Ask Science
Ask a science question, get a science answer.
Community Rules
Rule 1: Be respectful and inclusive.
Treat others with respect, and maintain a positive atmosphere.
Rule 2: No harassment, hate speech, bigotry, or trolling.
Avoid any form of harassment, hate speech, bigotry, or offensive behavior.
Rule 3: Engage in constructive discussions.
Contribute to meaningful and constructive discussions that enhance scientific understanding.
Rule 4: No AI-generated answers.
Strictly prohibit the use of AI-generated answers. Providing answers generated by AI systems is not allowed and may result in a ban.
Rule 5: Follow guidelines and moderators' instructions.
Adhere to community guidelines and comply with instructions given by moderators.
Rule 6: Use appropriate language and tone.
Communicate using suitable language and maintain a professional and respectful tone.
Rule 7: Report violations.
Report any violations of the community rules to the moderators for appropriate action.
Rule 8: Foster a continuous learning environment.
Encourage a continuous learning environment where members can share knowledge and engage in scientific discussions.
Rule 9: Source required for answers.
Provide credible sources for answers. Failure to include a source may result in the removal of the answer to ensure information reliability.
By adhering to these rules, we create a welcoming and informative environment where science-related questions receive accurate and credible answers. Thank you for your cooperation in making the Ask Science community a valuable resource for scientific knowledge.
We retain the discretion to modify the rules as we deem necessary.
For answers to historical questions, please check out our sister community: !askhistorians@lemmy.world
view the rest of the comments
Hmm... the book I was reading (Complex and Adaptive Dynamical Systems by Claudius Gros) actually said strange attractors only occur in three dimensions or higher, but I changed that to “chaos” in the title to fit the character limit—I thought they were essentially synonymous.
Here’s the quote:
Edit: I see that Gros clarifies a few paragraphs later:
I guess I was mentally thinking of continuous-time systems, but there was no room to fit that in the title.
"Chaos" describes dynamical systems that exhibit sensitivity to initial conditions. This can be made mathematically precise, but it boils down to when you start with two initial conditions that are "close," they will after some "sufficient" time be "far apart."
For example, turbulent air flow is an example of a chaotic system. This is fundamentally the reason why weather forecasts become less accurate further in the future. The data that goes into the weather model does not have infinite precision, small errors eventually lead to large deviations in the state of the system.
I edited/clarified my comment before I saw your reply—apparently the restriction to three dimensions only apples to continuous-time systems, which is what I had in mind when I posted the question.
I'm not sure what the author had in mind exactly, but it's not accurate that at least 3D is required in continuous-time systems.
A common example in 2D is the chaotic billiard.
I am not familiar with the book and haven't studied strange attractors.
The physical motion of the billiards is two-dimensional, but wouldn’t the phase space be four-dimensional (since it tracks both position and momentum)?
I think the reason chaos needs at least three-dimensional phase space for continuous-time systems is that the orbits in phase space can’t intersect (which the paths of the billiards in real space obviously do).