Print

Print


A point worth making is that in the ideal gas laws as derived in
classical statistical mechanics it's assumed, among other things, that
the particles don't have any relevant macroscopic properties such as
size or weight.

 

This assumption is obviously rather debatable in some of the proposed
applications (e.g. traffic jams). However, there is work in progress on
so-called granular gases (both theoretical and experimental - some
people have fun with agitating frames containing a layer of
ball-bearings (i.e. 2-D gas) ...

 

The following link (found by Googling "granular gases" + "stable
distribution") looks like a good starting point for beginners

 

 
http://theses.ulb.ac.be/ETD-db/collection/available/ULBetd-10172005-1208
19/unrestricted/thesis.pdf

 

An inexpert skim of some of this suggests that power-law tails and
distributions from the stable family characterise these
far-from-equilibrium systems (the equilibrium position of a "gas" of
heavy ball-bearings is clearly a heap, not a cloud).

 

Best wishes,

 

Julian

 

 

 

 

 

________________________________

From: email list for Radical Statistics [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of BYRNE D.S.
Sent: 16 August 2007 15:05
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [RADSTATS] The holy grail?

 

This is all about simple complexity and may or may not be correct in
relation to such simple complex systems. By a simple complex system I
mean a system where emergence occurs solely as a result of interaction
among the elements of the system. So for example if we look at a flock
of starlings changes in flight pattern result from each bird observing
very simple rules in relation to its neighbours but the whole flock
generally makes quite complex changes of direction as one, although even
here groups may split off. Another example is traffic jams, and Gawd
help us all, perhaps financial markets. 

 

The key issue would be identifying when a phase shift is about to occur.
If there is a constant monitoring of information, or of course in
reality a lot of repeated observations, across large numbers of cases,
then we might see that point BUT that would seem to destroy the object
of the whole exercise since we have to look at lots of cases to know
when we can derive information from a few cases.   Financial markets
might be an example because aggregate data is generated and can be
tracked so monitoring some cases might be enough BUT since the cases
would be human subjects as market makers the monitoring might change
their behaviour. 

 

Crowds are another matter and again how would you monitor - CCTV I
suppose. So expect to have the  polises charge you on a demonstration
because five people are moving  so as to trigger a response -  recipe
for revolution perhaps?

 

David Byrne

 

________________________________

From: email list for Radical Statistics on behalf of Paul Spicker
Sent: Mon 8/13/2007 1:12 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: The holy grail?

There is a remarkable claim in the "news" section of New Scientist this
week, in a piece entitled "Predicting change, not a moment too soon".  A
piece in Physical Review E (which I don't have access to: ref DOI:
10.1103/PhysRevE.75.051125) claims that changes in the behaviour of
swarms, crowds, traffic jams or similar systems can be predicted by
monitoring a very small number of particles.  "Using a mathematical
model of a phase transition, they attempted to detect an oncoming change
by monitoring only a small fraction of the elements in the system. They
found that they could do so by focusing on the 'mutual information'
shared by those elements. ...In a disordered state, looking at a
particle gives no information about what others are doing.  As the
system approaches a phase transformation, the mutual information betwen
particles increases, so that one particle's behaviour does provide
information about the speed and trajectory of other particles. ... The
researcher's simulations suggest that in a crowd of, say, 1000 people,
observations on as few as five people might be sufficient." 

I think it was George Gallup who suggested that it might be ultimately
be possible to predict election results using five people. I'm not,
sure, though, that I believe it.  If anyone's in a position to appraise
the technique it would be fascinating to know about it.

Paul Spicker





******************************************************
Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your
message will go only to the sender of this message.
If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's
'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically
to [log in to unmask]
Disclaimer: The messages sent to this list are the views of the sender
and cannot be assumed to be representative of the range of views held by
subscribers to the Radical Statistics Group. To find out more about
Radical Statistics and its aims and activities and read current and past
issues of our newsletter you are invited to visit our web site
www.radstats.org.uk.
*******************************************************


This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email
Security System.

****************************************************** Please note that
if you press the 'Reply' button your message will go only to the sender
of this message. If you want to reply to the whole list, use your
mailer's 'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically to
[log in to unmask] Disclaimer: The messages sent to this list are
the views of the sender and cannot be assumed to be representative of
the range of views held by subscribers to the Radical Statistics Group.
To find out more about Radical Statistics and its aims and activities
and read current and past issues of our newsletter you are invited to
visit our web site www.radstats.org.uk.
*******************************************************

This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email
Security System.

******************************************************
Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your
message will go only to the sender of this message.
If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's
'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically
to [log in to unmask]
Disclaimer: The messages sent to this list are the views of the sender and cannot be assumed to be representative of the range of views held by subscribers to the Radical Statistics Group. To find out more about Radical Statistics and its aims and activities and read current and past issues of our newsletter you are invited to visit our web site www.radstats.org.uk.
*******************************************************