Is nature’s law’s the symmetry or breaking the symmetries? what? My younger brothers Rupak Bhattacharya ( now35 years) & Kausik Bhattacharya of 7/51 purbapalli, sdepur 24 pgs(N) West Bengal, India, few months back e mailed me. I became skeptic to answer. A dangerous and a very difficult question indeed. This question may be related with origin of matter in the universe in a bigger sense! It is also big question before the theoretical physicists who are dealing with the Big Bang origin of our observable universe! Do you know what laws our universe follows? Of course, many shapes found in our world display little or no symmetry, but many livings are of course almost symmetric within their species. At least there are left and right symmetry in my eyes. Is that not? Every oranges, every lemons found in the different places of this world is almost have almost perfect sphere shape. Please look at the human beings. They are almost symmetric about an axis through the body, - but quite a little bit also asymmetric- a variation in symmetry? Breaking the exact symmetry? Is that nature’s law?
Theoretical Physicists say in regard the universe, a perfect symmetry was broken after the Big Bang moment! They say in QCD ,symmetries were present only at planks moment of Big bang in regard of matter and antimatter amount , in regard elementary particle’s and antiparticle’s mass and original symmetry was lost spontaneously some where in the journey of universe along its road. Then the symmetry must be broken after matter and antimatter was created in equal amount in the early epoch of Big Bang. Otherwise how our universe is made of only matter? Where went the antimatter? One extra particle of matter for every ten billion particles of antimatter was enough to make our world survive. This excess of matter was the seed of our whole universe, which filled with galaxies, stars and planets – and eventually our life- at elementary particle level we human beings are also made of quarks! There are various types of Symmetries we can see around us and they are iso spin symmetry- in particle physics [Werner Heisenberg –Nobel prize 1932] , mirror symmetry[P],( all events should occur in exactly the same way whether they are seen directly or in a mirror. There should not be any difference between left and right and nobody should be able to decide whether they are in their own world or in a looking glass world). charge symmetry[C] , (Charge symmetry states that particles should behave exactly like their alter egos, antiparticles, which have exactly the same properties but the opposite charge). and a time symmetry[T] (physical events at the micro level should be equally independent whether they occur forwards or backwards in time.), non-abelian gauge symmetry - in electromagnetism, gauge symmetry SU(2) X U(1) for the weak and electromagnetic force -Weinberg ,Abdus Salam & Glashow [Nobel Prize , 1979].
It may be that charge and mirror symmetries are broken separately, but both of them, the so Called CP-symmetry, were certainly not broken at the same time. The physicist community consoled itself with the idea that this symmetry remains unbroken in nature ,in universe. The laws of nature, they believe, will not change if one somehow steps into a mirror world where all matter is replaced with antimatter. Don’t try to hand shake with an alien (your anti) in that mirror world. Both of you will vanish leaving behind just radiation. When radioactive substance Kaon (Nobel Prize to James Cronin and Val Fitch in 1980) was considered a small fraction of the kaons did not follow the current mirror and charge symmetries; they broke the double CP-symmetry and thus challenged the whole structure of the theory. The first person to point out the decisive importance of such a broken symmetry for the genesis of the cosmos was the Russian physicist and Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Andrei Sakharov (Nobel prize-1975). In 1967, he pointed out in his famous work that CP violation must be the cause of the asymmetry in the universe. And he finally opined it is the only cause of more matter than antimatter in our universe. For this, he set up three conditions for creating a universe like ours, empty of antimatter [where went the antimatter?]. Firstly, that the laws of physics could at that epoch distinguish between matter and antimatter, which in fact was discovered with the broken CP-symmetry; [But no body questions how laws of physics could distinguish between matter and antimatter? Or between quarks and anti-quarks families?] secondly, that the cosmos must be originated in the heat of the Big Bang; and thirdly, that the protons in every atom nucleus must disintegrate. The last condition might then lead to the end of the world, since it implies that all matter will finally must disappear into radiation & decay. But so far that has not happened in our universe; and experiments have shown that protons remain stable for 1033 years, a comfortable 10 trillion times longer than the age of the universe, which is slightly more than 1010 years. And still there is no one who knows how Sakharov’s chain of events took place in the early universe.
Now the question remains yet before me. Why the early epoch of Big bang about 14 billions years ago nature suddenly chose for breaking the established CPT symmetry? This very question of ‘why the symmetries were broken’ remained a mystery until 1972, when two young researchers from the University of Kyoto, Makoto Kobayashi and Toshihide Maskawa, [Nobelprize-2008] found the solution in a 3 x 3 matrix. How does this double broken symmetry take place? Each kaon particle consists of a combination of a quark and an anti-quark- they told. Both quarks and anti-quarks had severe mass in Gev [more than three hundred thousand times heavier than the electron]. The weak force makes them switch identities time and time again: the quark becomes an anti-quark while the anti-quark becomes a quark, thus transforming the kaon into its antikaon. In this way the kaon particle flips between itself and its anti-self[ Double phase of a particle simultaneously? or like a dancing particle- Possible? Possible in human minds self and non self- then minds and thoughts are made of quarks and anti-quraks? Difficult to imagine! But if the right conditions are met, the symmetry between matter and antimatter will be broken[ what was that right conditions?]. Kobayashi and Maskawa’s calculation matrix contains probabilities for describing how the transformation occurs. It turned out that the quarks and anti-quarks swapped their individual identity with each other within their own family. If this exchange of identity with double broken symmetry was to take place between matter and antimatter, a further quark family was needed in addition to the other two and it was the charm quark .The charm quark was discovered as early as 1974,the bottom quark in 1977 and the last one, the top quark, as late as 1994.
But you look around you. Does not Nature respected a mirror symmetry?, the symmetry concerning left and right?. Is not that? Look at your hands! Look at your feet! Look at your eyes! Look every double organ in your body-kidney, lungs, ovaries, testes! Look under microscope at every cells of an individual organ tissues [say normal liver hepatocytes] .I find always symmetry in nature!-may be my findings are biased one. Of course very occasionally there happens abnormalities- they are of course congenital –not nature laws. – a genetic abnormalities- a phocomelia. See yourself! See any animals! See any insects! see drosophila fly! Similarity even in genetic level with us in homeobox gene even. See structure of DNA .The famous Watson &cricks[ Nobel prize] double helix.- chirality’ present. perfectly right & left similarity. I think that Nature must had the choice of an aesthetically satisfying a left-right symmetry even in most elementary particle level also.
See other links
Why There's More Matter Than Antimatter in the Universe
2 Antimatter & Antiuniverse
Professor Pranab Kumar Bhattacharya
www.unipathos.com

Look at the heart, liver, digestive tract, nervous system...consider the fact that most people are right handed. Or look at DNA...contrary to your description, it is does not have a left-right symmetry, but forms a double helix which is chiral...a left handed helix is not the same as a right handed one. Look at the proteins...composed entirely of L amino acids, even though D amino acids are just mirror images of L amino acids, and can form mirror image proteins.

Symmetry is appealing for its simplicity and aesthetically pleasing, but not universal. Forms that are symmetrical overall appear to be more evolutionarily successful, likely because it is easier for a beneficial trait to arise. It would be nice if particles followed a similar pattern, but biology is not evidence of them doing so.

Dear cjamesuff, the senior member,
It is the Human genome project, published in the year 2001, where entire DNA code that set up parameter of human life had been sequenced. The Human genome project were concerned with defining the map location of map of objects such as genes, anonymous DNA, and polymorphic markers and their associated DNA sequences. Beside human genome project also carried out genomic analysis of Drosophilae genes thoroughly, because mutations defining thousands of genes have been isolated and phenotype of these mutations are accessible to detect at level of single cells. Many of universally of cellular developmental mechanism, manygenetic system such as cellular response to heat shock and steroid hormone which were originally discovered in drosophilae fly are now recognized important in human and in other vertebrate also. The homobox gene, the TATA box gene, CATT box gene coding sequences that represent a functionally important gene was first discovered in drosophilae fly. So human genome project included molecular genetic information of Drosophilae fly as well many other organisms which provided us genetic information of many fundamental biological process of life. The number of genes and Genome that had been sequenced are found in Gene Data Base (GDB) at John’s Hopkins University, for map information and in gene bank at Los angels for DNA sequences on the payment basis.
Reproduction and autonomous replication process is the most distinctive attribute and parameter of life. In a diploid organism, which have two sets of chromosomes, one copy of each, is inherited from each parent. This equivalence led to the discovery that chromosome in fact carry ‘gene”. The question that appears to all of us what is a gene? In a brief history of genetics…. in 1865,gene was discovered as a particular factor that passes unchanged from parents to it’s progeny. Actually the concept of gene was first evolved from Charles Darwin’s “Origin of Species” as far as my understanding is, while going through his book. In 1903 chromosome was discovered as hereditary units of life .In 1910 it was demonstrated that each chromosome consist of a linear array of gene. In 1927, it was hypothesized that mutation occur in gene and mutation are the physical changes in gene. In 1944 DNA/ RNA was considered as genetic material. It was Beadle and Tatum’s works, published in1941, that first introduced the gene mediated cellular chemistry through specific enzymes. Sir Archibald Garrod proposed in 1908, that some human diseases are inborn errors of metabolism that result form lack of specific enzymes needed to perform a specific biochemical reaction in a cell. So Garrold’s essential massage through his famous publication was “One gene/ one enzyme hypothesis” or in a better form “ One gene/ one protein” hypothesis which was confirmed later by Bedale and Tatum’s works with neurospora fungus. Ironically DNA was discovered in 1869, only ten years after publication of Charles Darwin’s “Origin of Species” and four years after “Mendel’s experiment in plant hybridization”. A German doctor” Fredric Mischer” could isolate a substance; he called it “ Nucleon” from large nuclei of WBC. His some of cells were pus from surgical wound bandage. By1900 the basic chemistry of “ Nuclin” had been worked out. . It was then known to be a long molecule composed of three distinct chemical subunit 1) a five carbon sugar 2) Acidic phosphate and3) five type of nitrogen bases- Adenine, Thiamine, Guanine, Cytosine and Uracil. By 1920 two forms of nucleic acid were differentiated by virtue of their bases composition. They were nomenclatured as RNA and DNA. These two forms Were also found to differ slightly on their base composition. Thiamine was found exclusively in DNA and Uracil was found only in RNA molecule. Knowledge about physical arrangement of atoms within the DNA/RNA molecule was made possible by two achievements. The physical chemistry and the X ray crystallography of these two molecules. The laws of chemical bonding that governed the arrangement of atoms within the molecule were rigorously found to be formulated by “ Linus Pauling” in his book “The nature of chemical bonds”-a series of monograph he wrote between 1928-35. The Watson and Crick in 1953 demonstrated the 3D arrangement of the individual subunits of De-oxy- ribose sugar, phosphate and each of four nucleotides within the huge macromolecule by X ray crystallography. In 1912 Max Von Lane discovered that X ray diffracted by regularly arranged atoms of a simple crystal. In same year, William Henry Brass and William Lawrence Brass, the two brothers worked out the mathematical equation needed to interpret diffraction pattern used to determine the molecular structure of table salt Nacl. In 1934 John Desmond Bernal obtained first crystallographic picture of protein pepsin. Max von lane, Brass brothers and Bernal were recognized for their contribution with Nobel Prize. The final three pieces of DNA puzzle were uncovered only after several years prior to publication of Watson and Crick’s famous paper Published in journal ‘Science” in 1953 and in Nature “ in 1952”. In 1950 Erwin Chargft discovered a consistent 1:1ratio of Adenine (A) to Thiamine(T) and Guanine (G) with Cystine (C) [AT, GC] in DNA sample of various organism. It was a mile stone discovery, though unrecognized. In 1951 Linus Pauling & R.B Oorey Obtained precise atomic measurement of DNA helical polypeptide structure of DNA. It was the alpha helix. At about same time, Maurice Winkins and Rosalind Franklin obtained sharp X ray photographic picture of DNA and both were awarded Nobel Prize. Their diffraction pattern strongly suggested a double helical molecule with a repeat of 340 A and a width of 20 0A. Watson and Crick were thus facing a great problem of trying to get DNA/RNA subunits to fit in a structure that confronted to know biochemical data, laws of physics, laws of nature, laws of chemistry, yet at the same time function of carrier of heredity and could replicate by itself as sign of living. Watson was a biophysicist while Crick was a biochemist. Linus Pauling was trying on the same issue. The DNA molecule Crick and Watson hypothesized thus is an alpha helix and resembles a gently twisted ladder. The rails of similar composed ladder[here lies the chirality], which runs in opposite direction [Anti parallel] contain alternating units of de-oxy ribose sugar and phosphate. The planner nucleotides stock slightly on top of one another forming the rugs of helical ladder. Each rug is thus composed of a pair of nucleotides [a base pair] held together by relatively weak hydrogen bonds consistent with 34oA repeat, as calculated from X ray diffraction data. There are 10 base pairs thus in per turn of helix with 34oAbetween adjacent base pairs. Only before some weeks of Watson and Crick’s publication of their hypothesized structure of DNA [and made a 6 feet tall metal DNA mode in Cambridge] in1952, in journal nature, Linus pauling published his own structure of DNA-a triple helix with phosphate positioned on the inside of the molecule. To every one’s astonishment a scientist like Pauling violated the basic principal of chemistry i.e. packing the phosphates into the center of the molecule that required in UN ionized form. This was incompatible with DNA as functioning as organic acid, where phosphate liberate hydrogen ions in solution. In their ionized status the negative charged phosphate would thus strongly repel one another blowing apart the DNA structure. So the winner was Crick ad Watson and both received Nobel Prize for their double helix structure of DNA. It was the most important discovery in 19th century. The question is whether a triple helix in DNA structure was at all possible as Linus Pauling did suggest?. It is possible in local laboratories. Here pyrimidine oligo-nuleotides binds to purine synthesis in double helical DNA to form a triple helical structure of DNA. But not the way as Pauling suggested. These oligo-nucleotide binds in the major groove paralal to Watson crick [W-C] purine strands, through formation of Hoogsteen hydrogen bonds. The base triplets are then TAT i.e. Thiamine (T) recognition of Adenine (A) Thiamine (T)[instead of AT of double helix] and cytosine(C) recognition of guanine (G) cytosine (C) base pair [C+GC]. Thus further one strand appear and this third strand become anti parallel to purine rich W-C strand and hydrogen bonding pattern for A-AT, T-AT and G-GC base triplet place phosphate de-oxy ribose backbone in different location in major groove depending on whether the base is on -third strand as in anti or Syn conformation. But then this DNA is not a replicating one. Though this DNA maybe used in laboratories to synthesize a new double helix DNA. Nature in earth did not permit to produce this triple helical structure of DNA,[ nature did not allowed breaking the symmetry] although almost equal possibility persisted to evolve instead of double helical DNA of W_C. So in the W_C model of DNA, the backbone chain of DNA or RNA consisted of an alternative series of pentose sugar and phosphate residue. A pyrimidine and urine nitrogenous bases are linked to sugar. DNA is however nomenclatured due it’s sugar base as 2-de- oxy ribose sugar, while RNA is named for it’s sugar Ribose .The difference between DNA/RNA is that sugar in RNA has a “OH” group at 2nd position of pentose ring. Each nucleic acid DNA/RNA contains four types of bases. The same two purine and Guanine. . They are present both in RNA/DNA. The two pyrimidine in DNA are Cytosine and Thiamine while in RNA methyl substitution at position of C-5. These bases are referred to their initial letter “A” “G” “C” “T” in DNA and AGCU in RNA. The nitrogenous bases are linked to position 1 of the pentose ring by a glycoside bond from N-1 of pyrimidine or N-9 of purines. The polynucleotide chain is constructed by linking the 5- position of one pentose ring to 3- position of next pentose ring via a phosphate group. So the sugar phosphate backbone is said to consist of 5-3- phospho diastase linkages. The terminal nucleotide at the one end of the chain has a free 5- group. The terminal nucleotide at other end has a free 3- group. It is so conventional to write nucleic acid sequences in 5-----3- direction i.e. from 5- terminals at left to 3- terminus at right.
The densities of DNA suggest that the helix though alpha helix must contain two polynucleotide chains. The constant diamater of helix can be explained if the bases of each chain faces inward and restricted, so that purine is always opposite to a pyrimidine avoiding partnership of purine- purine which is too thick and or pyrimidine- pyrimidine partnership, which is too thin. Irrespective of actual amount of each base, the proportion of “C” in DNA and proportion of “A” is always the same as that of “T”. So the composition of DNA can be described by proportion of its bases G+C. The proportion of G+C bases ranges from 26% to 74% for different species Watson and Crick proposed that the two polypeptide chains in double helix associated by hydrogen bonding between nitrogenous bases “G “can have hydrogen bond specifically with “C” and “A” can bond with” T.” These reactions are basic for base pairing and also are complementary. The sugar phosphate backbone is on outside, carries negative charges on phosphate group. When DNA is in solution , in vitro, the charges are then nutralised by the binding of metal ions typically by Na+. In vivo positively charged proteins provide some of the nutralising forces. These proteins play important role in determining the organization of DNA within the cell nucleus. The bases lie in the DNA inside. They are flat structures lying in pairs perpendicular to helix. Each base pair is rotated ~36o around axis of helix to the next base pair. So ~10 base pair make a rotation of complete turn of 3600. The twisting of the two strands around one another thus forms a double helix with a narrow groove of ~ 120A and a wide groove of ~220A.The double helix DNA is always right handed. The turn so runs clock wise looking at the helical axis.
So the ABC of simple description of DNA/ RNA structure is like this without peer at depth of structural ,geometrical ,chemical detail and their molecular complexities . Just imagine how precisely the structure of this macromolecule was made by nature! Any mistake in anywhere or in any step of its evolution would not bring life in this planet. This planet would probably be also sterile. It is really a wonder that no most sophisticated laboratory in earth could produce a self-replicating DNA/ RNA molecule till this day. Though DNA polymerase enzyme in a thermo cycler the process is known as widely PCR could achieve proliferation/ amplification of DNA. Though the amplification procedure involves replication process of a known nano quantity, it is not self-replication or auto replication, which is the mandate of life.
The mathematical and ultra engineering devices in RNA/ DNA are so perfect and accurate. Was the evolution of such RNA? DNA molecule a chance factor in this earth or was carried in earth form some other place? To make such a super structured with super function so precisely and accurately without any fault did require brain of a super mathematician? Why not a triple helix did evolve instead of double helix in this earth? The probability was 100% to evolve a triple helix. Thanks to God / Creator that Triple helix did not evolve to make the earth complete sterile or to evolve completely different types of organisms with different history of evolution

Taken from the E book ’LIFE IN OUR PLANET - THE EARTH” PUBLISHED In www.unipathos.com in2004 july by Authors
• Dr. Pranab Kumar Bhattacharya. M.D (Cal), FICpath, FIApath, FNASc, FASCT,FISCA,
FRSTM&H (Lond), Professor, Dept Of Pathology, Institute of Post Graduate
Medical Education & Research, 244A AJCBose Road Kol-20, India.
• MR. Rupak Bhattacharya Bsc(Cal),Msc(JU) 7/51 purbapalli, PoSodepur, Dist 24
parganas (north) West Bengal ,India.
• Mr. Ritwik Bhattacharya B.Com (Cal), 7/51 purbapalli, Po=Sodepur,
Dist =24 parganas,North, West Bengal, India.
Professor Pranab Kumar Bhattacharya
www.unipathos.com

Please use some white space to separate your distinct thoughts. It will make you look like you are concerned about communicating.

Blank lines between paragraphs are a beautiful thing. If in the future you kindly choose to employ them, my eyes, optical cortex, indeed my whole brain, will thank you. Thanks in advance.

__________________
0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 ...

Symmetry and beauty in nature are often found interlinked in this planet. This is not only in musical world, in artistic works but evident also in mathematics, as we think it so. Symmetries are usually associated with operations that leave any geometrical objects. Say for a sphere- it remains same under continuous rotation in space time also.
Symmetries concept plays a major central role in the establishment of two most successful theories of theoretical physics. General relativity and Quantum field theory as embodied in the particle physics of standard Big Bang model. In General relativity theories symmetries enters through principal of general co-variances that the laws of physics should not depend on co-ordinate system in which they are formulated. This principal enabled Einstein to formulate the equation of gravitational fields governing the evolution of this universe. In the standard Big Bang Model, symmetries is embodied by the principals of Gauge invariance which determines the way in which elementary particles interacts with each others. Given the principal and apparatus of modern quantum fields theory all that is needed to properly formulate the standard Big bang Model in the specification of symmetries group- the matter- particle content , and the transformation properties of these matter field (quark & leptons) under chosen symmetry group. Gauze invariances automatically ensures the mathematically consistency of the theory allowing to extract definite prediction from seemingly infinite expressions and thus making the standard model yet a best model
In spite of success neither the General theory nor the standard model can be final theory of genesis of this universe. This is because of a basic incompatibility between the two theories reflected in the appearance of “ non- re normalizable “ infinities, when Einstein theory is quantitiezed following the standard rules of quantum mechanics. Equally important neither these two theories are able to answer some important questions as for instances 1) Which sets the pattern of elementary particles found in Nature apart from the other such possible pattern? 2) Similarly what is so special about the standard model symmetry group denoted Su(3)xSu(2)xU(1) which mathematically undistinguished. All these are convinced to these questions “ How did universe with its space time and matter came into being at moment of Big Bang from Zero mass. To solve these questions came “Unified theory Called the “M theory” or “superstring theory”, yet to be totally constructed. One important difference between Einstein’s theory of gravity and standard model ,concern in way in which symmetries are realized. In general theory of relativity symmetries act in physical space time where as in gauze transformation of particle physics act in abstract internal space. An important step in the String theory are the long road to a unified theory is development of supper symmetry,-a new kind of symmetry relating to the particle group Known as Bosons and Ferminos. Supper symmetry leads to super gravity- an extension of Einstein’s theory and it requires 11 space time dimension at least. M theory can tell us many things, like proposition of multiple universe and unlimited universe, may be they are micro universe. String theory is dependent upon super symmetry being valid while super symmetry is not dependent upon string theory.”…..The problem is that relativity and the quantum theory are precise opposites. General relativity is a theory of the very large: galaxies, quasars, black holes, and even the Big Bang. It is based on bending the beautiful four-dimensional fabric of space and time. The quantum theory, by contrast, is a theory of the very small, i.e. the world of sub-atomic particles. It is based on discrete, tiny packets of energy called quanta.. The key to the puzzle may be hyperspace. In principle, if we add more and more dimensions, we can ripple and bend them in different ways, thereby creating more forces. In 10 dimensions, in fact, we can accommodate all four fundamental forces. Actually, it’s not that simple. By naively going to 10 dimensions, we also introduce a host of esoteric mathematical inconsistencies (e.g., infinities and anomalies) that have killed all previous theories. The only theory which has survived every challenge posed to it is called superstring theory, in which this 10-dimensional universe is inhabited by tiny strings. In fact, in one swoop, this 10-dimensional string theory gives us a simple, compelling unification of all forces. Like a violin string, these tiny strings can vibrate and create resonances or “notes.” That explains why there are so many sub-atomic particles: they are just notes on a superstring. Similarly, when the string moves in space and time, it warps the space around it, just as Einstein predicted. Thus, in a remarkably simple picture, we can unify gravity (as the bending of space caused by moving strings) with the other quantum forces” [ Reference-; t “Stiphen W, Hawking’s Universe” by Dr. Michio Kaku, Professor of Theoretical Physics at the City University of New York,] A new approach that revived the link to string theory was first suggested by Maidalena JM in journal Adv. Theor. Math.physc.2:231-52; 1998,who first established a link between a close relative of QCD and a superstring in a 10 dimensional curved space time. Although the theory was in big question, a super symmetry N=4 gauge theory came and it was sufficiently different from QCD. The Maidalena’s theory raised a lot of interest but seemed for long time to be quantitatively unverifiable. This was because it takes the form of a duality in which the strongly coupled String theory corresponded to weakly coupled QCD like theory and vice versa. The spectrum of the N=4 theory was then formed [ Minahan JA & Zarembo K- High energy physics 0303:013:2003] to be equivalently described by quantum mechanical charm of a type discovered by Hanse Bellie in 1931

Prof. Pranab Kumar Bhattacharya. .
www.unipathos.com