Universe Symmetry

[Anonymous No.10938533]

Are there any possible explanations as to why the universe is not symmetric along any dimensions? Even for infinite dimensions? Since it started at a point which probably had some symmetric structure.

[Anonymous No.10938783]

>>10938533
When you look at the ground state dsitribution of the spin domains of a paramagnet, do you think to yourself "wow there's symmetry here"? When you look at something so random at the macroscopic scale such that no matter what you do to it, it looks equally random anywhere else, do you really think to yourself "wow, there's really no symmetry here"?
Just genuinely wondering.

[Anonymous No.10938947]

>>10938783
I'm not asking for a statistical approach to answering the question. And everyone can agree there is no symmetry in the observable universe. I'm asking a simple question which was worded badly and a better way to word it would be: why is the universe not fractal-like? Obviously there has been a massive increase in entropy over the millions of years causing the apparent randomness but what happened at the very moment the universe formed, what caused the random scattering?

[Anonymous No.10939007]

>>10938947
>I'm not asking for a statistical approach to answering the question.
So you're not looking for an answer at all. Or do you have some sort of quantum vortex supercomputer that can store every single qubit in the universe?
>everyone can agree there is no symmetry in the observable universe.
Who's this "everyone"? What happened to Lorentz? Gauge symmetries? Even at the cosmic level, the Einstein action is invariant under reparameterizations of the metric. Where do you think these symmetries went?
>why is the universe not fractal-like?
This is asking for a very specific symmetry, namely scaling symmetry. Scaling is extremely special and only shows up in e.g. systems near criticality, for which conformal symmetry emerges. In fact, it can be taken as the definition: scaling symmetry emerges iff the system reaches criticality, as scaling directly implies the proliferation of some macroscopic state throughout the system. In this sense, it would be quite far-fetched to expect the observable universe now, even as a statistical system, to have scaling symmetry.

There have been people, especially string theorists, who argue that scaling emerges as an internal symmetry of a "hidden" fundamental degree of freedom (i.e. strings), for which CFT was used extensively to make computations. The problem with this is that the theory [math]presumes[/math] criticality of the universe's fundamental degrees of freedom; this is where the (SUSY)-string transition occurs in which strings condense into actual particles and their worldsheets become heavily compactified. A priori, we have nothing to compare the coherence length of this phase transition to, and hence no understanding of the RG "time scale" to determine if our universe is actually near criticality, let along a SUSY string criticality. There hasn't even been proof that such a RG flow into string criticality is necessary.
Besides, you wouldn't be able to see this with deep space pictures anyway.

[Anonymous No.10939039]

>>10938783
>>10939007
Why are you being unnecessarily obtuse? OP wanted to start a simple discussion at a semi-high level before approaching it in more detail and you're being a prick.

[Anonymous No.10939054]

>>10939039
I don't know who you are but please don't interrupt when adults are talking.

[Anonymous No.10939059]

how would that even work
the only truly symmetrical objects in the universe we know of are singularities

[Anonymous No.10940991]

>>10938947
>why is the universe not fractal-like?
Would intelligent life like humans even be possible in such a universe?

[Anonymous No.10941069]

>>10938533
are there any symmetric explosions

[Anonymous No.10941104]

>>10938533
The largest type of system we can observe that in any way appears closed is a gravitationally locked galaxy. Thus, time travel implies the risk of creating a new galaxy. If we assume that any form of retrocausality involves a new galaxy being born, it starts to make sense, because it means this universe is just a shared computational space being used to simulate the existence of time travel. Something wants us dead, and it's willing to simulate the entire universe to do it.

[Anonymous No.10941159]

>>10941104
P.S.:

[Anonymous No.10941165]

>>10939007
>>10938783
back2reddit

[Anonymous No.10941180]

>>10941160
If the Earth were flat then it stands to reason that it is infinitely flat, and any simulation would be unable to fully simulate the entire infinite surface, thus, if we base our decisions on the stars, then it will cause us to act in a manner different from the people we're simulating, causing the simulation to lose tactical meaning with regard to the flat Earth.

If we can't explore the land, we'll explore the sea. If we can't explore the sea, we'll explore the sky. If we can't explore the sky, we'll explore the night. If we can't explore the night, we'll explore the mind, ie., hack the simulation.

[Anonymous No.10942123]

>>10939007
What the hell dude. He’s was just trying to start a discussion based on curiosity. It’s not like he’s getting peer review for a dissertation.

[Anonymous No.10942129]

[Anonymous No.10942152]

Maybe the distribution of galaxies is the way that it is because of muh quantum fucktuations, maybe the universe is expanding inside of an older universe, and our little universe is being accelerated towards that universe by simple gravitational attraction. Maybe we are inside of a set of universes, and the central point where the average mass of this set is the highest is the great attractor. It doesn't contradict the big bang, it satisfies all current observations and is consistent with our favorite models, it also explains cosmic inflation pretty well. I don't know, I just came up with this totally unoriginal and banal thought while reading Tookers PDF, mainly because I misinterpreted the poorly written text.

[Anonymous No.10942178]

>>10938783
>>10939007
>>10939054
holy cringe

[Anonymous No.10942188]

An infinite thing by definition cannot have total symmetry.

/thread

[Anonymous No.10943002]

>>10942188
How so?

[Anonymous No.10943016]

>>10942152
OP here, thanks for the first reply that I can actually fucking understand.

>>10940991
Well would life even exist?

>>10941069
Purely due to the asymmetrical nature of the explosions core reaction, if everything started from a symmetrical system it would produce a symmetric result, or am I wrong?

>>10941104
Ye ok dude.

[Anonymous No.10943046]

>>10942152
>muh quantum fucktuations

Yup, that's basically the same sort of answer I got when I asked the same question as OP.

Took me a long assed time hunting around to get an answer when I asked. Got an incredibly large number of unhelpful, ignorant and pompous assed responses before someone was able to provide a succulent explanation.

This sort of fuckwit >>10939007 is very common.


Basically, the galaxies you see today are the result of quantum level fluctuations in the very early universe.

[Anonymous No.10943049]

>>10941104
I wish I was on your level.

[Anonymous No.10943050]

>>10943002
you cannot divide infinity by 2

[Anonymous No.10943099]

>>10943016
>Well would life even exist?
That depends on the definition which is something no one can really agree on as of yet, as far as I know.
Otherwise there already seem to be some, if my quick search is to be believed.