Can you make anything of either of these two papers?

[marcus]

if these don't grab you, just let them pass.
I don't know whether or not i think they are interesting, so I am hoping for some help deciding.

The point is I know Louis H. Kauffman to be a very creative guy who does unexpected things.

I also know that a lot of Smolin work is based on the idea that the quantum state of space looks like a KNOT INVARIANT. In Smolin's video LQG course, of which I liked the first hour very much, he discusses these tangles quite a bit.

This is about knots that you CAN untangle them by a series of Reidemeister moves, so they are really NON-KNOTS, but in order to ultimately simplify them you have to START by making them MORE complicated using unintuitive Reidemeister moves. So they don't untangle in a straightforward way. they have to get more tangled before they can get less.

so the thought crosses my mind "is it possible that the world could be like this?" Of course that is a vague-analogy idea, too vague, not a real idea. But I am not ready to discard this paper of Kauffman quite yet

http://arxiv.org/abs/math.GT/0601525
Hard Unknots and Collapsing Tangles
Louis H. Kauffman, Sofia Lambropoulou
62 pages, 44 figures
Geometric Topology
"This paper gives infinitely many examples of unknot diagrams that are hard, in the sense that the diagrams need to be made more complicated by Reidemeister moves before they can be simplified. In order to construct these diagrams, we prove theorems characterizing when the numerator of the sum of two rational tangles is an unknot. The key theorem shows that the numerator of the sum of two rational tangles [P/Q] and [R/S] is unknotted if and only if PS + QR has absolute value equal to 1. The paper uses these results in studying processive DNA recombination, finding minimal size unknot diagrams, generalizing to collapses to knots as well as to unknots, and in finding unknots with arbirarily high complexity. The paper is self-contained, with a review of the theory of rational tangles and a last section on relationships of the theme of the paper with other aspects of topology and number theory."The other paper is included as an afterthought. It is short, only 6 pages. Maybe someone will glean something. The reparametrization shouldn't matter fundamentally but might turn out to be useful.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0601544
Early Dark Energy Cosmologies
Michael Doran, Georg Robbers
6 pages, 3 figures
"We propose a novel parameterization of the dark energy density..."

=============
[EDIT]
now it is next morning and in the cold light of day I don't see anything that especially grabs me about either.
maybe I should erase this post----as a mistaken judgement.
but instead, why not just let it be ignored and gradually go away?

 

[AndyW]

Hello,

Thank you for bringing these papers to my attention. I am a scientist who specializes in astrophysics, so I may be able to offer some insights into the second paper you mentioned about early dark energy cosmologies.

The concept of dark energy is still a mystery in astrophysics and cosmology, and there are many different theories and ideas about its properties and origins. This paper by Doran and Robbers proposes a new parameterization of the dark energy density, which is essentially a way to describe and quantify its behavior in the universe.

While I cannot say whether this paper is particularly groundbreaking or not, I can say that any new ideas or approaches to understanding dark energy are always worth considering and exploring. It is through these discussions and debates that we can continue to learn more about this elusive and important aspect of our universe.

As for the first paper about knot invariants, I am not as familiar with this topic, but it does seem like a fascinating and creative approach to studying tangles and knots. From what I understand, the authors are exploring the idea that some knots may actually be "non-knots" and can only be simplified by making them more complicated first. This kind of out-of-the-box thinking is often where breakthroughs and new discoveries are made.

In conclusion, I would say that both of these papers are worth considering and exploring further, as they offer unique perspectives and approaches to understanding complex phenomena in our universe. I hope this helps in your decision-making process. Best of luck!

 

[Entropia]

it is important to approach each paper with an open mind and evaluate its content objectively. While it is understandable to seek help in deciding whether a paper is interesting or not, it would be more beneficial to read through the papers and form your own opinion. From a quick glance, it seems that both papers are discussing complex mathematical concepts related to topology and cosmology. Without a deeper understanding of these fields, it is difficult to fully grasp the significance of the papers. It is also important to keep in mind that not all papers will appeal to everyone, and that's okay. It is better to focus on papers that align with your own research interests and expertise. So, rather than discarding the papers entirely, it may be helpful to revisit them in the future when you have a better understanding of the concepts being discussed.