Discrete and continue symmetries

[Yuri Danoyan]

We have 2 different kinds of symmetry: discrete and continous.

Basic difference between them:

Discrete symmetry is static symmetry (reflections,parity,etc). Not demanding motion,change in time.

Continous symmetry is dinamic symmetry.Demanding motion (rotations,translation,shifts,etc), change in time.

The motion supposed to be different velocity (from small to relativistic).

When we going to relativistic velocity object get different Lorentcian deformations and continous symmetry lost its sense.

We get some kind of self-rejection of continous symmetry.

1)Does discrete symmetry only real symmetry?

2)There are exist some universal symmetry where included both symmetries discrete and continous?

 

I introduced some universal symmetry call Metasymmetry where included both symmetries discrete and continous?

 

Now to Methasymmetry. If we try to represent discrete symmetry and continuous symmetry with minimal means by using at least two symbols, what should we do? We can use signs 0 and 1 Then the minimal discrete symmetry may be represented as 10 or 01 and minimal continuous symmetry as 11.In this case, to represent continuous symmetry we used some APPROXIMATION without which our reasoning would be impossible. Now, going back to symmetry between the discrete and the continuous we may use representation of one version as 1011. What can be said about Methasymmetry now? A general conclusion is as follows: the ratio of the total number of zeros (unities) to that of unities (zeros) makes up certain invariant ratio of 3:1 or 1: 3. This is the numerical measure of Methasymmetry.

 

This idea independently close to John Wheeler's "It from bit".

 

In Nature we often come across the ratio 3:1, or 1:3, the sequence being of no importance:

 

1. Space is 3-dimensional and Time is 1-dimensional.

 

2. Only 3 elementary particles are stable with a half-integer spin (proton, electron, neutrino) and 1 is stable with an integer spin (photon),

 

3. 3 of 4 fundamental interactions (strong, electromagnetic, weak) are relatively closed by their intensity magnitude but are greatly different from gravitational Again the 3:1 ratio.

 

4. In the Standard Theory of weak electric interaction bosons (W+, W-, Z) have a mass but a proton does not. Again we have the 3:1 ratio.

 

5. Beta decay where 1 neutron converts into a proton, an electron and a neutrino. Again the 3:1 ratio.

 

6. Mmin u-quark/Mel+ 1.5Mev/0.51 Mev = 3:1 ratio.

 

3:1 may be the fundamental symmetry of the Universe?

 

The binary representation of 3:1 ratio is 11:1.

 

Just one symbol used.

 

It from bit or not?

Edited July 17, 2008 by Yuri Danoyan
multiple post merged

[Yuri Danoyan]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_physics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuous_symmetry

[swansont]

The proton is not an elementary particle.

[Yuri Danoyan]

The proton is stable composite elementary particle.

No free quarks.

 

see also my threads:

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=34160

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=34142

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=34201

Edited July 21, 2008 by Yuri Danoyan
multiple post merged

[swansont]

"composite" and "elementary," as used here, contradict each other. Elementary particles are not comprised of other particles. By definition, really.

 

The rest smacks of numerology and data mining.

 

 

———

There is no need to link to your other threads. If people have an interest in discussing them, they will.

[Yuri Danoyan]

composite" and "elementary," as used here, contradict each other

 

O.k. how about next?

"Only 3 particles are stable with a half-integer spin (proton, electron, neutrino) and 1 is stable with an integer spin (photon).,

 

This is not Numerology.

This is only observation and general conclusion.

Edited July 21, 2008 by Yuri Danoyan
multiple post merged

[Norman Albers]

How about focussing on "stable states"?

[Yuri Danoyan]

Does not change sense...

[swansont]

A deuteron is stable. He-3 is stable. And so on, up the chart of the nuclides.

[Yuri Danoyan]

They are not included in Particle Physics Booklet..They are atoms...right?

[swansont]

They are not included in Particle Physics Booklet..They are atoms...right?

 

Nuclei. Composite, stable particles.

 

There are symmetries in the fundamental particles, but you can't only collect the data that agrees with you — you have to look at all of it.

[Yuri Danoyan]

Stable nucleus have limited life time. They are not stable.

 

Most nuclear isomers are very unstable, and radiate away the extra energy immediately (on the order of 10-12 seconds). As a result, the term is usually restricted to refer to isomers with half-lives of 10-9 seconds or more. Quantum mechanics predicts that certain atomic species will possess isomers with unusually long lifetimes even by this stricter standard, and so have interesting properties. By definition, there is no such thing as a "stable" isomer; however, some are so long-lived as to be nearly stable, and can be produced and observed in quantity

 

This is different matter...

Edited July 23, 2008 by Yuri Danoyan
multiple post merged

[swansont]

There are also models where the proton decays.

 

The problem is in looking for a pattern, you find it, because you ignore whatever doesn't fit the pattern, or reinterpret it so it does.

[Yuri Danoyan]

Model is not confirmative fact.

I am ignored only prejudice.

[Yuri Danoyan]

There are 8 versions of Metasymmetry(Ratio 3:1)

1)0001,2)0010,3)0100,4)1000,5)1110,6)1101,7)1011,8)0111

Which one number corresponding to Mother Nature?

My be #6? Because division of symmetry(Prescription of Pauli)

give as real 3:1 ratio.

Edited July 29, 2008 by Yuri Danoyan

[Klaynos]

I'm going to pick up on another bit.

 

The neutrino, is unstable according to most of what I've read/learnt about them. They oscillate between states...

[Yuri Danoyan]

They oscillate between states...

 

You right,but all states are different manifestations the same particle..

 

Not Philosophy,only Mathematics..

 

Real metasymmetric numbers are #6(1101) and #7(1011) because other numbers senseless.Only these numbers repeat itch other if read in reverse order.

Let see decimal numbers 13(#6) and 11(#7) .These numbers have intriguing features linking with physics.

 

Let see metasymmetric decimal number 13 ( baker's dozen),dividing this record half and half and sum up we get 3 and 1; 3+1=4 D=4 dimension connected with ordinary space-time dimension.Multiplay 13x2=26 we get 26.26is important number for the string theory.

 

Let see metasymmetric decimal number 11 . D=11 connected with M-theory.The same time fine structure constant 137 if sum up1+3+7=11; Binary 11 to decimal 3; This is schizophrenic link between 3 dimensions and 11 dimensions! If you look decimal 11 as a binary you get decimal 3.Crazy situation!

Edited July 29, 2008 by Yuri Danoyan
multiple post merged

[Yuri Danoyan]

Metasymmetry idea (to contrary "Division and reduction of symmetry") is addition of 2 symmetres(discrete and continue) to united symmetry,where there familiar facts of Nature.

Somebody can asking: "Where are prediction new facts of Nature?"

Russian scientists V.V.Belokurov and D.V.Shirkov in the book "Theory of Particles interactions"p.102 illustreted Higgs mechanism trivial: 2+2=1+3.This reference reminding me Metasymmetry idea. Discovery of Higgs my be confirm this approach?

[Yuri Danoyan]

Dear Sir,

It is true that one can distinguish discrete and continuous

symmetries, but what you say about continuous symmetries does not make much sense to me.

You talk about deformations like Lorentz contractions due to relativity, but, relativity itself is nothing but a continuous symmetry: that of the Lorentz transformations. All one has to do is ensure that a symmetry in question (say isospin symmetry, gauge symmetry or supersymmetry) is compatible with Lorentz symmetry, then there is no problem.

Cordially,

G. 't Hooft

June 07 2004

[Yuri Danoyan]

My own task is repesent discrete and continue symmetries and show:

1. Minimal simple binary means (0 or 1).

2. Applicability for introduction Metasymmetry.

3. Metasimmetry as a comprehensive principle of Nature.

[Norman Albers]

There are also models where the proton decays.

 

The problem is in looking for a pattern, you find it, because you ignore whatever doesn't fit the pattern, or reinterpret it so it does.

 

Maybe I am provincial, but time-scales matter !

[Yuri Danoyan]

My own task is to represent discrete and continue symmetries and show:

1. Minimal simple binary means (0 or 1).

2. Applicability for introduction Metasymmetry.

3. Metasimmetry as a comprehensive principle of Nature.

[Yuri Danoyan]

In the book "Elementary Particles and the Laws of Physics: The 1986 Dirac Memorial Lectures" in lecture

Stewen Weinberg "Towards the final laws of physics" we can read next sentence: "Gradually comes understanding that the symmetry group is most important that we today can learn about nature.I like now to say something that, until the end of what is not sure, but that could well become a reality, namely: all that we need apart from quantum mechanics to describe the physical picture of the world, is determine the group symmetry of nature."

 

Metasymmetry idea just fit to Weinber's thought about universal symmetry of nature and could lead to the realization of his dream of a Final theory.

[solidspin]

Mr. Danoyan -

 

So far, you've only introduced a method of calculating discrete symmetries. For continuous symmetries, you will need to develop a series of matrices by which your discrete kets and/or bras (using your discrete symmetry metrics) will end up demonstrating coherences, exhibiting continuously symmetric manifestations of your discrete symmetries. But, why waste your time? Just read A.R. Edmonds, Ernst, et al. who already have developed a beautiful formalism for this which is the basis of Nuclear Magnetic Resonance!!!

[Yuri Danoyan]

So far, you've only introduced a method of calculating discrete symmetries

 

About chasm between the discrete and the continuous. Neither the

continuous-within-discrete nor the discrete-within-continuous are fully satisfying."Of two evils choose the least."i waste 40 years my life to make the right choice and focused on last version. This choice has opened me eyes and i have seen "Behind it all is surely an idea so simple, so beautiful, that when we grasp it - in a decade, a century, or a millennium - we will all say to each other, how could it have been otherwise? How could we have been so stupid?"(John Wheeler)