A toy model of particles with Jonathan Gorard
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 чер 2024
- In this excerpt from my conversation with Jonathan Gorard, he proposes that particles in Wolfram Physics might be persistent topological obstructions in the hypergraph.
He starts with a toy model in which elementary particles are non-planar tangles moving and interacting in an otherwise planar hypergraph.
But he doesn’t stop there.
He explains that there’s an infinite variety of hypergraphs that give rise to such persistent topological obstructions.
These localized tangles behave in ways that look a lot like particle physics.
-
Jonathan Gorard:
• Jonathan Gorard at The Wolfram Physics Project www.wolframphysics.org/people...
• Jonathan Gorard at Cardiff University www.cardiff.ac.uk/people/view...
• Jonathan Gorard on Twitter / getjonwithit
• The Centre for Applied Compositionality www.appliedcompositionality.com/
• The Wolfram Physics Project www.wolframphysics.org/
Concepts mentioned by Jonathan:
• Utility graph mathworld.wolfram.com/Utility...
• Kuratowski’s theorem en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuratow...
• Wagner’s theorem en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wagner’...
• Complete graphs mathworld.wolfram.com/Complet...
• Complete bipartite graphs mathworld.wolfram.com/Complet...
• Robertson-Seymour Theorem en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roberts...
• Graph minor en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graph_m...
• Forbidden minor characterization en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forbidd...
Image:
• Feynmann Diagram Gluon Radiation by Joel Holdsworth, public domain commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
-
The Last Theory lasttheory.com/ is hosted by Mark Jeffery markjeffery.com/ founder of the Open Web Mind www.openwebmind.com/
Prefer to listen to the audio? Search for The Last Theory in your podcast player, or listen at lasttheory.com/podcast/051-a-...
Kootenay Village Ventures Inc.
Thank Mark, thank you Jonathan makes sense to me.
Honestly, this theory is a whole lot more fleshed out than I thought it would be. Pretty cool.
Yes, thanks again, Darren. They've made more progress at the Wolfram Physics Project than most of us realized.
This is at least the second video in this series that seems to me to have the arrow wrong in a Feynman diagram. At 4:00 it seems to me that the e- and the e+ arrows should BOTH be going to the right, i.e., INTO the interaction that produces an annihilation and yields a gamma ray. With that one correction, the rest seems OK.
And I am one of the very few who do indeed think that there's something to "Wolfram Physics". I think the reason why it has been largely ignored is that Wolfram has alienated so many mainstream physicists. But I think the idea is correct that a “particle” is actually a PROCESS propagating in spacetime, with a wave-like manifestation during propagation and particle-like manifestation when interacting).
But “computational irreducibilty” is indeed a great challenge. Maybe AI will eventually shed some light on this.
Thanks, John, for studying the Feynmann diagram carefully! It's a long time since I studied these diagrams myself, but I got this one from Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feynman_diagram so trusted that it was correct. Perhaps that was foolish?
And yes, relations between Stephen Wolfram and academia haven't been great, have they? Good to hear that you've been interested in the Wolfram model regardless. I'm still not sure myself what to think of particles in Wolfram Physics, let alone their wave-like v particle-like properties. I have much more thinking to do on this!
Thanks for your perspective.
i KNEW there was a reason my city skylines utility pipes are always a mess
Yep! If your utility providers need help, let them know that the solution is a torus en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_utilities_problem#Changing_the_rules
@@lasttheory I saw this on a coffee mug, and yes, to solve it you had to draw a line through the handle.
@@darrennew8211 I want that mug!
@@lasttheory Just google for "three utilities coffee mug" and there's lots of people selling it. :-)
This idea seems similar to Conway’s game of life, where the particles are simply the persistent structures in the cellular automata.
Yes, exactly, thanks Paul. I explore this similarity in my video _What is a particle in Wolfram's universe?_ ua-cam.com/video/x2S2LwXI6GI/v-deo.html
Fantastic content. Again! 🤗
Thanks, as ever! This excerpt came from towards the end of my conversation with Jonathan, when he was afraid he was sounding less coherent. But I don't see that: the extraordinary insights continued to come thick and fast!
Just some more of that sweet engagement 😉
will you also upload the entirety of the interview at some point?
I appreciate the editing work you are putting in but it would also be nice to get this information without having to wait months for the next section
love the channel
Yes, it's taking longer than I thought to get all these excerpts edited and published. I'm about three-quarters of the way there, so not too much longer to wait. Thanks for your patience, and thanks for watching!
I understood a few words here. Awesome.
Yes, I sometimes find myself in the same boat when I talk to Jonathan: I understand a few words, then piece together the deeper meaning later!
can abstraction produce the physical .. that's the part i don't understand
Robertson-Seymour is 20 years old, how's that a Fields? I mean Jon only added "what if these are real particles? it looks like it!" and didn't try to prove anything. "can abstraction produce the physical" - easily! Benben - double negation. Edit: I've deleted the following for the reasons of my safety and no responses. Well, good luck.
Correct, an empty set has no validity. according to Occam's razor the universe is very parsimonious with conceptual constructions; so having an added construction for something that does not exist is is un-parsimonious. @@GEMSofGOD_com
"Can abstraction produce the physical?" is a question that's as old as physics itself!
Our models are _always_ abstractions, whether they're mathematical, e.g. Newton's equations for the paths of the planets around the Sun, or computational, e.g. the Wolfram model.
The fact is, the physical world exists (or, at least, it seems to me to exist!) so it's up to us to make models, however abstract, to describe it.
@@lasttheory Somebody once defined a model as a quantitative metaphor.
@@DeclanMBrennan A quantitative metaphor... I like that!
What I hope some of you are ready to consider for a minute is that your model (or mine, or ours) is not (and shouldn’t be) forced to always mime solely the particles they supposed to represent. Stop being so modest! The model should appear as if it would be a blueprint to all levels of perceived self-containing structures we can scientifically analyze and stereotype: …… -particles - atoms - proteins - … - … - living cells - self-awareness - … Part of the logic in the graphs will show likeness to some part of the logic behind particle physics - chemistry - biology - sociology/spirituality. Once we have a model that gives valid predictions at multiple (hopefully all) levels of the logical formations while we are traveling on the streetcar called size between the terminals called particles and the discoverable universe, we could use that Ultimate Model to design the programming language of everything resulting in the best AI we can have: one that works according to that combined and unified ultimate derivative from the multiple manifestations of intelligence. Which human invention could ever be even compared to that functioning model of everything? We could just run ourselves:)
That's a fascinating way of looking at it! Atoms, proteins, genes, etc. as superparticles. I like it!
awesome shit