Public: Architecture
Mandelbrot Floorplan   (+21, -2)  [vote for, against]
Everyone loves nooks and crannies

If buildings open to the public, such as bars, restaurants, libraries, art galleries etc. followed an floorplan that was approximation of the Mandelbrot set, there would be plenty of nooks and crannies for a party of almost any size to comfortably snuggle into.

The wide hall(s) in the middle allow for great visibility across the space, and would function equally well as a dance-floor, entertainment focus or concourse.

[Inspired by [dhill]'s Agaraphobe Restaurant]
-- zen_tom, Aug 08 2005

The Mandelbrot Set http://www.tiikoni....brot/mandelbrot.png
[zen_tom, Aug 08 2005]

Mandelville http://users.erols....ges/julia-set-3.jpg
For even greater self-similarity, the entire town could be laid out like one big mandelbrot set (or julia set.) [robinism, Aug 11 2005]

A restaurant with a Mandelbrot plan would only serve this http://images.googl...=en&lr=&q=romanesco
[hippo, Feb 08 2006]

all very well till you squeeze yourself into the next little space and find you are too fat to wriggle out again.

too many bacon sandwiches, you know.
-- po, Aug 08 2005

Oh it wouldn't go as small as that - each indent would allow for a table and surrounding seating in the restaurant, theatre, library, bacon sandwich emporium etc.

While it would be pretty cool to have a building with an infinite surface area, it would also be hell, I would imagine, to keep clean.
-- zen_tom, Aug 08 2005

not complete chaos then.
-- po, Aug 08 2005

Ah, but are we just using the standard 2D projection of the set extended upwards, or do we go for a 3D slice to make a truly fractal building?

Of course, if you can somehow make it change shape over time, then you could incorporate all 4 dimensiones of the complete set, but then people might get crushed to death when their rooms vanish.
-- 5th Earth, Aug 08 2005

A small price to pay for such a harmony of mathematics.
-- pooduck, Aug 08 2005

I wonder why Time is so universally accepted as the 4th dimension. I refuse this as I consider the 4th dimension to be Mass. One drunken night I postulated 12 dimensions with the 13th being a logical next step and equal to the first dimension. I wish I knew where that piece of paper was.

I like the idea, by the way. + (I hope there'd only be one, though.)
-- Zimmy, Aug 09 2005

I don't know but the fact that we might all just be equations is quite depressing.

On a further note, I remember annoying my maths teacher by pointing out that the definition of a plane (a 2 dimensional surface) made no sense in a 3d universe, since it would be impossible to build a 2d object from 3d particles.
-- pooduck, Aug 09 2005

I'd like to see the 3d layout as a series of extruded domes, the radial polyps fluting up to join the main central vaults along the central axis. It ought to provide for a very strong structure, and, in the case of theatre venues, the acoustics should be impeccable.
-- zen_tom, Aug 09 2005

As for whether mass is a dimension, well yes and no. If it is a dimension, it must also share its dimensionality with energy, since the two are interchangeable.

My personal view on the dimensional questions posed here is that space and time are equally interchangeable with mass and energy, and in the end are all different manifestations of the same, singular thing. That thing, is a bacon sandwich.
-- zen_tom, Aug 09 2005

an architects' nightmare, shirley
-- dentworth, Aug 09 2005

[zen] that's an interesting point (about spatial, temporal and mass dimensions being interchangable) because it implies that if it were possible to change them about for an object, i.e. switch mass and a spatial dimension, then massless objects would either be two dimensional or have no time dimension.

I've royally confused myself now.
-- pooduck, Aug 09 2005

I think this is genius. Obviously, taking it down below the scale of 'single person seat' is probably pointless and should not be attempted, although 'cup holder' or even 'individual cheese straw holder' might be doable.
-- moomintroll, Aug 09 2005

(ponders sucking cheese through a straw, wonders what restaurants [moom] dines at)
-- Worldgineer, Aug 09 2005

There is something appealing about a hole in the wall, and this takes that to the limit. It would make a good bazaar.

Such structures could be built with only one half at first, using a floor to ceiling mirror along the middle, then doubled if more space were needed.

I imagine the floor pattern could be fantastic. If the ceiling were mirrored, too, it could be the setting for a stunning ballet.
-- dhill, Aug 09 2005

This is certainly an appealing idea but would it be at all practical? (I know, I know, practicality is hardly the hb's strong point.)

Not having a copy of the Mandelbrot set in front of me, from memory, wouldn't you end up with one very large space, one much smaller and then a few much, much smaller after which you'd just end up with tiny cubicles? You couldn't build a pub like this - to have lots of snugs you'd have to have a aircraft hangar sized main bar.

It would be interesting to work out how many practical spaces could be created from, say, the London Dome.
-- Gordon Comstock, Aug 11 2005

Pa've, that was the most eloquent posting you've written to my knowlege, even if I don't know what you're talking about. Who are you and what have you done with the real Pa've?

All I can say is, it sucks to be the carpet-fitters.
-- RayfordSteele, Aug 12 2005

There has to be a connection (space, time, mass and energy) if you are to believe e=mc2 and other Einsteinian notions of the universe. We've come to accept that mass 'bends' space and time, which would suggest that those properties are linked in some way we are yet to understand (I personally don't believe in the graviton for example) plus, and I think I've mentioned this before, space, and time have absolutely no meaning without matter - and vice-versa.

If there is a limit to the speed a thing can travel, and that limit is due to the behaviour of mass at light speeds, and if mass increases at these high speeds, and if gravity (the bending of space-time) is a function of mass - it would suggest - strongly, in my mind - that all of these things are much more closely related than current scientific thinking allows.

Has anyone ever figured out what 'space' is? Is it just the distance between masses? Is it possible to describe a distance (i.e. space/dimensionality) without having matter contained within it? For example, we define a metre as being the distance that light travels in such and such a time. But velocity is already function of distance and time(d/t). So is there a non self-referential way of describing distance?

Anyway, it's late, and I've had one too many ales - so I'll leave it there for the moment.
-- zen_tom, Aug 12 2005

Interesting one, this. It has been suggested space is generated by the relationships between particles.

For example a single particle has no dimensions at all because it there is nothing to compare it to, no reference point. Add another particle and you have relative dimensions between the two. Add more and you have more complex dimensionality. Something like that anyway.

It was also postulated that particles called tachyons existed that remained on the other side of the light-speed barrier; they never attained light-speed, they were always above it, so they didn't break any laws of relativity. But they introduced many more problems, specifically with causality, so they were resolved by reworking the theories.

[zen] since quantum theory says that all energy exchange occcurs in packets, there must be a 'graviton' to act as the quantized particle that carries gravitational energy from one place to another. Whether it is a real or virtual particle is another matter entirely.
-- pooduck, Aug 12 2005

I've never been partial to nooks or crannies and there's no way I'm installing tile in this puppy, but I will gladly watch someone else do it while loudly giving safety tips from the nearest lawn chair at no extra charge.
-- 2 fries shy of a happy meal, Aug 12 2005

I suppose to make walls with this complex a shape you'd have to make a form and pour some casting material, like concrete, around it. Then somehow raise the whole form and repeat. [illustrating my ignorance of the construction industry] That would be quite a form. Perhaps you could have a worldwide mobilization of retirees with routers and scroll saws to construct it. [Or use computer-aided engineering -- dull]

Some of the rooms would have entrances too small for adults to enter, and would probably fill up with cheese straws over time. They would need access hatches in the top in case children crawled in to play with the straws.
-- dhill, Aug 12 2005

If I remember correctly, the floorplan would need infinite materials to construct.
[zen_tom], I also have noted that all distance is finally referred to the speed of light, which is distance over time. I asked the question on google physics group, but there were no explanations forthcoming.
On another slant: I have wondered if inertia is apparent due to some action from the other masses in the Universe. By that, I mean if there were no other masses in the Universe, then an object could not be known to be travelling in a straight line. I'll shut up, now.
-- Ling, Aug 13 2005

I see tonight - it's still on - There is a show that is putting forth the likelihood of 11 dimensions.

& they put all that learning & work into it! It took me just a case n' a half of Milwaukee's Best, 2 packs of cigarettes, dim light & the wonder of everything to get an explaination of why the smoke made such beautiful patterns to get my 12 (13) dimensions.

If anyone here builds a time machine, I'd pay the ticket to find the pieces of paper I wrote it all down on!

If I can't look beyond the triviality & glamourizations of the show, I wonder of their claim that such was postulized "in the 80's". Heinlein's "The Number of the Beast" was published in 1980.
-- Zimmy, Feb 08 2006

The mandelbrot set is plotted on a complex plane with real numbers on the x-axis and imaginary numbers on the y-axis. Is there another set of unreal numbers that could be used for a z-axis so that we could plot the set (or whatever it becomes) in three dimensions?
-- wagster, Feb 08 2006

//[zen] since quantum theory says that all energy exchange occcurs in packets, there must be a 'graviton' to act as the quantized particle that carries gravitational energy from one place to another. Whether it is a real or virtual particle is another matter entirely.//

I'm not convinced that gravitational energy is of the same ilk. We don't for example have the idea of an 'inertion' that transmits the energy inherent in inertia. Gravity should be the same, shouldn't it? How can the 'shape' of spacetime be transmitted via some kind of particle? Having said that, I don't think I know exactly what the difference is between a real or a virtual particle (and the idea scares me somewhat) Is it just a neat way of doing the maths?
-- zen_tom, Sep 20 2006

Wouldn't the circumference of this floor be infinite, in which case the cost of the wallpaper would be prohibitive?
-- gtoal, Sep 20 2006

Client: When we contracted you to tile the bathroom, We had no idea how long it would take. How much have you done?

Contractor: 99. 9999999999999999999999 99999 9999999 99999 999% , say, another couple of weeks?
-- Dub, Sep 22 2006

Awesome,awesome to the max!
-- quantum_flux, Feb 28 2007

random, halfbakery