I love these kinds of models, and I'm very impressed with your idea and your analysis. The physics model seems like a good impersonal (impersonal is helpful in these kinds of considerations) model to me; I just don't know physics well enough to come up with a multi-stage interaction.
BTW it has been years since I studied blood interactions, so don't take my ramblings as gospel, ok? I'm pretty sure my example was more-or-less the general consensus at the time I learned about the issue, but things change fast in biology.nteraction for the example. Hence the biological model.
Anyway, I absolutely agree with you about further study. Ideally, in my opinion, we should recruit someone interested in these kind of questions for their own sake, but not presently a part of the filk community. As a project for a field study in sociology, perhaps? I'm not quite sure what departments we should approach to buttonhole graduate students.
I agree that particular particles will be drawn by particular clump qualities not sought by other particles. I'm not sure whether particles can be divided into groups of types on this basis (the way a blood cell could be A, B, AB, or O (pick only one) and also rhesus positive or rhesus negative, (pick one), or whether there will be so many types and degrees (*really* wanting funny songs vs kind of wanting funny songs) that classification of this sort will not be possible and particles must be modelled in bulk, like a fluid. The problem is that several of the circle classes involve small numbers of particles, suggesting that they *must* be modelled as particles. Also I suspect that so many interactions and moment-to-moment changes in particle state will be involved that the system will rapidly become chaotic, with sensitivity to initial conditions so extreme that it is not possible to accurately control the final state (ideally, to my mind, a nice mix of Class II and Class IV circles, but YMMV). However even chaotic systems have clumps of likely outcomes, and we might be able to aim for those.
Also, I agree with you that some qualities of stickiness are not ascribable to individual particles. I understand the reasoning behind themed filks better now you explain it, and I should make time to go to more of them. (I have found myself avoiding them in the past because I felt like I didn't have any material on the topic, but even if I don't have material, it would be interesting to observe their dynamics). I also agree about circle flow--I wonder if this is a quality that could be modelled and eventually engineered too, but I can't even imagine how to go about measuring it. Circle stickiness could be measured by accretion of particles, but circle flow...
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-10-29 02:54 pm (UTC)BTW it has been years since I studied blood interactions, so don't take my ramblings as gospel, ok? I'm pretty sure my example was more-or-less the general consensus at the time I learned about the issue, but things change fast in biology.nteraction for the example. Hence the biological model.
Anyway, I absolutely agree with you about further study. Ideally, in my opinion, we should recruit someone interested in these kind of questions for their own sake, but not presently a part of the filk community. As a project for a field study in sociology, perhaps? I'm not quite sure what departments we should approach to buttonhole graduate students.
I agree that particular particles will be drawn by particular clump qualities not sought by other particles. I'm not sure whether particles can be divided into groups of types on this basis (the way a blood cell could be
A, B, AB, or O (pick only one) and also rhesus positive or rhesus negative, (pick one), or whether there will be so many types and degrees (*really* wanting funny songs vs kind of wanting funny songs) that classification of this sort will not be possible and particles must be modelled in bulk, like a fluid. The problem is that several of the circle classes involve small numbers of particles, suggesting that they *must* be modelled as particles. Also I suspect that so many interactions and moment-to-moment changes in particle state will be involved that the system will rapidly become chaotic, with sensitivity to initial conditions so extreme that it is not possible to accurately control the final state (ideally, to my mind, a nice mix of Class II and Class IV circles, but YMMV). However even chaotic systems have clumps of likely outcomes, and we might be able to aim for those.
Also, I agree with you that some qualities of stickiness are not ascribable to individual particles. I understand the reasoning behind themed filks better now you explain it, and I should make time to go to more of them. (I have found myself avoiding them in the past because I felt like I didn't have any material on the topic, but even if I don't have material, it would be interesting to observe their dynamics). I also agree about circle flow--I wonder if this is a quality that could be modelled and eventually engineered too, but I can't even imagine how to go about measuring it. Circle stickiness could be measured by accretion of particles, but circle flow...
Anyway. Interesting issue.