The Rule of Three in UAP Orbs
In the previous articles we have discussed UAP orbs, that is one of the objects associated with Unidentified Anomalous Phenomenon or UAPs. An unusual characteristic of the observations surrounding these objects is that they often appear in a group of three. Although on many occasions they are also seen on their own as a single orb or as a part of a giant cluster of ten or more. A single object could still be a part of a larger group, they are just split off to perform a specific mission. Similarly, as a larger cluster, they might still be divided into multiple smaller groups of three when the need arises. It is constructive to consider what could be the reason for this on average clustering around a number of 3 objects. Although we preface this article with this is pure speculation on my part. There are several reasons we might consider.
Safety in Numbers: In the animal kingdom, we know that animals will tend to gather in large groups to avoid predators, or so that on the event of a predator attacking, the probability that any individual animal will be the victim is statistically minimised. However, there is very little difference between 1 and 3 for this to be a factor here, especially in the case of an advanced Extraterrestrial Intelligence (ETI) for which we might suppose this is their nature, and for which they are unlikely to have any predators of their own. Although we might speculate that if any individual object got into any difficulty, then the other two objects could come to its assistance as a back-up. For example, if an orb lost its ability to take flight, one orb on its own may be insufficient to lift it to safety, but two orbs may be sufficient. Therefore, we may be looking at a form of engineering redundancy to ensure success of mission or recovery of objects - so that no orbs are left behind.
Forward Operating Stealth: In the military special forces, a Battalion will often use small teams of people to infiltrate an enemy territory or to go ahead of the main battle force as a forward reconnaissance. This team is typically around four in number. However, given that the orbs are often so bright, they do not appear to operate in a highly clandestine way, but on the contrary quite out in the open. Being seen by us does not appear to be a major concern for them, and on occasions they seem to have deliberately aimed for that goal.
Full Spectrum Coverage: Is it possible that each orb has a specific spectrum of capability in operation or performance, but an individual orb does not cover all capabilities. Yet between three of them they would cover all the capabilities. To use an analogy, we might consider the primary colours of Red, Blue and Yellow, from which all other colours can be constructed. Some similar principle could be operating here, and it is only when the individual orbs mix or integrate their capabilities that a maximum performance utility can be achieved. Such a capability might be needed in a defensive scenario for example.
Stability of Manoeuvres: It is well known that a tripod is one of the most stable structures. Is it possible that moving within a gravitational field such as the Earth, that under certain manoeuvres, a stability of flight is achieved when three orbs are able to joined together into a triangular configuration. Think of how on an aircraft will have a requirement to manage the stability in the three axis of Pitch, Roll and Yaw for example. Also, in a classical description of physics, from both Newton and Einstein’s Generation Relativity theory, there are three spatial dimensions of length, width, height or x, y, z, and so this may be relevant. This would not be the case however when we consider higher dimensional field theories such as string theory, which proposes there may be up to eleven dimensions of space.
Natural Optimisation: However, the orbs form, if they are not simple mechanical machines but more analogous to organisms or living structures, then producing groups of three may be a manifestation of this process. In plants, clovers will have three leaves on average as a standard arrangement for capturing sunlight. In nuclear fission, an atom will produce on average two fragment atoms of lower atomic mass. If there is such a thing as a larger source orb that produces smaller orbs, then 3 may be the optimum that results from this process. The physics principles upon which the orbs are based would determine this number.
Parallel Processing: The writer Arthur C Clarke has speculated in his 1968 book Profiles of the Future, that the purpose of life is the processing of information. If we assumed that the orbs were some fundamental components of the structure of reality (such as in a simulation universe) then the orbs may be equivalent to processing nodes, that float around the world recording information. In our own civilization, we have constructed large supercomputers for the purpose of calculating large mathematical problems, but we have found those systems are more efficient and faster if we can parallel process the information, instead of using a series processing system. Could the orbs be leaning on each computationally as a means for processing the information they are gathering more efficiently. Also within the paradigm of a simulated universe constructs, we might view these orbs as the equivalent of repair wardens that maintain and manage reality so that we may inhabit it.
Forces of Nature: We tend to think that in physics there are four forces (if we neglect the Higgs force) and this is gravity, the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force and electromagnetism. However, gravity operates on a much larger scale compared to the others and this is why it is described using General Relativity. Whilst the electromagnetic force operates over large distances (infinite) the two nuclear forces are short range. So, three objects could be related to control within these principal three forces. In summary, whist this is also all speculation, the presence of three orbs may be related to the deeper symmetries in the fundamental structure of our universe and the best way to navigate between them.
These are all interesting ideas which can be considered in more detail and then tested against the many observations around the world to see which ones can be ruled out. This then might lead to a good explanation for the rule of three. However, there is another possibility that we might consider and this one intrigues me the most.
Generation Physics: In the field of physics, theories and experiments have demonstrated that there are two main types of particles in the standard model, called Fermions (matter particles like quarks and leptons) and Bosons (force carrying particles like photons and gluons). Yet, the Fermion particles are further divided into three generations of matter. The first generation is up quark, down quark, electron, electron neutrino. The second generation is charm quark, strange quark, muon, muon neutrino. The third generation is top quark, bottom quark, tau, tau neutrino. It is not fully understood why the Fermions have three generations of particles, but there is a difference in mass between them. The first generation forms more stable matter (like protons, neutrons). The second and third generation are heavier and unstable and decay into the lighter first generation particles. It has been speculated that the heavier particles likely existed during the high energy phases of the early universe and may have played some vital role in its early evolution. According to theoretical physicists, the standard model and its associated equations seem complete and consistent under the three family of particles paradigm. There are also reasons in physics to suggest that three generations may correspond to deeper symmetries related to quantum numbers.
Is it possible that orbs exist in some natural state but can for a brief period take on other much more complex states, but then eventually decay back to the original state, the same way that the second and third generation of particles in the standard model eventually decay back to the first generation. In other words, the orbs may only be able to hold a certain configuration for so long before they become unstable and they decay back to a different structure.
One idea that intrigues me is a proposal from the American mathematician Eric Weinstein that the third generation of matter may be an imposter. This is referred to as the Weinstein Impostor Assertion and is a component of his proposed Geometric Unity theory. His suggestion is that under certain high energy conditions (more like those in the early universe) that the third generation might unify with other (so far unknown) particles, which would indicate a different role or origin compared to the first and second generation of particles. I do not have an opinion either way on whether this idea is plausible.
The reason why I think all this discussion about first, second and third generations of matter may be important, is the apparent ability of particles to take on complex forms under the right physics conditions, but those forms are unstable and they decay back to a more stable form. Could it be that the three orbs so often observed are manifest of a complex and higher energy form, but eventually they must return back to their point of origin, where they lose their complex configurations and take on a lower energy state.
This is not completely unreasonable, given that people have reported seeing orbs spitting out other orbs, which is perhaps a process of fragmentation of a larger object. Yet this fragmentation may only be temporary, and they eventually re-combine to form the original stable structure. Provided the orbs are not just mechanical engineering machines, but equivalent to some intelligent living system, this would be my current preferred explanation for the rule of three.
For me personally this explanation would fit since when I have seen a cluster of three at night they were bright white lights. But when I saw an individual orb at night it was yellow/golden and less bright. This implied a different level of energy or excitement.
To take this idea further, some have speculated that the orbs are not just intelligent, but manifest of an entity with a consciousness. An individual orb may have the appearance of an individual consciousness but when it recombines with its original form (3 goes to 1) that individual consciousness may dissolve into a single form. An analogy might be the way people who have undergone a near death experience or using psychedelics report dissolution of ego. I would tend to think of the way that groups of solid ice cube dissolves back into liquid within a glass of water. In which case some form of phase transition may be involved.
A further point that we should mention, but for which I have no evidence, is the claim by many of observing flying discs from which the orbs are often released. If this was the case, then we may have it backwards. Historically, people have been more excited about the possibility of seeing flying discs, but these may simply be the cargo carries and instead what is important is the orbs once released. The single orb may then be the stable state, for which they are contained on the carrying vessel, prior to being released in an excited form to perform whatever function they have. Again, all speculation, but food for thought.
All the above are just ideas, and I have only put this list together since it seems to be a question others are asking - why the rule of 3 on average? - and so I thought these ideas which I have listed may spark some thinking in others as to the reasons. My own preference, would tend towards an explanation that sees orbs exist in a highly complex and perhaps higher energy state for a short time, but then they must decay back to a simpler lower energy state later in which they lose their individual form. More observations would help to clarify these ideas and I also do not have a full picture of the literature.
