Does that mean there is equations 'out there' that simplify human behavior in a manner that SU(2) does for the isospin of the nuclei or SU(3) does for the eightfold way, etc? In other words, is there some SU(10)? that shows that so many galaxies should be in the universe? If you say no, just remember that SU(3) tells us that there is a reason why certain quantum particles exist (i.e., to meet the demands that the symmetry group representation requires).

Warm regards, Harv

• Symmetries. - alexander - January 17, 2002 - 20:48 UTC
  • My point is... - harvey1 - January 17, 2002 - 21:05 UTC
    • It probably can be derived too. - alexander - January 17, 2002 - 22:03 UTC
      • Two ways of approaching this - harvey1 - January 17, 2002 - 22:21 UTC
        • I really do not understand this. - alexander - January 17, 2002 - 22:43 UTC
          • Do you agree that... - harvey1 - January 17, 2002 - 23:13 UTC
            • Galaxies are not identical, like particles. - alexander - January 18, 2002 - 00:15 UTC
          • That's not the point, though - harvey1 - January 18, 2002 - 17:25 UTC
            • Harvey, you are again incorrect. - alexander - January 20, 2002 - 22:07 UTC
          • What a single principle gives you - harvey1 - January 21, 2002 - 14:37 UTC
            • Correction.Least action principle follows from f=ma,not vicevers - alexander - January 21, 2002 - 18:20 UTC
          • re: least action principle - harvey1 - January 21, 2002 - 22:33 UTC
            • Please, define energy (or action) without dp/dt. - alexander - January 24, 2002 - 06:35 UTC
        • We've lost our math HTML tags - harvey1 - January 24, 2002 - 13:59 UTC