Science > Physics > Nonrenormalization vs Renormalization 16: Interdisciplinary Cosmology-Biology
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"OsherD" |
| Date: |
19 Apr 2006 04:06:59 PM |
| Object: |
Nonrenormalization vs Renormalization 16: Interdisciplinary Cosmology-Biology |
From Osher Doctorow
Take a look at Jorg Frauendiener's (U. Tubingen, Germany) "Conformal
infinity," Max Planck Society 2 February 2004, which is accessible on
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/lrr-2004-1, to see one reason why
Evolution Equations relate to infinity vs finiteness issues, and then
look under keyword "Kramers" in arXiv and Front for the Mathematics
ArXiv, which latter brings up 73 papers in arXiv and 20 in Front for
the Mathematics ArXiv. Most of these latter two sources' papers relate
to H.A. Kramers and his Kramers Equation, which seems to have been
entirely missed by sci.physics.research and John Baez' sites online.
This is in preparation for the next section of this thread, although I
may discuss it further briefly in this section.
Cosmology in physics is quite concerned with how matter and mass are
created (and from what if anything), and biology (especially medicine)
is very concerned with how viruses and cancer are created, and I'd like
to indicate how the two topics may be very closely related in a general
sense and also in specific senses so that an interdisciplinary
Cosmology-Biology research should arguably be a top priority.
The most interesting clue comes from the HIV/AIDS virus, which
resembles a sphere with spikes or straight pointed horns facing outward
from the sphere perpendicularly in various directions. This suggests
that the boundary of the virus may be important in how the virus was
created. But what kind of boundary consists of pointed spikes with
intermittent smoothness of spherelike or circular types? Let's hold
that thought for a moment as we ask what the cosmology
generation-of-matter picture looks like.
Cosmology is one of the most innovative and in fact "open-minded"
branches of physics, perhaps because in the words of Janice Joplin
"there's nothing left to lose" in cosmology since Materialists don't
get instant gratification from it so to speak. But the
generation-of-matter pictures or origin-of-matter pictures are so
diverse and unrelated to each other that one might suspect that
Materialism has somehow managed to get its clutches into the field.
It always (well, often) helps me to go back to G. 't Hooft of the
Spinoza Institute of U. Utrecht, Netherlands, for whom boundaries
rather than interiors are critical via his Holographic Principle. So
why not regard matter as generated first from boundaries and only
afterward being "filled in"?
Maybe this sounds too simple, but I've only increased my respect for
simplicity over the years, so let's ask how this might work in
practice. And now we get into a difficulty. Nobody knows. But let's
take this question back to biology and ask it there.
Suppose, as in my previous part of this thread, friction or drag or
"generalized friction" from ultraviolet radiation generates viruses
under various conditions. How would friction (to use one word to
refer to all of these) generate a "boundary", somewhat similarly to how
an artist might paint the outline of an object before filling in the
inside and/or outside?
The most immediate answer that occurs to me is this: friction in
organisms tends to cause pain, and pain often causes sensitivity to the
part of the body involving the pain, which is the boundary of the body
or of the affected organ/tissue. "Sensitivity" is arguably increased
attention to the relevant parts of the boundary. The human body has
various relatively spiked or pointed parts including fingers and toes,
arguably tips of ears and for some people event tip of the nose,
although fingers and toes probably come closest among those listed to
being "pointed". But for males, the sexual and urinary organ (penis)
is more or less pointed, arguably more than fingers or toes.
The virus for AIDS/HIV supposedly comes from rhesus monkeys in Africa,
although there are some reports of it in other small animals rather
recently, and the previous paragraph applies rather unchanged to them
too. However, we probably should keep an open mind as to whether
there is more than one way that AIDS/HIV originated.
It's becoming rather obvious that the AIDS/HIV virus according to this
picture is "fixated" on the outline of the human or rhesus monkey or
other animal body which has spikes or pointed objects in between rather
continuous skin. The hair or fur might even translate as "spiked" or
pointed, though this is an open question. Between "spikes" the animal
bodies aren't spherical, but the central processing units (CPUs) or
brains are, and there are reflexes involving "curling up into a womb
position" which is relatively spherical. Primitive life forms and
cells of many types tend to be either circular or spherical.
Osher Doctorow
.
|
|
| User: "OsherD" |
|
| Title: Re: Nonrenormalization vs Renormalization 16: Interdisciplinary Cosmology-Biology |
19 Apr 2006 04:54:20 PM |
|
|
From Osher Doctorow
Now let's return to cosmology, and ask: what was the "boundary of the
Universe" like when it was at or near its beginning or re-beginning for
those who argue for the neo-cyclic type theories?
But does anybody notice that even this question would not have been
asked without the biological example, because physics tends to think
the of the Universe as having no literal boundary (otherwise there
would be an "outside"!)?
What I am saying is that if cosmology and biology are closely related
to the extent of the previous posting, then we are back to my earlier
arguments that "Universe" is relative and that nothing including the
Universe fails to have an outside as far as we know.
If cosmology and biology are similar with regard to the Holographic
Principle, then the earliest Universe arguably had a boundary and there
was therefore something on the outside! Although it seems
counter-intuitive in some ways, in other ways it just says that the
Universe resembles what we see and hear and feel in our daily lives,
namely that everything as far as we know has an inside and outside and
boundary. More theoretically perhaps, there is another kind of
"principle of relativity," namely that the motions of objects including
the Universe are only measurable with respect to other objects!
It does seem to go against the usual definitions in logic and set
theory, but Steven Weinberg's Effective Gauge Quantum Field Theory has
already introduced us to the notion that theories depend on our present
level of energy technology and are relative to them. A "final theory"
might not be, but his original idea arguably had merit.
So how do we define the physical Universe? I'd suggest defining it up
to the limits of our present energy technology and the limits of what
we now can detect. We don't assume anymore than there's "nothing"
beyond. Whatever if anything is "beyond" is in "another Universe"!
And in a rather ironic sense, the idea of Multiverses may well apply to
our own "real" models and "reality"!
Osher Doctorow
.
|
|
|
| User: "OsherD" |
|
| Title: Re: Nonrenormalization vs Renormalization 16: Interdisciplinary Cosmology-Biology |
19 Apr 2006 05:06:25 PM |
|
|
From Osher Doctorow
I meant to type in the last paragraph: "We don't assume anymore that
there's "nothing" beyond, rather than what I typed which used the word
"than" instead of "that".
By the way, since our telescopes and other detectors have improved,
what happens when we find stars and other objects that we didn't detect
before? Well, I should be more precise when saying that whatever if
anything is "beyond" is in "another Universe." Part of it is, and
part of it may be in ours (subject to the condition that we detect it).
The Universe may have expanded to what we detect, or we may be
detecting part of another Universe. If the Universe did expand into
another Universe, it would be awfully difficult to detect that by the
detectors that we have anyway. To all appearances, unless we find
"weird objects", it should look as though our Universe has "taken over"
part of the other Universe into which it has expanded. Of course,
quasars are a bit weird. But there are different explanations for
them, and I wouldn't want to cause anybody to faint :>)
Osher Doctorow
.
|
|
|
| User: "OsherD" |
|
| Title: Re: Nonrenormalization vs Renormalization 16: Interdisciplinary Cosmology-Biology |
19 Apr 2006 05:17:55 PM |
|
|
From Osher Doctorow
I suppose that I should give a slight indication of where I'm going
with Kramers Equation in the next section (if I live long enough :>)
Look at "Kramers equation and supersymmetry," by Julien Tailleur et al
of PMMH UMR Paris, France, cond-mat/0503545 v2 7 Apr 2995, where
Kramers Equation throws in noise and friction in situations where
inertia plays a role. By the way, Kramer's equation in their
formulation looks like a generalized Riccati Differential equation,
this time "partial" (the time derivative being replaced by a partial
derivative with respect to time). In another paper that I'll try to
cite later, Kramer's equation applies when velocity correlations decay
slowly for Brownian motion scenarios.
Osher Doctorow
.
|
|
|
| User: "OsherD" |
|
| Title: Re: Nonrenormalization vs Renormalization 16: Interdisciplinary Cosmology-Biology |
19 Apr 2006 05:32:21 PM |
|
|
From Osher Doctorow
Wow, I typed 2995 instead of 2005 in the last post. Well, it's either
a real typo (most likely possibility, I think) or my subconscious
picked up something from the future (never happened to me before, but
who knows?), or something in the present stimulated it. Let's see,
that's 89 years approximately away - roughly 90. Another whole
generation of people. Maybe somebody's worried about the survival of
the planet (including me being worried), or the average 90-year old
Ayatollah is saying his last rites before he launches a missile. If he
makes as many typos as me, he might just miss the USA and hit Aruba -
Oops, what am I saying? A nice island that that ? :>)
Osher
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
