Computation, Fractals, and Boundaries
Mark J. Stock
mstock@umich.edu
http://mark.technolope.org/
Abstract
Fractals are systems with similar geometry or statistics
at multiple length or time scales. They are a naturally-
emergent phenomenon in many physical systems, but the
complexity of real physical systems limits their applicabil-
ity to small ranges of scales. Nonetheless, fractal mathe-
matics are used frequently in computational physics to im-
plicitly model those scales which exhibit fractal-like behav-
ior, while different scales of motion are simulated explicitly.
My work as a scientist and artist deals primarily with the
scales of space and time that must be explicitly simulated,
as they represent the boundaries between regimes domi-
nated by fractal or simpler behavior.
1 Scales of physical systems
Matter and energy exist as structures at all observable
length and time scales from the diameter and vibrational
frequency of subatomic particles to the width and age of
the universe itself. The physical laws that we use to de-
scribe the behavior of the universe do not change when we
look at different scales. For example, the equation that best
descibes the influence of gravity (to isolate just one of the
primary forces) is the same whether we apply it to a galaxy
of a billion stars, to two people on a bench, or to three
atoms in a water molecule. Intuitively, though, we know
that gravity is not the most important force acting between
two people on a park bench, and it turns out that it is even
less important among neighboring atoms.
The ranges of scales in space and time in which a cer-
tain force or effect is predominant can be called that forces’
regime. Those regimes are determined by the relative im-
portance of all of the forces affecting an object. The rela-
tive importance of the forces is indicated by the magnitude
of the associated terms in the equations.
As another example, consider mixing cream into coffee.
The equation governing that flow contains about five terms:
one for the motion of the spoon, one for the momentum of
the fluid, one for the for the difference in density between
the cool cream and the warm coffee, one for surface ten-
sion, and one for dissipation due to viscosity. Other terms
are present (such as the Coriolis force of the Earth’s rota-
tion, and the gravitational attraction between the waiter and
the coffee), but these terms are so small that they shouldn’t
affect the general outcome and we will ignore them.
Due to the parameters of this specific physical system
(size and speed of the spoon, viscosity of coffee, etc.) it
can be shown that only viscosity, momentum, and spoon
motion are needed to adequately quantify (or simulate) the
mixing. These three “forces,” or terms in the equation, are
present at all scales of the flow, but only one or two are
dominant at any given scale. The chart at the top of the
next page illustrates the regimes for these three forces.
Obviously, there is no flow at a scale larger than the size
of the mug. Below that scale, the motion of the spoon dom-
inates over momentum and diffusion, causing the largest
eddies in the flow. The behavior of the smallest scales is
driven by diffusion, which is where the actual molecular
mixing of the cream and coffee takes place. It is the middle
scales (of this and most other fluid systems) where neither
diffusion nor large-scale energy input dominate the motion.
In this regime—fluid turbulence—the statistics of the flow
are the same at all scales, which describes a statistical frac-
tal. In this simple example the fractal regime is very small,
not even covering one order of magnitude (10:1 ratio of
scales). In the largest fluid systems (like the ocean) it can
cover up to six orders of magnitude (106 :1).
2 Fractals and causality
Fractals were originally concieved as geometric forms
that repeat and nest at multiple levels. A more modern
definition has fractals encompassing all forms of statisti-
cally self-similar geometries. These are structures which,
though not precisely identical at different scales, exhibit
similar qualities across scales. Certain equations that
show up in nature allow forms that exhibit statistical self-
similarity; one of these is the momentum equation from
fluid dynamics. Other natural fractals such as plant branch-
ing, coastlines, and fracture surfaces are the result of much
more complex equations.
In all cases, though, the fractal itself gives no indi-
cation of the underlying equations—only the opposite is
possible. Thus, accurate simulations of natural phenom-
ena, which recognize the existence of the upper and lower
scale boundaries of the fractal regime, must begin with the
physical equations. Describing nature with only fractals,
while easier mathematically, ignores much of the potential
beauty of nature.
3 Computational physics
It would be an equally egregious error to ignore the frac-
tal regime when performing a physical simulation. Many
methods to predict the behaviour of complex physical sys-
tems often involve explicitly simulating the large scales of
motion (such as the spoon and the coffee cup) while con-
currently modeling the effects of the smaller scales. These
smaller scales are often statistically self-similar (as is the
momentum regime in the coffee example) and the model-
ing step can involve fractal mathematics. Very simple (dis-
sipation) or self-similar (momentum) regimes are thus less
interesting to the practitioner of computational physics,
and are rarely explicitly simulated.
4 Boundaries
The scale regimes that I feel are most interesting from
both visual and computational perspectives are the scales
at which multiple forces overlap and compete for influ-
ence. From the coffee and cream example, these are :
the largest scales where the motions caused by the spoon
are limited by the size of the coffee cup, the scale at which
the eddies from the spoon decay into self-similar eddies,
and the scale at which momentum is still barely capable of
folding layers faster than diffusion can blend them. Only
physical simulation (in my case, computer simulation) can
properly predict the behavior of natural systems in these
regimes.
My goal as an artist is to use my training in computa-
tional physics to mathematically isolate the many forces
present in the natural world and probe their scale bound-
aries for beautiful images. These scale boundaries are
where new shapes and forms emerge, far away from the
monotony and statistical uniformity present at interim
scales. How interesting is an acre of the surface of the
ocean, despite its abundance of detail, unless it is affected
by the motion of a boat, or a rogue wave, or a rocky shore?
I am drawn to these boundaries in scale because that is
where the interesting non-linearities arise, and where an-
alytic and fractal mathematics are of little help.
5 About the artist
Mark Stock is a programmer, researcher, and artist who
explores the boundary between the real and the unreal
through the sciences of fluid dynamics, computer simula-
tion, and visual perception. He has been producing art for
seven years and has had work appear in juried exhibitions
for five.
Mark had his start with simulation and visualization by
programming Moire patterns and particle dynamics rou-
tines on a Commodore 128. His interests in mathematics
and programming followed him through high school and
led him to acquire several degrees in engineering at the
University of Michigan in Ann Arbor.
Mark’s interest in photography led him to discover com-
puter graphics as an undergraduate at U-M. He spent sev-
eral years exploring different techniques and tools for cre-
ating virtual images. In 1999, while attempting to debug
some of his simulation software, he rendered the suspect
program’s output with a highly-accurate lighting visualiza-
tion package called Radiance. This inadvertent discovery
of an unnatural beauty, hidden within the sciences of com-
putational fluid dynamics and radiosity, prompted Mark to
pursue digital image creation as a hobby and an art. Mark
works for a small fluid dynamics research company in Cal-
ifornia and develops his art in his free time. He currently
resides with his wife and two cats in Newton, MA.
Figure 1: Red Streamlines, 2004, Mark J. Stock; 24” digital Lightjet print
Figure 2: Twigs #23, 2005, Mark J. Stock; 24” digital Lightjet print
Figure 3: Open House, 2006, Mark J. Stock; 24” digital Lightjet print