25 years of self-organized criticality: concepts and controversies
Permanent link
https://hdl.handle.net/10037/24915Date
2015-05-28Type
Journal articleTidsskriftartikkel
Peer reviewed
Abstract
Introduced by the late Per Bak and his colleagues, self-organized criticality (SOC)
has been one of the most stimulating concepts to come out of statistical mechanics and condensed matter theory in the last few decades, and has played a significant role in the development of complexity science. SOC, and more generally fractals and power laws, have
attracted much comment, ranging from the very positive to the polemical. The other papers (Aschwanden et al. in Space Sci. Rev., 2014, this issue; McAteer et al. in Space Sci.
Rev., 2015, this issue; Sharma et al. in Space Sci. Rev. 2015, in preparation) in this special
issue showcase the considerable body of observations in solar, magnetospheric and fusion
plasma inspired by the SOC idea, and expose the fertile role the new paradigm has played in
approaches to modeling and understanding multiscale plasma instabilities. This very broad
impact, and the necessary process of adapting a scientific hypothesis to the conditions of
a given physical system, has meant that SOC as studied in these fields has sometimes differed significantly from the definition originally given by its creators. In Bak’s own field of
theoretical physics there are significant observational and theoretical open questions, even
25 years on (Pruessner 2012). One aim of the present review is to address the dichotomy
between the great reception SOC has received in some areas, and its shortcomings, as they
became manifest in the controversies it triggered. Our article tries to clear up what we think
are misunderstandings of SOC in fields more remote from its origins in statistical mechanics,
condensed matter and dynamical systems by revisiting Bak, Tang and Wiesenfeld’s original
papers.
Publisher
SpringerCitation
Watkins NW, Pruessner, Chapman S, Crosby, Jensen. 25 years of self-organized criticality: concepts and controversies. Space Science Reviews. 2016;198(1-4):3-44Metadata
Show full item recordCollections
Copyright 2015 The Author(s)