RoR: Forum

Ever read "A Sound of Thunder" by Ray Bradbury? It's a short story and it involves the "Butterfly Effect". I think you'd like it. You can find (and read) it by googling the title.

Post 1

Wednesday, April 4, 2012 - 7:42pm

Thanks, Kyle. I'm pretty sure I read this many years ago.

Sam

Post 2

Wednesday, April 4, 2012 - 9:27pm

All entities' mass (gravitational) and electromagetic fields continually effect all other entities.

Post 3

Wednesday, April 4, 2012 - 9:50pm

Dean:

But do the effects of very small and momentary changes in their fields ever die out? I would argue that they don't.

Sam

(Edited by Sam Erica on 4/04, 10:09pm)

Post 4

Thursday, April 5, 2012 - 2:15pm

There is another way to look at the 'butterfly effect:'

If a small perturbation can influence a larger perturbation, and so on, from small scales to large scales, then, what is the probability of there never being a smallest scale perturbation in this world, as it is?

'Noise' -- low level incoherent energy at some level-- is endemic...in the Universe.

It is not the existence of a single butterfly that causes the tornado/hurricane; it is the non-existence of a world in which there are not an impossibly large number of small perturbations.

If you look at this exercise as a hypothetical in which there is a perfectly still (or ordered, or laminar) and noise-free world, free of perturbations, in which no hurricane/tornado exists (or equally, consider the laminar flow over a lifting surface which transitions to turbulence) and into that world is injected a singular butterfly that introduces 'the' perturbation that eventually leads to a hurricane/tornado, then you are imagining ... a world that nowhere exists.

We don't ever place bets that the laminar flow over a lifting surface will not transition to turbulence in certain flow regimes, waiting for a perturbation to trigger it; we know the smart money is long on perturbations being endemic.

However, when not gambling, we're also not above cheating, by placing those little stubby vortex generators on the suction surface of airfoils, just to make sure, to delay separation at increased angles of attack...

Post 5

Thursday, April 5, 2012 - 6:00pm

Fred,

Now, you are just showing off.

Ed

Post 6

Thursday, April 5, 2012 - 6:15pm

Sam (Paul),

I liked your essay a lot. It gives me hope during a time when our country is at what appears to be a crossroads. Inspired by your essay, I plan to make some quite small (political) perturbations here, soon. I can't remember the name of that TV show with young David Carradine in it, but this fictional exchange somehow sprang into mind:

Grasshopper:
Master, what am I to take away from the parable of the 'butterfly effect'?

Master:
That you should be the butterfly, Grasshopper.

:-)

Ed

Post 7

Thursday, April 5, 2012 - 6:59pm

A butterfly deciding to fly rather than not may be a deciding factor of whether a particular tornado comes to be or not. But...

1. It would be impossible for an entity to predict whether this was true, and when a particular tornado comes to be or not, there is no way to prove that the butterfly's choice had impacted such.
2. Butterflies more likely only impact minor variations in tornado occurences, such as a slight change position, angular velocity, translational velocity, or size.
3. Tornadoes are much more impacted by things like: Sunlight heating up the surface of the earth unevenly, massive volumes of the atmosphere colliding at various hights (such as warm rising air near the Earth's surface moving quickly sideways underneath a large cold volume of air). Which explains the cause of occurences of cumulonimbus clouds, and severe thunderstorms and tornadoes. The tornadoes are going to happen, butterflies or not.

Ed: not to say that your activism would be irrelevant. Apples and oranges.

Post 8

Thursday, April 5, 2012 - 7:05pm

Ed, thanks for the kudos. The TV series was Kung Fu.

Fred:

I think we should examine the conditions that the butterfly had when it (decided?) to flap its wings. I don't regard that action as a perturbation. The butterfly was just reacting to other events that preceded it, such as whether the weather was cloudy or sunny, the ambient temperature (which was the result of other events) and so on. My point is that a true perturbation can only come from an exterior source � and the only truly exterior source that I can think of is free will, everything else is mechanical and deterministic. We could argue that the butterfly can have free will but I don't think it's germane to the case.

I understand what you're talking about when it comes to "noise" but maybe we should back off a bit and look at it from a much smaller scale, i.e. "It's All Just a Matter of Precision." I'm not a quantum physicist but if were I would try to make a case that the white noise we see on our TV screen is really a result of a causal path, i.e. it's deterministic. What appears to be just random "snow" isn't really random � we just call it random because we don't have enough data or motivation to identify why a particular pixel is white or black at any instant. My question to a quantum physicist would be, "Are the products of radioactive decay truly random or is the timing of emission of a particular particle predictable?" If the answer is "No" then I suppose this would also be an exterior source.

The original question of whether events, no matter how inconsequential, ever die out doesn't seem to be answered by any of the chaos experts. Everything I've read points to their belief that only some small events persist in any form, large or small. And "small" is relative depending on whether you're a microbe or an elephant.

Sam

(Edited by Sam Erica on 4/05, 7:12pm)

Post 9

Thursday, April 5, 2012 - 8:09pm

Sam,

Given reality is a deterministic infinite state machine...

1. Do the smallest things/events impact reality forever: Yes. Can we predict what the impact will be? No.
2. Is the "noise" on an analog TV monitor due to nondeterministic causes? No. Is it predictable: No.
3. Is the timing of a particular particle predictable: No. Is it due to nondeterministic causes? No.

#1 it seems very unlikely that two different starting states could lead to states somewhere in the future that were identical... unless:
A. You choose two starting states which are from the same reality at different points in time (where the earlier starting state would eventually reach the same states as the later starting point)
B. 1. In The Volume where there are differences, the differences somehow eventually become identical, and 2. all entities external The Volume are identically impacted by either case of The Volume.

So my answer to question #1 above is Yes, except for A above, but I would change my answer to No if anyone discovers two different states which satisfy B1 and B2.

#2 and #3 are the same question:

With reality being as complex as it is, things cannot be predicted beyond larger generalities in shorter time frames. The finest details are determined by EVERYTHING in reality (which is a lot of stuff), and no superdupercomputer could ever perform all of the calculations necessary to finely predict such things. This is because reality itself is a giant superduper-infinate-state-machine-computer, and the only way one can discover what it eventually will calculate (what will eventually come to be) is to wait it out and observe when it comes.

Post 10

Friday, April 6, 2012 - 8:22am

Sam:

I recognize the argument, and I've been there, right with you; clinging to Newton until the fingers bleed, because Newton works pretty damn well at explaining lots of the universe---especially in our neighborhood of length-time.

For all we know, he explains all of it, and the apparent paradoxes that crop up with quantum physics are just a consequence of us not measuring Newton's billiard balls on all the axes and modalities that exist; a paradox -introduced- by our incomplete math and physical models.

But objectively, the jury is out on all that, isn't it? We'd like to think, if we just had all the necessary information and initial conditions and knowledge of physical laws, and applied all of the conservation laws, and calculated all of those 4 cushion bank shots across all the necessary axes and modalities, that we could suss out Newton's billiard balls, including radioactive decay and so on.

So, what seems to be random and probabilistic and so on is just so because of our current incomplete modeling and math.

In the meantime, I sure don't know, but OTOH, what an incredible playground this is, with seemingly un-climbed and un-climable hills forever waiting for us to climb. And everytime we reach a local peak, what we can mainly see is the next peak, waiting for us. This seems to be true at both scales of existence, the very large and the very small.

On some kind of logarithmic scale of length-time, I'm not even sure if we know where 'we' in our 1-sec/1-meter neighborhood are, relative to any absolute scale; we only see to ever growing horizons in both directions. Is there an upper limit on that logarithmic scale of events? Is there a lower limit? Do we know where those limits are for sure, or are those limits ever moving, based on our increased understanding of the universe?

Kyle joked about God playing pool, but for all we know, is our entire known universe a local region of particles in some much larger universe? Is our known universe and everything in it the 'stuff' that makes up a particle of matter and energy in some massive wad of chewing gum, stuck under a table at diner in some mega universe somewhere, and so on? And likewise, in that gob of phlegm we just coughed up, if we probed deep enough, would we find universes of events unfolding at ever smaller time and length scales?

Not important in the least, and ... how would we ever know? We live here and now, so we might as well live here and now, because that is all we can do. It may be all, or it may be little, but it is all there is to us, and that is all we need to exist.

We think there are some absolute gatekeepers at the small end, like Planck length and time, but ... I'm not so sure. Because along the way, there is evidence of scale jumping phenomena, like 'oscillons.' Oscillons exist in vibrating granular media at length and time scales far removed from the length/time scales of the individual grains of vibrating media, and exhibit their own conservative laws. These are different from simple nodal points on a vibrating plate with sand sprinkled on it; they combine and split, repel and attract under observable laws, and interact, like particles. By analogy, if the smallest quanta of length and time events under our present physical model are themselves 'oscillons', then under a yet unrealized physical model, they could be the oscillon-like consequences of events at much smaller scales of length and time, and via that scale jump, skip through Planck length and time to show up in 'our' so far understood model of the universe.

Oscillon

(Edited by Fred Bartlett on 4/06, 8:25am)

Post 11

Friday, April 6, 2012 - 8:53am

Paul:

Related to your observation -- small changes in initial conditions can lead to massive changes in consequences -- is the work that Wolfram did in his New Kind of Science (NKS), only the central theme in that was something like:

From exceedingly simple rules can result exceedingly complex systems/consequences.

In NKS, he experimentally examines this using cellular automata -- simple computer programs that use simple rules to generate complex patterns. One set of simple rules results in one class of patterns, and by changing the rules very slightly, vastly more complex patterns are generated. Seemingly similar rules can result in vastly different outcomes; one random at all levels, and the other ordered at ever larger levels of complexity.

A physical world example is GATC -- the rules for recombinant building block DNA. His cellular automota experiments are like that, but much simpler.

"Gravity" in some sense is a very simple 'rule.' And yet, as a consequence of that simple 'rule', complex ordering of matter ir realized(like our round-as-a-billiard-ball Earth hurtling in a coherent fashion around a seething bag of raging fusion.)

Another way that 'gravity' results in complex systems is found in the ordered matter of sediment, mixed up, disorded matter in solution. Left to sit long enough, it orders itself by density under a simple 'rule.' But this results in a gradient of species in solution, a kind of chemistry lab in action, sans the chemist. With thousands of miles of shoreline on ancient seas, is this the manner in which the building blocks of life are not only commonly formed but inevitable?

Is man himself and all he dreams a consequence of ... gravity?

Post 12

Friday, April 6, 2012 - 9:42am

To expand on the 'man from gravity' question; a criticism of evolution is the 'improbability' of complex life building blocks 'spontaneously' generating from 'nothing.'

But that isn't true at all; there isn't 'nothing.' There are exceedingly simple rules, like 'gravity' and all of its consequences. Gravity results, as a consequence, in the ordering of previously dis-ordered matter, species in solution. This results in a gradient of concentration of species-- a secondary gradient as a consequence of the simple gravity gradient.

That gradient of concentration of species in solution is no longer 'random', it is ordered, and it results in a kind of chemistry lab; somewhere in all those now ordered gradients of species in solution are optimum conditions for creating the building blocks for all kinds of complex molecules, and from them, gradients of concentrations of those molecules, to compounds and so on.

The gradient -- gravity -- created not just one random arrangement, but a gradient of arrangements.

Lather, rinse, repeat, and from simple rules, complex systems.

"Lather, rinse, repeat" is my shortcut for recursion.

It is also my shortcut for hand-waving really complex phenomena into something that looks trivial.

Be careful; it is akin to what magicians try to do when they pull a rabbit out of their hat.

Post 13

Friday, April 6, 2012 - 11:35am

Dean:

Yeah, that super computer would have to know everything going on with every particle in the universe, real time, including itself, which is clearly an impossibility as it would have to have self knowledge and know what it is knowing at the time of its knowing. Self-referential.

Fred:

Thanks for the reference to the oscillons. I didn't know of this phenomenon.

You're getting increasingly esoteric to the point where I can image the words coming from a science fiction hero waxing poetical. This isn't a criticism ... just observing.

Sam

Post 14

Monday, April 9, 2012 - 9:16am

Sam:

When you look into 'oscillons', one of the things you can notice is that there is not a continuum of regimes between the time/length scale of the vibrating media(the individual vibrating brass balls or grains of sand, which are at one small length and frequency of vibration) and the much larger scale on which the 'oscillons' exhibit phase and coherence and attraction and repulsion based on phase; the coherence of these events 'jumps' over scales of length and time, and in that way, hint at the 'digital/discrete' nature of events like this.

We see that concept repeated with the stable energy levels of electrons orbiting nuclei; there is not a continuum of possible states, but only discrete states.

There is another example in WOlfram's NKS study, with cellular automata; when he(or anyone)varies the very simple starting conditions continuously in the smallest possible(to the study)steps, some of the results are 'noise' while others result in distinctive ordered complexity, and the transition from one to the other can be a single small step; there is not a continuum of results, only discrete coherent results in a sea of noise.

These are not nearly as well understood as resonances in elastic systems(like a rotating flexible shaft) which are analytically predictable.

The existence of 'particles' at all might be an example of this discreteness, the result of coherence which is not continuous, but which jumps between possible/stable states.

Back to oscillons, if you 'tagged' an individual vibrating bit of media and followed it, you would notice that it is not uniquely associated with an individual 'oscillon' event. Individual vibrating bits of media come into and leave the 'oscillon' which has its own scale of length and time far removed from the scale of length and time associated with the individual bits of vibrating media.

Not only do these 'oscillons' interact, repel, and repulse like particles, but they can form into long/complex chains which persist over time.

These, to me, are an analog -- a hint, by example -- of how larger particles and events can be formed of smaller scale particles and events. They might even provide a means of jumping through or past Planck length/time (on the way 'up' from much smaller scale events not 'visible' or realizable
using our current model/rules for the universe.)

With such a mechanism providing the jump from a smaller scale (seemingly 'outside' of our universe, which is not really the case) to the smallest 'realizable' particles on this side of Planck length/time, it would appear to be 'something from nothing,' but in fact, that would not really be the case at all.

Esoteric? Maybe. But my oldest once based his jr high science fair project on oscillons; he wrote away for and got lots of different sized granular media, then took apart his old electronic football game and created a rig for shaking media. He couldn't vary the frequency with his rig, but he could vary the shape and depth of the bed of media., and he achieved some odd looking lumps of abrasives which had size and shape and phase...

regards,
Fred

Post 15

Tuesday, April 10, 2012 - 8:11am

Good stuff, Fred. I just wish I had enough background to fully appreciate all this, especially on how it impacts the origins of the universe.

Sam

Post 16

Thursday, April 12, 2012 - 3:47pm

Sam:

Ha! Me, too. I don't think we *can* impact the origin of the universe, and barely, our understanding of same.

Folks who do have sufficient background claim to understand the physics of the Big Bang all the way back to a tiny threshold ... a very small moment in time from the moment of the Big Bang, and a correspondingly very small size of the entire universe, which are both not exactly '0', but are very tiny but finite value of time and space.

A tiny, tiny fraction of a second, and a mote of space far smaller than a grain of sand...

They claim that out current physics model 'works' all the way back to those tiny barriers, but no further/smaller/briefer; we can't make our physics 'work' before that moment/size, beyond that time/length, all the way to '0.'

(An engineer would say 'close enough, it's Miller Time' but not a physicist/philosopher...)

I for sure do not claim there is an answer in that oscillon analogy(which is about events at much larger time/length scales), but I am suggesting that there might be a hint in there, a way to imagine larger scale events that themselves are composed of much smaller scale events, not in a continuous fashion, but in a scale-jumping fashion.

The events above those tiny thresholds -- for which our current physics model 'works' -- might be by analogy oscillon-like consequences of events at a much smaller timescale that are 'outside' of not the Universe, but of our present physical model, and in that manner, under our present physical model, until we extend it, make us believe that the Big bang was a singularity, that it was 'something from nothing,' when in fact, what it was was 'something from nothing that we currently understand in our present physical model...'

It's not even a hypothesis-- its a suggestion that a hypothesis might exist, and not a very useful one until and unless someone comes up with a provable consequence of that hypothesis that can be tested to verify or disprove it.

It would be a breakthrough to even determine if such a hypothesis could or could not be fashioned; even that might not be possible without extending the current physical model.

This hint of a hypothesis is suggesting that the smallest particles and events in our current model are scale jumping artifacts of events at much smaller time scales(and our current physical model says that there -is no such thing- as those smaller scales in time and space...)

'Oscillons' only demonstrate that scale jumping events, discrete in the spatial/frequency domains-- are possible.

regards,
Fred

Post 17

Thursday, April 12, 2012 - 7:39pm

Damn, Fred, when you get a couple beers in you, you really bust out of the gates to wax poetic!

Sometimes while reading your stuff though, I feel like I am in one of those post-modern existentialist art galleries -- the high-falootin' kind -- where everything is supposed to have tons of deep, esoteric meaning; meaning available only to the most hip and astute of consciousnesses.

Makes me feel a little unrefined, sometimes -- a little rough around the edges and whatnot.

:-)

Oh well, I guess it takes all kinds. I can't complain about the diversity. That just wouldn't be PC.

:-)

Keep it comin', Fred.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 4/12, 7:43pm)

Post 18

Friday, April 13, 2012 - 7:51am

Ed:

I am going to cut out your post with the 'hip' and 'refined' and wave it at my wife next time she laughs at me for going to work in my ripped jeans and nine year old now doorless Jeep Wrangler.

Thanks for the useful documentation! I need all the help I can get in that area.

regards,
Fred

Post 19

Friday, April 13, 2012 - 11:22am