Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Reality Carnival)   Yeah, yeah, we've all seen pretty fractal pictures befo... HOLY THIRD DIMENSION, BATMAN   (skytopia.com) divider line 122
    More: Cool  
•       •       •

30241 clicks; posted to Geek » on 15 Nov 2009 at 11:21 AM (5 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



122 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread
 
2009-11-15 12:40:52 AM  
Awesome. Just found some new desktops!
 
2009-11-15 12:45:00 AM  
Kind of a Gaudi meets Giger feel to them. Very cool stuff.
 
2009-11-15 01:09:26 AM  
Cool link. Thanks to smitty.

Having said that, the fractal thing is a pretty but unrealistic conceit in a universe that is quantized. At some point, there can be nothing smaller, so the idea that these patterns can be found in endlessly smaller sizes is incorrect. More interestingly, at the point WHERE they can get no smaller, everything on the larger scale must recapitulate that of the smallest possible formation. If this is true in our universe, as it seems to be with, say, clouds and nebulae, then what we can observe is, in fact, showing us the very basic structures of all things.

/Or not. I really don't care, and am going to bed now.
 
2009-11-15 01:19:36 AM  
Wow, that really looks like the 21st century should. If we cn't have flying cars, at least we can have awesome 3D Mandelbrots
 
2009-11-15 01:47:19 AM  
Awesome.

So when is Fractint 3D coming?
 
2009-11-15 02:11:05 AM  
Nice
 
2009-11-15 02:25:07 AM  
Beautiful.
 
2009-11-15 03:02:48 AM  
Very cool
 
2009-11-15 03:20:24 AM  
oldebayer: Cool link. Thanks to smitty.

Having said that, the fractal thing is a pretty but unrealistic conceit in a universe that is quantized. At some point, there can be nothing smaller, so the idea that these patterns can be found in endlessly smaller sizes is incorrect. More interestingly, at the point WHERE they can get no smaller, everything on the larger scale must recapitulate that of the smallest possible formation. If this is true in our universe, as it seems to be with, say, clouds and nebulae, then what we can observe is, in fact, showing us the very basic structures of all things.


Kinda makes spending money on devices to see in ever greater detail, like the LHC, or deeper and further into the universe with the LBT seem kinda pointless and expensive.

Apparently physicists just need to spend more time playing with their broccoli.

Let me know when you get your grand unifying theory worked out, that is unless you disappear into a quantum singularity.
 
2009-11-15 05:39:55 AM  
In college I wrote programs to make 3d Lorenz attractors. Of course, using a 4.77 mhz PC with only 256k of RAM severely limited the detail I could generate. After all, I had to reserve some computer time to run my John Conway's Life program.
 
2009-11-15 08:26:43 AM  
Great find. Thanks, subby.
 
2009-11-15 09:20:39 AM  
mmmmmmmm Infinite surface are with finite volume. *transcendent*
 
2009-11-15 09:56:52 AM  
Awesome stuff.
 
2009-11-15 10:21:11 AM  
So who is going to be the first one to toss this stuff to a 3D printer?
 
2009-11-15 10:21:49 AM  
hmmm... I seem to be having difficulty picking my jaw up off the floor.
 
2009-11-15 10:36:09 AM  
Meh. Just looks like a bunch of close-up pictures of germs to me.
 
2009-11-15 10:38:56 AM  
HagarTheHorrible: So who is going to be the first one to toss this stuff to a 3D printer?

a big one so people can go spelunking, or maybe live in it in virtual worlds
 
2009-11-15 10:53:36 AM  
Paging BaseMetal, you are needed in thread 4770520.
 
2009-11-15 11:07:45 AM  
Now I want broccoli for lunch.
 
2009-11-15 11:20:04 AM  
where r u basemetal? awesome site subby
 
2009-11-15 11:32:18 AM  
Reminds me of my old tech teacher who build a program to zoom into a fractle, I remember playing for hours seeing how far into it I could go.

Obviously the shape never changed too much but as I zoomed in you could change direction slightly, changing the perspective.
 
2009-11-15 11:32:57 AM  
I don't want ice cream from Uranus.
 
2009-11-15 11:37:49 AM  
oldebayer: Cool link. Thanks to smitty.

Having said that, the fractal thing is a pretty but unrealistic conceit in a universe that is quantized. At some point, there can be nothing smaller, so the idea that these patterns can be found in endlessly smaller sizes is incorrect. More interestingly, at the point WHERE they can get no smaller, everything on the larger scale must recapitulate that of the smallest possible formation. If this is true in our universe, as it seems to be with, say, clouds and nebulae, then what we can observe is, in fact, showing us the very basic structures of all things.

/Or not. I really don't care, and am going to bed now.


It might be good you went to sleep. That was sounding a bit out there.

In any case take fractals the other way. Fractal mathematics is great at predicting the way things get bigger. You should look into the work in biology dealing with this crap.

Branches on a tree, the circulatory system, genetics
Its all deals with fractal mathematics.
 
2009-11-15 11:47:21 AM  
Did anybody else click on this video? (new window)

Warning, may trigger acid flashbacks.
 
2009-11-15 11:53:59 AM  
img248.imageshack.us

What a 3 dimensional fractal may look like.
 
2009-11-15 11:57:57 AM  
oldebayer: the fractal thing is a pretty but unrealistic conceit in a universe that is quantized. At some point, there can be nothing smaller, so the idea that these patterns can be found in endlessly smaller sizes is incorrect.

Zeno? Is that you?
 
2009-11-15 11:59:27 AM  
StarlingFive: oldebayer: Cool link. Thanks to smitty.

Having said that, the fractal thing is a pretty but unrealistic conceit in a universe that is quantized. At some point, there can be nothing smaller, so the idea that these patterns can be found in endlessly smaller sizes is incorrect. More interestingly, at the point WHERE they can get no smaller, everything on the larger scale must recapitulate that of the smallest possible formation. If this is true in our universe, as it seems to be with, say, clouds and nebulae, then what we can observe is, in fact, showing us the very basic structures of all things.

/Or not. I really don't care, and am going to bed now.

It might be good you went to sleep. That was sounding a bit out there.

In any case take fractals the other way. Fractal mathematics is great at predicting the way things get bigger. You should look into the work in biology dealing with this crap.

Branches on a tree, the circulatory system, genetics
Its all deals with fractal mathematics.



Seeing these 3D models made me think of this exactly.

Too much of what resulted from simple maths turned out too organic for coincidence. It becomes fairly obvious that similar maths are at work defining the shape of matter.

Really farking cool.

/Thanks Subby!
 
2009-11-15 12:04:58 PM  
Are these proper 3D fractals or just colours replaced with height maps and wrapped around a sphere?
 
2009-11-15 12:17:20 PM  
abigsmurf: Are these proper 3D fractals or just colours replaced with height maps and wrapped around a sphere?

Someone needs to RTFA. Nice explanation of EXACTLY what they did.

/True 3d fractal
 
2009-11-15 12:23:16 PM  
pictures were cool, i enjoyed muchly.
 
2009-11-15 12:24:44 PM  
This looks shopped. I can tell from some of the pixels and from seeing quite a few shops in my time.

/obligatory
 
2009-11-15 12:24:51 PM  
At risk of sounding trollish, I was doing this in POV-Ray in 1998

mason.gmu.edu

3-D slice of a four-dimensional fractal. I wish I still had the other renders, but I dropped that hard drive down some brick stairs moving out from college one winter :/
 
2009-11-15 12:26:14 PM  
Is fracint still around? Didn't see mention in TA. Could make 3D images with it on an 80286.
 
2009-11-15 12:38:37 PM  
Three Crooked Squirrels 2009-11-15 10:36:09 AM
Meh. Just looks like a bunch of close-up pictures of germs to me.


Yeah. The remind me of a picture of a growth taken out an 84 yr old woman's bladder.
 
2009-11-15 12:55:21 PM  
Zombalupagus: What a 3 dimensional fractal may look like.

No, THIS is what a three-dimensional fractal may look like:

www.maths.surrey.ac.uk

/google "Romanesque broccoli"
 
2009-11-15 12:56:59 PM  
lady_nocturne: Zombalupagus: What a 3 dimensional fractal may look like.

No, THIS is what a three-dimensional fractal may look like:



/google "Romanesque broccoli"


Here's the Wikipedia link. :-)
 
2009-11-15 01:01:00 PM  
famousp: abigsmurf: Are these proper 3D fractals or just colours replaced with height maps and wrapped around a sphere?

Someone needs to RTFA. Nice explanation of EXACTLY what they did.

/True 3d fractal


It isn't really. They perform a 3D to 2D transformation.
 
2009-11-15 01:05:09 PM  
i32.photobucket.com

Mandelbrots! Mandelbrots! Mandelbrots!
 
2009-11-15 01:06:47 PM  
Hmm... I don't get it. What's so special about this?
 
2009-11-15 01:31:57 PM  
abigsmurf: Are these proper 3D fractals or just colours replaced with height maps and wrapped around a sphere?

He seems to be using an inverse sterographic projection from the complex plane to the sphere. He doesn't explain it this way because he doesn't appear to understand much math.
 
2009-11-15 01:45:52 PM  
xkillyourfacex: Hmm... I don't get it. What's so special about this?

I don't really understand myself. I've never been very good at math, so it's understandable how I fail to see how math = pretty pictures.

/saved a bunch of them though
 
2009-11-15 01:47:20 PM  
 
2009-11-15 02:02:22 PM  
Batman in the Operating Room: I don't want ice cream from Uranus.

You'll eat what momma gives you, young man.
 
2009-11-15 02:03:05 PM  
AWWWWWWWWWSOME! My mind started playing the soundtrack to Star Trek: The Motion Picture when the Enterprise flew into the V'ger cloud as I looked at the images.
 
2009-11-15 02:15:41 PM  
xkillyourfacex: Hmm... I don't get it. What's so special about this?

Are you perhaps a fan of Thomas Kinkade's work?
 
2009-11-15 02:18:06 PM  
Like a coral reef on acid.

Very cool.

/toejam wins the thread, though
//oh, so you think you're better than me?
 
2009-11-15 02:18:29 PM  
stress tensor: AWWWWWWWWWSOME! My mind started playing the soundtrack to Star Trek: The Motion Picture when the Enterprise flew into the V'ger cloud as I looked at the images.

My mind thinks of Hellraiser. There's something very creepy and disturbing about those images.
 
2009-11-15 02:19:37 PM  
oldebayer: Having said that, the fractal thing is a pretty but unrealistic conceit in a universe that is quantized. At some point, there can be nothing smaller, so the idea that these patterns can be found in endlessly smaller sizes is incorrect. More interestingly, at the point WHERE they can get no smaller, everything on the larger scale must recapitulate that of the smallest possible formation. If this is true in our universe, as it seems to be with, say, clouds and nebulae, then what we can observe is, in fact, showing us the very basic structures of all things.

I don't have a dog in this fight, but I think the standard rebuttal is this:
imgs.xkcd.com
As in "Pff, I guess your stupid physical universe is fine if you like blocky, grainy approximations of reality that take practically infinite memory and rendering time to look at even once. Hey, you like France? z(n+3) = z(n)e-2c. There you go, that's pretty much all there is to know about it. I saved you a trip."
 
2009-11-15 02:25:17 PM  
Does anyone else think H.P. Lovecraft when they see these?

Like, a temple made up of sculptures like this would set off all my Cthulhu alarm bells.

// thinking that "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" would make a rad ringtone
 
2009-11-15 02:42:54 PM  
HagarTheHorrible: Kind of a Gaudi meets Giger feel to them

That is a perfect description. Just wow, perfect.

semiotix: I don't have a dog in this fight, but I think the standard rebuttal is this:

Pretty much that. In math there is no smallest possible size. While in the physical world there is a smallest possible unit of space, the Planck length, in math there is no such constraint. And that math can go on forever doesn't mean it's not accurately reflecting the real world. Just that the real world has limits whereas pure math doesn't.
 
2009-11-15 02:46:00 PM  
img33.imageshack.us
 
2009-11-15 02:49:50 PM  
Derek Force: img33.imageshack.us

Do you know how I know you're gay?
 
2009-11-15 02:56:40 PM  
Alacritous

I cant help it.. was looking through the pics and that just 'popped' out at me..
 
2009-11-15 02:58:21 PM  
toejam: Mandelbrots! Mandelbrots! Mandelbrots!

LOL, I was shouting this to myself after I read the name Mandelbrot.

Gold Jerry, GOLD!
 
2009-11-15 02:58:54 PM  
I mean, it's cool and all, but what does it mean?
 
2009-11-15 03:00:30 PM  
Derek Force: that just 'popped' out at me..

You're really not helping your case here.
 
2009-11-15 03:06:22 PM  
Foxxinnia: I mean, it's cool and all, but what does it mean?

It is interesting in its own sake because it is a picture generated by a relatively simple mathematical procedure. The picture could have just looked like a blank channel on an analogue TV, i.e. lots of dots that don't make sense, but instead we see structures. That is the appeal.
 
2009-11-15 03:07:57 PM  
Alacritous: Derek Force: that just 'popped' out at me..

You're really not helping your case here.


Are you suggesting that there's something wrong with it?
 
2009-11-15 03:09:40 PM  
lady_nocturne: lady_nocturne: Zombalupagus: What a 3 dimensional fractal may look like.

No, THIS is what a three-dimensional fractal may look like:



/google "Romanesque broccoli"

Here's the Wikipedia link. :-)


Holy shiat, it's a real plant! I thought it was a fractal.
 
2009-11-15 03:11:15 PM  
Biological Ali: Are you suggesting that there's something wrong with it?

alright, alright, just stick a NTTAWWT in there somewhere. sheesh. can't a guy have a little fun?
 
2009-11-15 03:19:56 PM  
Alacritous
can't a guy have a little fun?

like, with another guy, maybe?
 
2009-11-15 03:21:30 PM  
TheAbstractor: Paging Larry Carlson.

His site has provided me with many hours of entertainment.
 
2009-11-15 03:23:13 PM  
Derek Force: Alacritous

I cant help it.. was looking through the pics and that just 'popped' out at me..


Mhmmhm....And How do you feel about your father? How about your mother? Would you say many people find her enjoyable to be with?

/Freud glasses
 
2009-11-15 03:28:38 PM  
CLEARLY I'm evil: Derek Force: Alacritous

I cant help it.. was looking through the pics and that just 'popped' out at me..

Mhmmhm....And How do you feel about your father? How about your mother? Would you say many people find her enjoyable to be with?

/Freud glasses


Did he watch to Golden Girls?
 
2009-11-15 03:29:51 PM  
Derek Force: like, with another guy, maybe?

Hey, I'm not the one that can spot a penis in a picture from a mile away..
 
2009-11-15 03:37:57 PM  
Alacritous

true that.. its a gift.

better photoshop skills would have given us an awesome tentacle penis sarlac..
 
2009-11-15 03:43:14 PM  
xkillyourfacex: Hmm... I don't get it. What's so special about this?

Well, I think it has something to do with the nature of the mandelbrot set, which is a certain set numbers on the complex plane (with the x axis being real numbers and the y axis being imaginary numbers). There are, in the complex set of numbers, just those two axes. There is another set called quaternions, which has three different imaginary axes (and on real axes). I imagine you could come up with an analogue to mandelbrot in this 4 dimensional space (with a real axis and three imaginary axes). I think that the difficulty here is that three dimensions you either are taking a slice of the four dimensional fractal or using the third dimension to stand in for color in the 2d fractal. It's not as interesting.
 
2009-11-15 03:50:16 PM  
RemyDuron: with the x axis being real numbers and the y axis being imaginary numbers

complex analysis is all fun and games until someone loses an i.
 
2009-11-15 04:06:35 PM  
lady_nocturne: Zombalupagus: What a 3 dimensional fractal may look like.

No, THIS is what a three-dimensional fractal may look like:



/google "Romanesque broccoli"


Ahh, your Fractal-Broccoli-Fu is better stronger than mine.
 
2009-11-15 04:21:14 PM  
Zombalupagus: lady_nocturne: Zombalupagus: What a 3 dimensional fractal may look like.

No, THIS is what a three-dimensional fractal may look like:



/google "Romanesque broccoli"

Ahh, your Fractal-Broccoli-Fu is better stronger than mine.


A friend of mine, who teaches fractal mathematics to people of all ages, calls it "Froccoli".

Submitter: Thanks for the link. Great stuff.
 
2009-11-15 04:35:30 PM  
arrr_matey1978: Does anyone else think H.P. Lovecraft when they see these?

Like, a temple made up of sculptures like this would set off all my Cthulhu alarm bells.

// thinking that "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" would make a rad ringtone


It was the first thing I thought of. Fractals literally are based non-euclidean geometry.
 
2009-11-15 04:47:22 PM  
Looks like I picked a bad week to quit snorting acid.
 
2009-11-15 04:51:44 PM  
I think that site is in English yet I don't understand anything.
 
2009-11-15 05:07:06 PM  
Is something wrong that I just wiki'd the actual Mandelbrot set and found the formula for it much more interesting than the actual pictures in TFA?
 
2009-11-15 05:09:15 PM  
KajakPro: Is something wrong that I just wiki'd the actual Mandelbrot set and found the formula for it much more interesting than the actual pictures in TFA?

Yeah. It means you'll never get a date.

/I keed, I keed
//hell, I'm the one dying for it to be spring so I can grow some fractal broccoli
 
2009-11-15 05:13:32 PM  
KajakPro: Is something wrong that I just wiki'd the actual Mandelbrot set and found the formula for it much more interesting than the actual pictures in TFA?

Well, I have no idea what the Mandelbrot set would look like, but I do know something that looks like broccoli without fancy math & some shaders & false colors.

/oooh, broccoli!
 
2009-11-15 05:21:29 PM  
This one looks naughty:

i652.photobucket.com
 
2009-11-15 05:22:13 PM  
TheAbstractor: arrr_matey1978: Does anyone else think H.P. Lovecraft when they see these?

Like, a temple made up of sculptures like this would set off all my Cthulhu alarm bells.

// thinking that "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" would make a rad ringtone

It was the first thing I thought of. Fractals literally are based non-euclidean geometry.


Are there plenty of blasphemous angles?
 
2009-11-15 05:24:58 PM  
blazemongr: This one looks naughty:

Maybe to a necrophiliac?

/mmmmm, rotting vajayjay
 
2009-11-15 05:36:06 PM  
What a Fractal may look like

img15.imageshack.us
 
2009-11-15 06:10:52 PM  
Shortigo: At risk of sounding trollish, I was doing this in POV-Ray in 1998

Yeah, and if you'd started rendering that at 4500x4500 with a reasonable number of iterations on your 1998 POV-Ray box, it would've been finishing up right about... now.
 
2009-11-15 06:15:28 PM  
Three Crooked Squirrels: Meh. Just looks like a bunch of close-up pictures of germs to me.


// me too, so i thought that the shapes of them & other seemingly random structures were actually formed along the lines of a Mandelbrot equations relative to their composition.
 
2009-11-15 07:06:12 PM  
For some reason those things gross me out.
 
2009-11-15 07:51:28 PM  
Dammit. Link Farked.
 
2009-11-15 07:52:26 PM  
oldebayer: Cool link. Thanks to smitty.

Having said that, the fractal thing is a pretty but unrealistic conceit in a universe that is quantized. At some point, there can be nothing smaller, so the idea that these patterns can be found in endlessly smaller sizes is incorrect. More interestingly, at the point WHERE they can get no smaller, everything on the larger scale must recapitulate that of the smallest possible formation. If this is true in our universe, as it seems to be with, say, clouds and nebulae, then what we can observe is, in fact, showing us the very basic structures of all things.

/Or not. I really don't care, and am going to bed now.


integral calculus and practical applications of are rooted in the concept of infinitesimally small and that's all around us.
 
2009-11-15 07:53:22 PM  
Right, I just added new photoshop fodder to the folder of "Stuff I photoshop in order to fark with the head of people participating when I DM.

"So you really decide to follow the raving lunatic spellcasting outsider?
You enter the gate to the other plane, and find yourself inside a room with a predominant architecture looking like *shuffle shuffle* this:

www.skytopia.com

Welcome to the plane where I use all those lame aquatic monsters I never get to use on a regular basis, with some templates to make them more interesting."
 
2009-11-15 08:14:16 PM  
jfarkinB: Shortigo: At risk of sounding trollish, I was doing this in POV-Ray in 1998

Yeah, and if you'd started rendering that at 4500x4500 with a reasonable number of iterations on your 1998 POV-Ray box, it would've been finishing up right about... now.


Pretty much -- if I recall correctly that image took around 20 hours to render on my new P2-333mhz and is something like only five iterations deep. No fancy shaders like ambient occlusion, and not nearly as interesting as this stuff.
 
2009-11-15 09:07:38 PM  
maxximillian: integral calculus and practical applications of are rooted in the concept of infinitesimally small and that's all around us.

Did I ever imply otherwise? I taught calculus for over thirty years. My statement was just meant to suggest that in the real world there are limits that do not exist in pure mathematics. I seem to have ruffled a lot of feathers by saying so, but I stand by it. If it is not so, then why is there such a disconnect between classical relativity, based on pure infinite-point mathematics, and quantum theory, based on the limits I mentioned?
 
2009-11-15 09:20:31 PM  
MiddleyMcCentrist: Dammit. Link Farked.

Sorry. I slashdotted it. Here's a mirror, and a Seadragon link to the bulb.

Intel needs to step up for these guys and drop some serious hardware on them - a cluster of dual X5570's and a couple engineering samples of Larrabee boards are just the thing to bump their rendering into high gear.

 
2009-11-15 09:57:25 PM  
StarlingFive: take fractals the other way. Fractal mathematics is great at predicting the way things get bigger.

Um, I think that's what I said. Or at least what I meant to say.
 
2009-11-15 10:31:47 PM  
R.I.P.

img24.imageshack.us
 
2009-11-15 10:48:13 PM  
if you can have 3-d fractals, what about 3-d fractals with time? Moving fractal 'solids', with aspects of perhaps higher dimensions glimpsing into the play area.
 
2009-11-15 11:05:24 PM  
IronTom: if you can have 3-d fractals, what about 3-d fractals with time? Moving fractal 'solids', with aspects of perhaps higher dimensions glimpsing into the play area.

The discussion over at Slashdot regarding this article revealed this link to 2D projection of a 4D fractal, "over time". Sit down because your mind will be blown.
 
2009-11-15 11:14:59 PM  
Toy_Cop: toejam: Mandelbrots! Mandelbrots! Mandelbrots!

LOL, I was shouting this to myself after I read the name Mandelbrot.

Gold Jerry, GOLD!


I'm glad other people think this.
 
2009-11-15 11:15:44 PM  
Shortigo: jfarkinB: Shortigo: At risk of sounding trollish, I was doing this in POV-Ray in 1998

Yeah, and if you'd started rendering that at 4500x4500 with a reasonable number of iterations on your 1998 POV-Ray box, it would've been finishing up right about... now.

Pretty much -- if I recall correctly that image took around 20 hours to render on my new P2-333mhz and is something like only five iterations deep. No fancy shaders like ambient occlusion, and not nearly as interesting as this stuff.


Have you seen the stuff being done with it now days? And, since it is still mandatory for cool pictures on povray.binaries.images . . . source please?

And strange parallel, this site was linked on one of the POV-Ray newsgroups just a few days ago.
 
2009-11-15 11:16:47 PM  
oldebayer: Cool link. Thanks to smitty.

Having said that, the fractal thing is a pretty but unrealistic conceit in a universe that is quantized. At some point, there can be nothing smaller, so the idea that these patterns can be found in endlessly smaller sizes is incorrect. More interestingly, at the point WHERE they can get no smaller, everything on the larger scale must recapitulate that of the smallest possible formation. If this is true in our universe, as it seems to be with, say, clouds and nebulae, then what we can observe is, in fact, showing us the very basic structures of all things.

/Or not. I really don't care, and am going to bed now.


Every decade or two we discover smaller and smaller particles. First it was atoms, then protons and neutrons, then quarks. Something must make up those quarks.
 
2009-11-15 11:20:03 PM  
nephlim: What a Fractal may look like

Came for this.

/left...satisfied?
 
2009-11-15 11:20:30 PM  
theurge14: Sit down because your mind will be blown.

wow! mega-morph-o-matic! Could you imagine having one of them in a fishtank in your house?
 
2009-11-15 11:37:22 PM  
oldebayer: maxximillian: integral calculus and practical applications of are rooted in the concept of infinitesimally small and that's all around us.

Did I ever imply otherwise? I taught calculus for over thirty years. My statement was just meant to suggest that in the real world there are limits that do not exist in pure mathematics. I seem to have ruffled a lot of feathers by saying so, but I stand by it. If it is not so, then why is there such a disconnect between classical relativity, based on pure infinite-point mathematics, and quantum theory, based on the limits I mentioned?


From what I understand, that has more to do with background (in)dependence. Quantum mechanics requires a fixed background of spacetime, while general relativity shows that one doesn't exist.
 
2009-11-16 12:57:24 AM  
Winktologist: Every decade or two we discover smaller and smaller particles. First it was atoms, then protons and neutrons, then quarks. Something must make up those quarks.

Indeed. Here is a Link.

But at some point, we hit bottom, and there is no prying up the bottom and delving deeper.


emkajii: From what I understand, that has more to do with background (in)dependence. Quantum mechanics requires a fixed background of spacetime, while general relativity shows that one doesn't exist.

I don't think "background (in)dependence" means what you think it means. Though I could be wrong.
 
2009-11-16 01:06:12 AM  
HagarTheHorrible: Kind of a Gaudi meets Giger feel to them. Very cool stuff.

Huh. While I didn't perceive a mix, those were the two names I was reminded of as well.
 
2009-11-16 01:10:28 AM  
It's one badass farking fractal.


obscure?
 
2009-11-16 01:44:05 AM  
bikerific: It's one badass farking fractal.


obscure?


like a day-glow pterodactyl...

had that song stuck in my head since my friend sent me this link days before it showed up here.
 
2009-11-16 01:45:55 AM  
semiotix: oldebayer: Having said that, the fractal thing is a pretty but unrealistic conceit in a universe that is quantized. At some point, there can be nothing smaller, so the idea that these patterns can be found in endlessly smaller sizes is incorrect. More interestingly, at the point WHERE they can get no smaller, everything on the larger scale must recapitulate that of the smallest possible formation. If this is true in our universe, as it seems to be with, say, clouds and nebulae, then what we can observe is, in fact, showing us the very basic structures of all things.

I don't have a dog in this fight, but I think the standard rebuttal is this:

As in "Pff, I guess your stupid physical universe is fine if you like blocky, grainy approximations of reality that take practically infinite memory and rendering time to look at even once. Hey, you like France? z(n+3) = z(n)e-2c. There you go, that's pretty much all there is to know about it. I saved you a trip."


I'm a big fan of XKCD, and I was always pretty amused at that strip. But something just occured to me - All the other iterations are pretty correct, but the physics-to-math step is not quite. For example, the chemistry-to-physics step, all the rules concerning chemical reactions and bonds and such are entirely subsets of the laws of physics. However, the laws of physics are NOT entirely a subset of the laws of mathematics. For example, consider e=mc^2 - It that were e=mc^3, the change would alter the fundamental laws that govern our universe (physics), but would not impact the laws of mathematics in any way. The laws of physics are most easily expressed using mathematics, but that's not the same as implying that physics is actually a SUBSET of mathematics.
Or maybe I just need another drink.

Either way.


/vodak!
 
2009-11-16 02:25:31 AM  
defiancecp: For example, consider e=mc^2 - It that were e=mc^3, the change would alter the fundamental laws that govern our universe (physics), but would not impact the laws of mathematics in any way

Let me point out something in this regard before I pass out: the inverse-square law that governs the propagation of force (or at least gravity and electromagnetic force) from a point source, is a very obvious and simple consequence of our living in a three-dimensional space. Now note that e=mc2 looks a great deal like that inverse-square law, particularly if you make it m=e/c2,

My interpretation is that this is the way energy turns into matter: cram it into such a small space that it cannot get out of its own way, and voila: it "freezes," acquires inertia and, therefore, mass.

O fcopurse, as always, I could be wrong. ;~
 
2009-11-16 04:09:46 AM  
nephlim: What a Fractal may look like

Wow, I'm in love.
Also great work subby!
 
2009-11-16 04:30:55 AM  
Impressed with the complex math, but I'm guessing these guys' VCR's are still blinking 12:00.
 
2009-11-16 05:00:25 AM  
Dude, you blew my mind...
 
2009-11-16 07:52:24 AM  
Wow. But the phreaky part is how much a lot of those images resemble bone structures and other things found in nature.

/I suppose god is a mathematician after all.
 
2009-11-16 08:56:32 AM  
Mandelbrot Set you're a Rorschach Test on fire
You're a day-glo pterodactyl
You're a heart-shaped box of springs and wire
You're one badass farking fractal
And you're just in time to save the day
Sweeping all our fears away
You can change the world in a tiny way
 
2009-11-16 09:11:51 AM  
ykarie: Shortigo: jfarkinB: Shortigo: At risk of sounding trollish, I was doing this in POV-Ray in 1998

Yeah, and if you'd started rendering that at 4500x4500 with a reasonable number of iterations on your 1998 POV-Ray box, it would've been finishing up right about... now.

Pretty much -- if I recall correctly that image took around 20 hours to render on my new P2-333mhz and is something like only five iterations deep. No fancy shaders like ambient occlusion, and not nearly as interesting as this stuff.

Have you seen the stuff being done with it now days? And, since it is still mandatory for cool pictures on povray.binaries.images . . . source please?

And strange parallel, this site was linked on one of the POV-Ray newsgroups just a few days ago.


I haven't looked at POV-Ray or its community in at least five years now. There was some intimidating stuff being done back in the late 90s though -- I never did anything as epic as the monthly featured artwork.

I'd post my source if I still had it :/ Interested in QBasic graphics demos? I still have the source some of those I made :D
 
2009-11-16 09:38:43 AM  
oldebayer: Winktologist: Every decade or two we discover smaller and smaller particles. First it was atoms, then protons and neutrons, then quarks. Something must make up those quarks.

Indeed. Here is a Link.

But at some point, we hit bottom, and there is no prying up the bottom and delving deeper.


emkajii: From what I understand, that has more to do with background (in)dependence. Quantum mechanics requires a fixed background of spacetime, while general relativity shows that one doesn't exist.

I don't think "background (in)dependence" means what you think it means. Though I could be wrong.


wow...thanks for that link. You just blew my mind for the rest of the day. Matter, including us, made out of nothing. This whole thing is just one giant, collective dream.
 
2009-11-16 10:32:15 AM  
HypnozombieX: Wow. But the phreaky part is how much a lot of those images resemble bone structures and other things found in nature.

/I suppose god is a mathematician after all.


I'm not at all surprised that natural selection favors simple methods that produce complex structures. It's actually pretty obvious when you think about it.
 
2009-11-16 10:55:40 AM  
Am I the only one who say some Lovecraftian old gods in those pics ?
 
2009-11-16 10:56:28 AM  
Everywhere I see them there
I stop and stare at patterns
I don't care I must declare
I've got a flair for patterns.
In my hair the clothes I wear
my savoir faire is patterns

All I see is patterns,
the patterns that repeat.
 
2009-11-16 03:34:38 PM  
I had a friend who hated math and said that it was ugly. I showed her some fractals to prove that math could be beautiful. She looked at them and then said, confidently, "This isn't math!"
 
2009-11-16 10:34:58 PM  
WhyteRaven74: While in the physical world there is a smallest possible unit of space, the Planck length

Have you proven something that the rest of the physics world should know about?

/otherwise, FAIL
 
2009-11-17 12:33:39 AM  
DFWPhotoGuy: I spent the weekend digging these guys out of a North Texas river. Baculites (straight shelled ammonites) have some of the coolest natural fractal patterns. Ammonite Sutures in general just really intrigue the hell out of me. Sorry im late to the fractal party btw!

Cool pics! Got any higher res versions posted anywhere?
 
2009-11-17 02:56:20 AM  
GoshAwful: Impressed with the complex math, but I'm guessing these guys' VCR's are still blinking 12:00.

I bet they don't even own VCRs. Who owns a VCR?
 
2009-11-17 07:38:27 AM  
ArthGuinness: Have you proven something that the rest of the physics world should know about?

I do hope you're not a physics major....
 
2009-11-17 09:33:26 AM  
daddy-o: DFWPhotoGuy: I spent the weekend digging these guys out of a North Texas river. Baculites (straight shelled ammonites) have some of the coolest natural fractal patterns. Ammonite Sutures in general just really intrigue the hell out of me. Sorry im late to the fractal party btw!

Cool pics! Got any higher res versions posted anywhere?


Not yet, those are all actually hotlinks, i haven't done photos of mine yet. I need to do some prep work first.
 
2009-11-17 01:22:56 PM  
The only thing I thought of when I saw those pics...

Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
 
Displayed 122 of 122 comments



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report