Comments on: Beautiful Losers: Plato's Geometry of Elements http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/blog/2011/12/beautiful-losers-platos-geometry-of-elements/ The physics of nothing, everything, and all the things in between. Mon, 20 May 2013 21:29:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4 By: Wizard Gynoid http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/blog/2011/12/beautiful-losers-platos-geometry-of-elements/#comment-1300 Wizard Gynoid Sat, 05 Jan 2013 19:09:00 +0000 http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/blog/?p=238#comment-1300 For centuries Aristotle's four elements (plus spirit) served to explain the conceptual makeup of the world. It still does for the purposes for which it is appropriate. In fact, you *can* build the world from a platonic solid. The tetrahedron will tile space, and is the model for the molecular physics that describes that process. In fact, when tetrahedra and octahedra come together to tile space, they form a very strong latticework - made up of the octet truss. Chemistry describes molecular bonding by the geometric shapes that the chemical bonds describe. Crystal latticeworks of this kind make up everything from ice to titanium steel. For centuries Aristotle’s four elements (plus spirit) served to explain the conceptual makeup of the world. It still does for the purposes for which it is appropriate. In fact, you *can* build the world from a platonic solid. The tetrahedron will tile space, and is the model for the molecular physics that describes that process. In fact, when tetrahedra and octahedra come together to tile space, they form a very strong latticework – made up of the octet truss. Chemistry describes molecular bonding by the geometric shapes that the chemical bonds describe. Crystal latticeworks of this kind make up everything from ice to titanium steel.

]]> By: Aaron Siering http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/blog/2011/12/beautiful-losers-platos-geometry-of-elements/#comment-1164 Aaron Siering Tue, 23 Oct 2012 08:06:00 +0000 http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/blog/?p=238#comment-1164 Maybe, but your underlying premises seem to be predicated on some species of materialism. The problem with any materialism and consequently any argument so predicated is that when one traces back the assumptions of materialism to its metaphysical appeals one runs into an inconstancy. I don't know what Plato -- and so presumably Socrates --- actually knew (or didn't) and what might have been the source of that knowledge if it existed, but I personally don't believe it prudent to count it out just yet (and between the two of us I am not the one arguing from a position that is ultimately logically invalid;) I would suggest we give Plato's theory a couple more centuries (not as arbitrary as it might first appear) to see how it plays out before we call the winner. Maybe, but your underlying premises seem to be predicated on some species of materialism. The problem with any materialism and consequently any argument so predicated is that when one traces back the assumptions of materialism to its metaphysical appeals one runs into an inconstancy. I don’t know what Plato — and so presumably Socrates — actually knew (or didn’t) and what might have been the source of that knowledge if it existed, but I personally don’t believe it prudent to count it out just yet (and between the two of us I am not the one arguing from a position that is ultimately logically invalid;) I would suggest we give Plato’s theory a couple more centuries (not as arbitrary as it might first appear) to see how it plays out before we call the winner.

]]> By: Stephen http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/blog/2011/12/beautiful-losers-platos-geometry-of-elements/#comment-1043 Stephen Thu, 16 Aug 2012 13:45:00 +0000 http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/blog/?p=238#comment-1043 I wish to point out that your contention (widely shared by physicists) that Plato was wrong in associating the tetrahedron, octahedron, cube & icosahedron with the physics of matter is itself wrong. Divide their faces into their sectors and then divide into sectors each triangle formed by their centres and by their edges and sides of face sectors and you will discover that 2480 points, lines & triangles other than vertices surround the axes of the 5 Platonic solids, that is, 496 geometrical elements on average in addition to its vertices surround the axis of a Platonic solid, 248 being in each half. This is the regular polyhedral counterpart of E8xE8, one of the two symmetry groups with dimension 496 known to describe superstring interactions that are free of quantum anomalies. Far from being a loser, Plato's association of the five regular polyhedra with the physics of matter turned out to be a winner...... I wish to point out that your contention (widely shared by physicists) that Plato was wrong in associating the tetrahedron, octahedron, cube & icosahedron with the physics of matter is itself wrong. Divide their faces into their sectors and then divide into sectors each triangle formed by their centres and by their edges and sides of face sectors and you will discover that 2480 points, lines & triangles other than vertices surround the axes of the 5 Platonic solids, that is, 496 geometrical elements on average in addition to its vertices surround the axis of a Platonic solid, 248 being in each half. This is the regular polyhedral counterpart of E8xE8, one of the two symmetry groups with dimension 496 known to describe superstring interactions that are free of quantum anomalies.

Far from being a loser, Plato’s association of the five regular polyhedra with the physics of matter turned out to be a winner……

]]> By: Spartanxx2032 http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/blog/2011/12/beautiful-losers-platos-geometry-of-elements/#comment-211 Spartanxx2032 Tue, 10 Jan 2012 15:16:00 +0000 http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/blog/?p=238#comment-211 Plato's solids, were they precursors of the discovery of fractal symmetries? Plato’s solids, were they precursors of the discovery of fractal symmetries?

]]> By: Guest http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/blog/2011/12/beautiful-losers-platos-geometry-of-elements/#comment-200 Guest Tue, 03 Jan 2012 17:09:00 +0000 http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/blog/?p=238#comment-200 Thank you for writing this. I really enjoyed learning from you! Thank you for writing this. I really enjoyed learning from you!

]]>