Prof Reza Sanaye

Yes/ All my Dears ! All Ladies & Gentlemen ! As you yourselves are gradually coming in the know , it's a highly exciting , very broad investigative field of "doing science" . . . . I am so glad that you are so affably with me . .. . .

Ladies and Gentlemen ! Many thanks for your deep interest in AND curiosity about the post I had posted a couple of days ago. I have here picked a number of topological and mereotopological "points" regarding physics & chemistry [ from various articles ] . For a start , they don't seem so bad to initiate us into some of the more complex matters. I have done this , of course , purposely .. . . . . . .I want all friends here on ScienceForum to know that what I say is not totally strange to present-day modality of research and investigation(s). However , these are NOT precisely my teams' and my own point . . .. . .. . The mereotopological approach may be compared to the common thermodynamical methodology to study chemical reactivity. It can be shown how the former indeed has numerous advantages and provides a more detailed description with respect to the latter about the course of the reaction. In this field the main objective is to predict and to describe the reaction path of an arbitrary process a priori, simply through analysis of the charge density. By means of mereotopolopgical approach(es) , it was shown that there is no expansion of the valence shell with violation of the octet rule as previously proposed by Pauling. Nevertheless the “hypervalency” theory is still widely evoked in many different chemistry text books, being the easiest way to give an apparently convincing description of chemical bonding, which does not require any knowledge about the quantum mechanics and electronic structure. In the discussion of the nature of electron-correlation effects in carbon nanorings and nanobelts using an analysis tool known as fractional occupation number weighted electron density (ρFOD) and the RAS-SF method, revealing for the first time significant differences in static correlation effects depending on how the rings (i.e. chemical units) are fused and/or connected until closing the loop. Studies have been done in detail over linear and cyclic oligoacene molecules of increasing size, relating the emerging differences with the difficulties for the synthesis of the latter due to their radicaloid character. Minor structural modifications of the cyclic forms can alter these results, showing the potential use of these systems as molecular templates for the growth of well-shaped carbon nanotubes as well as the usefulness of theoretical tools for molecular design. Topological materials have been working their way from theoretical physics into the world of experimental chemistry over the past decade, and the pace is quickening. The materials offer new challenges for chemists to synthesize compounds from hard-to-work-with elements, such as heavy metals. At the same time, topology is revealing new properties of materials that were thought to be well understood, like gold. The mechanical properties of physical gels generated by selectively swelling a homologous series of linear multiblock copolymers are investigated by quasistatic uniaxial tensile tests. The (mereo)topological slip-tube network model has been brought in to extract the contributions arising from network crosslinks and chain entanglements. The composition dependence of these contributions is established and considered in terms of simulations that identify the probabilities associated with chain conformations. The electronic structure of nonmagnetic crystals can be classified by complete theories of band topology, reminiscent of a “topological periodic table.” However, such a classification for magnetic materials has so far been elusive, and hence very few magnetic topological materials have been discovered to date. In a new study published in the journal Nature, an international team of researchers has performed the first high-throughput search for magnetic topological materials, finding over 100 new magnetic topological insulators and semimetals. Unlike their nonmagnetic counterparts, magnetic compounds currently cannot be classified by automated topological methods. Instead, research on magnetic topological materials has been performed ad hoc, and has been motivated by their potential applications as effective thermoelectric converters, energy-efficient components in microelectronic devices that could be at the heart of quantum computers, or improved magnetic storage media. However, even though the first theoretical studies of topological materials and their properties in the early 1980’s were devised in magnetic systems – efforts awarded with the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2016, the past 40 years of advances in topological materials discovery have largely come in the areas of nonmagnetic topological insulators and semimetals.

Reza Sanaye + Swansont Continued : A paradox does NOT fall merely exactly into the realm of modern physics when we come to describe and/or delineate it between us . . . There is , of course , no doubt that it has gotten physicalistic facets to it. However , this is NOT the whole story. Even the most objectivist philosophers of science in Wien Circle had to adopt the name "Logical Positivists" for themselves. This makes it absolutely clear that they felt intense need for the Logic [ or : Logics ] of their extreme version of Positivism. On the other hand , the very widespread application of a variety of mathematical sciences in modern physics is yet another remarkable clue to the facticity that you cannot phenomenologise paradoxes only through the means of PHYSICalism . We are certainly in need of some of the most theoretical mathematical abductions and abstractions to justify our understanding of the "hardware" building up the world around us : either down to the femto- and atto-level or up at inter-galactic scales .... . ..

It IS a paradox. . . . Assumptions themselves do NOT arise from any (a) prior experiential intuiting . . .

The answer to this question {{ can a paradox exist in nature? }} is YES. As things go paradoxically in logics , so do things in Mother Nature , but in a dualistically objective manner. Say, Physicalistic manner. When datawave happen to diverge from fields in which energy carriers may or may not collide , the information itself happens to get a differing reference coordinance or an identical one. It is for this reason that a certain emanation of a field can/cannot particularize itself into the format of a (sub-)particle at a certain place with a certain velocity distribution .

As in themselves , constituents of Being are NOT generally understood to be multiplicities. This allows us to see a single image of myriad differing "beings" prior to all diversity or differentiation. If we deny that there are such infinite entities , then we are ipso facto denying the existence of things themselves. The purely physicalystic approach dictates us to think of infinity only in terms of infinities. The primary concern here should be how the univocity of infinities could be phrased. This , in the first glance , may appear quite irrelevant. I am duty-bound to point out that there is no circularity assumed in this way of perceiving Infinity.

I don't think this is a pointless question. Under the function of the vector space, a subspace is closed. In this case, it must be a number if you add two vectors to the space. The formal description of a subspace is the following: the zero vector must be used. So if, by definition, you take any vector in the space and add it to be negative, sum is the zero-vector. An object created by perpendicular intersections of lines drawn from points on the object to a projection plane may not generally be represented in two dimensions, as orthography, by the arbitrated reference system or by being in or outside. Original pairs may thus translate further back OR further on to intensified bifurcations in arbitrary-axes subspace.

Undoubtedly a (deep) knowledge of semantics could potentially bring on [much] better yields of comprehension . . . .But I personally think that I do know what I'm talking about . . . .WITH ALL DUE RESPECT ,,,,,,

Occam's razor , in my view , is becoming even yet more necessitated in present-day science. So many simulations & quazi-modelling(s) of true objectivity have been created merely based on computer and supercomputer facilities , THAT WE FEEL LOST IN A JUNGLE OF ONLY EPI-PHENOMENOLOGICAL ASSERTIONS UNDER THE NAME OF OBJECTIVE SCIENCE. I dare say this process has been going on during the past half-century : it shows of itself no sign of retraction ........

The less advanced branches of maths with fewer applications in physics and chemistry , promise to be fertile fields for answering some of the most outstanding , most significant questions in these areas of knowledge . .. Teams under me are more theoretically than practically going this way to unearth a number of principles playing all but axiological role in physical chemistry . . .. Rector Reza Sanaye I Should have hardly though bringing out answers to important physics' and chemistry's quires would be feasible through the means of mereotopology ..... Pooria Solhjoo---MS