Harvard Black Hole Initiative: A Surprisingly Promising Approach to a Fundamental Theory of Physics
Вставка
- Опубліковано 4 чер 2024
- Stephen Wolfram delivers a special colloquium to the Harvard Black Hole Initiative center on the Wolfram Physics Project.
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/ - Наука та технологія
"Energy is the communication of activity in the network through time. Momentum is the communication of activity in the network through space. Rest mass ends up being the propensity of activity to not be spread to other parts of the network" ….. mind blown
It really makes me wonder how activity is defined...
@@davidsiriani9586 in this context, "activity" looks to be closely mapped to canonical "events" found in General Relativity. i have found a definition that may be helpful, even if belated. einstein says: "every event is a point in four-dimensional space-time that can be described independently of all conceptual constructions such as vector bases and coordinate systems."
Loved the Demo on entropy and causality by dropping the glass of water.
Omg
Train your neurons wisely.
🤣
A minute and a half into the introduction one guy is 90% off-world, one gentleman is possibly deceased and several others are showing indications of a strong desire to flee.
lol
woah, just found this channel on my recommended subscribed and liked. Loving it!
This guy is on to something. I understand he basically starts with various unified theories (rules) and "grows" universes out of them. Then he compares them with our universe. When he grows one with properties our universe has that could be it!
I like your approach. It's some fresh wind in modern science. Keep the work up!
Stephen is such a human being. Watching this really drives it home. I very much appreciate him.
I wonder if Stephen has read Schild's Ladder. Fascinating stuff here, keep it up!
I love Greg Egan, but that book blew my mind. Maybe I'd understand it better now, 15 years later, but it went WOOOOSH over my head whenever he was talking physics.
Sadly I heard Stephen say that he doesn't read much science fiction when talking to Brian Keeting. "Perhaps to my own detriment" I think he added.
Matter as an expression of topologically stable sub-configurations in the graph reminds me of go eyes.
LOL Turns out our kids will be learning GO to understand the universe!!!!
The people in this video are turely treasures of humanity. They are all brilliant individuals and they all are going to be able to use this..... The power of this connot be understated. There will be many nobel prizes that come from this!!!
Awesome, thanks for sharing!!
Please how can se use to calcúlate simple things like Uniformly accelerated rectilinear motion? How to introduce things like friction in a node model?
Isn't his A -> BBB rule a reinterpretation of the MU puzzle?
It's amazing to see Stephen Wolfram being nervous... What a presentation, best explanation I have witnessed, love it!
Great work!
Interesting stuff! We look onward..
I finally understand in a basic sense the Entanglement horizon as opposed the Causal Horizon!!!! Brilliant)))) The funny thing is computer programmers can solve physics problems with this new language!!!!!!! I also think the black hole work is really exciting for instance how information is preserved in the Entanglement horizon!!! This is picking up momentum! It is amazing to see the speed of this!!!!
if anyone else is also struggling with the interference between the strong EM field around a black hole and zoom virtual background detector:
1. open your zoom setting
2. check 'I have a green screen' under virtual background tab even if you don't
3. manually pick the color of the background
4. make sure your shirt or skin tone isn't too close to the background color you want to filter out
Thx, had quite a few issues filming on 4th Avenue Sagittarius A*. Might be time for a hypercam upgrade
How do I stop things falling into the hole?
Stephen getting better at articulating these concepts 😎 love to see it. A prepared PowerPoint couldve been helpful perhaps
Nah PowerPoints are overestimated.
@@CyberAnalyzer i think so too.him actually showing how to brows for information in his website is pretty useful in imo
1:31 min - DR Wolfram discusses the practical side of the theory))))
Fantastic seminar. I feel Stephen might be on the good track to crack this once and for all. Btw, too much nose picking in the video, not sure if they'll find a singularity there, but if they don't stop I know for sure they'll find a corona!
Good intro for Stephen.
wow, this is an epic lecture
Amazing meetup, history in the making! )
the broken glass of water was a bad omen LOL
@@drumbum7999 No. It just happened to increase entropy _outside_ Stephen in order to build new structure _inside_ his brain.
This is basically reverse doing of algebraic geometry. I think you are speaking with wrong people here. Find some topology people. For physics part, any topological string theorist will have an immediate realization what this is. In any case, this is an interesting way of looking at things.
Was this done with zoom?
Steven crushing it!
Stephen can we get an ELI5 version 🙏
We've been trying to understand physics since the first person threw something and it missed by studying the things we can interact with, like objects in motion, gravity, so on. That gave us a basis, and testing ground (science) to learn. Over a long time, we learned more complex rules, tested them, they work, so and so forth. In that process, we have a whole lot of complex things going on, but none of them seem to be the basis for everything else, to connect them. That doesn't intuitively feel right, and seems to buck against most trends we've observed. All that said, Wolfram believes that we should be using our computing power to not try and work out veryyyyy complex equations to find out if we're right, but should focus on seeking a way to discern the "root rule" of something, namely our entire reality, in an effort to determine the "rule" that exists that created all the other rules that make up our existence.
Not ELI5, but I can also clarify specific points more simply if it'll help.
If you are unfamiliar with the Hypergraph and the computational universe I suggest pause this and go back to videos that explain it....
Pretty cool stuff
this makes so much sense, why would we assume causality is an expression of natural laws instead of vice versa, very clever.
Also, the way he said why the dimension couldn't be a dynamic thing and universe could've started in high dimension and gradually cooled down. demn, i am hoping he does something about the early universe problem as well and starts making some sense.
This will mean more accurate Quantum measurements and breakthroughs in Relativity and many practical applications!!!!
Hey, Good Staff Stephen,
I will contact you soon to give you the "reduced computational rule"
Thank You.
Good luck mate
Watching...
Does this make anyone else think about Conway's game of Life? I loved that game.
You can read Wolfram's "A New Kind of Science" if you enjoy the cellular automata.
Jon Conway's surreal number theory surely has application here? There seems to be parallels.
1:25:22 sums up the philosophy of this journey.
Nah 00:10:05 sums up this whole approach...
Octowuss that was hilarious. The others on camera didn't even blink an eye
Starting here 53:16 watching 10 minutes, then going back to the beginning will probably be of use for some.
Humility axis on the right
This is my second watching just because I wanted to read about the material to try to understand this...
Did it work?
crazy
13:55 That dude picks his nose like a champ
Wow, quite the statement at about 46 minutes: energy is definable as information moving through time and momentum is definable as information moving through space. (I may have jumped the gun calling it information here) I'm not sure if that is a unique statement to these systems or if it comes from quantum information theory but it is interesting.
It seems like there is a general view that the greater the number of free parameters the less likely a theory is to be ultimately true, but making a theory which progressively gets more, distinct, seemingly fundamental properties of the universe is certainly different from adding more gears to a clockwork model that gets progressively more accurate predictions of a phenomenon that is primarily govern by a single law. That does not validate the approach on it's own but it does seem to justify it against the common curve-fitting reproach. It's n-dimensional manifold fitting at worst. :) also, you know, if it may soon have unique testable predictions that's a pretty good sign...
I am quite interested in how a particular kind of particle can have different speeds as it moves, when the cellular automata "gliders" seem to be stuck at one. Is this why you suspect that the type of the particle is (if you forgive the pun) tied to its topology and so can be made with different varieties that work at different speeds? If knot: why a topological invariant instead of something else? Also, your argument that plank units may not be the smallest bits of space because basically the 'bandwidth' required to hold a Plank mass black hole worth of information is mucho grande is completely novel to me. Where then does the Plank length come from, average grain size of regions perhaps or something completely different?
@Andrew C Yep! Unfortunately I was wondering in what way it might be emergent from basic interactions that are potentially much smaller as Wolfram points out they might be. It is a really really nice formula though.
The famous O.G. physicists seemed more excited than the millennial folks for some reason
Victor Perez The millennial Folks there don’t know their _ from their elbow
That guy driving, lol
Information in motion. Emergence of chaotic dynamics. The origins of randomness and irreversibility clusters. They embody the concept and perception of #Time . We are living in a world of non local probabilities clustering which have broken symmetry entangling past and future into our NOWS. I loved this seminar. It is historic and so much emerges from this first one. Together we have the ability to break the disciplinary barriers and try new ways of conceptualizing physics, reality and time on several scales.
MORON
It's kinda Depressing to know some of our species Project Their Own Perceptions of Themself's Onto Others while Never Realising They're Describing Their Self.
And always remember where your towel is at.
"Once you have doubled the amount of knowledge" Now that's a new scientific approach! Geez...
lmao the dude that's on the enterprise bridge
Can any physicist dumb it down what this is about like im 5? Most physicists on reddit think of wolfram as a crackpot but I saw feynman's recommendation letter about wolfram and it seemed as if he was not a crackpot.
Rishabh Kaushik he's not a crackpot, just an old guy that absolutely wants to be the "one" to crack the code. He thinks he's on to something no one else has figured out, but refuses to publish on mainstream outlets because he thinks they are "corrupted" by close mindedness and elitism, and prefers a more open to the public approach. It's unfortunate, because wolfram is a brilliant mind with a successful career and enterprise behind him, but for some reason he seems adamant in wanting to prove something to the world. The problem with his whole theory (which you can read up on his site, it's a lot of pages) is that as a model for the universe makes basically NO predictions, since there are possibly an infinite amount of possible basic rules to choose from. Not to mention, a lot of it is very reminiscent of string theory. Mind you it's still interesting work: it does offer some mathematical insights. But every time he tries to fit one of these graphs to physics he makes some completely arbitrary assumptions, like how space maps directly to the graph; he mentions how various quantum mechanics results map to his graphs, but doesn't explain why or how he got to that conclusion.
@@FunkyDexter Just as with cellular automata systems which are more limited than what this less constrained theory allows for, there will be plenty of observable emergent "behaviours" to base prediction on. This will be possible even by studying rule "universes" other than ours since it already seems there are a good number of general attributes which we could extrapolate and validate experimentally.
What you've got here is innocent fraud. Wolfram has a theory that can predict almost anything given the "right" initial data. Remind you a bit of String/M-Theory? In other words, these are computational systems equivalent to Turing machines, so of course they're gonna give you anything you like with the right inputs, including the putative correct theory of our universe. So all Wolfram has invented is a very ugly and inefficient sort of computer, a kind of practically useless (albeit slightly cool in a nerdy way) UTM.
If only he can find the right Rule right? Then he'd be nerd-god. But chances are (I'm speculating of course) the right Rule will be random and will have as much information content as just describing the entire universe. That'd tell you it is not fundamental physics, it's just paint-by-numbers physics.
Another way of putting it is he is confusing models with laws. The reason we do physics it to discover the laws, to compress what we can know into as few axioms as possible. Models test the laws. Models are not "the laws". If your model is essentially "A Turing Machine" then guess what, you can feed it a particular rule and get any goddamn universe you like, including ours. How is this science?
Remember "Conways game of life"? It came installed on my computer with Windows 95 maybe. Point being it was way back in the day. Anyways there are online versions. Play around with that. This theory is like that. Very simple rules but super complicated stuff can come out of it. Even things that appear to take on a life of it's own like "gliders" from "glider guns."
@@ChangJitsen I always thought GOL would be useful in studying emergent behaviors like consciousness. Never thought it would be used to build a theory of everything.
Cram 40 years in under 2 hours - tough gig. Sorry but some of these academics just don’t get it.,, Wolfram Physics is amazing!
"Mathmatica" sounds like the name of a gladiator who relies on a deep understanding of kinematics to beat his adversaries
lol
How did I get here..
Though isn't the universal reality that there are no true "rest mass" observers since everything is moving relative to some other physical point of everything else universally? One would have to know the base rest frame of the entire universe in order to calculate the correction error factorial to the observational rest mass spacetime point measurement of the observer? If light must obey the speed limit of the background universal rest frame fabric of spacetime, then it should have different observable speed fluctuations at any given observational point in space to non-rest mass observers even though they may errantly claim to be a rest mass observer when they actually aren't? Basically it ends up being a mathematical short-cut (cheat) to maintain long entrusted relativistic theory for observational rest mass point measurements which are hypothetically non-existent. How are black holes visibly existent in the physical universe with measurable boundary regions if their assumed singularities factor to the infinite?
You will have "rest mass" in any inertial reference frame. The non-kinetic mass is made from the Higgs mechanism, binding energy, and maybe some other symmetry breaking in some cases..
21:56 does anyone else see a "brain" pattern? This is extremely interesting
So many people and some aren't even showing their faces. How can you focus?
Shapiro delay joke, incredibly funny! )))))))))
Is this "theory" not just "curve fitting" on a massive scale?
In a computational universe the entirety of Reality is a giant exercise in curve fitting, I think that's kind of the point, isn't it?
Science is basically curve fitting...
@@quoudten No, I don't think so. If our universe is a deterministic computation all science boils down to is finding the initial data and the algorithm. The laws of science in other words. If your model is "A Universal Turing Machine" then you are not doing science, since anything can be obtained in that case. What you'd really want as a scientist is *the particular Turing Machine* running our universe. It would have a special code. It would not compute anything we like. It would be constrained. Finding the constraints is the science. Curve fitting is a method, it is not "the science."
Science is curve fitting lmao
@@barkli2978 experimental design, data collection, dimensionality reduction, even the philosophy behind science all revolve around making concise predictions, and the only concise language we have is mathematics. So it really does boil down to curve fitting.
The universe is a contingency plan
didnt stephen hawking decide he was wrong about black holes ...
10:05 Gravity as another unexpected result
A little nugget of human-ness from the creature making the everything theory
#OpenPhysics
#OpenWolframPhysicsProject
#OpenHarvardPhysics
#OpenBlackHoleInitiative
How can this lead to a fundamental theory of physics? Wolfram has no clue what the entities in his theory refer to in the physical world, this is pure instrumentalism. This isn't to say his work is useless, there are insights and new stuff here, but a fundamental theory of physics? How
Before jumping to conclusions I suggest relaxing and study this from the Hypergraph up so to speak!!!!
@@tarkajedi3331 Wolfram is also a defender of the computational equivalence principle (forgive me If I'm getting the name wrong) stating that any complex physical process in nature cannot be simulated by an arbitrarily less complex computation, which tells us in order to simulate the universe you'd need a universe sized computer - but that goes against the turing principle of the universality pf computation.
swag
Fire this up, intersting topic, but I wonder if it will be all about Wolfram himself as usual... "first a few words about stephen" ok fast forwards 8 minutes to get past that "then in 1987 he" oh well never mind.
how did I get here 😅
I feel the biological mathematic idea
1:30:00
And was watching a video on lie groups yesterday. It's on my youtube history.... Damn this thing I started to think about a while ago really seems big now, again... Kinda scary but pretty thrilling
Category theory anyone?
Yes, I was listening to one of his earlier talks and all I could think was “sounds like category theory in a complicated topos “
Wolfram’s Water Broke.
Kind Regards,
“The Pill”
#PhilosophyOfTimeTravel #TemporalJournal #3767
The problem is that this theory doesn’t have “emerging properties”.. complexity grows but nothing fundamentally changes.. it doesn’t account for anything except if you (the creator) introduce something else to happen.. this is the biggest downfall in my view 🤔🤔🤔🤷🏼♂️🤷🏼♂️🤷🏼♂️
If you consider the emergent "behaviour" in cellular automata (gliders, pulsars, ships, replicators, etc.), a more rigid, but comparable rule transformation approach compared to this theory, you can imagine that similar if not more elaborate emergent properties could arise here. I urge you to download the free Golly application (available for desktop or mobile) and play with various automata/rules. You will be amazed.
it's the complete opposite. This model is strictly about how all things emerge from a simple rule being iterated over and over again like cellular automata. This theory is one of the most beautiful and probably correct theory we have for fundamental emergence.
Harvard Black Hole Initiative?
Hmm,...ok.
GOD SPEED.
BEST Wishes,
The Yellow Brick Road
10:05 these bougie a$$ nerds can't even ask if he's okay? Sorry Prof Wolfram but you are not amongst friends...
True dude
I noticed that as well. I felt terrible for him for a bit. The guy is a genius and a true original thinker.
Sad
@Immanuel Kant loool after the fact
Jemand, der auch nur ein einziges Word glaubt?
Weil er seinen Geist nicht mehr kontrollieren kann,
brabbelt er weiter und weiter und weiter.
Seine Rede ist beeindruckend. Die Graphs, die er
zeigt, erinnern eher an des Kaisers neue Kleider.
Ich kann ja irren.
Verstehst du etwas von Physik, theoretischer Informatik, oder höherer Mathematik? Falls nicht, lässt sich damit deine Einschätzung erklären. Ich konnte dem Vortrag gut bis zum Ende folgen und kann dir versichern, wirres Gebrabbel war das nicht. Im Gegenteil waren seine Erklärungen koherent und auch plausibel.
@@tpog1 Ja, wenn du das verstehst und auch
in den genannten Fachgebieten einen Durchblick
hast, ist es wohl so.
Ich werde warten müssen, bis seine neuen Dinge
von Anderen eine Erklärungsebene verständlicher
präsentiert werden.
Wirklichen Durchblick habe ich nur im mathematischen und theoretisch informatischen Teil, da ich ein mathematischer Grundlagenforscher bin und in den betroffenen Gebieten schon selbst gearbeitet habe. Den physikalischen Aspekt betreffend bin ich bloß ein interessierter Laie. Jedenfalls kann ich dir sagen, dass seine Idee kein vager esoterischer Schwachsinn ist, sondern ein sehr konkretes und plausibles Modell, von dem es mich nicht übermäßig überraschen würde, wenn es die tatsächliche TOE (theory of everything) wäre, welche unser Universum vollständig beschreibt.
@@tpog1 Verstehe.
Nun tpog2103, wie du weist, gibt es in der
Wissenschaftsgeschichte immer wieder
die letztendlichen Modelle der Realität.
Davon abgesehen liebe ich Stephen sehr
und halte ihn für einen der bedeutesten
Genies unserer Zeit.
@@tpog1 In welchem mathematischen und
theoretisch informatischen Teilgebiet arbeitest du?
Was sind das für Fragestellungen, mit denen du
dich als Grundlagenforscher beschäftigst?
Boring introduction
@C Lopez ahah beat me to it.
The intro is necessary to signal that Stephen's ideas should be evaluated by professional physicists purely on merit; this isn't another crazy person spewing wacky ideas (unlike me lol).