BRIEF* HISTORY* of* SYMMETRY and* ASYMMETRY.* / by Socratus /


socratus
#1
** BRIEF* HISTORY* of* SYMMETRY and* ASYMMETRY.* / by Socratus /
=====…
** a)*
In 1905* Einstein involved negative time in his SRT.
b)
Nobody knew what negative time* can mean* and therefore Minkowski in 1908
changed negative time into positive time creating 4-D spacetime.
The theory became very beautiful* and as a young physicist said me:
‘ My professor says that you cannot be physicist if you don’t understand
the beauty of SRT in Minkowski’s interpretation.’ but . . .* but nobody knew
and nobody knows* what 4-D really is.* (!)
So, Minkowski was the first person who put symmetry between time and space-dimension.
c)
‘ In 1918 Emmy Noether published theory that every differentiable symmetry
of the action of a physical system has a corresponding conservation law.
Noether's theorem has become a fundamental tool of modern theoretical physics,
both because of the insight it gives into conservation laws, and also,
as a practical calculation tool. ‘
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmy_Noether
So, thanks* to* Noether the symmetries were legitimate in physics.
d)*
In 1919 Kaluza said that Minkowski’s interpretation is very beautiful, but his theory
doesn’t have forces. Therefore he took* gravitation and electromagnetic forces
as one more* dimension and create 5-D universe.
So, Kaluza* was the* first person who put symmetry between forces and dimension.
e)
To explain and to prove Kaluza’s theory* O.Klein* in 1926 suggested that one dimension
can wrap into* very – very small region – universe, but . . .* but** Mincowski 4-D would
stay unchanged.* (!)
So, Klein was the person who wrapped gravitation and electromagnetic forces
into very –very small region.
Mathematically the theory was beautiful* and interesting but*
nobody knew* what 5-D is and how one* dimension can wrap. (!)
f)
It was passed about 50 years.
New forces were discovered and some physicists came to conclusion that
quantum particle cannot be ‘a point’. Quantum particle as** ‘a point’* doesn’t reflect
the thru image / face of quantum particle.* And because quantum particle at the same
time is a wave therefore it must vibrate for example as a string of violin or guitar.
But this string-particle needs 10 or* 11 – dimensions.
All dimensions except Minkowski* 4-D must wrap.
Minkowski 4-D keeps unchanged.* (!)
Later was invented another kind of string – loop string-particle that needed
26 or 27 dimensions. And again – in this theory Minkowski 4-D is unchanged. (!)
Physicists say that these theories are very beautiful.
The problem is that nobody** knows if these extra- dimensions and these
string – particles really exist.
=============================…
My opinion:
a - b)
Minkowski in 1908* took time as a symmetry of space.
Space and time became equal each other and therefore we say: ‘spacetime’.
So, if I think of space as a distance then* I must say:
1hour is equal 5 kilometres, 2hour =10 km, 3hour= 15km,* . . . .etc.
But in physics we have only one particle which corresponding to
this condition. And it is photon with constant speed 1sec=300000 km.
In other words: SRT is theory about behaviour of quantum of light
in* the* spacetime.
c)
Emmy Noether was a great and famous mathematician, but bad physicist.
Why?
Because* there isn’t such law in physics* as* ‘ conservation law ’
or* ‘The law of conservation of mass’.
If you read in Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mass
it is half-truth. Half-true* theory is deceitful theory.
You cannot believe half-true* explanation.
The true theory says - there is* only
‘Law of conservation and transformation energy/mass’.
We cannot talk about one without talking about the other.
The law of conservation and transformation energy/mass
is a law about a symmetry and asymmetry in the Nature.
If somebody think that* “ The Law of conservation and
transformation of energy/ mass “ is a simple
bookkeeping calculation of debit-credit** he* is* mistaken.
It is a primitive judgment about one of the most important Law in Nature.
Why?
The bookkeeping calculation of debit-credit is*
“ a symmetry law” - like 1$ is equal 100 cents.
But in the Universe we see the laws of symmetry and we see
the laws of breaking of symmetry.
The Life in the Universe is connected* with* symmetry and* with breaking of symmetry.
The forms of living creatures are almost always symmetrical.
But sooner or later comes time of breaking symmetry.
And a* "broken symmetry"* doesn’t* look as* symmetric thing.
( It means : 1$ is not exactly* equal to 100 cents.)
Between symmetry and asymmetry* the effect of ‘transformation’ appears.
But nobody explains what the* ‘transformation’ means according to one
single quantum particle.
=======.
If somebody takes only one part of the law (conservation )
and ignore the second part of it (transformation) then abstract ideas
appear in physics* and we lost sight of the real picture of Nature* .
d - e)
Kaluza and** Klein idea about unity of gravitation and electromagnetic
forces in spacetime* is not finished.
One of problem that gravity is very weak force.
The electromagnetic force is 10^42 times stronger than gravity.
Therefore the problem of unity gravity with quantum theory is still unsolved.
f)
The string theory has its own problem.
In my opinion, if I don’t know what 2 + 2 = 4 then I cannot do more complex calculations.
And if physicists don’t know what 4-D really is, then following calculations are abstracted.
g)
‘Law of conservation and transformation energy/mass’* means
that energy/mass particles can be conserved into potential state
after / through* transformation* and later appear as active particles
also through act of transformation.
Through act of transformation the combined symmetry CPT
* ( charge, space, time ) can be created and* destroyed.
=================.* …
Best wishes.
Israel* Sadovnik* Socratus.
======================================….
 
Danbones
#2
The ability to actually be aware of events which will occur in the future is evident in people who knowingly or unknowingly practice shamanistic principles. Nociception causes a sensitivity to this type of information. The trick is to get the information through to the cognitive mind in a meaningful way. It is part of the immune system's regular duties, but in a very subtle way, to be sensitive to this type of information.

This indicates that humans are aware of the realm where there are no extra Ds.

It's the same realm where information can travel light years instantly between paired photons or electrons.
 
socratus
#3
Everything you know is wrong

This “realistic” view cannot, (and did not), survive the onslaught of data from experiments
on photons and other subatomic particles.
It’s not that physicists, in a fit of stubborn perversity,
decided to construct a theory that contradicted our most cherished intuitions about reality.
Instead, the results of experiments stubbornly refused to yield to any sort of classical interpretation.
The invention of the quantum formalism was an act of desperation—one that worked.
If we limit ourselves to asking questions permitted by quantum theory,
we’ll be rewarded with correct answers.
But if we insist on trying to grasp the meaning of what the theory tells us
using concepts from the classical world, we’ll become mired in confusion.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2017...-alternatives/

==================...

* Everything you know is wrong ( or you don't try realistic and logical
to understand quantum theory because we live in Alice's * Wonderland )

https://arstechnica.com/science/2017...-alternatives/

==================..
 
B00Mer
+1
#4  Top Rated Post
Someone has been smoke'n some bad shit..

 
Danbones
#5
Say, that's not lettuce on that guy's shirt is it?
 
socratus
#6
* The Law of Conservation of Energy states that energy cannot be
created or destroyed,* just transformed from one form to another.
These forms can include kinetic and potential energy .
Since energy cannot be created or destroyed,
the amount of energy present in the universe is always the same.
It is simply being transformed and transferred over and over again.
===
So, conservation* laws cannot be understand without transformation laws.
Physicists explain one side and nobody* explains the other side -
-* the* transformation** of the one* single quantum particle.
And the conservation* laws and transformation laws
are like two different sides of the same coin.
A coin without picture on one side doesn't have value.

==========================================..
 
Angstrom
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by socratus View Post

* The Law of Conservation of Energy states that energy cannot be
created or destroyed,* just transformed from one form to another.
These forms can include kinetic and potential energy .
Since energy cannot be created or destroyed,
the amount of energy present in the universe is always the same.
It is simply being transformed and transferred over and over again.
===
So, conservation* laws cannot be understand without transformation laws.
Physicists explain one side and nobody* explains the other side -
-* the* transformation** of the one* single quantum particle.
And the conservation* laws and transformation laws
are like two different sides of the same coin.
A coin without picture on one side doesn't have value.

==========================================..

The universe doesn't move forward in time by itself. And that is the key.
Big object need more energy then small objects to push them forward in time.

The difference in that energy between two objects needed to push them both forward in time has consequences.
It causes smaller objects to be attracted to bigger ones (gravity). Due to the much higher energy exerted on the bigger object. And the proximity of the smaller object to the bigger one. The different levels of energy between objects have consequences of attracting smaller object to bigger ones relatively to the difference in energy needed to push both forward in time.

Small living things will move forward in time much slower, then larger living things, due to the higher level of energy exerted to on them to push larger objects forward in time. This is why we observe bacteria multiply many generations within one of our (human) spacetime day. Due to the size of bacteria the lesser amount of energy needed to push them forward in time means they experience time much slower then we do. This is simply because our size requires more energy to push it forward in time making our time faster.

Its also why smaller living creatures like spiders have no problem walking on walls and ceilings since their smaller size means that the ceiling exerts some gravity on it.

This makes it seem like billions of infinite dimensions exist. Because of the relativity in how different objects experience time at a different rate based on size and the much higher energy required to push them forward in time.

The energy pushing space forward in time is the only dimension we can't see or experience with our sense. We know the universe moves forward in time but we do not see feel smell here the mechanism it uses to do so.
Last edited by Angstrom; Aug 10th, 2017 at 01:20 PM..
 
Tecumsehsbones
#8
For the few who are still giving Angst the benefit of the doubt. . . ^^^^^
 
Angstrom
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

For the few who are still giving Angst the benefit of the doubt. . . ^^^^^

Stop being so jealous Tec
 
Tecumsehsbones
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by Angstrom View Post

Stop being so jealous Tec

Why on earth would I be jealous of an imbecile?

But just to prove, once again, how wrong you are. . .

Now scientists have solved the long-standing mystery of their sticky success: Their secret is small hairs at the end of their legs.

These thousands of tiny hairs create multiple contact points between the spider and the surface that increase the spider’s ability to hang on, scientists have found.
The hairs are both small and flexible. At the molecular level, even the smoothest surfaces are rough, so if the spider’s hairs were rigid, the arachnid could make contact only with certain parts of the surface. But because the hairs are malleable, they can make contact with more of the surface, which provides additional stickiness, said Jonas Wolff, a biologist at the University of Kiel in Germany.

https://voices.nationalgeographic.or...science-weird/

Nothing to do with the ceiling exerting gravity, you drooling imbecile.
 
Angstrom
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

Why on earth would I be jealous of an imbecile?

But just to prove, once again, how wrong you are. . .

Now scientists have solved the long-standing mystery of their sticky success: Their secret is small hairs at the end of their legs.

These thousands of tiny hairs create multiple contact points between the spider and the surface that increase the spider’s ability to hang on, scientists have found.
The hairs are both small and flexible. At the molecular level, even the smoothest surfaces are rough, so if the spider’s hairs were rigid, the arachnid could make contact only with certain parts of the surface. But because the hairs are malleable, they can make contact with more of the surface, which provides additional stickiness, said Jonas Wolff, a biologist at the University of Kiel in Germany.

https://voices.nationalgeographic.or...science-weird/

Nothing to do with the ceiling exerting gravity, you drooling imbecile.

It makes you mad doesn't it

Even if im wrong about the spider. Which is very possible, doesn't disprove anything i have said.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by Angstrom View Post

It makes you mad doesn't it

What, that you're wrong again? Not at all. It's mildly amusing.

Quote:

Even if im wrong about the spider. Which is very possible, doesn't disprove anything i have said.

Being wrong doesn't disprove what you've said? Only in your head.
 
Angstrom
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

What, that you're wrong again? Not at all. It's mildly amusing.


Being wrong doesn't disprove what you've said? Only in your head.

Proving one example of 5 is wrong only proves the whole idea is wrong only in you're head.
Because you're intellectually compromised emotionally out of hate for me, you act only in hopes im wrong Because of your emotional need to see me fail.

The majority of earths population has been all wrong about things in the pass.

You're lack of faith doesn't really matter to me.
Last edited by Angstrom; Aug 10th, 2017 at 02:22 PM..
 
Tecumsehsbones
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by Angstrom View Post

Proving one example of 5 is wrong only proves the whole idea is wrong only in you're head.
Because you're intellectually compromised emotionally out of hate for me, you act only in hopes im wrong Because of your emotional need to see me fail.

The majority of earths population has been all wrong about things in the pass.

You're lack of faith doesn't really matter to me.

Well, you're certainly in the majority.
 
Angstrom
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

Well, you're certainly in the majority.

Nothing would make you happier.

But everything i have predicted on this forum has come to pass. So you're odds don't look very good.
 
Curious Cdn
#16
I would prefer a more balanced view of asymmetry, myself.
 
socratus
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

I would prefer a more balanced view of asymmetry, myself.

* *Noether's theorem of differentiable symmetries* cannot contain any breaks.
So it can be associated with conservation laws.
* But asymmetry is associated with some kind of* breaks, some kind of transformation.
* And the conservation* laws and transformation laws
are like two different sides of the same coin.
A coin without* picture on one side** doesn't have value.
=======================.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by Angstrom View Post

Nothing would make you happier.

But everything i have predicted on this forum has come to pass. So you're odds don't look very good.

The complete collapse of the Canadian social welfare system has already come to pass? Why wasn't this in the papers?
 
Angstrom
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

The complete collapse of the Canadian social welfare system has already come to pass? Why wasn't this in the papers?

Im not sure what that has to do with spiders having little difficulty walking on the ceiling.

Looks like you got nothing again.

You're fairly sensitive Tec. You remind me of Trump.
 
socratus
#20
But the real picture of the 21st century is far stranger, and amateurs
may not be fully aware of it.

In a very brief nutshell, all "things" have been replaced by fields
which extend over ALL space and time. They don't live IN space and time
like you imagine particles or ping pong balls. They are part of the
fabric OF space and time.

There are ripples in these fields, which have behavior constrained by
symmetries of nature, which are more fundamental in a deep sense than
the conservation laws of nature.

Ripples can be measured by a quantity called "action", which physicists
have known about for a long time. What they didn't know until the 20th
century is that the smallest chunk of action is given by a number called
Planck's constant. These smallest ripples are what we associate with
field quanta, and when physicists say "fundamental particles" they are
really talking about these field quanta.

So, recapping so far, the idea of "things" moving through space and time
has become replaced with the idea of fields that extend everywhere, and
the ripples in them that are bestowed with small amounts of action.

(I've glossed over a key idea that a field is nothing more than a map of
the value(s) of a property(ies) OF spacetime itself. Different fields
correspond to different sets of properties of spacetime, and all the
fields overlay each other. The little quantized ripples in the fields
can be distinct from each other though, in some sense.)

Now the last core concept is that a ripple carrying some action in one
field can generate or disturb a ripple carrying some action in a
different field. This is what we call an interaction between fields.
Here's where another old idea gets replaced -- charge (like color charge
or electromagnetic charge) is not some kind of "stuff" that belongs to
"things"; instead, charge is just defined as that tendency for a given
pair of fields to interact and create ripples in each other. The laws
that control these interactions are in fact driven by yet more
symmetries of nature (local gauge symmetries).

What's astonishing about this is that physicists now believe that the
fundamental thing that physics is about is the interaction, not the
object. And rather than physical laws, physicists now think of
symmetries as the fundamental constraint.

So gone are the days of thinking of the world as moving things in a
backdrop of space and time. Here today we have the primacy of the
interaction, of action, and of symmetry. And THAT is what 21st century
physics seems to me to be really about.

There are lots of good references here that support this nutshell recap
in much better detail.

Odd Bodkin
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!to...cs/-IswrWd65cs


===========================================
 
socratus
#21
* The* Odd Bodkin* post said:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic ... IswrWd65cs
===========

a)*The fields / waves* extend over ALL space and time.
They don't live IN space and time like particles.
They are part of the fabric OF space and time.

b) There are ''ripples'' =** field quanta = "fundamental particles'' in these fields,
which have behavior constrained by symmetries of nature.

c) '' the idea of "things"/ particles moving through space and time
has become* REPLACED* with the idea of fields that extend everywhere,
and the ripples in them that are bestowed with small amounts of action.''

d) ''* . . . electromagnetic charge* is not some kind of "stuff" that belongs to
"things"; instead, charge is just defined as that tendency for a given
pair of fields to interact and create ripples in each other.
This idea needs more symmetries of nature (local gauge symmetries).''

e) ''What's astonishing about this is that physicists now believe that the
fundamental thing that physics is about is the interaction, not the object.
And rather than physical laws, physicists now think of symmetries as
the fundamental constraint. ''
* #
So, at first physicists use waves and math symmetries to understand situation.
And . . .** EM waves can create . . .* ''charge'', ''ripples'' / particles.
=====================

My opinion.
We don't drink H2O, We drink water, particles of water.
We cannot replace water on H2O and be quenched.

Oceanic waves consists of particles.
Without these particles we don't have waves / water.

The same story is with energy fields / EM waves.
Maxwell's EM waves and Lorentz electron /force are one complete theory.
Without electrons there aren't waves.
#
But until today we don't know what electron is.
We* don't know why the electron has six ( 6 ) formulas
* ** E=h*f** and** e^2=ah*c ,
* * +E=Mc^2** and** -E=Mc^2 ,
* ** E=-me^4/2h*^2= -13,6eV** and** E= ∞

An electron obey five Laws :
a) The Law of conservation and transformation energy/ mass
b) The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle / Law
c) The Pauli Exclusion Principle/ Law
d) Dirac - Fermi statistic
e) Maxwell - Lorentz EM theory.

We don't know: what are interactions between these formulas and laws.
================================.
Robert A. Millikan, in his Nobel speech* ( 1923) said,
that he knew nothing about “ last essence of electron”
#
* Feynman wrote about electron :
“ It is important to realize that in physics today,
we have no knowledge of what energy is.
We do not have a picture that energy comes in little
blobs of a definite amount. “
===============

Therefore the situation with electron is similar to an old Indian story:
''what is an elephant ?''
One blind man touched the elephant’s foot and said elephant is like a column
Other blind man touched the elephant’s tail and said elephant looks like a snake
The third one touched the elephant’s stomach and said elephant is like a ball
The . . . . . . .. . .
=============.
The electron was '' touched''* in different experiments from different sides
but it seems that our knowledge of an electron is similar to the * blind – knowledge*
of elephant from this old Indian proverb.

As somebody wrote: ''We know electron by what it does, not by what it is''
===========================
 
Danbones
#22
It's all about waves, they may be perceived as particles, but that is perception, they are still waves.
That IS quantum mechanics.

Also, if you look closely, you might find the main equations in quantum mechanics are contained in the Yin Yang symbol.

Of course, knowing THAT means you can never, ever be religious after that.
(religion was invented to blind you)

Energy can't be created or destroyed, only the way it is perceived changes.
Particles: pffft!, They are just from the brain creating your reality.

Particles are the Debble's[sic] playthings.
Last edited by Danbones; Aug 30th, 2017 at 04:45 AM..
 
socratus
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by Danbones View Post

It's all about waves, they may be perceived as particles,
but that is perception, they are still waves.
That IS quantum mechanics.


Quantum particles are sometime waves and sometime corpuscular.
That is like a cow that sometime gives milk and sometime beef.
That IS quantum mechanics.
=============================
 
Danbones
+1
#24
Would that particle exist if there was no one there to 'see' it?
 
socratus
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by Danbones View Post

Would that particle exist if there was no one there to 'see' it?

a) The* constant speed of photon* ( c= 299,792,458 km/ sec)* was observed
** in Michelson-Morley experiment*.

b) The virtual particles were showed their existence in the Casimir effect,
*in the Lamb shift in a vacuum fluctuation.

======================*
 
socratus
#26
The Simple Idea Behind Einstein’s Greatest Discoveries
K.C. Cole
Contributing Writer
June 26, 2019
===
The relationship that eventually mattered most to Einstein’s legacy was symmetry.
Scientists often describe symmetries as changes
that don’t really change anything,
differences that don’t make a difference,
variations that leave deep relationships invariant.

Examples are easy to find in everyday life.
You can rotate a snowflake by 60 degrees and it will look the same.
You can switch places on a teeter-totter and not upset the balance.

More complicated symmetries have led physicists to the discovery
of everything from neutrinos to quarks — they even led to Einstein’s
own discovery that gravitation is the curvature of space-time,
which, we now know, can curl in on itself, pinching off into black holes.
#
Over the past several decades, some physicists have begun
to question whether focusing on symmetry is still as
productive as it used to be.
New particles predicted by theories based on symmetries
haven’t appeared in experiments as hoped, and the
Higgs boson that was detected was far too light to fit
into any known symmetrical scheme.
Symmetry hasn’t yet helped to explain why gravity is so weak,
why the vacuum energy is so small, or
why dark matter remains transparent.
#
“There has been, in particle physics, this prejudice
that symmetry is at the root of our description of nature,”
said the physicist Justin Khoury of the University
of Pennsylvania. “That idea has been extremely powerful.
But who knows?
Maybe we really have to give up on these beautiful and
cherished principles that have worked so well.
So it’s a very interesting time right now.”

https://www.quantamagazine.org/einst...sics-20190626/
Attached Images
Question.jpg (5.5 KB, 0 views )
 
socratus
#27
Article:
'' Breaks in the Perfect Symmetry of the Universe
Could Be a Window Into Completely New Physics ''
By Paul Sutter, Astrophysicist
| June 14, 2019 06:59am ET
#
The bible of particle physics is dying for an upgrade.
And physicists may have just the thing:
Some particles and forces might look in the mirror and
not recognize themselves.
That, in itself, would send the so-called Standard Model into a tailspin.
. . .
. . . the weak nuclear force, violates parity symmetry.
So it stands to reason other forces and particles in the
quantum world are also rule-breakers in this area.

https://www.livescience.com/65713-sy...w-physics.html
=====
 
socratus
#28
A butterfly has very beautiful symmetrical wings,
but it was created from caterpillar.
#
Concept of ''symmetry'' in physics is beautiful math,
but it doesn't reflect the whole picture of Nature.
=====
Attached Images
B = 1.jpg (8.0 KB, 0 views )
 
Curious Cdn
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by socratus View Post

A butterfly has very beautiful symmetrical wings,
but it was created from caterpillar.
#
Concept of ''symmetry'' in physics is beautiful math,
but it doesn't reflect the whole picture of Nature.
=====

Caterpillars are, of course, also symmetric.
 
Curious Cdn
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by socratus View Post

A butterfly has very beautiful symmetrical wings,
but it was created from caterpillar.
#
Concept of ''symmetry'' in physics is beautiful math,
but it doesn't reflect the whole picture of Nature.
=====

Caterpillars are, of course, also symmetric if you slice them with a knife along the correct axis.