The break in symmetry

Having barely discovered that the principles of symmetry are fundamental to our understanding of the universe, we stumble over a grain of sand, which seems to introduce a complication in our search for a referential system with reliable benchmark references for our ethical system. This little thorn in our foot is the break in symmetry, that spontaneous rupture which triggered the Big Bang.

The rupture entails the division of one field into two distinct ones. Contrary to what one might believe, this rupture is not a defect of the system; quite the contrary, it is the drive behind evolution, because it is through such infinitesimal breaches in symmetry that life rushed in!

Louis Pasteur was probably the first to discover the effects of these breaks while manipulating molecules of tartaric acid, those found in the yellow wine of his village of Arbois. When he arranged them symmetrically, they died. When he broke their symmetry, they lived!

Ruptures of symmetries have also been observed quite often in particle accelerators, where the energies of the Big Bang are briefly recreated. At the moment of a break, energy “condenses” or “crystallizes” into matter. It is a transformation of force into matter, which in turn becomes a new form of energy.

This very subtle difference between symmetry and symmetry breaches is a fundamental discovery which both illuminates us and upsets our ontological knowledge.

Nobel Laureate Sheldon Glashow discovered that when one goes backward in time to the Big Bang, arriving at that split second where everything seems to have begun – which physicists call the breaking of symmetry, all the theories of physics break down! In vain have physicists attempted to learn what happened just before this rupture of symmetry in the Big Bang, but their mathematical tools are useless. It would seem that beyond this break, nothing can be known.

This break corresponds to the end of physics (or to its beginning, depending on the direction we travel on the time flow). It implies a first questioning. Prior to the Big Bang rupture of symmetry lies the original or fundamental symmetry. I call this “metaphysics”, because it lies beyond physics. In this sense, therefore, metaphysics deals with nothingness, perhaps with potentialities, but under no circumstance does it deal with realities.

The break in symmetry is a long-ignored borderline between the potential of symmetry and the reality which appears after its rupture. It is a borderline between what is knowable and what is not. This discovery renders parts of ancient philosophy, which was resolutely deterministic, completely obsolete.

On which referential system should we then build an ethical system that meets the new requirements? Like chaos which is highly sensitive to the original conditions, the choice of a legitimate system of reference is of paramount importance.

Having demonstrated the importance of symmetry in our existence, we might be tempted to use it as a reference should we fail to grasp the subtle difference between the perfect symmetry that symbolizes “non-being” and the broken symmetry which symbolises the birth of what “IS”, i.e. the evolving world of our material and spiritual reality. As Shakespeare would put it “To be or not to be ?” This is a good question.

Let us look at the consequences of choosing either reference: were we to use perfect symmetry, we would have an ideal and absolute frame of reference, but one which would be totally unreal. By choosing this ideal of perfection, we would, at best, have an erroneous link with reality and, at worst, plunge into our own fantasies in a form of totalitarianism. We would then run the risk of having our desires turn us into intolerant fanatics.

Consider, for example, the St Augustine’s reference system, which was probably based on symmetry. In his time, Greek philosophy ruled the minds, the arts, mathematics, architecture, astronomy. Symmetry was a key benchmark, because it symbolized perfection, purity, eternity (not to mention the eternal Lord Himself). I suspect that this founding father of the Church was the first to perceive the break in symmetry. Unfortunately, he called it the “original sin”.

His interpretation was erroneous because his reference system, that of his time, was inadequate. Yet his approach was logical, the break in symmetry meant the rupture of purity, perfection, eternity. This break symbolized the beginning of evil, decay, death, whereas for scientists today, the break in symmetry represents just the opposite: the beginning of life. For “It is in tiny symmetry breaks that life occurred”!

Thus, taking the break in symmetry for reference, i.e. that which IS, that which is born of the break, to wit, space time and the four forces previously mentioned, with their interacting particles, we are building our new ethics on a very strong foundation.