Frank Wilczek: “A Beautiful Question” | Talks at Google


MALE SPEAKER: Good afternoon. Welcome to Talks at Google
in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Today it’s my great privilege
to introduce Frank Wilczek. Dr. Wilczek is kind of a
one-man who’s-who in physics. He’s the Herman Feshbach
Professor of physics at MIT. And his research spans condensed
matter physics, astrophysics, and particle physics. He was one of three recipients
of the Nobel Prize in physics in 2004 for the discovery
of asymptotic freedom in the theory of the
strong interaction. In 2012, he proposed the
idea of a space-time crystal. He’s written numerous books
for professional and general audiences. He joins us today to
discuss his newest book for general audiences,
“A Beautiful Question, Finding Nature’s Deep Design.” In this book, he shows us
how groundbreaking work done by scientists
throughout the ages, including himself, has always
been inspired by the idea that the universe embodies
beautiful forms characterized by symmetry, harmony, balance,
proportion, and economy that we find aesthetically
pleasing and inspiring. The book explores how
intertwined our ideas about beauty and art are with
our scientific understanding of the cosmos. Please join me in
welcoming Frank Wilczek. [APPLAUSE] FRANK WILCZEK: Thank you. Thank you. It’s very interesting to be
here and to have the chance to talk to you. In this presentation, I’m
going to do three things, and then we’ll open
it up to questions. I’m going to first present
the central line of argument in the book. Then I’ll do a brief reading. And then I’ll talk through one
particular scientific chapter that’s a central part
of the exposition, which I think is very well suited
to a visual presentation. It’s going to be about color
and how our perception of color relates to the concept
of extra dimensions. So let’s get going. This is the beautiful question
to which the title alludes. Does the world embody
beautiful ideas? That may sound very vague and
woolly or hopelessly visionary, but it actually is
something one could make precise and investigate
empirically, I would argue. I will look. So this question has two sides. What is the world, which we
investigate scientifically? And what is beauty? Beauty we can also
investigate empirically. We can look to the
historical record and see what kind of things
people have found beautiful. There’s a record of
art and decoration that tells us what people
have found beautiful. And then we can compare to
see if there’s non-trivial– I think I can use that
word here– nontrivial overlap between these two
conceptions, what we find runs the world, what is the
deep structure of the laws, and what people find
beautiful on the other. From our examination of
the fundamental laws which has reached a remarkable
state of perfection over the course of
the 20th century, we can identify
what the themes are. And I would claim that there
are two basic themes that overwhelmingly emerge from the
fundamental laws of nature, the so-called standard
model or core theory that we’ve come to understand. One is symmetry, and
the other is exuberance. Now, both of these come with
asterisks because the words as used by me and used
generally in science have special meaning that’s a
more precise version and more limited version than their
used in common language. So the best
definition of symmetry sounds at first sight
kind of mystical, but it actually means
something very precise and very flexible and important. Symmetry is change
without change. So for instance, a circle
is a very symmetric object, because you can rotate it around
its center and every point on it moves, so changes, but
the circle as a whole does not. And therefore, a circle
is a very special object. If you took, say, any old
triangle and did a rotation, it would not come back
to the same thing. If you take an equilateral
triangle, which is the most symmetric
version, you can rotate it, not by any
angle, but if you rotate it through 120 degrees, it
comes to the same thing. So it has some symmetry,
but less than a circle. The virtue of this
definition and what makes it become
extremely fruitful is that you can apply
it not only to objects but to physical laws. You can ask, for instance,
whether the physical laws look the same if you move past
an object at constant velocity. That’s the key concept in
the theory of relativity. Or you can ask about the
symmetry of equations. Do you have equations that
you can make transformations of that might have changed
their content but in fact don’t? So they change the
appearance of the equations but not their
consequences or content. Exuberance is not
usually a technical word. The more technical
version would be something like
“economy of means” or “emergent complexity.” And this is best
shown by example. The fundamental laws
are conceptually simple and based on high
degrees of symmetry, as I’ve already mentioned. But their consequences
are extremely rich. The basic ingredients
of nature, we learn, are sort of like LEGO blocks,
but very intelligent LEGO blocks that you
can stack together in many creative, interesting
ways, and nature does it. This is how chemistry,
metabolism, genetics, and also nuclear physics and
astrophysics all can be run by the same basic
equations and concepts. Now, turning to the concept
of beauty, what have people found beautiful? Well, take a look. This is a mosque
interior from Shiraz. And you see lots of
symmetrical elements. You see many triangles. You see circles. But not only is there
symmetry, but there’s even the more advanced
kind of symmetry that we use in physics,
where you make symmetry where different
transformations are made at different places
in space and time. Here, if you have a
triangle over here, its symmetry is a rotation
over here around its center. You have a triangle over there. Its symmetry is rotation
around its center. To do full justice
of the symmetry that people have
found beautiful, you have to have this gigantic
concept of local symmetry, which is, as documented
here in great detail, the fundamental principle
that allows us to construct the basic laws of nature. Another concept that
we find is extremely central to our understanding
of the physical world and is a sort of hidden
embodiment of symmetry is the concept of relativity. So relativity, I’ve
already alluded to, is centrally the
concept that you can move past a scene
at constant velocity and it will obey the
same laws of physics. Perspective in
art is the science of how things look from
different viewpoints, different viewpoints
meaning, in that case, different places you
can stand to look. But it’s the same
basic idea that you can look in different
configurations, places, or velocities and see the
same underlying structure. This is change without change. Let’s talk about it in the
context of perspective, because if you consider all
the possible representations of a scene as it’s looked at
from different viewpoints, that’s what the science of
perspective is all about. How can you realize
the same scene from many different viewpoints? Then if you have that
whole understanding, that whole collection of
possible representations, moving the object,
rotating it or moving it, although it changes
the object, does not change the entire collection
of ways it could look. So you have, in this
broader perspective, a change without change, a
symmetry, and the science perspective and art
and the discipline of projective geometry
and mathematics, which are basically the
same thing, or the study of that kind of symmetry. And people found it beautiful. Just look. Shortly after the
science of perspective was discovered by
Brunelleschi around 1430, it played a big
role in triggering the painting revolution of
the Italian Renaissance. This is one of the earliest
masterpieces in that tradition. And you can see the joy that
Perugino took in experimenting with perspective and how the
town square is accurately represented, and
the people are so happy to be part of an
accurately portrayed town square, and the
buildings are meant to point in
interesting directions with parallels converging at
different vanishing points. And you can see that Perugino
had a great time with this, and people found it beautiful. And I find it– I think
you will find it beautiful. And here’s one more example,
which is a little more exotic. This is a portrait
by Matisse, and it exhibits another really strange
kind of change without change. Perspective is the idea
that you can look at scenes from different places. Here, the idea is that you can
make transformations and color space, so changing
blue into red or red into green, at different places. You still have the
same underlying image, but it can be a
beautiful thing to look at it from this kind of
very general perspective, now not only in the sense
of changing things in space and time, but also changing
things in color space. And that’s another
version of local symmetry, now changing things and their
properties that turns out to be fundamental
in constructing our understanding of the world. So that concludes the
proof, the demonstration, that what people find beautiful
has a remarkable overlap, remarkable concordance,
with what we find are the basic principles
that run the world. Now I’d like to
read a little bit so you can be assured as to the
quality of prose in this book. This comes towards
the end, so it alludes to some things
that came before. But I think the meanings will
be clear from the context. “Trust in beauty has often,
in the past, paid off. Newton’s theory of
gravity was challenged by the orbit of Uranus, which
did not obey its predictions. But Urbain Le Verrier and
also John Couch Adams, trusting in the beauty
of the underlying theory, were led to propose the
existence of a new planet, not yet observed, whose
influence might be responsible. Their calculations told
astronomers where to look, and that led to the
discovery of Neptune. Maxwell’s great
synthesis, as we’ve seen, predicted new colors of
light, invisible to our eyes, also not yet observed. Trusting in the
beauty of the theory, Hertz both produced and
observed radio waves. In more recent times,
Paul Dirac predicted, through a strange and beautiful
equation, the existence of antiparticles, which
had not yet been observed but soon thereafter were. The core, anchored in symmetry,
gave us color gluons, w and z particles, the Higgs
particle, the charmed quark, and the particles
of the third family, all as predictions prior
to their observation. But there have
been failures, too. Plato’s theory of atoms
and Kepler’s model of the solar system
were beautiful theories that, as descriptions of
nature, utterly failed. Another was Kelvin’s
theory of atoms, which proposed that they are
knots of activity in the ether. Knots come in different forms,
and they’re not easily undone, so they have, it might seem,
the right stuff to make atoms. But they aren’t. Those failures were
not without fruit. Plato’s theory inspired deeper
study of geometry and symmetry. Kepler’s model inspired his
own great career in astronomy. And Kelvin’s model
inspired Peter Tait to develop the theory of
mathematical knots, which remains a vibrant subject today. But as theories of
the physical world, they are hopelessly wrong. The fate of supersymmetry
is not yet decided. Its discovery would,
as I’ve described, reward our trust in beauty
as a guide to deep reality. There are good reasons
to think that discovery may be imminent and
beautiful reasons to hope so, but it has not yet occurred. We shall see. According to the story
of Doubting Thomas, the apostle Thomas was skeptical
of Jesus’ Resurrection, withholding his belief in
the absence of evidence.” And now we have a quotation. “‘Except I shall see in his
hands the print of the nails and put my finger into the print
of the nails and thrust my hand into his side, I
will not believe.’ When Jesus did
appear to Thomas, he allowed Thomas to examine his
wounds, and Thomas believed. Jesus said, Thomas,
because thou has seen me, thou hast believed. And blessed are they that have
not seen and yet have believed. That story has inspired
many works of art, including Caravaggio’s
‘Incredulity of St Thomas,’ which I find resonant.” That’s what you’re seeing here. “To me, Caravaggio’s rendering
conveys two profound messages that go beyond the words
of the Gospel’s text. One sees first
that Jesus does not resist Thomas’
inquisitive examination but rather welcomes it. And one sees that Thomas
is fascinated and excited to discover that reality
conforms to his deepest hopes. Doubting Thomas is a
hero and a happy man. Those who believe without
seeing are blessed with the joy of certainty. But it is a fragile
certainty and a hollow joy. Those whose faith is not
passive but engages reality will receive a second,
more fulfilling blessing in the harmony of
belief and experience. Blessed are those who
believe what they see.” Thus endeth the second part. And now I’d like to talk
about a specific subject that is well suited to brief
presentation and very visual. This is my favorite
physicist in his prime. This is James Clerk Maxwell. You can see a kind of playful
expression on his face, a gleam in his eye,
and a toy in his hand. What is that strange toy? Well, it turns out
that toy is actually a scientific instrument
and one that Maxwell used to elucidate the nature
of human color perception. This explains the principal. You can have two bands,
two angular bands, if you like, and put
colored strips of paper around them with different
lengths and different colors and then twirl them
around, taking advantage of the persistence of vision
to see if the colors match, to see if you can reproduce
how one band looks, say, the yellow band out there,
if you can reproduce the yellow band by suitable
mixtures of red and green. And what Maxwell found in a
meticulous set of experiments extending over many
years that he did largely with his wife’s help,
is that he could match any color on the outside. So he try strips of many
different colors, all that he could find, by
using just three colors in different proportions
on the inside. We call that trichromicity,
that humans can sense three different colors. That’s the basis of computer
displays, of color television, of color photography. You use three inks or three
kinds of LEDs or three kinds beams in general in
different proportions to make any color you like. And here’s an iconic
representation of that. And you can see
that very different looking things, for instance
a mixture of red and green, pure red and green,
spectral red and green, can give you something that’s
yellow even though that’s very different from the
yellow of the rainbow, which is a pure spectral yellow
as a physical phenomenon. We can represent
that situation more abstractly in a suggestive
way, using a color cube. So in one direction, you
have the intensity of blue, in another the
intensity of green, and another the
intensity of red. And by mixing them in
different proportions, you’ll find on the
inside of the cube all possible colors, ending
in white at the far corner, each represented uniquely. So in this precise sense, the
space of perceptible colors is a three-dimensional space. Now, there’s no denying
the mystical appeal of the concept of extra
dimensions, its appeal to mystics and people interested
in science and popular science ever since there have
been those things. Here’s a lovely image of
what extra dimensions might be conceptually in terms of,
OK, there’s physical space and you have little
spaces on top. It’s really very
appealing, very pretty. If only we could
experience them, though. Well, we can and we do. Remember, here’s our color cube. Now think about what
you’re seeing when you look at a computer screen. At every point, you’re getting
a sample of the color cube. So it’s almost literally that
previous picture except better, because now it’s colorful. And if you want to think
about this more formally, if you’re programming
a computer and you want to tell it what to do,
what kind of instructions do you have to give? You have to tell it at
each point on the screen, at each position x and y, at
each time t, how much red, how much green, and how
much blue to output. So these are six numbers. And inside the program, they
look pretty much all the same. It’s very hard to tell that two
of them are space, one is time, and three of them are colors. So you are, in that
very tangible sense, also in that mathematically
precise sense, exploring a space
of six dimensions, two space in the ordinary
sense, time, and three colors. So the answer to
the question, “What do extra dimensions look like?”
is you’re looking at them. So that was the little
chapter of science that I wanted to show you. And now we can take questions. Thank you. [APPLAUSE] AUDIENCE: Thank you for talk
and the interesting book. So you pointed out
a number of examples where human intuitions
about symmetry and beauty lead us to
non-physical theories. What about the flip side? I mean, there’s a
lot of things that we find beautiful that
are not particularly symmetric or beautiful. FRANK WILCZEK: Oh, absolutely. AUDIENCE: There’s
entire schools of art founded on dissonance and
disorder and things like that. FRANK WILCZEK: Yes, the claim
is not that all forms of beauty are embodied in nature or that
everything in nature or even in the fundamental laws,
which is the focus here, is beautiful. There are lots of loose ends
in our understanding, lots of things whose beauty is
not apparent at present and may never be apparent. And on the other
hand– your question is even more to
the point– there are many forms of beauty that
don’t seem to be embodied in the fundamental laws. The beauty of the human
form, moral beauty, things that dominate,
really, most of art, are not, as far as we can
tell, represented in the fundamental laws. But the remarkable
thing is that there are things that people
have found beautiful, some central elements of the
realization of beauty and art, not all by any means,
not even most of it, but some central
elements are exactly what we find runs the world in
the central fundamental laws. AUDIENCE: Sort of
along the same lines, are you trying to
imply a causality here? Or is it just correlation? It seems like you’re sort of
cherry picking beautiful things here, beautiful things there,
and sort of ignoring the rest. [LAUGHTER] FRANK WILCZEK: Well, I guess if
there’s not complete overlap, I have to ignore something. But I will stand by the
claim that the aspects of physical law that I’ve
chosen are not cherry picked. Those are absolutely central to
our fundamental understanding of the basic laws. Now, you might ask– I think
the spirit of your question is, is that a coincidence,
or does that go deeper? I don’t think it’s an
entire coincidence. So where does our sense
of duty come from? Well, certainly part of it
is we find beautiful things that evolution wants to
encourage us to enjoy and get more of. That’s part of the
feeling of pleasure that we get from
beautiful thing. Now, we as human beings
have quite a challenge to get our sensory act
in order, so to speak. When you look out at the world,
you want to interpret it, or evolution wants
you to interpret it, as a world of three-dimensional
objects you can move around in, possibly threatening
things, possibly things you want to
mate with, possibly things you want to eat. But the signal that
arrives on our retina is a two-dimensional
image, scrambled often. It’s a very non-trivial task,
as some of you may be exploring, art of computer vision know,
it’s a very non-trivial task to figure out how we do it. Part of it has to be that
we’re intuitively very good at projective geometry. We could go back from
a two-dimensional image to the three-dimensional
thing it might have produced. But to actually codify the
rules of projective geometry and perspective
was very difficult. We don’t know how we do
it, but a very large part of the human brain is
devoted to precisely this visual processing. And part of it
has to be learned. And so in the
process of learning, when we make successful
generalizations, I think that’s something
we want to get rewarded for and find beautiful. Now, if you can
identify patterns that nature actually
conforms to, if you can say, for instance, symmetry,
if an object a symmetric, you can infer how some of it
behaves that you haven’t seen from parts that you have
seen or you can anticipate the parts you haven’t seen yet
from the appearance of things you have seen. So symmetry, I
think, is something we’re naturally inclined to find
beautiful because it’s useful. And so it’s not
entirely a coincidence. And of course, the
idea that things can be built up
from simpler pieces is also a very useful thing
in understanding the world and in interacting with it. And so that kind of
exuberance is also something that we are naturally
inclined to find beautiful because it’s useful. Now, I thought about
that by myself, but I’m told that’s a kind
of Kantian explanation. It’s sort of in the
theory of how we have to interact with the world. There are apparent
facts about the world, like its beauty,
that could explain. But it sort of doesn’t matter
if their properties– it’s not a coincidence that
we find it beautiful, that the way the world
works we find beautiful. AUDIENCE: So thank
you again for coming. This may be an oddly
specific question, but I don’t know if you’ve
seen the recent articles, but the LAC just announced– FRANK WILCZEK: Pentaquark. [LAUGHS] AUDIENCE: Yes,
[INAUDIBLE] of pentaquark. And so as an advanced
particle physicist, I was wondering if you had
any particular thoughts on it. It looked interesting
to me that it was I think exactly
what we expected, right? There’s no loose color
or charge or non-integer. FRANK WILCZEK: Oh, it’s not
revolutionary in the sense of upsetting the
fundamental theory. In fact, in a way it’s like a
phoenix rising from the ashes. There was, about 10 years
ago, a purported observation of a particle also that
would be a pentaquark. Let me backtrack a little,
because I don’t think all of you know about
what pentaquarks are or maybe even what quarks are. But in our understanding of the
strongly interacting particles, of which protons and neutrons
are the simplest and most familiar representatives, this
is quantum chromodynamics. It’s the thing I got
the Nobel Prize for. So it must be right. [LAUGHTER] It’s very precise and detailed. The two kinds of body plans that
hundreds of existing particles conform to– so I should say
in addition to the proton, neutron, there are hundreds,
maybe by now thousands, of other, unstable
particles that arose in the exploration
of the strong interaction at accelerators. So to organize this
zoo, originally Murray Gell-Mann
and George Zweig invented something
called the quark model. And according to
the quark model, which later got
largely validated by a real theory, Quantum
Chromodynamics, or QCD, there are two basic body plans
that you can understand all these particles in terms of. One body plan is three
quarks, and that, by the way, is how quarks got their name. There’s an obscure quote
in James Joyce’s “Ulysses,” “Three quarks for
Master Mark,” right? That Murray, who’s a big
show-off, picked up on. And those things
are called baryons that have that that body plan. And protons and
neutrons are baryons. Then there are
also mesons, which are made from a quark
and an antiquark. There are also
antibaryons, which are three antiquirks,
basically two body plans. And as I said,
hundreds of examples of realizations of those
two body plans are known. And a fundamental principle
is that you shouldn’t be able to find a single quark. That’s not allowed to QCD. You can have multiples of three. So modulo three,
it has to be zero. So both the baryons
and the mesons conform to that, because quarks
have one, antiquarks minus one. Now, another possibility that
does obey the rule of three but is more complicated than
either mesons or baryons would be to have four quarks
and one antiquark, so five altogether. That’s penta, pentaquarks. And about 10 years ago, there
was a purported observation of a pentaquark that caused
quite a kerfuffle, an outburst of theory, ambulance-chasing
trying to explain this, which I participated in. But it was a sad story. Anyway, the experimental
observation kind of evaporated. Now all of a sudden,
I think last week or even just a few days
ago, the CERN laboratory, the LHCD group, so-called,
that has announced the discovery of not
that same old particle, but another thing, which
is a pentaquark, which would have to be made out of
four quarks and one antiquark. This evidence looks
much more reasonable. We had a hard time accommodating
the purported observation before. This one really looks good. The paper looks really solid. It’s a collaboration
with thousands, literally thousands of members. So they can’t all be wrong. [LAUGHTER] Anyway, so very likely, this
is a legitimate discovery of a new kind of body plan. If so, it will be great fun. It doesn’t change
anything fundamental. It doesn’t change QCD. But we can’t really solve
the equations well enough to know in advance what
these unstable, highly excited, massive particles
should look like. So it’s possible. We can’t derive it. We have to use sort
of approximate models. But it looks very reasonable. And if it is correct, because
the possibility of this body plan can be realized in
many, many different ways, there should be years of
fun and additional insight into how the strong interactions
work from investigating this new world of pentaquarks. AUDIENCE: Is it even
possible for science to discover anything about
really asymmetric things? FRANK WILCZEK: Oh, yes. AUDIENCE: Given that
it relies on being able to change the time
and place of an experiment without changing the outcome. FRANK WILCZEK: [LAUGHS]
Yeah, that kind of symmetry is called time translation
symmetry, that you can change the origin of time, if you
like, when you count times for, without changing
the consequences for physical behavior. That may seem like
an odd way of stating the fact that the laws
just don’t change, but it’s the most
profound way just to rephrase it as a
statement of symmetry and similarly spatial symmetry. And the fact that the laws
are the same everywhere is embodied in a
symmetry principle called translation symmetry. So those look pretty
good just empirically. You can look out at the
sky, and because stars are very far away and light
travels at a finite speed, you can see into the
past, what behavior was like in the distant past. You can see, not just in a
vague way, but very precisely, say for instance, whether
the spectral lines are in the same place for
different elements and whether the same
elements are out there. And so yeah, you can
make very detailed checks that the same laws
to great accuracy worked back then and also
over there, as we find today. So those symmetries
look really good. But it’s not a question
of us imposing them. They’re just true. There are other parts of physics
where asymmetry is actually quite significant. But we have a fallback position,
which is called spontaneously broken symmetry. And I didn’t want to
go there, because it’s a little– I wanted to keep
things– but since you asked, let me give you a beautiful
example of spontaneously broken symmetry. Spontaneously broken
symmetry is the idea that your fundamental
description, equations or laws, have symmetry, but their stable
realizations can’t have that. Stable realizations have
to have less symmetry. So I think a wonderful
example is traffic patterns. So you could either
drive on the right or you can drive on the left. And either choice is just
as good in principle. But everybody better pick
one or the other, OK? And on this side of the
Atlantic, we pick one. In England, they’ve
chosen another. Both systems work well, but
you can’t mix them, all right? So the symmetry
between different sides of the road is fundamentally
correct in the laws but in its stable realizations
can’t be maintained. So we have spontaneous
symmetry breaking. In much more
sophisticated versions, we find that is a
powerful principle that allows us to use
symmetrical equations that appear on the surface to
be too good for this world. They have too much symmetry
to describe the world. But their stable solutions
have less symmetry. This is the line of
thought that led people to pollute beautiful
equations that could have been true of the weak
interactions with a Higgs field that fills the universe
that spoils the symmetry and allows it to agree with
what we actually observe. And then years
later, people found manifestations of this
Higgs field, the quanta, the excitations of it. So spontaneous
symmetry breaking has been a nice fallback
position that allows us to use
equations that are more beautiful than the
world superficially looks. AUDIENCE: Thank you. FRANK WILCZEK: OK. Well, I’ll just mentioned
that this concept of color res and extra dimension
is very flexible, and you can have a
lot of fun with it. Dogs see two dimensions. And so you can imagine what a
dog’s perception looks like. There are also creatures
that see many more. The champion is
the manta shrimp, which, depending on which
variety of manta shrimp, can have between 12 and 16
different kinds of color receptors, including
things that extend into the infrared
and the ultraviolet. This is what a manta
shrimp looks like to us. You can only imagine what
they look like to each other. And presumably that’s
the point, that they can make impressive
displays and communicate by changing their colors. Wouldn’t it be nice if we
could enhance our own color perception? Well, we can, and I’m doing it. But I’d have to get you to
sign NDAs to go further. So I’m going to stop there. OK, thank you very much
for your attention. [APPLAUSE]

9 thoughts on “Frank Wilczek: “A Beautiful Question” | Talks at Google

  • dark matter and dark energy are both "positive"[expanding] and "negative"[self-consuming] conducts (behaviours) (due to time-flow rate or "rate of the flow of time") of Frank Wilczek's grid

    the grid is "relativistic" though, also granular, that's why we cannot measure a huge polarity on it [well of course we can detect some polarity, but granularity and relativity (among particles or chromodynamic oscillations) kills most of that polatization, but not all of it]

    Frank play your cards, you have an ace, but we need better mathematical support, and a "grid granular field" to achieve the "theory of everything"

    We should "play" mixing types of the fundamental forces, applied on Hilbert space, and we should describe conditions inside the "chomodynamic condensation mechanisms" via discrete mathematics – combinatorics.

    The "flow" of chromodynamic noise, is constituted by vectorized points, with different potential. The chromodynamic hot-spots, the dense parts of the chromodynamic wave, are constituted by vectorized points with "broken symmetry" [we have to mimic the Higgs methods of broken symmetry on the Wilczek-grid]. The dark cold-spots of the chromodynamicWilczek-grid have non-broken symmetry. These vectorized points don't move with continuity but move in a quantized manner, only iff they cross with the granular grid, also all vectorized points act in groups (operation of set of elements to reveal the next vectorized spots on the grid) – we have to apply "group integration" or grid-calculus.

    If we don't complete grid-calculus others will, for Frank was exact.

    We need to do three things.

    1. evolve grid-calculus 2. evolve grid-calculus 3. evolve grid-calculus

    or we have to create a grid-calculus method

  • Oh vaya, como no me sorprende. Premio Nobel 2012 , descubre la "clave" probablemente para un avance mundial increíble que son los Cristales del Tiempo, es un Genio!…… Solo 128 likes, 5 comentarios, y al parecer solo 14K personas con cerebro en el planeta????????…………. Oh claro esperen ahora lo recuerdo, EL NO ES FUTBOLISTA, ACTOR, CANTANTE, no tiene que enseñar el 60% (o mas ) de su cuerpo para llamar la atención, naa, el es solo un Genio, al parecer "especie humana" mas odiada pero irónicamente mas productiva del planeta. Sigan viendo sus telenovelas [email protected], gracias a estas grandes mentes la humanidad verdaderamente avanza. Aplausos para este gran caballero, que algún día espero tener el honor de conocerlo y trabajar con él. (Todo es posible 🙂 ……… Excelente conferencia, gracias Google por compartirlo!

  • That cat in the box question is a repeat in another format, of Shakespeare's Hamlet, "To be or not to be", and that was derived from Greek philosophy, and so back to "Who am I " ? when a disembodied image of one's self is reflected in a pool, ..and leaves a shadow, but questioner and shadow disappears each night to return next morning. What's in the gap? Or, why ask why?

    The Uncertainty Principle is derived from the same problem of position/existence in a contextual body, and life/activity integrated with the universe.
    And the GUT of intersections of forces at a particular graphical point, is the same as the active universe existing/suspended in nothing, converging-emitting by reflection at the vanishing point of this superposition.
    It's a question of how Quantum Fields intersect to interact at the significant constant identities of phenomena, and "work" by physical "laws".

    The "centre of being" of continuing thought is a relatively high-frequency activity in the brain, and that's congruent with the arrangement of position-momentum objectives that are the tuned elements of spacetime structures.
    The "distance" formulation of space is divided by the reciprocal mass-particle complex into a unitary/synchronous whole operation, around that vanishing point, ..a singularity floating in nothing, …superposition.

    The laws of Physics allow that the mind-body memory is time-shifted to other frequency integration duration context, that's the principle of modulation in a complete context and it's measurable in association with frequency modulation in brain-body sensory experience.

    Where's the evidence?, (of other states of being, in a united whole), ..that is the question, and what is worth retaining anyway?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *