Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The Butterfly Effect - Real ?

  1. Feb 2, 2007 #1
    The Butterfly Effect,

    "The butterfly effect is a phrase that encapsulates the more technical notion of sensitive dependence on initial conditions in chaos theory. Small variations of the initial condition of a nonlinear dyna
    mical system may produce large variations in the long term behavior of the system."


    I was always under the belief that this Effect resulted from weather forcast supercomputers, where they changed the input values by the "amount of the beating of a butterfly's wing", and after running the simulation on computer simulation created a cyclone, and the other did not.

    Does anyone really think this occures in the real world, or is this just indicating the limitations of complex systems (weather) with computers.

    I would think information theory and sampling rate theory would indicate that to be able to accurately simulate a complex system you would need i very high percentage of sample points. Possibly EVERY point in the system needs to be sampled.

    If you start a simulation with a very small sample data set, (mabey a few thousand measurements of temp, wind speed, pressure and so on). that you will always get very different specific results, and only and 'estimation' of what the system is doing. ?

    so is the Butterfly effect a real world effect, or just an indication of the limitations in measuring complex systems. (such as long term weather forcasting).

    (why is a Quantum leap, considered big ?? )
  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 2, 2007 #2
    Concept of "Butterfly effect" encapsulates true reality of non-linear dynamical systems. It is not result of limitations of computers modelling complex systems.
  4. Feb 2, 2007 #3


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Of course it is real.

    Stand a pencil on its end.
    Record the direction in which it falls over.
    Repeat 20 times.

    Fill your sink with water and pull the plug.
    Record the direction it drains in.
    Repeat 20 times.

    Sensitive dependence on initial conditions.
    Last edited: Feb 2, 2007
  5. Feb 2, 2007 #4


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I think I see what he's saying.

    "Sensitive dependence on initial conditions." If we had an arbitrarily powerful computer so that we could know to an arbitrarily fine degree what those initial conditions are (such as right down to the butterfly's wings' vorteces), our computer should be able to accurately predict the weather, a week - and a thousand miles - away.

    But there's two things to consider here:
    1] Whether an initial set of conditions will accurately lead to a result.
    2] Whether an initial set of conditions will consistently lead to a result.

    Just because we know to an arbitrarily high degree what those initial conditions are, still doesn't mean we can predict. There are external factors - such as all the butterflies in England and the weather currents across the Pacific - that will give us a completely different result each time we run the simulation, even if our starting dataset is identical every time we run it.

    You need more than simply an arbitrarily fine degree of initial data; you need a closed system, AND you need to know about every data point in that closed system.

    It would still be very sensitive to initial conditions - you could still kill one butterfly and throw off the whole system - but you could predict the various outcomes.
  6. Feb 2, 2007 #5
  7. Feb 2, 2007 #6


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I long ago concluded that servers exist in an atemporal plane, where time is perpendicular to IP address and their clocks are set by the teethmark patterns on an acorn by a hungry squirrel.
  8. Feb 2, 2007 #7
    Thanks everyone, and i like your description Dave.

    But im not convinced, if it was a real world effect, then would you not expect the number to cyclones to approximately equal the number of butterfly wing beats.

    Im sure there are a vast number of wing beats that dont do anything, or is what i consider to be below the noice floor, or real world effect threshhold.

    I dont really know, but if i do get my pensil and drop it 20 times, i can be fairly sure it will almost always end up lying on its side, somewhere near where i let it go. quite predictable within a range.
    If the pensil suddenly jumped out of the window, then i would think some odd chaotic behaviour was occusing.

    your also right, i was talking about two identical super computers running weather simulations, with their input conditions change the the wing beat.

    Seems weather is more of a "Bulk" type system to analyse, in that its the trend of large changes that cause things like cyclones, and major weather things.
    Like air pressure over a large area, ocean surface temps, time of year and so on.

    i would think any prediction of a complex system can only ever be as accurate as the sampling rate, and quantization error. Unless as you said you read every point, and down to the level of the wing beat.

    BTW: would dropping a pensil move more air than a butterfly wing beat, we need to watch that. lest we cause 20 extra cyclones !! :)

    what would you expect from two side by side computer simulations of weather, with identical input data?
    or do simulations make assumptions when real data is not available, or do they have any randomness built in, so would the results be different even with identical input data.

    thanks, for your input all.
  9. Feb 2, 2007 #8


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Not at all. For one thing, the Butterfly Effect is not a popularization of a statement that predicts that every butterfly wing-beat makes a cyclone, but that it can, if it happened at the right time and place. Furthermore, there's no telling how often the butterfly over here destroys the cyclone that the butterfly over there creates.
    Last edited: Feb 2, 2007
  10. Feb 2, 2007 #9
    Sure you arn't teasing these uptight physics types, Darryl? :)

    They're not saying that butterfly wingbeats cause cyclones, just that any tiny change in the beginning can result in an entirely different outcome 6 months down the track.

    As for the pencil example, whether it falls to the left or right is still quite a big difference, say 30cm, given that it was decided by a truely infintesimal difference in the initial tilt of the pencil. A mathmatician would say it does not stop there since, like a butterfly wingbeat, this event is large enough to affect large scale future events such as weather.
  11. Feb 3, 2007 #10


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    As B.E.M. points out, this is a complete misunderstanding of the effect.

    Let the world run for one day. Cyclones occur here and there.
    Rewind the world, putting it back EXACTLY where it was the day before.
    Add a butterfly to the mix.
    Let the world run again. The cyclones will be completely different.

    It is not that butterflies cause cyclones - it is that a tiny, tiny change in initial conditions creates a huge change in final conditions.

    That's not what you were asked to measure. The experiment requires measuring which direction it fell.

    The direction the pencil falls is dependent on tiny imperfections in the surface and in the pencil's tip. They lead to big changes in the end result.

    Take the pencil test one step further.
    Write the words Clear Sunny Day at the top of a piece of paper and Hurricane at the bottom.
    Balance the pencil in the centre of the paper. Let it fall and record the result.
    Repeat 20 times.

    Think of the tiny imperfections in the paper as equivalent to the butterfly.
  12. Feb 4, 2007 #11
    for every action there is a reaction

    because that is the law of physics, hey it could be wrong but lets run with it. when u drop said pencil or a butterfly flaps, that energy MUST go somewhere, and it will travel around and affect our weather. its impossible to predict the weather completly right because, u would need a computer the size of the world u r trying to predict.

    if we get right down to atoms, thats the whole dam universe, hence u would need another universe to perdict the first uinverse, in fact it would be simpler 2 have the exact world, just 1 year earler.

    and thats not going to happen. sorry, i rambled a bit
  13. Feb 5, 2007 #12
    This is why, for example, you can never, ever, under any circumstance understand what a woman is thinking. The nerve endings in the cortex fire completely randomly, and so gratuitously, it is simply impossible to predict.
  14. Feb 5, 2007 #13


    User Avatar

    As said, the BE is just a nice way of explaining sensitivity to initial conditions.

    In real life, in a system as robust as the weather, the small perturbation of a butterfly flapping its wings would, of course, have no effect whatsoever.
  15. Feb 5, 2007 #14


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I don't know why you say this. The whole point of chaos theory is that the weather is dependent on tiny differences in initial conditions.

    It does not mean to suggest that a butterfly's wing will develop into a hurricane it is meant to suggest that you cannot simply rewind conditions and expect the same result.

    Do you guys know any programming? Do you know about random number generation? This is going to be a bit simplistic, but go with me.

    You start with a seed (a large number - sometimes it's the date in seconds since activation). Say the computer starts with a seed of 4619837461238740001. The computer will use this in a long calculation to generate a decimal number between zero and one, say it generates the decimal .421. That's your random number, which you use in calculations.

    Next time you run the exact same program, the system generates another seed, but now it is four seconds later. This time it spits out the number 4619837461238740005. Note that this number is almost identical to the first. Yet the computer uses a process that generates a number that is WAY different than the first - it might generate the decimal .992.

    In non-chaotic systems, you expect that starting seeds very near each other would produce result values near each other, whereas seed different from each other would produce results very different.

    In but chaotic systems, that tiny, tiny change produces a result that is totally unlike any other.

    So yes, tiny perturbations - because there are BILLIONS of them - means you can't expect the same result. It's not simply one butterfly wing beat, it's an iterative process - working its way up the casue-effect ladder.

    Look at it the other way: The beat of a butterfly's wing is just as likely to diffuse that hurricane.
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2007
  16. Feb 5, 2007 #15
    Please, do not complicate a fairly simple and straightforward thread with contradictions.
  17. Feb 6, 2007 #16


    User Avatar

    You point?

    I'll reply to the other post above when I've had some coffee. For now, I could rant for pages as to why this statement is wrong:
  18. Feb 6, 2007 #17


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    :confused: To me, it sounds quite right...
  19. Feb 6, 2007 #18


    User Avatar

    It's right from a populist point of view but the first question I would address is, "what does one mean by 'chaos theory'?"

    e2a: this could be the start of an interesting topic - I have to do some offline corrections to a paper today - hopefully, more later...
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2007
  20. Feb 6, 2007 #19


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    From a "populist" PoV :confused:

    Never mind.

    "Chaos theory" is the study of phenomena which are strongly sensitive on initial conditions in a rather well-defined way (Liapunov-instable). In other words, the study of phenomena for which the time evolution is known, but for which nearby solutions diverge exponentially with time.
    This statement implies by itself already several hypotheses, but which are satisfied for weather systems: "deterministic" predictability on the short term (which means that there IS a definite relationship between initial conditions and the state at a later moment, which is NOT purely stochastic), and gradual loss of predictability on the longer term due to the divergence of the time evolution.
  21. Feb 6, 2007 #20


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Well, the problem I would have with that is that chaos theory deals with a lot more than just the weather. It might be true that "the whole point of the application of chaos theory to weather is that the weather is dependent on tiny differences in initial conditions." Of course whether or not that is true would depend on how well the mathematical model matched reality, not on chaos theory. Chaos theory is mathematics, not meteorology!
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?