Aeryx Kloxkras D(4) H(E/fb) S(?) E(-l) C{w/+Bam,Xam,Gmp}

Postby mwchase » Sun Apr 18, 2010 4:32 am

Was: "Speculation on creating an entropy-hostile universe..."

(Multiversal porosity is not yet defined, and I ran out of space. For the record, the forces listed are bohemity, exclusivity, and gyrality. The m is for middle-range, a neologism rooted in the fact that I don't quite grasp the catalogue format. Also, note that there are many things I haven't fully defined.)

Original post:

I was thinking back on my long, hand-wavy post here, and I ended up with some idea of what an entropy-hostile universe might look like, if we assume that entropy drives everything, as I tried semi-justifying there. (Note: this will not be fully fleshed out, at least not yet.)

So, jumping right in, atoms.

The electrical-force analogue has three possible states. When three particles, one of each state, are in close proximity, they enter an uncertain state in which they exchange properties in some fashion. In addition, particles have transient properties that they can exchange with other particles in the same state. This means that the atom-equivalents (more-or-less nuclei, really) are made up of a combination of any two states of particle. As a further result, bonds are more planar than linear, assuming I can handwave a good potential curve to allow them to even form. I should do that...

So... If we assume that the state-sharing happens over close range, that produces a repulsive force that quickly ramps up close by (equivalent to the role of the nucleus in bond formation), then that leaves the question of a longer-range attractive force. If this force could be related to the electrical-force equivalent, then certain types of bonds couldn't form, which intrigues me, so I'm going to try to do that. The natural idea would be to try using the 'property-bleed' thing. So, bonds here represent a way of confining vibrations to a particle, while preventing the particle from giving up its identity.

This means that, if two particles participate in bonds with several other particles, those particles cannot participate in bonds with each other, meaning that they effectively form 'anti-bonds' between each other. This does all kinds of wonky things with respect to crystallization. In any case, the characteristics of a triangle bond are determined by the three component particles. The thing I'm worrying about at the moment is obtuse angles. These effectively terminate most structures, and are important for limiting the size of molecules.

Now that I've talked about the small stuff, I'm going to worry about the big stuff. 'Gravity' has two opposite modes. In order to cut down on the permutations of particle properties, and to allow for some cool tech, I'm going to have the gravitational state be a property of the arrangement of particles, and not particles themselves. The idea with that is, by tweaking particle arrangement, it would be possible to create... antigravity ballast, or some such idea.

I'm trying to remember how Lagrange points work, because I seem to remember that the more stable of them worked, basically, because they were reverse gravity wells that moved, which is pretty significant here, I think.

So, now that there's the big picture, here are some issues to worry about:

Liquids are... difficult. Matter tends to segregate into solids near absolute zero, and plasma. If a planet has oceans, that may only be because some pioneering microorganism is converting the gunk around it into an entropic state as a byproduct of synthesis.

Similarly, many reactions should be weird, because equilibrium is toward the edges instead of the middle, in effect. So, substances that can react with themselves will tend towards chemical purity, regardless.

There are still many things I haven't addressed, like where the star-equivalents come from, but this seems like a good start, and I'm exhausted (due to stupid choices).
Last edited by mwchase on Thu Apr 29, 2010 10:22 am, edited 2 times in total.
GENERATION -9+i: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum. Square it, and then add i to the generation.

"the worlds of our imagination have really confusing rail service."
User avatar
mwchase
Kumquat Class Sensei

  Offline
 
Posts: 269
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 10:27 pm

Re: Speculation on creating an entropy-hostile universe...

Postby Coda » Sun Apr 18, 2010 5:13 am

When you say "entropy-hostile," do you mean that the universe tries to create increasing order? Or do you mean that it's hostile to its occupants due to extremely high entropy?

I've toyed around with some extropic concepts myself: viewtopic.php?f=28&t=1131
User avatar
Coda
Magickal Melon 666

  Offline
 
Posts: 762
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 12:19 pm
Location: Holy crap, Coda set an avatar

Re: Speculation on creating an entropy-hostile universe...

Postby mwchase » Sun Apr 18, 2010 2:13 pm

The universe tries to reduce entropy. If you think about the implications of entropy with what I came up with, those forces wouldn't produce anything at all in an entropy-driven universe. Everything would just be kind of a mush.

I came up with a few other ideas... One is that bonds in a semi-excited molecule pass energy around in a cycle. When all three participants are different masses (different numbers of particles), the direction of the energy (low mid high, or high mid low) determines the gravitational charge. In doing so, they take up ambient heat, and convert it to light. Suns are essentially massive bioreactors maintained at half-excitation, the most unstable state in the universe. This also means that null-excitation material can be used in gross-scale anti-grav drives, by replicating a simple molecular arrangement (not quite sure this would work) and specially prepared crystals could be used for a molecular version. Hit them with light in the opposite direction to the way they release, and their spin reverses, flipping their weight.

(Umm, I'll admit, I just now clicked your link, because I only just now noticed that the forum mangled it. To save anyone from messing with their address bar, http://forums.unicornjelly.com/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=1131.)

Hmm... skimmed the beginning. There are some similar things, and some differences. Here, IMF is sort of encoded with the structure, meaning that, say, a bunch of balls painted with two different paints, put in a basket and shaken up, will tend to segregate into two clumps. This also means that typical biochemistry requires something highly insulative to maintain enough heat for a mixture: a pocket of null-excitation crystal that rejects both heat and attempts to crystallize onto it. Because capillary action works in reverse, under these rules, then cells must be rigid, mostly impermeable bodies. So, this isn't a universe where humans as we know them could live, since every cell would pop simultaneously, leaving only the skeleton behind. Plants, however, could be a different matter (with, you know, excessive bioengineering). In any case, I'm imagining biological reactions occurring within round, nearly-unbreakable shells, in which the reactants are isolated, then a lack of some suppressor signal causes some cells transported in to undergo a powerfully exothermic reaction, more-or-less boiling the reactants to get them to react. The products could then be transported via reverse capillary action. Cells would reproduce either by budding, or by accruing crystal, somehow hollowing out their inside, and creating a double wall of crystal around some kind of water analogue, then evolving away heat from that, starting near the middle. The expanding wall of crystal would crack the cell along the seam.

Now, I'm somewhat getting ahead of myself here, because I'd need something like the octet rule, I think. The octet rule derives from the behavior of electrons... With no electrons, only nuclei, the question is one of stabilization ranges. Because more of a different 'charge' counters the force against large nuclei, the elements, when tabulated, end up on a hex grid, forming a shape with triangular symmetry. (EDIT: Not quite right) Radial distance from the point at the center (bordered by the three smallest elements, which have... stability issues) corresponds to period, and the angle in polar coordinates corresponds to group. (I'm thinking each 'charge' should carry some slight bit of difference in other properties, so that the symmetry is cut down a little.) Regardless, at some point, the nuclei get too big to be stable, and the table ends. (Note: there are no isotopes)

Read some about Misui, reading a bit more...

Monocheres's fourth post has given me some food for thought. I'm thinking... the number of states available to a charge-particle (must... think of... names) recapitulates the structure I proposed for the periodic table. In other words, the first three energy states are relatively accessible, while the next three are a bit harder to get to, and the next six, harder still. I bet I could whip up a spiffy diagram explaining this, but I need food badly at the moment. (... Maybe a bit more reading...) (Done reading over thread, must eat... May take past-you and past-Monocheres up on that idea...)
Last edited by mwchase on Mon Apr 19, 2010 1:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
GENERATION -9+i: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum. Square it, and then add i to the generation.

"the worlds of our imagination have really confusing rail service."
User avatar
mwchase
Kumquat Class Sensei

  Offline
 
Posts: 269
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 10:27 pm

Re: Speculation on creating an entropy-hostile universe...

Postby Coda » Sun Apr 18, 2010 6:42 pm

So, wait a sec, let me think about this.

In Misui, if you poured one bucket of paint into another bucket of paint, they would remain separate instead of mixing, because surface tension would reinforce the boundary layer. However, if you FORCIBLY mixed the paints... *thinks* Well, if you tried hard enough, you probably could succeed, and it would stay mixed, as the fundamental forces involved wouldn't cause the color particles to attract each other more than they would attract the particles of the other color. (Assuming that our "paints" are homogeneous liquids and identical to each other in all properties other than color.) At worst you'd end up with a suspension of tiny viscous beads, although this particular behavior is due to Misui's other properties, not due to extropic physics in general.

I'm still dubious about your description of being "hostile to entropy." What you describe doesn't sound extropic at all, or even anentropic, simply alien. The subatomic forces you describe, with the "property bleed" as you call it, sounds like an entropy source right there unless there are some strict order-increasing rules controlling how the properties are exchanged. Otherwise, if it's just arbitrary swapping of traits like atoms swap electrons, you've got a source of chaos down at a very fundamental level.
User avatar
Coda
Magickal Melon 666

  Offline
 
Posts: 762
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 12:19 pm
Location: Holy crap, Coda set an avatar

Re: Speculation on creating an entropy-hostile universe...

Postby mwchase » Sun Apr 18, 2010 7:15 pm

Well, the idea is, the properties given are somehow 'favored' by this universe, in that the choice of where to go is determined differently from ours. While our universe tends toward ambiguity, this one tends towards certainty. That's why the property bleed is important. Because such a thing is unpredictable, it takes energy to bring about, in this universe. (Or the equivalent of energy. Something's a bit wonky, relative to how we define it.)

In other words, I defined the properties with hostility to entropy in mind. If the universe is entropic, then all atoms collapse together into an undifferentiated mush. I'd have to think a bit about how the laws of probability would have to be tweaked to create a consistent manifestation of things in changes of state...

(Of note, on the subject of the energy levels stuff I worked out: roughly speaking, elements can be full-noble, semi-noble, or common. Semi-noble and common are further divided, but the important distinction between them is, full-noble do not bond, semi-noble only accept one form of energy, and therefore only form linear bonds, and common accept two forms, and therefore form face-bonds.)

I think the best way to think about this is, the universe has some ultimate form that is manifesting, bit by bit. As a result of this, things that were uncertain become certain and fixed.

EDIT: later thoughts (come to that, what's the statute of limitations on double-posting?): Lots of high-level properties are mirrored directly at the molecular scale. Since nearby molecules tend to synchronize and mimic, it's not until things reach the macro scale that statistics really becomes relevant.

Other notes: some complex molecules have different forms, at varying levels of stability. If a molecule has at least three forms, then a collection of such molecules will cycle between these forms, in lockstep. The direction of the cycle is determined by the gravitational polarity, in a way that I haven't worked out yet. This is important because non-cycling molecules will only ever interact with light at certain fixed energy levels (or one of two sets, if there are exactly two forms). Therefore, effective color vision requires cycling, because it spreads out sensitive frequencies over time. Other fun implications of the properties that light must have: flames (if they work. I haven't worked out many things) grade sharply between colors, due to both the lack of blackbody radiation, and the segregation of different gases. The grander consequence of the differences in optics is, there is nothing here that looks like what we'd call "natural" light. Imagine the sun as a giant neon lamp, and you're a good portion of the way there.

To reiterate: many properties that only emerge for us in aggregate, here are inherent down to the molecular level. Note that dissimilar molecules usually can't synchronize like this, and this is part of the reason they repel. However, there are exceptions... A properly conformant macromolecule could accomodate countless two-state molecules as switches. Inhabitants would not have access to quantum computing, but they could drive down Moore's law much faster.
GENERATION -9+i: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum. Square it, and then add i to the generation.

"the worlds of our imagination have really confusing rail service."
User avatar
mwchase
Kumquat Class Sensei

  Offline
 
Posts: 269
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 10:27 pm

Re: Aeryx/Mundis Kloxkras D(4) H(?) S(p) E(-l) C{w/+Bam,Xam,Gmp}

Postby mwchase » Wed Apr 28, 2010 11:55 pm

I still don't really know what the statute of limitations on double posting is, but it's been a week, so what the heck. Basically, I didn't feel like editing my last post again.

I had a few thoughts... One is that, since some gasses have no gyral weight, Kloxkras must be Aeryx, though a rather odd kind, since each planet maintains its own atmosphere. Also, this might be at the 'technical' level, since there's stuff like orbiting to worry about.

The various subatomic forces don't truly feature attraction. They feature, at best, 'less-repulsion'. This means that Kloxkras is, in fact, expanding. Since what's driving the expansion is, in essence, the potential energy bound in forcing matter into its structure, there must be space-energy equivalence. (Either that, or my thought process is confused by it being 2 AM.) Or maybe it's a matter of correlation... volume * potential is constant.

With regards to the geometry, I've come to the conclusion that Kloxkras is bent hyperbolically in some fashion, to allow for some things that I can't articulate, by they have to do with almost, but not quite, being like a crystal.
GENERATION -9+i: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum. Square it, and then add i to the generation.

"the worlds of our imagination have really confusing rail service."
User avatar
mwchase
Kumquat Class Sensei

  Offline
 
Posts: 269
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 10:27 pm

Re: Aeryx/Mundis Kloxkras D(4) H(?) S(p) E(-l) C{w/+Bam,Xam,Gmp}

Postby Coda » Thu Apr 29, 2010 7:54 am

Aeryx simply means that the universe is filled with fluidic matter instead of void. That planets would bear their own atmospheres doesn't deny such a categorization. If Mundis Mundis had etheric space instead of vacuum, it might be classified as Aeryx Mundis instead.

I'm not certain I buy that attraction can be expressed as an expanding universe. I'm having problems intuiting the full extent of the implications, and I'm finding some problems that would manifest themselves even in empirical macroscopic testing, but I can't quite seem to articulate them.
User avatar
Coda
Magickal Melon 666

  Offline
 
Posts: 762
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 12:19 pm
Location: Holy crap, Coda set an avatar

Re: Aeryx/Mundis Kloxkras D(4) H(?) S(p) E(-l) C{w/+Bam,Xam,Gmp}

Postby mwchase » Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:06 am

Well, what I meant is, the state of Kloxkras, as I'm describing it, is only the result of there not being enough space for all the repulsive forces to hold sway. In effect, it is slowly tearing itself apart, a bit at a time. This might need a bit more work, or it could mean that most things spontaneously break down in vacuum, which is something I'm not yet sure if I want.

I guess this would be a very small, long-range force, so that it basically exerts a near-constant pressure on everything, even in the absence of other matter nearby. I think there's something a little wonky in all my reasoning there, but I'm not quite sure what.

Also, I just now remembered the substances are usually immiscible, meaning that any given region of space may be filled with a different gas than another region. Hmm, maybe the stars can only sustain themselves within certain gases.
GENERATION -9+i: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum. Square it, and then add i to the generation.

"the worlds of our imagination have really confusing rail service."
User avatar
mwchase
Kumquat Class Sensei

  Offline
 
Posts: 269
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 10:27 pm

Re: Aeryx/Mundis Kloxkras D(4) H(?) S(p) E(-l) C{w/+Bam,Xam,Gmp}

Postby Coda » Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:29 am

Well, in Mundis Mundis, things DO spontaneously break down in a vacuum; it's called radioactivity. :P
User avatar
Coda
Magickal Melon 666

  Offline
 
Posts: 762
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 12:19 pm
Location: Holy crap, Coda set an avatar

Re: Aeryx Kloxkras D(4) H(E/fb) S(?) E(-l) C{w/+Bam,Xam,Gmp}

Postby mwchase » Wed May 05, 2010 1:08 pm

A couple thoughts and revisions...

Making things stick together merely through "pressure" shouldn't work like I was saying, so that's out. In other words, there has to be one more subatomic process... A-ha! Relative velocity. Nearby particles tend to equalize in velocity. It's stronger the more similar they are. (I think I might be cheating in some fashion here, but I can't work out how.)

Now, to discuss planets in more detail. All atmosphere exists in bubbles composed of a single gas, with particulate matter pushed to the borders. Zero-gyralitational gasses tend to form roughly polyhedral bubbles. Sufficiently coordinated particles can drag the border somewhat with them, since there's a disincentive for gasses to cross it. Now, planets are where things get strange. Gyral gasses above a planet stratify based on their gyral factor: the ratio between their gyral mass and their atomic mass. This is further altered by centripetal acceleration, which is constant for all gasses, and causes them to form lateral bands.

Now, aside from the positive/negative gyrality option, a substance can have multiple states, each with its own gyral factor. (With the right setup, this could allow some truly bizarre things, like a state cycle that contains both positive and negative gyral factors. It won't contain opposites, or zero, though.)

I'm imagining part of the development of higher life involving microorganisms doing some reaction that flips the gyral state of an otherwise inert gas. They proliferate more and more, until, at one point, they have half of that gas contained within themselves, for processing... And when they release it, that band of atmosphere pops.
GENERATION -9+i: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum. Square it, and then add i to the generation.

"the worlds of our imagination have really confusing rail service."
User avatar
mwchase
Kumquat Class Sensei

  Offline
 
Posts: 269
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 10:27 pm

Re: Aeryx Kloxkras D(4) H(E/fb) S(?) E(-l) C{w/+Bam,Xam,Gmp}

Postby Coda » Wed May 05, 2010 3:36 pm

Making things stick together merely through "pressure" shouldn't work like I was saying, so that's out. In other words, there has to be one more subatomic process... A-ha! Relative velocity. Nearby particles tend to equalize in velocity. It's stronger the more similar they are. (I think I might be cheating in some fashion here, but I can't work out how.)

It's cheating because that's explicitly entropic behavior -- you're adding a tendency to approach equilibrium.

Could you provide a concise description of "gyrality" and its effects? I'm a little fuzzy.
User avatar
Coda
Magickal Melon 666

  Offline
 
Posts: 762
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 12:19 pm
Location: Holy crap, Coda set an avatar

Re: Aeryx Kloxkras D(4) H(E/fb) S(?) E(-l) C{w/+Bam,Xam,Gmp}

Postby mwchase » Wed May 05, 2010 5:38 pm

There are a couple ideas behind gyrality that I haven't quite elaborated on. One is the idea of asymmetry in cycles. While in Mundis, things will symmetrically oscillate in every fashion at once (if I expressed that at all properly), but I've done my best to minimize superposition in Kloxkras. As a result, the only way something can "know" to go a certain direction in a cycle is if no two states in a cycle both enter and leave from each other. (Pretty sure this implies VERY WEIRD things about the underlying physics, but oh well. I guess, like, the force driving this is infinitesimal, but positive, or something.)

Gyrality arises from something or other, but the basic idea is that, when three atoms with different inertial masses are connected by a planar bond (it might be possible to use larger cycles, but I'm not sure), the bond can store energy, passed around between the atoms. Depending on whether it moves low-mid-high, or high-mid-low, the resultant gyral... charge, I guess, will attract to bodies with the same charge, and repel from the opposite. Gyral charge is related in some fashion to the distribution of masses within the bond, as well as the masses themselves, and further proportional to the stored energy. (So it would be really convenient if the energy could be restricted by mass, or bond angles, or something.)

Basically: some things are weightless. Everything that falls down can be made to fall up, though it usually takes a lot of effort. Some things have different weights, and some things have a weight that oscillates. Oscillating weights will display critical points that correspond to states. There won't be a critical point at zero (barring extremely weird structure), and I said something wrong earlier: a critical point will not lead directly to its exact negative. In other words, the simplest way to have both a particular gyral charge and its opposite in a cycle would be, say, 1->3->-1->-3->1.

(Note: while gyral cycles are reversible, state cycles, which can control gyral cycles, can only proceed in one direction. It must be that there's something unrelated to energy and entropy both, driving that.) (I think the way it works out is, at low energies, only one state is available. As available energy increases, it eventually jumps to the next state. Once the third state is available, it can begin oscillating.) (I feel like this implies that state cycles always go to higher-energy states until they have to jump down, but I'm not sure.)

I'm not sure that counted as "concise". Anyway, back to attractive forces... I think there's a difference between how equilibrium works here, and uniformity. No, the underlying probabilities do not yet make any sense. I'm hoping I think of something.
GENERATION -9+i: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum. Square it, and then add i to the generation.

"the worlds of our imagination have really confusing rail service."
User avatar
mwchase
Kumquat Class Sensei

  Offline
 
Posts: 269
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 10:27 pm

Re: Aeryx Kloxkras D(4) H(E/fb) S(?) E(-l) C{w/+Bam,Xam,Gmp}

Postby Coda » Wed May 05, 2010 5:51 pm

"Nearby particles tend to equalize in velocity" is a force that would cause the temperature of a gas to normalize to an equilibrium. It's also a process that would destroy information (which particle is faster than the other) which is, again, entropic.

So gyrality is chiral? That would imply that you could take two thin discs of the same atomic structure and they'd attract each other in one direction but if you flipped one disc they'd repel each other... which is perfectly fine, that's how magnetism works, too.

Is there a right-hand rule? That is, if you curl your fingers in the direction of the charge rotation, does the field force orient along your thumb?
User avatar
Coda
Magickal Melon 666

  Offline
 
Posts: 762
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 12:19 pm
Location: Holy crap, Coda set an avatar

Re: Aeryx Kloxkras D(4) H(E/fb) S(?) E(-l) C{w/+Bam,Xam,Gmp}

Postby mwchase » Wed May 05, 2010 6:24 pm

Well, I may not have thought gyrality through properly. The idea is, it operates independently of orientation, and relies on the order of masses, so not the way you thought I said. Not really sure if that makes sense.

So far as destroying information, doesn't any change introduce uncertainty about what could have come before? I'm building this around the idea of reducing present ambiguity. In other words, statistics plays a reduced role at smaller scales, and doesn't really come into its own until it reaches the middle world.

(I think I posted this, but it doesn't seem to have gone through...)
GENERATION -9+i: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum. Square it, and then add i to the generation.

"the worlds of our imagination have really confusing rail service."
User avatar
mwchase
Kumquat Class Sensei

  Offline
 
Posts: 269
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 10:27 pm

Re: Aeryx Kloxkras D(4) H(E/fb) S(?) E(-l) C{w/+Bam,Xam,Gmp}

Postby Coda » Wed May 05, 2010 6:54 pm

*headscratch* While I'm not opposed to the CONCEPT -- electrical charge is orientation-neutral -- the geometry doesn't seem to make intuitive sense. The description is explicitly planar rotation, but the result is a spherical, uniform field force? I can accept this if this is a fundamental axiom of the universe, but it doesn't follow directly from the underlying phenomenon.
User avatar
Coda
Magickal Melon 666

  Offline
 
Posts: 762
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 12:19 pm
Location: Holy crap, Coda set an avatar

Re: Aeryx Kloxkras D(4) H(E/fb) S(?) E(-l) C{w/+Bam,Xam,Gmp}

Postby mwchase » Wed May 05, 2010 10:22 pm

Maybe it's a case of the force produced propagating through another dimension. (This would be a bit wonky, though, since it would work kind of like a hyperspace travel concept I had once: the dimensions of hyperspace actually refer to stuff like potential+kinetic energy, gravitational field strength, and so on. As a result, the mapping is, overall, hideously non-linear, but all earthlike planets are basically accessible, and their moons are relatively close-at-hand.) I won't commit to that until I run the 'numbers' on converting whatever-gyrality-is into a literal dimension.

Or maybe, gyrality just acts like two different effects, on long-range, one short-range, where the short-range effect is directional and the long-range one isn't. Maybe that short-range effect would provide for intermolecular attractive forces... The way I've worked it out, though, would make it act slightly differently from magnets. Like poles would attract, and opposites repel. Unless I come up with some horrible singularity from adding a dimension of mass-resonance-handwaving, I think I'll go with this, since there isn't really anything else yet that would allow something to be made of multiple materials, short of chemically creating one thing bound to another.

If you could follow my thought process, you'd see that a lot of Kloxkras is just taking some idea from Mundis and presenting it inside-out and backwards, more or less. Naturally, this results in a universe full of bubbles, where everything is kind of robot-y. Naturally.

Putting some words to concepts:
State cycles are governed by ensterity, an irreversible arrow of cyclic time (aka, something that never happens in Mundis, for at least five reasons). This is the infinitesimal driving force.
Energy is still energy, because it does the same thing, and has more-or-less the same definition, I think.
Mass is also still mass, but there is no gravity, only inertia. Mass is also important, however, to calculating the gyral factor.
Entropy is a bit tricky, because the literal definition I get from the derivation is something like "that which tends to happen". ("That which happens, happens.") However, it has so much baggage, especially within sci-fi fandom, that something new is necessary to prevent intuition lockup, if for no other reason. Thinking of "clairtropy", even though that's a horrible multilingual abomination borne of my laziness in looking up word roots.
Gyrality is the large-scale force between objects. As mentioned above, it also has implications at the molecular level, possibly. (The gyral factor of a state is expressed in units of gyral mass per mass. To find an object's acceleration due to gyrality, multiply its gyral factor by the gyral potential at its position.)
Tartacity is somewhat analogous to electricity, but charges cannot move around. It is named for a phenomenon that may not actually occur, so it may be renamed.
Notes on quantum: Kloxkras is partially quantized. Matter and, to some degree, state, are discrete, but energy varies continuously, as well as ensteric state changes. This might mean that I can't have energy-mass equivalence, I'm not sure. (Did I already assume it once? I feel like I did.)
(I was talking here about something else I mentioned, but then I obsoleted them down there.)

I think I'm missing a force that I assumed earlier. Individual particles cannot use gyral effects to adhere, unless... Well, we could have them produce a plane of gyral vectors, but that would be strange and not really do what I want. I could add some kind of 'nucleus' particle that would hold the tartons too tightly for nuclear reactions to usually happen, but that doesn't feel right.

I've definitely assumed that light exists. I don't think it can be based off the four-dimensional gyrality model, so I'd need to assume some way of interacting with tartons. So, given a zuron, roujon, or safron, if it moves... Two zurons moving in the same direction would probably repel... And moving in the same direction, they'd attract. If we assume that each 'atom' is one or more tarton rings, at a very small length scale... Absorbing two much energy would expand a ring, causing it to release the energy through contraction. Tartons contracting towards a point would... lets see... If the wave structure has to be driven by ensterity, that implies two charged locations, with three charges between them, periodically exchanging a single charge in a fashion mandated by the universe. This means a few things: single-ring cirquons (the hardest-to-guess-the-pronunciation neologism Kloxkras has yet produced!) are optically inactive, unless they contain a single tarton at the center of the ring (I don't think this is possible. It seems like there need to be at least two tartons to produce the attractive force). Cirquons never have more than two rings. Light looks different, when played backwards. In general, tartacity doesn't have much of a practical application outside of light (... I've actually got nothing for weird neologisms, here. I just don't know what to do with a germanic word). Also, the two rings in a cirquon will be almost, but not quite, the same size. There should be an analogue of polarization, but I don't know exactly how it appears. Planar bonds act as antennae for each of the cirquons on their borders: the energy will be diverted to whichever one matches the state of the light hitting the bond.

... I think that's enough of things that are not my paper, studying, or sleeping...
GENERATION -9+i: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum. Square it, and then add i to the generation.

"the worlds of our imagination have really confusing rail service."
User avatar
mwchase
Kumquat Class Sensei

  Offline
 
Posts: 269
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 10:27 pm

Re: Aeryx Kloxkras D(4) H(E/fb) S(?) E(-l) C{w/+Bam,Xam,Gmp}

Postby mwchase » Sat May 15, 2010 4:43 pm

Double-post madness! (No, seriously, actual madness, probably. This is going to make less than no sense.)

I've thought some about the restrictions I want on long-distance gyrality. (The two gyralities are actually different effects with the same cause. Fun!) I want twice the energy to equate to twice the force, and I want twice all the masses to equate to twice the force. That means that the gyral strength function G(E, m1, m2, m3) over positive values is equal to E*m3*g(m1/m3, m2/m3), assuming m3 is the largest mass (and it can always be made to be), and g is defined over values between 0 and 1. Additional restrictions include that g(x, y) = -g(y, x), and g(x, 0) = g(x, 1) = g(0, y) = g(1, y) = 0. I feel like the borders of g should be singularities; it doesn't mean anything to have a value outside [0, 1]... On the other hand, if g could be extended from the top and left, then proper transformations of inputs would allow enhanced constraints... However, it should still have singularities along the zero axes, as negative values would just be silly. If g can be extended to all possible values, then we have g(x, y) = x*g(1/x, y/x) = y*g(x/y, 1/y)

Close-range gyrality is a mechanism of the shared tartonic charge between any two cirquons in a bond. As such, each side of the bond has a unique character, zuric (Zurich?), safric, or roujic...

Aaand... I just had a realization about Klox light. The general form is a braid of the three tartonic charges.

Okay, forces from tartonic charges in motion. I need to work that out... A zuron, safron and roujon in a triangular formation, moving in parallel, will... um... clearly I did not pay enough attention in physics, because I cannot work out the analogues. What I seem to be getting, though, is that the tartons have cubic-roots of unity relations. Which, all in all, means that close-range gyrality is weird.

Anybody want to help me not-flail with this?
GENERATION -9+i: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum. Square it, and then add i to the generation.

"the worlds of our imagination have really confusing rail service."
User avatar
mwchase
Kumquat Class Sensei

  Offline
 
Posts: 269
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 10:27 pm

Re: Aeryx Kloxkras D(4) H(E/fb) S(?) E(-l) C{w/+Bam,Xam,Gmp}

Postby Coda » Sat May 15, 2010 6:12 pm

Wow, that's quite literally complex. :P
User avatar
Coda
Magickal Melon 666

  Offline
 
Posts: 762
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 12:19 pm
Location: Holy crap, Coda set an avatar

Re: Aeryx Kloxkras D(4) H(E/fb) S(?) E(-l) C{w/+Bam,Xam,Gmp}

Postby mwchase » Sun May 16, 2010 7:36 pm

On the other hand, I simply cannot get the math to work for that. Maybe someone else could, but I can't, or at least I haven't yet.

To review: differently charged tartons attract, while same-charge tartons repel. In addition, given three tartons of each charge, two together will repel the other. The mechanisms I gave suggest that two of two different charges will be worth two of the third, in repulsion. Which means... just a sec...

I want a function of probability of state transfer over distance. When applying it to two things, I want it to display inverse-square behavior. Now, this should be something along the lines of frequency or expected value. In addition, this behavior also implies some sort of damping effect from different charges, which is at first offset, then reversed by proximity to the third charge. In other words, depending on its position, a particle will have different effects on each of the three charges.

What I think works is... constant charge for own charge. There is no way to change how two particles with the same charge interact.
For charge [foo], I'm thinking something like... the harmonic root mean square of distances from charges [bar]. By which I mean, even if I didn't say... Take the squares of the distances of all [bar] particles, reciprocate them, take the arithmetic mean of those, then reciprocate and take the square root. It might have some issues, I'm actually not sure, because it gets really sensitive to particles in close proximity... On the other hand, taking the mean feels a bit weird. Maybe just taking the sum and reciprocating and rooting. Take that number, however it's gotten, get it to the range between -1 and 1, and have that be the attractive/repulsive force. Wait, that very phrase indicates that that shouldn't work, "get it in the range". What I really want here is a function of distance that hits a cusp of zero at zero, and increases to approach 1 asymptotically. Or, um... something like that... I'm confused...
GENERATION -9+i: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum. Square it, and then add i to the generation.

"the worlds of our imagination have really confusing rail service."
User avatar
mwchase
Kumquat Class Sensei

  Offline
 
Posts: 269
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 10:27 pm

Re: Aeryx Kloxkras D(4) H(E/fb) S(?) E(-l) C{w/+Bam,Xam,Gmp}

Postby Coda » Mon May 17, 2010 7:18 am

So we have Z, S, and R tartons... Let's designate the unit charge of Z as 0 degrees, S as 120 degrees, and R as 240 degrees, such that there's a 120-degree angle between each. These aren't literal directions, but rather more like lumonic measurements.

* S should attract R, so that means charges at 120 degree differences attract.
* SR would, then, have a net charge of 180, and you want that to repel Z, so that means charges at 180 degrees repel.
* Likewise, charges at 0 repel because like charges repel.

This formulation raises some questions:

* It seems that the net charge of SR would have a magnitude not of 2, but of sqrt(3)/2. Is this expected?
* What is the effect of a 60 degree difference in charge? That is, given SR, what is the effect on a solitary S or R?
* More fundamentally, supposing that we hold S and R in close proximity, and Z is at some distance, is the effect qualitatively the same as if S and R were bonded?

I've got some ideas on the math at this point but I need answers to these before I put too much time into it.
User avatar
Coda
Magickal Melon 666

  Offline
 
Posts: 762
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 12:19 pm
Location: Holy crap, Coda set an avatar

Next

Return to Generic All-Purpose Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

cron