Wolfram Physics Project: One Month Update
Vložit
- čas přidán 16. 05. 2024
- This is a Wolfram Physics Project one-month update. Begins at 2:37
Originally livestreamed at: / stephen_wolfram
Stay up-to-date on this project by visiting our website: wolfr.am/physics
Check out the announcement post: wolfr.am/physics-announcement
Find the tools to build a universe: wolfr.am/physics-tools
Find the technical documents: wolfr.am/physics-documents
Follow us on our official social media channels.
Twitter: / wolframresearch
Facebook: / wolframresearch
Instagram: / wolframresearch
LinkedIn: / wolfram-research
Stephen Wolfram's Twitter: / stephen_wolfram
Contribute to the official Wolfram Community: community.wolfram.com/
Stay up-to-date on the latest interest at Wolfram Research through our blog: blog.wolfram.com/
Follow Stephen Wolfram's life, interests, and what makes him tick on his blog: writings.stephenwolfram.com/ - Věda a technologie
can you imagine how important these videos can become in the future, if the projects suceeds?
i feel like we're watching the birth of something truly special, like calculus or QM
thanks for sharing this Stephen. I live in a third wordl country, theres no way i could have learn about all of this without the internet and your willingness to share
Putting Time and Space together made sense when you understand the maths of special relativity. MR Wolfram has really exploded my understanding of Time and Space. The Causal Graph allows for Space-Time to emerge without the packing of it together. I couldnt accept it until recently I studied more about the Hyper Graphs. Time really doesnt need to be bundled together! Very hard to accept)
Thanks for doing this update video. I've been wanting to follow your work but not able to watch all the videos. So excited about what you're doing.
Hyper Graph Rewritting seems like a complex term but in fact once you think about the Subspace from this method like a cake it becomes opened up to really new applications of programs. For example the bottom layer is irreducible and the next layer of the Subspace is reducable. With Hyper Graphs the edges can connect like a network to parts of Space that appears unconnected allowing for Entanglement.
As far as I understand it from a network idea the potential is unbelievable!
I have no association with MR Wolfram but am one of the many silent fans that believe he has tapped into a new path for Physics that we haven't seen for 100 years or so!!! Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are essential two sides of the coin and we use them every day in our society. I am learning new things every day.... !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2:37 start
Great work! Keep up guys!
are you heading to a point in time at which you are able to extrapolate directly from first principle ?
Life is the purpose of physics. Although we may observe that through atomic theory, life is "complex," there are patterns which can be observed.
Definition of complexity:
A = 1 or 2, B = 3 or 4.
Now take the string: 433214
This can be simplified to BBBAAB
Conversely,
Take the string: BBAAB
Following the definitions, you can get many different numbers:
eg. : 333113, 444224, 434213, ..., etc.
Now say:
A = Proton or Neutron, B = Electron or Neutrino
Take the string: Proton, Electron
It can be simplified to: AB
But,
AB can be Proton, Neutrino; Proton, Electron; Neutron, Neutrino; Neutron, Electron
Going one way, you reduce complexity, but information is lost going the other way into many more possibilities. Like zooming on a pixelated scene. As you zoom, the scene gets simplified, but information is lost, and must be "filled in" as you zoom out.
This, I see is the difficulty of using instruments to "zoom" in to atomic sizes. We simplify until we "zoom" back out, then the atom gets more complicated as the option space is opened up.
You say you might find that you have to run the rule through (e.g.) 10^100 iterations because that's how many times the universe has done it, but elsewhere you've talked about how there's a layer "on top of" the irreducible-computability layer on which physics as we know it and its predictions stand, IIUC. For example, we can predict the orbital mechanics of two objects way ahead into the future using relatively simple equations without having to resort to simulation every step of the way, let alone having to know the graph-substitution rule for our universe (or the universe as we know it). Similarly maybe you could derive these second-layer shortcuts for any given rule to "skip ahead in computation time" and see what they say about the universe / what predictions they make. If the process can't be generalized then maybe just try it on rules that you suspect might be *the* rule. And if it *is* the rule then such second-layer "shortcuts" would *necessarily* be possible to derive because we already have some for this universe's rule that we currently call physics. (Maybe I don't really know what I'm talking about, IDK.)
The multiwave graph is very very important to understand ... I am still trying to understand it - The Subspace allows for all the end quantum states.... The phase is there position in this Subspace... The multiwave is still doing my head in.... My question would be: Please go over the phase and weighting of each path again in more detail??????? Cheers from Australia!!!!!!!!!!!!
It is 2020 and how do we do science ... We do it out in the open and let everyone share in the rewards.
brachial space>>phase space of quantum probabilistic weighting??
The computational universe has enormous potential because if it explains the forces in a unified way it will have incredible implications and ability to refine and invent a new generation of materials and technologies.... That is still a ways away but let me break it down like this. Underneath Space/Time is proposed structures of no substance.... The best example given is Graphs...
Edges and points and very simple rules means that existence rewrites itself and uploads reality allowing for relativity and even Quantum behaviors we have no explanation for like Entanglement. I call this computational principle and rules a SubSpace - Also what it means for Time is incredible. Irreducability is incredible important understanding about the system itself...
Instead of observation and working backwards Wolfram brilliantly realised we could model existence from the most simple forwards!!! It is very very important and with our new found computational powers the computational universe using programs instead of math for me is highly compelling. I have read NKS 3 times and it is one of my most often thought about books. Wolfram is one of my thought heros for many reasons. The ain one being is I find his approach easier framework then the mathmatics approach which I find lost in the weeds....
I think if you have any science background or love of physics NKS will be a veyr good primer for you. Applying computations to the universe is very very exciting!!! Just like we can see the benefits of Wolfram Language and WolframAlpha the benefits of the Wolfram Physics Project in my opinion could be a new awakening from the speed traps of string theory and other mistakes of last century physics....
Quantum Gravity Research have been doing a bunch of work on discrete topologies at the quantum level. Perhaps would align with your models?
Lured by the “update” word in the title I was not expecting to have to hear about CA-rule30 again... Fascinating stuff nonetheless, could be shrinked to 1h15 with ease.
in cellular automata are the rules of its universe are more core to its reality than the individual elements which it is composed of?
is the concept of the molecule more than its components? have we been looking at things backwards? is it the higher level which is more fundamental than the pieces with which it is composed? as you get higher and higher levels of abstraction you compress information more and more. perhaps compression is the ultimate law of the universe.
maybe the universe only keeps track of high level objects (thus some things exist in a superposition). somewhere in its compression through abstraction it threw away some information. but when the universe needs to know some specifics of a lower level abstraction , it is generated on the fly arithmetically.
perhaps the entire view of looking at things from low level particles is simply not the best way to model the universe. maybe true understanding of the universe only comes at ever higher and higher levels of abstraction.
Wouldn't that imply that particles are invented rather than discovered by scientists?
Hi Stephen! Hey this is a good and necessary idea to explore, but we need to tackle it from many other ways and perspective... How can I get more involved? I been looking at the many 'universes' you have... I've found some constants and have a trillion ideas to keep this going... Lets get in touch
lol, you had me in the first half
Genius.
This Subspace machine code means complex mathmatics can be cracked.... When they can show quantum computations I will feak out. It means much more accurate measurements and simulations!!!
It would be interesting to have Eugenia Cheng on your project speaking to Category Theory.
Is it possible to create a virtual quantum computer using existing silicone technology? In that you devise a way to create software that mimics the behaviour of hardware. With its own virtual operating system. A working model of a new type of computer in a conventional computer.
Ya. This is already done to some extent; people create computers in Minecraft using red stone…and making computers in game of life.
If QM wasn’t incomplete I’m sure it would be possible to do the same (make a QC inside of a normal computer) but I think QM as it’s currently formulated is based on some flaws, (that’s it’s not that special) and that it would be more wolfram esque in construction
Thank You Sir WOLFRAM.MARFLOW
If I am wrong in my thoughts please correct me!!! Cheers!!!
I’d love to talk to someone who actually understands this topic to see how chirality or branchial space fits with fractal distribution of patterns within Mandelbrot sets. Are they linked in anyway? Why is there common physical resemblance in the distribution of matter in the universe and say the structure of mycelium or root systems in plants. Where do mathematical progressions such as Fibonacci fit into this phenomena of replicating patterns in nature? Are these simply emergent properties of a mathematical language that are reflected in the product of iterative systems such as evolution? Are trees let’s say, and they way they grow and develop branches to form their typical shape a manifestation of a mathematical model that reflects a functional response to the ecosystem over time? I’d really appreciate the opportunity to learn more. Thank you.
I’ve wondered the same and studied this for a while and under the wolfram model.
If you haven’t already, watch the new kind of science book series he made. Fractals are a generic set of behaviors across rules…so there is a scale free distribution of them generally speaking across all systems.
Topology is the key here.
First principles are also key.
Finding the most minimal topology that can possibly build the universe is an obviously necessary first step.
After that, choosing paths of expression and development seems to make sense.
Here's the history of the effort.
Strings. That would seem to be the smallest topology. Right ? Wrong.
"Strings" fail.
First, are these "string" models open or closed?
Open strings don't work. The whip like ends are impossible to solve. Open strings are done.
So... closed strings are the answer ?
Possibly, except that it has been proven that there are an infinite number of these closed models.
So that means we have to find the exceptions among infinite families of these models that enable us to move forward with a single theory.
This means that we must explore "branes." Surfaces. Obviously surfaces are more minimal than solids. Duh.
So, the minimal topology would be a surface.
So, here's the challenge.
Find a more minimal topology than ... "take 3 points of space."
Take an equilateral triangle of the fabric of space and connect all the edges together.
That's how you get the 3-ball.
Except in 3 dimensions, you only get an "empty" 3-ball with 1 "edge", or "hyperedge", of a single circular 3-dimensional geodesic, and 1 "vertex" or singularity, and 1 "side" or surface that happens to be non-orientable. There are 4 ways to construct this topology if you start with an equilateral triangle.
You get everything else that you need out of this basic starting place, or topology.
Now, build a universe.
Geez.
Three dimensions to our world.
Anything theoretical or attempted that is more minimal than this is just thick.
Why do you guys have to make everything so complicated?
Branchial Space is like poincare plot?
2+2=4 Another Level
2🤗+2🤗= 20 fingers (5+5+5+5=20)
2 (×) + 2 (×) = ( x ? )
Creative Thinking By Design
THUNK about IT
".. explore the computational universe ..." Can the computational universe explain the empirical successes of Milgrom's MOND?
I say that Professor Milgrom of the Weizmann Institute is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology - on the basis of overwhelming empirical evidence.
www.weizmann.ac.il/particle/milgrom/
Have string theorists underestimated Milgrom? Consider the following speculation:
The Seven Sagacities of String Theory with the Finite Nature Hypothesis: (1) There is a profound synergy between string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis and string theory with the finite nature hypothesis. (2) Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology - on the basis of overwhelming empirical evidence (implying dark-matter-compensation-constant = (3.9±.5) * 10^-5). (3) The Koide formula is essential for understanding the foundations of physics. (4) Lestone's theory of virtual cross sections is essential for understanding the foundations of physics. (5) The idea of Fernández-Rañada and Tiemblo-Ramos that atomic time is different from astronomical time is correct. (6) There is genius in the ideas of Riofrio, Sanejouand, and Pipino concerning the hypothesis that the speed of light in a perfect vacuum steadily decreases as our universe ages. (7) Quantum information reduces to Fredkin-Wolfram information, which is controlled by Wolfram's cosmological automaton in a mathematical structure isomorphic to a 72-dimensional, holographic, digital computer.
Google “fredkin wolfram milgrom”.
Start @ 0:02:33
05192020 "Thanks"
👨🏫👍Each One Teach One.
Why does space have a discrete increase?? I mean what evidences make you think this???
plank length for starters
We see that Stephan is a mathematician/physicist.
He asks questions of the metaphysical kind like
a child asks about the origin of rain.
Why the universe exists, and why not NOTHING.
If he had the time and effort, and is really
interested in the question, he would learn the
sciences developed to answer such questions.
These sciences are not those of mathematics,
not those of chemistry, not those of physics.
How could they be? This question is not even
one of cosmology.
And it is probably the closest one there.
Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
What kind of science it is in your opinion, then? I would say is not science but philosophy.
@@tlatoanisco So, certainly, seen from the present
historical definition of the term. And in this
definition of ours today, we have chosen a
stricter path than earlier definitions.
It remains to be seen whether the present path
can lead us how far.
Older historical definitions of physics, e.g. those
in the Vedas, can describe problems far beyond
our current accepted understanding.
So, 10^200 iterations per individual ruleset with an almost infinite amount of rulesets... That's a lot of qubits homie. Your "Theory on Everything" is the most computational intensive problem I've ever heard of. Some O(essentially_infinity) stuff.
Can permutations be sub-tasked into smaller calculations that current IBM/Google/DWave/etc can handle? What would be the min amount of qubits required to perform a valuable task for this problem? How does an open-source loving computer programmer help your discovery other than reading through the tremendous amount of data you had recently published (or watch 120 minutes of you talking? Stay safe everyone!
SideBar: I'm 1/5th through your recent paper and you've essentially created a hash function for all possible realities and are actively cracking the "All Possible Universes" hash to find our particular universe. Incredible stuff. #CyberSec
Just noticed Wolfram looks a bit like YandereDev.
Computation slows down the faster you move around. 🤔
The Primordial Particle System already has a paper. May need to drop the rule that adds a field.
As another mistake, I'd add the paranoia after we built nuclear bombs. Now Average Joe can't recognize when a nuke is being designed.
The Romulans prevent a black hole from forming by popping out the future black hole's stellar core...stripping, but keeping, the corona!
I'd like to take a bunch of bumping particles and create a causal graph.
Just need to do it...
The whole scientific enterprise as epitomized by modern physics is flawed since it's based on giving a mathematical or computational description of whatever can be perceived. Scientists can't even talk about things scientifically without talking about what can be perceived, but their discussion about what can be perceived then requires them to discuss the nature of perceiving consciousness, which they can never do. It's scientifically impossible to discuss the nature of perceiving consciousness since it's nothing perceivable. If perceiving consciousness was itself something perceivable, that would create a paradox of self-reference that would make the whole scientific description logically inconsistent in the sense of the Godel incompleteness theorems that prove a logically consistent system of computational rules can never prove its own consistency. Perceiving consciousness proves the consistency of the computational rules by perceiving them, which means its true nature can never be reduced to computational rules without creating a logically inconsistent paradox of self-reference. The upshot is that perceiving consciousness is itself nothing perceivable, which makes the whole scientific enterprise a waste of time if we're trying to explain the nature of meaning that's given to the perceivable world.
The nature of meaning is best epitomized by the second law of thermodynamics, which says a life-form, which is a form of information that is self-replicated in form in a recognizable way as that form is animated, can only become self-replicated in form if its entropy decreases, which requires the entropy of the life-from and its environment to increase as the self-replicating form incorporates organizing potential energy of attractive forces into its form while it also sheds disorganizing thermal energy into the environment. That is how all life-forms are self-replicated in form in a recognizable way. That's what we call life, which inherently requires the life-form to eat potential energy and to shed thermal energy into its environment. The self-replication of a life-form in a recognizable way is indeed described by computational rules that govern how information is organized into form. The problem is the nature of the perceiving consciousness that is recognizing that form cannot be described by computational rules. That kind of scientific description would create a logically inconsistent paradox of self-reference. All meaning is given when perceiving consciousness recognizes a form of information that is self-replicated in form in a recognizable way. The problem of recognition and giving meaning is not a scientific problem since the nature of recognition can never be reduced to computational rules. Recognition and the giving of meaning is inherently a property of perceiving consciousness that can never be described scientifically since its true nature cannot be reduced to computational rules.
See the Science and Nonduality Website:
scienceandnonduality.wordpress.com/
or read the PDF documents:
scienceandnonduality.files.wordpress.com/2020/05/what-is-real-1.pdf
scienceandnonduality.files.wordpress.com/2020/05/all-movies-are-a-footnote-to-the-matrix-3.pdf
scienceandnonduality.files.wordpress.com/2020/05/the-story-of-consciousness-1.pdf
You made the Universe Causa Sui already, why bother with theology, let's worship the bottle and ignore the spirit in there.
To answer you question there are no kore theological questions, because theology was expunged from science with the ether.
please in spanish