Something in the human mind is attracted to symmetry. Symmetry
appeals to our visual sense, and thereby plays a role in
our sense of beauty. However, perfect symmetry is repetitive
and predictable, and our minds also like surprises, so we
often consider imperfect symmetry to be more beautiful than
exact mathematical symmetry. Nature, too, seems to be
attracted to symmetry, for many of the most striking patterns
in the natural world are symmetric. And nature also seems to
be dissatisfied with too much symmetry, for nearly all the
symmetric patterns in nature are less symmetric than the
causes that give rise to them.
This may seem a strange thing to say; you may recall that
the great physicist Pierre Curie, who with his wife, Marie, discovered
radioactivity, stated the general principle that "effects
are as symmetric as their causes." However, the world is full
of effects that are not as symmetric as their causes, and the
reason for this is a phenomenon known as "spontaneous symmetry
breaking."
Symmetry is a mathematical concept as well as an aesthetic
one, and it allows us to classify different types of regular
pattern and distinguish between them. Symmetry breaking
is a more dynamic idea, describing changes in pattern. Before
we can understand where nature's patterns come from and
how they can change, we must find a language in which to
describe what they are.
What is symmetry?
Let's work our way to the general from the particular. One
of the most familiar symmetric forms is the one inside which
you spend your life. The human body is "bilaterally symmetric,"
meaning that its left half is (near enough) the same as its
right half. As noted, the bilateral symmetry of the human form
is only approximate: the heart is not central, nor are the two
sides of the face identical. But the overall form is very close to
one that has perfect symmetry, and in order to describe the
mathematics of symmetry we can imagine an idealized
human figure whose left side is exactly the same as its right
side. But exactly the same? Not entirely. The two sides of the
figure occupy different regions of space; moreover, the left
side is a reversal of the right-its mirror image.
As soon as we use words like "image," we are already
thinking of how one shape corresponds to the other-of how
you might move one shape to bring it into coincidence with
the other. Bilateral symmetry means that if you reflect the left
half in a mirror, then you obtain the right half. Reflection is a
mathematical concept, but it is not a shape, a number, or a
formula. It is a transformation-that is, a rule for moving
things around.
There are many possible transformations, but most are not
symmetries. To relate the halves correctly, the mirror must be
placed on the symmetry axis, which divides the figure into its
two related halves. Reflection then leaves the human form
invariant-that is, unchanged in appearance. So we have
found a precise mathematical characterization of bilateral
symmetry-a shape is bilaterally symmetric if it is invariant by
reflection. More generally, a symmetry of an object or system
is any transformation that leaves it invariant. This description
is a wonderful example of what I earlier called the "thingification
of processes": the process "move like this" becomes a
thing-a symmetry. This simple but elegant characterization
opens the door to an immense area of mathematics.
There are many different kinds of symmetry. The most
important ones are reflections, rotations, and translations-or,
less formally, flips, turns, and slides. If you take an object in
the plane, pick it up, and flip it over onto its back, you get the
same effect as if you had reflected it in a suitable mirror. To
find where the mirror should go, choose some point on the
original object and look at where that point ends up when the
object is flipped. The mirror must go halfway between the
point and its image, at right angles to the line that joins them
(see figure 3). Reflections can also be carried out in threedimensional
space, but now the mirror is of a more familiar
kind-namely, a flat surface.
To rotate an object in the plane, you choose a point, called
the center, and turn the object about that center, as a wheel
turns about its hub. The number of degrees through which you
turn the object determines the "size" of the rotation. For example,
imagine a flower with four identical equally spaced petals.
If you rotate the flower 90°, it looks exactly the same, so the
transformation "rotate through a right angle" is a symmetry of
the flower. Rotations can occur in three-dimensional space
too, but now you have to choose a line, the axis, and spin
objects on that axis as the Earth spins on its axis. Again, you
can rotate objects through different angles about the same axis.
FIGURE I.
Where is the mirror? Given an object and a mirror image of that object, choose any point of the object and the corresponding point of the image, Join them by a line, The mirror must be at right angles to the midpoint of that line.
Translations are transformations that slide objects along without rotating them. Think of a tiled bathroom wall. If you take a tile and slide it horizontally just the right distance, it will fit on top of a neighboring tile. That distance is the width of a tile. If you slide it two widths of a tile, or three, or any whole number, it also fits the pattern. The same is true if you slide it in a vertical direction, or even if you use a combination of horizontal and vertical slides. In fact, you can do more than just sliding one tile-you can slide the entire pattern of tiles. Again, the pattern fits neatly on top of its original position only when you use a combination of horizontal and vertical slides through distances that are whole number multiples of the width of a tile.
Reflections capture symmetries in which the left half of a pattern is the same as the right half, like the human body. Rotations capture symmetries in which the same units repeat around circles, like the petals of a flower. Translations capture symmetries in which units are repeated, like a regular array of tiles; the bees' honeycomb, with its hexagonal "tiles," is an excellent naturally occurring example.
Where do the symmetries of natural patterns come from?
Think of a still pond, so flat that it can be thought of as a mathematical plane, and large enough that it might as well be a plane for all that the edges matter. Toss a pebble into the pond. You see patterns, ripples, circular waves seemingly moving outward away from the point of impact of the pebble. We've all seen this, and nobody is greatly surprised. After all, we saw the cause: it was the pebble. If you don't throw pebbles in, or anything else that might disturb the surface, then you won't get waves. All you'll get is a still, flat, planar pond.
Ripples on a pond are examples of broken symmetry. An ideal mathematical plane has a huge amount of symmetry: every part of it is identical to every other part. You can translate the plane through any distance in any direction, rotate it through any angle about any center, reflect it in any mirror line, and it still looks exactly the same. The pattern of circular ripples, in contrast, has less symmetry. It is symmetric only with respect to rotations about the point of impact of the pebble, and reflections in mirror lines that run through that point. No translations, no other rotations, no other reflections. The pebble breaks the symmetry of the plane, in the sense that after the pebble has disturbed the pond, many of its symmetries are lost. But not all, and that's why we see a pattern.
However, none of this is surprising, because of the pebble, In fact, since the impact of the pebble creates a special point, different from all the others, the symmetries of the ripples are exactly what you would expect. They are precisely the symmetries that do not move that special point. So the symmetry of the pond is not spontaneously broken when the ripples appear, because you can detect the stone that causes the translational symmetries to be lost.
You would be more surprised-a lot more surprised-if a perfectly flat pond suddenly developed a series of concentric circular ripples without there being any obvious cause, You would imagine that perhaps a fish beneath the surface had disturbed it, or that something had fallen in and you had not seen it because it was moving too fast. So strong is the ingrained assumption that patterns must have evident causes that when in 1958 the Russian chemist B. P. Belousov discovered a chemical reaction that spontaneously formed patterns, apparently out of nothing, his colleagues refused to believe him. They assumed that he had made a mistake. They didn't bother checking his work: he was so obviously wrong that checking his work would be a waste of time.
Which was a pity, because he was right. The particular pattern that Belousov discovered existed not in space but in time: his reaction oscillated through a periodic sequence of chemical changes. By 1963, another Russian chemist, A. M. Zhabotinskii, had modified Belousov's reaction so that it formed patterns in space as well. In their honor, any similar chemical reaction is given the generic name "Belousov-Zhabotinskii [or B-ZJ reaction." The chemicals used nowadays are different and simpler, thanks to some refinements made by the British reproductive biologist
Jack Cohen and the American mathematical biologist Arthur Winfree, and the experiment is now so simple that it can be done by anyone with access to the necessary chemicals. These are slightly esoteric, but there are only four of them.' In the absence of the appropriate apparatus, I'll tell you what happens if you do the experiment. The chemicals are all liquids: you mix them together in the right order and pour them into a flat dish. The mixture turns blue, then red: let it stand for a while. For ten or sometimes even twenty minutes, nothing happens; it's just like gazing at a featureless flat pond-except that it is the color of the liquid that is featureless, a uniform red. This uniformity is not surprising; after all, you blended the liquids. Then you notice a few tiny blue spots appearing-and that is a surprise. They spread, forming circular blue disks. Inside each disk, a red spot appears, turning the disk into a blue ring with a red center. Both the blue ring and the red disk grow, and when the red disk gets big enough, a blue spot appears inside it. The process continues, forming an ever-growing series of "target patterns"-concentric rings of red and blue. These target patterns have exactly the same symmetries as the rings of ripples on a pond; but this time you can't see any pebble. It is a strange and mysterious process in which paUern-order-appears to arise of its own accord from the disordered, randomly mixed liquid. No wonder the chemists didn't believe Belousov. But that's not the end of the B-Z reaction's party tricks. If you tilt the dish slightly and then put it back where it was, or dip a hot wire into it, you can break the rings and turn them 'The precise recipe is given in the Notes to The Collapse of Chaos, by Jack Cohen and Ian Stewart. into rotating red and blue spirals, If Belousov had claimed that, you would have seen steam coming out of his colleagues' ears,
This kind of behavior is not just a chemical conjuring trick. The regular beating of your heart relies on exactly the same patterns, but in that case they are patterns in waves of electrical activity, Your heart is not just a lump of undifferentiated muscle tissue, and it doesn't automatically contract all at once, Instead, it is composed of millions of tiny muscle fibers, each one of them a single cell. The fibers contract in response to electrical and chemical signals, and they pass those signals on to their neighbors, The problem is to make sure that they all contract roughly in synchrony, so that the heart beats as a whole, To achieve the necessary degree of synchronization, your brain sends electrical signals to your heart. These signals trigger electrical changes in some of the muscle fibers, which then affect the muscle fibers next to them-so that ripples of activity spread, just like the ripples on a pond or the blue disks in the B-Z reaction. As long as the waves form complete rings, the heart's muscle fibers contract in synchrony and the heart beats normally. But if the waves become spirals-as they can do in diseased hearts-the result is an incoherent set of local contractions, and the heart fibrillates. If fibrillation goes unchecked for more than a few minutes, it results in death. So every single one of us has a vested interest in circular and spiral wave patterns.
However in the heart, as in the pond, we can see a specific cause for the wave patterns: the signals from the brain. In the B-Z reaction, we cannot: the symmetry breaks spontaneously-" of its own accord"-without any external stimulus.
The term "spontaneous" does not imply that there is no cause, however: it indicates that the cause can be as tiny and as insignificant as you please. Mathematically, the crucial point is that the uniform distribution of chemicals-the featureless red liquid-is unstable. If the chemicals cease to be equally mixed, then the delicate balance that keeps the solution red is upset, and the resulting chemical changes trigger the formation of a blue spot. From that moment on, the whole process becomes much more comprehensible, because now the blue spot acts like a chemical "pebble," creating sequential ripples of chemical activity. But-at least, as far as the mathematics goes-the imperfection in the symmetry of the liquid which triggers the blue spot can be vanishingly small, provided it is not zero. In a real liquid, there are always tiny bits of dust, or bubbles-or even just molecules undergoing the vibrations we call "heat"-to disturb the perfect symmetry.
That's all it takes. An infinitesimal cause produces a large-scale effect, and that effect is a symmetric pattern. Nature's symmetries can be found on every scale, from the structure of subatomic particles to that of the entire universe.
Many chemical molecules are symmetric. The methane molecule is a tetrahedron-a triangular-sided pyramid-with one carbon atom at its center and four hydrogen atoms at its corners. Benzene has the sixfold symmetry of a regular hexagon. The fashionable molecule buckminsterfullerene is a truncated icosahedral cage of sixty carbon atoms. (An icosahedron is a regular solid with twenty triangular faces; "truncated" means that the corners are cut off.) Its symmetry lends it a remarkable stability, which has opened up new possibilities for organic chemistry.
On a slightly larger scale than molecules, we find symmetries in cellular structure; at the heart of cellular replication lies a tiny piece of mechanical engineering. Deep within each living cell, there is a rather shapeless structure known as the centrosome, which sprouts long thin microtubules, basic components of the cell's internal "skeleton," like a diminutive sea urchin. Centro somes were first discovered in 1887 and play an important role in organizing cell division. However, in one respect the structure of the centrosome is astonishingly symmetric. Inside it are two structures, known as centrioles, positioned at right angles to each other. Each centriole is cylindrical, made from twenty-seven microtubules fused together along their lengths in threes, and arranged with perfect ninefold symmetry. The microtubules themselves also have an astonishingly regular symmetric form. They are hollow tubes, made from a perfect regular checkerboard pattern of units that contain two distinct proteins, alpha- and betatubulin. One day, perhaps, we will understand why nature chose these symmetric forms. But it is amazing to see symmetric structures at the core of a living cell.
Viruses are often symmetric, too, the commonest shapes being helices and icosahedrons. The helix is the form of the influenza virus, for instance. Nature prefers the icosahedron above all other viral forms: examples include herpes, chickenpox, human wart, canine infectious hepatitis, turnip yellow mosaic, adenovirus, and many others. The adenovirus is another striking example of the artistry of molecular engineering. It is made from 252 virtually identical subunits, with 21 of them, fitted together like billiard balls before the break, making up each triangular face. (Subunits along the edges lie on more than one face and corner units lie on three, which is why 20 x 21 is not equal to 252.)
Nature exhibits symmetries on larger scales, too. A developing frog embryo begins life as a spherical cell, then loses symmetry step by step as it divides, until it has become a blastula, thousands of tiny cells whose overall form is again spherical. Then the blastula begins to engulf part of itself, in the process known as gastrulation. During the early stages of this collapse, the embryo has rotational symmetry about an axis, whose position is often determined by the initial distribution of yolk in the egg, or sometimes by the point of sperm entry. Later this symmetry is broken, and only a single mirror symmetry is retained, leading to the bilateral symmetry of the adult.
Volcanoes are conical, stars are spherical, galaxies are spiral or elliptical. According to some cosmologists, the universe itself resembles nothing so much as a gigantic expanding ball. Any understanding of nature must include an understanding of these prevalent patterns. It must explain why they are so common, and why many different aspects of nature show the same patterns. Raindrops and stars are spheres, whirlpools and galaxies are spirals, honeycombs and the Devil's Causeway are arrays of hexagons. There has to be a general principle underlying such patterns; it is not enough just to study each example in isolation and explain it in terms of its own internal mechanisms.
Symmetry breaking is just such a principle. But in order for symmetry to break, it has to be present to start with. At first this would seem to replace one problem of pattern formation with another: before we can explain the circular rings on the pond, in other words, we have to explain the pond. But there is a crucial difference between the rings and the pond. The symmetry of the pond is so extensiveevery point on its surface being equivalent to every otherthat we do not recognize it as being a pattern. Instead, we see it as bland uniformity. It is very easy to explain bland uniformity: it is what happens to systems when there is no reason for their component parts to differ from each other. It is, so to speak, nature's default option. If something is symmetric, its component features are replaceable or interchangeable. One corner of a square looks pretty much the same as any other, so we can interchange the corners without altering the square's appearance. One atom of hydrogen in methane looks pretty much like any other, so we can interchange those atoms. One region of stars in a galaxy looks pretty much like any other, so we can interchange parts of two different spiral arms without making an important difference.
In short, nature is symmetric because we live in a massproduced universe-analogous to the surface of a pond. Every electron is exactly the same as every other electron, every proton is exactly the same as every other proton, every region of empty space is exactly the same as every other region of empty space, every instant of time is exactly the same as every other instant of time. And not only are the structure of space, time, and matter the same everywhere: so are the laws that govern them. Albert Einstein made such "invariance principles" the cornerstone of his approach to physics; he based his thinking on the idea that no particular point in spacetime is special. Among other things, this led him to the principle of relativity, one of the greatest physical discoveries ever made.
This is all very well, but it produces a deep paradox. If the laws of physics are the same at all places and at all times, why is there any "interesting" structure in the universe at all? Should it not be homogeneous and changeless? If every place in the universe were interchangeable with every other place, then all places would be indistinguishable; and the same would hold for all times. But they are not. The problem is, if anything, made worse by the cosmological theory that the universe began as a single point, which exploded from nothingness billions of years ago in the big bang. At the instant of the universe's formation, all places and all times were not only indistinguishable but identical. So why are they different now?
The answer is the failure of Curie's Principle, noted at the start of this chapter. Unless that principle is hedged around with some very subtle caveats about arbitrarily tiny causes, it offers a misleading intuition about how a symmetric system should behave. Its prediction that adult frogs should be bilaterally symmetric (because embryonic frogs are bilaterally symmetric, and according to Curie's Principle the symmetry cannot change) appears at first sight to be a great success; but the same argument applied at the spherical blastula stage predicts with equal force that an adult frog should be a sphere.
A much better principle is the exact opposite, the principle of spontaneous symmetry breaking. Symmetric causes often produce less symmetric effects. The evolving universe can break the initial symmetries of the big bang. The spherical blastula can develop into the bilateral frog. The 252 perfectly interchangeable units of adenovirus can arrange themselves into an icosahedron-an arrangement in which some units will occupy special places, such as corners. A set of twentyseven perfectly ordinary microtubules can get together to create a centriole.
Fine, but why patterns? Why not a structureless mess, in which all symmetries are broken? One of the strongest threads that runs through every study ever made of symmetry breaking is that the mathematics does not work this way. Symmetries break reluctantly. There is so much symmetry lying around in our mass-produced universe that there is seldom a good reason to break all of it. So rather a lot survives. Even those symmetries that do get broken are still present, in a sense, but now as potential rather than actual form. For example, when the 252 units of the adenovirus began to link up, anyone of them could have ended up in a particular comer. In that sense, they are interchangeable. But only one of them actually does end up there, and in that sense the symmetry is broken: they are no longer fully interchangeable. But some of the symmetry remains, and we see an icosahedron.
In this view, the symmetries we observe in nature are broken traces of the grand, universal symmetries of our massproduced universe. Potentially the universe could exist in any of a huge symmetric system of possible states, but actually it must select one of them. In so doing, it must trade some of its actual symmetry for unobservable, potential symmetry. But some of the actual symmetry may remain, and when it does we observe a pattern. Most of nature's symmetric patterns arise out of some version of this general mechanism.
In a negative sort of way, this rehabilitates Curie's Principle: if we permit tiny asymmetric disturbances, which can trigger an instability of the fully symmetric state, then our mathematical system is no longer perfectly symmetric. But the important point is that the tinest departure from symmetry in the cause can lead to a total loss of symmetry in the resulting effect-and there are always tiny departures. That makes Curie's principle useless for the prediction of symmetries. It is much more informative to model a real system after one with perfect symmetry, but to remember that such a model has many possible states, only one of which will be realized in practice. Small disturbances cause the real system to select states from the range available to the idealized perfect system. Today this approach to the behavior of symmetric systems provides one of the main sources of understanding of the general principles of pattern formation.
In particular, the mathematics of symmetry breaking unifies what at first sight appear to be very disparate phenomena. For example, think about the patterns in sand dunes mentioned in chapter 1. The desert can be modeled as a flat plane of sandy particles, the wind can be modeled as a fluid flowing across the plane. By thinking about the symmetries of such a system, and how they can break, many of the observed patterns of dunes can be deduced. For example, suppose the wind blows steadily in a fixed direction, so that the whole system is invariant under translations parallel to the wind. One way to break these translational symmetries is to create a periodic pattern of parallel stripes, at right angles to the wind direction. But this is the pattern that geologists call transverse dunes. If the pattern also becomes periodic in the direction along the stripes, then more symmetry breaks, and the wavy barchanoid ridges appear. And so on.
However, the mathematical principles of symmetry-breaking do not just work for sand dunes. They work for any system with the same symmetries-anything that flows across a planar surface creating patterns. You can apply the same basic model to a muddy river flowing across a coastal plain and depositing sediment, or the waters of a shallow sea in ebb and flow across the seabed-phenomena important in geology, because millions of years later the patterns that result have been frozen into the rock that the sandy seabed and the muddy delta became. The list of patterns is identical to that for dunes.
Or the fluid might be a liquid crystal, as found in digitalwatch displays, which consist of a lot of long thin molecules that arrange themselves in patterns under the influence of a magnetic or electric field. Again, you find the same patterns. Or there might not be a fluid at all: maybe what moves is a chemical, diffusing through tissue and laying down genetic instructions for patterns on the skin of a developing animal. Now the analogue of transverse dunes is the stripes of a tiger or a zebra, and that of barchanoid ridges is the spots on a leopard or a hyena.
The same abstract mathematics; different physical and biological realizations. Mathematics is the ultimate in technology transfer-but with mental technology, ways of thinking, being transferred, rather than machines. This universality of symmetry breaking explains why living systems and nonliving ones have many patterns in common. Life itself is a process of symmetry creation-of replication; the universe of biology is just as mass-produced as the universe of physics, and the organic world therefore exhibits many of the patterns found in the inorganic world. The most obvious symmetries of living organisms are those of form-icosahedral viruses, the spiral shell of Nautilus, the helical horns of gazelles, the remarkable rotational symmetries of starfish and jellyfish and flowers. But symmetries in the living world go beyond form into behavior-and not just the symmetric rhythms of locomotion I mentioned earlier. The territories of fish in Lake Huron are arranged just like the cells in a honeycomb-and for the same reasons. The territories, like the bee grubs, cannot all be in the same place-which is what perfect symmetry would imply. Instead, they pack themselves as tightly as they can without one being different from another, and the behavioral constraint by itself produces a hexagonally symmetric tiling. And that resembles yet another striking instance of mathematical technology transfer, for the same symmetry breaking mechanism arranges the atoms of a crystal into a regular lattice-a physical process that ultimately supports Kepler's theory of the snowflake.
One of the more puzzling types of symmetry in nature is mirror symmetry, symmetry with respect to a reflection. Mirror symmetries of three-dimensional objects cannot be realized by turning the objects in space-a left shoe cannot be turned into a right shoe by rotating it. However, the laws of physics are very nearly mirror-symmetric, the exceptions being certain interactions of subatomic particles. As a result, any molecule that is not mirror-symmetric potentially exists in two different forms-left- and right-handed, so to speak.
On Earth, life has selected a particular molecular handedness: for example, for amino acids. Where does this particular handedness of terrestrial life come from? It could have been just an accident-primeval chance propagated by the massproduction techniques of replication. If so, we might imagine that on some distant planet, creatures exist whose molecules are mirror images of ours. On the other hand, there may be a deep reason for life everywhere to choose the same direction. Physicists currently recognize four fundamental forces in nature: gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear interactions. It is known that the weak force violates mirror symmetry-that is, it behaves differently in left- or right-handed versions of the same physical problem. As the Austrian-born physicist Wolfgang Pauli put it, "The Lord is a weak left-hander." One remarkable consequence of this violation of mirror symmetry is the fact that the energy levels of molecules and that of their mirror images are not exactly equal. The effect is extremely small: the difference in energy levels between one particular amino acid and its mirror image is roughly one part in 1017• This may seem very tiny-but we saw that symmetry breaking requires only a very tiny disturbance. In general, lower-energy forms of molecules should be favored in nature. For this amino acid, it can be calculated that with 98% probability the lower energy form will become dominant within a period of about a hundred thousand years. And indeed, the version of this amino acid which is found in living organisms is the lower-energy one.
In chapter 5, I mentioned the curious symmetry of Maxwell's equations relating electricity and magnetism. Roughly speaking, if you interchange all the symbols for the electric field with those for the magnetic field, you re-create the same equations. This symmetry lies behind Maxwell's unification of electrical and magnetic forces into a single electromagnetic force. There is an analogous symmetry-though an imperfect one-in the equations for the four basic forces of nature, suggesting an even grander unification: that all four forces are different aspects of the same thing. Physicists have already achieved a unification of the weak and electromagnetic forces. According to current theories, all four fundamental forces should become unified-that is, symmetrically related-at the very high energy levels prevailing in the early universe. This symmetry of the early universe is broken in our own universe. In short, there is an ideal mathematical universe in which all of the fundamental forces are related in a perfectly symmetric manner-but we don't live in it.
That means that our universe could have been different; it could have been any of the other universes that, potentially, could arise by breaking symmetry in a different way. That's quite a thought. But there is an even more intriguing thought: the same basic method of pattern formation, the same mechanism of symmetry breaking in a mass-produced universe, governs the cosmos, the atom, and us.
Chapter 5 : From Violins to Videos
Chapter 6 : Broken Symmetry
Chapter 7 : The Rhythm of Life
Chapter 8 : Do dice Play God
Chapter 9 : Drops Dynamics and Daisies
ReplyDeleteSymmetry is a mathematical concept as well as an aesthetic one, and it allows us to classify different types of regular pattern and distinguish between them. Symmetry breaking is a more dynamic idea, describing changes in pattern. It is symmetric only with respect to rotations about the point of impact of the pebble, and reflections in mirror lines that run through that point. No translations, no other rotations, no other reflections.
Imagine how greatly affected we are by mathematics. In this chapter, I learned that nature has symmetries at every scale, from the smallest particles up to the galaxies. Mathematics describes how symmetries break in order for us to understand that the patterns we see in nature are caused by mathematical processes and not by physical processes.
ReplyDeleteImagine how greatly affected we are by mathematics. In this chapter, I learned that nature has symmetries at every scale, from the smallest particles up to the galaxies. Mathematics describes how symmetries break in order for us to understand that the patterns we see in nature are caused by mathematical processes and not by physical processes.
ReplyDeleteBased on my own understanding A symmetry of an object or system is any transformation that leaves it invariant and There are many types of symmetry.The most important ones are reflections, rotations and translations.
ReplyDeleteA symmetry of an object or system is any transformation that leaves it invariant.There are many types of symmetry. The most important ones are reflections, rotations and translations. (Pacasum,Fahadoden)
ReplyDeletePerlie May Florin
ReplyDeleteBSCA 11m2
For me, broken symmetry is collection of our daily life, and organized through the context of Mathematics.
Symmetries are exact within the limits of present knowledge. There are situations where it is hidden or broken in some manners.
Its no coincidence that our universe naturally full of symmetry. The mirror symmetry reflects the external forms of many creatures esp. humans.
So therefore I conclude that symmetry breaking is not just an essential beautiful idea, but more on substantial practical used.
Chapter 6 discussed what symmetry is. This chapter gave the meaning of symmetry, gave example. It also answered where was the symmetry came from? Chapter 4, this chapter discusses the importance of Mathematics in Science. It’s role in the theory of planetary motion, the cannonball's motion in the horizontal direction; parallel to the ground (the upward velocity is 50 m/sec that has one-second interval). The 50 m/sec has roughly decreased in every second; it decreases by 10 m/sec. Newton's law of motion teaches an important lesson: namely, that the route from nature's laws to nature's behavior need not be direct and obvious. The word “solve” simply means finding a precise mathematical formula but as the time goes by “finding approximate numbers” then finally it has change to “tell me solution looks like.”
ReplyDeleteIn this chapter I learned that Symmetry appeals to our visual sense, and thereby plays a role in our sense of beauty and it is a mathematical concept as well as an aesthetic one, and it allows us to classify different types of regular pattern and distinguish between them. I also learned more about reflections and curie's principle.
ReplyDeleteDoctor,Juan Miguel M
Bsca 11-2
I have noticed in the first chapter, Stewart already taught us what is the meaning of pattern in nature and I come up to the conclusion that we see pattern in a way that has symmetry but not too much symmetry and that called broken symmetry. Also Stewart defined symmetry as a mathematical concept that allow us to classify different types of pattern and distinguish between them.
ReplyDeleteThis chapter, I realized that everything really happens for a reason, why and how nature works in different aspects. Different is okay, as well as having the same appearance and use, but then in mathematics everything is unpredictable so as the theories. The reflection could always be the same but why? It can be different but in same process, it can always be symmetrical. Nature will always have definition of being different and having the same, so well as the mathematics.
ReplyDeleteAfter I read this chapter I was amaze that mathematics have in different way. It studies in nature, symmetry, universe and etc. Before, mathematics is difficult for all mathematicians but now there are some basic information or pattern to become it easy.
ReplyDeleteGod is so amazing creating the world. It is coincidence that all of the things here is connected to one another. When i was a child i always curious how the mirror is made. How it copies what im doing. By reading this chapter mirror is about symmetries and reflectio. It is not just symmetries it also involve physics. I love mathemathics.
ReplyDeleteChapter 6
ReplyDeleteSymmetry is a mathematical concept as well as an aesthetic one, and it allows us to classify different types of regular pattern and distinguish between them. Symmetry breaking is a more dynamic idea, describing changes in pattern. There are many different kinds of symmetry. The most important ones are reflections, rotations, and translations-or, less formally, flips, turns, and slides. In particular, the mathematics of symmetry breaking unifies what at first sight appear to be very disparate phenomena. One of the more puzzling types of symmetry in nature is mirror symmetry, symmetry with respect to a reflection. Mirror symmetries of three-dimensional objects cannot be realized by turning the objects in space-a left shoe cannot be turned into a right shoe by rotating it. As a result, any molecule that is not mirror-symmetric potentially exists in two different forms-left- and right-handed, so to speak. The line of symmetry does not have to be vertical; it can go in any direction. Also, certain objects, like a square or a circle, can have many lines of symmetry.
ReplyDelete- Sherwin Oliva
In this chapter I realised that fundamental forces should become unified-that is, symmetrically related-at the very high energy levels prevailing in the early universe. nature is symmetric because we live in a massproduced universe-analogous to the surface of a pond. Every electron is exactly the same as every other electron, every proton is exactly the same as every other proton, every region of empty space is exactly the same as every other region of empty space, every instant of time is exactly the same as every other instant of time.
ReplyDelete-MONTEVERDE MARY JOY B.
This may seem a strange thing to say; you may recall that the great physicist Pierre Curie, who with his wife, Marie, discovered radioactivity, stated the general principle that "effects are as symmetric as their causes." However, the world is full of effects that are not as symmetric as their causes, and the reason for this is a phenomenon known as "spontaneous symmetry breaking. On Earth, life has selected a particular molecular handedness: for example, for amino acids. Where does this particular handedness of terrestrial life come from? It could have been just an accident-primeval chance propagated by the massproduction techniques of replication
ReplyDeleteChapter 6 talks about symmetry that often helps us to satisfy our aesthetic wants. as it was mentioned above, symmetry has big part in our daily life as it is also takes place in our body. before, I used to questioned myself why does the other side of my face seems to be different from the other one, and here, in this chapter I found the reason why, it is because nothing is really equal to one another that why symmetry seems to be perfect but it is really not. we often mistaken symmetry as perfect where in fact we can describe it "same but still different". I also learned that symmetry also takes place in patterns and even in our nature.
ReplyDeleteIan Stewart is the greatest teacher of Mathematics today. Its fantasy and science fiction. I am trying to work my way through some mathematical studies and I know this would be interesting. I usually like reading the histories of math. This humbling reading experience helps me realize just how little I know. I do feel I now understand the general structure of various forms of mathematics and how the built upon each other in order to reach the point we are at now.
ReplyDeleteDarlene L. Hagos
Base here in chapter six, that human mind is attracted to symmetry and also our nature that visible our sense of beauty like in nature it appeals the beauty of the nature like flowers, tress and insects in perfect and imperfect ways that show their beauties. Symmetry is a mathematical concept that is also a aesthetics one that allow us to determine the patterns that build a beautiful visual to us like what I side like flowers and etc. but before we can determines them we also need to find it owns language that describe that things.
ReplyDeleteThis article tackled about how the symmetry of nature and mathematics symmetry itself contradict ideas. It expands my knowledge of what each contrast ideas can put an effect to our understanding. On the other hand, it also includes on how they are connected to each other. It also tackles that because of the simple patterns, we can see our nature become more symmetric, using the symmetry being tackled to emphasize the beauty of nature.
ReplyDeleteIn Chapter 6,symmetries are lost. But not all, and that's why we see a pattern.pattern are exists, some patterns can see in plants and animals in the form of lines,Symmetry is a mathematical concept,describing changes in pattern.Physicists have already achieved a unification of the weak and electromagnetic forces, but the theories must unified in someways and to be having a very high energy in the early universe.
ReplyDeleteBACLIG, JOAQUIN THEODORE T.
ReplyDeleteBSA 11-M2
Chapter 6
Symmetry is repetitive and predictable but it appeals and tickles the human mind. Pierre and Marie Curie said "effects are as symmetric as their causes" ironically, our world isnt like that, there are a lot of effects that are not symmetric with their causes which we call "symmetry breaking". As a kid, we usually love to look at ourselves in the mirror but without us knowing that it is a symmetry which we call reflection and that this kind of symmetry sometimes play with our minds like classic magicians who use these elements to conceal a secret to fool us. There are broken symmetry like the ripple in the pond that shows us that nothing is perfect in the world but we might have a different look/perspective or an effect to it. Through these, this chapter said that our universe could have even been different, it could have been a different universe that could arise by a broken symmetry in a different way.
I learn a lot in this chapter like there are many types of symmetry. The most important ones are reflections, rotations and translations. This made me realize that his book is full of information like math is not just a simple formula, most of things has a connection in mathematics, it is not only about the number.
ReplyDeleteLAERALLIV S. ROQUE/ BSA-11M2
ReplyDeleteSymmetry is present in nature which can be found through patterns. It is somehow unnoticeable but if we look closely and observe how the lines form shapes in the leaves of plants, trees, and others, it has symmetry. Here, I've learned that changes in patterns are also described as broken symmetry. I honestly find nature really wonderful because it contains symmetrical patterns which I admit that I never noticed. Now, I am glad to know that nature isn't simply the green, leaves, and flowers but it is way beyond that if we just look closely.
LAERALLIV S. ROQUE/ BSA-11M2
ReplyDeleteSymmetry is present in nature which can be found through patterns. It is somehow unnoticeable but if we look closely and observe how the lines form shapes in the leaves of plants, trees, and others, it has symmetry. Here, I've learned that changes in patterns are also described as broken symmetry. I honestly find nature really wonderful because it contains symmetrical patterns which I admit that I never noticed. Now, I am glad to know that nature isn't simply the green, leaves, and flowers but it is way beyond that if we just look closely.
We used to appreciate that something having similarity in size, shape, and relative position of corresponding parts looks beautiful. It emphasizes the patterns that it’s created. But it surprises me that the pattern which is not equally reflected to other pattern is more beautiful. It makes the world more creative. It enhance the beauty of nature, But I didn’t expect that the chemical reaction created by B.P. Belousov can make a pattern or spontaneously broken symmetry even without detecting any special points that will possible cause it. It made me curios what is it look like or how beautiful the result when making the actual experiment.
ReplyDeleteSymmetry is the quality of something that has two sides or halves that are the same. Symmetry says here that it can be a role in our sense of beauty and also can be a symmetric patterns in our nature. There are have different types of symmetry the reflection, rotations and transactions, it also have the effect the can be reflectex in suitable mirror.
ReplyDeleteIn physics, symmetry breaking is a phenomenon in which (infinitesimally) small fluctuations acting on a system crossing a critical point decide the system's fate, by determining which branch of a bifurcation is taken. To an outside observer unaware of the fluctuations (or "noise"), the choice will appear arbitrary. This process is called symmetry "breaking", because such transitions usually bring the system from a symmetric but disorderly state into one or more definite states. Symmetry breaking is thought to play a major role in pattern formation.
ReplyDelete(RAYMOND P. TRINIDAD)
Based on my own understanding chaotic behaviour obeys deterministic laws, but is so irregular that to the untrained eye it looks pretty much random. Chaos is not complicated, patternless behaviour; it is much more subtle. Chaos is apparently complicated, apparently patternless behaviour that actually has a simple, deterministic explanation.19th century scientists thought that, if you knew the starting conditions, and then the rules governing any system, you could completely predict the outcomes. In the 1970s and 80s it became increasingly unclear that this was wrong. It is impossible because you can never define the starting conditions with complete certainty.
ReplyDeleteThus all real world behaviours are subject to ‘sensitivity to initial conditions’. From minuscule divergences at the start point, cataclysmic differences may eventually emerge.
-Marisol Natividad
Based on my own understanding Chaos theory has all sorts of implications but the one he closes on is this: the world is not chaotic; if anything, it is boringly predictable. And at the level of basic physics and maths, the laws which seem to underpin it are also schematic and simple. And yet what we are only really beginning to appreciate is how complicated things are in the middle.It is as if nature can only get from simple laws (like Newton’s incredibly simple law of thermodynamics) to fairly simple outcomes (the orbit of the planets) via almost incomprehensibly complex processes.
ReplyDelete-Marisol Natividad
A symmetry of an object or system is any transformation that leaves it invariant and There are many types of symmetry. The most important ones are reflections, rotations and translations.
ReplyDeleteThere are many types of symmetry. The most important ones are reflections, rotations and translations.
ReplyDeleteA symmetry of an object or system is any transformation that leaves it invariant. (p.87)
ReplyDeleteThere are many types of symmetry. The most important ones are reflections, rotations and translations
There are numerous sorts of symmetry. The most significant ones are reflections, rotations and translation. Symmetry is a mathematical concept as well as an aesthetic one, and it allows us to classify different types of regular pattern and distinguish between them. Symmetry breaking is a more dynamic idea, describing changes in pattern. Before we can understand where nature's patterns come from and how they can change, we must find a language in which to describe what they are.
ReplyDeleteWe can see that there are symmetrical things all around us but we just don't notice or we just ignoring it. In my understanding reading this chapter, most of the things in this universe is symmetrical. Like out body, the right half of it is almost the same of the other half because there are still differences. I also wondering if the universe is infinite, is there a possibility that we have something common in looks from the other galaxy or maybe universe? Thank you.
ReplyDeleteMy opinion is the universe during inflation the broken symmetry din produce a positron but it when through a phase transition and covered back into an energy field inside of spacetime causing wbat we called dark matter, hawking radiation once energy converted to electrons and positron the matched pairs instead of inhalation.
ReplyDeleteThis is an invariance of the theory if only the absolute value of the field enters the theory. Such a theory could result in a symmetry that is either exact or broken. However, there is no comprehensive theory of spontaneous symmetry breaking.
ReplyDeletepagkalinawan mario
In chapter 6, it discuss about the symmetry. What is symmetry is all about? When we say Symmetry it appeals our visual sense, in where we recognize such an image, it says that when we talk about an image we imagine on how we can predict or how can we know the shape of that image. As far as the time goes by, theres such a things that develop theres one thing that once of an inventor or the great phycisist Pierre Curie invented an Radioactive, in which it can show a shape or a line.
ReplyDeleteFor my understanding I realized that everything really happens for a reason, There are many types of symmetry: reflections, rotations and translations
ReplyDeleteRana maurine lomarda
Bshm11-m4
human mind is attracted to symmetry and also our nature that visible our sense of beauty like in nature
ReplyDeleteRana maurine lomarda
BSHM11-M4