Lee Smolin - Why Do We Search for Symmetry?

Symmetry is when things are the same around an axis. Turn it and it looks the same. A simple idea with profound implications for understanding the universe and for predicting how it works. Finding symmetries, and discerning when they break, is one key for understanding fundamental physics.

Lee Smolin is an American theoretical physicist, a researcher at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, and an adjunct professor of physics at the University of Waterloo.

Closer to Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.

[mickeybrumfield]

Liebnitz should be proud that his natural philosophy is still relevant in the 21st century.

[blijebij]

This can be very confusing for an audience, but More interesting is, if Symetry is emergent then that has consequences for the deeper foundation of reality, wich on its turn then must be a lower state/degree of complexity then the layer where symetry arises from.

Sometimes, mystery is the best fact we have. Let's consider it.

[kida]

I think Smolin is the most interesting guest to listen to. The wealth of knowledge he has, and his scientific obsession with what is emergent versus what is fundamental in the universe is fascinating. His explanation of Liebnitz was so well done, especially the point about asking nonsense questions.

I wonder if you could apply the idea of emergent symmetry to time and events. I have always viewed life and everything we see in the moment (the asymmetry) as a culmination of a series of different variables (the asymmetry) that nobody is paying attention to. Then when things happen in a seemingly unique way, people assume those events were randomly perfect (the symmetry). And obviously life itself is inherently asymmetrical, nothing is perfect. The timing of something can be off, how one feels, how they perceive the world, how they perceive themselves, external forces, all very deterministic stuff. Yet sometimes you can use your knowledge of asymmetry to see into the future. You know that a certain action will lead to an inevitable outcome.

A very interesting topic for Smolin and Closer to Truth to have introduced me to, thank you!

[longcastle]

Just wait till we find out it's all emergence, every step of the way down, every step of the way up

[bananacabbage]

Smolin is confusing the symmetry in the dynamical equations of physics with the symmetries in the solutions. The former are exact and the latter are accidental. The solutions break the symmetry of the equations but the symmetry is still there governing conservation laws. A number of physicists and cosmologists who should know better have expressed this misunderstanding. It is why some cosmologists like Smolin incorrectly think that energy and momentum are not conserved in general relativity. If there was no symmetry in physics then the laws of nature would vary in different places and at different times. That would mean that nothing is predictable and we would not be able to understand the physics of far-away stars, which is not the case. What we actually find is that there is a lot of symmetry in physics. Most likely there is a huge amount of hidden symmetry in the fundamental laws. Symmetry is important in mathematics, so it is not surprising to find it in physics too.

[lostmylaundrylist]

Its been a while since I heard something completely new to me in physics. The idea that more fundamental could mean less symmetry is indeed that something new.

[claudetaillefer]

Leibniz argued (see his correspondence with Clark) for the contingency of the principle of identity of indiscernibles (PII) because he thought it was subordinate to the principle of sufficient reason (PSR). But the principle of sufficient reason does not apply to mathematics. In fact, in mathematics we usually assume that if something is true, it is true for a reason. The reason why something is true is called a proof, and the object of mathematics is to find proofs, to find the reason why things are true. Now, since Gödel, we know that any effectively generated axiomatic theory including elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete. Assuming it is consistent, it is incomplete: some statements are neither provable nor disprovable from the theory. How many independent statements are there? Almost all of them are independent. Now we can also show that incompleteness is inevitable: every time a new true statement is added as an axiom, there are other true statements that still cannot be proved. Algorithmically or probabilistically adding infinitely many true statements would not solve the problem. Hence, I would argue that the PSR cannot be fundamental since mathematics provides an obvious counterexample. And since the PII (and symmetry) is based on the PSR, the PII (and symmetry) too cannot be fundamental. One could further argue that mathematics is globally random and very rarely locally ordered since almost all mathematical truths are true without reason, i.e. random mathematical truths. I would suggest that radonmess is fundamental and that physics emerges from mathematics through symmetry breaking: the breaking of symmetries between regions of random mathematical truths and provable mathematical ones. Although highly speculative, I think this last claim needs to be explored further.

[TheZooman]

It seems to be quantized to a degree, like a digital sample, but with a very hi bit level and clock speed., but I am not sure.

[taylor-worthington]

I really liked his work on Ancient Aliens.

[IVANHOECHAPUT]

I don't "search" for symmetry. In fact, asymmetry make things much more beautiful. Beauty is the ratio of the whole to the larger part is the same as the ratio of the larger part to the smaller. People, including physicists develop beliefs that send them down rabbit holes.

In mathematics, symmetry is saught, however, Einstein stated, “As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.”

[kricketflyd]

Atleast Robert said God's Geometry is beautiful.

[dadsonworldwide]

Issac newton was so ecstatic to find the fingerprint of God. Galileo was exactly the same about his ability to simplfy and reduce complexity to an orderly manner that could easily be explained ..
These principles have been lost and now we have returned to adding complex excuses on top of an increasing pantheon of mechanism onto of realtive mechanism.
We know each plank length bit has a realtive view of it's own its google amounts of cosmology to build this way with no simple way to convey this to each other or a single person .

[lightbox]

As a photographer, I frequently settle on symmetry for Cityscape and architectural work, When I do portraits or figures, I follow the influence of early Japanese block print artists. For "head Shots; I wish I could be Man Ray of Salvador Dahli. I'm not those men. I can't pull it off.

[PetraKann]

...because the mathematics is simpler.
That does not mean it's a correct path to take.

[rcnhsuailsnyfiue]

This makes sense to me from a nondual perspective: when we understand the universe/reality/God/etc. to come from one single source, it’s impossible for one thing to be symmetrical with itself. Symmetries are only possible through comparison, and when only a single entity exists, it cannot be compared to anything else.

When Lee mentioned Roger Penrose this clicked for me, Penrose’s CCC theory requires a state of geometric conformalism, and in that state symmetry is impossible because all else is equal. Things which *appear* symmetrical are only that way because they approach the boundaries of what we know to be possible… symmetrically speaking!

[paulvalentine]

That has been my goal since I was about 8 years old.

I strive for “balance & symmetry “ in almost everything I do.

Wonderful to hear a scientist’s viewpoint

A Beautiful mind, for example, evolves from better balance & symmetry

Thank you

Cheers from Sydney, Australia!

[dorfmanjones]

I think that when using symmetry in connection with art, most people mean instead, balance or equilibrium. But that doesn't necessarily mean symmetry. This is because you can balance a color with another color that may be less concentrated but cover a larger area. You also can balance color with shape. Good paintings have that quality but are never strictly speaking symmetrical. Think about mondrian often beautifully balance but NEVER symmetrical.

[doodelay]

Basically, if the symmetries in nature are only approximate due to it's large size, then they do not really exist, and the conservation laws which are a consequence of those symmetries do not exist. And if the conservation laws do not exist at the smallest scales, and the universe was once very small, then there's no reason to think that the laws of nature in the age of the big bang were playing by balanced rules.
If there are no conservation laws, damn near anything is possible now, and even more so at that time.

[sunroad]

The Search for Symmetry:
"In any system of energy, Control is what consumes energy the most.
No system of energy can deliver sum useful energy in excess of the total energy put into constructing it.
This universal truth applies to all systems.
Energy, like time, flows from past to future".