Thank you so much for the great lecture, but i have a question.. Shouldn't the nonlinear curve for the soft spring be directed upwards (from the linear curve) instead of to the right of the linear curve? Because According to your definition, we're gonna need less force (x) to produce higher deformation (f) Am i right? Or am i missing something? Edit: now i completed the video and i think that the soft and hard springs should be exchanged, even the equations must be exchanged.. because for the soft spring, the deformation must see an amplified force ie (addition not subtraction) and vice versa for the hard spring. Thank you again 👍
Hi Mohammed, In the case of a hard spring, as the elastic limit is crossed, we need to apply greater force to bring small displacement. In the graph, y axis is Force and x axis is Displacement. So the graph should curve up to show this. Similarly, for soft springs, after elastic limit, incremental force produces a larger displacement :)
I have another question: what do you think about David Bohm's critique of classical quantum mechanics? It seems like it is as post-newtonian as complex sciences proposes to be. Bohm also affirms that everything has a hidden pattern (he also call randomness as randomness from ignorance), etc. I just don't know how much Bohm was involved with non-linearity, but it seems to me that his epistemology is quite dialogical and anti-dialectical (which tries to unify everything) as it is believed today in complexity sciences.
@@Topperly Dude, I just really appreciate it. I like these things and I study a lot about them, unfortunately it ended up generating a lot of doubts in my mind and I'm only having the opportunity to clear my doubts now, because I finally found someone who studies the same things as me 😅 Thank u!
Doubts and questions - That's the whole point of science. Even if we don't know the answers, we should ask questions and doubt everything that is is established so far. If we believed everything that was handed over to us by previous generations, science would never have progressed. And yes, I may not know the answers to your questions, but together we can explore it.
Hi, I just started reading on Bohmian Mechanics and I see that it is a vast topic - I got a basic idea that in nonrelativistic frame of references, he's exploring the idea of deterministic nature rather than the probabilistic one. Now I'm going in depth to the topic. Do you have any reference materials, papers that you can suggest for me?
Yes, Every system is in reality non linear in nature. It appears to us as linear because we are only analyzing a very small part of it. A simple analogy is the curvature of earth - Earth appears flat when we are standing on it as we are only seeing a very small part of it. But as we see it from far away, we can see it's curvature which is the reality :)
@@Topperly I like Morin's phrase: "The greatest mistake of science is considering that objects constitutes systems, but in reality, systems constitutes objects" Thank u, I am beginning in the study of systems theory and that idea came to mind, if all systems are non-linear, since a system is nothing more than a unity of multiplicities in mutual interrelationships whose interactions depend on the way they are arranged/organized in the system, that cannot be decomposed into their simplest units, as the system composition rules are not additive, but transformative, so a lot of information is lost when doing this reductionism. And since everything is a system, It came to my mind that reality is non-linear. And it makes sense, because if order arises from disorder, linearity may well arise from nonlinearity. Edit: yeah, you're completely right, I have studied a lot cybernetics in the last days. In fact, this completely matches Prigogine (and Isabella Stengers) and Bateson's view of cybernetics.
@@Topperly That's amazing. I sometimes wonder if nonlinear mathematics is complicated because the foundations of modern mathematics are largely linear, because non-linearity is built from linearity or because it is naturally difficult since we cannot simplify and separate the object from the whole and analyze each one separately I think there must be a revolution in all of mathematics that drastically changes what we know as mathematics so that it actually describes reality, the thing-in-itself, as it really is.
@Eumky I feel like non-linear mathematics feel difficult because it still is an uncharted territory. We still haven't given in depth research into the field as most often in practical scenarios where we apply science, linear approximations work to an extend with necessary corrections given periodically to get results within acceptable levels of accuracy. Also, there needs to be radical shift in the basic thinking process - right now if you see any paper that deals with nonlinear systems, their first approach is to linearize the system over the area of interest rather than study the system as a whole. And also since science is fueled by economics and war(Just think how many of our day to day used technologies originally was developed for army or for profiting an organization), there isn't enough freedom for pure researchers to explore their domains.
@@Topperly That's why I like Morin hahaha other scientists tends to linearize their system because they think that the opposite is wrong and goes against the logic of the world, while Morin develops his own logic where paradoxes (vicious circles) are acceptable. Yes, imagine how many black scientists we lost to misery, how many Einsteins we lost to war, how many genius women we lost to sexism... We're not at the height of innovation, we're at the decline of it.
Can you please upload a video regarding Van-der-Pol oscillator for Nonlinear Control System?
Thank you so much for the great lecture, but i have a question..
Shouldn't the nonlinear curve for the soft spring be directed upwards (from the linear curve) instead of to the right of the linear curve?
Because According to your definition, we're gonna need less force (x) to produce higher deformation (f)
Am i right? Or am i missing something?
Edit: now i completed the video and i think that the soft and hard springs should be exchanged, even the equations must be exchanged.. because for the soft spring, the deformation must see an amplified force ie (addition not subtraction) and vice versa for the hard spring.
Thank you again 👍
Hi Mohammed,
In the case of a hard spring, as the elastic limit is crossed, we need to apply greater force to bring small displacement. In the graph, y axis is Force and x axis is Displacement. So the graph should curve up to show this.
Similarly, for soft springs, after elastic limit, incremental force produces a larger displacement :)
@@Topperly
Oh okay.. i understood that the axes are reversed, thank you so much
I have another question: what do you think about David Bohm's critique of classical quantum mechanics? It seems like it is as post-newtonian as complex sciences proposes to be. Bohm also affirms that everything has a hidden pattern (he also call randomness as randomness from ignorance), etc. I just don't know how much Bohm was involved with non-linearity, but it seems to me that his epistemology is quite dialogical and anti-dialectical (which tries to unify everything) as it is believed today in complexity sciences.
Let me read through this critique first and will get back to you :)
@@Topperly There's a video that synthetizes David Bohm's mechanics th-cam.com/video/RlXdsyctD50/w-d-xo.html
@@Topperly Dude, I just really appreciate it. I like these things and I study a lot about them, unfortunately it ended up generating a lot of doubts in my mind and I'm only having the opportunity to clear my doubts now, because I finally found someone who studies the same things as me 😅 Thank u!
Doubts and questions - That's the whole point of science. Even if we don't know the answers, we should ask questions and doubt everything that is is established so far. If we believed everything that was handed over to us by previous generations, science would never have progressed.
And yes, I may not know the answers to your questions, but together we can explore it.
Hi,
I just started reading on Bohmian Mechanics and I see that it is a vast topic - I got a basic idea that in nonrelativistic frame of references, he's exploring the idea of deterministic nature rather than the probabilistic one. Now I'm going in depth to the topic. Do you have any reference materials, papers that you can suggest for me?
This lecture is top notch! Please how can I send you my questions?
Thank you! You can drop your questions here in the comment section:)
Great job, are these powerpoints available to download?
Sorry, we don't keep the ppts.
Please make video on "Jump resonance" as it not available in youtube may it boost your channel....work on such way also
Will try :)
It's very good. But the sound is something to be improved.
Thanks for the feedback! Currently we don't have any income for upgrading resources. Sorry for that.
Don't worry. You will have good enough income soon
Is it true that all complex system has a "hidden" "non-linear" pattern?
Yes,
Every system is in reality non linear in nature. It appears to us as linear because we are only analyzing a very small part of it.
A simple analogy is the curvature of earth - Earth appears flat when we are standing on it as we are only seeing a very small part of it. But as we see it from far away, we can see it's curvature which is the reality :)
@@Topperly I like Morin's phrase: "The greatest mistake of science is considering that objects constitutes systems, but in reality, systems constitutes objects"
Thank u, I am beginning in the study of systems theory and that idea came to mind, if all systems are non-linear, since a system is nothing more than a unity of multiplicities in mutual interrelationships whose interactions depend on the way they are arranged/organized in the system, that cannot be decomposed into their simplest units, as the system composition rules are not additive, but transformative, so a lot of information is lost when doing this reductionism. And since everything is a system, It came to my mind that reality is non-linear.
And it makes sense, because if order arises from disorder, linearity may well arise from nonlinearity.
Edit: yeah, you're completely right, I have studied a lot cybernetics in the last days. In fact, this completely matches Prigogine (and Isabella Stengers) and Bateson's view of cybernetics.
@@Topperly That's amazing. I sometimes wonder if nonlinear mathematics is complicated because the foundations of modern mathematics are largely linear, because non-linearity is built from linearity or because it is naturally difficult since we cannot simplify and separate the object from the whole and analyze each one separately
I think there must be a revolution in all of mathematics that drastically changes what we know as mathematics so that it actually describes reality, the thing-in-itself, as it really is.
@Eumky
I feel like non-linear mathematics feel difficult because it still is an uncharted territory. We still haven't given in depth research into the field as most often in practical scenarios where we apply science, linear approximations work to an extend with necessary corrections given periodically to get results within acceptable levels of accuracy. Also, there needs to be radical shift in the basic thinking process - right now if you see any paper that deals with nonlinear systems, their first approach is to linearize the system over the area of interest rather than study the system as a whole. And also since science is fueled by economics and war(Just think how many of our day to day used technologies originally was developed for army or for profiting an organization), there isn't enough freedom for pure researchers to explore their domains.
@@Topperly That's why I like Morin hahaha other scientists tends to linearize their system because they think that the opposite is wrong and goes against the logic of the world, while Morin develops his own logic where paradoxes (vicious circles) are acceptable.
Yes, imagine how many black scientists we lost to misery, how many Einsteins we lost to war, how many genius women we lost to sexism... We're not at the height of innovation, we're at the decline of it.