Starship Asterisk*

Quantum Steampunk Fantasy Fractal Landscape

Explanation: What strange world is this? Pictured above is no real place but rather a purely mathematical visualization of a generalization of a fractal into three dimensions. Classical fractal diagrams are typically confined to the two dimensions inherent in the complex number plane, demarking regions where an iterative function diverges. Recently explored additions expand the Mandelbrot set of fractals to three dimensions with prescriptions dubbed Mandelbox and Mandelbulb sets. The results are often visually stunning creations of virtual worlds with limitless detail, some of which you can fly through. Pictured above is one such mathematical fantasy, possibly reminiscent of some sort of steam-punkian, quantum-mechanical landscape.

<< Previous APOD

This Day in APOD

Next APOD >>

[/b]

WOW Wadda far out APOD
For me, A 'scale 2' Mandel box = a Borg cube.

The title of this day APOD is "Quantum Streampunk...". "Steampunk" sounds better ! (as in the forum title)

As I recall, the dimensionality of the ordinary Mandelbrot set is between 2 and 3, so shouldn't the dimensionality of this fractal be greater than 3, rather than 3?

That's one of the finest graphic warnings I've seen yet for the threat that Fukushima Daiichi presents to the oceans and seafood eaters.



.. or the tumors you invite upon eating such seafood.

.. or, the intersection of the ATC system .. with the submariner's world.

Iterations.

Too repetitive for me....


:---[===] *

YOWSA !!!

Had me wondering as to the possibilities that a mathematical formula could be "strung out" on something when it was generating this ??

Then wondering how such a structure could be made into a workable habitat on some strange planet with transport tubes linking modules ....

It's very nice but why is it Astronomy picture of the day?

Andy wrote:It's very nice but why is it Astronomy picture of the day?

Yes, it is a pretty picture, and I'm sure the mathematics are interesting, but I too fail to see any direct relation to astronomy. Perhaps someone who understands the math would enlighten us.

Andy wrote:It's very nice but why is it Astronomy picture of the day?

To make you ask that question. Why did this image interest the editor enough to feature it? Hopefully so that most people walk away being introduced to something new and fascinating. Some people only feel disgruntled about it not being astronomy-related, though.

Anthony Barreiro wrote:

Andy wrote:It's very nice but why is it Astronomy picture of the day?

Yes, it is a pretty picture, and I'm sure the mathematics are interesting, but I too fail to see any direct relation to astronomy. Perhaps someone who understands the math would enlighten us.

I'd suggest it's an APOD because one or both of the editors particularly like the image. They've made it abundantly clear over the years that they have other interests only peripherally related to astronomy (like math or Earth atmospherics) and are happy to share those things with us in this forum from time to time.

Everyone with an interest in science should understand that all knowledge is interrelated, and there's always value in seeing something new or unexpected. Who's to say where that idea might lead? Just as an example (purely hypothetical), the idea of 3D fractals makes me think about ways that asteroids and meteoroids might be simply modeled, since we know that one form these can take is a rubble-pile structure. Most current models are hard to work with. If they could be simply described with non-integer dimensions, that could open up new avenues of research.

Most days I enjoy APOD, and as a non-scientist and non-mathematician, I learn a lot. But the "explanation" of this entry is so thoroughly packed with science jargon it's like a locked box. I wish you had explained the picture more like someone like Carl Sagan would have done.
Please remember that at least part of your reading audience is made of up lay people. We don't always have time to look up every blessed underlined term. Not sure I would understand the thing even then.

Haha, I don't think the APOD editors smoke enough weed to explain things like Sagan.

KateLR wrote:Most days I enjoy APOD, and as a non-scientist and non-mathematician, I learn a lot. But the "explanation" of this entry is so thoroughly packed with science jargon it's like a locked box. I wish you had explained the picture more like someone like Carl Sagan would have done.
Please remember that at least part of your reading audience is made of up lay people. We don't always have time to look up every blessed underlined term. Not sure I would understand the thing even then.

The description is not particularly dense. There is some math jargon (no science jargon at all), but it's a mathematical subject... some jargon is to be expected.

I don't think the editors have overlooked that much of their audience has limited science or math training. But they assume their audience is intelligent and interested. The less obvious bits in the caption are linked to explanatory sites. Use what you don't know as a learning opportunity.

Chris Peterson wrote:...Just as an example (purely hypothetical), the idea of 3D fractals makes me think about ways that asteroids and meteoroids might be simply modeled, since we know that one form these can take is a rubble-pile structure. Most current models are hard to work with. If they could be simply described with non-integer dimensions, that could open up new avenues of research.

Quite a possibility... The first real application of the Mandelbrot set was the creation of digital 3D surfaces, something early processors struggled to do. This may be just the thing for 3D Crumbly Solids.

geckzilla wrote:Haha, I don't think the APOD editors smoke enough weed to explain things like Sagan.

LOL! so be sure to smoke enough to be able to understand! ^.^

Anthony Barreiro wrote:

Andy wrote:It's very nice but why is it Astronomy picture of the day?

Yes, it is a pretty picture, and I'm sure the mathematics are interesting, but I too fail to see any direct relation to astronomy. Perhaps someone who understands the math would enlighten us.

I’m not going to try explaining the math (“A man’s got to know his limitations.”), but fractals are an increasingly important way of looking at the cosmos. This is because fractal paterns are just about everywhere. Some even claim that the whole universe is fractal. I don’t think that it’s infinately fractal, but within boundery conditions of size fractal paterns can be disserned in all kinds of things, such as the shape of snowfakes, plants, natural coastlines, atmospheric clouds, star groupings, the overall structure of the universe’s galaxy clustering, etc.

So at least knowing about fractals is valuable for those wanting to understand the universe better.

Bruce

Yeah, everythings the same... just different. That's why everything's relevant to everything else, even though it may not seem to be. It all comes from the same place.

I enjoy the fictionalized APODs and would like to see more of them. Especially as depicted from other planetary systems and their realms to picture different landscapes as we may one day encounter.

This one reminds me of some time in the distant past. It’s a bit foggy but there was definitely math involved. Something else too but that slips my mind.

A mechanically-oriented math world this makes me wonder if we were inside the bulbs and discs? Do our three dimensions exit through the –
Manhole Cover Set?? Just jesting Great job on the artful science!

One of the problems with getting nano-bots to build anything human scale is giving something so small a useful program to follow. But if a part of their program was one of these equations, that would simplify things a lot. (See the fly through link in the APOD explanation.) Then all we'd have to do is figure out how to use what it built.

Rob

The Universe may be modelled with interesting mathematical constructs, including these funky things. Such equations would not easily yield the correct solution(s) though, due to our practical inability to measure the "known" conditions accurately enough. However, they would go a long way towards asking the right questions.

Similarly, one could model the lottery balls blowing and/or bouncing around in their perspex bubble. If one could measure all the initial and boundary conditions accurately enough, one could predict the lottery numbers every time. But probably better to solve the governing equations of the Universe ... less chance of being proven wrong.

this has a similarity with a machine my dad gave me in the mid sixties, a toy (?) computer you put together ( took a long time ) with lots of switches and lights that performed mathematical calculations. I'd give an arm and a leg to have it today. In the 60's verbiage " cool man "

There was this one
http://boingboing.net/2006/02/21/mechan ... puter.html

from WIKI
or the "Think-A-Tron"
http://www.computermuseum.li/Testpage/T ... on-Toy.htm

The HASBRO machine

I couldn't think of an interesting thing to say about this Quantum Steampunk Fantasy Fractal, but I have been thinking about it. Now I think I know what it is: an as-yet undiscovered circle in Dante's Inferno, where, perhaps, overly bold mathematicians get lost in their own creations. Talk about a nightmarish landscape to get lost in.

Then again, who knows, maybe this fractal landscape is the first step on the road to new amazing scientific discoveries and applications.

Ann