Chaos theory has no fine edge does it fluctuate?

[chrisjones]

Chaos theory has no fine edge does it fluctuate?
 

Intro : Does nature err slightly beyond order into chaos in the context of chaos theory? And I'd like to proffer the idea that the point at which order tips into chaos fluctuates. I'd like to point out that I'm seeking opinions and not proffering tinfoil hat theories. And also I don't have the wealth or inclination or time to study for a Ph.D. or spend weeks researching this.

------------------------------------------------------------

Does nature err slightly beyond order into chaos in the context of chaos theory? And I'd like to proffer the idea that the point at which order tips into chaos actually fluctuates. Nothing in nature is absolutely perfect therefore do natural errors at the point in which order tips into chaos allow for fluctuations in the order/chaos tipping point?

 

[studiot]

4 minutes ago, chrisjones said:

Chaos theory has no fine edge does it fluctuate?
 

Intro : Does nature err slightly beyond order into chaos in the context of chaos theory? And I'd like to proffer the idea that the point at which order tips into chaos fluctuates. I'd like to point out that I'm seeking opinions and not proffering tinfoil hat theories. And also I don't have the wealth or inclination or time to study for a Ph.D. or spend weeks researching this.

------------------------------------------------------------

Does nature err slightly beyond order into chaos in the context of chaos theory? And I'd like to proffer the idea that the point at which order tips into chaos actually fluctuates. Nothing in nature is absolutely perfect therefore do natural errors at the point in which order tips into chaos allow for fluctuations in the order/chaos tipping point?

 

Does this thread have a pont we can discuss ?

Perhaps you should explain what you think the terms 'chaos theory' and 'orde'r are please ?

[joigus]

I don't understand the question. Chaos is a qualitative property. It's not a number. What do you mean it "fluctuates"?

[chrisjones]

I'm suggesting that errors at the quantum level are expressed as fluctuations at the point at which order tips into chaos.

Edited August 14, 2022 by chrisjones

[studiot]

9 minutes ago, chrisjones said:

I'm suggesting that errors at the quantum level are expressed in fluctuations at the point at which order tips into chaos.

Repetition is not explanation.

Also if you want this to be a discussion of theoretical and modern physics then you need to use specialist terms correctly.

We can and will help you with this, which is why I asked about your understanding.

Suggestions on the other hand belong in speculations.

 

A note: a new member is allowed 5 posts in their first 24 hours as an (effective) anti spam measure.

Please don't waste them arguing minutiae, this could be an interesting discussion.

Edited August 14, 2022 by studiot

[chrisjones]

Ok let me try and explain what I mean ☺️

I'm suggesting that order and chaos are not simply on or off states like a switch but instead, the point at which order tips into chaos can be any number of states between order and chaos at the quantum level due to tiny natural errors in the way that the quantum realm behaves. 

[studiot]

3 minutes ago, chrisjones said:

Ok let me try and explain what I mean ☺️

I'm suggesting that order and chaos are not simply on or off states like a switch but instead, the point at which order tips into chaos can be any number of states between order and chaos at the quantum level due to tiny natural errors in the way that the quantum realm behaves. 

It would be more helpful if you actually answered my question.

Scientific order and scientific chaos are not opposites but have a very tenuous relationship.

Chaos

Quote

Apparently random but recurrent behaviour in a deterministic system

Note the word apparent.

Order is more difficult.

There are a great many mathematical uses of the word order, but none of them mean colloquially 'like a bunch of soldiers on parade' which would be a popular misconception.

 

There is a process in statistics where you select one state and call it 'order or the ordered state'.

Then all other states are 'disorder' note not chaos.

You can then use probability theory to determine useful things about the relative probabilities of each state.

[chrisjones]

" You can then use probability theory to determine useful things about the relative probabilities of each state."

My point exactly, I'm suggesting that observed order and chaos are probabilities at the quantum level, fluid in expression due to quantum errors.

[joigus]

1 hour ago, chrisjones said:

I'm suggesting that errors at the quantum level are expressed as fluctuations at the point at which order tips into chaos.

This is known not to be the case. The reason is that in order to have chaotic systems in classical mechanics, you need very little:

1) High sensitivity to initial conditions

2) Mixing of trajectories (so-called topological mixing), which means that any particular "patch" of possible initial conditions ends up --through evolution-- covering all the possible space of possible dynamical states (phase space).

Any dynamical system that satisfies non-linear equations (which means any dynamical system to all intents and purposes) is non-linear.

Even linear systems, for more than 2 degrees of freedom (number of independent coordinates necessary to describe them) is chaotic too.

On the contrary, quantum systems are inevitably non-chaotic, as the Schrödinger equation is always linear (the superposition or addition of two possible motions is also a possible motion).

There is a connection between both, though, which manifests itself through quantum scarring.

Also, indeterminism in large chaotic systems does not come from the quantum. Quantum fluctuations are negligible for planetary motion, yet the 3-body problem already displays chaos, even though quantum mechanics can be safely ignored in that context.

So for all we know, even if the world were classical --and not quantum-- the slightest complexity in the dynamics would imply chaotic behaviour.

Edited August 14, 2022 by joigus
link added

[chrisjones]

Thank you Jo that's a brilliant explanation, actually, I'm bipolar and started to get manic last night, and I experience a heightened sense of imagination and lateral thinking periodically. I had quickly run my eye over a few science articles in my google feed on my mobile and also read only the google definition of chaos theory, hence the bright idea ☺️.

[joigus]

13 minutes ago, chrisjones said:

Thank you Jo that's a brilliant explanation, actually, I'm bipolar and started to get manic last night, and I experience a heightened sense of imagination and lateral thinking periodically. I had quickly run my eye over a few science articles in my google feed on my mobile and also read only the google definition of chaos theory, hence the bright idea ☺️.

Thank you. You don't need to explain yourself.  You're very welcome. The fact that professional scientists have thought in similar terms indicates that the idea is not silly at all. You did express it in a non-standard way, though, and I was a bit confused.

[chrisjones]

What actually gave me the idea was computational errors in quantum computing and the need to correct them hence the idea of quantum errors, but that would take me into hitchhikers guide to the galaxy territory and it would infer that the chaos we observe on earth is the result of computational errors in earth's algorithm and that would also infer that the universe is computational. It would then follow that earth and the universe are algorithmic in the context of a giant computer lol 🙂 

Edited August 16, 2022 by chrisjones