Plotting wave mechanics on a quad

I placed this under the “writing” topic because I don’t necessarily need a factually correct answer, just something to help create an interesting story mechanic. Basically I want to know if anybody would have any idea how to place different waves mechanics or wave functions or whatever on a quad.

The idea is to have an opposing quad to go with a spatial dimensions quad where instead of saying we have a 3 spatial dimension universe made of 3 1-dimensional lines that are named according to their orientation in relation to the observer (length, width, height) we actually have 4 spatial dims that “unfold” into each other. The 0-dim point, the 1-dim line, the 2-dim plane, and the 3-dim form.

So anyone have any ideas about how a wave quad might look with that in mind?

I know Melanie has spoken in terms of such things, but that is way beyond my level of, well, anything. :slight_smile: I’m curious, however, on where you would go with this.

1 Like

Well, that’s the thing. This isn’t really going anywhere as far as Dramatica theory goes. It’s just an attempt to use some Dramatica concepts to create an explanation for dimension-hopping, time-traveling characters in what is meant to be a comic book story.

I tried a couple different things. I don’t know enough about waves mechanics or terminology or whatever to do that quad properly, but I tried matching it to the spatial quad by having something like a point on a wave, the wave itself, a ripple (meant to be like a 2-D wave plane), and maybe wave interference (like several waves mixing in a storm). That would probably have been enough for a comic book, I tried some other things, too, involving wave length, wave frequency, wave function, various types of waves (transitional, longitudinal, etc). They all offered something interesting for the story, but the way I would have used them would have been way too connected to space to be Dramatica friendly.

So I tried to keep time separate. I thought there might be a number_a moment, like a second, a minute, an hour. Then there’d need to be the energy that moved one moment to the next-the flow. Then some sort of space-a timeline? Something that forces that flow into a “forward” direction? And then something more temporal-the rate of change? I don’t even know what most of that would mean and it’s probably all ridiculous anyway.

Something else I did that I don’t think would go over well on here, was to put Space into the Mass position and Time into the Energy position and say that might give us something like Space-time in the Space position and Time-space in the Time position.

What I decided was to use the explanation of dimensions as running along a coil such that each circle would repeat the 0-dim, 1-dim, etc pattern, but each wave, or each level along the coil would describe something else. So one coil would describe the spatial dims already mentioned. Then another will describe 4 similar temporal dims, most of which we are actually familiar with, but we just don’t think of them as dimensions (like how we use a 1-D line to describe length, width, height instead of 4 actually different dims). I haven’t thought about it in a day or two, but I actually wound up describing something very similar to the 10-12 dimensions described in some versions of string theory…and then speculated on four more!

Anyway, I eventually settled on something that will work for the book but that won’t add a thing to Dramatica. Although, if this were somehow ever to get published, I’d almost certainly be paying Write Bros for the use of some of their Dramatica concepts.

1 Like

If you’re trying to figure this quad out, I would strongly suggest drawing it, or doing something without worded language.

One of the tightest metaphors built into our written and/or spoken language, almost the world over in virtually every culture is: “TIME is SPACE”. Words will limit you for this one.

1 Like

Converting Space into Mass and Time into Energy, sounds like you have the potential of becoming a narrative Einstein. :smile:

I don’t know much about the math, but I do know about commutes in heavy traffic and I hear they’re pretty much the embodiment of fluid dynamics. I got to thinking about the forces involved and immediately thought about the Catalyst/Unique Ability vs Inhibitor/Critical Flaw as they relate to Benchmarks. Maybe those can be a factor in what you’re looking for. I’d love to see something like a Plot Sequence report that integrates those elements.

I also got to thinking about interference patterns and how it seems similar to flocking behavior restricted in a narrow channel and I was reminded of an artificial life program call Boids by Craig Reynolds ( which was able to reproduce complex flocking behavior with 3 simple rules. Those rules: Separation, Alignment, and Cohesion, kind of remind me of Catalyst, Benchmark and Inhibitor.

The other thing of interest about Dramatica whose interactions I’d like to better understand is something I think of Charge. (I don’t know if Dramatica uses that term or another.) From what I understand, not all of the relationship pairs (dynamic, companion, and dependent) are equal. They are divided into positive and negative pairs. I think that has something to do with audience reception, but I’m not sure how it interacts with the other elements of Dramatica.


I’m just taking pre-existing ideas and playing with how I can distort and twist them to suit my own ends. I’m less of an Albert Einstein and more of a FrankEinstein. [quote=“JAPartridge, post:5, topic:2469”]
From what I understand, not all of the relationship pairs (dynamic, companion, and dependent) are equal. They are divided into positive and negative pairs.

Seems like I came across something not long ago that said they could both be positive, both be negative, or have one of each, but can’t remember when or where I would have seen it. Guess I’ll be reading up on that next.

1 Like

So I’m still thinking about this and decided I’d share where I’m going with it. First of all, I apologize for the long post. Second, let me apologize that it gets a bit weird and theoretical and the more I post with stuff like this, the weirder and more theoretical it’s going to get. And third, this overlong post had zero editing-Sorry for all the mistakes-and I should mention now that when I speak of being on a different coil, I often meant the next circuit of the same coil as opposed to a second coil.

First, for those less familiar with Dramatica and Mental Relativity, I’ll highlight the idea I’ll be using as the base for the rest of it. And that is the idea that the towers of the Dramatica table are a helix, like DNA. But i stead of helices, I’ll just be talking in terms of coils.

For any quad, the four corners of the quad appear as a flat square or squares. But as it’s described in theory, the quad actually represents a coil. And as you move around the quad, you’re also moving around the coil. So looking at a KTAD quad…


…K might be the lowest part of the coil. A would be a 1/4 way around the coil from K, T 1/2 way around the coil from K, and D 3/4 of the way around the the coil. Now since this is a coil and not a circle, that means that A, T, and D are also “higher” on the coil than K. So when you move another 1/4 around the coil from D, you don’t come back to K. Instead you come to the same place, but one full coil up. Because this point holds the same relative position on the coil, just one coil higher, this new position will look like K, but with a 1/4 twist. If I’m remembering correctly, the math for KTAD is described as K/T=AD, but once you move up to the next coil, that 1/4 turn changes the formula to something like K/A=TD. Go to the next coil and it becomes K/D=AT.

Now, if you take this same idea and apply it to universal dimensions, I think we can start to see how one circuit of the coil describes physical spactial dimensions as outlined in an earlier post, and how the next coil up ends up describing time by being similar to space, but with a 1/4 turn.

So if you take the four spatial dims I suggested previously (point, line, then plane, and form) then we can say that the 0-directional point is at the first position at the bottom of the first coil. Move 1/4 way around and 1/4 way up the coil and you are placing an infinite series of points together and they form a line. Another 1/4 way around and an infinite number of lines becomes a plane. 1/4 way around and infinite planes stacked together create a form.

At this point we have reached the end of this coil. If we go any further, we’ll be on the next coil. That means we’ll be back to a 0-directional point on the coil, but that it will have a 1/4 turn applied. So what does that look like?

Well, if we continue “stacking” spatial dimensions the way we did to turn the point to a line and the line to a plane and so on, then we quickly realize there is no more “space” in which to line up the 3-directional forms next to each other to create a larger dimension. So rather than line them up spatially, we now have to line them up sequentially. That means first one form of space, then another form of space. But remember, we are at the 0-directional point of the coil, so we can’t have two forms that we can jump back and forth on. We still need one 0-directional “point” to examine. So what does that look like?
If we don’t look at the two 3-directional forms and instead look only at the difference between them, then we should have a new 0-directional point to use as the start of the next circuit on the coil.

This differential is no longer a view of the 4-dimensional/3-direction spatial dimensions because it’s no longer even looking directly at space. The differential is only telling us about the change that takes place sequentially. And sequential change is a description of time.

There’s a couple things I find interesting at this point. From this spot, the 0-directional point that is infinitesimally small and appears in only one of the two 3-directional forms, seems pretty useless in describing physical space. From a temporal measurement it’s infinitely small spatially and has no temporal duration. So looking back from our first measure of time, we can still see lines, planes, and forms from the previous coil, and we forget about the point. And this more closely resembles the traditional idea of a 3-spatial + 1-temporal dimension description of the universe.

But we’re only at the “K” position of time, so, conceptually, we should be able to keep going, though it gets more difficult at this point. I’ve had various ideas about what this would look like and I’m not particularly positive about any of them. But here’s my best guess for at least the next two 1/4 turns past K-time.

If one differential between spatial forms gives us a moment of time, then two of these differentials in sequence-or two moments of time, should give us the 1-directional timeline. That’s easy enough, I suppose, but now thinks should start getting tricky. If we’re following the idea that we have first a 0-directional moment of time, and then a 1-directional timeline, that means that next we should have a 2-directional time plane.

At first, I had no clue how one might be able to conceive of that. With my tendency to think in terms of external space, I initially wanted to think of a time plane as consisting of various possible or potential timelines. But I think that, for now at least, that’s thinking too spatially (but I wonder if we keep moving up the coil if we might not eventually find a spacetime and a timespace where other possible or potential worlds or timelines might be found).

But after some thought, I realized that the moment of time, being only a single differential, should provide at least the smallest amount of information possible regarding change. At the very least, the difference between two spatial forms should give us an idea of which direction things are moving, and how fast.

But I eventually decided that-with the moment being 0-directional, that information was the least it should tell us, but it’s also the most it should tell us. For instance, if our two spatial forms are an hour apart, then a measurement of the difference should give us a general idea of the direction the car has travelled by the end of the hour, but not how many turns it made during the hour. And we can get an idea of the speed of the car by seeing where it is in the first form compared to the second, but we can’t know whether it travelled at a steady speed or accelerated some and decelerated some. For that, we can take smaller measurements of time-measurements between more similar or more closely stacked forms of space-you might say. But the problem would be carried with us. Even at the very smallest moment of time, we would only have information about general direction and speed. In order to get more information, we need something else. Another measurement. Not just a moment, and not just a series of moments (which, again, is a timeline), but a measurement of the difference between moments. A differential of the differential.

If we can look at one moment and say the car was traveling at X space/moment, and look at another later moment and see that the car was traveling at X+1 space/moment, then we can see that the car has accelerated. The difference between the first measurement and the second measurement, then, should give us a description of the rate of change, a description of the acceleration.

And that measurement is as close as I can come at this point to describing a timeplane. And I have no idea what a timeform would look like. If a timeplane is the differential between differential, would form be the differential between differentials between differentials? If so, what would that information look like? The idea that the timeplane gives information about acceleration really doesn’t even sound like a description of time anymore, so am I even on the right track?

If I am on the right track, I suspect that from my position here on the spatial coil, I’m just unable to see that last quarter turn on the temporal coil to see what it would look like. It’s just too many quarter turns away. But I know that it would start to look like something that was somewhat related to time, but that was also starting to look like something that is neither space nor time, but that might somehow look like both.

The last thing I want to point out is that, from one perspective, we can see that time is just an extension of space on the same coil, but from another perspective space is on one circuit of the coil and Time is on a completely different circuit. So in one way, they are the same. But in another way they are different.

I like weird and theoretical. No apologies necessary, at least to me.

This feels right to me. A point in time, a direction of change, a rate of change… the fourth quad? I know the fourth of any quad always feels odd somehow, like it both does and doesn’t relate to the other 3.

I am reminded of how some physicists suggest that entropy could be used as a measure of time since the total value only ever increases. I’m not sure how that would translate in a narrative structure though. I guess entropy, being a measure of the amount of “useful” energy remaining to do work, could relate to the capacity for change, or perhaps even the distance toward the story goal/end of the story. At that point (if I may bust out my ancient greek) we might be talking about the teleological view of time.

1 Like

I suspect that in my efforts to consider multiple time dimensions, I’m still thinking too spatially. Still trying to describe the change in space rather than change itself, or changes in change. I’ve also pretty much forgotten why I went down that path to begin with (to create a time travel mechanic for a story). But it would be neat to be able to say to someone ‘this is what multiple dimensions of time look like. We just don’t realize it because of how we think of dimensions as spatial, and we don’t think of viewing things in sequence as a dimension.

I don’t know. What’s the internal equivalent of entropy? If entropy is “unavailability of a systems thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work” then the internal would be something like the unavailability of thought to be converted into…whatever the internal equivalent of mechanical work would be. When there’s nothing left to consider, the story is over.