I find it curious that, for all our fascination with symmetry, the humans themselves are not symmetrical at all, even though we typically assume we are. I recall seeing a series of images of celebrities' faces not so long ago that showed how they'd look if the two sides of their face were either both the same as the left or the right one. The results were quite illuminating, and in some cases disturbing.
I remember that too, Daniel, and it's close to what I was going to comment about....the symmetry of our faces. Apart from the celebrities' examples, I recall hearing that our perception of "handsome" and "pretty" (general attractiveness) is based solely upon a person's face being symmetrical (as we look at them, and not manipulated as the celebs').
How that's measured (photographically and/or with the tiniest units of measurement) is lost on me, but however a face can appear to be "symmetrical" as it enhances attractiveness would be a fascinating exploration!
I suppose, too, that this exercise would be one that would change over certain centuries, between nationalities, and from continent to continent.
Great points here, both of you. We are drawn to symmetry in nature and tend to think it's beautiful - that's somehow hard wired into us, but it's true that we ourselves don't have true bilateral symmetry.
I think about the heart and the other organs that are sort of shifted around inside of us, too.
It was years, if not decades when I read that, Daniel, and I only wish I had written down the source. There's a definite scientific theory (if not data) that refers to what we humans define as "attractive" (or ugly, for that matter!) again, from culture to culture, century to century, and across the races and nationalities!
And, to our original point, it likely doesn't have much, if anything, to do with the literal bilateral "symmetry" Andrew wrote about here....I get that. And, tossing in that pesky subjectivity quotient certainly doesn't make things easier!
I see a ball on the ground, Master Andrew....care to pick it up and run with it?
Neat. Now, that's another type of symmetry we could discuss some other time- literary symmetry. That could mean an awful lot of different things, too, and I think some are worthy of considering one at a time.
Thanks! I think I did myself and my readers a small disservice toward the end by not better articulating HOW Gell-Mann used that symmetry - I mentioned the electron/muon pairing in another comment here, but I shoulda spent more time on that. Then again, tomorrow is another day to write/publish, right?
Perhaps universal symmetry can be seen from a certain perspective…for example, if I view an ad billboard from the highway, I can understand its message. If I have my nose against the billboard, I only see lots of multi-colored dots…the message is lost in my attempt to “analyze”…
It raises a lot of questions for me! The insane isotropy means that the expansion must have happened in the literal blink of an eye, and I wonder why that should be.
From my perspective it depends on how much time is assumed in your equation (s). For something to be instantaneous (in my mind) there would be no measurable time between the thing itself and the observer. So, it is possible for something to “appear” to be instantaneous simply because we have no way (currently) of measuring very short time intervals (e.g. Planck time).
No, I kind of rushed that and need to clean it up later (probably just write about it again in a year and expand).
What I was getting at was the cognitive leap Gell-Mann made when he used the concept of symmetry as an analogue. He reasoned that the electron had a certain spin and mass, and the muon had just been discovered with identical spin but heavier mass, and then a third particle with even heavier mass, but the same otherwise as the electron and muon. I forget the details, but they're not super important for the main idea, where Gell-Mann reasoned that could be true for the other fundamental particles. Then, physicists went looking for particles that fit into this framework and found them.
His idea worked, and that's more or less how the standard model came to be. The symmetry was in the groups of 3 particles with greater or lesser mass.
An eminent physicist will read this and roll their eyes at all the details I got wrong maybe, but they'll probably nod their head in agreement with the overall theme.
I find it curious that, for all our fascination with symmetry, the humans themselves are not symmetrical at all, even though we typically assume we are. I recall seeing a series of images of celebrities' faces not so long ago that showed how they'd look if the two sides of their face were either both the same as the left or the right one. The results were quite illuminating, and in some cases disturbing.
I remember that too, Daniel, and it's close to what I was going to comment about....the symmetry of our faces. Apart from the celebrities' examples, I recall hearing that our perception of "handsome" and "pretty" (general attractiveness) is based solely upon a person's face being symmetrical (as we look at them, and not manipulated as the celebs').
How that's measured (photographically and/or with the tiniest units of measurement) is lost on me, but however a face can appear to be "symmetrical" as it enhances attractiveness would be a fascinating exploration!
I suppose, too, that this exercise would be one that would change over certain centuries, between nationalities, and from continent to continent.
That's definitely curious, thanks for sharing! I also wonder how they measure it. Might be worth a deep dive.
Great points here, both of you. We are drawn to symmetry in nature and tend to think it's beautiful - that's somehow hard wired into us, but it's true that we ourselves don't have true bilateral symmetry.
I think about the heart and the other organs that are sort of shifted around inside of us, too.
It was years, if not decades when I read that, Daniel, and I only wish I had written down the source. There's a definite scientific theory (if not data) that refers to what we humans define as "attractive" (or ugly, for that matter!) again, from culture to culture, century to century, and across the races and nationalities!
And, to our original point, it likely doesn't have much, if anything, to do with the literal bilateral "symmetry" Andrew wrote about here....I get that. And, tossing in that pesky subjectivity quotient certainly doesn't make things easier!
I see a ball on the ground, Master Andrew....care to pick it up and run with it?
"This sounds like a job for...*dramatic pause*...Goatfury Man!"
Brad, we're talking about subjective beauty here, right? Like why things appeal to us (beyond symmetry)? I like it a lot.
Mostly I think of the "fearful symmetry" of William Blake (e.g. "Tyger, Tyger"), which served as the title of Northrop Frye's study of his work.
I just read that Blake was talking about symmetry between terror and awe, or something like that. Do you think that's fair?
Definitely. His artwork as much as his poetry.
Neat. Now, that's another type of symmetry we could discuss some other time- literary symmetry. That could mean an awful lot of different things, too, and I think some are worthy of considering one at a time.
Nice piece, Andrew!
Thanks! I think I did myself and my readers a small disservice toward the end by not better articulating HOW Gell-Mann used that symmetry - I mentioned the electron/muon pairing in another comment here, but I shoulda spent more time on that. Then again, tomorrow is another day to write/publish, right?
Perhaps universal symmetry can be seen from a certain perspective…for example, if I view an ad billboard from the highway, I can understand its message. If I have my nose against the billboard, I only see lots of multi-colored dots…the message is lost in my attempt to “analyze”…
Absolutely. Are we thinking about the large-scale structure of the universe here?
It seems more like a “proper” scale that raises no questions; everything seems to fit together like a picture puzzle…
It raises a lot of questions for me! The insane isotropy means that the expansion must have happened in the literal blink of an eye, and I wonder why that should be.
Because we are so attached to time…
Do you think the hyperinflation was instantaneous? I think about that a lot.
From my perspective it depends on how much time is assumed in your equation (s). For something to be instantaneous (in my mind) there would be no measurable time between the thing itself and the observer. So, it is possible for something to “appear” to be instantaneous simply because we have no way (currently) of measuring very short time intervals (e.g. Planck time).
Super cool build from the Taj to the reaally complicated stuff. At the end are you referring to quantum entanglement?
No, I kind of rushed that and need to clean it up later (probably just write about it again in a year and expand).
What I was getting at was the cognitive leap Gell-Mann made when he used the concept of symmetry as an analogue. He reasoned that the electron had a certain spin and mass, and the muon had just been discovered with identical spin but heavier mass, and then a third particle with even heavier mass, but the same otherwise as the electron and muon. I forget the details, but they're not super important for the main idea, where Gell-Mann reasoned that could be true for the other fundamental particles. Then, physicists went looking for particles that fit into this framework and found them.
His idea worked, and that's more or less how the standard model came to be. The symmetry was in the groups of 3 particles with greater or lesser mass.
An eminent physicist will read this and roll their eyes at all the details I got wrong maybe, but they'll probably nod their head in agreement with the overall theme.
Kinda like patterns eh? I will be your accountability partner in 364 days
Yes! I need it. Keep the good questions coming.
It's a useful tool in many digital drawing applications.
I remember using this in Photoshop circa 1998. I can only imagine how powerful those tools are today if you get down to the nitty gritty.
Ohh my favorite - ok my only - procreate trick is to turn on the symmetry tool and pretend I'm a Kaleidoscope