In mathematics and physics, chaos theory
describes the behavior of certain nonlinear dynamical systems that under specific conditions exhibit dynamics that are sensitive to initial
conditions (popularly referred to as the butterfly effect). As a result of this
sensitivity, the behavior of chaotic systems appears to be random, because of an exponential
growth of perturbations in the initial conditions. This happens even though these systems are deterministic in the sense that their future dynamics are well defined by their
initial conditions, and with no random elements involved. This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply
chaos.
Overview
Chaotic behavior has been observed in the laboratory in a variety of systems including electrical circuits, lasers, oscillating chemical reactions, fluid dynamics, and mechanical and
magneto-mechanical devices. Observations of chaotic behaviour in nature include the dynamics of satellites in the
solar system, the time evolution of the magnetic field of celestial bodies, population growth in ecology, the dynamics of the action potentials in neurons, and
molecular vibrations. Everyday examples of chaotic systems include weather and
climate.[1] There is some controversy over the existence of
chaotic dynamics in the plate tectonics and in economics.[2] [3] [4]
Systems that exhibit mathematical chaos are deterministic and thus orderly in some sense; this technical use of the word
chaos is at odds with common parlance, which suggests complete disorder. A related field of physics called
quantum chaos theory studies systems that follow the laws of quantum mechanics. Recently, another field, called relativistic
chaos[5], has emerged to describe systems that
follow the laws of general relativity.
As well as being orderly in the sense of being deterministic, chaotic systems usually have well defined statistics. For
example, the Lorenz system pictured is chaotic, but has a clearly defined structure.
Bounded chaos is a useful term for describing models of disorder and fuzzy logic.
History
The first discoverer of chaos can plausibly be argued to be Jacques Hadamard, who in
1898 published an influential study of the chaotic motion of a free particle gliding frictionlessly
on a surface of constant negative curvature. In the system studied, Hadamard's
billiards, Hadamard was able to show that all trajectories are unstable, in that all particle trajectories diverge
exponentially from one another, with a positive Lyapunov exponent.
In the early 1900s Henri Poincaré, while studying the
three-body problem, found that there can be orbits which are nonperiodic, and yet not
forever increasing nor approaching a fixed point. Much of the early theory was developed almost entirely by mathematicians, under
the name of ergodic theory. Later studies, also on the topic of nonlinear differential
equations, were carried out by G.D. Birkhoff, A.N. Kolmogorov, M.L. Cartwright, J.E. Littlewood, and Stephen Smale. Except for Smale,
these studies were all directly inspired by physics: the three-body problem in the case of Birkhoff, turbulence and astronomical
problems in the case of Kolmogorov, and radio engineering in the case of Cartwright and Littlewood. Although chaotic planetary
motion had not been observed, experimentalists had encountered turbulence in fluid motion and nonperiodic oscillation in radio
circuits without the benefit of a theory to explain what they were seeing.
Chaos theory progressed more rapidly after mid-century, when it first became evident for some scientists that linear theory, the prevailing system theory at that time, simply could not explain the observed behaviour
of certain experiments like that of the logistic map. The main catalyst for the development
of chaos theory was the electronic computer. Much of the mathematics of chaos theory involves
the repeated iteration of simple mathematical formulas, which would be impractical to do by hand. Electronic computers made these
repeated calculations practical. One of the earliest electronic digital computers, ENIAC, was used
to run simple weather forecasting models.
An early pioneer of the theory was Edward Lorenz whose interest in chaos came
about accidentally through his work on weather prediction in 1961.
Lorenz was using a basic computer, a Royal McBee
LGP-30, to run his weather simulation. He wanted to see a sequence of data again and to save time
he started the simulation in the middle of its course. He was able to do this by entering a printout of the data corresponding to
conditions in the middle of his simulation which he had calculated last time.
To his surprise the weather that the machine began to predict was completely different from the weather calculated before.
Lorenz tracked this down to the computer printout. The printout rounded variables off to a 3-digit number, but the computer
worked with 6-digit numbers. This difference is tiny and the consensus at the time would have been that it should have had
practically no effect. However Lorenz had discovered that small changes in initial conditions produced large changes in the
long-term outcome.
Yoshisuke Ueda independently identified a chaotic phenomenon as such by using an analog
computer on November 27, 1961. The chaos exhibited by an analog computer is a real phenomenon, in
contrast with those that digital computers calculate, which has a different kind of limit on precision. Ueda's supervising
professor, Hayashi, did not believe in chaos throughout his life, and thus he prohibited Ueda from publishing his findings until
1970.
The term chaos as used in mathematics was coined by the applied mathematician James A.
Yorke.
The availability of cheaper, more powerful computers broadens the applicability of chaos theory. Currently, chaos theory
continues to be a very active area of research.
Chaotic dynamics
For a dynamical system to be classified as chaotic, it must have the following properties:[citation needed]
Sensitivity to initial conditions means that each point in such a system is arbitrarily closely approximated by other
points with significantly different future trajectories. Thus, an arbitrarily small perturbation of the current trajectory may
lead to significantly different future behaviour.
Sensitivity to initial conditions is popularly known as the "butterfly effect", so
called because of the title of a paper given by Edward Lorenz in 1972 to the
American Association for the Advancement of Science
in Washington, D.C. entitled Predictability: Does the Flap of a Butterfly’s Wings in Brazil set off a Tornado in Texas?
The flapping wing represents a small change in the initial condition of the system, which causes a chain of events leading to
large-scale phenomena. Had the butterfly not flapped its wings, the trajectory of the system might have been vastly
different.
Sensitivity to initial conditions is often confused with chaos in popular accounts. It can also be a subtle property, since it
depends on a choice of metric, or the notion of distance in the phase space of the system.
For example, consider the simple dynamical system produced by repeatedly doubling an initial value (defined by the mapping on the
real line from x to 2x). This system has sensitive dependence on initial conditions everywhere, since any pair of
nearby points will eventually become widely separated. However, it has extremely simple behaviour, as all points except 0 tend to
infinity. If instead we use the bounded metric on the line obtained by adding the point at infinity and viewing the result as a
circle, the system no longer is sensitive to initial conditions. For this reason, in defining chaos, attention is normally
restricted to systems with bounded metrics, or closed, bounded invariant subsets of unbounded systems.
Even for bounded systems, sensitivity to initial conditions is not identical with chaos. For example, consider the
two-dimensional torus described by a pair of angles (x,y), each ranging between zero and 2π. Define a mapping that
takes any point (x,y) to (2x, y + a), where a is any number such that a/2π is
irrational. Because of the doubling in the first coordinate, the mapping exhibits sensitive dependence on initial conditions.
However, because of the irrational rotation in the second coordinate, there are no
periodic orbits, and hence the mapping is not chaotic according to the definition above.
Topologically mixing means that the system will evolve over time so that any given region or open set of its phase space will eventually overlap with any other given region. Here, "mixing" is really meant
to correspond to the standard intuition: the mixing of colored dyes or fluids is an example of a
chaotic system.
Attractors
Some dynamical systems are chaotic everywhere (see e.g. Anosov diffeomorphisms)
but in many cases chaotic behaviour is found only in a subset of phase space. The cases of most interest arise when the chaotic
behaviour takes place on an attractor, since then a large set of initial conditions will lead
to orbits that converge to this chaotic region.
An easy way to visualize a chaotic attractor is to start with a point in the basin of
attraction of the attractor, and then simply plot its subsequent orbit. Because of the topological transitivity condition,
this is likely to produce a picture of the entire final attractor.
Phase diagram for a damped driven pendulum, with double period motion
For instance, in a system describing a pendulum, the phase space might be two-dimensional, consisting of information about
position and velocity. One might plot the position of a pendulum against its
velocity. A pendulum at rest will be plotted as a point, and one in periodic motion will be plotted as a simple closed
curve. When such a plot forms a closed curve, the curve is called an orbit. Our
pendulum has an infinite number of such orbits, forming a pencil of nested ellipses
about the origin.
Strange attractors
While most of the motion types mentioned above give rise to very simple attractors, such as points and circle-like curves
called limit cycles, chaotic motion gives rise to what are known as
strange attractors, attractors that can have great detail and complexity. For instance,
a simple three-dimensional model of the Lorenz weather system gives rise to the
famous Lorenz attractor. The Lorenz attractor is perhaps one of the best-known chaotic
system diagrams, probably because not only was it one of the first, but it is one of the most complex and as such gives rise to a
very interesting pattern which looks like the wings of a butterfly. Another such attractor is the Rössler map, which experiences period-two doubling route to chaos, like the logistic map.
Strange attractors occur in both continuous dynamical systems (such as the Lorenz
system) and in some discrete systems (such as the Hénon
map). Other discrete dynamical systems have a repelling structure called a Julia set
which forms at the boundary between basins of attraction of fixed points - Julia sets can be thought of as strange
repellers. Both strange attractors and Julia sets typically have a fractal structure.
The Poincaré-Bendixson theorem shows that a strange attractor can only
arise in a continuous dynamical system if it has three or more dimensions. However, no such restriction applies to discrete
systems, which can exhibit strange attractors in two or even one dimensional systems.
The initial conditions of three or more bodies interacting through gravitational attraction (see the n-body problem) can be arranged to produce chaotic motion.
Minimum complexity of a chaotic system
Bifurcation diagram of a logistic map, displaying chaotic behaviour past a threshold
Simple systems can also produce chaos without relying on differential
equations. An example is the logistic map, which is a difference equation
(recurrence relation) that describes population growth over time.
Even the evolution of simple discrete systems, such as cellular automata, can
heavily depend on initial conditions. Stephen Wolfram has investigated a cellular
automaton with this property, termed by him rule 30.
A minimal model for conservative (reversible) chaotic behavior is provided by Arnold's cat
map.
Mathematical theory
Sarkovskii's theorem is the basis of the Li and Yorke (1975) proof that any
one-dimensional system which exhibits a regular cycle of period three will also display regular cycles of every other length as
well as completely chaotic orbits.
Mathematicians have devised many additional ways to make quantitative statements about
chaotic systems. These include: fractal dimension of the attractor, Lyapunov exponents, recurrence plots, Poincaré maps, bifurcation diagrams, and transfer operator.
Applications
Chaos theory is applied in many scientific disciplines: mathematics, biology, computer science, economics, engineering, finance,
philosophy, physics, politics, population dynamics, psychology, and robotics.[6]
Chaos theory is also currently being applied to medical studies of epilepsy, specifically to
the prediction of seemingly random seizures by observing initial conditions.[7]
Chaos theory in the media
Movies
Books
Theatre
Gaming
See also
- Examples of chaotic systems
|
|
|
References
- ^ Sneyers, R: "Climate Chaotic Instability: Statistical Determination and
Theoretical Background", 8(5):517-532
- ^ Apostolos Serletis and Periklis Gogas,Purchasing Power Parity Nonlinearity and Chaos, in: Applied Financial Economics, 10, 615-622, 2000.
- ^ Apostolos Serletis and Periklis Gogas The North American Gas
Markets are ChaoticPDF (919 KiB), in: The Energy Journal, 20,
83-103, 1999.
- ^ Apostolos Serletis and Periklis Gogas, Chaos in East European
Black Market Exchange Rates, in: Research in Economics, 51, 359-385, 1997.
- ^ A. E. Motter, Relativistic chaos is coordinate invariant, in: Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 231101
(2003).
- ^ Metaculture.net, metalinks:
Applied Chaos, 2007.
- ^ Comdig.org, Complexity Digest 199.06
Literature
Articles
Textbooks
- Alligood, K. T. (1997). Chaos: an introduction to dynamical systems.
Springer-Verlag New York, LLC. ISBN 0-387-94677-2.
- Baker, G. L. (1996). Chaos, Scattering and Statistical Mechanics.
Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-39511-9.
- Badii, R.; Politi A. (1997). "Complexity: hierarchical
structures and scaling in physics". Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521663857.
- Devaney, Robert L. (2003). An Introduction to Chaotic Dynamical Systems, 2nd
ed,. Westview Press. ISBN 0-8133-4085-3.
- Gollub, J. P.; Baker, G. L. (1996). Chaotic dynamics. Cambridge
University Press. ISBN 0-521-47685-2.
- Gutzwiller, Martin (1990). Chaos in Classical and Quantum Mechanics.
Springer-Verlag New York, LLC. ISBN 0-387-97173-4.
- Hoover, William Graham (1999,2001). Time Reversibility, Computer Simulation,
and Chaos. World Scientific. ISBN 981-02-4073-2.
- Kiel, L. Douglas; Elliott, Euel W. (1997). Chaos Theory in the Social
Sciences. Perseus Publishing. ISBN 0-472-08472-0.
- Moon, Francis (1990). Chaotic and Fractal Dynamics. Springer-Verlag New
York, LLC. ISBN 0-471-54571-6.
- Ott, Edward (2002). Chaos in Dynamical Systems. Cambridge University
Press New, York. ISBN 0-521-01084-5.
- Strogatz, Steven (2000). Nonlinear Dynamics and Chaos. Perseus
Publishing. ISBN 0-7382-0453-6.
- Sprott, Julien Clinton (2003). Chaos and Time-Series Analysis. Oxford
University Press. ISBN 0-19-850840-9.
- Tufillaro, Abbott, Reilly (1992). An experimental approach to nonlinear
dynamics and chaos. Addison-Wesley New York. ISBN 0-201-55441-0.
Semitechnical and popular works
- Ralph H. Abraham and Yoshisuke Ueda (Ed.), The Chaos Avant-Garde: Memoirs of the Early Days of Chaos Theory, World
Scientific Publishing Company, 2001, 232 pp.
- Michael Barnsley, Fractals Everywhere, Academic Press 1988, 394 pp.
- Richard J Bird, Chaos and Life: Complexity and Order in Evolution and Thought, Columbia University Press 2003, 352
pp.
- John Briggs and David Peat, Turbulent Mirror: : An Illustrated Guide to Chaos
Theory and the Science of Wholeness, Harper Perennial 1990, 224 pp.
- John Briggs and David Peat, Seven Life Lessons of Chaos: Spiritual Wisdom from the
Science of Change, Harper Perennial 2000, 224 pp.
- Lawrence A. Cunningham, From Random Walks to Chaotic Crashes: The Linear Genealogy of the Efficient Capital Market
Hypothesis, George Washington Law Review, Vol. 62, 1994, 546 pp.
- Leon Glass and Michael C. Mackey, From Clocks to Chaos: The Rhythms of Life, Princeton University Press 1988, 272
pp.
- James Gleick, Chaos: Making a New
Science, New York: Penguin, 1988. 368 pp.
- John Gribbin, Deep Simplicity,
- L Douglas Kiel, Euel W Elliott (ed.), Chaos Theory in the Social Sciences: Foundations and Applications, University of
Michigan Press, 1997, 360 pp.
- Arvind Kumar, Chaos, Fractals and Self-Organisation ; New Perspectives on Complexity in Nature , National Book
Trust, 2003.
- Hans Lauwerier, Fractals, Princeton University Press, 1991.
- Edward Lorenz, The Essence of Chaos, University of Washington Press,
1996.
- Heinz-Otto Peitgen and Dietmar Saupe (Eds.), The Science of Fractal Images, Springer 1988, 312 pp.
- Clifford A. Pickover, Computers, Pattern, Chaos, and Beauty: Graphics from
an Unseen World , St Martins Pr 1991.
- Ilya Prigogine and Isabelle Stengers, Order Out of Chaos, Bantam 1984.
- H.-O. Peitgen and P.H. Richter, The Beauty of Fractals : Images of Complex Dynamical Systems, Springer 1986, 211
pp.
- David Ruelle, Chance and Chaos, Princeton University Press 1993.
- David Ruelle, Chaotic Evolution and Strange Attractors, Cambridge University
Press, 1989.
- Peter Smith, Explaining Chaos, Cambridge University Press, 1998.
- Ian Stewart, Does God Play Dice?: The Mathematics of Chaos ,
Blackwell Publishers, 1990.
- Steven Strogatz, Sync: The emerging science of spontaneous order, Hyperion,
2003.
- Yoshisuke Ueda, The Road To Chaos, Aerial Pr, 1993.
- M. Mitchell Waldrop, Complexity : The Emerging Science at the Edge of Order and Chaos, Simon & Schuster,
1992.
External links
Wikimedia Commons has media related to:
pdc:Chaos Theory
This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)