Chaos Theory and the Prolate Spheroid

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the behavior of prolate spheroids, specifically rugby balls and American footballs, in relation to chaos theory. Participants explore the implications of chaotic behavior in the bouncing patterns of these objects and compare them to other systems, such as dice throws. The conversation includes theoretical considerations, practical measurement challenges, and the nature of chaos in deterministic systems.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that the unpredictable bounce patterns of prolate spheroids may relate to chaos theory, emphasizing sensitivity to initial conditions.
  • One participant notes that to classify the system as chaotic, a simulation would need to demonstrate a positive Lyapunov constant, indicating transient chaos rather than asymptotic chaos.
  • There is a comparison made between the behavior of prolate spheroids and dice, with some arguing that the shape and friction coefficients play a significant role in the outcomes.
  • A participant raises the question of how to measure a positive Lyapunov constant in practice, particularly with a football, highlighting the challenges of setting precise initial conditions and accounting for external perturbations.
  • Another participant elaborates on the process of developing a deterministic model and measuring divergence between perturbed and unperturbed systems, while acknowledging the complexities involved in perturbation methods.
  • Concerns are expressed regarding the feasibility of achieving sufficiently small perturbations through practical methods.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the chaotic nature of prolate spheroids or the practical measurement of Lyapunov constants. Multiple competing views and uncertainties remain regarding the relationship between chaos theory and the behavior of these objects.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on precise definitions of chaos, the challenges in measuring initial conditions accurately, and the unresolved nature of perturbation methods in practical applications.

Ben Walker
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Rugby balls and American footballs are prolate spheroids. As such, their bounce patterns seem sporadic - they tend to bounce to different heights and in different directions even when they appear to hit the ground with a constant angle, speed, and spin. Does this behaviour relate to chaos theory, whereby the outcome is highly dependent on the initial position?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
To call the system chaotic, you would have to simulate it and measure a positive Lyapunov constant.

My instincts say yes, but a football on a flat field would probably exhibit transient chaos, not asymptotic chaos. That is, after the chaotic excursion, the ball would come to a non-chaotic rest state.
 
How does this compare to dropping a dice? Is there a distinction?
 
Thanks a lot for the response :) How would I measure a positive Lyapunov constant? And could I do this with an actual football?
 
Ben Walker said:
Thanks a lot for the response :) How would I measure a positive Lyapunov constant? And could I do this with an actual football?

Chaos is sensitivity to initial conditions and we can't perfectly set the initial conditions of a football (or measure it's state with precision). Further, we can't guarantee elimination of any external perturbations. This is one of the interesting aspects of chaos theory - we can have systems that are deterministic, but still unpredictable.

So instead, you would have to develop a deterministic model of a football, start it with a set of initial conditions, then start another simulation with slightly different initial conditions. After the system evolves some, you would measure how much the perturbed system diverges from the unperturbed system. Then you throw away the perturbed system and take the nominal system at it's new state and perturb it, then measure divergence between the two systems. And so on. Each new measurement is averaged into the older measurements and, as time goes on, you see the Lyapunov measurement begin to approach a constant.

This is, of course, a simplification. In reality, the way you perturb the system matters (for example, perturbing one variable in the system vs. another).
 
So there is no way I could achieve a small enough perturbation through any practical method?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
6K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
11K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
9K