• Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.


PO is now at the Physics Department of Bielefeld University!

New printer friendly PO pages!

Migration to Bielefeld University was successful!

Please vote for this year's PhysicsOverflow ads!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback


(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

205 submissions , 163 unreviewed
5,064 questions , 2,215 unanswered
5,347 answers , 22,728 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
818 active unimported users
More ...

  The natural metric of a phase space and the Lyapunov exponent

+ 7 like - 0 dislike

For me, it seems that there is no apparent metric on a phase space of a dynamical system. Of course one can naively define an Euclidean metric on it, but it seems that this metric has not much to do with the peculiar features of a phase space.

But in many textbooks on dynamical systems, it is the metric employed in the definition of the Lyapunov exponent.

Is this really a nice approach?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2015-03-23 09:13 (UTC), posted by SE-user Jiang-min Zhang

asked Sep 8, 2014 in Theoretical Physics by Jiang-min Zhang (40 points) [ revision history ]
recategorized Mar 23, 2015 by dimension10
I think this is a great question but I am not good enough to answer it right now. My direct answer would have been "it's not a mertic space, it's a symplectic space", but it doesn't quite answer anything. By searching the web I did find these notes which I cannot fully comprehend yet but might hold some answers for you.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2015-03-23 09:13 (UTC), posted by SE-user gatsu

1 Answer

+ 8 like - 0 dislike

It has been shown by Eichhorn, Linz and Hänggi in 2000 that the numerical values of Lyapunov exponents are invariant under any invertible variable transform. This is just a reformulation of the fact that they are metric invariant, because the authors presume the norm $|\cdot|$ to be an arbitrary norm in the given coordinates - just it's basic properties such as linearity are enough.

To get some intuition for this - Lyapunov exponents are linked with the Haussdorf or fractal dimension of the trajectory. Even though the Hausdorff dimension is defined on a metric space, we have an intuition that a fractal dimension is actually more of a property of differential structure rather than of a specific notion of length/surface/volume. The metric is just a handle to get to the fractal dimension, but it's nature is non-metric. We can understand acquiring Lyapunov exponents in a similar way - the metric is just a handle and we choose one arbitrarily.

A second way to get an intuition is through the explicit definition of the exponents $\lambda$ via the linear variation $\delta x(t)$ evolved in time: $$\lambda = \lim_{t\to \infty} \frac{\log |\delta x(t)|}{t}$$ Let us assume that $\delta x(t) = e^{\mu t}\delta x(0)$. Then out of the linearity of the norm we have $|\delta x(t)| = e^{\mu t} |\delta x(0)|$ and the limit yields $$\lambda = \lim_{t \to \infty} (\frac{\mu t}{t} + \frac{\log |\delta x(0)|}{t})$$ The second term dies off and we have $\lambda=\mu$ for any positive definite linear $|\cdot|$. I.e. you get the same number with a different norm and thus the Lyapunov exponent gives you something which is connected to a "relative growth rate" independent of the metric. There are some loopholes to this argument and these are covered by the article cited above.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2015-03-23 09:13 (UTC), posted by SE-user Void
answered Sep 8, 2014 by Void (1,645 points) [ no revision ]
Minor comment to the post (v1): Please consider to mention explicitly author, title, etc. of link, so it is possible to reconstruct link in case of link rot.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2015-03-23 09:13 (UTC), posted by SE-user Qmechanic
A closely related question if I may: Neighboring trajectories in a chaotic system diverge exponentially (rate given by Lyapunov's exp), does this imply that the manifold of such systems has negative Riemannian curvature? (for which neighboring geodesics must diverge exponentially.) Just trying to understand why it has to be exponentially diverging.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2015-03-23 09:13 (UTC), posted by SE-user Phonon
@Phonon Geodesic flows on Riemannian manifolds with negative sectional curvature and bound geodesics are indeed chaotic. Especially in relativity, it is often possible to transform the pseudo-Riemannian geodesic flow into a Riemannian one to prove chaoticity. The exponential definition is somewhat "numerically-empiric" - it just seems to be exclusive to non-quasiperiodic behaviour whereas integrable systems always display linear to polynomial error growth.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2015-03-23 09:13 (UTC), posted by SE-user Void
@Void thank you for getting back to me. Makes a lot of sense. I was always strongly under the impression that only for an exponential divergence the ergodic hypothesis would hold, i.e. even though trajectories are spread apart, linear divergence is not enough to guarantee the system will cover every measurable subset of phase space. Last question, in classical mechanics, for either regular or chaotic dynamic systems the phase space has to be compact, but is it correct to say for a chaotic one the topology cannot be a flat(nor torus-like) one? (obviously not symplectic anymore anyway)

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2015-03-23 09:13 (UTC), posted by SE-user Phonon
@Phonon Not really, the best known Lorenz model has a $\mathbf{R}^3$ phase space. The famous kicked oscillators have a formal $\mathbf{T}^2 \times \mathbf{R}^2$ phase space which is also the case of the planar double pendulum. There are some topological considerations in chaos but the phase space only has to have dimension $\geq 3$ to allow for continuous-time chaos.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2015-03-23 09:13 (UTC), posted by SE-user Void

Your answer

Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead.
To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL.
Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post.
This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button.
Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview
Your name to display (optional):
Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.
Anti-spam verification:
If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:
Then drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds).
Please complete the anti-spam verification

user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights