Finally We May Have a Path to the Fundamental Theory of Physics… and It’s Beautiful

The 50 years of study wraps around in an ejaculation of mathematical rules.

That only complicates the already given explanations by natural science, like a heavily maked-up mistress watching her own image at the mirror.

Absolutely dissapointing. However, not surprising... scientist tend to have NO imagination.

originally posted by: Willtell
Hers a link that's understandable...www.sciencenews.org...

A computer visualization depicts a “hypergraph” consisting of relationships between points constructed by repeatedly applying a simple rule for expanding, or “updating,” the network. Stephen Wolfram believes a massively complex hypergraph could represent all of physical space and its contents, a clue to finding the fundamental theory of physics.

My first thought when I saw that "hypergraph" is that it looks an awful lot like a human brain.

originally posted by: TEOTWAWKIAIFF
a reply to: chr0naut

Wolfram suggests that the universe can be modeled using points in space and rules that, when applied, generate more points. As more points are added, a network is built. He further suggests that model universes can be built using hypergraphs that describe such networks—and the rules that are applied eventually determine the characteristics that make up a given universe. And this, he believes, suggests that it should be possible to start with a few points in space and develop a model that depicts the real universe—at least as we know it. All that is needed, he suggests, is for somebody to come up with the right rules. And that is the whole point of his project. Those who are interested need only visit the project website and begin downloading documents that further explain Wolfram's theories and how citizen scientists can get involved—and if they desire, create some rules and add them to the project.

physical.org - The Wolfram Physics Project hopes to find fundamental theory of physics.

YouTube - Wolfram Physics Project

Beware: It is 3 hours long! It is just Wolfram talking which is the same thing you read at the website!

Even he admits he went nowhere with this back in the 80s. I wonder why he thinks he had a breakthrough now??

I used to follow all this stuff but gave up. I want to say, "We get it! Complexity arises out of simplicity. You have pretty graphs showing us as much! But now what?"

I guess this is the "now what". I don't have the temerity to sit through a 3 hour video after spending just a half hour doing mandatory computer security training (Someone had too much time on their hands and is now wasting mine. It was really bad! From like 2010 and all the terms are now different and broken speech, lots of "uh..." "ah.. but a few years ago..." which is why I may have short fuse. [Like dude, get to the point!]). I am goofing off, hehe, I guess like old Tom Sawyer swearing, smoking, and drinking, up in the attic to get the taste back in my mouth!!

Best wishes to those that do venture down this path! It is lots of fun to think about things and wonder but it is also fun to do other things with your time. Remember, "scope", and you will be alright wandering down this path!

Interestingly, as I read through the quote, I can't seem to ignore your avatar. It reflects exactly what Wolfram is saying - connect the dots! My theory of how the universe work is precisely similar to how the atom works. It's simplicity coupled with ordered chaos.

I will continue watching the video.

S&F -

Trying to determine anything from effects will always lead to false conclusions.
Until Scientist understand CAUSE, they'll never understand the why and
purpose of the Universe and life, nor how every thing in the Universe
and life is created.

Universal Law, Natural Science and Living Philosophy
Home Study Course by Walter Russell.

a reply to: MrBlaq

Cause? Do you mean source?

That's the challenge and, unfortunately, our material-only scientists are one-dimensional and reductionist so I doubt they ever come up with the full truth.

You should really read the article....

a reply to: Peeple

a reply to: Cogidubnus

I did, I even quoted from it.

originally posted by: Egoismyname
The 50 years of study wraps around in an ejaculation of mathematical rules.

That only complicates the already given explanations by natural science, like a heavily maked-up mistress watching her own image at the mirror.

Absolutely dissapointing. However, not surprising... scientist tend to have NO imagination.

I think that by glossing over the ideas, you have missed some of the nuances.

Just putting it into language breaks the beauty, so, upfront, apologies to all for my weak explanations.

In Wolfram's explanation of black holes, he explains how the simple initial rules, though unchanging, and always applied the same way, produce branches of output that start relationally connected, but that soon become disconnected to their greater 'number space' - they become unrelated, disconnected branches. Once disconnected, they don't have any further relationships back to the rest. A black hole is similar because the stuff that falls into it, falls beyond the reach of the rest of the universe.

If you look at the map of causal relationships, you find that even though the actual details are variable, it is always the same causal map, just twisted in shape to fit the particular relationship map. The relationship map may vary each time you restart the model, but the causal relationship map is always the same.

This is like saying that although the exact situations can be very variable, the rules which guide them and the overall steps required to get there, are always the same.

But, perhaps that is getting too abstract.

In my case, I immediately saw an application to something I have been thinking about, but have been stalled on, for a while.

My premise relates to the ways that we can observe the different dimensions. For the spatial dimensions, 1 to 3 (I do realize that the numbering is arbitrary and other sequences are possible), we can see bidirectionally.

For dimension 4, time, we can see in one direction, backward to the past, but we can't see forwards, to the future.

For higher dimensions 5 to 11 (or whatever), we can't see either forwards or backward. They are fully obfuscated.

Mathematically and experimentally, we know there are higher dimensions, but they are opaque. I have been trying to find out why, and believe that if the rule can be discovered, it would add a greater explanation to other interesting things in physics.

With Wolfram's ideas, especially in regard to the 'branching off' of singularities, there may be an explanation and even a new set of fundamental values.

It almost makes me come back around again at the idea that no matter how you try to define reality - whether it's with complicated mathematics or whimsical stories about how the spirits interact - you'll still have to figure out how to exist within it. Even if you have the semantics razor perfect and you feel like you have it nailed, seems like there will always be those "stepping back" points where you look at it and say, "all right, but how does it affect how I, myself, deal with it as a lowly mortal creature?"

And every time that happens the concept itself expands into additional cognitive and conceptual dimensions that can't be addressed mathematically. So you know the mathematical definition is faulty, no matter what, unless it can incorporate non-mathematical factors into the equations.

And you found nothing of merit in the entire discussion? Maybe read it again, slower this time with less bias? Literally the only addition you have to add to the entire conversation is “no”? Not much of a conversation. It’s different sure, but having E=MC^2 appear and light speed, to name a few quagmires, just appearing out of thin air doesn’t peek your interest even a little? It doesn’t sound off even a single bell for you?
It’s like doing improv.... simply responding, no adds very little to the experience. Expand the mind to more possibilities and more doors will open up for you. I’d like to hear more of your opinion on it all because my take was very different. Did you read any of the comments at the end? I’m not the only one... areply to: Peeple

a reply to: Cogidubnus

It doesn't appear he says "let's say this represents c" fe, the speed of light doesn't appear anywhere.

I gave the OP s&f I think it's supercool but after all it's a programming language and a mathmatical "game". And my reading comprehension tells me "we may have a path to" is not the same as "I got all the answers".

And the whole point why he is turning to the public is because he is looking for the rule to make it work. I made an assumption what that rule could be. So I contributed.

More than you.

a reply to: chr0naut

The beauty is there, for that I agree. I am huge fan and adversary of geometry as well. Yet, there is line between the logical aspect of nature and its illogical principle(false statement, this principle is inexplicable). When a scholar forgets to draw a bridge he is doomed to roam in a never-ending circle, since he cages himself in only one of the dual parts. Science has the fetish of closing itself in the logical side way beyond of what I can name as healthy. It definitely gives some stunning results, mostly measured in "technological advances", yet it fails to deal properly with the other side of existence, the moral one, it actually disregards its existence at all, thus we have a society built on the "cult of the form", no more advanced than the monkey society built on "the cult of the banana". And I am as well not exactly sure which of these two have the better overall composition. Who votes for the monkeys?!

The speed of light most certainly does appear in this paper and it’s highly significant.

Read it again...

a reply to: Peeple

a reply to: Cogidubnus

It's mentioned, yes.
Read it, slowly

The speed of light c in our toy system is defined by the maximum rate at which information can propagate, which is determined by the rule, and in the case of this rule is one character per step. And in terms of this, we can then say that our foliation corresponds to a speed 0.3 c.

Not only is it formally wrong because he technically says "30% of the speed of light", but he assigns a new definition to it that doesn't have to be true to make it fit his construct.
The speed of light is the speed a photon travels. The maximum speed of information might be faster. Think quantum entanglement.

But you have fun misunderstanding whatever you want. This conversation is just stupid and pointless.

a reply to: Peeple

I said i would read it.

I won't be doing. Although i did flick through to try to find the download link mentioned.

I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

The speed of light c in our toy system is defined by the maximum rate at which information can propagate, which is determined by the rule

And the rule is it has to be a photon as Peeple already said.

Any more information would slow it down.

stupid and pointless.

It doesn't look beautiful either.

I love how much Wolfram takes credit for, as though he's the first person to ever think of emergence from cellular automata or graph theory lol.

This essay from 2002 tears him a new one about the arrogant and solipsistic approach he's taken towards this subject for decades.

Yes, this latest suite of wolfram product may provide innovative mathematical tools to explore currently existing physics in new and interesting ways. But there really isn't much new in this beyond comibining existing mathematical tools into a new framework and offers no testable predictions.

It just says, "Hey guys, Our New WOLFRAM Math (TM) can demonstrate the same physics as the old math! We've solved the universe, buy a license!"

Here's a link to a balanced discussion that gives equal weight to the actual value embedded within this self aggrandizing announcement and fair criticism about the claims of a genius solving all of physics in his spare time in a notebook, completely removed from the wider scientific community.

So basically repeating the same thing over an over again and actually seeing results?

a reply to: Specimen88

originally posted by: chr0naut
It isn't the answer, but it is a new way of looking for it and it is already suggesting some possibilities. I just have to share it.

Anyway, best left to the author:

Finally We May Have a Path to the Fundamental Theory of Physics…
and It’s Beautiful - Stephen Wolfram

The one paragraph in that link I found most intriguing was this one:

And then there’ll be the physics experiments. If you’d asked me even a couple of months ago when we’d get anything experimentally testable from our models I would have said it was far away. And that it probably wouldn’t happen until we’d pretty much found the final rule. But it looks like I was wrong. And in fact we’ve already got some good hints of bizarre new things that might be out there to look for.

So according to that, experimentally testable ideas are not that far away. When such testable ideas are found, they can be compared to existing experiments or perhaps new experiments could be performed.

I don't claim to fully understand everything he's talking about, since I'd have to invest more time than I want to to dig into the details of his project, but from what he says about all the possibilities, it sounds reminiscent of string theory where there are lots of possibilities. In fact he mentions string theory and says there are hints of string theory in his project. While it's not string theory, it seems to have some of the same issues as string theory, such as which of the many possible mathematical possibilities apply to our particular universe?

String theorists have already provided some testable predictions which have not been verified in experiment.

Wolfram says he's not that far away from making some testable predictions. Hopefully, his testable predictions will fare better in experiment than the testable predictions of string theory, but I'm not predicting that they will. As he acknowledges in his essay, what he's trying to do is really hard, but that doesn't mean that he shouldn't try or be afraid of failure. Maybe he will show my prediction to be wrong, and his predictions will fare better than the predictions of string theory. That would be nice! But I'm not holding my breath for that to happen.

This was a good read, thank you. These are the best threads on ATS IMO. Quirky odd news and discussion