Okay, so, every time Wolfram says, “okay, so,” we’re about to move in reverse through the branchial space of his explanation of the concept? Okay, so this stuff is easy.
I was thinking the exact same thing - I think it is why I love him so much. His physics works exactly like his thinking process, it is a branching, multiway path with leaves and flowers you have to know to get the context, so he keeps jumping. It is fascinating to watch in real time. He gets so excited too! Just such an amazing human.
I like how Wolfram is able to finish lex's questions before he gets them out since he is such a slow talker. I think that's a sign of someone with good teaching skills when they can help someone ask the right questions.
Chris Paige Ya man , it’s just the overall concept of the scene tho and them trying to swindle Ed and get him to sign a contract that hands over his secret recipie and he’s like ‘uh huh ya ok , I know some of these words’. 😂😂🤣😭 priceless
This is absolutely amazing!! I’ve seen Stephen Wolfram present his work twice in person and he only briefly mentions these topics. He mostly covers his amazing tool of Mathematica and Wolfram Alpha. He’s truly a genius of our time. Way ahead of his time. I hope he continues to bless us with his knowledge and insight
I’ve never heard of Wolfram before and while I’m very interested in Physics, this concept is very hard to understand. I’ve rewatched parts of this interview and think I’m finally getting a hold of at least the implications of his theory. What he proposes is almost too amazing to believe and I’m REALLY looking forward to delving deeper into his work and seeing it be polished and hopefully evolve into becoming scientific consensus.
@@benjaminhalbeisen9175 it is very difficult to understand and I don't think we will be able to understand it at the level that he does anytime soon. It doesn't hurt to try though ^_^ I am excited for what this blossoms into though. We are really watching a true genius unravel the mysteries of our universe in real time which is amazing.
as someone who is very physical in my understanding of concepts, this made so much sense, best description I have ever heard. amazing theory, well articulated.
I remember critics and academics absolutely panning NKS and trashing Wolfram. At the time I was just diving more into the rigors of cellular automata and began developing a deterministic machine learning algorithm based on CAs. It seems the institutionos gripping onto string theory and other dead ends for dear life. "...one coffin at a time", and so on
_“Asked in 1919 whether it was true that only three people in the world understood git, [Arthur Stanley Eddington] allegedly replied: 'Who's the third?'”_
The fact that the two theories are the same in different types of space is mind blowing. This feels very much like Stephen Wolfram is heading towards the next stage in a unified theory of everything.
Wow. I am a huge fan of Wolfram and I really think he's blazing new ground in physics and our understanding of reality. The fact that he has seen a way that combines GR and Quantum is just amazing!
As an architect hearing him talk, is sort of describing the new parametric tools used for design such as grasshoppers, where you design with parameters and input branches, the vocabulary is the same, branching, grafting, leaves of data. Our tools and language is changing towards this method of thinking!
Architecture will become mathematical modeling? Juggling constraints.. code, structural engineering, energy efficiency, human ergonomic design and cost...
When Wolfram pauses and realizes he has to back up a step in explanation reminds me of playing Minecraft when you're trying to make a complicated item, you realize you need x item first, but to make x, you first have to make y machine. Yet to make Y machine, you need a list of sub-components, all of which have their own recipes. Yes. This the extent of my understanding of this interview.
"We know the universe is expanding in physical space but the universe is also expanding in branchial space as well .. that means the number of quantum states of the universe is increasing with time "... and my head just popped
@@Graeme_Lastnamea topological manifold is under no obligation to be embedded in any higher manifold. For now, if it is expanding, it’s as if it’s expanding into itself - like a mapping F: R -> R. Only vast distances between gravitationally bound objects appear to be growing, possibly indicating a new epoch of a gravitationally dominated universe breaking up into disjoint subsets of gravitationally dominate spaces.
Years from now i predict we will look back on this interview when Wolfram wins a Nobel Prize! Outstanding job drawing out the exciting details of this unbelievable model !!! I can't wait until we understand Particles! I predict it will open up whole new types of Particles!
A strong gust of wind hits at around 11:40 and then what falls into the frame at 11:42? I can't work out if there's a massive open window, or they're somehow outdoors...The wind keeps shaking the camera.
Lex, can you bring him on again, perhaps for several sessions, organized in such a way that each covers an aspect of what he's doing with the Physics project with a big picture overview first and then outline of each of the chapters that will follow. This will require some organization and discipline on his part as he knows so much he can go anywhere. I suppose this is probably more like a Great Courses format and will need to be explained and simplified for a knowledgable but not expert audience. Just a thought....
Note how Wolfram refuses to drift off into tangents no matter how exciting or alluring they are. That's discipline of thought, no rambling but a straight line every time!
Quantum phenomenon is observed to be perfectly random, so if it's true that this indeterminism stems from different sequences of updates, why would the updates be perfectly random? In a computational framework, updates and ordering of those updates are generally not at all random.
I genuinely have had a theory over 30 years thats in line with what hes saying, basically spacetime at its smallest level is a folded over bit of 2.5d, trying to be 2D but failing, and it expresses the extra .5d as an oscillation Like a torus trying to shed surface area
What I cannot buy in Wolfram's picture - and this applies to pictures of reality as a "simulation" too - is that time is something metaphysical, something outside and beyond the universe, rather than a physical thing. Reality (he says) evolves in time, rather than containing time. I don't buy it, philosophically.
I have always thought that quantum mechanics may be the description of particles interacting on a hyper temporal dimension. These hyper temporal interactions lead to a progression of time that is dynamic rather than linear. Meaning that interactions that occur in the future can affect the past/alter the structure of a branchial plane. This ultimately leads to interactions that can appear impossible from the perspective of our 4 dimensional existence. For example something like quantum entanglement. Due to the transfer of information from the future to the past through a hyper temporal dimension. Apologies if this is complete crap trying to explain an idea I have but quantum mechanics is not my area.
Very inspiring! Steve is the fist mathematician I've heard express the important need to quantify the natural world through fractal computation rather than trying to squeeze it into whole number dimensions. A new fractal number system based on patterns like the Feynman diagrams perhaps? My personal fantasies are for digital signal processing, computer modeling and even solving the n=body problem. Watching very closely... Thanks Lex!
'We need a theory of infinitesimal change in fractional dimensional and dynamic dimensional space.' Extrapolation from this final statement has got my mind tossing... Like, I'm REALLY stuck on it... Cause I am easily visualizing how this branchial space exists, and even how things move in it. Only thing is, I know I'm no where near educated enough to hold the same conceptual understanding of mathematics as a normal mathematician or physicist, so I can't make the connection of how to even start trying to put together a theory of change in what is essentially 'half' of a dimension. That's not a statement of 'Let us divide the answer by 2'! That's a statement of 'The half from our perspective, is the whole to the half dimension perspective'. Also, is the statement of creating a mathematics in dynamic dimensional space, essentially stating that 1 is both larger, and smaller, than 1? Or is the idea of 1 being an integer at all within dynamic space simply absurd? Also, here's the crazy part... Either way... Fractional or Dynamic, we're speaking about fluctuation in some manner of the value of an intensity. IE - 1/45th Dimensional Space needs mathematics that work in tandem with mathematics from another 1/45th Dimensional Space that has somehow fluctuated to being twice the value (or half the value) of the original 1/45th dimensional space. I mean, I can visualize how it would work so easily, but creating mathematics for it? WTF! SO MANY QUESTIONS! These two seem even weirder, when you realize that the statement is metaphorically 'Trying to divide the coin in two'.
Fractional space is used in fractals. In a sense, Wolfram’s saying we need a calculus for spaces whose dimensions change continuously with time. Right now, most people’s intuition about dimensions is a spatial one. I assume yours is too. So what if you can vary the amount of dimensions of a space continuously? Well, one generalization of spatial dimensions to fractional values is the Hausdorff dimension of a fractal. Most fractals don’t live in an integer amount of dimensions, rather in fractional ones. Here is a list of fractals by their Hausdorff dimensions: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fractals_by_Hausdorff_dimension Now why does he say this? I think this has something to do with the Hilbert space. Very loosely, the Hilbert space is a space has infinite dimensions but the between any two points is 1. It is used in quantum mechanics to represent probabilities. Why do you need infinite dimensions? Because there are infinite possibilities, and the probabilities of every single one of those must add up to 1. But since General Relativity only has 4 dimensions, one would need a way to generalize that to infinite dimensions. To be fair, dimensionality’s not the only problem. Quantum Field Theory and General Relativity have the following differences: In Quantum Field theory spacetime is discrete, whereas spacetime in General Relativity is continuous. In Quantum Field theory, spacetime is cannot be changed, whereas in General Relativity, spacetime can deform continuously (in fact that’s the whole point) Quantum Field Theory is all about probabilities, whereas General Relativity is about deformation.
It makes sense that branchial space and exponential dimensions. One thing leads to another, and in a large enough system there's no way you'll arrive at some (identical!) future state by wildly divergent paths. I mean, most branches will NOT lead to any merging -- the cookie dough will never unmix.
There is a lot packed into this clip, damn. I don't know which is more impressive: that a new math will likely be on its way soon, or that unifying quantum mechanics with physics seems to be imminent as well.
Arguably, the 'connection' he's identified between QM and GR hasn't been identified beyond the path integral itself, which should not come off as 'surprising' whatsoever, since the path integral is essential to modeling motion in ANY space - be it Hilbert space, branchial space, 2d physical space, or full 4d GR metric space.
A gem! Thank you, Lex and Stephen! I hear rumors that things are no long great. We live in beautiful times. We need only to know where to look. Thank you, gentlemen. That being said, I have some questions... 0:34 "Quantum physics says there's this whole set of paths of things that might happen and we're just observing some overall probabilities of how those paths works." So we have quantum particles moving through time into new quantum states. This is graphed. Particle looks like 'this' and has a likelihood of turning into 'that'. This changing of states is visually shown in a multi-wave graph. The "traveling/changing" from one state to the next can be observed? These travelings/chages are the branches and the nodes are the new states? Branchell space is a cut section of these quantum states shifting over time? This cut section of shifting quantum states has lagrangian density and causes deflection of geodesics? ... Does not compute. I should've kept curious in math. If I'd only seen this while in high school. Have Stephen Wolfram on again, Lex!! 19:50 find the beauty in your world. We live in amazing times. Stay curious and stay humble. I'm going to stare into a fractal zoom for 10 hours now
With this branchial description of the double slit experiment, is it a stretch to say negative interference is somewhat analogous to the edge of the mandelbrot set, where when a solution cannot be resolved is the defining feature of the phenomenon?
What's it all about?...(a) We have Q in Physical Space. (b) We have Q in Branchial Space. 1.To Note: The Math forms an [Identity]. Q in Physical! Q in Branchial! [Parallels, Motion & Ends to Begin]! 2. How would we look at it? (1) A Person, in Physical Space, is located, in Time, at an [Observed Location]. Got it! [It's Q in Physical Space]! 3. To the Quik:...Here I am in Physical Space (Q)!...Now, how about [Branchial Space]! How do I identify with [Q] (me) in [Branchial Space]? 4. Possibilities!...[Q] (me} in [Branchial Space] is a [Possibility]! To Note: However, "Currently" in Time, I'm in [Physical Space] at an [Observed Location]! 5. To the Key Question:...How does [Physical Space] & [Branchial Space] meet (form an identity) "in terms" of [Distance, Time & Energy] as well as [Equilibrium & Motion]?... If I may...Please Refer to the [Tic Tac] Incident...You Tube, "The Nimitz Encounters", @23:23 - 23:32. Please Note::[ Branchial Space] is used as a [Means of Transportation]. i.e. A Person uses a Car to drive from one Location to another. The [Road or Highway] can be "designated" (identified) as a [Branch or Part] of a [System of Transportation]. Amen. Good job, Lex! To the Pun!...Do the Math! We have Computers, now! Let me know. Cue: It's not Chaos!
Perfect way to think of differences between reality’s spaces is to imagine relativistic space as watching a wick laying on it’s side as it burns. While bronchial space would be watching the wick from head on or from top down, so all you see is the fire burning. Both views describe the same reality at the same time but the energy transfer of burning provides the head on view a looser coupling in relativistic space and a greater quantum existence laying deeper in bronchial path space. And possibly also requiring a transitory locality in temporal space as the depression of quantum state collapse as traversal across the relativistic space exist as temporal location coordinates represented by fluctuations between relational vector computation entanglement To the Ruliard moving through reality as from quantum to deterministic existence as a parallax of a hyper graph on a temporal hyper sphere equivalent to moving from one location to another location in relativistic space, which describes the same existence we experience. 🤯
From my understanding branches of probability do not cause outcome. The direct path causes the outcome, and all other branches cease to exist. I understand it as choices. If I choose one path. I cannot nor will I ever come to know what any other path will produce. Once I choose a path, the other paths of probability, start also. If I go back to where I started the outcomes have already changed.
I wonder what a multiway graph would look like and play like with sudoku. If tick tack toe has been done now maybe in time we will fast be able to find merges for sudoku the big question would be what if any sort of a big O speed up might be found. 4 by 4 sudoku should be easyish it would be nice to map how computational hardness in sudoku works this might be a good step towards that. One way to view a bit better a quantum environment is to map force with multi sourced vectors basically vector graphs that have multiple vectors coming off each point and you could map the merging and branching of flow using triangular curve maths basically progressing round from one radius length to another radius coming from the same center.
Correct me if I am wrong. Assuming the universe began as one possibility (singularity) that branches into a multi way nodes and Wolfram concept that there is a collapse for each branch then the universe is finite and will end as it began and then begin again. Correct me if I'm wrong... I think the universe is part of a quantum computer processing branchial computations and then collapsing to generate the result to the algorithm being processed. My head is spinning.
The geodesics in GR are related to paths particles in motion will follow through spacetime. I understood the branchial space to be more of a graph of the space within which quantum states exist, with nodes and branches. How does "deflection" impact the informational content of a graph? The path length in a space-time is a quantifiable and measurable thing. Wolfram is saying that the Feynman path integral quantifies the deflection but how do you measure the length in a graph of a state space? Why does it matter?
BrOnchial Space produces Sputum VS. BrAnchial Exponential Dimensional Space produces the Mathematics of Quantum Physics. Stephen Wolfram embodies the coalescence from two distinct Brianchial space tracks of Physics.
So doesnt the fact that two points of light ending up on distant ends of branchial space, given they are not observable in 1,2 or 3 dimensional space lend itself to branchial space being the dominant form by means of physical space simply being another branch?😆 And where do they go? Could this be quantifiable evidence of currently unperceivable dimensions beyond 3D? Can someone clarify for me? Cheers👍
Turns out... I need to listen to the whole thing again... Can't put my finger on the spatial coordinates of Where disentanglement of thought occurs or the branchial nodes of when...
Imagine you can only look at a girl with her noticing. We are affecting the experiments when we observe. We are NOT independent observers. This creates massive problems for objectivity.
We have to come up with a calculous theory in fractional and dynamic space, just because it sounds cool and also impossible because you can't have linear approximations that are vectors or metrices in none integer dimension, just doesn't make sense!
Waitaminute -- I thought that the Young double-slit interference pattern indicated the set of possible outcomes for where the photon lands. Did Wolfram just say that the photon could end up *nowhere*? Could he explain that a little further?
yes, and because it's a claim from derivation it's extremely exciting - hard to refute if gravity *emerges* in both spaces as he describes the model being capable of
"The universe is probably also expanding in branchial space that means the number of quantum state are increasing with time". Pretending like i have a slight idea what this means, I can say this is the first time I have heard one of these science guys allude to "Physics could be changing" which is kinda cool
It's not just a function of the math.... Chaos is increasing -- we see by the shattering cup, that disorder tends to increase. Or by selecting a frame of reference.... At a human scale we actually see things discretely, rather than in some branchial space. Theories don't imply reality, they describe reality.
i have just by myself discovered branch hill space and by accident stumbled on this video. i think my reference frame gets gravitationally attracted towards a greater understanding in branch hill space. for tomorrow i will try to foureir transform the branch hill into physical space to swap reference frame with the other sex because i always follow what appeals to me in the media
Wow so calculus is just a stepping stone to the hopefully eventual discovery of the mathematics of the dynamics of infinitesimal fractional dimensions. Sounds like something that might be able to resolve pi, and maybe even the structure of the voxels of space-time itself.
Was hoping they would show a simulation, for those like myself who have a visual brain snd not so much a mathematical one, there are sone great simulations of quantum fields etc.
To prove they travel as a wave and a predictable one could an interference be inputted on one side to see if the photons emerge only on one side or hit the stop in a different pattern.
Ah, yes. Of course.
Quite. Simple, really.
How could I have been so blind.
Rick and morty said it better smh
Hilarious
Indeed.
UA-cam algorithm saw the trash I’ve been watching and decided I need educating
Okay, so, every time Wolfram says, “okay, so,” we’re about to move in reverse through the branchial space of his explanation of the concept? Okay, so this stuff is easy.
Lex interviewing Wolfram is like Joe Biden interviewing Thomas Jefferson or Ben Franklin. He can barely formulate a sensible question.
I was thinking the exact same thing - I think it is why I love him so much. His physics works exactly like his thinking process, it is a branching, multiway path with leaves and flowers you have to know to get the context, so he keeps jumping. It is fascinating to watch in real time. He gets so excited too! Just such an amazing human.
Always wierd to realise my favourite youtubers watch the same channels as me
HAHAHAHAHA
7:44 my face while "following along"
yes!
Queue the “curb your enthusiasm” theme
Poor Stephen Wolfram, having to do interviews from maximum security prison....
Medium security.
I like how Wolfram is able to finish lex's questions before he gets them out since he is such a slow talker. I think that's a sign of someone with good teaching skills when they can help someone ask the right questions.
I know some of these words
of, the, than, etc.
One of my favorite lines to quote ever , sad how many ppl never get the reference lol
Chris Paige Ya man , it’s just the overall concept of the scene tho and them trying to swindle Ed and get him to sign a contract that hands over his secret recipie and he’s like ‘uh huh ya ok , I know some of these words’. 😂😂🤣😭 priceless
@@ethanharvey4869 Which movie?
Once that middle school explanation is fine tuned, have a crack at a primary school explanation for me
i'll wait for the kindergarten color book version.
lol
This is absolutely amazing!! I’ve seen Stephen Wolfram present his work twice in person and he only briefly mentions these topics. He mostly covers his amazing tool of Mathematica and Wolfram Alpha. He’s truly a genius of our time. Way ahead of his time. I hope he continues to bless us with his knowledge and insight
I’ve never heard of Wolfram before and while I’m very interested in Physics, this concept is very hard to understand. I’ve rewatched parts of this interview and think I’m finally getting a hold of at least the implications of his theory. What he proposes is almost too amazing to believe and I’m REALLY looking forward to delving deeper into his work and seeing it be polished and hopefully evolve into becoming scientific consensus.
@@benjaminhalbeisen9175 it is very difficult to understand and I don't think we will be able to understand it at the level that he does anytime soon. It doesn't hurt to try though ^_^ I am excited for what this blossoms into though. We are really watching a true genius unravel the mysteries of our universe in real time which is amazing.
as someone who is very physical in my understanding of concepts, this made so much sense, best description I have ever heard. amazing theory, well articulated.
I remember critics and academics absolutely panning NKS and trashing Wolfram. At the time I was just diving more into the rigors of cellular automata and began developing a deterministic machine learning algorithm based on CAs.
It seems the institutionos gripping onto string theory and other dead ends for dear life. "...one coffin at a time", and so on
Absolutely fascinating, Wolfram is an exceptional speaker. Thanks!
Is he describing how git works?
No explaining how git works would be more complex.
No one knows how git works.
_“Asked in 1919 whether it was true that only three people in the world understood git, [Arthur Stanley Eddington] allegedly replied: 'Who's the third?'”_
OK now I'm wondering whether the alleged "glitches in the matrix" you hear about are instances of someone exploiting SHA-1 collisions.
@@JuusoAlasuutari
programming humor 🤣
So being in the right place at the right time is probably branchial space merging together from multiple sources
oooh, it makes so much sense now....
Or the wrong place at the wrong time.
Or just holding in place.
Many different simultaneous simulations have taken place for one particular situation to occur.
The fact that the two theories are the same in different types of space is mind blowing. This feels very much like Stephen Wolfram is heading towards the next stage in a unified theory of everything.
That was his goal from the beginning I believe. To explain how the world works.
@@salvationindustries I think that's just being called a physicist
Lex, new shirt looks nice! Keep it going!
Wow. I am a huge fan of Wolfram and I really think he's blazing new ground in physics and our understanding of reality. The fact that he has seen a way that combines GR and Quantum is just amazing!
@Wolfram this matching of path integral and relativity is amazing.
Entropy being the result of our computional handicap is as simple a concept as it is mindblowing.
It makes me happy to know that "lots" of other people enjoy these Lex Fridman videos. Joe and his podcast are both honestly cool, too, but...
As an architect hearing him talk, is sort of describing the new parametric tools used for design such as grasshoppers, where you design with parameters and input branches, the vocabulary is the same, branching, grafting, leaves of data. Our tools and language is changing towards this method of thinking!
Parametric computational modeling is definitely the future of pretty much every field in my opinion, I'm most excited to see it applied in design.
Architecture will become mathematical modeling? Juggling constraints.. code, structural engineering, energy efficiency, human ergonomic design and cost...
I could listen to Stephen Wolfram all day, every day. I can't get enough of this.
As A CD student just getting into Graphs data structures, I think I accidentally jumped in the deep end.
good thing drowning is not fatal, quite the opposite
@@kipkoechkorrir2592 Right! Swim or sink. Choices must be made
He explained it so well, I feel like I can almost grasp it
Amen. I don't understand what Wolfram sees but somehow I feel in my bones that he has the right idea. Keep trying.
When Wolfram pauses and realizes he has to back up a step in explanation reminds me of playing Minecraft when you're trying to make a complicated item, you realize you need x item first, but to make x, you first have to make y machine. Yet to make Y machine, you need a list of sub-components, all of which have their own recipes.
Yes. This the extent of my understanding of this interview.
"We know the universe is expanding in physical space but the universe is also expanding in branchial space as well .. that means the number of quantum states of the universe is increasing with time "... and my head just popped
It's expanding into what?
@@Graeme_Lastname ERROR
@Nicholas Parris What bit is ill defined?
@@saturnianlotus8343 Is it 404, can't find answer?
@@Graeme_Lastnamea topological manifold is under no obligation to be embedded in any higher manifold. For now, if it is expanding, it’s as if it’s expanding into itself - like a mapping F: R -> R. Only vast distances between gravitationally bound objects appear to be growing, possibly indicating a new epoch of a gravitationally dominated universe breaking up into disjoint subsets of gravitationally dominate spaces.
Years from now i predict we will look back on this interview when Wolfram wins a Nobel Prize!
Outstanding job drawing out the exciting details of this unbelievable model !!!
I can't wait until we understand Particles! I predict it will open up whole new types of Particles!
A strong gust of wind hits at around 11:40 and then what falls into the frame at 11:42? I can't work out if there's a massive open window, or they're somehow outdoors...The wind keeps shaking the camera.
It's testimony to how small we've been able to reduce everything to
Waouh...first time I hear a coherent yet understandable link between quantum theory and general relativity !
My girlfriend explaining to me why she's upset.
Lex, can you bring him on again, perhaps for several sessions, organized in such a way that each covers an aspect of what he's doing with the Physics project with a big picture overview first and then outline of each of the chapters that will follow. This will require some organization and discipline on his part as he knows so much he can go anywhere. I suppose this is probably more like a Great Courses format and will need to be explained and simplified for a knowledgable but not expert audience. Just a thought....
Love when something new comes along that can get someone that's been in this business for this long crazy excited.
Note how Wolfram refuses to drift off into tangents no matter how exciting or alluring they are. That's discipline of thought, no rambling but a straight line every time!
Quantum phenomenon is observed to be perfectly random, so if it's true that this indeterminism stems from different sequences of updates, why would the updates be perfectly random? In a computational framework, updates and ordering of those updates are generally not at all random.
The indeterminism is deterministic fractally
I genuinely have had a theory over 30 years thats in line with what hes saying, basically spacetime at its smallest level is a folded over bit of 2.5d, trying to be 2D but failing, and it expresses the extra .5d as an oscillation Like a torus trying to shed surface area
What's Stephen doing in a cell block? SET HIM FREE
It's the asylum for the criminally insane, will stay there until RIP
What ?
@@CaliforniaCarpenter7 it's the set
Press Alt + .
This is so fascinating and beautiful
I'm just glad there exist people in this world that use these words in something that isn't technobabble
What I cannot buy in Wolfram's picture - and this applies to pictures of reality as a "simulation" too - is that time is something metaphysical, something outside and beyond the universe, rather than a physical thing. Reality (he says) evolves in time, rather than containing time.
I don't buy it, philosophically.
Truely brilliant cut of a historic interview !!!
I have always thought that quantum mechanics may be the description of particles interacting on a hyper temporal dimension. These hyper temporal interactions lead to a progression of time that is dynamic rather than linear. Meaning that interactions that occur in the future can affect the past/alter the structure of a branchial plane. This ultimately leads to interactions that can appear impossible from the perspective of our 4 dimensional existence. For example something like quantum entanglement. Due to the transfer of information from the future to the past through a hyper temporal dimension. Apologies if this is complete crap trying to explain an idea I have but quantum mechanics is not my area.
Very inspiring! Steve is the fist mathematician I've heard express the important need to quantify the natural world through fractal computation rather than trying to squeeze it into whole number dimensions. A new fractal number system based on patterns like the Feynman diagrams perhaps? My personal fantasies are for digital signal processing, computer modeling and even solving the n=body problem. Watching very closely... Thanks Lex!
that Stephen guy is doing great work in bringing physics to philosophics
'We need a theory of infinitesimal change in fractional dimensional and dynamic dimensional space.'
Extrapolation from this final statement has got my mind tossing... Like, I'm REALLY stuck on it... Cause I am easily visualizing how this branchial space exists, and even how things move in it. Only thing is, I know I'm no where near educated enough to hold the same conceptual understanding of mathematics as a normal mathematician or physicist, so I can't make the connection of how to even start trying to put together a theory of change in what is essentially 'half' of a dimension. That's not a statement of 'Let us divide the answer by 2'! That's a statement of 'The half from our perspective, is the whole to the half dimension perspective'. Also, is the statement of creating a mathematics in dynamic dimensional space, essentially stating that 1 is both larger, and smaller, than 1? Or is the idea of 1 being an integer at all within dynamic space simply absurd? Also, here's the crazy part... Either way... Fractional or Dynamic, we're speaking about fluctuation in some manner of the value of an intensity. IE - 1/45th Dimensional Space needs mathematics that work in tandem with mathematics from another 1/45th Dimensional Space that has somehow fluctuated to being twice the value (or half the value) of the original 1/45th dimensional space. I mean, I can visualize how it would work so easily, but creating mathematics for it? WTF! SO MANY QUESTIONS!
These two seem even weirder, when you realize that the statement is metaphorically 'Trying to divide the coin in two'.
Fractional space is used in fractals. In a sense, Wolfram’s saying we need a calculus for spaces whose dimensions change continuously with time.
Right now, most people’s intuition about dimensions is a spatial one. I assume yours is too. So what if you can vary the amount of dimensions of a space continuously? Well, one generalization of spatial dimensions to fractional values is the Hausdorff dimension of a fractal. Most fractals don’t live in an integer amount of dimensions, rather in fractional ones.
Here is a list of fractals by their Hausdorff dimensions:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fractals_by_Hausdorff_dimension
Now why does he say this? I think this has something to do with the Hilbert space. Very loosely, the Hilbert space is a space has infinite dimensions but the between any two points is 1. It is used in quantum mechanics to represent probabilities. Why do you need infinite dimensions? Because there are infinite possibilities, and the probabilities of every single one of those must add up to 1.
But since General Relativity only has 4 dimensions, one would need a way to generalize that to infinite dimensions. To be fair, dimensionality’s not the only problem. Quantum Field Theory and General Relativity have the following differences:
In Quantum Field theory spacetime is discrete, whereas spacetime in General Relativity is continuous.
In Quantum Field theory, spacetime is cannot be changed, whereas in General Relativity, spacetime can deform continuously (in fact that’s the whole point)
Quantum Field Theory is all about probabilities, whereas General Relativity is about deformation.
It makes sense that branchial space and exponential dimensions. One thing leads to another, and in a large enough system there's no way you'll arrive at some (identical!) future state by wildly divergent paths.
I mean, most branches will NOT lead to any merging -- the cookie dough will never unmix.
So branchial space is like a space of events connected by causal relationships, and Lagrangians causes deflections of causal relationships.
Holy shit. This breathes new life into 21st century physics...
Causal invariance is a beautiful concept
There is a lot packed into this clip, damn. I don't know which is more impressive: that a new math will likely be on its way soon, or that unifying quantum mechanics with physics seems to be imminent as well.
The full episode is just nuts. I've listened to it while note taking 3 times now - I did not realise I would lose two days to a podcast episode!
Adv. Cal. VII - Integrating in Dynamic Dimensional Space
Pre-Req: Adv. Cal. VI - Fraction Dimensional Calculus
This one was tooo clutch 🔥💯
Arguably, the 'connection' he's identified between QM and GR hasn't been identified beyond the path integral itself, which should not come off as 'surprising' whatsoever, since the path integral is essential to modeling motion in ANY space - be it Hilbert space, branchial space, 2d physical space, or full 4d GR metric space.
😐
@@AWES0MEDEFENDER nam sayin? it's like saying 'i found the link between GR and QM, it's CALCULUS' - wack
if there is the same amount of branching and merging, then how the branch-space expands?
Are you slicing the edges or the vertexes?
This blew my mind
Im gonna watch it again
So what’s the difference between quantum mechanics and ordinary Brownian motion?
A gem! Thank you, Lex and Stephen! I hear rumors that things are no long great. We live in beautiful times. We need only to know where to look. Thank you, gentlemen.
That being said, I have some questions...
0:34 "Quantum physics says there's this whole set of paths of things that might happen and we're just observing some overall probabilities of how those paths works."
So we have quantum particles moving through time into new quantum states. This is graphed. Particle looks like 'this' and has a likelihood of turning into 'that'. This changing of states is visually shown in a multi-wave graph. The "traveling/changing" from one state to the next can be observed? These travelings/chages are the branches and the nodes are the new states? Branchell space is a cut section of these quantum states shifting over time? This cut section of shifting quantum states has lagrangian density and causes deflection of geodesics? ... Does not compute. I should've kept curious in math. If I'd only seen this while in high school. Have Stephen Wolfram on again, Lex!!
19:50 find the beauty in your world. We live in amazing times. Stay curious and stay humble.
I'm going to stare into a fractal zoom for 10 hours now
That was the best clip i may have ever seen on youtube. Thanks lex
Branchial space is perfect for modeling the relationships of facts.
Will it explain why some people don't seem to understand cause and effect but still function?
That was such a great explanation. Thank you for you talk.
With this branchial description of the double slit experiment, is it a stretch to say negative interference is somewhat analogous to the edge of the mandelbrot set, where when a solution cannot be resolved is the defining feature of the phenomenon?
What's it all about?...(a) We have Q in Physical Space. (b) We have Q in Branchial Space.
1.To Note: The Math forms an [Identity]. Q in Physical! Q in Branchial! [Parallels, Motion & Ends to Begin]!
2. How would we look at it? (1) A Person, in Physical Space, is located, in Time, at an [Observed Location]. Got it!
[It's Q in Physical Space]!
3. To the Quik:...Here I am in Physical Space (Q)!...Now, how about [Branchial Space]!
How do I identify with [Q] (me) in [Branchial Space]?
4. Possibilities!...[Q] (me} in [Branchial Space] is a [Possibility]! To Note: However, "Currently" in Time, I'm in [Physical Space]
at an [Observed Location]!
5. To the Key Question:...How does [Physical Space] & [Branchial Space] meet (form an identity) "in terms" of [Distance, Time & Energy]
as well as [Equilibrium & Motion]?... If I may...Please Refer to the [Tic Tac] Incident...You Tube, "The Nimitz Encounters", @23:23 - 23:32.
Please Note::[ Branchial Space] is used as a [Means of Transportation]. i.e. A Person uses a Car to drive from one Location to another.
The [Road or Highway] can be "designated" (identified) as a [Branch or Part] of a [System of Transportation]. Amen.
Good job, Lex! To the Pun!...Do the Math! We have Computers, now! Let me know. Cue: It's not Chaos!
"Then there's Wolfram and his staff who think the world's a hypergraph..."
It explains a lot of things
So nice of him to visit the old man in his cell :D
Mindhunter season 3
Perfect way to think of differences between reality’s spaces is to imagine relativistic space as watching a wick laying on it’s side as it burns. While bronchial space would be watching the wick from head on or from top down, so all you see is the fire burning.
Both views describe the same reality at the same time but the energy transfer of burning provides the head on view a looser coupling in relativistic space and a greater quantum existence laying deeper in bronchial path space. And possibly also requiring a transitory locality in temporal space as the depression of quantum state collapse as traversal across the relativistic space exist as temporal location coordinates represented by fluctuations between relational vector computation entanglement
To the Ruliard moving through reality as from quantum to deterministic existence as a parallax of a hyper graph on a temporal hyper sphere equivalent to moving from one location to another location in relativistic space, which describes the same existence we experience. 🤯
From my understanding branches of probability do not cause outcome. The direct path causes the outcome, and all other branches cease to exist. I understand it as choices. If I choose one path. I cannot nor will I ever come to know what any other path will produce. Once I choose a path, the other paths of probability, start also. If I go back to where I started the outcomes have already changed.
I wonder what a multiway graph would look like and play like with sudoku. If tick tack toe has been done now maybe in time we will fast be able to find merges for sudoku the big question would be what if any sort of a big O speed up might be found. 4 by 4 sudoku should be easyish it would be nice to map how computational hardness in sudoku works this might be a good step towards that. One way to view a bit better a quantum environment is to map force with multi sourced vectors basically vector graphs that have multiple vectors coming off each point and you could map the merging and branching of flow using triangular curve maths basically progressing round from one radius length to another radius coming from the same center.
*This is exactly what I've been trying to tell everyone all along!!*
19:20 how could one formulate the double slit experiment in order to include distant causal branches so that a measurement can be made?
Is it possible to traverse backwards through branchial space?
Correct me if I am wrong. Assuming the universe began as one possibility (singularity) that branches into a multi way nodes and Wolfram concept that there is a collapse for each branch then the universe is finite and will end as it began and then begin again. Correct me if I'm wrong... I think the universe is part of a quantum computer processing branchial computations and then collapsing to generate the result to the algorithm being processed. My head is spinning.
Truly appreciate 🙏 this .
Explanations should never be more complicated than the things they explain.
What do you mean?
The geodesics in GR are related to paths particles in motion will follow through spacetime. I understood the branchial space to be more of a graph of the space within which quantum states exist, with nodes and branches. How does "deflection" impact the informational content of a graph? The path length in a space-time is a quantifiable and measurable thing. Wolfram is saying that the Feynman path integral quantifies the deflection but how do you measure the length in a graph of a state space? Why does it matter?
That is just.... beautiful.
11:39 talking about entropy...
BrOnchial Space produces Sputum VS. BrAnchial Exponential Dimensional Space produces the Mathematics of Quantum Physics.
Stephen Wolfram embodies the coalescence from two distinct Brianchial space tracks of Physics.
So doesnt the fact that two points of light ending up on distant ends of branchial space, given they are not observable in 1,2 or 3 dimensional space lend itself to branchial space being the dominant form by means of physical space simply being another branch?😆
And where do they go? Could this be quantifiable evidence of currently unperceivable dimensions beyond 3D?
Can someone clarify for me?
Cheers👍
Turns out... I need to listen to the whole thing again... Can't put my finger on the spatial coordinates of Where disentanglement of thought occurs or the branchial nodes of when...
Stephen is so passionate about it, I wish he tought me physics in university
Is the "observer" also a graph, or "something else?" The only thing that seems to be "moving" is attention.
the graph of the observer affects the graph of the graph
Imagine you can only look at a girl with her noticing. We are affecting the experiments when we observe. We are NOT independent observers. This creates massive problems for objectivity.
9:03 - Cheeky bugger, I caught you! 😂
We have to come up with a calculous theory in fractional and dynamic space, just because it sounds cool and also impossible because you can't have linear approximations that are vectors or metrices in none integer dimension, just doesn't make sense!
Although... maybe it could be enough, that one might have to invent vector and matrix division 🤔
Waitaminute -- I thought that the Young double-slit interference pattern indicated the set of possible outcomes for where the photon lands.
Did Wolfram just say that the photon could end up *nowhere*? Could he explain that a little further?
Someone give this man a Nobel prize
So, did just claim to have united General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics?
That's a large claim.
yes, and because it's a claim from derivation it's extremely exciting - hard to refute if gravity *emerges* in both spaces as he describes the model being capable of
This blew my mind! 🙏🙏👍👍
"The universe is probably also expanding in branchial space that means the number of quantum state are increasing with time".
Pretending like i have a slight idea what this means, I can say this is the first time I have heard one of these science guys allude to "Physics could be changing" which is kinda cool
so physics is fake? I'll just read religious text then...
This man is a remarkable fountain of knowledge!
This is fucking briliant.
This is just incredible. I don't know if scientific community is ready for that
Wolframs so flattered by Lex picking up on entanglement distance, so cute
It's not just a function of the math....
Chaos is increasing -- we see by the shattering cup, that disorder tends to increase.
Or by selecting a frame of reference....
At a human scale we actually see things discretely, rather than in some branchial space.
Theories don't imply reality, they describe reality.
i have just by myself discovered branch hill space and by accident stumbled on this video. i think my reference frame gets gravitationally attracted towards a greater understanding in branch hill space. for tomorrow i will try to foureir transform the branch hill into physical space to swap reference frame with the other sex because i always follow what appeals to me in the media
I’m considering that my perspective is a “dimension” that is unique to me which is why everything I observe is extremely subjective.
Very interesting!
Wow so calculus is just a stepping stone to the hopefully eventual discovery of the mathematics of the dynamics of infinitesimal fractional dimensions. Sounds like something that might be able to resolve pi, and maybe even the structure of the voxels of space-time itself.
Was hoping they would show a simulation, for those like myself who have a visual brain snd not so much a mathematical one, there are sone great simulations of quantum fields etc.
I'm thinking a git version control graph viewed through a frame, ie transformed by linear algebra.
To prove they travel as a wave and a predictable one could an interference be inputted on one side to see if the photons emerge only on one side or hit the stop in a different pattern.