Ponytail Physics: How Competing Forces Shape Bundles of Hair

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American


BOSTON—At long last, one of the hairiest problems in modern physics has been solved. Researchers have devised a theoretical model to describe the shape of a ponytail.

A ponytail may look like a relatively simple object, but in truth it is a bundle of physical complexity. Multiple forces are in play. Each hair is elastic, with a random intrinsic curvature. And the average head of hair has 50,000 to 100,000 individual strands, according to Raymond Goldstein, a professor in the University of Cambridge's department of applied mathematics and theoretical physics.

Goldstein presented his ponytail research here at this week's meeting of the American Physical Society, and he and his colleagues at Unilever and the University of Warwick in the U.K. published a paper on their findings February 13 in Physical Review Letters.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Some of the major forces conspiring to shape a ponytail are elasticity, gravity, tension and pressure. That last property, Goldstein and his colleagues found, comes from the curvatures of individual fibers, from which the physicists derived a so-called equation of state for hair. A similar concept was applied more than 65 years ago in studies of the compressibility of wool.

In the numerical model that Goldstein and his colleagues devised, the push-and-pull of physical forces changes at various points along the ponytail. Near the base, swelling pressure and elasticity dominate. Beyond a few centimeters, the shape depends primarily on the pressure and the weight of the ponytail.

Beyond unveiling a theory of the ponytail, Goldstein and his colleagues also added a new term to the physics lexicon. They describe ponytail size by the "Rapunzel number," a unit equal to the total length of the ponytail in centimeters divided by five. Five centimeters, Goldstein said, is about the length scale below which gravity does not bend the hairs much.

To test their model, the researchers predicted ponytail shapes for various hair lengths and compared them to the real thing. They started with 25-centimeter ponytails and then cut off five centimeters at a time to measure how shape changes with length. "We take real ponytails and we trim them back," Goldstein said. "We reduce the Rapunzel number."

So how did the grand unified ponytail theory fare in its tonsorial test? "The answer is, we do a pretty good job," Goldstein reported.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe