long-forgotten ships' logs."

35 of 166 comments (clear)

  1. Ptheh. by tqk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think the fact that all the watertight doors of the "unsinkable ocean liner" were open sort of makes everything else irrelevant.

    User error, in the extreme. Bad Captain!

    --
    "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    1. Re:Ptheh. by zippthorne · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'm not sure that that would've mattered either, as the "water-tight" compartments weren't sealed at the top. Interestingly, they're still not sealed at the top, which i suspect contributed to the sinking of the costa concordia recently.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    2. Re:Ptheh. by Brett+Buck · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Incorrect. It was designed to remain afloat with "n" compartments flooded. The gash opened up "n+1" compartments. If it had hit head-on they wouldn't have sunk, the glancing shot (possibly or possibly not due to a last-second attempt at a turn) caused too many compartments to flood.

              Brett

    3. Re:Ptheh. by rikkards · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually about 5 or so years ago someone did an experiment to see if they had hit nose on instead if it would have stayed up. Unfortunately it would have still sunk. They also did a test to see if they had let the water flow through the bottom of the ship rather than sealing up would it have sunk slower and more upright. That ended up sinking it faster by an estimated hour and the last of it would have been really fast.

    4. Re:Ptheh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      They don't fully seal the tops, because you're only supposed to breach 1 or 2 in case of trouble. If you breach 4 or 5, the ship won't stay afloat on the remaining ones (for long). The top of the breached compartments would end up bursting due to the water pressure contained in those compartments if they were fully sealed at the top.

      Both Titanic and Concordia stayed afloat long enough to evacuate safely. In Titanic's case, there were not enough lifeboats, and the ones that were launched were not filled to capacity. In Concordia's case, the captain waited so long to order the lifeboats deployed, that many were unusable due to the severe list (tilt) of the ship. In both cases, high speed impact tore open too many compartments to save either ship, but the design worked long enough to move people to lifeboats and deploy them.

      There have been many passenger shipwrecks where loss of life was minimal, because another ship came alongside and took the passengers to safety without using lifeboats at all.

    5. Re:Ptheh. by Gideon+Wells · · Score: 3, Funny

      Frankly, so many plausible reasons for the Titanic's sinking have been proposed and proved to be plausible that I won't be surprised if there is a time traveling insurance agency right now back then looking into the possibility of insurance fraud.

      --
      by Anonymous Coward: I, for one, welcome the shift from car analogies to pizza analogies. um.. overlords?
    6. Re:Ptheh. by Stormy+Dragon · · Score: 3, Informative

      ... The watertight doors on the Titanic weren't open when it went down. That's part of why it went down nose first, because the front section of the ship flooded faster than the rear.

    7. Re:Ptheh. by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 4, Informative

      Warships seal the compartments all the way to the top. Even the cable penetrations are watertight.

      It's expensive, so I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that's the reason they don't do it.

      --

      ---
      ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
    8. Re:Ptheh. by SlashV · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I don't think cost was the issue here. It is just very inconvenient for a passenger liner. Moving around the ship will become very difficult if you have to get through a watertight door every few meters.

      Also there may have been structural issues. Even if the bulkheads would have been completely watertight, the flooding of all forward compartments would have caused the ship to pitch forward, which might have caused here to break in two like she did anyway. I am no expert on early twentieth century passenger liner design, but I am sure they had their reason to design her the way they did.

    9. Re:Ptheh. by maxwell+demon · · Score: 3, Funny

      Concordia wasn't a huge problem because it drifted onto solid ground shallow enough to keep it mostly above water. If it had not been carried by onshore winds, it would have been a much different story. The captain waited far to long to declare it time to abandon.

      Well, he made up for it by not waiting long afterward before getting himself off the ship ...

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    10. Re:Ptheh. by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I am no expert on early twentieth century passenger liner design, but I am sure they had their reason to design her the way they did.

      It was cost. Ships just a few years before were mostly either one big space (especially sailing ships) or just a very few compartments. Adding more compartments not only requires more material and construction time, it adds weight which reduces carrying capacity, and it makes travel between compartments slower and more complicated. Sometimes there is no direct path and you have to go up over and down, or sideways.

      All that costs money. Besides, as crummy as it was, it was better then most designs beforehand, so they thought it good enough and figured any further expense would be entirely wasted. They were thinking of one or two big holes, not hundreds of small holes from popped rivets and burst seams.

    11. Re:Ptheh. by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 2

      No, you only need them closed before hand if there's a chance of imminent catastrophe. Warships generally steam with frequently used hatches and doors open. At general quarters, all are closed. There are intermediate stages where some are closed when steaming in war zones but without imminent battle expected.

      My carrier could set battle stations in 4-5 minutes. A cruise ship could probably set them in ten minutes (wild assed guess) because they don't have as many doors and hatches, don't have as many crew to set them, and don't practice it all the time. That's fine for all except battle conditions where you want them set before battle.

    12. Re:Ptheh. by fast+turtle · · Score: 2

      There were metalurgical tests ran on the samples recovered when the wreck was found. Those tests showed that the hull plating was not what had been specified. Instead it was brittle due too high a Carbon Content and the information was on I believe the Discovery Channel so the video's may still be available.

      --
      Mod me up/Mod me down: I wont frown as I've no crown
    13. Re:Ptheh. by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 2

      There were not enough lifeboats because that was standard practice at the time, the thinking was that the lifeboats were not for sitting in awaiting rescue, but for ferrying passengers across to the rescuing ships, along with the rescuing ships lifeboats, not as mad as it sounds, there were 3-4 ships in the area who could have helped, but didn't either because their radio was off, or thought they were too far away ...there was normally a lot of ships in the Atlantic it was very busy ...

      Because of the Titanic it was changed to have enough lifeboat capacity for all aboard, and make the lifeboats survival systems rather than little more than emergency ferries ...

      --
      Puteulanus fenestra mortis
  2. No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    It sank because it filled up with water.

  3. Occam's razor isn't something you shave with by jholyhead · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What's more likely?

    Lookouts weren't paying attention or a rare optical effect making the iceberg invisible.

    1. Re:Occam's razor isn't something you shave with by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Occam's world must've been very, very boring.

    2. Re:Occam's razor isn't something you shave with by LateArthurDent · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What's more likely?

      When playing poker, the probability any individual has a pair is higher than the probability he has four of a kind. Therefore, by Occam's Razor, nobody has ever gotten a four of a kind.

      Clearly the above doesn't make sense. What's more likely, that Occam's Razor is worthless or that you don't understand Occam's Razor?

      Occam's Razor only applies to two theories that give the exact same prediction. The moment they can be differentiated by testing hypotheses, you don't invoke Occam's Razor. You test the hypotheses.

    3. Re:Occam's razor isn't something you shave with by gl4ss · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What's more likely?

      Lookouts weren't paying attention or a rare optical effect making the iceberg invisible.

      optical illusion makes it harder to pay attention.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    4. Re:Occam's razor isn't something you shave with by LateArthurDent · · Score: 5, Informative

      Occam's razor (or actually 'William of Ockham's razor') states that when faced with two solutions for the same problem, the simpler of the two solutions is more likely to be the correct one.

      No, no, no, no. That's a huge pet peeve of mine, and it's what I was trying to correct. Occam's razor says NOTHING about correctness.

      All it says is that if you've got two hypotheses that make the exact same predictions, there's no reason to use the one that involves more variables to arrive at your predictions. You take the simpler one, since it will give you the same answers anyway. The example I like to give, and have posted before on slashdot, is this:

      You and I are given a black box that takes an integer input and returns an integer output. We are tasked with coming up with a hypothesis for the algorithm with the box. We give it the input 3 and it returns 5. We give it the input 7 and it returns 9. We give it 21 and it returns 23. You come up with the hypothesis, "the black box adds 2 to the input." I come up with the hypothesis, "the black box first adds 7 to the input, and then it subtracts 5." Both our theories of what the black box is doing internally give the same prediction for any input, and neither is getting invalidated by the input. In fact, if one of them gets invalidated by an output, so does the other. However, my hypothesis is unnecessarily more complex by adding an additional operation to arrive at the same prediction. That additional complexity also adds more questions. Does it really add 7 and subtract 5? Why not add 9 and then subtract 7? We could spend tons of time trying to figure out exactly what numbers it adds and subtracts when really, all we need to make the proper predictions is your simpler hypothesis.

      Which one is actually correct? Who knows? And it doesn't matter if all our theory is meant to do is explain the output. Now let's say we introduce more tests. We consider how long the box takes to come up with the output, we have a comparison black box that we are assured has the same hardware, and we code the software for that second black box ourselves. We make it just add two to the input, and it gives us the output twice as fast. Now we have reason to believe that more than one operation is going on. We have something to differentiate the theories, and Occam's Razor no longer applies: different predictions are at work and your hypothesis predicts a faster computation time than my hypothesis.

    5. Re:Occam's razor isn't something you shave with by LateArthurDent · · Score: 2

      I have never understood the point of the (popular) concept of Occam's Razor, as it is simply not true that the less complicated of two alternatives is the better one. But in the limited sense you describe, it makes sense, albeit to no great practical purpose.

      Well, I think it is of great practical purpose, although I do agree that it's a far more obvious conclusion. It's the reason why the heliocentric model should be chosen over the geocentric one. You can actually create a very complex set of equations to describe the motion of the other planets with the Earth at the center, as the reference location. Unlike another popular belief, there's nothing inherently wrong with that. You can be any point and define, "I will pick this point as the reference to all movement." That said, things get a lot easier when you pick the Sun, so you should do that. It's like choosing to use cylindrical coordinates to solve a math problem. Yes, you could solve all problems using cartesian coordinates, but it just works out better if you use cylindrical.

      I think that the "simpler hypothesis is the most likely to be correct one" popular understanding came about because making things more complex than they need to be also does have the tendency to introduce errors. In the black box example I gave, even if the black box is adding a number and then subtracting another, how do I figure out which number it is adding and subtracting? Maybe I have that wrong, and it's 9 and 7, it's 115 and 113. So you get into the business of discussing parameters that you don't need and anything you picked might be in error anyway. Now, take moving from the geocentric to the heliocentric model. Not only is a lot simpler to figure out the motion of the planets, but now you can ask yourself, "why is it simpler? What makes it possible for me to drop all these variables and still arrive at the correct answer?" and eventually figure out that it's because gravitational pull is proportional to mass, so you get a "more correct result".

      Of course, the reason I still fight that perception is because it's not always the case. Newton's Laws are a lot simpler than relativity. The reason we don't invoke Occam's and just use Newton's Laws is because, under certain conditions, they give different predictions and Einstein gives the correct one. So you always take the simpler model that explains all the facts, but if you need to add complexity in order to explain a behavior better, then that's what you do.

  4. Re:Dumb question by John+Hasler · · Score: 2

    Radar. Satellite images.

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  5. Re:Who cares? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 4, Funny

    But we've made progress since then: Look at the new unsinkable financial institutions.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  6. The illusion might have added to the many reasons by VinylRecords · · Score: 5, Informative

    The 'optical illusion' might have added to the many reasons that the Titanic sank on its maiden voyage but it certainly was not the main cause. The ship was legendary at the time before it had even made its maiden voyage. The largest and most elaborate and ornate vessel of its time. A floating palace. A moving island on the sea. The Titanic.

    The ship's captain and others postulated that running the ship at full speed from its last stop in Europe all the way to America would make enormous headlines. If the ship arrived in New York ahead of schedule by a day it would be a media sensation and basically the best advertising that they could buy. So the ship's operators plowed through the ocean at the fastest possible speed (which was a common practice though).

    To make things worse the ship's operators both ignored and missed warnings about dangerous fields of ice that they were approaching. An area of ocean crowded with frozen solid and tremendously large icebergs. A nearby ship, the Californian, stopped near where the Titanic sank that night, only a few miles away, because they were extremely cautious and nervous about smashing the ship into a mass of ice. So they waited to resume travel until the morning. The Californian even sent messages to the Titanic warning them of the ice fields. Those messages were essentially ignored.

    At the time that Titanic was built it was considered unsinkable. There had been accidents in the past where large ships had smashed head first into icebergs and stayed above water. And the Titanic had been built stronger, sturdier, and tougher than any ship ever made. The Titanic's captain even said before the first voyage, "there is no condition which would cause a ship to founder. Modern shipbuilding has gone beyond that".

    The ship is going full speed. It's traveling into an area where there are icebergs the size of small islands. The lookouts are not equipped with binoculars and are not aware of what kind of field they are traveling into. The moon is black so there is no light over the ocean. The water is completely calm so they can't hear waves crashing against the icebergs to warn them (years later it is then known that calm water indicates fields of ice). And by the time that the lookouts spot the iceberg...they are traveling full speed right for it and there isn't enough time to turn. They were traveling full speed, blind, deaf, and into a death trap.

    The ship smashes into the iceberg and grinds its side into the mass of ice tearing a few small holes into the side of the ship. The tears are only a few feet long and inches wide but the ocean water is relentless. The Titanic was designed to survive the front two below deck compartments flooding with water. Or any other four compartments located below deck flooding completely. Instead, the first five compartments are almost instantly flooded from ocean water raging through the breaches, the ship is doomed. The ship will sink in less than two hours and there is nothing to stop it. Trapped in the middle of the ocean with nowhere to go and lifeboats for less than half of the passengers.

    While there were only half as many lifeboats as would have been necessary to save everyone, over two-thirds of people on the ship were not able to escape. One reason is that people were so zealous about the "women and children" first rule that they were sending half empty lifeboats off of the ship without loading any men on them. Also they were loading lifeboats according to your travel class. First class passengers were more likely to be saved. Third class passengers had to wait their turns. That's why for the blockbuster Titanic they had a first class woman paired with a third class man. Those two had the best and worst odds of surviving the disaster based on lifeboat placement.

    So no it wasn't an optical illusion. It was a series of many things that contributed to the Titanic sinking on its maiden voyage. Poor lookouts. Dangerous speeds. Lack of modern understanding of calm water indicating dangerous conditions. No moonlight. Purposefully ignoring warnings of dangerous conditions including icebergs. Even without an optical illusion that ship unfortunately still sinks.

  7. Re:Dumb question by Stormy+Dragon · · Score: 3, Informative

    There's also an International Ice Patrol that flies around the north atlantic looking for icebergs.

  8. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    It sank because it filled up with water.

    No, it sank because it stopped displacing enough water to stay buoyant. FTFY

    Hello! Nerd site!

  9. Why didn't they just... by Zandamesh · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Turn the ship around and go back to the floating iceberg, board it, and wait for help there?

    --
    Lo and behold, for I am a sig!
  10. Insurance Scam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Actually you are not that far off. There is an alternate theory that the sinking of the Titanic was an elaborate insurance scam.

    One of the most controversial[6][7] and complex theories was put forward by Robin Gardiner in his book, Titanic: The Ship That Never Sank?[8] In it, Gardiner draws on several events and coincidences that occurred in the months, days, and hours leading up to the sinking of the Titanic, and concludes that the ship that sank was in fact Titanic's sister ship Olympic, disguised as Titanic, as an insurance scam.

    Olympic was the older sister of Titanic, built alongside the more famous vessel but launched in October 1910. Her exterior profile was nearly identical to Titanic, save for small detailing such as the promenade deck windows. These were not glazed in Olympic. In Titanic, the front half of the promenade deck was fitted with smaller glazed windows to protect passengers from spray.

    On September 20, 1911, the Olympic was involved in a collision with the Royal Navy cruiser HMS Hawke near Southampton. The cruiser smashed its ram into the side of the Olympic, seriously damaging both ships. The inquiry found Hawke free of all blame. This set in motion Gardiner's theory. White Star Line was allegedly not insured for the cost of fixing the damaged Olympic (which, according to Gardiner, had damaged the central turbine's mountings and the keel). The White Star's flagship would also be out of action during any repairs, and the Titanic's completion date would have to be delayed. All this would amount to a serious financial loss for the company. Gardiner proposes that, to make sure at least one vessel would be earning money. Olympic was then converted to become the Titanic. Gardiner states that few parts of either ship bore the name, other than the easily removed lifeboats, bell, compass binnacle, and name badges. Thus, Gardiner believes the Titanic spent 25 years in service as the Olympic.

    Gardiner uses as evidence the length of Titanic's sea trials. Olympic's trials in 1910 took two days, including several high speed runs, but Titanic's trials reportedly only lasted for one day, with no working over half-speed. Gardiner says this was because the patched-up hull could not take any long periods of high speed.

    Gardiner suggests the plan was to dispose of the Olympic to collect insurance money. He supposes that the seacocks were to be opened at sea to slowly flood the ship. If numerous ships were stationed nearby to take off the passengers, the shortage of lifeboats would not matter as the ship would sink slowly and the boats could make several trips to the rescuers.

    Gardiner maintains that on April 14, Officer Murdoch was not officially on duty yet was on the bridge because he was one of the few high-ranking officers who knew of the plan and was keeping a watch out for the rescue ships. One of Gardiner's most controversial statements is that the Titanic did not strike an iceberg, but an IMM rescue ship that was drifting on station with its lights out. Gardiner based this hypothesis on the idea that the supposed iceberg was seen at such a short distance by the lookouts on the Titanic because it was actually a darkened ship, and he also does not believe an iceberg could inflict such sustained and serious damage to a steel double-hulled (sic) vessel such as the Titanic.

    Gardiner further hypothesizes that the ship that was hit by the Titanic was the one seen by the Californian firing distress rockets, and that this explains the perceived inaction of the Californian (which traditionally is seen as failing to come to the rescue of the Titanic after sighting its distress rockets). Gardiner's hypothesis is that the Californian was not expecting rockets, but a rendezvous. The ice on the deck of the Titanic is explained by Gardiner as ice from the rigging of both the Titanic and the mystery ship it hit. Researchers Bruce Beve

    1. Re:Insurance Scam by jandrese · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Like all good crazy conspiracy theories this one requires dozens (probably hundreds) of people in on the scam (in which people are killed!) and nobody ever coming forward to bust them. It's a cute read, but when you start thinking about it this plan was just way way too complex to have even gotten as far as it did.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
  11. Re:The illusion might have added to the many reaso by Stormy+Dragon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Also they were loading lifeboats according to your travel class. First class passengers were more likely to be saved. Third class passengers had to wait their turns. That's why for the blockbuster Titanic they had a first class woman paired with a third class man.

    This is one of those myths that gets repeated despite not being true. The first class passengers had an advantage in that the lifeboats were located on the upper decks and thus the started physically closer to them, but no attempt was made to keep third class passengers from the lifeboats, nor where the first class passengers given preferential seating.

    And the actual best/worst survival case was second class children and second class males (in fact, the survival rater for third class males was 50% higher than for second class males).

  12. Re:No by Swanktastic · · Score: 2

    I think you have the chops to become a government consultant. Lucky for you, IBM is recruiting!

  13. Re:The more interesting question: ... by maxwell+demon · · Score: 2

    Well, the Titanic going 3D (namely, downwards instead of only horizontally) was exactly the problem.

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  14. In Harm's Way by Latent+Heat · · Score: 2
    I am basing this on the John Wayne-Kirk Douglas-Patricia Neal movie In Harm's Way along with Tom Clancy's Red October, so you know this is authoritative. And Star Trek The Wrath of Khan.

    I was under the impression that a Navy Captain sometimes had to order one or more compartments sealed with sailors still inside. The idea is that you sacrifice some of your men to save the ship and the remaining crew. Do I have this wrong?

    1. Re:In Harm's Way by macslut · · Score: 3, Funny

      Well there's that and only 2 other things that make up every submarine movie ever made.

      Spoiler alert: here are all 3:
      1) Sealing of bulkheads with "good" men on the other side. Order must be given with a followup command, "dammit, I know there are good men in there, I'm thinking about all the other good men aboard my ship!"

      2) Going deeper than the sub was designed for. Order must be given with a followup command, "I know what the engineers designed her for, I'm telling you she can take it!" Also, the command, "come on baby" must be given at each increment on the depth meter until it maxes out.

      3) All silent. The sub turns everything off, except the red light. The sounds of the ships circling overhead are broadcast through the sub. This always works despite the resident onboard cat always knocking over the stack of pots and pans in the galley.

      Take the above and add the following accent for the movie:
      Russian accent: Hunt for Red October
      German accent: Das Boot
      American accent: Crimson Tide

  15. Captain made wrong decision to avoid the iceberg. by scharkalvin · · Score: 2

    The Captain (or whoever was manning the bridge at the time) made the wrong decision on how to avoid the iceberg. They tried to steer around the iceberg and also slowed and then reversed the engines to reduce speed. This probably doomed the ship. A ship as large as the Titanic cannot "turn on a dime" and the slow water movement over the rudder at reduced speed destroyed it's ability to turn the ship. Even worse, reversing the engines caused the water to cavitate around the rudder reducing it's effect even more. Had they ordered "Full Speed Ahead" the rudder would have been more effective and the ship might have been able to steer clear of the iceberg before it hit.