Undergrad Physically relevant: fractals, phi?

Click For Summary
The discussion explores the physical relevance of fractals and the Golden ratio (phi), questioning whether their applications in physics are substantial or merely curiosities. Phi is linked to natural patterns, such as in sunflowers and Fibonacci series, but its connections to physics often appear forced or indirect, such as in quantum systems and Penrose tilings. Fractals are similarly critiqued, with their applications in chaos theory deemed acceptable, while other connections, like galaxy distribution, are considered less relevant. The conversation also touches on the philosophical implications of mathematics and its foundational concepts, such as the nature of numerical relationships. Ultimately, it raises doubts about the direct importance of these mathematical concepts in physical contexts.
nomadreid
Gold Member
Messages
1,762
Reaction score
248
There are two subjects which pop up a lot as having physical examples (or, more precisely, where their approximations have), but many (not all) of them seem rather indirect or forced. For example:

[1] phi (the Golden ratio) or 1/phi:

(a) trivia: sunflowers and pineapples giving the first few members of the Fibonacci series, which when taken to infinity gives ratios whose limit is phi
(b) forced: the ratio of an electron's magnetic moment to its spin angular momentum
(c) hypothetical: in models for Fibonacci anyons.
(d) indirect: phi is used to construct Penrose tilings, which are put into equivalence classes, upon which a groupoid C*-algebra is formed, upon which several other structures are formed, which gives a non-commutative algebra which resembles some aspects of quantum systems. Alternatively, the tilings are used as an example of the principles of 3D quasicrystals.

[2] Fractals:

(a) forced: the fractal dimension of galaxy distribution
(b) OK: applications of chaos theory
(c) self-similarity: hey, a straight line is self-similar, that doesn't make it a fractal.
(d)indirect: The Weierstrass function killing assumptions about differentiability being nowhere differentiable, or as or the Voronin universality theorem giving nice approximations to ... ah, wait, that's pure mathematics, which of course has indirect ties to physics, but...

So, are these two subjects really much directly of physical importance, or merely a couple of curiosities?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Likes Dustin Allen
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't know the answers to your question but it again raises the question of where Maths comes from and what it actually is. Even down to the question "What is the 'two-ness' of two bottles or two metres?" that makes us able to do similar calculations with them. Interestingly, Computer Coding has made us think about stuff like this when we very well not have found the need, before, to discuss types of variable.
 
I do not have a good working knowledge of physics yet. I tried to piece this together but after researching this, I couldn’t figure out the correct laws of physics to combine to develop a formula to answer this question. Ex. 1 - A moving object impacts a static object at a constant velocity. Ex. 2 - A moving object impacts a static object at the same velocity but is accelerating at the moment of impact. Assuming the mass of the objects is the same and the velocity at the moment of impact...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
10K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K