What is the source of symmetry in nature?


Am Anfang war die Symmetrie – In the beginning was symmetry! ~ Werner Heisenberg, Der Teil und das Ganze: Gespräche im Umkreis der Atomphysik, 1969


We humans are immersed in symmetry of existence. In mathematics, an object or shape is symmetrical when it remains unchanged after we rotate, flip or scale it and when it allows being divided into parts of equal shape and size. Fractals are another form of symmetry. The image above has both Reflectional symmetry and Bilateral symmetry when a line can be drawn to divide the shape into halves so that each half is a reflection of the other. Understanding symmetry in complex composite knots within Knot Theory can be something of a challenge and is beyond the scope of this article. Any crticial review of the simpler knots there will illustrate some of those challenges in that where line crossings transition can be reflective.  How knots become composites and integrated into higher ordered complexities within the very large topic of entanglement is also something of a challenge in limited real estate. The cogent description of M5 finds the intrinsic nature of Most Basic Particles (MBPs) being consistent with Knot Theory. While that might sound like String Theory under M1, it is not, but there are common concepts which must be mode shifted.

It turns out that the manifestation of the source of symmetry is highly dependent on the Encapsulated Interpretative Model (EIM) one employs as the basis of their thinking and endeavors. Definitional equality is the congruence closure of these four basic forms, that is, the smallest reflexive, symmetric, transitive and congruent relation that contains all instances of the four basic forms. There is in many texts across science, assumptions about reality that here must be taken into account. The largest omission is commission of Langer Epistemology Errors. Another is how to integrate concepts beyond the boundaries of encapsulation (e.g. there is an erroneous assumption that ‘logic’ can penetrate those boundaries). Generally what needs to be taken into account is the larger tapestry presented by Elegant Reasonism.  The utility process and its framework are the only methods we are aware of that enables and otherwise philosophically empowers investigators to engage in these types of analysis. Learning something like this in order to communicate the issues is nothing new. Plato wrote about such communication challenges in book seven of The Republic in his allegory The Cave.

Core Construct Interfaces

All EIMs employing spacetime as one of its core constructs (e.g. M1, M2, and M3) all have the same problem with its interface to other fundamental constructs; usually energy and mass, but sometimes momentum and inertia. Dimensional mathematics stereotypically employs something called a tensor to try and deal with such issues holistically. However, 100% of all of that has a fundamental problem that historically and traditionally gets glossed over, sometimes with great indignation. The issue is the inability to employ a common geometric basis point for all real objects in all reference frames. This issue is made manifest by the simple fact that nothing real can transition the spacetime-mass interface without first conversion to energy as given by a fairly famous equation needing no introduction here. Such a common basis capability is a requirement given us by the unified Universe, it is not something invented by any human. That all the objects sitting around you as you read this is patently self-evident that the actual real universe is in fact unified, even if your thinking about it is not. And if your thinking can not fathom the unified Universe then all of this should give you great pause to consider Elegant Reasonism in great detail.

There are many among us that dream up ever more elaborate concepts to articulate the inability of status quo thinking to accomplish unification through science. The issue is philosophical and not scientific and that’s why every single one of those attempts has in the past failed and it is why every one of them entrenched in M1, M2, or M3 thinking will continue to fail. They will never accomplish unification exactly because their core constructs philosophically preclude attaining it. It does not matter how much money, time, energy, resources or human capital you throw at that problem unification will continue to slip through your fingers until the day you stop and embrace Elegant Reasonism. Chasing unification through M1, M2, or M3 is wishful thinking exactly because of the philosophical interface created by the core construct of those models. Investigators must inventory their abstractions, making certain that they are not committing Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs) and then enable effective mode shifting through the utility process of Elegant Reasonism.

The core contructs of the M5 EIM dovetail supporting unification criteria. There is a point here which is often lost with the phrase “of physics” so often employed after the term ‘unification’ and you will note that we work hard not to use that phrase. There is a deep implication to the reason we do not use that phrase and the reason is this: unification is a tapestry a great deal larger than any single domain of discourse or detail set supporting it. Indeed unification requires the integration of everything real. Once you can characterize reflection of the unified Universe Bang to Bang, and we did do that, you are almost immediately struck with the requirement that everything real must also be made manifest as a function of that cogent description.

Real constructs capable of being warped must possess properties which enable that capability. Stress, tension, limits, basis, relationships, etc. must all be made manifest within that construct. If they are not enabled distinctly then we must understand all the answers to the standard root cause analysis questions. What readers here must understand is that the answers to those questions change or may have completely different definitions EIM to EIM. The pattern of relationships change across those dynamics and it is for that reason the utility process is so important to understand. Most especially the Process Decision Checkpoint Flowchart.

Exploring Encapsulation Boundaries

Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs) exacerbate exploration of EIM encapsulation boundaries in some cases to complete obfuscation of critical insights required for comprehensive comprehension. The point here relative to the title of this article is that in some cases the needed insights to understand factors influencing symmetry are on the other side of these boundaries and consequently beyond the capabilities of some EIMs to cope with those factors. In some cases even perception of the factors is completely hidden by these boundaries. The comprehensive analytical rigor of Elegant Reasonism is designed specifically to enable and empower investigators to address these issues.

LEE Commission Leads to Arrogance

We had to mode shift the Baloney Detection Kit in order to made sense out of many aspects and to enable communications with some groups. Not until the reader here understands the deep implication such commission holds for interpretative scientific analysis will the epic nature of Elegant Reasonism come into its ineffable own for that investigator. Vested status quo thinkers who believe established tie out integrity to be unshakable need only be asked to anchor all that to requirements of unification in order have their realm rocked. The EIMs M1, M2, and M3 not only do not accomplish unification, they never will and the issue is philosophical not scientific which is why the scientists never found the problem. The problem was upstream of where they were looking, not downstream. Consequently the scooted right on by the problem without ever perceiving it, much less recognizing it. Unification criteria must be a philosophical predicate priority consideration entering science, not after you get there because then it is essentially too late.

Mode Shifting these issues is not for the feint of heart. The reason is the complicated nature of the relationships between the core constructs of each EIM relative to and respective of other EIMs in context of Paradigms of Interest/Nature (POI/N) which must be explored. These are exceptionally hard questions. Obviously we are exploring the very nature manifesting these various constructs but we must employ the highest discipline and rigor in order to not cross the line into commission of Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs).

Once we understand these various issues we may then, and only then, understand how to enable discussions of exploration enabling fundamental symmetry within the unified Universe.

Mode Shifting Symmetry

Succinctly, and in a simplex manner, we need to constantly ask “does this concept/construct close to unification”? Remembering then that unification must be a predicate priority consideration in our every calculation and approach. Leveraging the process and methods will help us to keep those priorities in check and order. Then remembering the distinctions within each EIM are unique and likely distinct relative to their pattern relationships employed as they manifest any given Paradigms of Interest/Nature (POI/N) (or set of them). Several points here. One is that we must not assume that because we have one explanation (which uses a particular EIM as its basis) that there is not also another EIM (employing a different basis) which is also simultaneously true relative to and respective of the POI/N we are investigating and in this case the discussion here is ‘symmetry’.

Problem Approach

It is likely today circa 2022 or earlier, that few investigators would consider any of these issues. We can adopt that same approach by employing a single EIM domain of discourse and its associated detail sets but that violates Elegant Reasonism rules since those rules demand a plurality of EIMs, and at least one must close to unification. For the purposes here we will set aside the plurality rule in making the point to team leaders that they should consider the usefulness of segregating team by EIMs chosen for reasons of focus, resolution, and accuracy. There are considerable effectiveness strategies that can be employed here for transformational reasons but they are not our topic here. The point being made is not to assume that a single congruent characterization is the only one which may also be simultaneously true relative to your particular investigation. We must explore pattern distinctions and that requires discipline and rigor in order to affect the different modes of thought required by a given team, group, or individual.  Everyone should be at least somewhat familiar with the constructs employed by M1: spacetime, mass, and energy being the major ones but what many, if not most, are not used to thinking about are others like geometric basis, inertia, momentum, stress, tension, etc. Many believe that M1 is what Einstein believed and they are wrong. What Einstein believed is M2 not M1 and while they may share major constructs how those constructs are treated are different and unique between the two EIMs (e.g. they have different rules). Einstein believed mass was invariant not variant and that is essentially the distinction between M1 and M2. The distinction matters because they alter how we consider aspects manifesting symmetry.  Factors influencing the manifolds which ultimately are responsible for that symmetry are directly affected by how these different parameters are employed and that’s one reason why we must mode shift them through the Process Decision Checkpoint Flowchart.

Another major consideration is scale and vector of the inventoried abstractions. We must make sure we are comparing apples and apples, not apples and oranges. We must then make sure what fundamental concept manifests scale and vector. The original systems review from which the cogent description of M5 had to be reverse engineered establishes two derivative process from the intrinsic nature of Most Basic Particles (MBPs) a build process which is limited by the other which is a failure mode of what gets built or configured. Blending these concepts together using proper M5 terminology we have then the cogent description for M5. The point being made is that M1, M2, nor M3 can produce such a cogent description and the reasons they can not is that they can not close to unification. Those EIMs can not close to unification exactly because their core constructs, their relationships, etc. while completely logically correct are logically congruent they also preclude unification. For example they can not employ a common geometric basis point exactly because nothing real can transition the spacetime-mass interface they all employ without first conversion to energy as governed by a fairly famous equation needing no introduction here. We must therefore conclude that those EIMs are “logical” in nature and not a physical description of the unified Universe. Historically we must remember that none of those EIMs were developed with unification in mind. They were solving different problems and because we all committed Langer Epistemology Errors we all ran down that particular rabbit hole believing we were working with the only real description of reality. We were all wrong.

Symmetry Demands A Cogent EIM Description

We began this article seeking the source of smmetry. What we ran into is the basis of our interprtation. We discovered here that EIMs form the fundamental, foundational, interpretative context symmetry is a function of that context. We cannot declare symmetry absent a description of the EIM manifesting it and when we realize that we also realize the importance of geometric basis because symmetry is fundamentally a geometric topology discipline and discussion. The detail sets within those domains of discourse must be be mode shifted which intern requires embracing the utility process that is Elegant Reasonism in order to have an effective conversation about symmetry from the point of view and precipice of the unified Universe. That precipice is the only precipice that truly matters. And this is just another reason why Elegant Reasonism holds importance and value. The source of symmetry then under M5 then is the MBP and its intrinsic nature. On the day another fully compliant EIM is developed we can revisit the discussion.

That Fine Line

We could have written those last lines in the paragraph immediately prior to this one as: The source of symmetry in the unified Universe is the MBP under M5 but in writing it that way commits Langer Epistemology Errors and it arrogantly presumes that M5 is the only EIM that will ever be able to do so and that is not something anyone is prepared to assert. All we can say at this juncture is that we can reflect the unified Universe through M5 with high congruence and affinity. To declare anything more than that commits the very type of error Elegant Reasonism was designed to avert.


#ElegantReasonism #EmergenceModel #Unification #Symmetry #Reflectional #Bilateral #Rotational #Order


By Charles McGowen

Charles C McGowen is a strategic business consultant. He studied Aerospace Engineering at Auburn University '76-'78. IBM hired him early in '79 where he worked until 2003. He is now Chairman & CEO of SolREI, Inc. ORCID: