Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 71
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted (edited)

In Wikipedia, 'Turing test:' "The Turing test is a proposal for a test of a machine's ability to demonstrate intelligence. Described by Alan Turing in the 1950 paper "Computing Machinery and Intelligence," it proceeds as follows: a human judge engages in a natural language conversation with one human and one machine, each of which try to appear human; if the judge cannot reliably tell which is which, then the machine is said to pass the test." Yuri, thank you for sharing Wheeler's statement.

Edited by Norman Albers
  • 2 weeks later...
Posted

As noted in my thread http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=34145 about metasymmetry and its numerical measure 3:1 we can see other approximate cofirmation in content of universe.

 

WMAP data reveals that its contents include 4.6% atoms, the building blocks of stars and planets(NM-NATURAL MATTER). Dark matter(DM) (comprises 23% of the universe. This matter, different from atoms, does not emit or absorb light. It has only been detected indirectly by its gravity. 72% of the universe, is composed of "dark energy"(DE) that acts as a sort of an anti-gravity. This energy, distinct from dark matter, is responsible for the present-day acceleration of the universal expansion. WMAP data is accurate to two digits, so the total of these numbers is not 100%. This reflects the current limits of WMAP's ability to define Dark Matter and Dark Energyindex.html

 

NM=4.6%; DM=23%; DE=72%;NM+DM=27.6;

If DE error+3%

If(NM+DM) error-2.6% then

DE/NM+DM=3:1

My be accidental coincidence?

Posted (edited)

Wonder of beta -decay that "death" the 1 nontstable particles gives "life" to 3 stable particles:

 

A neutron (udd) decays to a proton (uud), an electron, and an antineutrino.

 

Another example of ratio 3:1.

 

Only 4% corresponds to the visible baryonic matter which constitutes stars, planets and living beings.

 

Hydrogen is the most abundant of the chemical elements, constituting roughly 75% of the universe's elemental mass.

 

Helium is the second lightest element and is the second most abundant in the observable Universe.

 

Hydrogen and helium are estimated to make up roughly 74% and 24% of all baryonic matter in the universe respectively.

 

Almost 3:1 ratio...

Edited by Yuri Danoyan
multiple post merged
Posted

Billion stars around us, but only one among the most nearest.This is our Sun № 1.

8-9 planets revolve around our Sun but only one № 3, most need for Sun.

This is our planet Earth.

Again, the ratio of 3:1.

Please accept this post as the autumn joke

Posted

It seems to me that the Universe at the time of Big Bang was in state of metasymmetry, but then metasymmetry was broken and the first "stage actors" were protons, electrons, neutrinos (fermions) and photons(bosons). The ratio of 3:1 survived.Second tethrade were W+-Zo and again photon.3 have mass, 1 photon haven't.They starting play called "Universe"

  • 2 weeks later...
Posted

Recently, I found that the idea broken metasymmetry was discovered Pythagoras and his school 2600 years ago and formulated as "Sacred Tetrada". Fair to say, that they certainly were not known concepts of modern physics, but intuitively ratio of 3 and 1 they had captured very well.

  • 2 weeks later...
Posted

Frozen moment mean:

1.T=0

2.No motion.

3 No continue symmetry.

4.Only two kinds of discrete symmetry P&C

5.P- symmetry;C - antysymmetry

6.Metasymmetry is broken symmetry between symmetry

and antysymmetry. Again ratio 3:1.

  • 2 weeks later...
Posted

Except that P and C are not 'symmetry' and 'antisymmetry', they are 'parity' and 'charge' and relate to how you could consider a system with it's chirality swapped or matter exchanged with antimatter and see if the evolution is analogous to the original system. As was discovered in the 1960s, doing both of these and considering weak decay processes results in a different time evolution from the original weak decay system.

Posted

I mean that a pair of discrete-continuous look like a pair of symmetry-antisymmetry, because if we represent them in the symbolic form , they can not be distinguished from from each other: 01 11 or 11 01.

Posted (edited)

I don't think it is really correct to say that supersymmetry is discrete or continuous as it requires Grassmann odd parameters. I have no idea what it means for a Grassmann odd parameter to take "discrete" or "continues" values.

 

You would need to introduce a topology here and I don't know how to do that. (People like de Witt and Rogers have put topologies on Grassmann algebras, but there are "problems" later on. )

Edited by ajb
  • 2 weeks later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.