What is the Basis for a Non-symmetrical Universe?

[TakenItSeriously]

I understand that the "Twin Paradox" problem is not a symmetrical problem.

 

Aside from the TP arguement. Is there any other basis for the claim that the Universe is not symmetrical?

[Delta1212]

I'm not sure I understand the question.

[TakenItSeriously]

I'm not sure I understand the question.

Perhaps I'm basing it upon a false assumption about what is currently accepted about what we know about the universe since I'm not a physicist.

 

I recall a physicist in a documentary, I don't recall who, or the particular branch he was an expert in, or even the particular documentary (I've seen hundreds) stating that many modern theories such as String Theory or Super Symmetry are dependent upon a symmetrical universe.

 

He went on to say that we know that the Universe is not a symmetrical Universe. Therefore it may only be possible to provide a consistent theory of a hypothetical universe that didn't actually agree with what we know, or something to that effect.

 

Again, I can only say that was the gist of the statement from memory. He expressed it as if it were a matter of fact and didn't seem to be expressing it as an opinion or hypothesis. Therefore I had assumed that it was an accepted conclusion in the Scientific community.

 

I also assumed, at the time, that his statement was based upon the "Twin Paradox" conclusion whose premise of the paradox was based upon the symmetry of Relativity. I seem to recall that his statement mentioned Special Relativity specifically, though, I understand that memory is a tricky thing.

Edited November 16, 2016 by TakenItSeriously

[Sensei]

What is the Basis for a Non-symmetrical Universe?

 

I can tell you

"What is the Basis for a Symmetrical Universe?"

 

For each matter particle there is antimatter antiparticle. Which has exactly the same properties as matter, except charge is reversed.

 

f.e.

electron matter, positron antimatter.

proton matter, antiproton antimatter,

muon-, muon+

tau-, tau+

pion-, pion+

kaon-, kaon+

etc. etc.

 

Half-life of unstable particle, and it's antimatter antiparticle is (typically) the same (within error standard deviation). Scientists are searching for deviations from it.

 

Decay modes of unstable particle is symmetrical between matter and antimatter.

Scientists are searching for deviations from it.

 

f.e.

pion+ decay to muon+ and muon neutrino

and

pion- decay to muon- and muon antineutrino

 

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Particles/piondec.html

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Particles/hadron.html#c2

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Particles/lepton.html#c3

 

So, non-symmetrical Universe, would have above symmetries broken.

Edited November 16, 2016 by Sensei

[Strange]

It is hard to answer, when you are not sure what the question is.

But quantum theory is based on various types of symmetry, such as the matter-antimatter pairs that sensei talks about.

More generally, there are symmetries in charge, parity and time.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Particles/cpt.html

A symmetry in a physical experiment suggests that something is conserved, or remains constant, during the experiment. So conservation laws and symmetries are strongly linked.

Some of these symmetries can be broken, which is part of the explanation why there is more matter than antimatter in the universe. However, that is not fully explained yet, so there are probably more symmetry breaking that we have not detected yet.

A process known as spontaneous symmetry breaking is what leads to things like the Higgs mechanism.So symmetry is a very important factor in quantum theory, but also pretty complex.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_symmetry_breaking

Edited November 16, 2016 by Strange

[mathematic]

The twin paradox (explained by relativity) has nothing to do with the symmetry question.

[TakenItSeriously]

Sorry about the delay and thanks for the responses.

 

It is hard to answer, when you are not sure what the question is.

 

But quantum theory is based on various types of symmetry, such as the matter-antimatter pairs that sensei talks about.

 

More generally, there are symmetries in charge, parity and time. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Particles/cpt.html

 

 

 

Some of these symmetries can be broken, which is part of the explanation why there is more matter than antimatter in the universe. However, that is not fully explained yet, so there are probably more symmetry breaking that we have not detected yet.

 

A process known as spontaneous symmetry breaking is what leads to things like the Higgs mechanism.So symmetry is a very important factor in quantum theory, but also pretty complex.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_symmetry_breaking

Thanks for the sources, I looked into symmetry breaking and it was pretty informative.

 

Does the science community consider these assymetries as mysteries that need to be solved?

Has the science community considered that symmetry could be created as part of a multi-dimensional Universe?

 

Have they accepted that the Universe is not symmetrical and theories they conflict with as wrong?

or

do they consider that the laws or framework of the Universe as a symmetrical framework that may contain asymmetries?

or

something else?

Edited November 17, 2016 by TakenItSeriously

[Strange]

 

 

Does the science community consider these assymetries as mysteries that need to be solved?

 

I don't think so. They just seem to be a fundamental aspect of the way the universe works. The main outstanding question related to it (that I am aware of) is the fact that there is more matter than antimatter.

[TakenItSeriously]

The twin paradox (explained by relativity) has nothing to do with the symmetry question.

Symmetry is the premise behind the veridical paradox which states that each twin should have symmetrically identical observations of the other.

 

There are many different conclusions that provide sources for time deviation but don't necessarily show how the apparent paradox is not a paradox or they don't provide a transparent cause and effect relationship.

 

I had gotten the impression that the overall conclusion of the science community was that SR was not a symmetrical framework based on the Twin Paradox, which is no reflection on my personal hypothesis.

 

I don't think so. They just seem to be a fundamental aspect of the way the universe works. The main outstanding question related to it (that I am aware of) is the fact that there is more matter than antimatter.

Ok, thanks very much for your help. Edited November 18, 2016 by TakenItSeriously

[Strange]

Symmetry is the premise behind the veridical paradox which states that each twin should have symmetrically identical observations of the other.

 

 

That is a completely different thing. The situation there is not symmetrical: one twin accelerates and the other doesn't.

[TakenItSeriously]

 

 

The twin paradox (explained by relativity) has nothing to do with the symmetry question.

Symmetry is the premise behind the veridical paradox which states that each twin should have symmetrically identical observations of the other.

That is a completely different thing. The situation there is not symmetrical: one twin accelerates and the other doesn't.

I agree, the premise that the twins should have symmetrically identical observations of each other is a false premise.

 

I was only pointing out that symmetry was part of the origional premise given in the first place, not that symmetry was part of the conclusion.

 

I would point out that the asymmetry is in how the two inertial reference frames are divided. A moving ship in one frame and the two planets including the distance between them in the other frame. Therefore only the ship's twin experiences length contraction of the distance while the Earth twin sees only sees the ship become length contracted.

 

This means the Ship's twin travels less distance which takes less time and accounts for the dime deviation experienced between them.

 

In the Wikipedia example,

 

the earth twin experiences

d = 4.0ly

t = 5.0 years or 10 years round trip.

the ships twin experiences

d' = 0.6d = 0.6·4.0 = 2.4ly (due to length contraction)

t' = 2.4/0.8 = 3 years or 6 years round trip

 

Therefore the ship's twin is 4 years younger than the Earth twin when he returns

Edited November 18, 2016 by TakenItSeriously

[Strange]

 

I was only pointing out that symmetry was part of the origional premise given in the problem, not that symmetry was the conclusion.

 

 

 

But the original premise is that it is not symmetrical.

 

 

 

⇒length contraction of the distance causes the Ship's twin to travel less distance and therefore take less time which accounts for the dime deviation experienced.

 

That is not the reason.

[TakenItSeriously]

But the original premise is that it is not symmetrical.

 

 

"If the stationary organism is a man and the traveling one is his twin, then the traveler returns home to find his twin brother much aged compared to himself. The paradox centers on the contention that, in relativity, either twin could regard the other as the traveler, in which case each should find the other youngera logical contradiction. This contention assumes that the twins' situations are symmetrical and interchangeable, an assumption that is not correct. Furthermore, the accessible experiments have been done and support Einstein's prediction."

 

-Physicist Robert Resnik after Einstein restated the problem in 1911

Source Wikipedia Twin Paradox article,

[Strange]

Exactly. The idea that this is a "paradox" is based on a misunderstanding of the problem.

[Mordred]

The twin that accelerates undergoes "rapidity" this is a seperate set of tensor calculations. The rapidity is the source of assymmetry in the twin not paradox.

 

Both acceleration in magnitude and direction apply in this example. This tells us without doubt which twin was inertial.

[TakenItSeriously]

Exactly. The idea that this is a "paradox" is based on a misunderstanding of the problem.

Einstein first published the theory in 1905, using a clocks and rods thought experiment.

 

Paul Langevine created the twin paradox as a response from Einsteins critics in 1911 using the premise that the twins POV should be interchangeable and symmetrical in an attempt to create a paradox that would invalidate SR.

 

Ironically, Paul Langevine resolved his own paradox later that year giving relativistic doppler shift as the source.

 

Einstien claimed it was acceleration using GR that caused the time deviation.

 

Others have since given frame jumping at the turn around, or the accelerated turn around, or the frame jumping twice at the Earth or the fact that it was a round trip.

 

I proposed the asymmetry is created regardless of which frame we thought was moving because It's always the ship that's moving relative to the distance between the two planets. Therefore only the ship experiences length contraction.

 

The twin that accelerates undergoes "rapidity" this is a seperate set of tensor calculations. The rapidity is the source of assymmetry in the twin not paradox.

Both acceleration in magnitude and direction apply in this example. This tells us without doubt which twin was inertial.

Yes, but in the relativistic domain even the truth can be relative to how you look at it.

 

Reduce the problem to only the outbound leg where the ship drifts by the two planets in a straight line at a constant speed of 0.8c. We effectively remove all potential sources except the relativistic doppler shift and length contraction from the problem.

 

Still we can see half of the time deviation experienced is caused by length contraction in exactly the same way. Observations through telescopes or radio signals can confirm the deviation without needing to meet.

 

Edit to add:

You can also think of it this way, after calculating distance and time in the stationary frame, length contraction is the next calculation that is required before any other calculation can be made. Without length contraction, there is no time deviation.

 

I removed the stuff below on the new SR model as I got carried away and will repost something in the speculations forum where I had already started a thread

 

An Intuitive Model For Special Relativity

Edited November 19, 2016 by TakenItSeriously

[Mordred]

try working through the rapidity equations. You might be surprised. It isn't just meeting that is involved.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapidity

 

the very instance one ship no longer maintains constant velocity for any reason rapidity occurs and so does the world line itself. The Lorentz transformations are symmetric provided one assumes constant velocity. Once constant velocity occurs you have your assymetry.

 

The SO(1,3) Lorentz group is a skew-symmetric group

 

however you should note

 

Any symmetry group whose elements have a common fixed point, which is true for all finite symmetry groups and also for the symmetry groups of bounded figures, can be represented as a subgroup of the orthogonal group O(n) by choosing the origin to be a fixed point. The proper symmetry group is then a subgroup of the special orthogonal group SO(n), and is therefore also called rotation group of the figure.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symmetry_group

 

The Lorentz transformation group (not to be confused by the full group SO(1.3) is a symmetric subgroup and has 6 symmetric boosts three correspond to rotations and three to boosts along thee x axis but has an anti-symmetric operator [M_{\mu\nu}

 

the equations

[latex]\acute{x}=\gamma(x-vt), \acute{y}, \acute{z}, \acute{t}=\gamma(t-vx/c^2[/latex] are symmetric. It does not matter who the observer is you will have identical results under constant velocity. This is denoted by the inner dot product [latex]U*V=V*U[/latex]

 

this amounts to the lorentz transformation being homogenous no preferred reference frame and isotropic no referred direction (symmetric), which you should recall form the basis of the Principles of relativity.

 

I should note there is two key properties of the Lorentz transformation group symmetry and transitivity

 

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/TransitiveGroup.html

 

If you like later on I'll show you acceleration under the four momentum to better see the difference.

Edited November 18, 2016 by Mordred

[TakenItSeriously]

try working through the rapidity equations. You might be surprised. It isn't just meeting that is involved.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapidity

 

the very instance one ship no longer maintains constant velocity for any reason rapidity occurs and so does the world line itself. The Lorentz transformations are symmetric provided one assumes constant velocity. Once constant velocity occurs you have your assymetry.

 

The SO(1,3) Lorentz group is a skew-symmetric group

 

however you should note

 

Any symmetry group whose elements have a common fixed point, which is true for all finite symmetry groups and also for the symmetry groups of bounded figures, can be represented as a subgroup of the orthogonal group O(n) by choosing the origin to be a fixed point. The proper symmetry group is then a subgroup of the special orthogonal group SO(n), and is therefore also called rotation group of the figure.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symmetry_group

 

The Lorentz transformation group (not to be confused by the full group SO(1.3) is a symmetric subgroup and has 6 symmetric boosts three correspond to rotations and three to boosts along thee x axis but has an anti-symmetric operator [M_{\mu\nu}

 

the equations

[latex]\acute{x}=\gamma(x-vt), \acute{y}, \acute{z}, \acute{t}=\gamma(t-vx/c^2[/latex] are symmetric. It does not matter who the observer is you will have identical results under constant velocity. This is denoted by the inner dot product [latex]U*V=V*U[/latex]

 

this amounts to the lorentz transformation being homogenous no preferred reference frame and isotropic no referred direction (symmetric), which you should recall form the basis of the Principles of relativity.

 

I should note there is two key properties of the Lorentz transformation group symmetry and transitivity

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/TransitiveGroup.html

If you like later on I'll show you acceleration under the four momentum to better see the difference.

Great! thanks! looks like everything I wanted to know but was too ignorant to ask for .,

 

Just browsed through it for now, looks very promising for filling in what I'm missing so thanks again!

 

I'll probably need a day to rest before getting back to the study. I may have to take you up on that offer, we'll see. I keep thinking about how much trouble Einstein had with solving the math for GR lol.