Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Strictly OT - conworlding with 92% or thereabouts commonality with current universe

Expand Messages
  • John Vertical
    ... Not particularly much. If you want to re-do mathematics, you should get a *lot* less than 90%-ish commonality with reality. Rather, the subject line
    Message 1 of 7 , Jan 4, 2008
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      >Has anyone done any work on a universe that has a 95% physical law commonality
      >with the current universe?

      >What I'm thinking of is a skewed set of basic physical laws where the basic
      >mathematical progression is not the binary one-two-plusone-plusone-plusone...
      >into infinity, but instead the integer prime sequence having prime importance
      >and the binary sequence being of secondary importance.

      >Am I making any sense?

      >Wesley Parish

      Not particularly much. If you want to re-do mathematics, you should get a
      *lot* less than 90%-ish commonality with reality. Rather, the subject line
      reminded me more of an idea I've entertained a bit but not developed too far
      yet: an universe where quantum chromodynamics has been fudged with a bit,
      with the result that uneven nuclei are more stable than even. Chemistry,
      cosmology etc. are as usual, the world's just made of like boron and
      nitrogen etc moreso than carbon and oxygen...

      John Vertical
    • Lars Finsen
      ... That s interesting. Have you made up any isotopic abundance tables? Do nuclei in your conworld have any shell structure? Carbon-based life must be even
      Message 2 of 7 , Jan 4, 2008
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Den 4. jan. 2008 kl. 17.15 skreiv John Vertical:
        >
        > Not particularly much. If you want to re-do mathematics, you should
        > get a *lot* less than 90%-ish commonality with reality. Rather, the
        > subject line reminded me more of an idea I've entertained a bit but
        > not developed too far yet: an universe where quantum chromodynamics
        > has been fudged with a bit, with the result that uneven nuclei are
        > more stable than even. Chemistry, cosmology etc. are as usual, the
        > world's just made of like boron and nitrogen etc moreso than carbon
        > and oxygen...

        That's interesting. Have you made up any isotopic abundance tables?
        Do nuclei in your conworld have any shell structure? Carbon-based
        life must be even rarer in that universe than it is in ours. And
        given the very special properties of carbon, I think it's very hard
        to imagine any other chemical basis for life. But perhaps mind can
        exist even without those carbonaceous complications that we base our
        lives on.

        LEF
      • Peter Collier
        ... This appears to be a sample text from some kind of English-based conlang? I can sort of understand some of it, but then I just get completely lost...
        Message 3 of 7 , Jan 4, 2008
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          Lars Finsen <lars.finsen@...> wrote:
          >
          >
          > That's interesting. Have you made up any isotopic abundance tables?
          > Do nuclei in your conworld have any shell structure? Carbon-based
          > life must be even rarer in that universe than it is in ours. And
          > given the very special properties of carbon, I think it's very hard
          > to imagine any other chemical basis for life. But perhaps mind can
          > exist even without those carbonaceous complications that we base our
          > lives on.
          >
          > LEF
          >

          This appears to be a sample text from some kind of English-based conlang? I can sort of understand some of it, but then I just get completely lost...

          Peter
        • John Vertical
          ... Well, as I said it s not too far developed. I have some preliminary stability tables, and only in terms of ±stable & local peaks, not actual nuclear
          Message 4 of 7 , Jan 6, 2008
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            >Den 4. jan. 2008 kl. 17.15 skreiv John Vertical:
            >>
            >> the subject line reminded me more of an idea I've entertained a bit but
            >> not developed too far yet: an universe where quantum chromodynamics
            >> has been fudged with a bit, with the result that uneven nuclei are
            >> more stable than even. Chemistry, cosmology etc. are as usual, the
            >> world's just made of like boron and nitrogen etc moreso than carbon
            >> and oxygen...
            >
            >That's interesting. Have you made up any isotopic abundance tables?

            Well, as I said it's not too far developed. I have some preliminary
            stability tables, and only in terms of ±stable & local peaks, not actual
            nuclear binding energies; and even when I do get those sorted out, getting
            from them to abundances is going to take some stello-evolutionarics.

            >Do nuclei in your conworld have any shell structure?

            Not planning to go too much into that, as this is all operating on the
            principle that QCD > nucleus stability (which is just about the only thing
            that really matters) is mostly a black box. But since all the extant
            stability peaks are at multiples of 4, I'm thinking of having mine at
            multiples of 3 (excusing 6, obviously.)

            >Carbon-based life must be even rarer in that universe than it is in ours.

            >LEF

            Probably, but I'd expect there would still be enuff of it. Nitrogen's not
            too rare an element, which would point to there still being appreciable
            amounts of carbon in this conuniverse. I think there being more fluorine
            than oxygen is going to be a bigger worry! Or shall we say, the fun part ;)
            - I have no plans for specifically introducing life here.

            John Vertical
          • Lars Finsen
            John Vertical wrote: ... I like that word. But maybe you don t need it. I found once that as long as you have stability data, you can calculate neutron capture
            Message 5 of 7 , Jan 8, 2008
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              John Vertical wrote:
              (quoting me):
              >> That's interesting. Have you made up any isotopic abundance tables?
              >
              > Well, as I said it's not too far developed. I have some preliminary
              > stability tables, and only in terms of ±stable & local peaks, not
              > actual nuclear binding energies; and even when I do get those
              > sorted out, getting from them to abundances is going to take some
              > stello-evolutionarics.

              I like that word.
              But maybe you don't need it. I found once that as long as you have
              stability data, you can calculate neutron capture cross sections
              reasonably accurately without much effort, and then you can get
              pretty realistic abundance distributions by assuming a high, constant
              flux for a reasonable given time.

              >> Do nuclei in your conworld have any shell structure?
              >
              > Not planning to go too much into that, as this is all operating on the
              > principle that QCD > nucleus stability (which is just about the
              > only thing that really matters) is mostly a black box. But since
              > all the extant stability peaks are at multiples of 4, I'm thinking
              > of having mine at multiples of 3 (excusing 6, obviously.)

              I think the stability peaks we have at 2, 8, 20, 28, 50, 82 and 126
              (not all multiples of 4, but maybe you are thinking of protons and
              neutrons together) lend some charm and interest to the structure of
              our current world, so I would recommend something similar for
              alternative ones.

              Of alternative chemistries the most interesting one I've heard about
              is the one in Flatland, the 2-dimensional conworld. I think it was in
              Scientific American I read an article detailing Flatland chemistry
              developed from solving Schrödinger equations and such for 2
              dimensions. I should be able to find the article if you are interested.

              LEF
            • Jim Henry
              ... There was some such material in the appendix to _The Planiverse_ by A. K. Dewdney. -- Jim Henry http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry/review/log.htm
              Message 6 of 7 , Jan 8, 2008
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                On Jan 8, 2008 7:15 AM, Lars Finsen <lars.finsen@...> wrote:
                > Of alternative chemistries the most interesting one I've heard about
                > is the one in Flatland, the 2-dimensional conworld. I think it was in
                > Scientific American I read an article detailing Flatland chemistry
                > developed from solving Schrödinger equations and such for 2
                > dimensions. I should be able to find the article if you are interested.

                There was some such material in the appendix to
                _The Planiverse_ by A. K. Dewdney.

                --
                Jim Henry
                http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry/review/log.htm
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.