What is Symmetry ?

[smith john]

An equilateral triangle has both bilateral and radial symmetry. It has bilateral symmetry because you can split it (vertically) in half and both parts will be equal. it has radial symmetry because you can draw three lines out from the center point at equal angles and the three pieces formed will all be equal.

[WHY 137?]

An equilateral triangle has both bilateral and radial symmetry. It has bilateral symmetry because you can split it (vertically) in half and both parts will be equal. it has radial symmetry because you can draw three lines out from the center point at equal angles and the three pieces formed will all be equal.

but the symmetry properties of the triangle is described by the words radial and bilateral.

are broken symmetry, anti-symmetry and asymmetry all terms describing the same lack of 'perfect' symmetry?

what is perfect symmetry?
I can think of the circle or sphere.

how many other objects or designs can claim to have perfect symmetry.

so words like bilateral and radial represent the fact symmetry is not just about the left side matching the right.
the 'kind' of symmetry needs to be defined to.

but the universe we observe is in fact more about asymmetry than symmetry.
sure the experts yak about symmetry ALL THE TIME...but often it is revealed what they are discussing is the 'symmetry of the parts' that make up the whole.
And not all of the 'parts' are in fact symmetrical at all.

What is symmetry?
I feel asymmetry begins where symmetry ends.

Eden represents a perfection, an implied symmetry or balance.
But Life is more representative of the fall ... the asymmetrical realities.

Matter and anti-matter are asymmetric or anti-symmetric.

namaste

[Graybeard]

What symbol is 12,000 years old and comes in two flavors, described as clockwise and counterclockwise?
And the 10,000 BCE date coincides with mythical Atlantis too?

Yes gentlemen I challenge you to name that ONE symbol that has an ASYMMETRICAL version of itself, at least 12,000 years old, found the world over, helping to illustrate how the 'building blocks' on all dimensions share the geometry of asymmetry, building blocks like matter and anti-matter, DNA, amino acids, crystals, and even the heliosphere is asymmetrical.

From everything Macro to everything micro the asymmetrical building block has a role to play.
All of the above can be connected to our asymmetrical L/R hands, or handedness, and to that symbol I ask you to name, that is defined by the fact there are two versions, not one, like most people believe.

ASYMMETRY a most auspicious ‘Theory of Everything’

http://kachina2012.wordpress.com/200...-of-everthing/

namaste

I don't know ... but DNA is older than 12K ??


Matter and anti-matter are two forms of matter. Neither has a 'reality' over the other. Neither is temporary, or both are temporary. We prefer, and are familiar with, matter ... but this is subjective because we are made from it. But anti-matter is just as 'legitimate'.

Regarding matter in its mirror image form (not anti-matter). At first it was believed that they were identical ... that is a 'left-hand-drive' car would behave the same as a 'right-hand-drive' car ...two clocks, one built as a mirror image of the other would both keep the same time. Left cannot (by Physical Laws) be distinguished from right and north cannot be distinguished from south.

In other words by flipping all 3 spatial co-ordinates there is no change under the Laws of Physics. Reflexion Symmetry.

The idea that this may not be true was slowly growing through the first half of the last century and it was suggested that parity may not be conserved. But this was not taken seriously until the Lee-Yang experiment in 1957. Basically the Lee-Yang experiment showed that only the left-handed attributes of particles and the right-handed attributes of anti-particles participate in Weak interactions. it was shown that parity is conserved by the EM force, Gravity, and the Strong Nuclear force ... but not the Weak Nuclear force.

This led Feynman to propose the following hypothesis:

That if we were to build a clock out of matter (wot else ?) that marks time by counting electron flow instead of a spring ... and also to construct another clock (out of matter) as a mirror image of the original then these two clocks would keep different time. It can be easily shown that you must also reverse north-south poles as surely as you reverse all the spatial co-ordinates in a mirror image according to the laws of magnetism and current flow.

The two clocks would record different times. One would count less electrons ejected from the cobalt than the other. This turns out to be true for all matter ? Parity is not respected by the Weak Force. Reflexion symmetry does not hold.



Feynman's hypothesis is that matter comes in all 4 forms .... following diagrams.



If matter <> antimatter (or mirror-image-matter and mirror-image-anti-matter) contact they annihilate, (presumably because they are symmetrical and opposite) [below]



Matter and Mirror-image-matter interact freely and normally (in fact the observable universe is probably made up of both ?) [below]



But Matter and Mirror-image-anti-matter do not interact at all (nor mirror-image-matter and anti-matter) They have the same attributes. [below]




And, in a roundabout way, symmetry is restored by this hypothesis.

These are the components that make up the Universe and the non-interacting parts are candidates for Dark matter/Dark energy. The fact that they do not appear in equal quantities may have its roots in the evolution of the Universe in the first few nano-seconds.

This was proposed by Feynman.

Wot do you think ?

cool bananas ... greg

[Graybeard]

I also proposed what the NOBEL winners in physics did last year, in a different language called poeTREE.

The Buddha found the same language while sitting under the Bodhi Tree.

I read some of your blog but couldn't quite get to grips with the asymmetry ? Where is the actual theory link ?

There is no such thing as a Bodhi tree, or alternatively, all trees are Bodhi trees ?

cool bananas ... greg

[WHY 137?]

Feynman's hypothesis is that matter comes in all 4 forms .... following diagrams.



If matter <> antimatter (or mirror-image-matter and mirror-image-anti-matter) contact they annihilate, (presumably because they are symmetrical and opposite) [below]



Matter and Mirror-image-matter interact freely and normally (in fact the observable universe is probably made up of both ?) [below]



But Matter and Mirror-image-anti-matter do not interact at all (nor mirror-image-matter and anti-matter) They have the same attributes. [below]




And, in a roundabout way, symmetry is restored by this hypothesis.

These are the components that make up the Universe and the non-interacting parts are candidates for Dark matter/Dark energy. The fact that they do not appear in equal quantities may have its roots in the evolution of the Universe in the first few nano-seconds.

This was proposed by Feynman.

Wot do you think ?

cool bananas ... greg

I think those are cool diagrams, and Feynman's explanation of a four-fold symmetry, will help me in trying to explain how Witten/Penrose Twistor String Theory and PT+ and PT- apply to this puzzle greg.

Hey maybe you can help me solve what I recovered by accident?

PT+ and PT-
but your Feynman example suggests an RT+ and RT- too?

Did I mention I believe I can connect Ed Witten notation to the 2000 year old Sator Square?
Both being algorithms for the 'creation'?
http://www.toequest.com/forum/string...tml?highlight=




Wot do you think?

namaste

[SteveA]

but the symmetry properties of the triangle is described by the words radial and bilateral.

are broken symmetry, anti-symmetry and asymmetry all terms describing the same lack of 'perfect' symmetry?

what is perfect symmetry?
I can think of the circle or sphere.

how many other objects or designs can claim to have perfect symmetry.

so words like bilateral and radial represent the fact symmetry is not just about the left side matching the right.
the 'kind' of symmetry needs to be defined to.

but the universe we observe is in fact more about asymmetry than symmetry.
sure the experts yak about symmetry ALL THE TIME...but often it is revealed what they are discussing is the 'symmetry of the parts' that make up the whole.
And not all of the 'parts' are in fact symmetrical at all.

What is symmetry?
I feel asymmetry begins where symmetry ends.

Eden represents a perfection, an implied symmetry or balance.
But Life is more representative of the fall ... the asymmetrical realities.

Matter and anti-matter are asymmetric or anti-symmetric.

namaste

Thanks much for your post and my thoughts are similar that symmetry is more of the mental ideal of numbers or quantity. All numbers are equal in the fact that they are distinct and figuratively "asymmetrical", relative to each other.

An interesting question is what came first - was a singularity and perfect symmetry broken, or are things fundamentally all unique and not identical?

Notice that in the context of two angles or sides of a plane being symmetrical, this means that via some transformation they can be made to be superimposed and identical to each other (a rotation could overlap two angles and make them indistinguishable or a folding of a plane could make the two halves of the plane overlap identically), but in neither of these examples was anything truly identical in all respects.

All identical things should appear as the same thing and not be perceived as multiple - there's a non-linearity and maybe the source of the rest, 1+1+1+1+1+...=1, because if all these 1s were truly identical it wouldn't matter how many you stack in the same position, you've still got the same object and that's a description of an operation like a boolean truth statement, OR http://www.upriss.org.uk/maths/mlec3.pdf.

(Warning: A bit of technical rambling follows)

If you invert this statement and create a NOT OR or NOR, then you have an operation that is capable of Universal Computation http://www.cs.uiowa.edu/~ghosh/02-21-08.pdf and that would be like saying that 1+1 is NOT equal to 1, whereas fundamentally all 1s should be identical and indistinguishable without some additional context, so it's interesting to see that potentially the belief or definition that 1+1=2 could be seen as potentially fundamentally flawed, but that such a "flaw" (the treatment of both 1s as identical or commutative and compressible) could also allow for constructing arbitrary forms of computation.

There are two ways of looking at how this could occur physically and they're complimentary representations of each other. One version could be seen as more logical and it, at most, preserves information (which I see as fundamentally representing the ability to distinguish between things and retain quantities), the other view is of a creative growth. Both views are related to each other, but it depends upon what one believes is "out there".

If we were to assume there exists an infinite quantity of distinct/asymmetrical/unequal objects/properties etc. "out there" and that our perceptions compress these, then the observer is creating the symmetry/equality/uniformity/superpositions. If instead we say that there's a creative action and that a singularity is continually split into a diversity of distinct components, then we're looking at this in reverse (but then we could ask where those detectable properties arise from that allow for these newly constructed asymmetries to be detected).

A quick summary of some of my preferences on fitting these ideas together are:

1) There exists an infinite diversity of objects, which are experienced with unique qualities (similar to individual conscious quanta of qualia).
2) Oneself is ones origin in this (the quanta in that case would be likely associated with the perception of ones existence).
3) Additional "external" qualia can be added to this and we derive the concept of numbers or quantity, though these are also correlated with specific quanta/qualia (for example, adding a second quality of perception would appear to be similar to adding the contrasting sense of self/otherness and be a binary symmetry)
4) There is implied in this a preexisting capability for growth and this could be seen similar to having these fundamentally organized linearly as a number line and time or change arising from additions in a single dimension.
5) Elements already present can be reorganized in various ways and be conserved. This creates a mathematical space of relationships between these qualities of experience.
6) If all things are unique, then there is not a fundamental truth to statements of precise identity or equality and such are constructed (similar to numbers) by ignoring some asymmetry/inequality/nonidentity. This is similar to taking a uniform space of possibilities and compressing it into a non-uniform distribution and represents non-linear computation, information masking and is similar to gravity or "warps" and loops in space, which allows for the construction of specific wavelengths and sub-light speed "motions" (if all motions were in a straight line at light speed, this represents no continuity with the past, whereas any repeatable references/landmarks for a space require repetition/symmetry/equality).

I guess I'll stop there, but a basic analogy for how I think the perception of space can be generated/learned from experience could be given by a simple analogy of seeing a repeating sequence of objects: If someone was moving and saw rock, tree, bush, rock, tree, bush, rock, tree ... repeating, then this would most naturally be assumed to be a triangular motion. In the context of a memory of witnessing these as repetitions, it never repeats, but in terms of an isolated witnessing of physical objects, then it could be assumed to be a repetition and the "physical space" is a compressed representation of the space of experiences that generated it.

[Graybeard]

I think those are cool diagrams, and Feynman's explanation of a four-fold symmetry, will help me in trying to explain how Witten/Penrose Twistor String Theory and PT+ and PT- apply to this puzzle greg.

Hey maybe you can help me solve what I recovered by accident?

PT+ and PT-
but your Feynman example suggests an RT+ and RT- too?

Did I mention I believe I can connect Ed Witten notation to the 2000 year old Sator Square?
Both being algorithms for the 'creation'?
Wot do you think?

namaste

Unfortunately mate ... I don't know much more than I have shown.

My understanding of string theory is limited.

HERE is all I know .... ED WITTEN ... On a String and a Prayer

cool bananas ... greg