Yuri - I think you fail the Turing Test.

I think you fail the Turing Test

 

 

What mean the Turing test?

Google is your friend.

I knew until now that ....

What do you mean?

In Wikipedia, 'Turing test:' "The Turing test is a proposal for a test of a machine's ability to demonstrate intelligence. Described by Alan Turing in the 1950 paper "Computing Machinery and Intelligence," it proceeds as follows: a human judge engages in a natural language conversation with one human and one machine, each of which try to appear human; if the judge cannot reliably tell which is which, then the machine is said to pass the test." Yuri, thank you for sharing Wheeler's statement.

Edited September 6, 200817 yr by Norman Albers

As noted in my thread http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=34145 about metasymmetry and its numerical measure 3:1 we can see other approximate cofirmation in content of universe.

 

WMAP data reveals that its contents include 4.6% atoms, the building blocks of stars and planets(NM-NATURAL MATTER). Dark matter(DM) (comprises 23% of the universe. This matter, different from atoms, does not emit or absorb light. It has only been detected indirectly by its gravity. 72% of the universe, is composed of "dark energy"(DE) that acts as a sort of an anti-gravity. This energy, distinct from dark matter, is responsible for the present-day acceleration of the universal expansion. WMAP data is accurate to two digits, so the total of these numbers is not 100%. This reflects the current limits of WMAP's ability to define Dark Matter and Dark Energy

 

NM=4.6%; DM=23%; DE=72%;NM+DM=27.6;

If DE error+3%

If(NM+DM) error-2.6% then

DE/NM+DM=3:1

My be accidental coincidence?

As noted in my thread http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=34145 about metasymmetry and its numerical measure 3:1 we can see other approximate cofirmation in content of universe.

 

Which is now this thread, because there's no need to start a new one to talk about the same topic.

O.K. Thank you for correction.

Shortage of experience in this field....

Wonder of beta -decay that "death" the 1 nontstable particles gives "life" to 3 stable particles:

 

A neutron (udd) decays to a proton (uud), an electron, and an antineutrino.

 

Another example of ratio 3:1.

 

Only 4% corresponds to the visible baryonic matter which constitutes stars, planets and living beings.

 

Hydrogen is the most abundant of the chemical elements, constituting roughly 75% of the universe's elemental mass.

 

Helium is the second lightest element and is the second most abundant in the observable Universe.

 

Hydrogen and helium are estimated to make up roughly 74% and 24% of all baryonic matter in the universe respectively.

 

Almost 3:1 ratio...

Edited September 27, 200817 yr by Yuri Danoyan
multiple post merged

Billion stars around us, but only one among the most nearest.This is our Sun № 1.

8-9 planets revolve around our Sun but only one № 3, most need for Sun.

This is our planet Earth.

Again, the ratio of 3:1.

Please accept this post as the autumn joke

When called recent Nobel laureates in physics, I thought to the issue: "Spontaneous symmetry breaking is private case of violating metasimmetry?"

What do you mean "private"?

What do you mean "private"?

 

I mean "My be spontaneous symmetry breaking is particular case breaking of metasymmetry?"

Hopefully so!

It seems to me that the Universe at the time of Big Bang was in state of metasymmetry, but then metasymmetry was broken and the first "stage actors" were protons, electrons, neutrinos (fermions) and photons(bosons). The ratio of 3:1 survived.Second tethrade were W+-Zo and again photon.3 have mass, 1 photon haven't.They starting play called "Universe"

Recently, I found that the idea broken metasymmetry was discovered Pythagoras and his school 2600 years ago and formulated as "Sacred Tetrada". Fair to say, that they certainly were not known concepts of modern physics, but intuitively ratio of 3 and 1 they had captured very well.

Frozen moment mean:

1.T=0

2.No motion.

3 No continue symmetry.

4.Only two kinds of discrete symmetry P&C

5.P- symmetry;C - antysymmetry

6.Metasymmetry is broken symmetry between symmetry

and antysymmetry. Again ratio 3:1.

Except that P and C are not 'symmetry' and 'antisymmetry', they are 'parity' and 'charge' and relate to how you could consider a system with it's chirality swapped or matter exchanged with antimatter and see if the evolution is analogous to the original system. As was discovered in the 1960s, doing both of these and considering weak decay processes results in a different time evolution from the original weak decay system.

I mean that a pair of discrete-continuous look like a pair of symmetry-antisymmetry, because if we represent them in the symbolic form , they can not be distinguished from from each other: 01 11 or 11 01.

Perhaps you can try to say that again. This time think before you type so that your post is coherent.

I guess, reason is poor understanding your arguments.Please more details.

According to Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symmetry_in_physics supersymmetry relate to discrete symmetry.

From other side supersymmetry contain components of both symmetry(discrete and continue).

That is correct to call supersymmetry discrete?

I don't think it is really correct to say that supersymmetry is discrete or continuous as it requires Grassmann odd parameters. I have no idea what it means for a Grassmann odd parameter to take "discrete" or "continues" values.

 

You would need to introduce a topology here and I don't know how to do that. (People like de Witt and Rogers have put topologies on Grassmann algebras, but there are "problems" later on. )

Edited November 16, 200817 yr by ajb

All essence this thread can read here:

C:\Documents and Settings\Yuri\My Documents\Time.htm

we do not have access to your harddrive yuri.