[HN Gopher] Mathematicians Prove Symmetry of Phase Transitions
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Mathematicians Prove Symmetry of Phase Transitions
        
       Author : pseudolus
       Score  : 77 points
       Date   : 2021-07-09 11:17 UTC (1 days ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.quantamagazine.org)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.quantamagazine.org)
        
       | SilasX wrote:
       | Anyone know if this has implications for P=NP, where they've
       | found parallels between phase transitions and the "danger zone"
       | of NP-complete problems?
       | 
       | Background: for the NP-complete 3SAT (Boolean satisfiability
       | where the clauses all have up to 3 terms OR'd together), there
       | are ratios of clauses to variables that make instances trivially
       | satisfiable or or trivially unsatisfiable. In between them are
       | the hardest cases, where you run into exponential time blow-up.
       | That transition is analogized to phase transitions in matter.
        
       | Aardwolf wrote:
       | Is this the kind of symmetry to which Noether's theorem applies?
       | If so it should come with a conservation of something. Any idea
       | of what?
        
         | nautilius wrote:
         | A rotational symmetry implies conservation of angular momentum.
        
           | Aardwolf wrote:
           | But we already know which symmetry is related to angular
           | momentum, or do you mean a different kind of angular momentum
           | related to phase transitions?
        
           | ganzuul wrote:
           | What would scale symmetry conserve? Entropy?
        
             | scarmig wrote:
             | A relevant discussion that I'm digesting:
             | 
             | https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2670/what-is-
             | the...
        
               | codethief wrote:
               | The link doesn't seem very relevant. A scale-invariant or
               | even conformally invariant universe is something
               | completely different from some substance exhibiting
               | (approximate[0]) conformal invariance during a phase
               | transition.
               | 
               | [0]: The paper from the article explicitly refers to
               | "rotational invariance at large scales".
        
         | codethief wrote:
         | I don't think it is. Physicists often summarize Noether's
         | Theorem as "A symmetry implies the existence of a conserved
         | quantity" but really what Noether's Theorem refers to are
         | symmetries of a physical system's action[0]. I don't know a lot
         | about phase transitions but judging from the article and the
         | linked references, the symmetry we're talking about here
         | doesn't seem to be a symmetry of any action.
         | 
         | [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_(physics)
        
       | TheRealPomax wrote:
       | No, they don't.
       | 
       | > in a proof posted in December, a team of five mathematicians
       | has come closer than ever before to proving that conformal
       | invariance is a necessary feature of these physical systems as
       | they transition between phases. The work establishes that
       | rotational invariance -- one of the three symmetries contained
       | within conformal invariance -- is present at the boundary between
       | states in a wide range of physical systems
        
       | findalex wrote:
       | Is it implied that the different phase transitions of - say water
       | - are related to the various ways symmetry can break? This makes
       | sense intuitively, I think: Ice -> liquid you are changing size a
       | bit but liquid water still has some transient structure at the
       | molecular level; liquid -> gas you are changing size a lot and
       | gaining rotational + translational invariance? These symmetries I
       | think make sense if you think about water the individual water
       | molecules are doing during the various phases.
        
         | nimish wrote:
         | Not necessarily:
         | https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/105166/symmetry-...
        
       | 52-6F-62 wrote:
       | Formal maths is not my strong point these days, so I'm reading
       | this from a more abstract position, but it sounds like yet more
       | pointers to systems being more than a sum of their parts.
       | 
       | Am I understanding it correctly?
       | 
       | This might just be my ignorance of the domain talking, but why
       | would there be invariance across the form?
       | 
       | What's the proposed rule beneath the rule of conformal
       | invariance?
       | 
       | Am I just whimsy to be reminded of Armani-Hamed's theories about
       | particle scattering?
        
         | raziel2701 wrote:
         | I'm with you not being an expert and being unable to understand
         | most of the lingo and the article. The conformal invariance
         | example in the pictures spoke to me about the fractal nature in
         | the universe. Fractality just keeps popping up in my readings
         | and that may have colored my read of the article.
        
           | mathgenius wrote:
           | Yes, these when these models become critical (eg. where the
           | distinction between liquid & gas goes away [1]) they form
           | clouds of condensation at all scale sizes, so it is like a
           | fractal.
           | 
           | [1] https://twitter.com/johncarlosbaez/status/127591543287712
           | 563...
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2021-07-10 23:00 UTC)