As is usual for this time of year, it's been hard to get motivated. I've got to the end of the week thinking that I haven't done anything, although one or two things I have done have been quite good.
Involving Peter Rowlands in my academic department at Manchester I hope will be the most significant thing from this week. Peter and Sidney came to our departmental meeting - so what can a genius theoretical physicist contribute to our thinking about occupational health or public health? Well, one thing came up almost immediately - there is a deep interest in the University in the potential occupational hazards, and potential opportunities for improving OH in the widespread use of graphene. Any new material presents new kinds of risks, but to understand it, we need to understand what the material is.
In his book "Foundations of Physical Law", Peter made a prediction relating to graphene and the measurement of fermion velocity. Basically, one of the properties of graphene is that electrons (fermions) have no mass, and therefore can travel at speeds very close to the speed of light. Graphene presents opportunities for investigating the behaviour of electrons and quantum mechanics. One of the interesting empirical phenomena is the Quantum Hall effect, whereby the resistence of current flow can be seen to be quantized (i.e. goes in steps) in what are called Landau Levels as a magnetic field is increased. Peter's prediction is that as the magnetic field is increased, so the speed of electrons is reduced because they acquire mass.
Might this fundamental property of the material relate in some way to the biological effects that the material might present? Or even, might the insight gained into the dynamics of quantised energy through graphene cause us to rethink the simplistic cause and effect models in occupational health or public health? I think both of these questions are very interesting. It all goes to show the power of an interdisciplinary approach to these things - particularly if we are lucky enough to get a concentration of highly original thinkers.
The second thing that happened this week was that I managed to finish a short article in response to a piece by Lou Kauffman on "naming" for the journal Constructivist Foundations. This week, Lou has also been leading a discussion on "Biologics" for the Foundations of Information Science mailing list, and gave a webinar which was attended by Peter Rowlands, Stuart Kauffman, John Torday, Plamen Simeonov, Karl Javorszky, Gordana Dodig Crnkovic and many others from FIS. There were one or two important things that came out of this which were new to me.
Lou began with self-reference (as he did with the paper he wrote about naming), and quickly moved on to the difference between form and process. In the flow of conversation, Stu Kauffman introduced the recent idea of "constraint closure" developed by Mael Montevil and Matteo Mosseo (see Biological organisation as closure of constraints - Maël Montévil). I wish Loet Leydesdorff was still around - I think he would have been very interested in this. It also raises fundamental questions about the "self" to which a "self" refers in self-reference (which was one of the questions I raised in my response to Lou).
Then Plamen Simeonov raised the work of a Russian biologist called Peter Garyaev on what he called "wave genetics". Garyaev has an unusual take on genetics which took him to postulate mechanisms for genetic transmission far beyond conventional biology, some of which involved sound and music. This is obviously interesting to me - but it could be mad. But aren't the most interesting things like this? Wave genetics - Institute Of Lingvistiko-Wave Genetics. There may be a connection to Rudolph Steiner here - but why not!
There was a fascinating moment when John Torday tried to relate his thinking about symbiogenesis to Lou's thinking about the place of mathematics in biological systems. John's view is that maths is ontological in some way, and which is endogenised by biological systems through symbiogenesis, which provides the foundation for the cultural practices of mathematics that we know. This made Lou think and I suggested whether this idea of symbiogenesis and the embrace of evolutionary history as a dimension to the "constraint closure" might provide us with a way of uniting "form" with "process".
A final question I asked related to what a protein perceives in another protein. Lou responded by illustrating a knot in a plastic chain (some kind of lego thing - very interesting), and saying that one could determine the topology of a chain by pulling parts of it. I think that's very interesting because the "floppyness" of the chain becomes a transmitter of information about the chain - so the inherent "disorder" of many proteins may present an invitation to be "pulled" by other proteins.
Related to this was a comment made by Peter Rowlands about measurement earlier in the week: when we measure gravity, we are not measuring gravity but inertia. The same might be said for pulling on a protein.
