Could one use the Deborah number to model quantitatively a collective behavior change, and measure the rate of change of behavior? Can one use the Deborah number to represent start-up success expectation, or behavior unsteadiness, before reaching a new steady state? For example, to predict and improve the successful penetration of a new collective idea, such as a new business model?
The question is asked in the context I presented earlier in this forum [1], the new theory of physics of fluids applied to collective behavior (called PFCB theory).
In the physics of fluids, the Deborah number is nondimensional, and was named after the Prophetess Deborah. In the Book of Judges, she said, “The mountains flowed before the Lord”. The original definition was given by Reiner [2], writing verbatim,
“Deborah knew two things. First, that the mountains flow, as everything flows. But, secondly, that they flowed before the Lord, and not before man, for the simple reason that man in his short lifetime cannot see them flowing, while the time of observation of God is infinite."
Then, Reiner found useful to define a nondimensional number, called the Deborah number, as De = time of relaxation/time of observation.
Today, De is defined as λ / T, where T is a characteristic time for the deformation process (e.g., the time of observation of the change), and λ is still the relaxation time. In other words, one inherently assumes today that the material must be experiencing a deformation over this time, and the simplicity of Reiner's definition remains valid [3].
Thus, in terms of PFCB [1], at low Deborah numbers we would expect more potential for collective behavior (i.e., more fluidlike), unless the collective is in steady-state (e.g., even though De is zero in such case).
To induce change in a collective, such as a new business model, it seems to work better to disrupt the previous collective behavior first, or use a disruptive force that manifests itself, to then apply the change desired. It should be harder to change a society while that society is stable at a previous behavior. In business terms, it should work better actively (or, to wait) to disrupt first ...and then innovate.
Cheers, Ed Gerck
[1] https://www.researchgate.net/post/Could_social_collective_behavior_be_well-modelled_by_fluid_physics
[2] Reiner, M., “The Deborah number”. Phys. Today. 17, p. 62, 1964.
[3] Poole, R. J. (2012), The Deborah and Weissenberg numbers. The British Society of Rheology, Rheology Bulletin. 53(2) p. 32-39, and
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249993763_The_Deborah_and_Weissenberg_numbers
Article The Deborah and Weissenberg numbers
Regarding your business model " In business terms, it should work better actively (or, to wait) to disrupt first ...and then innovate." Is it the case that a "new business model" is developed to fill in the "gaps" that are recognized in the old business model?
Dennis
Dennis Mazur
Hello Dennis,
You wrote about ' the case that a "new business model" is developed to fill in the "gaps" that are recognized in the old business model'.
In this case, gaps will likely exist (e.g., faults or opportunities are recognized), but are not always useful. For example, the cost of doing nothing is acceptable; or a fraud becomes a sale (as in car theft, as seen by car manufacturers); or market failure (corruption, or due to oligarchs).
For the gap to be useful marketwise, you may also look for (a) an existing (albeit known or not by others) disruption; (b) a disruption created as part of your innovation; ( c) no prior disruption at all; (d) a mixture of these cases, as intersubjectively seen by different observers; or (e) any other case, such as the incumbent offering a "free lunch" to pick-up customers.
The question asks, in general, why would the innovation (change) be naturally difficult, and how to improve the odds to change.
As the context with the PFCB theory shows, we know in the analogy in the physics of fluids, that a difficulty in chaging a stable system can be represented well by the Deborah number. Therefore, mutatis mutandis, we expect that with collective behavior (now modelled as a liquid, not gas or solid), something analogous to the Deborah number will play a similar role. Moreover, we expect the same analogy to help devise a way to improve the successful penetration of a new collective idea, such as a new business model.
Thus, in the PFCB theory, one predicts that option (a) above is more efficient and more likely to succeed, compared with the options b-e. You are still filling the gaps, but you're better of if you are not at the same time creating the gaps (and maybe failing in sustaining them). The analogous forces studied in physics of fluids will rather create a counter-reaction to your efforts, if the sytem is stable.
In other words, there is a systemic reason for the stability. So, your best bet is to first promote or use a disruption, even unrelated, if a disruption is to take hold. This way, the probability of failure reduces to zero for the disruption (already happened!), and your only risk is innovation.
Cheers, Ed Gerck
Hello all,
As R. Buckminster Fuller observed:,“You cannot change things by fighting existing reality: To change things you must build a new model to make the existing model obsolete.” That's where the fun is in physics and maths, I think, so we can change them, and the same thinking is here applied to xollective social behavior, and later to gun control, and other topics.
Cheers, Ed Gerck
It is typical of stable systems, as a collective effect we also see in human groups, to show difficulties in changing.
But, people who proudly carry a full cup, are usually the main culprit for the group lagging behind; they have no room left for new content. It works better for change, it seems, if one sees it as a sales process, collectively, and keep it honest. Time, not fame, is important, and Time is life, not money.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Physics