Fractal attractions

Press, 12 August 1989, Page 25

Fractal attractions

Chaos. By James Gleick. Sphere Books, 1988. 352 pp. $19.95 (paperback). (Reviewed by Ken Strongman) Science is not easy, and at times when new ways of thinking begin or new discoveries are made it can become even more difficult to penetrate. What has come to be called chaos theory is at the very edge of recent thought about the fundamentals of the physical world. A few mathematicians and physicists have evidently been eyeing one another askance as they discover new patterns in surprising places. Chaos theory could be a way of looking at the ordinary world which is farther reaching than relativity. It is concerned with matters that have hitherto been thought impossible, namely that simple systems can behave in exceedingly complex ways and that complex systems can lead to things simple. It strikes at the deterministic basis of science by showing that random events are not only possible but integral. Such is chaos, as represented in “Chaos” by James Gleick. Chaos occurs in many palces and at many levels. In the flow of waterfalls, and in butterflies’ wing movements, in a snowflake and in a heart attack, in a boiling kettle and in the flow of water

from a tap. Essential to chaos theory are fractals and strange attractors. Fractals are defined by infinitely long boundaries that contain finite areas, boundaries that display greater and greater complexity the more closely they are looked at. This complexity, though, is the same at every level. So, in this sense, the coastline of New Zealand is immeasurable; it is exactly as long as one wishes it to be, depending on the basis of measurement. Think about it. Strange attractors are a way of describing what systems do when they do not settle down in simple regular ways; systems that never repeat themselves or become rhythmical. Strangely, strange attractors are fractal. Which, in this time and place, is quite enough of this sort of thing. James Gleick, science reporter for the “New York Times,” has done his best to make these matters accessible to the layman. At times he fails and the ideas become very difficult to follow. In the end though, one comes from “Chaos” with the conviction that one knows something about it. And in this very difficult sphere little more could be expected. The author is to be congratulated, mildly; a sitting ovation would do it.