Doing the Numbers on No. 1

[James R]

Wrtie4U:

Do atoms have patterns depending on the number of electrons and neutrons?

Yes.

Do nuclei all have the same pattern?

In general, no.

A pattern is the particular arrangement of constituent parts of a physical thing..

Technically, no. The pattern is an abstraction we recognise in (or impose on) the particular arrangement of constituent parts etc.

Because you deny that all things are observable by the patterns their atoms and molecules are arranged.

I don't know what that means, so I can hardly deny it.

It seems you are considering what constitutes a pattern in a narrow way.

You quoted some definitions. Here's one:

a pattern is a regularity in the world, in human-made design, or in abstract ideas.
​

The word "abstract" comes up over and over again in the discussion of patterns. A pattern is a concept, fundamentally.

Why is this so hard for you?

Can you present me with a single thing that has no pattern ?

Well, using the above definition, anything lacking regularity has no pattern. We tend to distinguish regular, repeating, things from other things that lack those regularities or repetitions.

It is their patterns that sets all things apart from each other as well as identifies what they have in common.

Do the things recognise their own patterns, or do we thinking beings recognise the patterns?

Can a pattern exist without a mind to conceptualise it?

I suggest that if something exists that has no pattern, it could not be analyzed via mathematics and the universe would forever be unknowable.

How about this:
0001100101111111101101100001?

Does that have a "pattern", or not? If it does, is it something somebody imposed on it, or something innate to it?

 

[Write4U]

Write4U: Do atoms have patterns depending on the number of electrons and neutrons?

Yes.

Good we have agreement.

Do nuclei all have the same pattern?

In general, no.

OK, let's see.

In nuclear physics, properties of a nucleus depend on evenness or oddness of its atomic number Z, neutron number N and, consequently, of their sum, the mass number A. Most importantly, oddness of both Z and N tends to lower the nuclear binding energy, making odd nuclei generally less stable. This effect is not only experimentally observed, but is included in the semi-empirical mass formula and explained by some other nuclear models, such as the nuclear shell model. This difference of nuclear binding energy between neighbouring nuclei, especially of odd-A isobars, has important consequences for beta decay.

Alpha decay is one type of radioactive decay, in which an atomic nucleus emits an alpha particle, and thereby transforms (or "decays") into an atom with a mass number decreased by 4 and atomic number decreased by 2.

When the number of protons changes, an atom of a different chemical element is created.

Looks like self-organizing patterns to me. And other patterns inherent in atoms :

Also, the nuclear spin is integer (mostly 0) for all even-A nuclei and non-integer (half-integer) for all odd-A nuclei.

Patterns

Technically, no. The pattern is an abstraction we recognise in (or impose on) the particular arrangement of constituent parts etc.

Patterns have nothing to do with humans. We don't create natural patterns, we recognize them. That is how humans developed their symbolic mathematical representations of natural regularities.

Because you deny that all things are observable by the patterns their atoms and molecules are arranged.

I don't know what that means, so I can hardly deny it.

Why is this so hard for you?

You quoted some definitions. Here's one:

a pattern is a regularity in the world, in human-made design, or in abstract ideas.​

Here is another:
Pattern formation


Complex systems
Topics
Self-organization
Collective behavior
Networks
Evolution and adaptation
Systems theory and Cybernetics
Nonlinear dynamics

Pattern formation in a computational model of dendrite growth.
The science of pattern formation deals with the visible, (statistically) orderly outcomes of self-organization and the common principles behind similar patterns in nature.

In developmental biology, pattern formation refers to the generation of complex organizations of cell fates in space and time. The role of genes in pattern formation is an aspect of morphogenesis, the creation of diverse anatomies from similar genes, now being explored in the science of evolutionary developmental biology or evo-devo.

The mechanisms involved are well seen in the anterior-posterior patterning of embryos from the model organism Drosophila melanogaster (a fruit fly), one of the first organisms to have its morphogenesis studied, and in the eyespots of butterflies, whose development is a variant of the standard (fruit fly) mechanism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern_formation

The word "abstract" comes up over and over again in the discussion of patterns. A pattern is a concept, fundamentally.
Why is this so hard for you?

Because you are anthropomorphizing. A pattern is only a concept in the human mind. In nature it is a mathematical self-organizing principle,

Well, using the above definition, anything lacking regularity has no pattern. We tend to distinguish regular, repeating, things from other things that lack those regularities or repetitions.

Probability

Probability is the branch of mathematics that describes the pattern of chance outcomes. ... The mathematics of probability begins with the observed fact that some phenomena are random... that is, the relative frequencies of their outcomes seem to settle down to fixed values in the long run.

Do the things recognise their own patterns, or do we thinking beings recognise the patterns?

Do things need to recognize their patterns? Does a Daisy know it grows its leaves in a Fibonacci sequence? No, it's a genetic instruction. And yes, human do recognize patterns, but not all patterns that may be too obscure for casual inspection.

Can a pattern exist without a mind to conceptualise it?

Of course. There is no God. But there is Natural selection that selects for efficiency in growth patterns.

How about this: 0001100101111111101101100001?
Does that have a "pattern", or not? If it does, is it something somebody imposed on it, or something innate to it?

That is obviously a binary pattern with a numerical value. But it is again an antropomorphization of a natural value. It is the mathematical nature of the universal fabric that compels orderly patterns to evolve, if not instantaneous then demonstrably over time by natural selection.

I believe, this is what David Bohm called the universal "Guiding Equation", the recognition of an abstract logical self-ordering mathematical aspect to the universe.

There are only extant patterns of things or else something cannot exist.
Higgs boson may not have a fixed pattern and that is why it cannot exist unless as a pattern formed in the Higgs field. And then the pattern is that the Higgs boson immediately decays into patterns of leptons and photons.

The term quantum mechanics suggests that fundamentally all things are formed from patterns in quantum mechanics.

 

[DaveC426913]

How about this:
0001100101111111101101100001?

Does that have a "pattern", or not? If it does, is it something somebody imposed on it, or something innate to it?

Or how about the digits of pi? They never repeat, and have no pattern in the billions of digits we've checked so far.

 

[nebel]

JamesR & W4Y,
wow, from a handful of "10" numbers on Nr. 1 on post#1 to this!
If only this kind of attention would be lavished on "planets on a platter" aka "Jupiter orbital and rotational velocity cancel?"

 

[nebel]

Or how about the digits of pi? They never repeat, and have no pattern in the billions of digits we've checked so far.

May be that is the hidden message in this thread's o.p.
The ratio we see most often embodies in the round bodies in our telescopes has no pattern, but Planet No.1 with life does. tons of tens.

 

[Write4U]

nebel, thanks for your patience. I do have a feeling this aside is very much related to your OP question.

My last post on the subject. A little video on naturally occurring patterns.

 

[Write4U]

May be that is the hidden message in this thread's o.p.
The ratio we see most often embodies in the round bodies in our telescopes has no pattern, but Planet No.1 with life does. tons of tens.

How about Jupiter? That planet certainly displays several observable dynamic patterns.

This latest image of Jupiter, taken by the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope on 25 August 2020, was ... [+]
NASA, ESA, A. SIMON (GODDARD SPACE FLIGHT CENTER), AND M. H. WONG (UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY) AND THE OPAL TEAM.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamiec...ook-its-brightest-biggest-and-best-this-week/

I can see some 25-30 different patterns just looking at this picture. Are they definable with the decimal system? I have no clue.

 

[nebel]

How about Jupiter. That planet certainly displays several observable patterns.

believe it or not, the equator , near the big red spot, goes from near standstill, o km/sec at noon, , to 22 km/sec at midnight in 5 hours. numbers in orbital velocity, not spin, which remain constant. fast spin could cause the shear, banding. not seen on Earth, No.1.
all from:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/jupiters-orbital-velocity-equatorial-velocity-cancel.159733/page-3

 

[nebel]

I can see some 25-30 different patterns just looking at this picture. Are they definable with the decimal system?

In the spirit that this thread about the earth, now encompasses the solar system (that in truth is need as an ensemble to guarantee our life) here are my further 10 cents worth of tens:
take Saturn:
10 times further than Earth from sun, therefore @
10 AU,
1/100 of solar gravity strength of around here at that distance from sun
100 on the bode sequence, plus
independently:
10 km/sec orbital velocity
10 km /sec rotational velocity at equator
10 out of 10 rating on the beauty scale with those rings imho. ( and think of the patterns there ha ha. ) that is 10 10s, in one post. stretching it.

 

[James R]

Write4U:

You have given lots of examples of patterns. I have nowhere denied that patterns exist, so I don't see the relevance of what you posted to the main point that I put to you.

Your mistake is in saying things like "atoms are patterns" or "a tennis ball is a pattern" or "a person is a pattern" or "the Great Red Spot on Jupiter is a pattern". None of those things are patterns. They are, respectively: a collection of subatomic particles, a larger collection of subatomic particles, an even larger collection of subatomic particles and an even larger collection of subatomic particles. Subatomic particles, by the way, are not patterns, either, in case you're confused.

Do things need to recognize their patterns? Does a Daisy know it grows its leaves in a Fibonacci sequence? No, it's a genetic instruction. And yes, human do recognize patterns, but not all patterns that may be too obscure for casual inspection.

The geometry of a daisy is something we recognise in it. Its cause, as you say, is (at least in part) due to genetic instructions, which at an abstract level are conceptual, and which at a practical level are actually embedded in the way that certain molecules interact with one another chemically. A daisy is not a pattern. The DNA of a daisy is not a pattern. Both of those things have patterns, but they also have properties that are not, fundamentally, patterns.

If you haven't understood this by now, I don't think you're going to get it.

 

[James R]

That is obviously a binary pattern with a numerical value.

Not obviously. You're bringing a whole lot of your own anthropomorphic baggage to examining that string of zeros and ones.

For instance, when you see "000011101101100001111100" on the screen, you're not seeing zeros and ones, for starters. You're seeing light and dark points of light. You recognise patterns in those points, and interpret them as ovals and lines. Then, on top of that, you layer other conceptual knowledge that you have, to interpret a circular form as a representation of the digit zero and the line as the digit one. Then, on top of that, you layer some mathematical conceptual knowledge you have, to describe it as a "binary pattern with a numerical value".

Notice that most of that did not come from what you saw on the screen. It came from inside your head. In other words, the pattern stuff is in your head, and the physical stuff - the photons of light on the screen - is outside.

The mistake you make, regularly, is to imagine that the stuff in your head actually exists "out there" in world outside. It doesn't. Patterns are concepts, not things.

It is the mathematical nature of the universal fabric that compels orderly patterns to evolve, if not instantaneous then demonstrably over time by natural selection.

Mathematics itself is inert. It can't compel anything.

I believe, this is what David Bohm called the universal "Guiding Equation", the recognition of an abstract logical self-ordering mathematical aspect to the universe.

Maybe what he is saying is that mathematics is good at describing how the universe "self-orders". I very much doubt that he is saying the universe is mathematical (i.e. just a concept). On the other hand, I realise that is what your other hero, Tegmark, is claiming. I think he's as confused as you are.

Higgs boson may not have a fixed pattern and that is why it cannot exist unless as a pattern formed in the Higgs field.

? We detected the Higgs boson in the Large Hadron Collider.

In quantum field theory, by the way, all particles are excitations of one type of field or another. The Higgs isn't special in that sense.

And then the pattern is that the Higgs boson immediately decays into patterns of leptons and photons.

That's not a pattern. That's just an observed fact of nature. Our explanation for why it decays in the way that it does is a collection of conceptual patterns.

The term quantum mechanics suggests that fundamentally all things are formed from patterns in quantum mechanics.

No. Quantum mechanics is, first and foremost, a theoretical (read conceptual) model of the behaviour of particles, fields etc.

 

[Write4U]

You have given lots of examples of patterns. I have nowhere denied that patterns exist, so I don't see the relevance of what you posted to the main point that I put to you.

You have said that patterns are an abstraction. I said that atoms and molecules arranged in patterns make up the
physical world.

Your mistake is in saying things like "atoms are patterns" or "a tennis ball is a pattern" or "a person is a pattern" or "the Great Red Spot on Jupiter is a pattern". None of those things are patterns. They are, respectively: a collection of subatomic particles, a larger collection of subatomic particles, an even larger collection of subatomic particles and an even larger collection of subatomic particles.

Yes, collections of subatomic particles arranged in patterns that make up the Table of Elements and the entire physical world that is built from them.

Subatomic particles, by the way, are not patterns, either, in case you're confused.

No I am not confused about that. Subatomic particles are quanta of specific values, that self-organize in atomic patterns.
I believe that is described in Chaos Theory.

 

[Write4U]

Not obviously. You're bringing a whole lot of your own anthropomorphic baggage to examining that string of zeros and ones.

For instance, when you see "000011101101100001111100" on the screen, you're not seeing zeros and ones, for starters. You're seeing light and dark points of light. You recognise patterns in those points, and interpret them as ovals and lines. Then, on top of that, you layer other conceptual knowledge that you have, to interpret a circular form as a representation of the digit zero and the line as the digit one. Then, on top of that, you layer some mathematical conceptual knowledge you have, to describe it as a "binary pattern with a numerical value".

I bet it can be translated into a number, no?

Notice that most of that did not come from what you saw on the screen. It came from inside your head. In other words, the pattern stuff is in your head, and the physical stuff - the photons of light on the screen - is outside.

You are telling me? I believe that I introduced Anil Seth to this forum. If you failed to watch his lectures, it is not my fault.

The mistake you make, regularly, is to imagine that the stuff in your head actually exists "out there" in world outside. It doesn't. Patterns are concepts, not things.

I'll go you one better. All conscious experiences of the brain are "controlled hallucinations".

Mathematics itself is inert. It can't compel anything.

I guess you reject the notion of "Domain of function". The range of allowable and prohibited universal functions.

What is the input and output of a function called?

The set of allowable inputs to a given function is called the domain of the function. The set of possible outputs is called the range of the function.

What is Input Output?

Input and output, or I/O is the communication between an information processing system, such as a computer, and the outside world, possibly a human or another information processing system. Inputs are the signals or data received by the system and outputs are the signals or data sent from it.

This is assuming that all natural relational interactions are processing systems in themselves. See Robert Hazen.

Maybe what he is saying is that mathematics is good at describing how the universe "self-orders". I very much doubt that he is saying the universe is mathematical (i.e. just a concept). On the other hand, I realise that is what your other hero, Tegmark, is claiming. I think he's as confused as you are.

Yes, that is so easy to say.

Max Erik Tegmark[1] (born 5 May 1967) is a Swedish-American physicist, cosmologist and machine learning researcher. He is a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the president of the Future of Life Institute. He is also a scientific director at the Foundational Questions Institute, a supporter of the effective altruism movement, and has received research grants from Elon Musk to investigate existential risk from advanced artificial intelligence.[2][3][4][5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Tegmark

? We detected the Higgs boson in the Large Hadron Collider.

What was it's pattern? How long did it exist as a boson before it decayed ?

In quantum field theory, by the way, all particles are excitations of one type of field or another. The Higgs isn't special in that sense.

I understand that, But the Higgs boson is unable to exist independently as a particle and decays immediately after explication by brute force.

That's not a pattern. That's just an observed fact of nature. Our explanation for why it decays in the way that it does is a collection of conceptual patterns.

I agree. Conceptual and observable patterns.

No. Quantum mechanics is, first and foremost, a theoretical (read conceptual) model of the behaviour of particles, fields etc.

C'mon. Quantum Mechanics are Mainstream Science.

Might as well say that Relativity is a theoretical concept. Our very physical existence is a theoretical concept.

All of this is just anthropomorphization.

" Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality" | Anil Seth

 

[Write4U]

How about this:
0001100101111111101101100001?

Does that have a "pattern", or not? If it does, is it something somebody imposed on it, or something innate to it?

I gave this some thought and of course it is a logical trap as to it's meaning.

If this is not a binary interpretation of as number, then it may

well be an invented set of ones and zeros , or as you said, light and dark markings. But regardless of how this originated it IS a pattern of two objects arranged in a random order. Yet, unless it is a binary interpretation of Pi it will eventually resolve into a repeating pattern.
So, yes, you may think it is a random pattern, how do you know? Are you exempt from natural law?

That has been described by the law of probability previously in this thread.

 

[James R]

Write4U:

In your reply. you didn't really address the main point I made. I suspect that, once again, it didn't really sink in. Oh well. I don't see much point in continuing with this. I think I might be better off leaving you to talk to river, who doesn't really care about things making sense, or about getting things correct when talking about science. Talking to him is about as useful as talking to a wall, of course, but I've seen you carry on quite lengthy dialogues with him nonetheless. Maybe that's all you need - somebody to spam with your stuff who is willing to react, even if not very helpfully.

I bet it can be translated into a number, no?

Of course, if you like. It's a binary string. A random one, in this case. Not intended as a puzzle.

I'll go you one better. All conscious experiences of the brain are "controlled hallucinations".

I don't know what that means.

I guess you reject the notion of "Domain of function".

No. I don't "reject" basic mathematical concepts such as the domain of a function. Really, I don't know why you keep posting random definitions. Inability to focus on the points that have been put to you?

The range of allowable and prohibited universal functions.

That's not what the domain of a function is.

Yes, that is so easy to say.

You think Tegmark's credentials make him right, automatically, do you?
N.B. I respect his qualifications, position and academic credentials, of course, but whether something is true or false in science doesn't depend on how many awards you've won or how many pieces of paper you have displayed on your office wall.

What was it's pattern?

That question makes no sense. The term "pattern" is really vague; it's not a technical term. There are lots of different kinds of patterns, and it's not like one object has just one pattern.

The Higgs boson has a number of different properties, just like other subatomic particles. If you want specifics, they aren't hard to find. Or you could ask a specific question.

How long did it exist as a boson before it decayed ?

I'm not sure, but I think I could probably find out with a 2 second google search. Have you done that?

I understand that, But the Higgs boson is unable to exist independently as a particle and decays immediately after explication by brute force.

Explication? Brute force? What are you on about?

Lots of particles decay, with various mean lifetimes. Even neutrons decay when separated from atomic nuclei.

But why do the specifics of Higgs bosons matter in the context of this discussion, anyway? Aren't you just going off on a random tangent again?

C'mon. Quantum Mechanics are Mainstream Science.

C'mon what? If you think what I said is wrong, tell me why.

Might as well say that Relativity is a theoretical concept.

It is! That's why it's called the "Theory of Relativity". Like every theory in science, it is a conceptual model that is used to explain observations and to make predictions.

Our very physical existence is a theoretical concept.

No! You think, therefore you are. Right?

All of this is just anthropomorphization.

You still haven't looked up the meaning of that word, have you?

I gave this some thought and of course it is a logical trap as to it's meaning.

No. It's just a random string of 1s and 0s. You missed the point, probably.

But regardless of how this originated it IS a pattern of two objects arranged in a random order.

The point of randomness is generally that it lacks a pattern. Nevertheless, there are patterns to be found there, as I explained in my previous post. Patterns are concepts.

 

[Write4U]

Write4U:

In your reply. you didn't really address the main point I made. I suspect that, once again, it didn't really sink in. Oh well. I don't see much point in continuing with this. I think I might be better off leaving you to talk to river, who doesn't really care about things making sense, or about getting things correct when talking about science. Talking to him is about as useful as talking to a wall, of course, but I've seen you carry on quite lengthy dialogues with him nonetheless. Maybe that's all you need - somebody to spam with your stuff who is willing to react, even if not very helpfully.

Refresh my memory. What was your main point? I thought that I addressed all your points.

Of course, if you like. It's a binary string. A random one, in this case. Not intended as a puzzle.

So, I was correct.

I don't know what that means.

Of course not, You haven't watched Anil Seth.

No. I don't "reject" basic mathematical concepts such as the domain of a function. Really, I don't know why you keep posting random definitions. Inability to focus on the points that have been put to you?

Are you familiar with the term. I posted the definition. I/m sorry you don't see the connection.

That's not what the domain of a function is.

Enlighten me.

You think Tegmark's credentials make him right, automatically, do you?
N.B. I respect his qualifications, position and academic credentials, of course, but whether something is true or false in science doesn't depend on how many awards you've won or how many pieces of paper you have displayed on your office wall.

I think any scientist who is qualified to teach at MIT is worthy of respect and attention. I would certainly refrain from calling him a charlatan.

That question makes no sense. The term "pattern" is really vague; it's not a technical term. There are lots of different kinds of patterns, and it's not like one object has just one pattern.

Here we go again. I am right but it doesn't qualify as science. The point is that there are lots of different kinds of patterns. It supports my argument.

Patterns are not abstractions. Patterns have names. Geometry is the scientific name for a measurable pattern, no?

The Higgs boson has a number of different properties, just like other subatomic particles. If you want specifics, they aren't hard to find. Or you could ask a specific question.

I made a specific statement. Tell me if I am wrong and why.

I'm not sure, but I think I could probably find out with a 2 second google search. Have you done that?

Yes, the Higgs boson decayes @ 1.6 10-22 seconds.

Explication? Brute force? What are you on about?

The Large Hadron Collider | CERN
The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is the world's largest and most powerful particle accelerator. [/quote] What do you think that means?

Lots of particles decay, with various mean lifetimes. Even neutrons decay when separated from atomic nuclei.

Do neutrons have patterns?

But why do the specifics of Higgs bosons matter in the context of this discussion, anyway? Aren't you just going off on a random tangent again?

No, I gave you an example of a particle that is unable to exist independent of other matter, due to its lack of a stable pattern.

C'mon what? If you think what I said is wrong, tell me why.

OK

James R said: No. "Quantum mechanics is, first and foremost, a theoretical (read conceptual) model of the behaviour of particles, fields etc."

How can one make a model unless there is a pattern to model?

It is! That's why it's called the "Theory of Relativity". Like every theory in science, it is a conceptual model that is used to explain observations and to make predictions.

AFAIK Relativity can be modelled in many different patterns. That is how we are able to make predictions. We can project patterns based on relativity.

No! You think, therefore you are. Right?

NO. We hallucinate our reality. Check Anil Seth, or is he another charlatan in your book of qualified scientists?

You still haven't looked up the meaning of that word, have you?

I don't need to anymore. You remind me all the time with your examples.

No. It's just a random string of 1s and 0s. You missed the point, probably.

The point of randomness is generally that it lacks a pattern. Nevertheless, there are patterns to be found there, as I explained in my previous post. Patterns are concepts.

No, the definition is

A pattern is a regularity in the world

And again No; "patterns have names" (Roger Antonsen)

Patterns in nature are visible regularities of form found in the natural world. These patterns recur in different contexts and can sometimes be modelled mathematically. Natural patterns include symmetries, trees, spirals, meanders, waves, foams, tessellations, cracks and stripes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterns_in_nature#

Electron microscopy............................ Sacred Flower of Life

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQqckRFAMuctbiqTmeATO1laJ-GBMsbjVMjjw&usqp=CAU

And too many real life patterns to copy:

https://www.google.com/search?q=patterns in nature&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjYxcTIic_0AhXMHzQIHXdTBE4Q_AUoAXoECAMQAw&biw=1280&bih=615&dpr=1.5

 

[nebel]

In the spirit that this thread about the earth, now encompasses the solar system (that in truth is need as an ensemble to guarantee our life) here are my further 10 cents worth of tens:
take Saturn:
10 times further than Earth from sun, therefore @
10 AU,
1/100 of solar gravity strength of around here at that distance from sun
100 on the bode sequence, plus
independently:
10 km/sec orbital velocity
10 km /sec rotational velocity at equator
10 out of 10 rating on the beauty scale with those rings imho.

to keep on topic, forgot to add:
2x10 km/sec orbital velocity of points on the equator at midnight. (even as Vr = 10 km/sec remains constant.)

 

[river]

Refresh my memory. What was your main point? I thought that I addressed all your points.
So, I was correct.
Of course not, You haven't watched Anil Seth.
Are you familiar with the term. I posted the definition. I/m sorry you don't see the connection.
Enlighten me.
I think any scientist who is qualified to teach at MIT is worthy of respect and attention. I would certainly refrain from calling him a charlatan.
Here we go again. I am right but it doesn't qualify as science. The point is that there are lots of different kinds of patterns. It supports my argument.

Patterns are not abstractions. Patterns have names. Geometry is the scientific name for a measurable pattern, no?
I made a specific statement. Tell me if I am wrong and why.
Yes, the Higgs boson decayes @ 1.6 10-22 seconds.
The Large Hadron Collider | CERN
The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is the world's largest and most powerful particle accelerator.

What do you think that means?
Do neutrons have patterns?
No, I gave you an example of a particle that is unable to exist independent of other matter, due to its lack of a stable pattern.
OK How can one make a model unless there is a pattern to model?
AFAIK Relativity can be modelled in many different patterns. That is how we are able to make predictions. We can project patterns based on relativity.
NO. We hallucinate our reality. Check Anil Seth, or is he another charlatan in your book of qualified scientists?
I don't need to anymore. You remind me all the time with your examples.
No, the definition is And again No; "patterns have names" (Roger Antonsen)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterns_in_nature#

Electron microscopy............................ Sacred Flower of Life

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQqckRFAMuctbiqTmeATO1laJ-GBMsbjVMjjw&usqp=CAU

And too many real life patterns to copy:

https://www.google.com/search?q=patterns in nature&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjYxcTIic_0AhXMHzQIHXdTBE4Q_AUoAXoECAMQAw&biw=1280&bih=615&dpr=1.5 [/QUOTE]

Not impressed Write4U . Your stuck in a pattern . All physical , three dimensional objects will have patterns , mathematically and in physical shape . Here's the thing , if I take away the mathematical patterns , it does not change the real physical movements amoungst real physical things .

 

[Write4U]

Here's the thing , if I take away the mathematical patterns , it does not change the real physical movements amoungst real physical things .

Exactly, physical movements follow patterns and patterns are expressions regularities of any kind and can be modelled mathematically. That is where we get out sciences from.
Repeatable experiments yielding the same results are considered proof of a hypothesis. The proof lies in the regularity, in the pattern.

How do we use patterns in science?

They use patterns to identify cause and effect relationships, and use graphs and charts to identify patterns in data. Students observe patterns in systems at different scales and cite patterns as empirical evidence for causality in supporting their explanations of phenomena

While there are many patterns in nature, they are not the norm since there is a tendency for disorder to increase (e.g. it is far more likely for a broken glass to scatter than for scattered bits to assemble themselves into a whole glass). In some cases, order seems to emerge from chaos, as when a plant sprouts, or a tornado appears amidst scattered storm clouds. It is in such examples that patterns exist and the beauty of nature is found. “Noticing patterns is often a first step to organizing phenomena and asking scientific questions about why and how the patterns occur.” (p. 85)

https://thewonderofscience.com/patterns

nebel discovered a pattern of specific magnitudes associated with earth

 

[river]

Exactly, physical movements follow patterns and patterns are expressions regularities of any kind and can be modelled mathematically. That is where we get out sciences from.
Repeatable experiments yielding the same results are considered proof of a hypothesis. The proof lies in the regularity, in the pattern.

How do we use patterns in science?
https://thewonderofscience.com/patterns

nebel discovered a pattern of specific magnitudes associated with earth

The pattern is still based on the physical .

Patterns don't exist in empty space . A Void .