What is Symmetry ?

[leskey]

Don't know what this means ?? I would think the smallest amount would be the the Planck length in the Planck time.

The description is self-explanatory...your term, however, is not clear to the lay-person.

Yessssssssssss ...... Thats what I think too ...... leaving aside what caused the imbalance ...... the result would appear as 'spin'

Think of the imbalance as a hook - for making connections: connectivity.

[SteveA]

Regarding a couple concepts here: connectivity and spin

I believe spin is arises from seeing a finite segment of time. Time continues, but any closed system cycles ... similar to the wheels within wheels ideas etc. If you look at any finite segment of "the clock" the wheels rotate, but experiences continually include larger segments of this that makes the whole not repeat.

Another analogy is of an infinite line - there are no endpoints and it cannot be wrapped into a circle, but if we just view a segment then it can appear similar to ideas of warped spacetime as a circle instead.

So I don't think spin is the quanta, but it is an example of a quanta and potentially any system in time that describes the equivalent of perfect orbitals could be considered similar to a digit of the universal clock, but I believe all these "digits" occur over different periods and this is where we see motions appearing to synchronize in chaotic ways and that's where prime numbers and the vortex (which is just my basic way of describing all those forms of properties dependent upon closed systems synchronized in their motions).

I've posted before about this but there actually appears to be a specific chaotic form that would appear to arise by observing any and all random or synchronous systems that are closed/period when they're synchronized to a common timebase. Basically, the assumption that there exists a smallest discrete unit of change, in itself, implies a chaotic structure of growth when these are observed over time and interestingly enough it appears we can even assume that these systems are not synchronized (rather amazing, IMO) and still get the same result.

In other words, it appears there could be a way to simply take the concept of any and all possible motions in a space, but synchronize these to discrete/specific states by an observer and we automatically have a structure that basically "falls out of thin air" and it appears to be the same structure studied by most every field in science and number theory (maybe it depends upon the manner in which objects are assumed to move together or not and so it could be that some rudimentary intelligence or pattern matching and memory is what actually creates the apparent asymmetry).

Regarding connectivity and symmetry - if we look at a network, it appears the vertices/nodes/intersections are assumed asymmetric/unequal and distinguishable from each other, but the connections between these in a network are typically assumed to be symmetrical to each other. The only difference between line segments in a network is inherited by the endpoints and we could see this similar to the symmetry of empty space - all "points" (if such is possible) of space are indistinguishable. It's the objects within (or connected by) space that make spacial positions unique and distinguishable.

If we go back to the idea that all unknowns appear identical in that one unknown is indistinguishable from the other, then we have symmetries arising from unknowns and we similarly have symmetries arising in networks, not from the vertices which are assumed distinguishable, but the connections between them (there could be an asymmetry present in a network arising from the quantities of connections to a vertex/node if we consider motions within such a network and if we need information to describe a selection between multiple connections between vertices/nodes then this could be seen similar to an energy/photon interacting with that vertex/node in order to select which direction/connection/angle in space to move the state to next and such selections interestingly enough also have the equivalent of a chaotic spectrum because, for example, information present in terms of 1 of 2 selections cannot uniformly describe the selection of 1 of 3 transitions and if we grouped 2 such 1 of 2 selections, this actually gives us 1 of 2*2=4 possibilities and that still can't make a uniform selection for 1 of 3 transitions and it ends up being that relative prime components are incompatible in the same "energy"/n-way "selection space" so we have the equivalent of discrete spectral lines in this energy in terms of prime numbers - once again).

Anyway, I'm rather certain there's a lot to this but it's still hard to map it all out 1 to 1 with experiences and I've been trying to look at what the maximal form of complexity that can arise from such structures is and then hopefully begin with square #1 and map all these to the specific properties of experience associated with each of these possible forms - maybe we could find some missing links or physical or even mental properties that should be present and are being overlooked and such a "map" could help pinpoint nice spots to check out

[Graybeard]

The description is self-explanatory...your term, however, is not clear to the lay-person.

Planck Units are natural units .... they are probably the only objective measurements that are beyond dispute as being objective. They are not based on the properties of anything else ... such as a foot, or a metre, or a second or an hour. They a perfectly natural

cool bananas ... greg

[SteveA]

Planck Units are natural units .... they are probably the only objective measurements that are beyond dispute as being objective. They are not based on the properties of anything else ... such as a foot, or a metre, or a second or an hour. They a perfectly natural

cool bananas ... greg

The uncertainty principle leaves them non-specific in size or duration in time.

I believe there is a mental version of a Planck unit but a potentially a reciprocal relationship between physical/mental versions ... I'll skip the details for now, but basically I don't think the physically measured one is really showing the full space in which it exists and is only measure a subset of properties.

The information content of a quanta is determined by the space in which it exists. The Planck unit is a physical representation but, for example, "energy" is not truly a quantized property in all respects and we can't have tradeoffs between fundamental units of time and a vague "energy" metric.

I think Time Particle's name better describes what a fundamental quanta would be like and from there we could determine the context in which physical measurements are made and derive the uncertainty inherent between these and a Planck subset/space.

[austintorn@aol.com]

It's true about the eyes each seeing in 2-D, with the brain's visual system combining them into 3-D. To prove it, just close one eye—and you will see with the other only in 2D.

3-D TV is coming out now; it is made from two separated full HD cameras. I tried it at the store; it's about 90% great and perfect; images come out of the TV almost two feet, distant ones seeming to be about two feet into the TV. Sometimes it reminded me of the Viewmaster I had a a kid.

[SteveA]

It's true about the eyes each seeing in 2-D, with the brain's visual system combining them into 3-D. To prove it, just close one eye—and you will see with the other only in 2D.

3-D TV is coming out now; it is made from two separated full HD cameras. I tried it at the store; it's about 90% great and perfect; images come out of the TV almost two feet, distant ones seeming to be about two feet into the TV. Sometimes it reminded me of the Viewmaster I had a a kid.

If you add 2, 2 dimensional images together you don't get 3 dimensions though. The brain determines a depth component from the information so it's 2 dimensional information that's paired with a depth.

If we could really see in 3 dimensions, we could see the interiors of objects.

The mind and intelligence add depth. For example feeling an object with the surface of both hands instead of one does not add another dimension, it just doubles the information in the same dimensional form.

[Graybeard]

Steve ....... ya just gunna have to slow down buddy ... until I answer post 12

cool bananas ... greg

[Graybeard]

It's true about the eyes each seeing in 2-D, with the brain's visual system combining them into 3-D. To prove it, just close one eye—and you will see with the other only in 2D.

3-D TV is coming out now; it is made from two separated full HD cameras. I tried it at the store; it's about 90% great and perfect; images come out of the TV almost two feet, distant ones seeming to be about two feet into the TV. Sometimes it reminded me of the Viewmaster I had a a kid.

Dear Austin ... Sometimes a nod is as good as a wink between me and you .......... rotflmao

cool bananas buddy .... greg

[austintorn@aol.com]

If you add 2, 2 dimensional images together you don't get 3 dimensions though. The brain determines a depth component from the information so it's 2 dimensional information that's paired with a depth.

If we could really see in 3 dimensions, we could see the interiors of objects.

The mind and intelligence add depth. For example feeling an object with the surface of both hands instead of one does not add another dimension, it just doubles the information in the same dimensional form.

Yes,it adds the third dimension of depth, corresponding the the third dimension out there; we can only see into semi-trannsparent 3-D objects.

When one-eye blind, one can approximately deduce the 3rd dimension since more distant object seem smaller, plus, some objects are seen to be behind others.

[SteveA]

Steve ....... ya just gunna have to slow down buddy ... until I answer post 12

cool bananas ... greg

That's entirely fine. I probably shouldn't mention the new idea I'm working on then? (Basically I'm thinking there might be some interesting mappings in terms of information/energy exchange between motions occuring in two infinite networks - and it could appears an exchange of spectrums of informations It's a concept that's been vaguely on my mind for a while but I think I'm getting a better way to show it as something more concrete)