Perhaps a tough question for a physicist here

Hi.

Forgive me if I'm not able to term the following words fully correct on this, but I'll try my best with it.

Has there ever been known of a duplicate organic or inorganic item found anywhere in nature?

So for example:

Two blades of grass exactly matching.

Or two grains of sand.

Maybe two snowflakes 100% identical when compared with one another.

Two fruit flies or mosquitos likewise.... I'm sure there has been probably a trillion of these so far.

Obviously I'm not asking about elements or simple compounds chained together.

Rather fully formed things, even in their smallest presence, found in nature.

Like the complete and perfect atomic structure of a leaf that was somehow copied and pasted somewhere else.

I'm curious as to the infinite creativity (is that even possible?) of all things made in this existence.

Thanks ahead for any responses.

a reply to: Steffer

Yes - identical twins.....you'd know humans are organic at end of day.

a reply to: Steffer

Identical snowflakes have been documented.
Guinnessworldrecords

a reply to: Steffer

I think grains of sand are unique and I can't see how it would be possible to compare them all, but who knows?

Bees, however, are cloning as we speak...

The workers of a South African subspecies of honeybee can clone themselves, with one individual having done so many millions of times over the past 30 years. Some of the clones can even develop into queens that can take over the hive.

Read more: www.newscientist.com...

a reply to: Steffer

Not a physicist here,
but some one cell organisms 'clone' themselves to reproduce, like bacteria

so I guess the answer is yes?

More complex animals can also clone themselves like some crayfish, coral, I read an article that a type of honey bee might even go extinct because of a genetic anomaly that allow the worker to reproduce without sex cloning its self so in the end there will be only one bee. The bee lander.

a reply to: KindraLabelle2

originally posted by: CthruU
a reply to: Steffer

Yes - identical twins.....you'd know humans are organic at end of day.

No.

When the Embryo splits into 2, both of those individuals start to generate alterations to their DNA.

Those changes become even more prominent after they are born.

What the Author of this post asks of is something different: "Do any 2 of the same Organisms have the same Genetic/DNA Sequences?" or "Is there any 2 Bricks that have the same Atomic Structure?"

I Can't answer that question, however I can only say "Highly Unlikely" as because DNA/Genetics modify themselves at all times making their Sequences different at all times of there development. With the Atomic Structure (Your Grain of Sand)? No, we would need something like the Star Trek Transporter, or the Stargate Molecular Construction Device (Asgard or Ancient)-( Stargate Wiki (Good Read!).

And the final Possibility? "Can it be possible for 2 Objects (Human, Plant, Brick Etc) to be Quantum Entangled (2 of the exact same Objects)?" Humans are so young, I can't answer that question (Quantum Physics may dictate: having the exact same Subatomic, Atomic structures may mean you are Quantum Entangled).

originally posted by: Steffer
Maybe two snowflakes 100% identical when compared with one another.

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Steffer

Identical snowflakes have been documented.
Guinnessworldrecords

Outside the context of this thread, I don't have a problem with the Guinness Records claim.

However the context of this thread uses a particularly stringent definition of identical, which means more alike than indistinguishable. The snowflakes were merely indistinguishable, probably not identical using the definition of identical used by the OP. One probably had a few more H2O molecules than the other as a minimum difference. But how would you know if it did or didn't? The title of this article even suggests they may not really be identical (and they probably aren't according to OP's context):

Snowflakes: two nearly identical snowflakes (DI00363), Photo by Nancy Knight

originally posted by: Steffer
Obviously I'm not asking about elements or simple compounds chained together.

Rather fully formed things

Again, the key point is how would you know if they are identical or not?

The best answer I can give you is that you do need to consider elements and molecules chained together as a starting point. How can you tell if they are identical or not identical? Then how many more atoms can you add and still be able to measure if they are identical or not? At some point you will reach an upper limit where you simply don't have the measurement capability to tell if they are completely identical or not. The greater the complexity, the less likely they are to be completely identical. One interesting molecule is the "Buckyball" which is 60 carbon atoms in a "ball" shape, hence the "ball" part of the name. I think there's a good chance those can be made identical and we might be able to tell if they aren't.

But at some point beyond that, you're just not going to have the means to really know if they are completely identical or not. The snowflakes probably aren't identical the way you're using that word, but they do look identical, and we don't know what the difference is. Statistically though, it's unlikely both have exactly the same number of water molecules. We don't have any way to count the number of water molecules with the kind of accuracy you're inferring.

a reply to: Steffer

The question becomes, how far are you willing to zoom in to find the differences? There are many things in this world that look identical that, at some level, have differences, even if we can't see them.

Identical twins may look the same, but I guarantee that their vein structure or hair-follicle placement differs (amongst other things).

Identical snowflakes would have microscopic differences in the surface of the crystals if zoomed in tight enough.

Event cloned beings would have minute differences that could be discovered through careful-enough analysis.

No two things can ever be exactly the same. Like you note, there's just too infinite amount of ways to create differences for 100% exact duplicates to exist. Even two printouts of the same document will have slightly different applications of the ink to the paper.

a reply to: Steffer

The Cavendish Banana, since they are all clones. Also many marijuana plants are cloned from a source plant to produce only females of a specific strain.

Cheers - Dave

a reply to: Steffer

Things only look different to create the illusion of separateness.

The thing about snowflakes that I wonder about is, why are they so close to being symmetrical? If you have a crystal growing out of a little speck of dust, and the branch of one of the crystals grows a particular way, how can five other arms know what shape that crystal is growing in? Given that any single branch could grow in any way that a crystal possibly could, how do the six branches coordinate to achieve a pretty consistent symmetry?

a reply to: Blue Shift

Atmospheric conditions determine the final shape of the crystal. By itself, the snowflake follows the crystallization, or formation of the solid state, of water i.e. hydrogen bonds.

Miriam Rossi, a professor of chemistry at Vassar College, offers the following reply:

Snowflakes are symmetrical because they reflect the internal order of the water molecules as they arrange themselves in the solid state (the process of crystallization). Water molecules in the solid state, such as in ice and snow, form weak bonds (called hydrogen bonds) to one another. These ordered arrangements result in the basic symmetrical, hexagonal shape of the snowflake. In reality, there are many different types of snowflakes (as in the clich that 'no two snowflakes are alike'); this differentiation occurs because each snowflake is a separate crystal that is subject to the specific atmospheric conditions, notably temperature and humidity, under which it is formed.

www.scientificamerican.com...

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: Blue Shift

Miriam Rossi, a professor of chemistry at Vassar College, offers the following reply:

Snowflakes are symmetrical because they reflect the internal order of the water molecules as they arrange themselves in the solid state (the process of crystallization). Water molecules in the solid state, such as in ice and snow, form weak bonds (called hydrogen bonds) to one another. These ordered arrangements result in the basic symmetrical, hexagonal shape of the snowflake. In reality, there are many different types of snowflakes (as in the clich that 'no two snowflakes are alike'); this differentiation occurs because each snowflake is a separate crystal that is subject to the specific atmospheric conditions, notably temperature and humidity, under which it is formed.

That doesn't do it for me. I see what she's trying to say, and it might work well in a cave or something where there is very little change in the local enviroment. She basically says that the same atmospheric conditions are homogeneous around the entire crystal, even though the crystal itself grows from an asymmetrical bit of dust or dirt. When does this ever happen? Seems to me it would be more like a seed (or a lightning bolt), where each individual branch of the crystal is subject to slight but important variations in the environment and those variations will become more pronouned as the crystal grows outward. The tips of a snowflake should then be significantly different enough to ruin the symmetry.

a reply to: Blue Shift

That's about what she said - the snowflake loses its symmetry when exposed to various conditions including atmosphere. So, as you said, the tips of the snowflake will be significantly different. At least that's how I read it.

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: Blue Shift

Miriam Rossi, a professor of chemistry at Vassar College, offers the following reply:

Snowflakes are symmetrical because they reflect the internal order of the water molecules as they arrange themselves in the solid state (the process of crystallization). Water molecules in the solid state, such as in ice and snow, form weak bonds (called hydrogen bonds) to one another. These ordered arrangements result in the basic symmetrical, hexagonal shape of the snowflake. In reality, there are many different types of snowflakes (as in the clich that 'no two snowflakes are alike'); this differentiation occurs because each snowflake is a separate crystal that is subject to the specific atmospheric conditions, notably temperature and humidity, under which it is formed.

That doesn't do it for me. I see what she's trying to say, and it might work well in a cave or something where there is very little change in the local enviroment.

If we're still on something like the OP's topic, I didn't see where cave snowflakes would be excluded from the question.

This flake is on a carpet so probably in some kind of modern "cave" and it's pretty symmetrical, but in most other flakes on that link you can find slight asymmetries if you look hard enough.

Unbelievable Close-Up Photos Of Snowflakes Reveal A Side Of Winter You've Never Seen

a reply to: Blue Shift

Cymatics is interesting, different frequencies produce different symmetrical formations in sand for instance when placed over a speaker. As the frequency changes in patterns are formed but I between those changes we see asymmetric forms.

Just thought I’d add that, I think most snowflakes are asymmetrical when examined closely, it’s probably why the need safe spaces

Okay.

So this has me curious as to why things found in nature, such as blades of grass, are never self repeating.

Say for example I would like to print out the numbers 0 to 9, but in random order.

From my understanding, this can be done in two ways.

Create an array (0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9).

Use a random number generator, print out that number, then remove it from the database.

Repeat until all numbers are printed.

Or you could use a random number generator, print that number, then store that value somewhere else.

On all of the following sequences, if that number is the same as one that was previously stored, roll again.

Is there perhaps a third mathematical method on doing this?

It also has me thinking of something else.....

Might pi ever be used in an equation on random sequencing since the exact value of that number is infinite?

Not sure if we have reached such levels of mathematics but thought to ask anyway.

Cheers.

originally posted by: Steffer
Okay.

So this has me curious as to why things found in nature, such as blades of grass, are never self repeating.
..
Not sure if we have reached such levels of mathematics but thought to ask anyway.

Blades of grass and other plants are self repeating, but even with clones there are small mutation rates.

Giant Duckweed is a plant that usually reproduces by "cloning" (asexual reproduction). Some people in this thread mentioned cloning as if clones were exact copies, but, they are only close. If you're interested in some real math on this topic, the paper linked below has some. We live in interesting times where this type of research is only now becoming available.

Low genetic variation is associated with low mutation rate in the giant duckweed

What the paper says is that while that plant can reproduce sexually (which seems to be associated with higher mutation rates), it usually reproduces asexually (by cloning) which has lower mutation rates, which they attempt to measure, but they are not zero.

So two things are worth noting:
1. The DNA from a clone may not be identical, there can still be small mutations.
2. Even if the DNA is identical, there can be variations in the way the organism grows from that DNA due to environmental and other factors. For example, plant two seeds which have "identical" DNA, one indoors and one outdoors. The plant indoors will tend to grow toward the window, but there is no window outdoors so that will grow differently even with the same DNA. That's called "phototropism", but it's not the only factor affecting growth.


untamedscience.com...

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I was wondering about fractals and cellular automata - mathematical rules that generate complexity - but do the rules always produce the same complexity? Haven't researched any of this - just a passing thought.