Lorentz attractors and fractals

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter mnb96
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Fractals Lorentz
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of self-similarity and scale invariance in the context of Lorentz attractors, particularly examining whether these properties are evident in their plots. Participants explore the definition of fractals and seek clarification on how the Lorentz attractor fits into this framework.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant asserts that a fractal should exhibit self-similarity or statistical self-similarity, typically through scale invariance, and questions where this is observed in Lorentz attractors.
  • Another participant references a paper by Viswanath (2004) that discusses the fractal properties of the Lorenz attractor, suggesting it as a resource for further understanding.
  • A participant expresses difficulty in understanding the self-similarity and scale-invariance of Lorentz attractors, particularly questioning the resemblance between different figures in the referenced article.
  • Further elaboration is provided by another participant, who describes the experience of zooming into the attractor's plots, noting that while one sees more orbits, it is unclear how these relate to the whole structure.
  • Participants discuss the visual representation of the attractor, with one describing the appearance of "piles of sticks" when zooming in, suggesting a repetitive structure but lacking clarity on the overall similarity.
  • Subsequent replies indicate that the explanations provided were understood, with participants acknowledging clarity in the descriptions given.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the presence of self-similarity in Lorentz attractors, with some expressing confusion and others providing interpretations that remain contested.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference specific figures from the cited paper but do not resolve the questions regarding their relationships or the definitions of self-similarity and scale invariance as applied to Lorentz attractors.

mnb96
Messages
711
Reaction score
5
Hello,
as far as I know a "fractal", by definition should manifest self-similarity or at least statistical self-similarity. This usually takes the form of scale invariance.
Can anyone point out where is the self-similarity in the plots of Lorentz attractors?

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Viswanath, D. (2004) The fractal property of the Lorenz attractor. Physica D, 190: 115–128.

http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~divakar/papers/Viswanath2004.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
...I still have troubles understanding where is the self-similarity, especially the scale-invariance.
I understand that "zooming" into one point will reveal more and more orbits (infinitely many). Still I don´t see how that is similar to the whole.

Referring to the article you mentioned: where is the resemblance of the plots in figure 2 (a part) with the plot in figure 1 (the whole) ?

Any hint?
 
Last edited:
mnb96 said:
...I still have troubles understanding where is the self-similarity, especially the scale-invariance.
I understand that "zooming" into one point will reveal more and more orbits (infinitely many). Still I don´t see how that is similar to the whole.

Referring to the article you mentioned: where is the resemblance of the plots in figure 2 (a part) with the plot in figure 1 (the whole) ?

Any hint?

You zoom in, you see a pile of sticks. But if you zoom in on each of those piles of sticks, they're piles of sticks... but each of those piles of sticks are piles of sticks.

You can't see the whole orbit at once because the semimajor axis (approximating it as an oval) is huge compared to the thickness of the "sticks", so we're forced to look at little sections of the orbits, that cuts off at each end, making it look like... well, a pile of sticks.
 
Thanks.
Now it is clear.
 
I meant that you zoom in on a stick and it's really a bunch of sticks, them you zoom in one of those sticks and it's really a bunch, etc. But hopefully you saw past my redundancy.
 
Yes. don´t worry. It was pretty clear to me that you meant to zoom in on one "stick". The explanation was clear.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
7K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K