I Chaos vs purely exponentially growing systems

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the concept of chaos in dynamical systems, particularly focusing on the distinction between aperiodic behavior and simple exponential growth. It emphasizes that while exponential growth is aperiodic, it is predictable and does not exhibit chaotic behavior due to the lack of topological mixing. Topological mixing requires that a system can return arbitrarily close to its initial conditions and explore a variety of regions in phase space, which is not the case for systems exhibiting only exponential growth. The conversation seeks clarification on how topological mixing differentiates chaotic systems from predictable ones and requests accessible resources on the topic. Understanding these concepts is crucial for grasping the nature of chaotic systems in mathematical terms.
Sunny Singh
Messages
19
Reaction score
1
I have just started reading chaos from the MIT OpenCourseWare and the following passage has confused me.

"The sensitivity to initial conditions is important to chaos but does not itself differentiate from simple exponential growth, so the aperiodic behavior is also important. In the definition of this somewhat undescriptive phrase we include that the system should undergo Topological Mixing. This means that any points starting in a region (open set) of the phase space will evolve to overlap any other region of the phase space, so chaotic systems tend to explore a larger variety of regions of the phase space"

IF the solution of a system described by linear equations is exponential, then it is aperiodic too right? it won't fall into a periodic orbit for sure. Then how is it not considered to be chaotic? I might be misunderstanding "Topological mixing" here. How does this topological mixing thing leads to such a system not getting called chaotic?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If it is exponential, it is still predictable: while the absolute error diverges, the relative uncertainty stays the same. Start with a 1% uncertainty and you still have a 1% uncertainty later. That is not considered chaotic. To make a more formal definition, this topological mixing is introduced: While the system cannot be exactly periodic, it should come close to its original conditions again (to avoid cases like eternal exponential growth), and then you get proper chaotic behavior.
 
  • Like
Likes Sunny Singh and hilbert2
If you make a 1-particle system that is like a harmonic oscillator, but has a "wrong" sign in the potential energy: ##V(x)=-\frac{1}{2}kx^2##, it has an unstable equilibrium point at ##x=0## and an arbitrarily small deviation from that equilibrium will grow exponentially, but it's not something that would be called chaotic. Systems with actual chaos always have higher than 2nd powers in the potential energy function.
 
  • Like
Likes Sunny Singh
mfb said:
If it is exponential, it is still predictable: while the absolute error diverges, the relative uncertainty stays the same. Start with a 1% uncertainty and you still have a 1% uncertainty later. That is not considered chaotic. To make a more formal definition, this topological mixing is introduced: While the system cannot be exactly periodic, it should come close to its original conditions again (to avoid cases like eternal exponential growth), and then you get proper chaotic behavior.

So this means that given enough time, the system will necessarily return arbitrarily close to its initial conditions? Does it also mean that the system eventually explores the full volume of its phase space accessible to it with the constraints of energy? Can you please give me some link to topological mixing that isn't too hard on mathemaics? because most of the places i found about it were articles from mathematics departments and i find their notations a bit hard to follow. Thank you so much helping me out.
 
Thread 'Gauss' law seems to imply instantaneous electric field propagation'
Imagine a charged sphere at the origin connected through an open switch to a vertical grounded wire. We wish to find an expression for the horizontal component of the electric field at a distance ##\mathbf{r}## from the sphere as it discharges. By using the Lorenz gauge condition: $$\nabla \cdot \mathbf{A} + \frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t}=0\tag{1}$$ we find the following retarded solutions to the Maxwell equations If we assume that...
Maxwell’s equations imply the following wave equation for the electric field $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}}{\partial t^2} = \frac{1}{\varepsilon_0}\nabla\rho+\mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf J}{\partial t}.\tag{1}$$ I wonder if eqn.##(1)## can be split into the following transverse part $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}_T-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}_T}{\partial t^2} = \mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf{J}_T}{\partial t}\tag{2}$$ and longitudinal part...
Thread 'Recovering Hamilton's Equations from Poisson brackets'
The issue : Let me start by copying and pasting the relevant passage from the text, thanks to modern day methods of computing. The trouble is, in equation (4.79), it completely ignores the partial derivative of ##q_i## with respect to time, i.e. it puts ##\partial q_i/\partial t=0##. But ##q_i## is a dynamical variable of ##t##, or ##q_i(t)##. In the derivation of Hamilton's equations from the Hamiltonian, viz. ##H = p_i \dot q_i-L##, nowhere did we assume that ##\partial q_i/\partial...

Similar threads

Back
Top