What if Zoomed into Black body??

[xyz888]

Question,

Instead of continuously zooming into the edges of the "black body" of the Mandelbrot, what do we see/get if zoomed closer and closer into the black body ITSELF ??

Could this be anti-matter? ..Dark Matter ?   Negative Space?

Thank you for your help and input.

[cKleinhuis]

hello and welcome to the forums 

by definition the black area of the mandelbrot are the starting points of the iteration which do never diverge, or converge against infinity ...

many coloring algorithm exist for coloring those regions, the only interesting thing here would be to watch the orbits of
the iteration, those orbits can be repeating cycles, or they converge against 0 ( e.g. for the julia set ) ...

i do not know if that helps you out, but i would say that it is certainly NOT anti-matter
dark matter i am not sure ...  but negative space seems to be also vaguely unpropable

it is just numbers ...

[Sockratease]

Hello and Welcome.

If you're interested in seeing how coloring the "interior" of the Mandelbrot set works, Chaos Pro (freeware from http://www.chaospro.de ) has a nice variety of "Inside" coloring functions to choose from.

it is just numbers ...

Fun Definition;

Number : That which makes Numb.

[xyz888]

thank you Trifox, & Sockratease,

i've much to learn...

[cKleinhuis]

do not hesitate to ask, we are glad to help, and you know, dumb questions simply do not exists, only dumb answers

[cKleinhuis]

i have found a great site, where you can inspect the orbits of the mandelbrot set
http://math.hws.edu/xJava/MB/

below the main java applet you find the orbits applet, there you can examine how the initial starting point is transformed to the next, you see if you choose a point inside the set ( black areas ) the points are dragged inside the mandelbrot set, and if you choose a point close to the set, the points behave chaotical, and diverge after after ( sometimes a very long ) some time ...

 

[xyz888]

Thank you Trifox,

i'll check the suggested link.

This may be off-base, but i wanted to ask this possibility:   During Einstein's lifetime, he was known to be searching for a "universal" formula which he never could find within his lifetime.  ..a formula that defines the entire universe.   Isnt this, the Mandelbrot formula, the answer to his quest?
   I believe his own formula (E=mc squared) mainly applies to earth.

[GFWorld]

>http://math.hws.edu/xJava/MB/

It´s r e a l l y fascinating - I had a short play now :-)))
Margit

[Sockratease]

@sock ehrm, what about spirals as real counterparts in snakes for example ?

[Sockratease]

@sock ehrm, what about spirals as real counterparts in snakes for example ?

Edit when we meant to reply, did we?

I guess I've done worse...

But yeah - Spirals and whirlpools could count, but I thought there were equations that gave spirals and such without all the other stuff that the Mandlebrot set has to offer, and therefore were better candidates for describing such phenomena.

[HPDZ]

Slightly off-topic, but since the question was asked by xyz888:

This may be off-base, but i wanted to ask this possibility:   During Einstein's lifetime, he was known to be searching for a "universal" formula which he never could find within his lifetime.  ..a formula that defines the entire universe.   Isnt this, the Mandelbrot formula, the answer to his quest?
   I believe his own formula (E=mc squared) mainly applies to earth.

and since I have some professional background in this area, I thought I'd put in my two cents:

Einstein was searching for a unified theory of gravitation and electromagentism, which were the only two types of forces known in his day. He believed that after he discovered general relativity, there must be some way to unify it with classical electromagnetic theory. Unfortunately, this was before quantum mechanics was generally accepted, and before the discovery of the other two currently known forces in the universe (the so-called "strong" and "weak" forces that apply to interactions between nuclear particles, like protons and neutrons). There was no way he could have possibly developed the unified theory he sought, because he just didn't have the necessary experimental data that we have today.

There is currently a very good theory unifying the three forces other than gravitation, and that theory is strongly rooted in quantum mechanics. General relativity, which is the currently accepted theory describing gravitation, is so fundamentally different from quantum mechanics that nobody currently has any idea how to unify the two. We all believe there must be a way -- after all, it's just one universe, right? -- but we're a long way from finding what it is.

I'm not sure the Mandelbrot set or fractals in general can describe how to unify general relativity with quantum mechanics, but some serious scientists are investigating whether the ability of systems with simple rules -- like z = z^2 + c -- to show highly complex behavior -- like fractals -- might be able to give some insight into how life evolved. To me, having spent a good ten years or so studying physics at the undergraduate and postgraduate level, this question, the question of how life evolved, is a much greater one than the grand unified field theory.

E=mc^2 is a part of special relativity, and it applies as much in the heart of a supernova as it does on earth.

[rloldershaw]

You might want to take a look at www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw for a radically different assessment of the potential applicability of fractal paradigm in physics.

Rob