Have your program drop the pendulum at precisely the same location each time. The change in position will have an effect on where the pendulum lands. If you drop the pendulum and if it makes different results approximately every time, I will believe your idea.
@sneaeky The model, made up with a toy, is only a way to show what the Pc program does. Be sure the program doesn't have problems neither with wind resistance, sismic activity, gravitational forces nor temperature; and that the locations are exact to the tenth decimal place. If I were you, I didn't feel the need to urgently throw out the Pc simulation results.
@aldoaldoz I a better way of what I am trying to say is that tiny variations in this test can throw the results off and make you unable to find a pattern. If someone had instruments that could account for even small variations, then the outcome could be predicted. Yes, I agree this is a good demonstration of a chaotic system, but I don't feel it explains the Chaos theory well. In theory, everything in the future could be predicted if all variables would be accounted for. I poorly worded myself.
@aldoaldoz I agree. I use your vid with my university students. The point about Chaos theory is that miniscule differences in starting conditions have practically unforcastable effects on outcomes. My guess is that if you started the pendulum from a position that was moved from its initial startting position by the distance equivalent to no more than the radius of an electron, this could affect the outcome (where it comes to rest). If the social world is like this the implications are big!
@sneaeky I think the point is that forecasting is always defeated because even the tiniest variation in any of the variables you mention have BIG effects.
I was look for the chaos theory that my physics/math teacher described which was an equation which everything in nature ran by (so it's saying that there is no chaos)
@ChainGunDragon I think you teacher explained the so called "the theory of everything" which is also called the final theory. Unfortunate that theory isn´t correct if you look at it more closely, but no theory is that.
the experiment is retarded , you dont get the same result because your starting positions are not the same. you are not putting the pendulum in the exact starting place
The weather is often pointed to as an example of a chaotic system. Simulations can only make reliable predictions over a period of say 7 days. And yet for those areas of the world with distinct seasons we understand that there will be trends -- peroids of time with a tendency towards warming or cooling as the case may be.
So what is the most simple model which will show this kind of behavior?
For my own part the big question is how does the program simulate the randomness in the system.
As a math tutor who spends most of his working time showing folks how to factor polynomials and work with trig, the mathmatics of chaotic systems is a new and attractive subject.
The other question is how to look at a particular natural system and decide that it is in fact determinate rather than otherwise.
I am not convinced that this is a chaotic system; placing the pendulum in any square of this model is a MASSIVE change in relation to the model (even the ones closest to the magnets which produce predictive results!).
OK... big question.... is the social system (and organisations within it) chaotic too? Or more predictable and patterened? My MBA students would like to know. We can't really agree.
@aldoaldoz LOL We had just spent the previous session categorising newspaper content as a) chaotic b) functional (tending towards equilibrium) and c) fiery (driven by conflict) ... Weber's, Durkheim's and Marx' Worlds respectively.
some guys might be misunderstanding chaos with randomness and probability. Chaos theory has nothing to do with the probabilities. Even d many of deterministic systems behave chaotically. for ex. logistic map, tent map and Mandelbrot sets. probability and randomness makes things much worse.
I think the only way to predict the where the pendulum would land is if you could reconstruct reality from the time you let go. But that would mean knowing how many variables precisely affect the outcome and at what scales. I'm betting even the worlds most super computer couldn't evaluate that many variables. Oh and of course you need a Reality Changing Machine.
no. u r wrong. there is no need at all to have too many variables to make a system to be chaotic. u might be thinking abt the effect of variables which are probabilistic in nature. no, not at all true. because even d most deterministic systems which seem so simple produce chaos. for ex. logistic map. x(n+1) = r*xn*(1-xn). take r =4 and try iterating taking 0.3700001 and 0.3700002 as two different initial values. In just 25 iteration u ll see divergence.
@023132: Maybe, maybe not. Physics at the Planck scale aren't well understood so it's tough to say. For instance, there are theories that the spacetime is "quantized" at or near that level, meaning there are only finitely many possible grid values. If so, of course if you have the correct value then you know all there is to know. But this is highly speculative and it will be a long, long time before we can really hazard a guess.
i think it is possible to predict where it will fall if you drop it in the exact same spot the exact same distance away and do everything EXACTLY how you did it before down to the plank scale.
@023132 Maybe, maybe not. Physics at the Planck scale aren't well understood so it's tough to say. For instance, there are theories that the spacetime is "quantized" at or near that level, meaning there are only finitely many possible grid values. If so, of course if you have the correct value then you know all there is to know. But this is highly speculative and it will be a long, long time before we can really hazard a guess.
hey, while i completely understand how *these* results demonstrate chaos theory and such, i feel like the method of showing it is flawed. i feel like if you knew every variable, i.e. the gravitational potential energy of the pendulum at its starting point, as well as the strength of the magnets, not to mention human error, and youd also take into account the angle of release. This should certainly be a predictable thing.
@sterrana11. When starting from a point well away from the center, just changing the starting point by less than the width of an atom could change the stopping point. In a practical experiment, you could never know the starting point well enough to predict the outcome.
At 3:38 it is interesting to see the secondary "lobe" regions of opposite colours. For example on the yellow region at 45 degrees you see a small blue region to the right, and a small red region above.
@ChazyK No they wouldn't, because there is no feedback - in order to create fractals, the result of each swing of the pendulum would have to affect the next swing, it is the repeating with feedback that gives rise to the patterns
@xfactor330: A system is called chaotic when it amplifies the initial error conditions. You can't EXACTLY know the initial position of the pendulum... that is, with a precision of 0.00000000...0001 mm, so beyond a certain time the system will no longer be predictable. Another way to see the problem: in a computer you can't know the pendulum position with more than 64 bits of mantissa. Changing the value of the least significant bit is enough to get a different final result...
@xfactor330 Yes, you are wrong. If you eliminate all of the variables, you arent left with anything. When assuming the power of the magnets for instance, what numbers would you use and where would they be rounded off? No matter what numbers you use, its a model of a real thing, and misleading in that the numbers could be plugged in twice at exactly the same value. Nature doesnt work that way, theres a limit to the meaning of numbers below a certain scale, and uncontrollable compounding variation
Thank you for posting this. I am using it as a science project for my school. But I found a flaw.
With your computer generated diagram, you made the mistake of changing the design of the simulator to the original Blue, Yellow, Green, Red, pattern. However, during the filming using the "live" simulation, the experimenter used the pattern of Blue, Yellow, Green, Red. Fixing this in your next video would make your results, however chaotic, more concrete and resistible.
Free energy technology exists!But the Oil coporations life depends on covering this up,Get the blueprints for a free energy motor at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,Be part of the revolution!
Can someone explain to me why the end result in 242x242 shows the colours in the middle in such a clear fashion where as around it all the colours are random?
I really enjoyed this demonstration, but I just have one minor complaint, is that the experiment gave the impression that it was random, when it actually pre-determined.
In a billion years from now as the universe gets recreated will I be here rewriting the same sentence or does chaos theory state that events will be different?
@markiscrummy To my understanding, a chaotic system is predictable and pre-determined. Meaning there is nothing random about it. However, slight changes in initial conditions can result in huge differences in outcome. So I guess in according to the chaos theory, the answer to your question will be yes. You will be writing the same sentence.
Anyone ever hear of "The Gnab gib?" I think it's a theory that states that as the universe expands gravity becomes the strongest force and the universe contracts back into a single point. In other words the big bang starts all over again. Under chaos theory will the new universe be exactly the same as the previous universe as it begins to re expand creating time, objects, and the same exact circumstances and events that took place or will the new universe be different?
@lebensborn666 Newtonian Mechanics do not factor any quantum wierdness into it's model and thus it is highly unlikely that it is much of an accurate model, it's good at predicting movements of planets buit even then it can only predict to a certain point in the future with very low accuracy...
@tjr318 But he tried a computer simulation. And the position of where it drops, was 100% accurate, each time. Or was it ? @aldoaldoz did you tried several times in the computer simulation ? Were they different ? Ouh wait, that would depend on what type of programing you are using...
The really wierd part, there is no such thing as a pendulum at rest. If a pendulum were at rest it would have a known velocity, zero, and a known location, down towards gravity.
It chaotic because its very sensitive to starting parameters, change anything a tiny tiny amount the outcome changes (fractal). If you could measure the starting parameters perfectly you can calculate the outcome but there is no direct math solution for the outcome (look at the 3 body problem). However Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle says that you cannot measure the starting parameters perfectly, therefore you cannot calculate an outcome.
he used a computer simulation people, that takes out the human variable and if you have to use an unnecessary amount of bit information to show an approximate estimate, it still aint 100% accurate so its not exactly non chaotic. electrons are popping in and out of this existence along with protons and neutrons. they seem to be in multiple places at once and have no real substance. what is real, that which does not change, energy or the infinite universe we cant fully comprehend let alone see.
yes it will, you just have to make sure that the pendulum starts x inches away, if anything its the opposite of what you said, you can always predict it
@tjr318: There is no way to know whether a pendulum swings in non-linear motion, because the erratic movements of humans make it impossible to confirm it.
@tjr318: The degree of accuracy gets smaller as you increase your scope of measurement. When you kick a ball, it is more than highly likely that you will never kick it in the same power as you did before. We can't change that but we can keep getting closer and closer to finding the exact variable between the two measurements, but even then we'll find another variable beyond that level of accuracy. Lol. Only our Creator knows.
What if the strength of the magnets were somehow exactly the same? And the Pendulum was perfectly released every time? What if most minor variables were all controlled perfectly? Would it still be unpredictable?
@guitarsguitar : the answer is... yes! You can't hope to have a "perfectly released" pendulum, as youmust consider even Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle. And such uncertainty is enough to get different results every time.
I don't believe what you say, that the heisenberg uncertainty principle is enough to say "you will get different results every time". One can see (3:36) there is geometry. With a higher resolution grid and higher precision variables, or just a better mathematical model, you could probably see a pattern extend out, and as long as the regions are larger than ~picometers, you could determine the result. Though for the most part, what you say is approx. accurate
@DKM101 - If everything were perfect in this experiment, the uncertainty principle would still apply with similar results. A pendulum can never be at rest because it would have a known location and momentum. Scientists have done tests in a vaccuum chamber to confirm this. You can put two laser beams onto a pendulum weight and watch the interference pattern constantly change shape.
Could you link to the two laser beams? Sounds cool :D
Taking the heisenberg uncertainty principle account, the bounds of error of whatever you're doing changes, so I agree that the result far from the center is probably unpredictable due to the heisenberg uncertainty principle, but I'm saying its predictable to a greater extent than made out in the video. To seriously say this can't be predicted would require a rigorous analysis of the geometry like at 3:39.
@DKM101 - actually not link them, but shine them onto the pendulum head, which will create an interference pattern, and the interference pattern will shift with the movement of the pendulum. I worked on interferometers for machine vision to scan very small objects.
@aldoaldoz I must disagree. If you were to define a perfect release within possible perimeters, such as being released from a stabilized structure or a machine that positions it within .000001cm of the time before and had same strength magnets on each corner, it could easily be predicted.
Using a simulation program, if you twice release the pendulum from the same position, obviously you get the same results. If you start 1 pixel away, at the beginning the paths are very similar, but after a while they differ slightly. This occurs also with 1/10, 1/100 pixel... the instant when the paths become different happens always later. With one billionth pixel displacement the paths at the end will differ too: well, THIS behavior is just what needed to recognize a CHAOTIC system
@Kumbunchamushroomppl As I understand it Chaos Theory doesn't dispute this. What chaos theory claims is that tiny changes can yield a completely different result in certain systems. This is important because much of modern science is based on the idea that measurements will give a consistent result.
@aldoaldoz Your introduction of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is not necessarily relevant, bc it is about finding the exact position and/or speed of the object in motion with the gain of 1 leading to the loss of the other at a given point in time. This is solely about the end result with no regard to the speed at all.
@Kumbunchamushroomppl The evolution of the motion depends on the instant position and speed: and this of course is true also with respect to the initial conditions. Admit to release the pendulum from still: well, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle tells we can even say the initial speed is zero, but we can't exactly know the true position: such small-small initial uncertainty is enough to give different results! (I actually did some tries with my computer program).
@aldoaldoz If all the magnets were hooked into the same electromagnetic device pushing equal power to each point and a single point machined release was made as a constant could there be better control of the chaos?
@AtleeYarrow No, there is no degree for control, it's not a linear scale of uncertainty. Any small deviations, no matter how small will can result in large change in end result, to my understanding.
@320466 I know your trolling, but I don't go to harvard, and going to harvard has nothing to do with learning. You learn from whatever resource you can get your hand on and youtube is a pretty good one thanks to posters like aldoaldoz who provide educational videos like these.
This is actually a valid demonstration of Chaos Theory. From WP: "[...] the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable.[3] This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos."
The fact that, if you could know and influence all factors involved, you would get the same result over and over again, doesn't matter. The point is that you can never do is in the real world (not even in a simulation), making this a valid chaotic system.
has nothing to do with chaos theory and we can tell where it will end. Its only matters on side, angle, momentum and so. If you will push it precisely from the same spot (i mean absolutely same) under the same conditions, it will end allways on the same place...
Great video! Very nicely illustrates the main points of chaos theory :) A system that, although well undestood and deterministic, is so sensitive to initial parameters that we can never hope to predict faithfully the outcome :) Well done!
So is chaos theory basically, a system in which we cannot predict the results from? Even with mathematics, physics, etc.? I'm no scientist, but this is interesting stuff!
@Juggernaut004: Chaotic system is system in which small differences in initial conditions using deterministic equations leads to very different and in practice upredictable results. Chaos theory is based on assumption it is virtually impossible to know initial conditions exactly.
This not related to chaos theory nowise. If this construction absolutely inflexible, and there are no any outside resistance, and you will be start from one any point with hi start positioning precision you will get same results. Astronomy physic here.
Great vid! Must have took some time to complete ;)
@ramzzes100 Read the (well-formed) quote 3:44. The absence of outside influence isn't required to describe a chaotic system. It just has to be relatively small compared to the actual results. This is actually an intrinsic part of chaos-theory.
Hey there. I didnt read all the comments, maybe it's already mentioned. But I do a computer simulation like that as well. the thing which doesnt make sense in yours is, that if you start at the center of all the magnets, or even at a centrum line, the pendulum loves to the right side, which had to mean that the red magnet has a stronger force than the others, but... does it make sense? I'd say every magnet should have the same force of magnetism, and the gravitiy shall be in the absolule center
@LordDarthNihilus: you are perfectly, starting from the center point we should obtain a static result! But, as I disliked this, I moved the pendulum hanging point a half pixel away from the center of the magnets!
@aldoaldoz Ah well okay that's a nice trick :D By the way, the way you show this experiment is really good! It's easy for anyone to understand the phenomenon I think, nice work :) And cute cat :D
not really. There can be a extremely little statistical variation, even due to the earth movement, corioliss forces and earths electromagnetic field itself.
But mathematically, there is no magic. Under same conditions, using materially stable magnets, results are predictable and same for all the time.
@aldoaldoz GASP, tampering with the outcome. That's a scientific abomination. And a half pixel? I don't think that exists.
lol, I like the program. I should try making one. Good work.
Personally i don't like this whole concept of not being able to predict something. Obviously we can because you did with your program, in any case I understand what the point here his.
@LordDarthNihilus Just b.c the result went more to one side doesnt mean that it is the difference in the magnets, for u to say this u have to prove it, before i would have said that, i would have found some device or some way and got all the magnets the 100% same then have redone it all. Do that then u can say "it is b.c the magnets r not the same" but u can give that as a theory or say it might be a variable so we need to do another experiment.
This would have to be done in a Zero atmosphere Environment with a preciesly calibrated mechanical arm that brings the Pendulum to the exact same point each time, and the structure must be perfectly built. There are to many variables in this that can cause fluctuations in the outcome therefor it is invalid, But i see what your point is.
It will be no different the place of landing will be just random at any other time, the idea of a CHAOS THEORY is not visible in small data, but in great ones, whit a CHAOS THEORY is the same as a military Deception. Is to provide confussion when is sending a message,
the points could be arrange so that only it would be inpossible to solve.
you have to take in the account for the spin of the earth on the real pendulum, the earth will never be in the same spot twice so therefore the pendulum will never have the same result as before. im not trying to say this was wrong or anything im just wondering if that would change anything on the computer program
Really nice demonstration of chaotic system (with later visible attractors around the poles)
vicolachips44: the chaotic system is very sensitive to the initial params. You get same result, if you model on a computer with exactly same function input taken (as the calculations are deterministic). I can't image what kind of technology should be used to produce a robot with such a precision (and don't forget about the execution environment :) )
I y understand what I see is that the human arm is the source of the chaotic result. If you take a robot to do this experiment you might get a none chaotic result. Is that correct ?
I really doubt quantum mechanics ability to find a theory for 'everything' as such. If they do then maybe they will be able to coordinate a definitive starting point for an experiment, and under certain control measures, render the chaos theory useless. Modern science is succeeding in showing how abstract the world really is.
in quantum mechanics today there is no such thing.
Not only is the results always non-deterministic, but also non-causal. That means a particle can (and evidently do) take multiple paths at the same time and interferes with itself, as well as beaves stragnely when examining cause and effect. Quantum mechanics is only ever probabilities; Definite outcomes does not exist.
...dude it's almost the calculator 1/4 dived into and they all have same equal amount a same it's just simple, but if you change the spot then different story (because the speed, distances, timing, gravitational(force), and [don't get me wrong] angles)
Don't get me wrong sometime if you change the place they were they will might different law order of form.
great video. show on tv..guy created a computer programme in order to demonstrate an aspect of chaos theory...evolution. the computer selected the programmes with the best chance of success and "bred" them with similar programmes. after 30 generations the programmes are so advanced their behaviour is nearly impossible to map
If you repeat the whole experiment thousands of times, that should statistically average out much of the variation from human error, air current, floor vibration etc. and produce for each starting square a statistical probability of finishing on each pole. What you should find is that directly above a pole, the probability of finishing on that pole is 100 percent, but as the starting position is moved outward the probabilities quickly even out to 25 percent for each pole.
@BebopCoIa But what about the computer simulation? There isn't any human force involved just the computer, a mechanical device, and, therefore, one should assume that there isn't any variation in the force. Anyway, would the Ram memory and energy used to operate the computer be able to alterate the final result? I mean... Imagine that the computer is having problems with the ram memory or that there are some flutuations regarding electricity...
maybe the cat was using its mental energy to give you the mixed paterns, lolcat
MrFunkehMonkeh 1 month ago
Have your program drop the pendulum at precisely the same location each time. The change in position will have an effect on where the pendulum lands. If you drop the pendulum and if it makes different results approximately every time, I will believe your idea.
ProgressiveScan9 1 month ago
Comment removed
sneaeky 1 month ago
@sneaeky The model, made up with a toy, is only a way to show what the Pc program does. Be sure the program doesn't have problems neither with wind resistance, sismic activity, gravitational forces nor temperature; and that the locations are exact to the tenth decimal place. If I were you, I didn't feel the need to urgently throw out the Pc simulation results.
aldoaldoz 1 month ago 2
@aldoaldoz I a better way of what I am trying to say is that tiny variations in this test can throw the results off and make you unable to find a pattern. If someone had instruments that could account for even small variations, then the outcome could be predicted. Yes, I agree this is a good demonstration of a chaotic system, but I don't feel it explains the Chaos theory well. In theory, everything in the future could be predicted if all variables would be accounted for. I poorly worded myself.
sneaeky 1 month ago
@aldoaldoz I agree. I use your vid with my university students. The point about Chaos theory is that miniscule differences in starting conditions have practically unforcastable effects on outcomes. My guess is that if you started the pendulum from a position that was moved from its initial startting position by the distance equivalent to no more than the radius of an electron, this could affect the outcome (where it comes to rest). If the social world is like this the implications are big!
SteffanLlwyd 1 month ago in playlist For my Students
@sneaeky
BBC did a great documentary on the subject; " The Secret Life of Chaos". Enjoy!
DeconversionCentral 1 month ago
@sneaeky I think the point is that forecasting is always defeated because even the tiniest variation in any of the variables you mention have BIG effects.
SteffanLlwyd 1 month ago in playlist For my Students
@sneaeky
You're either joking or you're a complete idiot. This experiment isn't testing anything. It's illustrating the meaning of chaos.
ophello 1 month ago
Great project.
CHAPI929292 3 months ago
Well done. Very nice apparatus and demonstration of a chaotic system.
blaine81 3 months ago
I was look for the chaos theory that my physics/math teacher described which was an equation which everything in nature ran by (so it's saying that there is no chaos)
ChainGunDragon 3 months ago
@ChainGunDragon I think you teacher explained the so called "the theory of everything" which is also called the final theory. Unfortunate that theory isn´t correct if you look at it more closely, but no theory is that.
PepsiochPommac 2 months ago
the experiment is retarded , you dont get the same result because your starting positions are not the same. you are not putting the pendulum in the exact starting place
triplerangemerge 4 months ago
his wife must be Greek :P
pkshad 5 months ago
Pretty awesome, thanks.
TiePilot501 5 months ago
The weather is often pointed to as an example of a chaotic system. Simulations can only make reliable predictions over a period of say 7 days. And yet for those areas of the world with distinct seasons we understand that there will be trends -- peroids of time with a tendency towards warming or cooling as the case may be.
So what is the most simple model which will show this kind of behavior?
blue2dada 5 months ago
For my own part the big question is how does the program simulate the randomness in the system.
As a math tutor who spends most of his working time showing folks how to factor polynomials and work with trig, the mathmatics of chaotic systems is a new and attractive subject.
The other question is how to look at a particular natural system and decide that it is in fact determinate rather than otherwise.
blue2dada 5 months ago
doing the same thing again and again, and expecting different results is insanity! lol
jdbgrizz 5 months ago
I love this video.
66D5AVWP 5 months ago
As the area enlarges, there is a pattern in the center that develops. No? Why is that.
YackBackatcha 6 months ago
I am not convinced that this is a chaotic system; placing the pendulum in any square of this model is a MASSIVE change in relation to the model (even the ones closest to the magnets which produce predictive results!).
TheBalhamboy 6 months ago
Comment removed
TheBalhamboy 6 months ago
Comment removed
TheBalhamboy 6 months ago
NO SHIT
billiamreynolds 6 months ago
I think the cat is a genious.
At the end she looked like"silly humans...they still do not understand the nature of the universe!".
I could be wrong though?
OxyMoronMovies 6 months ago 8
@OxyMoronMovies: ... you're absolutely right! :-)
aldoaldoz 6 months ago
the best video for chaos theory!
pmsutube 7 months ago
OK... big question.... is the social system (and organisations within it) chaotic too? Or more predictable and patterened? My MBA students would like to know. We can't really agree.
SteffanLlwyd 7 months ago
@SteffanLlwyd: of course social systems are chaotic too... it's enough to read newspapers!
aldoaldoz 7 months ago
@aldoaldoz LOL We had just spent the previous session categorising newspaper content as a) chaotic b) functional (tending towards equilibrium) and c) fiery (driven by conflict) ... Weber's, Durkheim's and Marx' Worlds respectively.
SteffanLlwyd 7 months ago
some guys might be misunderstanding chaos with randomness and probability. Chaos theory has nothing to do with the probabilities. Even d many of deterministic systems behave chaotically. for ex. logistic map, tent map and Mandelbrot sets. probability and randomness makes things much worse.
kesav1985 8 months ago
Sissi is the agent of chaos
cmario00 9 months ago
I think the only way to predict the where the pendulum would land is if you could reconstruct reality from the time you let go. But that would mean knowing how many variables precisely affect the outcome and at what scales. I'm betting even the worlds most super computer couldn't evaluate that many variables. Oh and of course you need a Reality Changing Machine.
diacron 9 months ago
@diacron
no. u r wrong. there is no need at all to have too many variables to make a system to be chaotic. u might be thinking abt the effect of variables which are probabilistic in nature. no, not at all true. because even d most deterministic systems which seem so simple produce chaos. for ex. logistic map. x(n+1) = r*xn*(1-xn). take r =4 and try iterating taking 0.3700001 and 0.3700002 as two different initial values. In just 25 iteration u ll see divergence.
kesav1985 8 months ago
@kesav1985 You're FACE is wrong!
diacron 8 months ago
@diacron
u r a loser.
kesav1985 8 months ago
@023132: Maybe, maybe not. Physics at the Planck scale aren't well understood so it's tough to say. For instance, there are theories that the spacetime is "quantized" at or near that level, meaning there are only finitely many possible grid values. If so, of course if you have the correct value then you know all there is to know. But this is highly speculative and it will be a long, long time before we can really hazard a guess.
Mandos89 10 months ago
i think it is possible to predict where it will fall if you drop it in the exact same spot the exact same distance away and do everything EXACTLY how you did it before down to the plank scale.
023132 10 months ago
@023132 Maybe, maybe not. Physics at the Planck scale aren't well understood so it's tough to say. For instance, there are theories that the spacetime is "quantized" at or near that level, meaning there are only finitely many possible grid values. If so, of course if you have the correct value then you know all there is to know. But this is highly speculative and it will be a long, long time before we can really hazard a guess.
Mandos89 10 months ago
super mindfuck
gogolplex74 11 months ago
Nice video. Very helpful!
Filomatia 11 months ago
hey, while i completely understand how *these* results demonstrate chaos theory and such, i feel like the method of showing it is flawed. i feel like if you knew every variable, i.e. the gravitational potential energy of the pendulum at its starting point, as well as the strength of the magnets, not to mention human error, and youd also take into account the angle of release. This should certainly be a predictable thing.
sterrana11 11 months ago
@sterrana11. When starting from a point well away from the center, just changing the starting point by less than the width of an atom could change the stopping point. In a practical experiment, you could never know the starting point well enough to predict the outcome.
Swipecat 11 months ago
At 3:38 it is interesting to see the secondary "lobe" regions of opposite colours. For example on the yellow region at 45 degrees you see a small blue region to the right, and a small red region above.
yoursuchagoodguy 1 year ago
lol the end :D
cptIdiot 1 year ago
3:38 I see a lot of people in the background killing each other! (freaking salvia 160x...) lol jk xD
kryptonicj 1 year ago
can you make another video with higher number of points in the grid? like 4000x4000 i think, that fractal patterns could emerge
ChazyK 1 year ago
@ChazyK : 16 millions of starting points... a LOT of work to my poor computer! :-)
aldoaldoz 1 year ago
@aldoaldoz: which program do you use? you can make simplier version with 3 points for example :)
ChazyK 1 year ago
@ChazyK No they wouldn't, because there is no feedback - in order to create fractals, the result of each swing of the pendulum would have to affect the next swing, it is the repeating with feedback that gives rise to the patterns
T1Brit 6 months ago
i fell so dumb when im ready all these comments :(
combatcomingforyou 1 year ago
Who said the world was perfect? It's built upon chaos of course!
Bidmartinlo 1 year ago
Throw parts out of window and take picture where they are..
koponenii 1 year ago
Very neat simulation, what program did you use? Or did you program it yourself? (If so with what language?)
sjb167 1 year ago
I had those things as a kid I loved them... though I never thought to explain any theorems with them.
joe59788 1 year ago
If you eliminate all of the variables such as the human hand, power of magnets and so on you should be able to predict it.
If i am wrong please comment.
xfactor330 1 year ago
@xfactor330: A system is called chaotic when it amplifies the initial error conditions. You can't EXACTLY know the initial position of the pendulum... that is, with a precision of 0.00000000...0001 mm, so beyond a certain time the system will no longer be predictable. Another way to see the problem: in a computer you can't know the pendulum position with more than 64 bits of mantissa. Changing the value of the least significant bit is enough to get a different final result...
aldoaldoz 1 year ago 21
@aldoaldoz
0_0
I have no idea what have you just said but i believe you.
xfactor330 1 year ago
@xfactor330 Yes, you are wrong. If you eliminate all of the variables, you arent left with anything. When assuming the power of the magnets for instance, what numbers would you use and where would they be rounded off? No matter what numbers you use, its a model of a real thing, and misleading in that the numbers could be plugged in twice at exactly the same value. Nature doesnt work that way, theres a limit to the meaning of numbers below a certain scale, and uncontrollable compounding variation
milesjsandifer 10 months ago
Thank you for posting this. I am using it as a science project for my school. But I found a flaw.
With your computer generated diagram, you made the mistake of changing the design of the simulator to the original Blue, Yellow, Green, Red, pattern. However, during the filming using the "live" simulation, the experimenter used the pattern of Blue, Yellow, Green, Red. Fixing this in your next video would make your results, however chaotic, more concrete and resistible.
rymar151 1 year ago
carino
MarzioBalducci82 1 year ago
Does your sw accounts for the Earth rotation? :)
GoRaGeBbit 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Free energy technology exists!But the Oil coporations life depends on covering this up,Get the blueprints for a free energy motor at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,Be part of the revolution!
ivylsp 1 year ago
No way out man Asian women #lushfmlk.info#
kathejuisa 1 year ago
ludzie mają naebane
bonioTHC 1 year ago
give the nobel award to sissi!
OrgasmerDub 1 year ago
Chat with Asian women #lushfmlk.info#
penkohelan 1 year ago
Particles move randomly because it has no consequence to our existence as long as their behaviour forms a stabile macroscopic average.
leetatron 1 year ago
Can someone explain to me why the end result in 242x242 shows the colours in the middle in such a clear fashion where as around it all the colours are random?
Symmetryful 1 year ago
@Symmetryful Most likely the program that created the picture was limited and not the actual results.
AtleeYarrow 1 year ago
I really enjoyed this demonstration, but I just have one minor complaint, is that the experiment gave the impression that it was random, when it actually pre-determined.
walterW1234 1 year ago
@walterW1234 Like stats and a pair of dice, maybe.
AtleeYarrow 1 year ago
In a billion years from now as the universe gets recreated will I be here rewriting the same sentence or does chaos theory state that events will be different?
markiscrummy 1 year ago
@markiscrummy To my understanding, a chaotic system is predictable and pre-determined. Meaning there is nothing random about it. However, slight changes in initial conditions can result in huge differences in outcome. So I guess in according to the chaos theory, the answer to your question will be yes. You will be writing the same sentence.
walterW1234 1 year ago
Anyone ever hear of "The Gnab gib?" I think it's a theory that states that as the universe expands gravity becomes the strongest force and the universe contracts back into a single point. In other words the big bang starts all over again. Under chaos theory will the new universe be exactly the same as the previous universe as it begins to re expand creating time, objects, and the same exact circumstances and events that took place or will the new universe be different?
markiscrummy 1 year ago
@lebensborn666 Newtonian Mechanics do not factor any quantum wierdness into it's model and thus it is highly unlikely that it is much of an accurate model, it's good at predicting movements of planets buit even then it can only predict to a certain point in the future with very low accuracy...
lebensborn666 1 year ago
Totally wrong.
patricieni24 1 year ago
@patricieni24 And you make this statement based on what?
Arthreas 1 year ago
ahah la gatta sissy che bellina
amdnovello 1 year ago
@tjr318 But he tried a computer simulation. And the position of where it drops, was 100% accurate, each time. Or was it ? @aldoaldoz did you tried several times in the computer simulation ? Were they different ? Ouh wait, that would depend on what type of programing you are using...
Yamakoto120 1 year ago
The really wierd part, there is no such thing as a pendulum at rest. If a pendulum were at rest it would have a known velocity, zero, and a known location, down towards gravity.
freedomfrombots 1 year ago
It chaotic because its very sensitive to starting parameters, change anything a tiny tiny amount the outcome changes (fractal). If you could measure the starting parameters perfectly you can calculate the outcome but there is no direct math solution for the outcome (look at the 3 body problem). However Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle says that you cannot measure the starting parameters perfectly, therefore you cannot calculate an outcome.
bp495599 1 year ago
great video dude, very interesting
baldmanwithBIGlegs 1 year ago
he used a computer simulation people, that takes out the human variable and if you have to use an unnecessary amount of bit information to show an approximate estimate, it still aint 100% accurate so its not exactly non chaotic. electrons are popping in and out of this existence along with protons and neutrons. they seem to be in multiple places at once and have no real substance. what is real, that which does not change, energy or the infinite universe we cant fully comprehend let alone see.
iamdk007 1 year ago
FAKE & GAY
Hamodyxxx0 1 year ago
@Hamodyxxx0 You base this statement on what? RWJ?
Arthreas 1 year ago
yes it will, you just have to make sure that the pendulum starts x inches away, if anything its the opposite of what you said, you can always predict it
pivotlordlol 1 year ago
@tjr318: There is no way to know whether a pendulum swings in non-linear motion, because the erratic movements of humans make it impossible to confirm it.
aldoaldoz: who's sissi?
ZagiEscobar 1 year ago
@tjr318: The degree of accuracy gets smaller as you increase your scope of measurement. When you kick a ball, it is more than highly likely that you will never kick it in the same power as you did before. We can't change that but we can keep getting closer and closer to finding the exact variable between the two measurements, but even then we'll find another variable beyond that level of accuracy. Lol. Only our Creator knows.
ZagiEscobar 1 year ago
What if the strength of the magnets were somehow exactly the same? And the Pendulum was perfectly released every time? What if most minor variables were all controlled perfectly? Would it still be unpredictable?
guitarsguitar 1 year ago 2
@guitarsguitar : the answer is... yes! You can't hope to have a "perfectly released" pendulum, as youmust consider even Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle. And such uncertainty is enough to get different results every time.
aldoaldoz 1 year ago 9
@aldoaldoz
I don't believe what you say, that the heisenberg uncertainty principle is enough to say "you will get different results every time". One can see (3:36) there is geometry. With a higher resolution grid and higher precision variables, or just a better mathematical model, you could probably see a pattern extend out, and as long as the regions are larger than ~picometers, you could determine the result. Though for the most part, what you say is approx. accurate
DKM101 1 year ago
@DKM101 - If everything were perfect in this experiment, the uncertainty principle would still apply with similar results. A pendulum can never be at rest because it would have a known location and momentum. Scientists have done tests in a vaccuum chamber to confirm this. You can put two laser beams onto a pendulum weight and watch the interference pattern constantly change shape.
freedomfrombots 1 year ago
@freedomfrombots
Could you link to the two laser beams? Sounds cool :D
Taking the heisenberg uncertainty principle account, the bounds of error of whatever you're doing changes, so I agree that the result far from the center is probably unpredictable due to the heisenberg uncertainty principle, but I'm saying its predictable to a greater extent than made out in the video. To seriously say this can't be predicted would require a rigorous analysis of the geometry like at 3:39.
DKM101 1 year ago
@DKM101 - actually not link them, but shine them onto the pendulum head, which will create an interference pattern, and the interference pattern will shift with the movement of the pendulum. I worked on interferometers for machine vision to scan very small objects.
freedomfrombots 1 year ago
@freedomfrombots
O, I meant a video or a paper or something on them
DKM101 1 year ago
@aldoaldoz I must disagree. If you were to define a perfect release within possible perimeters, such as being released from a stabilized structure or a machine that positions it within .000001cm of the time before and had same strength magnets on each corner, it could easily be predicted.
Kumbunchamushroomppl 1 year ago
Using a simulation program, if you twice release the pendulum from the same position, obviously you get the same results. If you start 1 pixel away, at the beginning the paths are very similar, but after a while they differ slightly. This occurs also with 1/10, 1/100 pixel... the instant when the paths become different happens always later. With one billionth pixel displacement the paths at the end will differ too: well, THIS behavior is just what needed to recognize a CHAOTIC system
aldoaldoz 1 year ago
@Kumbunchamushroomppl I would have to agree!
malikg72 1 year ago
Comment removed
TheLag121 1 year ago
@Kumbunchamushroomppl As I understand it Chaos Theory doesn't dispute this. What chaos theory claims is that tiny changes can yield a completely different result in certain systems. This is important because much of modern science is based on the idea that measurements will give a consistent result.
TheLag121 1 year ago
..no..
Theoderikdenstore 3 months ago
@aldoaldoz Your introduction of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is not necessarily relevant, bc it is about finding the exact position and/or speed of the object in motion with the gain of 1 leading to the loss of the other at a given point in time. This is solely about the end result with no regard to the speed at all.
Kumbunchamushroomppl 1 year ago
@Kumbunchamushroomppl The evolution of the motion depends on the instant position and speed: and this of course is true also with respect to the initial conditions. Admit to release the pendulum from still: well, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle tells we can even say the initial speed is zero, but we can't exactly know the true position: such small-small initial uncertainty is enough to give different results! (I actually did some tries with my computer program).
aldoaldoz 1 year ago
@aldoaldoz If all the magnets were hooked into the same electromagnetic device pushing equal power to each point and a single point machined release was made as a constant could there be better control of the chaos?
AtleeYarrow 1 year ago
@AtleeYarrow No, there is no degree for control, it's not a linear scale of uncertainty. Any small deviations, no matter how small will can result in large change in end result, to my understanding.
walterW1234 1 year ago
@walterW1234
in the end it doesnt matter what will happend this is youtube not harvard, get your fancy lerning from some were else
320466 1 year ago
@320466 I know your trolling, but I don't go to harvard, and going to harvard has nothing to do with learning. You learn from whatever resource you can get your hand on and youtube is a pretty good one thanks to posters like aldoaldoz who provide educational videos like these.
walterW1234 1 year ago
@spongmaster: never heard about the Three-body problem?
aldoaldoz 1 year ago
nice vid....well illustrated
hindisux 1 year ago
@ everyone ;)
This is actually a valid demonstration of Chaos Theory. From WP: "[...] the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable.[3] This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos."
The fact that, if you could know and influence all factors involved, you would get the same result over and over again, doesn't matter. The point is that you can never do is in the real world (not even in a simulation), making this a valid chaotic system.
DevionB 1 year ago 2
"God does not role dice" Albert Einstein....
dannyboy12357 1 year ago
A very elegant demonstration, thank you for filming and posting this.
FerdinandVFriedrich 1 year ago 2
its not really a fair test though, i mean the placing is not exactly presise, and ur not make sure outsite force interveen etc.
but still awesome and a good analigy
jadenjak 1 year ago
lol just guess what color:P
putek98 1 year ago
has nothing to do with chaos theory and we can tell where it will end. Its only matters on side, angle, momentum and so. If you will push it precisely from the same spot (i mean absolutely same) under the same conditions, it will end allways on the same place...
HergotH01 1 year ago
you can never drop the pendulum from exactly the same place
if you did, results would be the same
but you will drop it only with difference of few nanometres and result will be absolutely different
gogolplex74 1 year ago
Great video! Very nicely illustrates the main points of chaos theory :) A system that, although well undestood and deterministic, is so sensitive to initial parameters that we can never hope to predict faithfully the outcome :) Well done!
FeynmanAdmirer 1 year ago
So is chaos theory basically, a system in which we cannot predict the results from? Even with mathematics, physics, etc.? I'm no scientist, but this is interesting stuff!
Juggernaut004 1 year ago
@Juggernaut004: Chaotic system is system in which small differences in initial conditions using deterministic equations leads to very different and in practice upredictable results. Chaos theory is based on assumption it is virtually impossible to know initial conditions exactly.
majnos 1 year ago
This not related to chaos theory nowise. If this construction absolutely inflexible, and there are no any outside resistance, and you will be start from one any point with hi start positioning precision you will get same results. Astronomy physic here.
ramzzes100 1 year ago
@ramzzes100: Even the Moon orbit is chaotic...
aldoaldoz 1 year ago
@aldoaldoz Owned! lol
anonyfox 1 year ago
Well you just described chaos theory demonstarated in this vid. There is nearly zero probability human can place that pendulum to exact spot.
majnos 1 year ago
Great vid! Must have took some time to complete ;)
@ramzzes100 Read the (well-formed) quote 3:44. The absence of outside influence isn't required to describe a chaotic system. It just has to be relatively small compared to the actual results. This is actually an intrinsic part of chaos-theory.
DevionB 1 year ago
Hey there. I didnt read all the comments, maybe it's already mentioned. But I do a computer simulation like that as well. the thing which doesnt make sense in yours is, that if you start at the center of all the magnets, or even at a centrum line, the pendulum loves to the right side, which had to mean that the red magnet has a stronger force than the others, but... does it make sense? I'd say every magnet should have the same force of magnetism, and the gravitiy shall be in the absolule center
LordDarthNihilus 1 year ago
@LordDarthNihilus: you are perfectly, starting from the center point we should obtain a static result! But, as I disliked this, I moved the pendulum hanging point a half pixel away from the center of the magnets!
aldoaldoz 1 year ago
@aldoaldoz Ah well okay that's a nice trick :D By the way, the way you show this experiment is really good! It's easy for anyone to understand the phenomenon I think, nice work :) And cute cat :D
LordDarthNihilus 1 year ago
@aldoaldoz
not really. There can be a extremely little statistical variation, even due to the earth movement, corioliss forces and earths electromagnetic field itself.
But mathematically, there is no magic. Under same conditions, using materially stable magnets, results are predictable and same for all the time.
You cannot bend causality.
HergotH01 1 year ago
@aldoaldoz: The end result also depends on the internal number precision and the algorithm used for calculating the differential equation.
albedoshader 1 year ago
@aldoaldoz GASP, tampering with the outcome. That's a scientific abomination. And a half pixel? I don't think that exists.
lol, I like the program. I should try making one. Good work.
Personally i don't like this whole concept of not being able to predict something. Obviously we can because you did with your program, in any case I understand what the point here his.
MaestroAlvis 1 year ago
@LordDarthNihilus Just b.c the result went more to one side doesnt mean that it is the difference in the magnets, for u to say this u have to prove it, before i would have said that, i would have found some device or some way and got all the magnets the 100% same then have redone it all. Do that then u can say "it is b.c the magnets r not the same" but u can give that as a theory or say it might be a variable so we need to do another experiment.
Amishprn86 1 year ago
@tjr318 what about if you repeat the computer simulator one?
PersonalComputerNerd 1 year ago
i love ur cat at pause it at 4:37 and it looks really evil!
emanresubla 1 year ago
love it... thanks for taking the time...
GEOmagnets 1 year ago
some music would of been niceXD
101Rivo 1 year ago
This would have to be done in a Zero atmosphere Environment with a preciesly calibrated mechanical arm that brings the Pendulum to the exact same point each time, and the structure must be perfectly built. There are to many variables in this that can cause fluctuations in the outcome therefor it is invalid, But i see what your point is.
sephrinx 1 year ago
well, the air resistence does not have to be 0, you can demonstrate chaos theory also with normal air resistence ...
I really liked the experiment, the whole video is great!
I think it took a lot of time to run the experiment ...
But I've one question, at least at the computer, shouldn't the result be congruent then?
I mean should not be in every corner e.g. a different color then?
Nederdien 1 year ago
What if you try with the exact same positions.. not with a hand shaking.
duchas 1 year ago
It will be no different the place of landing will be just random at any other time, the idea of a CHAOS THEORY is not visible in small data, but in great ones, whit a CHAOS THEORY is the same as a military Deception. Is to provide confussion when is sending a message,
the points could be arrange so that only it would be inpossible to solve.
DOSU344 1 year ago
Should have tried swinging the pendulum from the same start position just to see if the swing affects the odds.
Fisherdec 1 year ago
wonderfull
edmanueloo 1 year ago
you have to take in the account for the spin of the earth on the real pendulum, the earth will never be in the same spot twice so therefore the pendulum will never have the same result as before. im not trying to say this was wrong or anything im just wondering if that would change anything on the computer program
DresonStewart 1 year ago
what program do you use for computer simulation?
glupsamja 1 year ago
I guess you can make that with Flash / ActionScript
synsei1 1 year ago
Sorry, no, you're wrong and misinforming people. Read up and try again.
vishmonster 1 year ago
You're really patronizing..
rjr201 1 year ago
And i tought i was good at explaining lol
znobberful 1 year ago
Not just philosophical, but scientific... Oh my god I'm learning!
ShukakuSleeps 1 year ago
Great. Easy to understand, and only true information given, no harmful simplifications. Quite an achievement. Great video.
FlashEF 1 year ago
Really nice demonstration of chaotic system (with later visible attractors around the poles)
vicolachips44: the chaotic system is very sensitive to the initial params. You get same result, if you model on a computer with exactly same function input taken (as the calculations are deterministic). I can't image what kind of technology should be used to produce a robot with such a precision (and don't forget about the execution environment :) )
ArtursLicis 1 year ago
I y understand what I see is that the human arm is the source of the chaotic result. If you take a robot to do this experiment you might get a none chaotic result. Is that correct ?
Thank' s to sissi' s collaboration :)
vicolachips44 2 years ago
Wonderful job. Where do you live in? In Italy?
mikerade 2 years ago
I really doubt quantum mechanics ability to find a theory for 'everything' as such. If they do then maybe they will be able to coordinate a definitive starting point for an experiment, and under certain control measures, render the chaos theory useless. Modern science is succeeding in showing how abstract the world really is.
intruda11 2 years ago
in quantum mechanics today there is no such thing.
Not only is the results always non-deterministic, but also non-causal. That means a particle can (and evidently do) take multiple paths at the same time and interferes with itself, as well as beaves stragnely when examining cause and effect. Quantum mechanics is only ever probabilities; Definite outcomes does not exist.
NichtDieseTone 1 year ago
good explanation
intruda11 2 years ago
...dude it's almost the calculator 1/4 dived into and they all have same equal amount a same it's just simple, but if you change the spot then different story (because the speed, distances, timing, gravitational(force), and [don't get me wrong] angles)
Don't get me wrong sometime if you change the place they were they will might different law order of form.
TheBastered 2 years ago
@TheBastered Agree, there are many variables.
Solitudinis 1 year ago
there is a lot of variables not factored.
its not good science. its not even a good anology.
curlymolly70 2 years ago
great video. show on tv..guy created a computer programme in order to demonstrate an aspect of chaos theory...evolution. the computer selected the programmes with the best chance of success and "bred" them with similar programmes. after 30 generations the programmes are so advanced their behaviour is nearly impossible to map
crucifact 2 years ago
Tolles Video, klasse gemacht. Sehr interessant!
TiffyPixel 2 years ago
this is very interesting...nicely presented
linson999 2 years ago
This is an excellent example of the chaotic nature that can arise out of simple deterministic laws. Thank you so much for making this!
It seems many posters here confuse the term chaos with the term randomness. Chaos is a part of determinism.
cube11235 2 years ago
If you repeat the whole experiment thousands of times, that should statistically average out much of the variation from human error, air current, floor vibration etc. and produce for each starting square a statistical probability of finishing on each pole. What you should find is that directly above a pole, the probability of finishing on that pole is 100 percent, but as the starting position is moved outward the probabilities quickly even out to 25 percent for each pole.
mosquitobight 2 years ago
And friction will toss it off as well.
Rejenify 2 years ago
Has to be in a vacuum as well. Good luck. ;)
Rejenify 2 years ago
use an automation through a mechanism of some sort uniformly and redo this experiment.
Rejenify 2 years ago
sissi: i r supervizor :D
bananasquads 2 years ago
do it about 1000 times for each square, then you will get a more precise answer, not more accurate, more precise.
bananasquads 2 years ago 2
their are certain variables here, the most obvious one is the use of human force which isnt always uniform.
BebopCoIa 2 years ago 10
@BebopCoIa But what about the computer simulation? There isn't any human force involved just the computer, a mechanical device, and, therefore, one should assume that there isn't any variation in the force. Anyway, would the Ram memory and energy used to operate the computer be able to alterate the final result? I mean... Imagine that the computer is having problems with the ram memory or that there are some flutuations regarding electricity...
I'm just intrigued...
Solitudinis 1 year ago
@BebopCoIa That's true..
cowboy0212 1 year ago
can you do something say...20000 by 20000? I think by then the pattern would show up.
lesliefrancs 2 years ago 3
"Ignorance Is Bliss" - Chaos Theries Moto
NobdyInfinite 2 years ago
you described in a pretty awesome way the waste of time theory ... omg 242 x 242
argonium79 2 years ago