Lee Smolin - Why Do We Search for Symmetry?
Vložit
- čas přidán 5. 02. 2023
- Symmetry is when things are the same around an axis. Turn it and it looks the same. A simple idea with profound implications for understanding the universe and for predicting how it works. Finding symmetries, and discerning when they break, is one key for understanding fundamental physics.
Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Support the show with Closer To Truth merchandise: bit.ly/3P2ogje
Watch more interviews on the science of symmetry: bit.ly/40sTmWr
Lee Smolin is an American theoretical physicist, a researcher at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, and an adjunct professor of physics at the University of Waterloo.
Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/3He94Ns
Closer to Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
I really enjoy Lee’s explanations.
Its been a while since I heard something completely new to me in physics. The idea that more fundamental could mean less symmetry is indeed that something new.
I think Smolin is the most interesting guest to listen to. The wealth of knowledge he has, and his scientific obsession with what is emergent versus what is fundamental in the universe is fascinating. His explanation of Liebnitz was so well done, especially the point about asking nonsense questions.
I wonder if you could apply the idea of emergent symmetry to time and events. I have always viewed life and everything we see in the moment (the asymmetry) as a culmination of a series of different variables (the asymmetry) that nobody is paying attention to. Then when things happen in a seemingly unique way, people assume those events were randomly perfect (the symmetry). And obviously life itself is inherently asymmetrical, nothing is perfect. The timing of something can be off, how one feels, how they perceive the world, how they perceive themselves, external forces, all very deterministic stuff. Yet sometimes you can use your knowledge of asymmetry to see into the future. You know that a certain action will lead to an inevitable outcome.
A very interesting topic for Smolin and Closer to Truth to have introduced me to, thank you!
Sometimes, mystery is the best fact we have. Let's consider it.
Liebnitz should be proud that his natural philosophy is still relevant in the 21st century.
This can be very confusing for an audience, but More interesting is, if Symetry is emergent then that has consequences for the deeper foundation of reality, wich on its turn then must be a lower state/degree of complexity then the layer where symetry arises from.
That has been my goal since I was about 8 years old.
I strive for “balance & symmetry “ in almost everything I do.
Wonderful to hear a scientist’s viewpoint
A Beautiful mind, for example, evolves from better balance & symmetry
Thank you
Cheers from Sydney, Australia!
I love Lee’s soft spoken style
thanks for the videos.
This makes sense to me from a nondual perspective: when we understand the universe/reality/God/etc. to come from one single source, it’s impossible for one thing to be symmetrical with itself. Symmetries are only possible through comparison, and when only a single entity exists, it cannot be compared to anything else.
When Lee mentioned Roger Penrose this clicked for me, Penrose’s CCC theory requires a state of geometric conformalism, and in that state symmetry is impossible because all else is equal. Things which *appear* symmetrical are only that way because they approach the boundaries of what we know to be possible… symmetrically speaking!
Wow worth a second listen
BRILLIANT 👏
As a photographer, I frequently settle on symmetry for Cityscape and architectural work, When I do portraits or figures, I follow the influence of early Japanese block print artists. For "head Shots; I wish I could be Man Ray of Salvador Dahli. I'm not those men. I can't pull it off.
Yes!
Leibniz argued (see his correspondence with Clark) for the contingency of the principle of identity of indiscernibles (PII) because he thought it was subordinate to the principle of sufficient reason (PSR). But the principle of sufficient reason does not apply to mathematics. In fact, in mathematics we usually assume that if something is true, it is true for a reason. The reason why something is true is called a proof, and the object of mathematics is to find proofs, to find the reason why things are true. Now, since Gödel, we know that any effectively generated axiomatic theory including elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete. Assuming it is consistent, it is incomplete: some statements are neither provable nor disprovable from the theory. How many independent statements are there? Almost all of them are independent. Now we can also show that incompleteness is inevitable: every time a new true statement is added as an axiom, there are other true statements that still cannot be proved. Algorithmically or probabilistically adding infinitely many true statements would not solve the problem. Hence, I would argue that the PSR cannot be fundamental since mathematics provides an obvious counterexample. And since the PII (and symmetry) is based on the PSR, the PII (and symmetry) too cannot be fundamental. One could further argue that mathematics is globally random and very rarely locally ordered since almost all mathematical truths are true without reason, i.e. random mathematical truths. I would suggest that radonmess is fundamental and that physics emerges from mathematics through symmetry breaking: the breaking of symmetries between regions of random mathematical truths and provable mathematical ones. Although highly speculative, I think this last claim needs to be explored further.
It seems to be quantized to a degree , like a digital sample, but with a very hi bit level and clock speed., but I am not sure.
I really liked his work on Ancient Aliens.
I don't "search" for symmetry. In fact, asymmetry make things much more beautiful. Beauty is the ratio of the whole to the larger part is the same as the ratio of the larger part to the smaller. People, including physicists develop beliefs that send them down rabbit holes.
In mathematics, symmetry is saught, however, Einstein stated, “As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.”
The Search for Symmetry:
"In any system of energy, Control is what consumes energy the most.
No system of energy can deliver sum useful energy in excess of the total energy put into constructing it.
This universal truth applies to all systems.
Energy, like time, flows from past to future".
I think that when using symmetry in connection with art, most people mean instead, balance or equilibrium. But that doesn't necessarily mean symmetry. This is because you can balance a color with another color that may be less concentrated but cover a larger area. You also can balance color with shape. Good paintings have that quality but are never strictly speaking symmetrical. Think about mondrian often beautifully balance but NEVER symmetrical.
Nice
Adding a pantheon of complexity is at best explaining our own minds ratinalism of the universe. A code of how we view it while the fundamental universe itself of a simple systematric few simple constants easily conveyed to a simple person .we already have the theory of everything philosophically.
Smolin is confusing the symmetry in the dynamical equations of physics with the symmetries in the solutions. The former are exact and the latter are accidental. The solutions break the symmetry of the equations but the symmetry is still there governing conservation laws. A number of physicists and cosmologists who should know better have expressed this misunderstanding. It is why some cosmologists like Smolin incorrectly think that energy and momentum are not conserved in general relativity. If there was no symmetry in physics then the laws of nature would vary in different places and at different times. That would mean that nothing is predictable and we would not be able to understand the physics of far-away stars, which is not the case. What we actually find is that there is a lot of symmetry in physics. Most likely there is a huge amount of hidden symmetry in the fundamental laws. Symmetry is important in mathematics, so it is not surprising to find it in physics too.
Absolutely agree, especially with your last 2 sentences.
can symmetry be physical, or non-physical?
as get more fundamental in physics would be fewer variables and symmetries?
Symmetry demonstrates how "Existence" moves from simplicity to complexity in the most efficient way possible. If a more complex structure can emerge using two symmetrical halves of a less-complex structure, then this represents the most efficient way to evolve. This also suggests that *logic* is embedded into the fabric of the universe.
Agreed with everything you said, but the last sentence. Maybe logic is also an emergent property, emerging with and being particularly useful to the biological life forms that have learned how to utilize it...
Totally disagree with this rationale.
@@longcastle4863 *"Maybe logic is also an emergent property, emerging with and being particularly useful to the biological life forms that have learned how to utilize it."*
... Well, in my book I have Existence executing an "initial act" (not an "initial cause") by assessing the amount of Existence present at the beginning ... _which was "1."_ In other words, logic simultaneously emerged the instant Existence executed self-enumeration. My argument is that there was no conceivable state of "Existence" until this "initial act" of self-enumeration rendered Existence conceivable.
With Logic being the only mechanism that can render Existence conceivable, and the fact that only "logically conceivable" things can exist, it is reasonable to believe that Logic was simultaneously present at the emergence of Existence.
I explain this event in greater detail in this time-stamped video: czcams.com/video/wFFdsxGpc_k/video.html
*"useful to the biological life forms that have learned how to utilize it."*
... Plant and animal biology is mostly uniform and symmetrical. Existence (logic) knows that the fusion of two symmetrical sides to form a more complex structure is more efficient than engineering two totally asymmetrical sides - both of which require different designs. A few emergent properties we get from two symmetrical halves of a human fused into a single lifeform are binocular vision and the ability to walk, climb and run.
@@PetraKann *"Totally disagree with this rationale."*
... You are free to disagree, but unless you explain *why* you disagree, then you're just expressing your _personal feelings._
@@longcastle4863 The logos is one....
Just wait till we find out it's all emergence, every step of the way down, every step of the way up
*"Just wait till we find out it's all emergence, every step of the way down, every step of the way up."*
... That's how I see it. Emergence guarantees the ongoing production of new information.
I like emergence theory, I just wonder what the medium is and what is being emitted to project the 3 D image.
So it's Turtles emerging all the way.
@@TheZooman22 I think the 3D image is produced in our heads along with time and causality. Per Kant -- who I do not believe has ever successfully been disputed on this -- it is the way we organize reality into a form that is useful for us. So likely, it seems, the 3D image you speak of emerged with biological life.
Fundamental and Emergent are the same thing...
I've heard this before, and think this is definitely true. For example the conservation of momentum. But this refers to like he says "the observable". Science today has progressed far beyond this, and in multiple directions many yet to be verified.
We can learned from symmetry, on earth 🌍 because those similarities are in front of our eyes, and if we’re focusing on them then, we can identify the energies, and how they worked, at least we can come forward with an idea that is closer to truth !
would a constant change in time maintain time symmetry, and conservation of energy with it?
Yes... but time is relative and there is only one energy so....
@@waldwassermann please expand on one energy? what is meant by potential and kinetic energy?
@@waldwassermann is time, and space, relative to causation? might causation have something to do with time symmetry?
Who is we in the question?
Some of the best art I'v ever experienced was symmetrical. It was the black hole by Ryoji Ikeda
Where was the exhibition?
@@tonyatkinson2210 Filmmuseum in Amsterdam '18
First I thought - Lee is overthinking. But when he said "symmetry is emergent" it totally made sense. Suppose you have two spoons, but when you look closely - there are no "two" spoons, only individual Spoon Alpha and her sibling Spoon Beta. They both have individual features, like surface scratches as well as defects of atomic lattice deep inside. We made them similar, we imbued symmetry into them.
And did he say it was the idea by R. Penrose? That man is a genius, he's throwing groundbreaking ideas left and right
Issac newton was so ecstatic to find the fingerprint of God. Galileo was exactly the same about his ability to simplfy and reduce complexity to an orderly manner that could easily be explained ..
These principles have been lost and now we have returned to adding complex excuses on top of an increasing pantheon of mechanism onto of realtive mechanism.
We know each plank length bit has a realtive view of it's own its google amounts of cosmology to build this way with no simple way to convey this to each other or a single person .
A sea star with many appendages has a symmetry similar to particular galaxies.
Basically, if the symmetries in nature are only approximate due to it's large size, then they do not really exist, and the conservation laws which are a consequence of those symmetries do not exist. And if the conservation laws do not exist at the smallest scales, and the universe was once very small, then there's no reason to think that the laws of nature in the age of the big bang were playing by balanced rules.
If there are no conservation laws, damn near anything is possible now, and even more so at that time.
could something be fundamental to symmetry, as symmetry is fundamental to conservation?
NTS 7 partial
THANK YOU SO MUCH PROFESSOR LEE FOR ALWAY CREDITING DR.EINSTEIN. AS STUDENT MY FUNDAMENTAL IS TO GET NOBEL PRIZE AWARD AND I WILL CREDIT ALL MY PROFESSOR FOR SHARING KNOWLEDGE AND EDUCATION ..
YOU MEAN Nobel Prize RIGHT?
The gist of it.
Symmetry is logical and balanced , but can also be subjectively defined .
Once again it's shown that Sir Roger is years ahead of most anyone.
This reminds me of Anaxagoras...
If you have something then you need to assume that that something is a result of conserved symmetry, and that’s why you look for the conservation of symmetry as one of the criteria for considering a viable hypothesis!! Like if you have a universe then the viable hypotheses for the origins of that universe must include conserved symmetry!! Like if you assume that the universe came from nothing and if the total energies of the universe do not add up to exactly nothing then you look for viable theories that would satisfy the conservation of that symmetry, such as maybe twin-time-reversed-mirror-universes both universes arising from nothing and together adding up to exactly nothing!! But the mirror universe must be an exact mirror down to the subatomic processes!!
symmetry reveals that something is not changing in cosmos?
It's so easy from the biblical view theologically to demonstrate there is no symmetry ultimately because He is One The Real: A Living God Who Can Self Contract, producing Nothing The Ture and Order The Ultimate in which their every constituent is unique, simply defined as the set of all primes. 4:30 since the standard model in 1973 there has been no further unification by symmetries maybe there will be some but the point of view that I'm suggesting is that ultimately we'll have a fundamental theory with no symmetries a point of view that other people advocate is this old-fashioned idea that the more you unify the more symmetries you have and philosophy is very useful but in the end we'll see which idea ispires a theory that leads to real success. 5:00 sure but the concept of symmetry is also married to the concept of breaking symmetry even in macroscopic art if something is perfectly symmetrical it's really not very interesting it's those subtle breaking of symmetries that create great art and similarly it seems in the world of physics that you need symmetries but the breaking of symmetries in subtle ways that crate all the possibilites that we see in the modern world but you're saying something I think fundamentally different you're saying that underneath this is appearance or even illusion that underneath that to something that doesn't have symmetries that's generating this appearance almost as an artifact. 5:42
TX
Too many people would rather look for symmetry in the manifestations of Nature rather than the way it thinks, as shown by Fffellonic geometry.
I somehow don't agree... Robert doesn't seem to as well. - What could be more fundamental than a universe, coming into existence out of matter and antimatter, with matter ultimately prevailing?
Prevailing? I'm sure there's an antimatter universe out there prevailing quite nicely itself, thank you.
@@longcastle4863 Sure, that all may be true. For now, our 'observable' universe will be all we know. And even for the case of an antimatter universe symmetry and symmetry breaking would have been fundamental, don't you think? - That's what mostly bugs me here with Smolin. Everything beyond that really is just speculation imo and probably impossible to investigate.
@@rolfbause9523 I think the speaker was suggesting that different layers or levels of reality emerge here -- where we are right now -- not outside the horizon of our observable universe. The way I view it, so far we can see three levels where different systems arise / emerge and function under different rules, laws and forces: the biological, the classical and the quantum -- with String Theory maybe looking around even below the quantum for a fourth level... And what's to say it doesn't continue like this forever and in all directions, not just up and down, but sideways and off at odd angles and so forth... And right now we're just a speck in there somewhere trying to figure it all out. And I think we could figure it all out or at least a great deal more of it if we don't destroy ourselves first.
Another great video, except for the camera work
I suppose...
Symmetry must be conserved because if you derive B from A then B must ultimately equal A!! If you have a few oranges and make orange juice from them then you shouldn’t expect to find mangoes mixed into your orange juice, right?? If you do find mangoes mixed into your juice then where did they come from?? A better example is to imagine placing oranges into a basket and opening it find mangoes in the basket that you did not put in, that is an example of symmetry not conserved!!!!!
Atleast Robert said God's Geometry is beautiful.
Wait… no conservation of energy? When did I get distracted?
more specifically conservation of momentum is violated.
Multicellular animals are always symmetrical. Why?
Sponges aren’t .
Because of the way cells divide , and because of locomotion is more efficient with symmetrical body plans
@@tonyatkinson2210 yes you are right - sponges are placed in the animal kingdom. However, they lack many of the things that are identified with animals. For example, they grow, reproduce and survive much as plants do. They have no central nervous system, digestive system or circulatory system - and no organs!
Ludus Amoris.
In psychology the idea of symetrie or identity is also misguided. We are not identical to some sort of simplistic diagnosis or identical to other people neither in race nor in origin. All those simplifications are political and superficial manipulations. Every person is an idividual and has a different story he has to deal with and every similarity to someone else is an ilusion. Same thing happens in love. A relation is only possible when you know your counterpart in depth and stop thinking he is in some way identical to you.
Because without the conservation of symmetry you end up with anomalous values, objects and stuff that cannot be accounted for that come from nowhere!!!!!
If 1 + 1 = 2 is true
And,
If 1 + 1 + 1 = 2 is also true then where did the extra one go, did it just vanish to nothing??
Or,
If set (a, b, c) = set (a, b, c, d)
Then where did the extra d come from??
The lack of symmetry is when the before and after of a system after you do an operation to it don’t equal or don’t add up.
You're confusing Mathematics, which is NOT a Scientific discipline with Science.
My thinking is that more and more different kinds of mathematics will need to be employed at different levels of emergence that at some point it might no longer resemble or be called mathamatics
@@longcastle4863 The strongest emergence I can think of is a universe from nothing but even then symmetry must be conserved!! Virtual particle pair production is also a case of strong emergence yet in every case two particles are produced from nothing which are exact mirrors of each other and that again is conserved symmetry!!
@@websurfer352 It's like saying
0 = -1 + 1
and then grabbing the +1 and running off to make a world with it
Since I broke my jaw, my mouth is a bit off.
Break the other side for symmetry!
@@chrisgarret3285
Drinking through a straw for weeks-on-end sucks bigly.
I’ll stay an invalid, thank you.
@@herrweiss2580 ugh, get well soon
...because the mathematics is simpler.
That does not mean it's a correct path to take.
Isn't the right path to take the one that gives you the correct results?
. . . In the beginning there was Chaos , & it was good .
This can't be from a year ago.
Flat earth linearity, doesn’t think in three dimensions. a dimension on paper is not of the world dimension.
For each creation to be unique there can be no symmetry. Nothing in nature is symmetrical.
....YOUR BODY. YOUR FACE, YOUR APPLE, TREE , THE WORLD...any slide secction 🙌
@@zuam7645 A mere optical illusion of proximation.
UNI que is an interesting word...
@@chyfields Brilliant!
I sit as arguing symmetry in biology is a perfect symmetry .
Although if biological organisms were designed they would be, right ?
It isnt corrected. Fundamental Law of phich show that figure out phich are limited in itself. Leibniz has fundamental in reason when picture phich. However Leibniz was keeping out in his concept in unpredicted phich particles. In this Leibniz not picture reality. Leibniz reason not plays cards in quanta reality.
Is there a reason that all these vids start out out of focus? It's really annoying. Is it supposed to be some kind of attn grabber? All it does is make me think that this channel can't even get their gear functioning properly. I went to film school and one thing I learned is....don't try to be clever just to be clever, it's more of a distraction than anything.
Why is he trying to be cleaver by denying Symmetry in nature… it’s like cant see the wood for the trees typical Atheistic defiance the eyes see but the hearts are blind.
Why would symmetry in nature be sow
Thing atheists would want to be defiant against accepting . It’s exactly what we would expect if organisms evolved
Blah, blah, blah, therefore God.
ALL generalizations are wrong. 😆 🤣 😂
The local dynamic is symmetrical in its main dynamic PRINCIPLE.
The real general dynamic of the real Universe is asymmetrical.
What more are you looking for, Lee Smolin? Unicorns?😏
You have some correct thoughts and understanding with which you can build a new better theory of the general dynamic of the Universe, at any scale imaginable, micro and macro.
What are you waiting for? Next life?
Stop pedaling on Einstein, because his theory is a big erroneous one.
Local dynamic is symmetrical in PRINCIPLE, meaning that when connected to the higher entropic aggregate it is an approximation. Local entropic dynamic create only the impression, the illusion, of the so-called "conservation laws", hence the human approximations confused as such.
The real universal dynamic at the level of the Universe is really asymmetrical, otherwise nothing would be able to "become", nothing would ever exist.
Etc.😏
Who is this we that's searching for symmetry? Over 1/2 the world's population is searching for their next meal & the rest are searching for new toys.
And that's also another failure of the science community. Lack of imagination prevented them from making science sexy.
There's a lot of asymmetry out there and its not doing anything beneficial to to the world. Symmetry, or as close as you can get to it, brings calm, order and positivity to the world...clearly you all dont get that.
Sunsets are beautiful and calming
@@longcastle4863 True... that being said: the Sun never sets.