Stellar Symmetry

[Archmonoth]

Entertainment purposes only: 
 

In group theory there is the M group, or Monster group, and worth wiki/searching. 

 

The M group number of 8x10 to 53rd is given to visual scale as the number of atoms in Jupiter. This was quite provocative to me and has compelled me to search more as an enthusiast of math. I don’t have formal education or training, and my observations are described as best I can.

 

Jupiter is on the boundary of becoming a brown dwarf star if its mass was 13-80 times higher, but the number of atoms got me thinking. The planet is in hydrostatic equilibrium, like terrestrial planets, and stars are in dynamic equilibrium. A common symmetry between many equilibria is balance, and Jupiter’s balanced is achieved with shepherd moons, its mass, distance from the Sun. etc., like a mini solar system.

 

What if the symmetry, or action of the M group is the number of atoms required for stellar transformation? The atoms, like spheres or mini solar systems themselves be in a dense balance/symmetry between charge mass and spin. The nova is the positive feedback loop of conversion, and gravity is the copy of this symmetry? (Double Copy Theory)

To put as simple as I can express… the smooth atomic structures stack up like little balls, forming a lattice, and when this lattice reaches the M group number by being symmetrical in a sufficient way, the Nova happens. 

 

Pulsars and Neutron stars are especially symmetrical, in more ways than typical red giants, since they undergo Neutronization. Is there a study or exploration of Stellar Symmetry?

 

My observation (guesswork), is the 196883 dimensions suggested for the action of the Monster group, are the required symmetry or possible patterns of organization for stars to escape gravitational collapse. This is the size of the Monster crack/group, requiring the most symmetry to enter. 

 

 

 

 

[Newbie]

Most naturally occurring structures can be described as fractals, repeating patterns that are calculated using a simple equation which feeds the result back into the next calculation in an iterative process, a continuous feedback loop. These iterations go on and on, there is no limit to the number of patterns produced.

There are some interesting videos showing the Mandelbrot (he was the first guy to study this) Set of fractals.

It would come as no surprise to me if Stellar Symmetry could be described using fractal geometry.

I've never heard of Monster Groups until I looked at the Wiki article. I wonder how that figure of 8x10^53, or rather how the formula was derived. Over my head.

I suspect there is a link between fractal geometry and group theory, fractals being an intrinsic part of these Monster Groups.

I hope someone can add to it.

Archmonoth, it's a doozy.

 

[Archmonoth]

9 hours ago, Newbie said:

It would come as no surprise to me if Stellar Symmetry could be described using fractal geometry.

I suspect there is a link between fractal geometry and group theory, fractals being an intrinsic part of these Monster Groups.

 

I empathize, and it is a difficult subject to approach, even abstracted. You are correct, and fractals do have a symmetry, one of connections to the monster group is something called the J-Function, which is a bunch of half circles nested in each other, with the upper region being equal to 1. (area of the circle reflected into a polygon, among other things..) )

 

Here is a nice picture of the J-function:

 

 

The wikipedia on Group Theory is decent. There is a 3Blue1brown video which does a much better job. If I had to choose a single link it would probably be the video: 

 

 

Symmetry is something I interact with a bit, since things like poetry and art require multiple meanings, reflections, geometry, and such. 

 

Also rotations, curvature, area/volume are easier for me to describe with symmetry. Example: I think of Entropy as temporal symmetry. 

 

Thank you for the reply and saying something, any observations are welcome. 

Edited August 29, 2021 by Archmonoth

[Christopher S.]

While we perceive and observe the larger scale equilibrium and stability of large objects like Jupiter, among the 8x10^53 atoms is a chaotic, imperceptibly random set of interactions. I like to trend towards a discussion of Chaos Theory in lieu of my interest in the exact deterministic formulae to complex systems, as the notion of symmetry presupposes that the Universe and its parts have a natural tendency to distribute evenly(something something entropy). While that is true, the complexity of such large masses, and the interference induced by not being in a true vacuum(and is thus subject to external forces) suggests that equilibrium is a coincidence rather than an inevitability.

The scale of time which we place importance on for whether or not a system is truly stable is 100% subjective. The metric by which this stability(entropy; trend towards or away from equilibrium) is measured is also somewhat subjective; Whether or not a system is in the process of the end of its life(i.e. nova or collapse) might be the only metric we care about for a specific application. Whether or not a system is in thermodynamic equilibrium - while on the extreme end of "stable" - may be the only technicality that sways your definition. 

This is one of the nice things about science. Where we are allowed to apply our own thought experiments freely, the classic/modern definitions of phenomena will always keep us on-track. Whenever the words fail, we invent new ones or write entire papers to describe the meaning of something.

Edited August 29, 2021 by Christopher S.
Missing phrase

[Archmonoth]

1 hour ago, Christopher S. said:

While we perceive and observe the larger scale equilibrium and stability of large objects like Jupiter, among the 8x10^53 atoms is a chaotic, imperceptibly random set of interactions. I like to trend towards a discussion of Chaos Theory in lieu of my interest in the exact deterministic formulae to complex systems, as the notion of symmetry presupposes that the Universe and its parts have a natural tendency to distribute evenly(something something entropy). While that is true, the complexity of such large masses, and the interference induced by not being in a true vacuum(and is thus subject to external forces) suggests that equilibrium is a coincidence rather than an inevitability.

 

First of all thanks for the response Chris, I appreciate your reply. I agree the atoms in Jupiter are chaotic by the definitions of chaos theory. My suggestion is that mass, or a specific organization from sufficient mass, is the symmetry required for thermal conversion, resulting in Nova.

 

For me determinism is a narrative, chaotic is also narrative, as once sufficient knowledge is obtained, the randomness disappears. Brownian motion is the closest description to random motion, which is described as a mote of dust traveling through a medium. The path it takes seems random, but high frequency of occurrence will give you information about the medium (viscosity, mass), and the dust mote. Simply put: Determinism is defined by the completeness of information, and randomness by the lack of information. 

 

1 hour ago, Christopher S. said:

The scale of time which we place importance on for whether or not a system is truly stable is 100% subjective. The metric by which this stability(entropy; trend towards or away from equilibrium) is measured is also somewhat subjective; Whether or not a system is in the process of the end of its life(i.e. nova or collapse) might be the only metric we care about for a specific application. Whether or not a system is in thermodynamic equilibrium - while on the extreme end of "stable" - may be the only technicality that sways your definition. 

 

Emily Noether's Theorem has an elegant way of describing Entropy as temporal symmetry, by describing events in continuous motion: Noether's theorem - Wikipedia 

Upon thinking about what you said and Newbie, perhaps symmetry with negative curvature (complete symmetry) is what leads to gravitation collapse. I would define stability as a state NOT in exponential energy feedback or change. Wood is stable, until the positive feedback loop of fire destabilizes it. In my personal language, I don't think of cause and effect, but cause and exponential effect, since a system is the primary indicator of change. I.e.. a match doesn't cause the fire, the dry field (system) allows it. Plenty of matches and lighters can be used without a fire occurring. The size of the fire describes the size of the system. 

 

Regarding fires in space; specifically thermal emissions and fusion, require sufficient mass or density before thermal/stellar qualities can be seen. 

 

1 hour ago, Christopher S. said:

This is one of the nice things about science. Where we are allowed to apply our own thought experiments freely, the classic/modern definitions of phenomena will always keep us on-track. Whenever the words fail, we invent new ones or write entire papers to describe the meaning of something.

 

I agree, and thanks for the interaction.  

Edited August 29, 2021 by Archmonoth

[Christopher S.]

I think at the end of the day, using words where mathematics have conventionally been used results in the intended absorption of information being altered slightly due to connotations.

It is my aim to learn a method of describing phenomena in English that puts just enough humanistic quality onto things to make it possible to engage the conceptualization abilities of those reading. It helps spark curiosity, hopefully to the extent that they become interested in sciences - they may always learn that this personal projection of human values is involuntary and cumbersome to finding facts, yet however sustains their identity as they waft through the information presented to them. This is important to "anchoring" their passing interest, making it more of a hobby or enthusiast pursuit.

[Archmonoth]

6 hours ago, Christopher S. said:

I think at the end of the day, using words where mathematics have conventionally been used results in the intended absorption of information being altered slightly due to connotations.

 

That is why people discuss things, and clarify, it is a basic function of communication. 

 

6 hours ago, Christopher S. said:

It is my aim to learn a method of describing phenomena in English that puts just enough humanistic quality onto things to make it possible to engage the conceptualization abilities of those reading.

 

The term is called rhetoric, and it is used in persuasive writing or expression like  poetry or grant writing, again a basic aspect of communication. Math is abstracted first order logic, semantics and philosophy are second order logic. More precisely; numbers are symbols with the most abstract definitions. The number 1 could mean 1 bullet or 1 murder, the symbol for 1 doesn't tell us another about the 1 thing is. Semantics can describe an abstraction with meanings or context. Art is the easiest way to describe ideas, because words require much more formal understanding of symbols, road signs for example

 

 

6 hours ago, Christopher S. said:

It helps spark curiosity, hopefully to the extent that they become interested in sciences - they may always learn that this personal projection of human values is involuntary and cumbersome to finding facts, yet however sustains their identity as they waft through the information presented to them. This is important to "anchoring" their passing interest, making it more of a hobby or enthusiast pursuit.

Personal projection? I am trying out an idea, and am happy to explain the thought process.  Personal perspectives can be new perspectives, and crucibles like the scientific method, semantic critique, and proof of contradiction  are all ways to refine the symmetry of ideas. What remains can be useful for expression. Feynman diagrams for example are great ways to express ideas in physics, relationships of atoms and forces, without loosing people with the formalism of math.  

 

Also, art is bias, even photography requires an eye for composition and choice of subject matter. Yet MC Escher and the Book of Kells can both describe negative curvature type symmetries without math, because symmetry is common in nature. 

 

Your post has moved almost entirely from the idea of Stellar symmetry, which I would love to discuss more. So here is my question to you Chris/anyone. Can the wobble/asymmetry of the Sun have a relationship with the sun spots or the sun cycle? 

 

Here is a picture I found of the Sun wobble for reference. 

Edited August 30, 2021 by Archmonoth

[Newbie]

 

 

On 8/29/2021 at 7:11 AM, Archmonoth said:

Entertainment purposes only: 
 

In group theory there is the M group, or Monster group, and worth wiki/searching. 

 

The M group number of 8x10 to 53rd is given to visual scale as the number of atoms in Jupiter. This was quite provocative to me and has compelled me to search more as an enthusiast of math. I don’t have formal education or training, and my observations are described as best I can.

 

Jupiter is on the boundary of becoming a brown dwarf star if its mass was 13-80 times higher, but the number of atoms got me thinking. The planet is in hydrostatic equilibrium, like terrestrial planets, and stars are in dynamic equilibrium. A common symmetry between many equilibria is balance, and Jupiter’s balanced is achieved with shepherd moons, its mass, distance from the Sun. etc., like a mini solar system.

 

What if the symmetry, or action of the M group is the number of atoms required for stellar transformation? The atoms, like spheres or mini solar systems themselves be in a dense balance/symmetry between charge mass and spin. The nova is the positive feedback loop of conversion, and gravity is the copy of this symmetry? (Double Copy Theory)

To put as simple as I can express… the smooth atomic structures stack up like little balls, forming a lattice, and when this lattice reaches the M group number by being symmetrical in a sufficient way, the Nova happens. 

 

Pulsars and Neutron stars are especially symmetrical, in more ways than typical red giants, since they undergo Neutronization. Is there a study or exploration of Stellar Symmetry?

 

My observation (guesswork), is the 196883 dimensions suggested for the action of the Monster group, are the required symmetry or possible patterns of organization for stars to escape gravitational collapse. This is the size of the Monster crack/group, requiring the most symmetry to enter. 

 

 

 

 

Archmonoth: I found your last clip really interesting. I found these articles.

I somehow knew string theory would be mentioned and after John Conway said he didn’t completely understand the Monster Group and the number of symmetries etc I didn’t feel quite so dumb.

The one sad thing in this is that John Conway passed away from COVID-19 last year.

I’m not in the habit of posting You-tube stuff, but anyway.

Newbie 😊

 

 

 

https://www.quanta-magazine.org/mathematicians-chase-moonshine-string-theory-connections-20150312/

• 
  
   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On 8/30/2021 at 3:13 PM, Archmonoth said:

Your post has moved almost entirely from the idea of Stellar symmetry, which I would love to discuss more. So here is my question to you Chris/anyone. Can the wobble/asymmetry of the Sun have a relationship with the sun spots or the sun cycle? 

 

Archmonoth: we've only just started on Stellar Symmetry and Monster Groups!   

I can't keep up! LOL

Edited September 2, 2021 by Newbie
On of the links didn't work

[Archmonoth]

12 hours ago, Newbie said:

Archmonoth: we've only just started on Stellar Symmetry and Monster Groups!   

 

I can't keep up! LOL

 

My apologizes, I am trying to refine the questions to be on topic/clarified. I have seen the video you posted, and enjoy listing to John Conway describe the Monster Group. My observation is that the monster group is probably based on something obvious like a blackhole, the Big Bang,  or an structure which is right in front of us. If the Monster's action of symmetry has such a numerous amount of dimension, perhaps a couple of them are visible to us (like the J-function).

 

People blow their brain fuses when they encounter symmetry, and retreat to things like sacred geometry, god or other such glamourous things. (I don't intend to be adversarial about those topics, but I'm headed in a different direction)

When in reality, there is more than symmetry, like the Sun's wobble (asymmetry), which makes all sorts of turbulence. The turbulence is what I'm interested in, since it could mean stellar transformation into stars, sun spots, or stellar evolution.

 

So imagine if you will the universe is a landscape with gravitational cracks. Only certain strategies or conditions allow certain stars to go deeper into this crack. Here is a picture of gravitational thresholds for reference of what I'm talking about:

 

This is also why I am mentioning (previous posts) Neutron stars, since they are deeper on this limit due to the symmetry and characteristics of the R-process. r-process - Wikipedia

 

On the inverse of large things, a hydrogen atom has an immense amount of symmetry, except for the spin/orbit of the electron. As hydrogen cools, it can make a dipole effect, called the 21 Cm line, which is one of the ways we can see hydrogen clouds in space. This is why I like the analogy of the crack/hole for the Monster, since it requires a very specific amount of symmetry. There are some interesting symmetries shared between Neutron stars and hydrogen atoms... but ill save that for another post. 

 

So to back up, I will go at whatever speed conversation allows. Thank you again for your response, always happy to clarify and explore. 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 30, 2021 by Archmonoth

[Newbie]

6 hours ago, Archmonoth said:

 

My apologizes, I am trying to refine the questions to be on topic/clarified.

So to back up, I will go at whatever speed conversation allows. Thank you again for your response, always happy to clarify and explore. 

 

 

 

 

 

Archmonoth no need to apologise, it wasn't a criticism in any way at all, I said it tongue in cheek, hence the LOL. 

I don't think you need to defend the speed at which you go

I enjoy reading your posts

Newbie

[Newbie]

Archmonoth: I've been thinking often about this topic

Can you describe in your own words what you mean by symmetry?, because I sense that you are meaning more than just mirroring a structure, image, call it what you will, on many planes, or maybe I am oversimplifying something that is way more complex?

Dependent upon your interpretation of symmetry, how do you see the 'r' process as having symmetry?

Do oscillations exhibit symmetry? If oscillations occur beyond a certain limit do they then become assymetric, creating turbulence? 

Is the endpoint of assymetry and turbulence, chaos? At what point does turbulence become chaotic?

Do you then think that stars are born out of turbulence/chaos?

The diagram was interesting. What determines when that limit is reached what is the threshold? 

These are just things I've been considering, I don't expect precise answers, but happy to continue the conservation. 

Nice to talk about something different.

Newbie

 

[Archmonoth]

On 9/11/2021 at 1:52 AM, Newbie said:

Archmonoth: I've been thinking often about this topic

Can you describe in your own words what you mean by symmetry?, because I sense that you are meaning more than just mirroring a structure, image, call it what you will, on many planes, or maybe I am oversimplifying something that is way more complex?

Symmetry, as I understand it is the action you can take on an object where it remains the same or appears the same. Reflection is a kind of symmetry, turning something 360 degrees is a kind of symmetry. Group Theory is a way of describing symmetry and how things can be symmetrical.

For me, in poetry, words can have multiple meanings, those meanings are a kind of symmetry. For example I can say: "We walked with hurried steps to the edge, looking over, we saw the waters of our life."  

 

"Waters of life" could mean the ocean of choices, the fluid nature of circumstance, or even the nurturing world which welcomes hurried travelers. The statement could mean plenty of other things too, just a quick example.  The words are symmetrical between meanings. The more vague a word, the easier it it to mean multiple things, like slang. 

 

However in math or science, symmetry is stricter. A blank coin, or a thin cylinder is infinitely symmetrical when you turn it any amount of degrees, as long as you don't flip it. 

Time can be symmetrical, structures like crystals, snowflakes, diamonds etc. In higher dimensions, symmetry is more difficult. For example, a circle is not symmetrical in 3 dimensions, but a sphere is. 

On 9/11/2021 at 1:52 AM, Newbie said:

Dependent upon your interpretation of symmetry, how do you see the 'r' process as having symmetry?

The r-process is a condition in which electrons are captured and paired with protons to make neutrons, so the entire star is made of the same kind of sub-atomic particle. So the entire 3 dimensional space and density of the Neutron star after the r-process is composed of mostly neutrons. Where as super giants or g-type stars have convection, different layers of material etc. In the process of r-process the density of a Neutron star compresses protons and electrons into lattices like gold or iron, and when the final step of the r-process occurs (neutronization), the non-neutrons are blasted out. Neutron stars account for most of the heavier elements in the universe. 

 

Gold and iron, like within the Earth's core, come from the birth of Neutron stars. 

 

On 9/11/2021 at 1:52 AM, Newbie said:

Do oscillations exhibit symmetry? If oscillations occur beyond a certain limit do they then become assymetric, creating turbulence? 

This is something I don't know. Perhaps spin is a way of avoiding too much symmetry, especially with larger objects. Photons have spin, but no mass, Neutron stars with crazy spin from their birth can become Pulsars. Perhaps spin is a kind of temporal asymmetry which stops gravitational collapse. 

 

On 9/11/2021 at 1:52 AM, Newbie said:

Is the endpoint of assymetry and turbulence, chaos? At what point does turbulence become chaotic?

Turbulence can be a conversation function, like high and low pressure in storms, as a way of resolving the polarities in a system. Turbulence has a threshold after a certain distance from the source, called Laminar transition. Like after snuffing a candle, the heat diminishes and the smoke becomes turbulent. Laminar–turbulent transition - Wikipedia

On 9/11/2021 at 1:52 AM, Newbie said:

Do you then think that stars are born out of turbulence/chaos?

I think stars are born in the gutters of negative curvature. Particles gather in waveguides or gutters, places where they get squished into higher densities, until their density starts a positive feedback loop of explosions and creates enough positive curvature. Planets likewise form in gutters or negative curvature. A clump of dust gathers until it grows dense enough to achieve a spherical shape. Many moons and asteroids don't have enough mass or density to become spheres, and often appear as daggers or pancakes. 

 

Double Copy theory (from previous posts) suggests there is an inverse relationship, or kind of symmetry between the strong nuclear force, and gravity. To me this points to an asymmetry requirement to avoid gravitational collapse.

 

The Monster group, is symmetrical in a finite amount of ways, yet can be/act in 196k dimensions. To me, this looks like a crack in which requires a very specific kind of symmetry to enter. 

 

On 9/11/2021 at 1:52 AM, Newbie said:

The diagram was interesting. What determines when that limit is reached what is the threshold? 

Positive curvature and negative curvature are in equilibrium, until the star's fuel expires. 

Positive curvature is causes by explosions, and negative curvature is caused by the cracks of flat space from the explosions. Like if you wrapped a pieced of paper over a watermelon, the paper will rip and crack. The cracks are negative curvature (perhaps gravity) like low pressure in a storm, and the positive curvature is the stretching of the paper, as if space was pumped up. I understand these things as a novice, and perhaps I'm missing something. 

 

On 9/11/2021 at 1:52 AM, Newbie said:

These are just things I've been considering, I don't expect precise answers, but happy to continue the conservation. 

Nice to talk about something different.

Newbie

 

 

Indeed, thanks for the questions, I appreciate the chance to practice expressing these ideas.  

 

 

 

Edited September 12, 2021 by Archmonoth

[Newbie]

22 hours ago, Archmonoth said:

Symmetry, as I understand it is the action you can take on an object where it remains the same or appears the same. Reflection is a kind of symmetry, turning something 360 degrees is a kind of symmetry. Group Theory is a way of describing symmetry and how things can be symmetrical. 

 

 

 

 

 

A few thoughts, not in any order at the moment. May need to edit.   

Obviously a difference between static symmetry and dynamic symmetry. 

Consider the star that is in equilibrium. The forces pushing inwards are equal to the forces pushing outwards. This equilibrium I would describe as being dynamic. Would symmetry in this instance also be dynamic, flexing in and out?

Assuming yes, is symmetry then keeping this star in equilibrium or as you mention asymmetry may avoid gravitational collapse. Is it one, or the other, or both in play? Edit: then I read it is neg. & pos. curvature at work. 

Which leads me to think, are these curvatures, symmetries?

Moving along, once the star's fuel is spent, the star is no longer in equilibrium. The forces pushing inwards are greater than the forces pushing outwards, gravitational collapse occurs, the star falls down the crack, the star's size determining the type of resultant star it becomes. The diagram indicates this.

What happens to the symmetry that keeps the star in equilibrium, assuming it did, does it decompose or break down completely or reach a different level?

Thinking about positive and negative curvature led me to consider diagrams relating to spacetime, the sphere representing positive curvature, the saddle representing negative curvature, I see negative curvature like a funnel. Things falling into the crack will fall into the funnel of negative curvature. Like stuff falling into a black hole, analogy stops there

There is a tendency for entropy to increase in the universe; order becoming disorder. I guess I have trouble understanding how stars could be born out of the sinks, if you like, of negative curvature. 

On a different tack: You obviously love poetry and words and how there can be many nuances of meaning. Interesting that you mention Water of Life, because it brought up totally different pictures in my thoughts. That is the wonderment of language, and also the trap! The written, even spoken, word can often be taken the wrong way. Not that I include any of what you have said in that!

There are metrics in poetry that I love too. Never thought of poetry  in the light of symmetry before.

I guess when I write I like to remove any double meaning.

I may edit or add to some of this later.

Great to continue the conversation. 

Have a good day Archmonoth  

 

 

Edited September 13, 2021 by Newbie
I knew I would edit!

[Archmonoth]

2 hours ago, Newbie said:

Which leads me to think, are these curvatures, symmetries?

This is the suggestion of the Double Copy Theory in my opinion. If the strong nuclear force and gravity are a kind of a symmetry, you need something more, some asymmetry to avoid an equal and opposite reaction from the expanding space of the star's explosions. 

 

2 hours ago, Newbie said:

What happens to the symmetry that keeps the star in equilibrium, assuming it did, does it decompose or break down completely or reach a different level?

Equilibrium can be simple harmonic oscillation, like an expanding spiral or a collapsing spiral. The outward/inward spirals are not sustainable indefinitely, but appear stable from our time scale. A nova would be an example of an expanding spiral, and gravitational collapse would be the descending spiral. The oscillation is between positive and negative curvature. Here is the spiral of the Sun:

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Newbie said:

Thinking about positive and negative curvature led me to consider diagrams relating to spacetime, the sphere representing positive curvature, the saddle representing negative curvature, I see negative curvature like a funnel. Things falling into the crack will fall into the funnel of negative curvature. Like stuff falling into a black hole, analogy stops there

 

A funnel seems like a good shape to consider for this, and seems more complete than the saddle, since the funnel is 360 degrees of the saddle shape, rather than just a local description of negative curvature. 

Earlier I used the coin as a way to show how a 2d object can't be symmetrical with a 3d space, but if you spin it, like a coin on the table, it appears to be a sphere. Platonic solids are good examples of flat surfaces, and when allowed to interact with a z axis, can form 3 dimensional objects. Platonic solid - Wikipedia

 

2 hours ago, Newbie said:

There is a tendency for entropy to increase in the universe; order becoming disorder. I guess I have trouble understanding how stars could be born out of the sinks, if you like, of negative curvature. Where is the energy coming from to bring order out of disorder?

I see entropy as a kind of temporal symmetry, as described by Emily Noether

"If a system has continuous symmetry property, then there are corresponding quantities whose values are conserved in time. " 

 

To me this means spin is an attribute of spatial displacement, trying to flatten another kind of paper. To avoid this symmetry, another kind of spin is needed, and like platonic solids, the additional spin in higher dimensions (like the z axis with coins) will make 4d objects, like tesseracts and such. I guess this could mean time and space are symmetries of each other, like positive and negative curvature, but it is just a guess. 

 

Neutron stars have the same density as an atomic nucleus, so perhaps with enough Neutron stars packed together, they can form a shape which can spin in a higher dimension, much like the flat shapes can form a platonic solid.

 

I would rule out spheres themselves since they have infinite symmetries, but combinations of spheres could make lattice shapes in higher dimensions with finite symmetries, much like the periodic table of elements. 

 

Inversely, the amount of hydrogen atoms in Jupiter (the finite number of symmetries describing the Monster group), with each atom being its own sub-set system symmetrical with the other nearby hydrogen atoms. Once in simple harmonic resonance, begin exploding into higher dimensions, displacing and pushing out space, and then eventually dying under the weight of temporal symmetry and/or negative curvature. 

 

As for Dark energy/matter, perhaps they could be spinning galaxies with shapes in higher dimensions? Higher dimension shapes have exponentially more volume than lower dimension shapes, so who knows? 

 

As for star formation, those gutters, which are called waveguides, are formed from stars pushing outward near each other, and the gas and dust smashes together, until gravity acts on the cobwebs. When gravity acts on the cobwebs long enough, you get shapes like asteroids, planets, then finally stars. 

 

To me, order and disorder are perceptive rather than fundamental. What is disorder to the fly, is order to the spider. The language of chaos and determinism are perceptions based on the amount of knowledge you have about the system. Probability changes with additional information, much like apparent disorder can be a function of conservation like a storm, if you look at a large enough system. This is my opinion, and I'm sorry if it isn't a very good answer. 

 

 

2 hours ago, Newbie said:

On a different tack: You obviously love poetry and words and how there can be many nuances of meaning. Interesting that you mention Water of Life, because it brought up totally different pictures in my thoughts. That is the wonderment of language, and also the trap! The written, even spoken, word can often be taken the wrong way. 

Oh yes! Language is wonderful, and words can dissolve or change with intonation. To manage the potential of meaninglessness plunging communication into an abyss, there is this Axiom of Specification (Set Theory) which states every sub-set is a set.

 

To me this means every little page or sentence could be its own world of relationships, its own context. 

 

Thank you again for interest and conversation. 

Edited September 13, 2021 by Archmonoth

[Newbie]

Sorry I edited out the bit about dark energy. For your eyes only haha! Same for you with the little diagram! For my eyes only haha  

..... to be continued

Fantastic! The Sun diagram reminds of the depiction of the Heliosperic Current Sheet, largest structure in the Solar System, according to Wiki. AKA ballerina's skirt!

Have you considered the Fibonacci number sequence?  The two spirals emanating from the Sun remind me of it!

 

Edited September 13, 2021 by Newbie

[Archmonoth]

14 hours ago, Newbie said:

Fantastic! The Sun diagram reminds of the depiction of the Heliosperic Current Sheet, largest structure in the Solar System, according to Wiki. AKA ballerina's skirt!

It is the current sheet!  The Sun also wobbles a bit around the funnel due to the non-symmetrical barycenter. So perhaps the barycenter provides enough asymmetry to to prevent the funnel from swallowing it.. so to speak. 

 

14 hours ago, Newbie said:

Have you considered the Fibonacci number sequence?  The two spirals emanating from the Sun remind me of it!

I do enjoy the sequence, and in the case of the current sheet, both negative and positive curvature seem equal/symmetrical. 

 

I might have a better answer later. 

 

14 hours ago, Newbie said:

..... to be continued

 

I look forward to it.

Edited September 13, 2021 by Archmonoth

[Newbie]

On 9/14/2021 at 4:24 AM, Archmonoth said:

It is the current sheet!  The Sun also wobbles a bit around the funnel due to the non-symmetrical barycenter. So perhaps the barycenter provides enough asymmetry to to prevent the funnel from swallowing it.. so to speak. 

 

I do enjoy the sequence, and in the case of the current sheet, both negative and positive curvature seem equal/symmetrical. 

 

I might have a better answer later. 

 

 

I look forward to it.

Archmonoth: Thanks for your support.  I found some information here relating to string theory, chiral supersymmetry and so on. It seemed really interesting. Copy and paste address into browser. 

Regards,

Newbie

https://4gravitons.com/

By the way we had an earthquake here today 5.9 at 9:15 AEST

Scared the daylights out of quite a few people, not used to them here. 

All good

 

https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.05488 another interesting article.

Collin University: arXiv.org has quite a few articles on symmetry/supersymmetry, in amongst all their other research papers

Edited September 22, 2021 by Newbie
Earthquake update :)

[Archmonoth]

10 hours ago, Newbie said:

Archmonoth: Thanks for your support.  I found some information here relating to string theory, chiral supersymmetry and so on. It seemed really interesting. Copy and paste address into browser. 

Regards,

Newbie

https://4gravitons.com/

By the way we had an earthquake here today 5.9 at 9:15 AEST

Scared the daylights out of quite a few people, not used to them here. 

All good

 

https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.05488 another interesting article.

Collin University: arXiv.org has quite a few articles on symmetry/supersymmetry, in amongst all their other research papers

 

Thanks for the links, will take a while to chew on them, much of the language will require me to look up some things and ask people questions. 

 

Since last time, I've learned a little more about Hydrogen; when in sufficient density will act like a super conductor, by sharing electrons with nearby Hydrogen. This means each atom of Hydrogen can hold 0.5 more electrons than typical. So if Jupiter was closer to 100% Hydrogen, the symmetry would allow for super conductivity, and perhaps begin the transformation into a star. Perhaps over time it will reach this threshold.

 

Regarding the combination of Neutron stars: There are a group of 7 Neutron stars who perhaps match the requirement of harmony for a higher dimensional structure: The Magnificent Seven (neutron stars) - Wikipedia  Which leads me to the topic of spherical harmonics. 

 

Much like our Sun, the spin of the stars and black holes will conserve a portion of their total angular momentum over time. (Black holes can evaporate like a whirlpool in a sink) 

 

Higher dimensional energy states might conserve their higher dimensional spin in a similar manner, perhaps with higher mass,  or greater energy releases than are possible etc. Using the language of my previous posts conversation I would describe 196k dimensions as stacked pieces of paper, which is very dense and requires vast amounts of energy to perturb. However, if the paper analogy holds up, there will be a point where the paper's remaining thickness is easier to rip than previous layers, perhaps near the 1/2 mark at 98k dimensional mark   If the 198k dimensions are a crack, this would look like a sudden pit at the 1/2 mark. (This is the Little Monster group)

 

What does higher dimensional turbulence look like? Looking down we can see that 3d objects can break down into fields, like explosions from splitting atoms creates a disruption in the electromagnetic field, and you get gamma radiation. I'm not sure on higher dimensions, my guess is that the higher dimensional energy would be conserved through an increase in momentum. 

 

Inversely, places without spin, or lower energy states will be easier to perturb, sending currents into nearby systems like tidal interactions. (A still pool of water) I am thinking of the globular star clusters, which could cause a great amount of turbulence when a another galaxy comes nearby. This seems like the more fragile the system, the faster the energy is conserved by utilizing some kind of turbulence. 

 

A quick return to asymmetry: 

If an object's symmetry creates negative curvature and positive curvature in equal amounts, as long as you look at a large enough system, then asymmetry would be an indicator of conservation through turbulence. This is based on the opinion that storms are the visible temporal conservation of high/low pressure.

 

 

Turbulence= conservation into a lower energy state, or symmetry. 

To me this would mean a couple things. The first being that conservation might be higher dimensional pressure acting on lower dimensional structures. The second is that the radius of an turbulence is reflective of the intensity of its total energy. Lastly, the radius of turbulence from nearby sources would be optimally determined and symmetrical between all sources. This is what I understand Bessel functions to be, here is a neat diagram of a simple harmonic oscillation of a drum to demonstrate a radial conservation of force.

 

In the case of earthquakes, energy from the lithosphere is being conserved through seismic waves. I've been in a earthquake (6.8), and it was terrifying. I'm glad you are alright.  

 

Thank you again for the practice in expressing these topics, and I welcome any observations. 

[Newbie]

Thanks for all this new info Archmonoth, I'll be chewing away as well.

 

[Archmonoth]

On 9/21/2021 at 10:53 PM, Newbie said:

https://4gravitons.com/

 

This website was interesting. I like the ideas of non-academics discussion with academics, even of the frustration and language barrier can prevent understanding. The recent article on a non-academic reaching out to get assistance with some math resonates with me personally. I don't have the formal education, and often it limits my ability to engage in conversation. For example, Entropy is highly confusing to explain and have explained to me. Since Entropy is used in a general way to refer to disorder, yet when a system is motionless, it can be described as having a large amount of Entropy. Trying to explain this, and learn this can be counter intuitive. Usually I have to look up a couple different explanations, or search other forums for descriptions before some small understanding is achieved, if any.

Anyways, thanks for the link, ill probably keep an eye on it since it tries to describe things in non-academic ways. 

 

On 9/21/2021 at 10:53 PM, Newbie said:

https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.05488 another interesting article.

Collin University: arXiv.org has quite a few articles on symmetry/supersymmetry, in amongst all their other research papers

 

Quarks and their relationship to dark matter are beyond me for the most part. I was able to find some good descriptions to smooth out my previous posts. Basically, Noether's theorem can be used to describe the idea that energy is conserved through invariant time, and momentum is conserved through invariant space.

 

The formula of M²=E² - P² is used to describe this, where M=total mass, E=Energy, and P=Total Angular momentum. This is a newer way of thinking and describing forces of conservation, rather than previous ideas like "energy is nether created or destroyed". 

 

Returning back to the Monster group, I don't have adequate analogies to approach describing this idea, they seem beyond the specifics required for further understanding. Thanks for letting me practice expressing, even if none of my descriptions are accurate. 

 

 

Edited September 27, 2021 by Archmonoth

[Drax Spacex]

On 8/28/2021 at 4:11 PM, Archmonoth said:

Entertainment purposes only: 

Why did the Octahedron and the Icosahedron stop dating?

Because they both decided they'd be better off in a platonic relationship.

[Newbie]

21 hours ago, Archmonoth said:

 

This website was interesting. I like the ideas of non-academics discussion with academics, even of the frustration and language barrier can prevent understanding. The recent article on a non-academic reaching out to get assistance with some math resonates with me personally. I don't have the formal education, and often it limits my ability to engage in conversation. For example, Entropy is highly confusing to explain and have explained to me. Since Entropy is used in a general way to refer to disorder, yet when a system is motionless, it can be described as having a large amount of Entropy. Trying to explain this, and learn this can be counter intuitive. Usually I have to look up a couple different explanations, or search other forums for descriptions before some small understanding is achieved, if any.

Anyways, thanks for the link, ill probably keep an eye on it since it tries to describe things in non-academic ways. 

 

 

Quarks and their relationship to dark matter are beyond me for the most part. I was able to find some good descriptions to smooth out my previous posts. Basically, Noether's theorem can be used to describe the idea that energy is conserved through invariant time, and momentum is conserved through invariant space.

 

The formula of M²=E² - P² is used to describe this, where M=total mass, E=Energy, and P=Total Angular momentum. This is a newer way of thinking and describing forces of conservation, rather than previous ideas like "energy is nether created or destroyed". 

 

Returning back to the Monster group, I don't have adequate analogies to approach describing this idea, they seem beyond the specifics required for further understanding. Thanks for letting me practice expressing, even if none of my descriptions are accurate. 

 

 

Archmonoth: I was thinking earlier we may have moved away a little from what you originally posted about. Sorry. 

IMO there is an entropy dilemma. To decrease entropy requires input of energy. So entropy can decrease but there has to be an associated increase.

If you drop a pack of playing cards on the floor, it requires energy to pick them up and put them back as a pack. This ordering again of the cards sees their entropy decrease but the energy that has been expended to do this has increased entropy via our muscles etc doing work and so on. That's easy enough to understand. 

The expanding universe is seen as increasing entropy, as energy is dissipated. To reverse that would require tremendous energy input.

Given that the formation of new stars under gravitational collapse of the stellar material would seem to decrease entropy where is the input of energy coming from to cause this? Is gravitational force creating energy?

Can entropy be conserved? A dam full of water contains potential energy. If the dam wall breaks, the water rushes out, the potential energy is converted to kinetic energy, we end up with water everywhere. Haha! try putting the water back into the dam! The system had lower entropy, now entropy has increased. So was there a containing or conserving, then a releasing, of entropy?

There is ongoing research into the anomalies of entropy. 

I always prefer information that is put simply too. You're not alone.

With regards to the research papers: yes, they are high end scientific research, but the take away is that the research is ongoing and still theoretical. Nothing has been proven yet.

With regards to Supersymmetry (S/S) it seems recent results from the LHC have not been able to detect any S/S at all. It is not looking good for it at the moment. Some are still hoping this is not the case because then they have to find another theory. S/S was important to Super String theory. 

Yet conservation of energy at a point in time and the potential for momentum at a point in space do not contradict that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, as the potential is there for that energy to be converted from one type to another, like in the dam. It just hasn't happened yet. I stand to be corrected. 

There's ongoing debate about what are the smallest possible particles, and just when you think there are no more particles to be discovered hey presto! LHC has spat something else out.

I read an interesing article a few days ago, I can't remember where, where two photons were smashed into each other and a tiny bit of mass was produced!!!

So symmetry: where it all began

We can have symmetry in time. If we conduct an experiment on a certain day and obtain a result, let's call it A, then repeat the same experiment the next day and obtain the same result A, then symmetry in time has occured. If we obtained a different result the next day, say B, then symmetry didn't exist.

If we conduct an experiment at location C and another at location D, both resulting in A, then there is symmetry in location (space). If the experiment was affected by time or space then the results would be asymmetric. If the experiment wasn't affected by space or time then there is symmetry. 

I don't understand symmetry in prose. There can be depth in a piece of writing, revealing deeper meanings perhaps even like a picture within a picture. Do you have anymore thoughts on that? and ...

... I think I've rambled on quite long enough, I didn't mean to write an essay 😷

Cheers.

Newbie

Drax Spacex: More jokes please

PS: I just got a copy of 2010 TYWMC on your recommendation?? Well at least you referenced it. Will watch soon!

Watched movie, quite enjoyable for it's age.

Hal wasn't such a bad guy he was just programmed wrong.

Newbie

 

 

Edited September 28, 2021 by Newbie

[Archmonoth]

16 hours ago, Newbie said:

Archmonoth: I was thinking earlier we may have moved away a little from what you originally posted about. Sorry. 

No worries, speculation on some abstract group like the Monster can get pretty weird. 

16 hours ago, Newbie said:

IMO there is an entropy dilemma. To decrease entropy requires input of energy. So entropy can decrease but there has to be an associated increase.

This is what messes me up. A still pond might be high in entropy, and requires energy or input to be disturbed. This is why I consider order/disorder to be preceptive, since the stillness is something I would understand as orderly, and the turbulence as disorder. I tend to recognize objects and systems as things in equilibrium, like a chair or a rock, relative to my time scale, even though a chair, which can be made of wood, is a dead creature (tree) and is decomposing, or metal which is rusting.

The definition of a chair is the order of the chair, and the object is moving away from the definition of a chair and decomposing through a disorder state. The definition of the chair is a strict (semi strict) set of conditions to be considered a chair and not something else, like a balloon, or a salad, which tend to be different enough objects to warrant their own orderly descriptions. 

Perceptive order/disorder:

Definitions and descriptions= orderly 

Decay/construction= disorderly (since they are moving away/towards the descriptions)

 

I see conservation of energy/momentum as a return to an orderly state, or stillness, rather than disorder, even though the descriptions of Entropy say the opposite, hence my difficulty.

 

16 hours ago, Newbie said:

If you drop a pack of playing cards on the floor, it requires energy to pick them up and put them back as a pack. This ordering again of the cards sees their entropy decrease but the energy that has been expended to do this has increased entropy via our muscles etc doing work and so on. That's easy enough to understand. 

To me, there is no method to determine if this is how the cards should/shouldn't be (stacked or all spread out into winning poker hands).

To avoid semantic confusion, I refer to potential energy, since the cards falling on the floor have realized the potential energy through falling. The disorder of their organization is subjective and can be ignored, and the energy state is measured instead. In the case of the cards, they are now still, or decayed from a deck of cards into a pile of cards. 

This is mixing semantics in a bit, which I am more familiar with, but I understand the mechanism of restoring order of the deck of cards through picking them up with additional energy. 

 

16 hours ago, Newbie said:

The expanding universe is seen as increasing entropy, as energy is dissipated. To reverse that would require tremendous energy input.

Given that the formation of new stars under gravitational collapse of the stellar material would seem to decrease entropy where is the input of energy coming from to cause this? Is gravitational force creating energy?

Can entropy be conserved? A dam full of water contains potential energy. If the dam wall breaks, the water rushes out, the potential energy is converted to kinetic energy, we end up with water everywhere. Haha! try putting the water back into the dam! The system had lower entropy, now entropy has increased. So was there a containing or conserving, then a releasing, of entropy?

Perhaps Entropy is conservation?  Entropy would be the conservation of energy back into a still/orderly state, which is was before the turbulence. 

 

The universe seems like it was hotter during the big bang and shortly after, and now the heat is condensing as it returns to a still/orderly state. The energy is conserved (settles down) through time, defining spaces of high/low energy states. I see this in the Inverse Square Law because it describes pockets of flux absence. 

 

16 hours ago, Newbie said:

With regards to Supersymmetry (S/S) it seems recent results from the LHC have not been able to detect any S/S at all. It is not looking good for it at the moment. Some are still hoping this is not the case because then they have to find another theory. S/S was important to Super String theory. 

Yet conservation of energy at a point in time and the potential for momentum at a point in space do not contradict that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, as the potential is there for that energy to be converted from one type to another, like in the dam. It just hasn't happened yet. I stand to be corrected. 

Those transformations are described with symmetry, as I understand it. Also here is a paper I found on using AI to find hidden symmetries, so perhaps additional energy to momentum transformations can be understood in the future. [2109.09721] Machine-learning hidden symmetries (arxiv.org)

 

16 hours ago, Newbie said:

There's ongoing debate about what are the smallest possible particles, and just when you think there are no more particles to be discovered hey presto! LHC has spat something else out.

I read an interesing article a few days ago, I can't remember where, where two photons were smashed into each other and a tiny bit of mass was produced!!!

I've seen this article too, and I'm not surprised, since light can be bunched up into a ball and bounce around in curved space for a while as its energy/angular momentum is conserved, similar to a black hole. 

16 hours ago, Newbie said:

So symmetry: where it all began

We can have symmetry in time. If we conduct an experiment on a certain day and obtain a result, let's call it A, then repeat the same experiment the next day and obtain the same result A, then symmetry in time has occured. If we obtained a different result the next day, say B, then symmetry didn't exist.

Which is why I get confused with Entropy, since the symmetry is occurring, rather than there being an increase into something, and if there is a something being increased, it is stillness rather than disorder. 

16 hours ago, Newbie said:

I don't understand symmetry in prose. There can be depth in a piece of writing, revealing deeper meanings perhaps even like a picture within a picture. Do you have anymore thoughts on that? and ...

Oh sure! I can say "The black lab traveled down the street." Perhaps you think of a black Labrador, a dog strolling down the street. Then I say "The mechanical beast hummed as chemicals bubbled within." Which could still be a dog, but the term mechanical/gears perhaps means something with machines and wheels. Then I add "The hunger of the creature could not be contained."

 

The term creature or beast could mean a monstrance, and to me these phrases could also mean a black painted chemical laboratory on wheels, which makes drugs, since the term lab could mean multiple things. The vagueness of words can allow multiple definitions to be true. This is how I see symmetry in poetry.

 

16 hours ago, Newbie said:

... I think I've rambled on quite long enough, I didn't mean to write an essay 😷

I enjoy the questions and observations, thanks for the speculative conversation.  

 

Edited September 28, 2021 by Archmonoth

[Newbie]

5 hours ago, Archmonoth said:

Oh sure! I can say "The black lab traveled down the street." Perhaps you think of a black Labrador, a dog strolling down the street. Then I say "The mechanical beast hummed as chemicals bubbled within." Which could still be a dog, but the term mechanical/gears perhaps means something with machines and wheels. Then I add "The hunger of the creature could not be contained."

The term creature or beast could mean a monstrance, and to me these phrases could also mean a black painted chemical laboratory on wheels, which makes drugs, since the term lab could mean multiple things. The vagueness of words can allow multiple definitions to be true. This is how I see symmetry in poetry.

 

 

 

The reasons for putting pen on paper, so to speak, can be many. To inform, express a thought or belief, entertain, as an outlet for the need to express yourself, to comfort, I'm sure you could add to the list.

In every instance there is an intended audience. 

My thought is that the reader needs to have confidence in what is written, that they understand the context and the intent behind the writing, makes sense? Multiple meanings will lead to confusion, unless of course the reader is a willing partaker, fully aware. 

Symmetry suggests stability to me, wheras multiple meanings are like a state of flux where one minute you read something that means this and then later it means that to you and then later still you see something else and then someone sees it in a completely different light. 

Having said all that, words are amazing and can add such richness to the interactions between people, particularly when those people are on the same page.

Nice to continue the conversation,

Newbie

 

 

[Archmonoth]

22 hours ago, Newbie said:

My thought is that the reader needs to have confidence in what is written, that they understand the context and the intent behind the writing, makes sense? Multiple meanings will lead to confusion, unless of course the reader is a willing partaker, fully aware. 

Jokes and puns often require multiple meanings, like Drax's joke. Riddles are multiple meanings hidden in the obvious, and while they might be confusing, multiple meanings are there. Parables, platitudes, and poetry are all vague uses of meaning, so that the reader can find meaning without strict definitions. 

Poetry is probably the most forgiving of contradiction, and jokes are the most pleasant. Here is my favorite dad style joke: "When does a joke become a dad joke? When it becomes apparent..." Multiple meanings can lead to confusion, but it is rarely the destination. 

 

22 hours ago, Newbie said:

Symmetry suggests stability to me, wheras multiple meanings are like a state of flux where one minute you read something that means this and then later it means that to you and then later still you see something else and then someone sees it in a completely different light. 

"It is what it is..."  This platitude means whatever someone wants it to mean, or "Wherever you go, there you are..."  This platitude resonates differently with people at different times of their life, fully symmetrical, and vague enough to mean multiple things. Most symmetry only needs a lack of contradiction to be reversible, and with poetry, you can omit details which specify too much, allowing the reader to see what they want.

 

The vague and the truth are usually symmetrical, by not being incorrect/contradictory.  

 

There is also numerical symmetry in types of poems with meter and syllables, like Haikus. The 5/7/5 format is symmetrical from top to bottom, but doesn't describe any content. 

 

I mentioned slang earlier, and I think it is worth mentioning again. Rather than using an explicative, I'll use the word "smurf" which can describe something without any details. Example: "We smurfed all the way to the ocean, smurfed a while, then smurfed on our way home. "  Ocean and home provide destinations and the context describes travel, but smurf could mean anything. You have some knowledge, but not complete knowledge. I could find a word which is symmetrical between all 3 activities, like... "talk" which  would look like this: "We talked all the way to the ocean, talked a while, then talked on our way home."  

 

In mythology, only a few ideas are completely separate, the Sun and the ocean are probably the most common. 

 

Anyways, thanks again for the chance to attempt an explanation. Here is my favorite symmetry meme, if memes are allowed on this site. 

Edited September 29, 2021 by Archmonoth