Eigenbros ep 138 - Wolfram Physics Project Pt. 2 (w/ Jonathan Gorard)
Vložit
- čas přidán 28. 10. 2021
- This week the Eigenbros welcome return guest Jonathan Gorard (@getjonwithit), Associate Director of Research at the Wolfram Physics Project and researcher at the University of Cambridge. He discusses starting from spacetime being discretized, particles, emergence and much more
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Follow Jonathan Gorard on getjonwithit
Follow us on eigenbros
Support our channel: / eigenbros
Apple: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/1OIg3Px...
Social Media: linktr.ee/Eigenbros - Věda a technologie
Thanks for watching! Leave your questions in the comments for Jonathan to answer
I wish Sean Carroll would do a Mindscape with Jonathan Gorard.
I have learned much from both gentlemen. ^.^
@@DeltaParadoxLLC It would be interesting to hear Jonathan defend the skepticism of the multi-graph approach I assume Carroll holds.
@@MrGroetale Since Carroll is an Everettian, which is sort of the same thing, it would certainly be worth listening to.
yeah seeing how modular Hamiltonians map onto these perturbations in space-time dimension would be super interesting to see
So glad you’re having Jimmy Neutron back 😎
Heheh 😄😄 Our boy is wicked smart!
Jonathan is a truly brilliant man and the Wolfram model is the first real progress since the golden age of physics. I have predicted a nobel prize in the future for this whole group of pioneers and this rewrites the textbooks in my opinion. It has taken me months to understand the maths and model and in my opinion it is the first real progress with massive potential. The Wolfram Model is shining light on the universe in exciting ways.
omg yessssss!!
He's back! He's back!
The only man on Earth I don't listen to at 2x speed
Haha same 🤣
Cause 2x would feel like slightly less than 8x 😉
Half speed for me.
He just gave a 4hr talk and Q&A and his energy was up the entire time
The other one is Joscha Bach e.g. czcams.com/video/K5nJ5l6dl2s/video.html
Finally !!!!!!!!!!!!!
This conversation is simultaneously calming and exhilarating! Thank you to all involved!
Thanks for watching!
@@Eigenbros Thanks for this awesome podcast (including its name)!
Now we need Chiara Marleetto and David Deutsch on the podcast !
ABSOLUTLY GENIUS. Wolfram project is new enlightenment.
Thank you for inviting him back!
Because Jonathan Gorard said he will check the comments, I just want to say hi 👋 Jonathan! Thank you for your research and work! It seems that you have confidence in your current work and I’m rooting for you! It would be exciting to see the progress in this new framework in the future, and its impact in the scientific method development and even the field of philosophy. So cool!
Hi Nina! Thanks so much for your kind words - it sounds as though you’re almost as excited as I am to see where this overall paradigm leads. Always great to have people rooting for you, especially when the research gets tough! -JG
@@jontology3173 I’m not a physicist or a mathematician, I’m just a physics enthusiast, and a big question such as how did the universe or life emerge always fascinate me, since I was a kid. The first time I heard about the branchial space of possible universes from a podcast with Stephen Wolfram as a guest in 2020, I was stunned. It’s a crazy idea, as crazy as the multiverse concept, but yet it’s logical to think that way in explaining many phenomena that we observe in the universe, moreover involving that all this or complexity emerges from simple beginnings with simple rules! Then you came along and you build the mathematical models and formulation of this theory, that is amazing! Although many physicists are still skeptical, and of course the default questions are what we can predict from the model? What kind of experiment we can run to test it? But I hope you can tackle these questions in the future. And as being said many times that first people will mock a good idea before they finally accept it, and I’m glad that you brave enough to take the challenge. Good luck, Jonathan!
The longer you study the Wolfram model/hypergaphs you'll start seeing analogues and connections everywhere. E.g. was just watching Seth Lloyd on max quantum ops in finite volumes of space and deriving GR from quantum measurement.
Seth Lloyd’s stuff seems so closely linked with this theory.
Jonathan should have his own podcast.
@Jonathan - I have heard several work logs when you were clearly frustrated. My hope is that you are OK, you are doing breakthrough work and we need you to keep pushing this into more and more areas .... I want you to take on the Standard model with vigor and joy !!! IF Wolfram is the old wolf you are certainly the young wolf of the project !!!
PS - Thanks for making your math in your papers clearly explained for us amateurs!!!!
Even though it takes me months to get it !!!!
Thanks for your kind words, Tarka! Please don’t worry - sometimes Stephen and I may appear to be frustrated, but it’s only because we truly care passionately about what we’re doing, and we want to make sure that it’s being done right. I’m not sure I’d describe any of my work as “breakthrough”, but I’m definitely feeling better than okay! -JG
@@jontology3173 I understand it well enough to be amazed sir. Amazed how it touches on QM, SR, and GR with such rigor. Not sure how you will take on the Standard model but to do so is exciting!
Any hints about the areas to study in the Wolfram Model regarding particles?
Thanks for your hard work Jonathan!
Me (listening to Jonathan without maths/physics training): "Ah yes! I know some of those words."
Don't feel bad. Juan and I have 16+ yrs of physics knowledge collectively and could barely keep up 😅😅
This podcast is its own worldsheet membrane of awesomeness. Thank you so much for supporting these
So good. I love the detail. The more you hear, the more it makes sense too. Thank you so so much to both Eigenbros and Jonathan on getting this to happen. Wow. What a treat.
This is a very, very exiting video. The philosophy underlying these ideas is so encompassing that we are entering a new paradigm into the understanding the world. This literally is a new philosophy disguised as physics, and will effect the arts and humanities.
Wolfram's model is discrete and more granular than the Planck scale, so has it derived fundamental physical constants like the Gravitational and Planck constants? There was some discussion on the Ultaviolet catastrophe when trying to quantise gravity, and analogously, the Planck constant came from Black Body radiation and quantising Electromagnetic radiation. Wouldn't we need a different quantising constant for Quantum Gravity?
The problem is that deriving fundamental constants like G and h requires first fixing an elementary length scale (i.e. specifying the spacetime scale corresponding to an individual hyper edge/causal edge), which we don’t yet know how to do. We have some shaky estimates based on dimensional analysis, but they’re really *very* preliminary, and I don’t particularly trust them. If we do ultimately succeed in finding/reconstructing known elementary particles, then that will certainly fix such a scale, and then deriving the other constants suddenly becomes a much more tractable problem. -JG
Bring him back again!
There is a clear discrepancy between the speed at which he thinks and the capacity of his vocal tract to verbalize his thoughts. What we might denote as a case of impedance mismatch
I’ve already begun to make tech and designing systems based on the Wolfram model and it works. I truly believe that, this is the Theory of Everything without a second thought. The implications of the theory are enormous for computation and practical application. Can’t wait for these guys to get their comeupins because they truly deserve the spotlight.
Right you can see how this ties a lot into Distributed Computing, going back to Leslie Lamport’s early work.
Thank you Eigenbros, brilliant video, so much information, I will be watch this again and again.
See, fellas, if we whine enough we get our guests. ;)
The Karen Effect they call it
@@Eigenbros is that part of "can i see the manager" theory of everything (religion?)
Good stuff guys! Have had a few back and forth chats with Jonathan.. Awesome you guys got him on!
Can someone get more into this not-integer-dimensions? Please give some examples or analogues this sounds very interesting.
By the way: great show, great people!
Some classic examples of spaces with non-integer Hausdorff dimension include the Sierpinski gasket (whose dimension is approximately 1.58) and the Koch curve (whose dimension is approximately 1.26). Another funky case where Hausdorff dimension goes a bit weird occurs for the Mandelbrot and Julia sets, which appear to be two-dimensional, but whose boundaries turn out also to be two-dimensional. -JG
Thanks Jontology for the start, entering your "magic words" in CZcams Search resulted in a 3Blue1Brown-clip named "Fractals are typically not self-similar" where the topic was broken down a little. I wonder what dimension our spacetime could have, because I do not think it is really 4D, as time behaves that inconvenient, but that's another one.
Remember this should not be confused with the topological dimension. Our universe is macroscopic 4D. Trajectories within can have Hausdorff fractional dimension, but that's not the topological dimension. Ex. the Koch snowflake as a path is definitely 1-dimensional. It's Hausdorff dim = log 4/ log 3 ~ 1.26 has to do with it's scaling, Hausdorff "dimension" is a bit of a misnomer, it is a complexity ratio (statistical index of complexity), not a count of spatial/topological dimensionality.
Feynman showed typical particle trajectories in the path integral SOH approach to QM are fractal, with Hausdorff dimension = 2 But the trajectories or world-lines remain strictly one-dimensional (for point particle case).
If Wolfram predicts actual spacetime is fractal in _topological dimension,_ he is inviting a world of hurt, because that would yield all sorts of exotic gauge particles not seen in nature. It would be perfectly fine if the _curvature_ or "bumpiness' of spacetime is fractal, that'd be a possible explanation for Feynman's discovery (e.g., maybe the SOH trajectories are fractal because spacetime is fractal in curvature). Spacetime itself remains 4D _everywhere._
I want to hear more about the connections to HoTT!
I mentioned in the discord that it's something I'm interested in for it's applications to proof assistants, but I'd really love to know how it comes up in Wolfram.
@6:50 the Feynman diagram UV divergence in string theory is _also_ because of not going to zero length scale, the string length is the cut-off. The infinity Jono alludes to re:strings is not this, it has to do with smearing interactions over a world volume, and that cancels infinities arising in the self-energy problem. You can have a UV cut-off but still get infinities in self-energy calculations when the gauge boson has self-energy loops and a bad coupling constant, as for the putative graviton. If you ask me there is no graviton as such, so the graviton self-energy problem does not occur, and that's really what Jono talks about with the Poincaré symmetry/algebra. Remember, post-1995 the string "graviton" is likely no longer fundamental, it is a duality limit of type-II or supergravity which has branes, and thanks to gauge-gravity duality it is no longer clear what gravity is, it could be a stringy theory, or a membrane theory or plain old GR (gravity waves but no graviton), no one knows, since M-theory is not defined.
switch Jon to 0.75x speed for proper pace
I wish this guy would have talked about what kind of nootropic drugs he ingests, maybe it will help my 0.5 alpha version brain to speed up a bit.
I hope that the Physics project goes to c^2 ! To sum meter c^2=gravity
This theroy is at the forefront of explaining the more fundamental concepts that give rise to quantum theory and general relativity that scientists have trying to complete since Einsteins theory of general relativity.
It's what will tie together quantum and general relativity in a new framework in which they are compatible as Jonathan implies in the beginning.
#Eigenbros - You have to do a part 3 on Gravity Waves, Density and possible gravity manipulation....
answer at 59 min Occam's razor.
Is there anything this model describes like, qualitatively, about a situation where the quantum mechanics/brachial side has a noteworthy effect on the gravity side, outside of inside a black hole? The thing that comes to my mind is “what happens if a quantum mechanical coin flip result determines whether a certain macroscopic topological change happens?”, but id kinda guess that the result of that is just, like, what one expect, and there’s not much to say about it?
So I guess what I mean to ask is like, does any interference effect happen with the structure of spacetime? And not inside a black hole?
Oh! I know what to ask! What does this model say about the gravitational effects when a very massive object is in a superposition of two substantially different locations? Or is that too hard to answer with current understanding?
He looks like he has a big brain, so must be smart lol
Are these localized topological obstructions capable of becoming delocalized like actual quantum particles?
Yes because they have multiple evolutionary paths.
The boundary of the madelbrot set has H-dim 2 though?
More of Jonathan
This hypergraph theory casts a wide net. But when all is said and done, will it be a model only?
All of physics is a model. Consciousness itself is a model. Stop expecting more than a model.
Dear Jonathan Gorard / anyone really, what the heck is Alephs, please strategize a periodic table of cardinalities and stuff
15:56
Eigenbroskis 🍻
🍻
Jonathan. They way stacked 1D CA have an emergent 2D pattern. Is there any analog to the holographic principle here?
“The holographic principle is a tenet of string theories and a supposed property of quantum gravity that states that the description of a volume of space can be thought of as encoded on a lower-dimensional boundary to the region”
Am I thinking about this correctly in the sense that computation leads to an emergent pattern that is at a course resolution continuous? And the “real” world we perceive is entirely emergent?
You are thinking about it the right way.
Perhaps for further clarity you can do the following: Run an elementary CA like Rule 90 or whatever until you get to line 10. If you were to take this line here, you realize that it is a unique configuration of the CA…in that the previous states, line 9,8,7 and so on, are “encoded” in that you can’t get the configuration you have for line 10 without this exact configuration of those other lines. That information from all those lines is this fully described by this configuration of line 10. You can even give it a special name.
This is what you could think of as a somewhat basic holographic principle in CA, albeit it’s probably much more complicated in The Hypergraph and Rulial model since those CA’s are a lot more interesting in what they can do.
He's a younger version of Stephen Wolfram