The Universal Pattern Popping Up in Math, Physics and Biology (2013)

(quantamagazine.org)

Comments

readingnews 27 January 2026
Not sure why you have to read 3/4 of the article to get to a _link_ to a pdf which _only_ has the _abstract_ of the actual paper:

N. Benjamin Murphy and Kenneth M. Golden* (golden@math.utah.edu), University of Utah, Department of Mathematics, 155 S 1400 E, Rm. 233, Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0090. Random Matrices, Spectral Measures, and Composite Media.

0134340 27 January 2026
>The data seem haphazardly distributed, and yet neighboring lines repel one another, lending a degree of regularity to their spacing

Wow, that kind of reminds me of the process of evolution in that it seems so random and chaotic at the most microscopic scales but at the macroscopic, you have what seems some semblance of order. The related graph also sprung to mind just how very like organisms repel (less tolerance to inbreeding) but at the same time species breed with like species and only sometimes stray from that directive. What is the pattern that underlies how organisms determine production or conflict with other organisms and can we find universality in it?

I guess it's called "universality" for a reason. I suppose if we look hard enough, we'll see it in more things. I read the article and I'm hoping some brilliant minds out there can dissect musical tastes in the same way. I'd love to see if it could relate to what we find harmonious in music and what we find desynchronous via different phase, frequency and amplitude properties.

cjohnson318 27 January 2026
This spacing reminds me of Turing patterns, or activator/inhibitor systems, but I'm gobsmacked that this occurs in random matrices.
FjordWarden 27 January 2026
Maybe also heap fragmentation
kerim-ca 28 January 2026
didn't realize this post got traction, it seems like it was HN pooled, I came across this article and related topics after trying to search what would be rigorous and closest to the phenomenon of the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics by wigner, renormalization groups were the closest that I came across, the reason why the post title doesn't match the story title is likely due to the story being switched to a more detailed article I considered posting, the title is from a quanta video covering universality, linked below

- https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-universal-pattern-popping...

- https://www.quantamagazine.org/tag/universality/

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universality_class

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renormalization_group

-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unreasonable_Effectiveness...

wduquette 27 January 2026
The article has a graphic contrasting a "Random" distribution vs. a "Universal" distribution vs. a "Periodic" distribution. I'm guessing the "Random" distribution is actually a Poisson distribution, as that arises naturally in several cases.

But the big question is, does this "Universal" distribution match up to any well known probability distribution? Or could it be described by a relatively simple probability distribution function?

cosmic_ape 27 January 2026
2013 But still cool
dist-epoch 27 January 2026
There is the well known problem that "random" shuffling of songs doesn't sound "random" to people and is disliked.

I wonder if the semi-random "universality" pattern they talk about in this article aligns more closely with what people want from song shuffling.

Lichtso 27 January 2026
Another point in case: Life only exists in liquids, not in solids (too much structure) and not in gases (too much chaos).

In fact one could argue that this is a definition of an interesting system: It has to strike a balance between being completely ordered (which is boring) and being completely random (which is also boring).

blurbleblurble 27 January 2026
What's with all the spammy comments?
anthk 27 January 2026
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11109248/

DNA as a perfect quantum computer based on the quantum physics principles.

Joel_Mckay 27 January 2026
The Physics models tend to shake out of some fairly logical math assumptions, and can trivially be shown how they are related.

"How Physicists Approximate (Almost) Anything" (Physics Explained)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGUMC19IISY

If you are citing some crank with another theory of everything, than that dude had better prove it solves the thousands of problems traditional approaches already predict with 5 sigma precision. =3