Absolutely fantastic episode. For the first time I was actually able to follow Jonathan, albeit on an abstract level. The man is an absolute genius, a great communicator (much better even than Stephen, if I dare say) and I find it amazing how he is downplaying his abilities at the end. A trained mathematicatian, he appears to have fully grasped all relevant physical concepts needed for his research. Thanks again for uploading this!
@@djbabbotstown I'm nearly done editing the conversation with Jonathan and releasing the segments: one or maybe two more to go. Then, yes, I'll put all the segments together release the entire conversation in a single video. Thanks for your patience!
Wolfram still manages and works on development for the Wolfram programming language, especially recently with integrating it with large language models (ai)
@@tinyturtle1898 Yes, absolutely. He's still directly involved in the Physics Project, too. I have no idea where Stephen Wolfram finds the time and energy for all the things he does!
The value of the wolfram phisics is ,this research is looking for a primordial geometric development of the chords, and not the mathematical configuration, the after analysis of the shapes will bring the mathematical relationships
well this answers a question I have had for a long time: "what is the concrete significance of dimensionality?". I always though it just made the data more or less comprehensible, but here he mentions that things occupying a higher dimensional space are more likely to have 'lower density' (longer reaching) connections. Because dimensions literally add degrees of connectedness to the space. in a one dimensional space the only connections are ordered connections: the strength of your connectedness is a function of your distance along this one dimension. If you fold that dimension on itself, you can now connect more strongly across the fold and 'skip' all of the intervening space between what would otherwise be distant places in lower dimensions.
@@lasttheory He for sure seems to chose each word spoken as carefully as possible. I admire his ability to hold so much mathematical context in his mind, and the speed at which he navigates the context is inspiring!
I think the most convincing part of the hypergraph theory comes from a more philosophical angle than a physics perspective. Physics asks "what are the rules that we can observe about the universe around us?", but philosophy asks "Why does the universe even exist at all?" In my view, the hypergraph theory answers this question much more convincingly than any other philosophical framework I've encountered. It says that every production of a consistent system of rules exists, and there is no other way it could be. Since our universe appears to obey a consistent system of rules, every part of our being must therefore be an element produced by a rulial system. Our existence, and the existence of the universe, are as inevitable as the existence of prime numbers and groups. Of course, empirical evidence of phenomena explained before observation first and only by the rulial hypergraph theory would be fascinating. But the theory does not need that to answer philosophical questions that have baffled humanity our entire existence.
Yes, absolutely. I really want to get into this question of _why does the universe exist?_ I'll make a video on it soon. I'm not sure that the Wolfram model answers the question in the way Stephen Wolfram suggests, but it's a fascinating possibility. Thanks for the comment!
Ya man. Totally agree. To me It’s self evident that the universe must be this object because I can run rules. Whether that’s rule 0-255 or this arithmetic operation or a molecule going “turn this molecule into that molecule” There’s a strong philosophical argument for the model, and personally I’d argue for its strong applicability too, in that rules are very general…and you can just make a system using wolfram models, because any system follows rules. For the physics community this isn’t enough but for people in complex systems it is exactly what we needed.
Indeed, what I found philosophically convincing, it's its ontological "scarcity" (for a lack of a better word). For what I know of this theory, there's much more emerging phenomenons than with the standard model, where you needs to postulates elementary particles and all their properties, some physics laws that applies to all of that ... but what "enforces" the laws? or why are the laws applicable to all particles ? Space and times need to be postulated too (apart in fringe theories). Still a lot of things to just "assume", while the trend in physics since the beginning is unification and reduction in "givens". But here ... much less (at least, from what I know).
@@SupGaillac I like that term "ontological scarcity". And I completely agree, the ontology of the Wolfram model is extremely sparse. There's the hypergraph, made of nodes and edges. And there are rules. And that's about it!
"Our existence, and the existence of the universe, are as inevitable as the existence of prime numbers and groups." - That's similar to what I say to non-religious people when they comment about how unlikely their existence is, based on the long sequence of events that led to their creation. If you look at all the past events/conditions that were necessary for you to exist, the chances of it happening seem vanishingly small. If you accept that all things possible exist however, your existence was always inevitable.
It’d be nice if you put the date of the original interview in the description (since I think it was awhile ago), so we can map it to what the state of the project was at the time
He is a better speaker than Wolfram, at least on this topic. Which seemed strange to me until i realized he came to the structure later, so he worked through the same questions as other third parties faaaar more recently than Wolfram, so it makes a lot of sense that he would remember the best ways to internalize these things to explain them to others. Lovely layout of the possible spaces we might look for the effects of a discrete spacetime rather than a continuous one. The "speed limit" of information always felt like it implied such discretion to me, since limits emerge geometrically quite often, and we live in a dimensional spacetime. Does make simulation theory interesting, since an emergent simulation like this would be one of the few experiments that might bring new information to an omniscient being. And discrete properties creating emergent ones..... spooky stuff, cuz that sounds like coding. Of course, that could be the tail shaking the dog. Our computation simply mimicking the structure it is built in out of utility.
Yeah, it almost comes across as tongue-in-cheek self parody by the end of the video. 😊 Fascinating conversation though, and I can appreciate someone who listens rather than chipping in unnecessarily.
Clearly the density and rate of high level abstract ideas is way too dense to digest - for the concepts to be given any tautological inspection and validity. The guy is super switched on and there is way too much trust in his abilities and correct analysis being relied on. On the very plus side the list of references and links is very thorough - so very well done in recovering integrity in that regard. Overall this appears to be a commentary on the evolution of convergence of spacetime to a three dimensionality. Which is interesting but no where near giving any answers to bridging continuity of general relativity into quantum theory - which is required for the solution of the current stalemate.
Yall are DEFINITELY onto something! With enough computing power and ever smarter ai, perhaps will we be able to explore the model space sufficiently deep to find earth itself emerging?
Thanks, Tommy! That seems beyond the realm of possibility to me right now, given how much larger the Earth is than the hypergraph, but who knows what shortcuts AI might find?
😂 exploring and discarding all these different possibilities and their phenomena, the apparatus eventually finds an earth at so specific a granularity that it validates such earth contains the apparatus itself, doing this very experiment 😂
Yes, Stephen Wolfram and Jonathan Gorard have worked closely together. There's a lot of distance between them, though, on a lot of questions. I find their different instincts when it comes to the more philosophical questions, in particular, fascinating.
Guys this was just great. Jonathan distilled an enormous amount of material into digestible chunks - an achievement in itself. In Mathematica everything is a list and maybe the universe is too!! In his recent book on ChatGPT Stephen ruminated about geodesic concepts being involved in what ultimately is a convergence property of the large language models. I think there is room for some very fundamental explanations of the role of dimensionality - a beginner's guide type of thing. Maybe that already exists somewhere.
Thanks, Peter! Yes, Jonathan is really good at explaining these things! And yes, this has really opened my eyes to the role of dimensionality. Not being a mathematician, I'm not sure I'd be the best person to condense this, but I'd certainly like to put together some more videos for beginners on what dimensionality really is.
@@lasttheory That would be good - he rattled off a reference to exponential versus quadratic. It would just mean fleshing that type of thing out. He clearly has it in him !
@@peterhall6656 Yes, that exponential v quadratic comment is a bit cryptic without context! I do cover this one in my trilogy of videos on dimensionality ua-cam.com/play/PLVwcxwu8hWKlSYJ6iwzquLm5rOrykyg8c.html followed by my two videos on measuring the curvature of space ua-cam.com/video/r8vOj4QKUJE/v-deo.html and ua-cam.com/video/Bbuvfh6qTsU/v-deo.html You'll find the crucial equation in that last video: look out for the exponential r^d dimensionality term and the merely quadratic r^2 curvature term. One day I'll pull this all together into a book where everything will be where you can easily find it!
Are you able to do a video where you break down what all these words mean to a layman ! Its unbelievable how I understand every word he says but i understand nothing if im honest, very very impressive human !
If I understand, he's suggesting that we can discard inflation theory if we assume there are infinite dimensions at the the beginning of the universe that then "cool down" to fewer dimensions as the universe expands. As far as I know that hypothesis that has not been mathematically formulated let alone one that makes testable predictions. Good luck getting that idea published in a peer reviewed scientific journal.
Thanks, John. It's just an idea, for now. Well, maybe a little bit more than an idea. Jonathan has worked out the mathematics here, so it's not an unreasonable hypothesis that dimension cooling can explain the early evolution of the universe. And remember, inflation is just a hypothesis, too, and _that_ passed peer review! If the Wolfram model provides a _better_ explanation than the already-accepted theory of inflation, shouldn't we at least be open to it as a possibility?
Question: Why would having more dimensions allow the universe to be in causal contact with itself more quickly when the "curse of dimensionality" in training ML models suggests that the higher dimensions you have, the further apart things get, which makes clustering (a measure of closeness of groups) much more difficult and distances begin to explode?
I'm not familiar with the effects of dimensionality in Machine Learning models, I'm afraid. But in the Wolfram model, if you have a hypergraph that's extremely highly connected, i.e. each node has edges to many, many other nodes, then measuring the dimensionality of that graph will give a very high number → ∞. After the hypergraph evolves further, then it will become less highly connected, i.e. each node will have edges only to a smaller number of local nodes, and measuring the dimensionality of the graph will give a much lower number → 3. For more on measuring the dimensionality of the hypergraph see my trilogy of videos ua-cam.com/video/dqnUpq2guX0/v-deo.html&pp=gAQBiAQB Hope that helps!
In higher dimensionality you lose mathematical properties like association and others so the math changes. I am definitely not an expert in math but I believe that I heard that the changes in algebraic properties such as commutation can be extrapolated to understand physical properties. I hope that this makes sense also… please bear with me as again I am no expert…😊
@@Jadamhodges Thanks Adam! I think that at the level of nodes and edges, the hypergraph doesn't perfectly lend itself to ideas of dimensionality. Later in the evolution of the universe, three-dimensional space _emerges_ from the hypergraph, but earlier, when the hypergraph is more highly connected, sure, we can make sense of that by saying that the hypergraph is higher-dimensional, but it might be better to abandon the concept of fixed-dimensional space. The hypergraph is all there is!
@MikarGibbrosthat seems to imply that in these extra dimensions, information travels at the same speed, though. Do we have any reason we can easily assume that?
Thanks and congratulations for an interesting video - again. Quoting: "Asking if Wolfram Physics can make predictions is the same (or like) asking if Calculus can make predictions." AFAIK, Calculus, in connection with other tools, can be used in different contexts (economics, engineering, biology, chemistry, etc) to make specific predictions. Can Wolfram Physics be used in the same way now? Or is it still on a development stage?
Thanks Rubén! Yes, I think the Wolfram model _can_ be used as a tool in the way you suggest, to get results in physics at least, and other fields too (I need to ask Jonathan more about his progress applying these ideas in other fields). In physics, examples of progress are Jonathan's derivation of Einstein equations, i.e. general relativity, as well as aspects of quantum mechanics, from the hypergraph. There haven't been any verified _new_ predictions yet, though. It's still early days!
@@lasttheory can it really predict einstein's equations of GR? Is it just due to a fine tuning of the theory which, if tuned otherwise, could predict pretty much anything else?
@@ChaineYTXF Good questions. Yes, it really can predict Einstein's equations. And here's the impressive part: no, it's not due to fine tuning. Jonathan Gorard's proof is based on three very believable assumptions, including that rules are casually invariant. So you don't have to fine-tune down to _specific_ rules, and there are no fine-tuning constants involved. It's truly compelling to me that General Relativity just falls out of the hypergraph in this way. Here's Jonathan Gorard on his derivation of General Relativity: ua-cam.com/video/1tjhE0U-mgc/v-deo.html Much more about this to come on this channel!
@@lasttheory I'll watch the video and then read a paper about it. The underlying «graph» part of the theory is what is most mysterious to me. Usually, one builds theories by making direct assumptions on how nature behaves and runs with that ball. I'm really curious as to how graphs (hypergraphs, it seems) fit at the base of the whole enterprise. Thank you very much for the link.
By the way, Wolfram was a (physics) student in the 1970s, not a ‘1st class particle physicist’. There is a huge difference between these groups of people.
Wonderful topic. Cleared up a few misunderstandings for me. Also, the notion of "dimension cooling" is fascinating. I'd be curious to know more about predicted dimension variability, e.g., on what scale would it be detectable.
Thanks! And yes, I'd like to hear about dimension variation too. I've added it to my list of questions for next time I talk to Jonathan, thanks for the prompt!
Excellent video. I have been thinking about the possibility that all physics or nature is fundamentally emerging from pure mathematics or geometry. That the world emerges from some simple fractal like algorithms. But also that all physical causal effects are “calculated” or comes out from mathematical relationships…similar to a computer generated world. If this is the case there might be a certain latency in all physical processes as there must be some “calculations” taking place before it can happen. This latency is most likely ridiculous small but perhaps there is a way to find some latency in some physical process. I think this is what Jonathan alluded to when he talked about entangled particles and the geometric relationships causing certain delays….Am I right?
Yes, that's how Wolfram Physics struck me when I first came across it: I've always wondered whether physics can come out of something like a hypergraph. Your idea of latency is interesting. I tend to think of the computational model not in terms of a computer that performs the computations - see my video _Where's the computer that runs the universe?_ ua-cam.com/video/m6pI9ndsEK8/v-deo.html - but as merely a model. So I wouldn't postulate latency, and more than I'd imagine that it'd take time for a mathematicial performing the calculus required to plot the path of the Earth around the Sun. Where there _is_ a delay in propagating effects through the hypergraph, I think, is in the traditional sense that it takes time for perturbations to work their way through space. Thanks for the comment, I really like responding to interesting perspectives like yours!
"Wolfram physics" is proposing to use certain mathematical tools (graphs, automata...) as the basic tools to formulate physics (formalism). Those are powerful tools that are currently not much used in physics. So, there is much "space" to investigate and potentially much to contribute to Physics itself. "Wolfram physics" also proposes a set of ideas of how to "represent" many physical facts (like space dimensions, or QM superposition etc.) in terms of those mathematical tools (hyper graphs and automata). In a way it is similar to string and M-theories that uses mathematical tools like spaces (and also objects) with higher dimensions and different topologies and other "advanced" mathematical tools (and should not be called "theories" either). I think that "wolfram physics" is promising, but, like in the case of the "string theory", there exist the "trap" of forgetting that this is physics (not mathematics) and that empirically testable (falsifiable!) predictions should be made asap. An exposition of "wolfram physics" should begin by saying how the main concepts in "standard" physics emerge, for it to have some meaning to physicists. It should begin by saying, for instance: how is the spacetime interval defined in terms of the graphs/hypergraph, or how do the "amplitudes of probability" and phases of QM emerge. Does a point of spacetime corresponds to a node in the hypergraph? or does it corresponds to certain graph structures? etc. etc.
I agree with all of that, thanks Pablo. So yes, we should begin with how physics emerges from the Wolfram model. First is General Relativity. I'm working on a series of videos about how it emerges from the hypergraph, but for a more technical overview, see _How to derive general relativity from Wolfram Physics with Jonathan Gorard_ ua-cam.com/video/1tjhE0U-mgc/v-deo.html Next is Quantum Mechanics. This one's more difficult, conceptually, but I'm working on it! Again, for an overview, see _How to derive quantum mechanics from Wolfram Physics with Jonathan Gorard_ ua-cam.com/video/YZhCYLZanEE/v-deo.html Also, there are the basic concepts like mass/energy, space and time. I have a few videos on space already ua-cam.com/play/PLVwcxwu8hWKkVdyXUcRLphco6Ie02OI-3.html but much more to come on these! Hope my channel helps give you what you're looking for!
I don't know how to relate this properly to the video but want to highlight how difficult theoretical could get and the barriers we may have ahead in increasing our understanding: Consider there were intelligent entities emergent from interstellar matter, for who galaxies are like atoms. They've invented galaxy colliders and can collide galaxies and see that other particles (solar systems, or planets) can fly out. Now how could they get from simple understandings/observations of galaxies/planets to understanding that some planets have "life" on them? Perhaps they could create and direct a quasar or something more powerful at a planet with life and somehow look at the image created. Or there may be a ridiculously small probability that some intelligent life evolves to the point it starts manipulating galaxies, and the interstellar entities are lucky enough to be monitoring the one galaxy out of infinitely many and see that the galaxy is behaving weirdly / out of their standard model. The task of hypothesising and testing for these entities is incredibly intimidating and seems practically impossible.
That's a wonderful image, thanks Will! Do you think that maybe we have the same problem? If the scale of the hypergraph is sufficiently small, could intelligent life exist at tiny, tiny scales, unobservable to us?
@@lasttheory For all we know, in the same way that we hypothesise that space *could* be infinite, so *could* the "levels/axis of emergence" (for lack of a better name) within the universe -- or maybe a hyper-graph is at the bottom of these levels. (note, "levels" is a simple descriptor, but emergence happens anywhere with any building blocks so the concept of levels is a bit misleading). I think as long as some level has the possibility to host natural selection of structures then intelligent life can emerge (or maybe there is some other physical process that can lead to life). I imagine that measuring/calculating if a given level of emergence is capable of hosting life could be a science in the future, one variable being the expressivity of the components (e.g. chemistry is extremely expressive). In fact, the notion of trying to measure this feels Wolframian. Besides being able to detect "life" at a given level of emergence, being able to detect the level of emergence itself is the real problem. E.g. for the interstellar beings currently using galaxy colliders, it is hard to conceive that they could jump from a fundamental model at the planetary level, to technology allowing them to see some more fundamental model (perhaps some cryptic model of geology?). We cannot prove that physics will actually allow the interstellar beings to see deeper than their current understanding -- although this is quite pessimistic.
Big fan of John Gorard since i watched his irreducibly vid was one of the most interesting new things ive seen in a while. What he was saying is very similar to what was said by William Sidus in his paper on the irreversibly of the second law of thermodynamics and why such a great point there too.
Amazing talk, in the end Gorard make a reference to Salam, recently i see a video whit Salam, Sciama, Witten and Budinich, that blow my mind, all the best.....
Im late again! Great video, i especially like your banners explaing terms, when Jonathan said discredit- ofcourse I hear discredit and the sound throws me off. Sounds like he's discrediting space time haha. Anyway I was wondering if Stephen Wolfram or Jonathan has even considered going the matter creation path instead of big bang. With a computational model theyre not restricted to a big bang model. I think they are trying to fix something that should be abandoned completely. I have a model- narrative really- that creates the universe from consciouness and time. When the universe first becomes conscious it begins processing- recording around it, and the movement of its attention is recorded as momentum-energy. Conservation of energy is only local, we don't know that particle crearion is not still occuring presently at the expansion horizon, and if the universe collapses at a certain point, it will "erase" what was created so conservation of energy would still prevail. I didn't realize Stephen was going the way of the big bang, and I really can't understand why. I think conventional teaching is hard to break away from. In my opinion, they should forget the big bang and start over.
Thanks Jaime! I'm not sure Jonathan or Stephen are especially attached to the traditional big bang theory. But an early, rapid expansion of space does kind of fall out of the Wolfram model. Take a look at my video _What is the Big Bang in Wolfram's universe?_ ua-cam.com/video/7GmYpKYjssY/v-deo.html for more on this.
This is the first time I've heard about the idea that the universe had a high number of dimensions at the very beginning. Everybody seems to believe in inflation which sounds like a fudge to me EDIT: Gorard is a fantastic speaker, so clear and precise
Yes, that dimensional explanation seems, at first glance, so much neater, doesn't it? The inflation thing was always, as you say, a fudge. And yes, Jonathan's amazing!
@@lasttheory The superstring crowd has for decades talked about space having more than three dimensions but the higher dimensions are curled-up at low energies and therefore we can't see them. Why don't they jump on this?
@@trapkat8213 Good question. I always thought that the idea of curled-up dimensions was a bit of a hack. The Wolfram model idea of the non-integer dimensionality of the hypergraph being extremely high in the early universe and expanding out to our three-dimensional universe seems far more promising. I guess the superstring crowd aren't jumping on this because it comes from such a different set of premises from their own highly mathematical framework.
The calculated predictions in theortical physics have to suffice the dimensions of human thinking, but we are not shure of their validity beyond our concepts, that are located to meta-physics.
interesting commentary. i kinda see your point about it being a *formalism*, but i think that is more a reflection on (1) our technology, and (2) the current level of physics technology. one could argue that that is a kind of *moving the goal posts* on the definition of what a theory is in physics. for example, lets consider a sentient being that humans created inside of a simulated physics system and this being developed science to test its universe. if that being sensed by whatever means the existence of computational operations and objects as the fundamental structure of its universe, would we consider it to be a formalism or would we consider that it is narrowing in on its own theory of everything?
Thanks for the question. By "formalism", I don't think Jonathan means that this is a "model". All physical theories, like the one you propose created by sentient beings inside a simulated physics, are _models_ of reality. And, of course, the Wolfram model is no exception. Rather, by "formalism", I think Jonathan means that it's a framework within which theories may be defined. For example, you could choose _one_ rule of Wolfram physics, and conjecture that applying this one rule to the hypergraph yields our universe. That's a theory. Or you could choose an entire class of rules, such as all causally invariant rules, and conjecture that some combination of these rules yields our universe. That's a _different_ theory. Point is that you can imagine any number of theories within the "formalism" of the Wolfram model.
@@lasttheory thanks for the reply. i think i understood that correctly for the most part but thank you for clarifying. the Ruliad is the broader system to the subsystem that defines our universe, but the Ruliad itself is beyond a formalism, though sufficiently robust to be used as a formalism. the Turing Machine and Lambda Calculus are abstract (logically equivalent) structures which can be used to form a description of a physical system such as our own. however, a literal processing unit is not a formalism. Max Tegmark proposes a Mathematical Universe where the mathematical structures are indistinguishable from physical reality, despite the orders of logic also being capable of forming descriptions of whatever else. idk it might all just be a matter of semantics
Question for Jonathan - has the fine structure constant shown any sign of making sense in Wofram Physics? It's a problem that's bugged me since my undergrad physics course, which was nearly 15 years ago. I would love for some light to be shed on the fine structure constant in my lifetime.
Yes, it would be a real breakthrough if the Wolfram model could shed light on such fundamental constants. I've added it to my list of questions for next time I talk to Jonathan. Thanks!
Thank you so much for these videos Mark, you are doing a great job! One thing I didn't understand from this video, I wonder if you could clarify? Jonathan seems to be saying that theories like Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity are showing to be generic across the whole hypergraph whereas I'm sure I've heard Stephen Wolfram say that the laws of physics are dependant on the observers viewpoint, i.e. the slice you take across branchial space. Or have I misunderstood something (quite likely!)?
Thanks Andy! You're right, Stephen Wolfram thinks that the laws of physics depend on where you are in rulial space, in other words, the rules through the lens of which you look at the universe. What Jonathan has shown is that whole classes of these rules yield Einstein's equations. So in _this_ case, it doesn't matter which specific rule or rules you're looking at the universe throught, they _all_ yield General Relativity. (As long as they're causally invariant, for example.) So I don't think there's any incompatibility between Stephen Wolfram's rulial space and Jonathan's view of General Relativity. Hope that helps!
Being practical... maybe actually understanding the dynamics of space creation on a local level will allow a means to 'get a grip' on it somehow and create the holy grail of propulsion that doesnt need to carry stuff to throw out the back. Johnathon is right, getting experimentalists on board with their focus on 'doing stuff' is definitely neccesary. Until the project can generate novel technology, as fascinating as it is, its a 'who cares' situation. Quantum computers gave quantum physics a LOT of resources to play practical. If you want personel you want technological project orientation because that will attract money. Maybe there is an angle for studying fusion? Energy and propulsion.... that stuff matters.
Yes, I hear you! The trouble with truly fundamental theoretical physics is that it's difficult to know where the technological applications will come from... and possible that there won't be any! It'll be fascinating to see what happens.
Wait a minute. Wasn't inflation proposed in the 60s or 70s, and the mapping of the CMBR done in the late 90s? Therefore it was used as a verification of the model, not an instigator? Edited to add, this was a great interview, I thoroughly enjoyed his explanations. The above is just a minor quibble.
Right, yes, thanks Brendan. I think inflation theory was developed in the late 70s and early 80s, and the cosmic microwave background was first discovered in 1965, though yes, that map is much later, from the 2000s. So I confess I'm not sure of the chronology. Either way, the CBR data can be seen as a test of any theory of the early universe, and, with any luck, will be able to distinguish between the inflation theory and hypergraph theories. In particular, if inflation theory needs to be carefully tuned to match the data, but the hypergraph theory does not, that'd be pretty compelling! Thanks for the feedback, and sorry that I don't have a definitive answer.
CMB was serendipitous discovered in '65 by Wilson and Penzias, who took the Nobel for. They were looking for something else, pigeon poop, to quote Taleb. Other teams, who specifically were searching for the first glow weren't so lucky. Inflation theory shows up in '80.
Thanks, Andrew. Jonathan's working on the math and I'm working on creating simple videos to explain the Wolfram model. Is there anything specifically you'd like to see flushed out?
In light of Jonathan's comment that the Wolfram Physics Project is a formalism (and not a theory), is your channel name perhaps due for a change? ;) Thank you for all your great work!
Good question! But the explicit aim of the Wolfram Physics Project _is_ to find a theory - the book's called "A Project to Find the Fundamental Theory of Physics". Jonathan's right, of course, that what we have now is a framework, a broad class of models. But I'm optimistic that somewhere in that framework is the last theory!
@@lasttheory Ah! That being said, do you think that the true last theory (of physics) would be embedded in a “limiting metatheory” (in the metalogical sense)?
@@Self-Duality That's a truly meta question! I'd say that _any_ theory could be said to be within the bounds of a limiting metatheory. Take Newton's inverse square law of gravitation, for example; it's a theory within the bounds of the metatheory that forces between entities must vary with the distance between the entities, whether with the inverse square of the distance or any other function of the distance. Or am I misunderstanding you?
Spectacular! Don't keep us in suspense, Steve... which one came true? Did Schrödinger's cat live or die? And how did you collapse the fortune cookie wavefunction?
@@lasttheory you fool! the wave function didn't collapse. the cookie is in an intersection of two universes. everything and everyone who interacts with it, gets entangled and becomes part of the intersection. steverobbins4872 was already lost when he posted the comment. when you interacted with his comment, you became part of it too. Now it's practically unstoppable. we will live in a universe with two realities.
he would be really cool to talk too.... could ask so many questions.. haha i love learning from the brilliant minds of academia and the like.@@lasttheory
what is dimensionality in practice in relation to dynamics? effectively what you are saying is equivalent to space being in equilibrium in many more ways, interacting in many more ways non locally by any definition of locality such as one would assume according to special relativity in 3 +1 dimensions. there are many roads to rome, entanglement viewed as just long range liberalizations and interactions does exactly the same thing.
Yes, it's interesting to speculate what might be the role of long edges. Non-locality is baked into the Wolfram model on a small scale; though, of course, non-locality seems rare in our universe on a large scale. Much to dig into here.
That's great to hear. We should leverage technology as it allows when we can. I look forward to my study of Physics. Something I've been lacking in for some time. Thank You for the video! ah gawd I'm in for aren't I ? lol
Sorry if there's an issue with the video here. It was getting late in my conversation with Jonathan, and there was less light his end, so he's a bit more blurry than in earlier excerpts from our conversation. Thanks for the feedback!
It seems impossible on its face that you could ever get quantum nonlocality out of cellular automata, which are completely local, regardless of how many dimensions you are in. Similarly, how could this formalism ever give you collapse of the wave function? Am I missing something?
Good questions, thanks Mike. With one-dimensional cellular automata, you're right, everything is local. But with hypergraphs, non-locality is possible by default. Most edges between nodes in a hypergraph will likely be local, i.e. connect nodes extremely close together in physical space. But there's no reason why there can't also be non-local edges, i.e. between nodes that are distant in physical space. Your question about the collapse of the wavefunction is more difficult to answer. Arguably, we wouldn't _want_ a new theory of physics to reproduce the collapse of the wavefunction, since it's among the least defensible aspects of quantum mechanics (what exactly collapses the wavefunction? observers? conscious observers? anything large? we have no good answer to this question). But for sure, there will need to be some account of how large-scale observers like ourselves make sense of the branching multiway graph, one that takes into account that we, too, are branching. We're not there yet, but it's one of the most fascinating aspects of Wolfram Physics, one that I'll be digging into deeply in future videos.
The complaint I have heard concerning wolfram physics doesn’t mage predictions. I appreciate these arguments but I must confess that until we see some exponential result, much like string theory, these are just fun ideas to enjoy and play with rather than anything real.
Thanks Daniel. Isn't that true of _all_ ideas in physics, though, that they're just fun ideas at first? And if we dismiss these fun ideas because they don't _yet_ make predictions, won't we dismiss _all_ new ideas, and never make any progress in physics? Take a look at my video _Why scientific theories need not make predictions_ ua-cam.com/video/THLq17wY5nI/v-deo.html for more on this!
@@lasttheory No that isn't the case. We must adhere to the testing requirement. Proposing practically untestable ideas is very different than Gell-Mann's quark! Ex, proposing that all we need is to build a super collider the size of the solar system in order to test is practically not testable. I have a theory, inside a black hole there is a demon which is slowly eating it and makes the consequences of it's actions look exactly like Hawking radiation. All we need to do is wait until the heat death of the universe and they will all pop out! That is a terrible theory, even if it is true.
@@lasttheory I disagree with your characterization. Testing needs to be practical and possible. Dismissal is irrelevant as these ideas are no more real than a Maxwell's demon, until which time they are supported by experiment. Gell Mann didn't believe quarks were real until they were confirmed by experiment.
Ah, then we agree! Absolutely, it must be practical and possible to test a theory. I think that in this video Jonathan has pointed to several practical and possible ways we might test the Wolfram model. So our only disagreement is in the time-frame. I'd give new ideas a chance to mature a little before requiring testable predictions, whereas you seem to want testable predictions immediately. I maintain that in practice, your approach would require that we dismiss _all_ new ideas in physics, which is not, in my mind, conducive to progress!
If I understand Johnathan, he is suggesting that some deep space gravitational lensing instances might be dimensional shift lensing? Could this explain the disparity in apparent center-of-mass divergence in clustered (localized) lensing events in deep space? For example, if you examine some current images of gravitational lensing events, you can clearly and easily protract a center of mass focal point of all visible lensing arcs. Many of these C.O.M. points diverge to multiple different points in a single image where one should assume a common focal point would be detected for a purely gravitational event strong enough to curve light travel in the first place? To my thinking the nearest gravitational mass to the observer should take precedence over all others further away and that is clearly not the case in many of these images.
That's a good question, thanks Merle. I don't have the grounding in either the observations or the theory of gravitational lensing to answer this, but in principle, yes, lensing due to dimensional variations might explain any discrepancies in the data.
@@lasttheory Or maybe even something more simple such as refractive indexes which vary due to undetected baryonic particle densities (which are not dark matter) from region to region which can't yet be determined with current instruments? Think of optical illusions from desert mirages resulting from heated atmosphere which is trillions upon trillions of atmospheric molecules between the observer and the distant object being distorted. You can see the distant object, but the light traveling through the heated atmosphere gets refracted many times before it gets to your eyes. My thinking is that a deep space survey over the span of a decade or more, may reveal alterations in these lensing events which should cancel them out as candidates for gravitational causes. But admittedly, it's just a guess.
If quarks have not been isolated and gluons have not been isolated, how do we know they are not parts of the same thing? The tentacles of an octopus and the body of an octopus are parts of the same creature. Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the constant exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together. Therefore, the gluon is a synthetic particle (zero mass, zero charge) invented to explain the Strong Force. An artificial Christmas tree can hold the ornaments in place, but it is not a real tree. String Theory was not a waste of time, because Geometry is the key to Math and Physics. However, can we describe Standard Model interactions using only one extra spatial dimension? What did some of the old clockmakers use to store the energy to power the clock? Was it a string or was it a spring? What if we describe subatomic particles as spatial curvature, instead of trying to describe General Relativity as being mediated by particles? Fixing the Standard Model with more particles is like trying to mend a torn fishing net with small rubber balls, instead of a piece of twisted twine. Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules: “We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct.” Neils Bohr (lecture on a theory of elementary particles given by Wolfgang Pauli in New York, c. 1957-8, in Scientific American vol. 199, no. 3, 1958) The following is meant to be a generalized framework for an extension of Kaluza-Klein Theory. Does it agree with some aspects of the “Twistor Theory” of Roger Penrose, and the work of Eric Weinstein on “Geometric Unity”, and the work of Dr. Lisa Randall on the possibility of one extra spatial dimension? During the early history of mankind, the twisting of fibers was used to produce thread, and this thread was used to produce fabrics. The twist of the thread is locked up within these fabrics. Is matter made up of twisted 3D-4D structures which store spatial curvature that we describe as “particles"? Are the twist cycles the "quanta" of Quantum Mechanics? When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. ( E=hf, More spatial curvature as the frequency increases = more Energy ). What if Quark/Gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks where the tubes are entangled? (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are a part of the quarks. Quarks cannot exist without gluons, and vice-versa. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Charge" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" are logically based on this concept. The Dirac “belt trick” also reveals the concept of twist in the ½ spin of subatomic particles. If each twist cycle is proportional to h, we have identified the source of Quantum Mechanics as a consequence twist cycle geometry. Modern physicists say the Strong Force is mediated by a constant exchange of Gluons. The diagrams produced by some modern physicists actually represent the Strong Force like a spring connecting the two quarks. Asymptotic Freedom acts like real springs. Their drawing is actually more correct than their theory and matches perfectly to what I am saying in this model. You cannot separate the Gluons from the Quarks because they are a part of the same thing. The Quarks are the places where the Gluons are entangled with each other. Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. The twist in the torus can either be Right-Hand or Left-Hand. Some twisted donuts can be larger than others, which can produce three different types of neutrinos. If a twisted tube winds up on one end and unwinds on the other end as it moves through space, this would help explain the “spin” of normal particles, and perhaps also the “Higgs Field”. However, if the end of the twisted tube joins to the other end of the twisted tube forming a twisted torus (neutrino), would this help explain “Parity Symmetry” violation in Beta Decay? Could the conversion of twist cycles to writhe cycles through the process of supercoiling help explain “neutrino oscillations”? Spatial curvature (mass) would be conserved, but the structure could change. ===================== Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons? Does an electron travel through space like a threaded nut traveling down a threaded rod, with each twist cycle proportional to Planck’s Constant? Does it wind up on one end, while unwinding on the other end? Is this related to the Higgs field? Does this help explain the strange ½ spin of many subatomic particles? Does the 720 degree rotation of a 1/2 spin particle require at least one extra dimension? Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons . Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. The production of the torus may help explain the “Symmetry Violation” in Beta Decay, because one end of the broken tube section is connected to the other end of the tube produced, like a snake eating its tail. The phenomenon of Supercoiling involving twist and writhe cycles may reveal how overtwisted quarks can produce these new particles. The conversion of twists into writhes, and vice-versa, is an interesting process, which is also found in DNA molecules. Could the production of multiple writhe cycles help explain the three generations of quarks and neutrinos? If the twist cycles increase, the writhe cycles would also have a tendency to increase. Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves. ( Mass=1/Length ) The “Electric Charge” of electrons or positrons would be the result of one twist cycle being displayed at the 3D-4D surface interface of the particle. The physical entanglement of twisted tubes in quarks within protons and neutrons and mesons displays an overall external surface charge of an integer number. Because the neutrinos do not have open tube ends, (They are a twisted torus.) they have no overall electric charge. Within this model a black hole could represent a quantum of gravity, because it is one cycle of spatial gravitational curvature. Therefore, instead of a graviton being a subatomic particle it could be considered to be a black hole. The overall gravitational attraction would be caused by a very tiny curvature imbalance within atoms. In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137. 1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface 137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted. The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.) How many neutrinos are left over from the Big Bang? They have a small mass, but they could be very large in number. Could this help explain Dark Matter? Why did Paul Dirac use the twist in a belt to help explain particle spin? Is Dirac’s belt trick related to this model? Is the “Quantum” unit based on twist cycles? I started out imagining a subatomic Einstein-Rosen Bridge whose internal surface is twisted with either a Right-Hand twist, or a Left-Hand twist producing a twisted 3D/4D membrane. This topological Soliton model grew out of that simple idea.
I hope Jonathon's involvement with Wolfram physics doesn't limit his future rise up the "normal" academic ladder, if indeed he cares at all about such things. There's a chance he'll forever be labelled as 'that kooky Wolfram guy', instead of the fantastic talent he obviously is.
Yes, I hear you, Philip! I've asked Jonathan about this: wasn't it a risk to get heavily involved in Wolfram Physics rather than play it safer academically? He answered that his prior academic credentials were sound enough that he didn't think it too great a risk. Also, Jonathan's a mathematician more than a physicist, and in mathematics it's OK to explore entirely abstract ideas that may bear no relation to reality. And I very much agree, he's a fantastic talent!
what you really mean, independently of representation is really density of connectivity, dimensionality is not really relevant to that fundamentally, it is something a bit more subtle independently of representation, it is about the character of connectivity that builds up effective causality, the dimensionality of that connectivity can be subtly infinite dimensional even in 3+1 space. the truth to be gotten at is much more general and local dimension or global dimension change, it is something being represented as such, but has features that are all together more general outside simple one level dynamical systems of more or less independent variables.
I have been looking for this for years. I have two theory that I would like to do that I am not capable as a person to be able to come up with and design a and do observation to test with this kind of modeling.
Why should unexpectedly early thermal equilibrium be better explained by higher dimensionality in the early universe? Things are more likely to be in causal contact within small rather than very large dimensional space, no?
It might help to think of it like this. Assuming cartesian coordinates... In a 1-dimensional space (a line), each point is connected to 2 others (the ones either side of it along the line). In a 2-dimensional space (a plane), each point is connected to 4 others (the ones either side of it in the x-direction and the ones either side of it in the y-direction). In a 3-dimensional space like ours, each point is connected to 6 others (the ones either side of it in the x-, y- and z-directions). So you can see that the higher the dimensionality, the greater the connection. Hope that helps, thanks for the question, Christopher!
love this dude -- i both am very bullish on the wolfram physics project and imagine stephen is difficult to work with this man must have incredible strength
"Causal contact" and the related problems motivating inflation in its current form rely on assumptions that themselves seem to me quite mistaken, without getting into this multidimensional theorizing. Yes, we could reach for dimensions here (and that has become a reflex action in theoretical physics), but, once again, the need to do that requires argument, and that argument should take seriously the idea that the quantum-mechanics "problems" with early universe may not be correctly described. There are layers of justification needed before you start explaining why we need these extra dimensions that wind up disappearing as the universe cools. Yes, an explanation that does this can be built, theoretically, but we need to exercise restraint with our construction of formal entities for the sake of describing what we experience where simpler explanations may do the job with less artifice. I need not rehash the Ptolemy example to make this point - but it is important to recognize there are arbitrarily many ways to predict comparably accurately the same phenomena. They are not all equally compelling explanations, even when they work, and we have experience in science of picking the wrong explanations and even the wrong methods.
Yes, I shared your skepticism about dimensions for a long time: physicists do seem to be rather trigger-happy on increasing the numbers of dimensions. What's different _this_ time is that dimensions _emerge_ from the Wolfram model, rather than being posited as an expedient. The hypergraph really is extraordinarily simple: it's just nodes and edges, with rules. That's it. So this is less proposing infinite dimensions for the sake of it, more, well, space itself emerging from the model, initially higher dimensional, eventually three dimensional. I hope this helps overcome your skepticism enough to take a closer look at the Wolfram model!
@@lasttheory @@lasttheory @@lasttheory when I hear about any new or newish ideas in mathematical physics@@lasttheoryconceptual @@lasttheoryWhat is the argument, what motivates us to do this work? @@lasttheoryas you say, @@lasttheory and rules. It@@lasttheory. T@@lasttheoryin which@@lasttheory (perhaps another mechanism might replace the work, for example, done by the infinite dimensions, given the right adjustments)@@lasttheory at the time? Do we have other avenues that do not require infinite dimensions within our own universe that then congeal and combine over time somehow? Even if we require reconceptualizations of certain aspects of physics to understand our universe (and others), and I think we do, we need to be clear on what compels us to take one path rather than another, and what fantastical implications we are prepared to accept in a theory and its preferred model (or model and and its preferred theory). I don't say this to be difficult, just to say generally what kinds of things I think such a model needs to have among its background considerations. Too often in modern physics, we find ourselves in such a rush to get to our mathematical models, and to justify those models, that we frame, motivate, and think through the implications of both the phenomena and our choices poorly and pursue dead-end theories for years. It has happened too many times in recent decades, and to extremely smart people. It is important to slow down sometimes and to think less analytically and more synthetically, which is not always what physics trains us to do. For my part (a person who is long-term sick for a living, not doing new work on anything anymore), I need to go back to watch some of the videos in this series that I missed. Thanks for putting them up - and to your guest(s) for participating.
How does fractions of dimensions work, like the 3.01D mentioned as an example? Is it a region of space where a number of the nodes have an higher number of connections, to make the average dimensionality slightly higher than 3? Gravity becomes weaker in higher dimensional space, hence the claim of exponential gravity, a rolloff in strength of gravity from objects faster than the inverse square law. That would mean the angular size of an Einstein ring would be larger than the theoretical with a run of the mill curvature calculation? That is opposite of what Dark Matter does? what about angular speed of galaxies? We need dark matter to explain why they don't fly apart. Slightly higher dimensional space would make it even harder for galaxies to keep together? What am I not getting here?
Good questions. Fractional dimensions aren't just averages, e.g. of 3- and 4-dimensional space. Rather, because, in the Wolfram model, the hypergraph _is_ space, and the hypergraph is not a completely regular grid (e.g. a 3-dimensional grid or a 4-dimensional grid), but a more chaotic web of nodes and edges, you can have space that really _is_ 3.01-dimensional. What does that mean? Take a look at my trilogy of videos on the dimensionality of the universe ua-cam.com/play/PLVwcxwu8hWKlSYJ6iwzquLm5rOrykyg8c.html for more on this. Wolfram Physics has no answer to the questions of dark matter yet, but it's possible that the problem is not missing matter so much as incorrect theories. There's a lot to work out in the Wolfram model before we can say! Thanks for the questions!
@@lasttheory Thank you, and that alot for your proper answer. I will follow your links. I'm captivated by this, and consider it a continuation of the Ideas of entangled spacetime from 20 years ago, but then there was no math whatsoever to work on.
I have now watched your 3 videos on how fractional dimensions work in Wolfram graphs and they were excellent and made the case for how it can work. However your guest in this video is obviously (to me) at 7:06 is talking about possibly proving node space through discrepancies in measurements of gravitational lensing, which has been found but ascribed to dark matter. In that case he must be talking about local space bubbles with slightly fewer than 3 dimensions, where gravity lingers further out, which would work nicely with galaxies too, so he possible just misspoke, when talking about exponential strength of gravity? He pitches it only as an idea though, he isn't trying to argue that it would be sure proof or even how it would look different from Dark Matter, which is fair at this stage of the theory.
@@Tore_Lund Right, yes, that's a good summary of where we are. This _is_ just an idea right now, and we'll see if the Wolfram model is able to yield firmer, testable predictions. What Jonathan meant by comparing dimensional lensing to gravitational lensing is that the dimensional lensing would vary _differently_ with the amount of dimensional variation (there's a term that's raised to the power of the number of dimensions) from the gravitational lensing (which merely contributes a quadratic term). So the dimensional lensing would be a bigger effect, which we might be able to distinguish from mere gravitational lensing. Thanks for taking the time to dig into this!
@@lasttheory Obviously, I love promising theories I didn't know about! Yes the question is how different and in what way, good questions. I'm generally excited about this. I also have an itch that this can encompass the absolutes in general relativity! Thank you, it was a nice chat.
Thanks for asking, Tim! Briefly, the Wolfram model imagines the universe as a hypergraph: a web of nodes and edges that make up all space and matter. Rules are applied to the hypergraph to evolve it over time. I realize that all sounds a bit abstract, so take a look at some of my earlier videos to get a better idea of what this looks like. A good place to start is with my playlist _Nodes, edges, graphs & rules: the basic concepts of Wolfram Physics_ ua-cam.com/play/PLVwcxwu8hWKnCIn_SXq8myTf2JH6ee83U.html I have many more videos on this channel that go into detail. If I had to give just a couple of major differences with the standard model, it'd be: • the Wolfram model is computational rather than mathematical; • space and time are discrete, not continous; • general relativity and quantum mechanics emerge from the model, instead of being separate theories. Enjoy!
Do you mean two _disconnected_ regions? If so, the answer is that regions with no edges between them can't be said to have relative positions in physical space. I could render one completely encompassing the other in a visualization of the hypergraph, but that's just a visualization. Without edges to create connections between parts of one region and parts of the other, there's no way to say that they have _any_ kind of relative positions in physical space.
why would the cosmic background radiation NOT be effected physically such as being "smoothed out" during expansion? It exists physically on the edges of the universe now where it was once occupying the original volume immediately after the big bang and then it would have undergone changes as it was physically stretched out and pushed outward throughout what became spacetime (is this inacurate description?) what Im saying is wouldnt certainly be effected during expansion period or is it something that can fundamentally stay the same while existing on the outside of the bubble of all the the properties that objects that occupy spacetime occur such as deformation or temperature changes due to forces exerted on it?(please let me know anything Im wrong about here, I am in no way shape or form a scientist)
These are good questions, thanks! I don't have a background in cosmology, but I'll do my best to answer. First, it's a genuine puzzle as to why the cosmic microwave background isn't uniform. If the laws of physics were the same everywhere in the early universe, then why isn't the cosmic microwave background the same everywhere? What broke the symmetry? It's possible that Wolfram Physics, with its fundamentally discrete model, might one day shed light on this. Second, when we're observing the cosmic microwave background, we're not looking a the early universe pushed out around us. Rather, we're looking _back in time_ to how things would have been _everywhere_ in the early universe. That's because we're looking billions of light years away, which means, given that light takes such a long time to get from there to here, that we're seeing these regions of the universe as they were billions of years ago. Hope that helps!
@@lasttheory it does and it doesn't. but that's not due to any issues in your description/response of course, its just physics, sometimes hard for mere mortals to conceive! haha I am now certainly going to look more into Wolfram Physics. I will admit to being both a huge fan and major skeptic of his (even own a copy of "a new kind of science"! owing to the fact that Im a big fan of complexity theory and some time "experimenter" with wolfram Alpha) this video and the others of your channel I have now perused have now convinced me to learn more about it, thanks for the answer and the great content!
A big thing is the mixing interfaces between gravitation that causes lensing in the worst case has a strength to maintain that. You could image such an interface on gravitation exiting the core of a galaxy and incoming from the surrounding though its effects may not be visible. If pressure develops internally the arms would be path of least resistance and would link them to the body of the galaxy through common background. If that interface has any strength, it could be the thing keeping galaxies arms in sync with the central rotation. Also 2 black holes or galaxies passing each other connect with common background bridge because that also is a path of least resistance for pressure in the galaxy vs the intergalactic background. If that pathway has strength, it could direct motion and increase that possibility of collision against going in orbit around a center like most stars seem to do when they meet. This would increase the likelihood of collisions vs much slower spiraling into each other. Last, cosmic string may share this common background and transition to outer space with some level of strength that holds them together and enough link up you end up with billion light year wings led together with common background glue.
For the most part, yes, just like in General Relativity. But (and this is what makes your question such a good one), the hypergraph allows for non-local edges between distant regions of space. So there's no reason why matter, which causes local distortions in the hypergraph, effectively causing the curvature of space-time, might not also have non-local effects.
What would a dimension perturbation behave like? How to imagine it? Is it like some bounded volume of 3d space has inside it something of higher dimension ? Is that even possible, topologically?
Good questions, Paul. If the hypergraph is a regular cubic grid, then yes, it's quite difficult to imagine a dimension perturbation. But I suspect it's much messier than that: an irregular hypergraph of nodes and edges that's three-dimensional only on a large scale. So the variations from three dimensions on a small scale would be regions of this irregular hypergraph where the tangles of nodes and edges form a 2.99-dimensional space or a 3.01-dimensional space. Indeed, if the hypergraph is irregular like this, it would be astonishing if there _weren't_ local variations in dimension. So yes, it's possible topologically. The key here is to remember that the hypergraph _is_ space, so it can have _any_ topology. It's _not_ embedded _in_ three-dimensional space, it _is_ three-dimensional space. Take a look at my video _What are dimensions in Wolfram's universe?__ ua-cam.com/video/u2eqBOSOdeg/v-deo.html for pictures of regular grids versus irregular hypergraphs. Thanks for the question!
I don't know how the graviton would fit into the Wolfram model. My suspicion is that it's all just perturbations in the hypergraph, some of which might be interpreted as gravity waves, or gravity particles, to use the current paradigm. But maybe the hypergraph underlies each of these interpretations?
Yes, the nodes and edges can be thought of as a computational model, as you say. But the hypergraph _does_ represent physical phenomena, such as space and matter. So it's as real as, say, the space-time of General Relativity or the particles of the Standard Model. Hope that makes sense!
@@lasttheory there is different spacetime geometries emerge, some are stable and form angular momentum, while some states broke down and form static flow, which become gradent flow. These become corpus or skeleton formation we call superclusters
@@lasttheory there is no dimensional dissipation, spacetime geometry is a composite of flow generation of 1,2,3 spatial dimensional. For instance you see earth as a spherical object but you walk on a surface. Imagine a light ray, which get deformed in different angle, now add bunch of them and all deform differently, they converge and create projective hilbert spaces. They are mirror and infinite dimensional, but reduce to finite dimensional based on if the generators break down or able to form orbits. You can also think spacetime as a photon crystal with imperfection of geometry but act as a lense
I've long believed that the world is three-dimensional because that is the lowest number of dimensions in which you get a transient random walk. So if you're trying to minimize dimensions while still have complexity and possibility for chaotic inflation you need that transient random walk
Yes, it's difficult to imagine a world with conscious beings in fewer than three dimensions. Stephen Wolfram might go one step further and suggest that our _perception_ is of a three-dimensional world because that's the kind of world that our conscious minds can comprehend.
I feel like the channel's title "The Last Theory" is exactly one of the things Gorard complained about. Deceitful PR that implies it's an actual physical theory, when in fact it's a formalism
Right, yes, Wolfram Physics isn't a theory... _yet._ You're right, it's currently a formalism, and the Wolfram Physics Project is described by Stephen Wolfram as "An Approach to the Fundamental Theory of Physics". But Stephen, Jonathan and I all hope that this framework will _eventually_ produce what might be the _last_ theory of physics. So yes, the title of my channel is aspirational, but it's not PR (this is just me doing my best to understand these things!) and it's not deceitful. It seems to me a good name: the last theory is what physicists have been looking for since physics began!
I certainly hope it's not like String Theory! And it's very different, in this way. Yes, there's an infinite number of possible rules, but neither Stephen Wolfram nor Jonathan Gorard thinks that finding the right theory is a matter of finding the right rule. Both think that the theory is likely to involve a _class_ of rules, such as causally invariant rules, or even all possible rules. And there _aren't_ the same kinds of parameters in Wolfram Physics as there are in String Theory. There are no numbers to tune to get General Relativity out of the hypergraph. It just comes out. If it hadn't come out, no tuning of numbers could have _made_ it come out. Hope that helps convince you that this is absolutely not like String Theory!
@@lasttheory I'll need to look at the theory more to really digest the answer. But I'm happy to hear that the authors are aware of 'parameter overfitting' trap and try to avoid it.
or maybe i should say, string theory paramaterizes an infinite class of theories using one parameter? the infinite class of theories does pose a challenge. but the number of parameters is low.
@@nmarbletoe8210 Thanks for the pushback! If I understand correctly, yes, it can be said that there is only one parameter in String Theory, but once you start rolling up the extra dimensions, well, there are many different ways of doing that. So in effect there are many parameters. Let me know if I'm wrong about this!
Yes, you're right, there are theories that assume space has dimensions, and postulates that it had a higher number of dimensions early in the universe, and that some of these curled up later in the universe. The Wolfram model is very different, though. It doesn't _assume_ space with any number of dimensions. Instead, space _emerges_ from the hypergraph. That makes dimensionality an emergent property, that doesn't even need to have an integer value. I think that makes it a much more promising and much less arbitrary framework than those earlier let's-assume-there-are-9-dimensions kinds of theory!
That's what string theory people said not enough people. John you only need 1 to have an idea it's the idea that's most important not the numbers. Think about that. Great video.
are longer than they would be if light was traveling in a vacuum. Thus parts of the universe that appear to be not causally connected actually are. Gravitational cosmic background radiation can explain not only the non-uniform expansion of the universe but also dark matter.
Thanks Munawar. I wonder how this kind of theory might be modelled by the hypergraph of the Wolfram model? It might fit really nicely, since the hypergraph _is_ space, so highly-stressed space might be modelled by a highly-connected hypergraph.
Wow, that's a big question! According to the Wolfram model, reality is a hypergraph of nodes and edges. This hypergraph, which evolves over time, _is_ space, along with everything in it. Is that the answer you were looking for?
@@musicsubicandcebu1774 The logic's in the _rules_ that evolve the hypergraph over time. If you're interested in the fundamentals, take a look at this playlist of some of my earlier videos: ua-cam.com/play/PLVwcxwu8hWKnCIn_SXq8myTf2JH6ee83U.html Thanks for the comments!
Absolutely fantastic episode. For the first time I was actually able to follow Jonathan, albeit on an abstract level. The man is an absolute genius, a great communicator (much better even than Stephen, if I dare say) and I find it amazing how he is downplaying his abilities at the end. A trained mathematicatian, he appears to have fully grasped all relevant physical concepts needed for his research. Thanks again for uploading this!
Yes, I completely agree! Thanks for the feedback!
@@lasttheory Have you and/or Jonathan Gorard studied Milgrom's MOND & MOND's successful predictions?
@@DavidBrown-om8cv MOND has been ruled out recently.
Gorard is the unsung engine of this project. Wolfram is doing philosophy and marketing more than physics at this point. But Gorard is the real deal
Yes, Jonathan's done a lot of the important mathematics that links the Wolfram model to reality. The real deal indeed.
@@lasttheory
Is there a long form of this?
@@djbabbotstown I'm nearly done editing the conversation with Jonathan and releasing the segments: one or maybe two more to go. Then, yes, I'll put all the segments together release the entire conversation in a single video. Thanks for your patience!
Wolfram still manages and works on development for the Wolfram programming language, especially recently with integrating it with large language models (ai)
@@tinyturtle1898 Yes, absolutely. He's still directly involved in the Physics Project, too. I have no idea where Stephen Wolfram finds the time and energy for all the things he does!
The value of the wolfram phisics is ,this research is looking for a primordial geometric development of the chords, and not the mathematical configuration, the after analysis of the shapes will bring the mathematical relationships
well this answers a question I have had for a long time: "what is the concrete significance of dimensionality?". I always though it just made the data more or less comprehensible, but here he mentions that things occupying a higher dimensional space are more likely to have 'lower density' (longer reaching) connections. Because dimensions literally add degrees of connectedness to the space. in a one dimensional space the only connections are ordered connections: the strength of your connectedness is a function of your distance along this one dimension. If you fold that dimension on itself, you can now connect more strongly across the fold and 'skip' all of the intervening space between what would otherwise be distant places in lower dimensions.
Yes, exactly. I find it compelling that space itself - including the dimensionality of that space - _emerges_ from the hypergraph.
That's just one way of formalizing interactions. It tells us nothing about what's actually happening.
Wow, this is one of my favorite videos yet! Thank you so much for sharing!
Thanks! I'm always amazed at how much insight Jonathan fits into every sentence!
@@lasttheory He for sure seems to chose each word spoken as carefully as possible. I admire his ability to hold so much mathematical context in his mind, and the speed at which he navigates the context is inspiring!
I think the most convincing part of the hypergraph theory comes from a more philosophical angle than a physics perspective. Physics asks "what are the rules that we can observe about the universe around us?", but philosophy asks "Why does the universe even exist at all?"
In my view, the hypergraph theory answers this question much more convincingly than any other philosophical framework I've encountered. It says that every production of a consistent system of rules exists, and there is no other way it could be. Since our universe appears to obey a consistent system of rules, every part of our being must therefore be an element produced by a rulial system. Our existence, and the existence of the universe, are as inevitable as the existence of prime numbers and groups.
Of course, empirical evidence of phenomena explained before observation first and only by the rulial hypergraph theory would be fascinating. But the theory does not need that to answer philosophical questions that have baffled humanity our entire existence.
Yes, absolutely. I really want to get into this question of _why does the universe exist?_ I'll make a video on it soon. I'm not sure that the Wolfram model answers the question in the way Stephen Wolfram suggests, but it's a fascinating possibility. Thanks for the comment!
Ya man. Totally agree. To me It’s self evident that the universe must be this object because I can run rules. Whether that’s rule 0-255 or this arithmetic operation or a molecule going “turn this molecule into that molecule”
There’s a strong philosophical argument for the model, and personally I’d argue for its strong applicability too, in that rules are very general…and you can just make a system using wolfram models, because any system follows rules.
For the physics community this isn’t enough but for people in complex systems it is exactly what we needed.
Indeed, what I found philosophically convincing, it's its ontological "scarcity" (for a lack of a better word).
For what I know of this theory, there's much more emerging phenomenons than with the standard model, where you needs to postulates elementary particles and all their properties, some physics laws that applies to all of that ... but what "enforces" the laws? or why are the laws applicable to all particles ? Space and times need to be postulated too (apart in fringe theories). Still a lot of things to just "assume", while the trend in physics since the beginning is unification and reduction in "givens".
But here ... much less (at least, from what I know).
@@SupGaillac I like that term "ontological scarcity". And I completely agree, the ontology of the Wolfram model is extremely sparse. There's the hypergraph, made of nodes and edges. And there are rules. And that's about it!
"Our existence, and the existence of the universe, are as inevitable as the existence of prime numbers and groups."
- That's similar to what I say to non-religious people when they comment about how unlikely their existence is, based on the long sequence of events that led to their creation.
If you look at all the past events/conditions that were necessary for you to exist, the chances of it happening seem vanishingly small.
If you accept that all things possible exist however, your existence was always inevitable.
I appreciate these videos so much. Thanks to both of you for keeping this going!!
Will do! I'm nearly at the end of my first conversation with Jonathan, but I'll see if I can get him back for another one soon!
It’d be nice if you put the date of the original interview in the description (since I think it was awhile ago), so we can map it to what the state of the project was at the time
Yes, thanks for the suggestion Liam, it _was_ a while ago now: October 19, 2022. I'm hoping to have a more up-to-date conversation with Jonathan soon!
I agree on time stamping even though this is my first time listening and watching
@@lisamuir8850 Thanks Lisa, again, good to hear your feedback!
He is a better speaker than Wolfram, at least on this topic. Which seemed strange to me until i realized he came to the structure later, so he worked through the same questions as other third parties faaaar more recently than Wolfram, so it makes a lot of sense that he would remember the best ways to internalize these things to explain them to others. Lovely layout of the possible spaces we might look for the effects of a discrete spacetime rather than a continuous one. The "speed limit" of information always felt like it implied such discretion to me, since limits emerge geometrically quite often, and we live in a dimensional spacetime.
Does make simulation theory interesting, since an emergent simulation like this would be one of the few experiments that might bring new information to an omniscient being. And discrete properties creating emergent ones..... spooky stuff, cuz that sounds like coding. Of course, that could be the tail shaking the dog. Our computation simply mimicking the structure it is built in out of utility.
It is funny how the other guy's only interaction during the whole conversation is "yeah, yeah, yeah" 😂. I enjoyed the video, thank you !
Yeah, yeah, yeah... I often don't have much to add when Jonathan's so eloquent!
Yeah, it almost comes across as tongue-in-cheek self parody by the end of the video. 😊
Fascinating conversation though, and I can appreciate someone who listens rather than chipping in unnecessarily.
Clearly the density and rate of high level abstract ideas is way too dense to digest - for the concepts to be given any tautological inspection and validity.
The guy is super switched on and there is way too much trust in his abilities and correct analysis being relied on.
On the very plus side the list of references and links is very thorough - so very well done in recovering integrity in that regard.
Overall this appears to be a commentary on the evolution of convergence of spacetime to a three dimensionality. Which is interesting but no where near giving any answers to bridging continuity of general relativity into quantum theory - which is required for the solution of the current stalemate.
"Humans are at their most endearing when they attempt to understand subjects beyond their reasoning skills." -Anon
Hello.
✖
Yall are DEFINITELY onto something!
With enough computing power and ever smarter ai, perhaps will we be able to explore the model space sufficiently deep to find earth itself emerging?
Thanks, Tommy! That seems beyond the realm of possibility to me right now, given how much larger the Earth is than the hypergraph, but who knows what shortcuts AI might find?
😂 exploring and discarding all these different possibilities and their phenomena, the apparatus eventually finds an earth at so specific a granularity that it validates such earth contains the apparatus itself, doing this very experiment 😂
Love the graphics very helpful.
Thanks! It takes a while to add them but it's worth it!
I hope we don't lose any more dimensions. I'm happy with the three we have now.
Three's a good number, for sure ;-)
I wonder if there would be a pocket of 3.1 dimensionality on let's say mercury, would we even be able to notice?
I love how Gorard sounds just like his mentor Wolfram, shows how closely they work together. His speech cadence, tone, phrasing is identical.
I thought Wolfram had invented de-ageing technology 😂. Super funny from a psychological perspective, humans are just little meme imitators
Yes, Stephen Wolfram and Jonathan Gorard have worked closely together. There's a lot of distance between them, though, on a lot of questions. I find their different instincts when it comes to the more philosophical questions, in particular, fascinating.
0:15 I found this presentation very interesting even though there were words used I'm not familiar with.
Thanks Lisa! That's great to hear!
Guys this was just great. Jonathan distilled an enormous amount of material into digestible chunks - an achievement in itself. In Mathematica everything is a list and maybe the universe is too!! In his recent book on ChatGPT Stephen ruminated about geodesic concepts being involved in what ultimately is a convergence property of the large language models. I think there is room for some very fundamental explanations of the role of dimensionality - a beginner's guide type of thing. Maybe that already exists somewhere.
Thanks, Peter! Yes, Jonathan is really good at explaining these things! And yes, this has really opened my eyes to the role of dimensionality. Not being a mathematician, I'm not sure I'd be the best person to condense this, but I'd certainly like to put together some more videos for beginners on what dimensionality really is.
@@lasttheory That would be good - he rattled off a reference to exponential versus quadratic. It would just mean fleshing that type of thing out. He clearly has it in him !
@@peterhall6656 Yes, that exponential v quadratic comment is a bit cryptic without context! I do cover this one in my trilogy of videos on dimensionality ua-cam.com/play/PLVwcxwu8hWKlSYJ6iwzquLm5rOrykyg8c.html followed by my two videos on measuring the curvature of space ua-cam.com/video/r8vOj4QKUJE/v-deo.html and ua-cam.com/video/Bbuvfh6qTsU/v-deo.html You'll find the crucial equation in that last video: look out for the exponential r^d dimensionality term and the merely quadratic r^2 curvature term. One day I'll pull this all together into a book where everything will be where you can easily find it!
Are you able to do a video where you break down what all these words mean to a layman ! Its unbelievable how I understand every word he says but i understand nothing if im honest, very very impressive human !
Working on it, Dan! There are so many videos I want to do to explain all these elements, and so little time to make them!
If I understand, he's suggesting that we can discard inflation theory if we assume there are infinite dimensions at the the beginning of the universe that then "cool down" to fewer dimensions as the universe expands. As far as I know that hypothesis that has not been mathematically formulated let alone one that makes testable predictions. Good luck getting that idea published in a peer reviewed scientific journal.
Thanks, John. It's just an idea, for now. Well, maybe a little bit more than an idea. Jonathan has worked out the mathematics here, so it's not an unreasonable hypothesis that dimension cooling can explain the early evolution of the universe. And remember, inflation is just a hypothesis, too, and _that_ passed peer review! If the Wolfram model provides a _better_ explanation than the already-accepted theory of inflation, shouldn't we at least be open to it as a possibility?
Question: Why would having more dimensions allow the universe to be in causal contact with itself more quickly when the "curse of dimensionality" in training ML models suggests that the higher dimensions you have, the further apart things get, which makes clustering (a measure of closeness of groups) much more difficult and distances begin to explode?
I'm not familiar with the effects of dimensionality in Machine Learning models, I'm afraid.
But in the Wolfram model, if you have a hypergraph that's extremely highly connected, i.e. each node has edges to many, many other nodes, then measuring the dimensionality of that graph will give a very high number → ∞.
After the hypergraph evolves further, then it will become less highly connected, i.e. each node will have edges only to a smaller number of local nodes, and measuring the dimensionality of the graph will give a much lower number → 3.
For more on measuring the dimensionality of the hypergraph see my trilogy of videos ua-cam.com/video/dqnUpq2guX0/v-deo.html&pp=gAQBiAQB
Hope that helps!
In higher dimensionality you lose mathematical properties like association and others so the math changes. I am definitely not an expert in math but I believe that I heard that the changes in algebraic properties such as commutation can be extrapolated to understand physical properties. I hope that this makes sense also… please bear with me as again I am no expert…😊
@@Jadamhodges Thanks Adam! I think that at the level of nodes and edges, the hypergraph doesn't perfectly lend itself to ideas of dimensionality. Later in the evolution of the universe, three-dimensional space _emerges_ from the hypergraph, but earlier, when the hypergraph is more highly connected, sure, we can make sense of that by saying that the hypergraph is higher-dimensional, but it might be better to abandon the concept of fixed-dimensional space. The hypergraph is all there is!
@MikarGibbros Yes, thanks, that's a good way to visualize it!
@MikarGibbrosthat seems to imply that in these extra dimensions, information travels at the same speed, though. Do we have any reason we can easily assume that?
Thanks and congratulations for an interesting video - again.
Quoting: "Asking if Wolfram Physics can make predictions is the same (or like) asking if Calculus can make predictions."
AFAIK, Calculus, in connection with other tools, can be used in different contexts (economics, engineering, biology, chemistry, etc) to make specific predictions.
Can Wolfram Physics be used in the same way now? Or is it still on a development stage?
Thanks Rubén!
Yes, I think the Wolfram model _can_ be used as a tool in the way you suggest, to get results in physics at least, and other fields too (I need to ask Jonathan more about his progress applying these ideas in other fields).
In physics, examples of progress are Jonathan's derivation of Einstein equations, i.e. general relativity, as well as aspects of quantum mechanics, from the hypergraph. There haven't been any verified _new_ predictions yet, though.
It's still early days!
@@lasttheory can it really predict einstein's equations of GR? Is it just due to a fine tuning of the theory which, if tuned otherwise, could predict pretty much anything else?
@@ChaineYTXF Good questions. Yes, it really can predict Einstein's equations. And here's the impressive part: no, it's not due to fine tuning. Jonathan Gorard's proof is based on three very believable assumptions, including that rules are casually invariant. So you don't have to fine-tune down to _specific_ rules, and there are no fine-tuning constants involved. It's truly compelling to me that General Relativity just falls out of the hypergraph in this way.
Here's Jonathan Gorard on his derivation of General Relativity: ua-cam.com/video/1tjhE0U-mgc/v-deo.html Much more about this to come on this channel!
@@lasttheory I'll watch the video and then read a paper about it. The underlying «graph» part of the theory is what is most mysterious to me. Usually, one builds theories by making direct assumptions on how nature behaves and runs with that ball. I'm really curious as to how graphs (hypergraphs, it seems) fit at the base of the whole enterprise.
Thank you very much for the link.
I slow him down to 50% and actually feel like I can follow along and understand. Very glad he is taking an honest crack at the Wolfram ideas.
Yes, there's a lot packed into every sentence Jonathan says, isn't there? Thanks for taking the time to make sense of it!
I almost hung on through this! Felt like my brain was grappling hooked onto a rocket! 😂
Yes, it's a _lot!_ Thanks for persisting!
By the way, Wolfram was a (physics) student in the 1970s, not a ‘1st class particle physicist’. There is a huge difference between these groups of people.
To be fair, Stephen Wolfram did publish a couple of dozen papers and was a faculty member at Caltech, so more than just a student, I think!
Wow. You’re actually out here doing science. Thank you 🙏🏽
Yes, thanks. Jonathan's a truly original thinker. I agree, it's great that he's out there doing what he's doing!
Thank you for bringing this young genius to us.
Great channel, thank you for these videos!
Thanks Gábor!
Wonderful topic. Cleared up a few misunderstandings for me.
Also, the notion of "dimension cooling" is fascinating. I'd be curious to know more about predicted dimension variability, e.g., on what scale would it be detectable.
Thanks! And yes, I'd like to hear about dimension variation too. I've added it to my list of questions for next time I talk to Jonathan, thanks for the prompt!
Well, that went well over my head. I think I would need the ELI5 version.
Yes, I hear you! I'll do my best to take Jonathan's account here and make it easier to follow in a future video. Thanks for watching!
Excellent video. I have been thinking about the possibility that all physics or nature is fundamentally emerging from pure mathematics or geometry. That the world emerges from some simple fractal like algorithms. But also that all physical causal effects are “calculated” or comes out from mathematical relationships…similar to a computer generated world. If this is the case there might be a certain latency in all physical processes as there must be some “calculations” taking place before it can happen. This latency is most likely ridiculous small but perhaps there is a way to find some latency in some physical process. I think this is what Jonathan alluded to when he talked about entangled particles and the geometric relationships causing certain delays….Am I right?
Yes, that's how Wolfram Physics struck me when I first came across it: I've always wondered whether physics can come out of something like a hypergraph.
Your idea of latency is interesting. I tend to think of the computational model not in terms of a computer that performs the computations - see my video _Where's the computer that runs the universe?_ ua-cam.com/video/m6pI9ndsEK8/v-deo.html - but as merely a model.
So I wouldn't postulate latency, and more than I'd imagine that it'd take time for a mathematicial performing the calculus required to plot the path of the Earth around the Sun.
Where there _is_ a delay in propagating effects through the hypergraph, I think, is in the traditional sense that it takes time for perturbations to work their way through space.
Thanks for the comment, I really like responding to interesting perspectives like yours!
glad i stumbled upon your channel. fascinating!
Thanks Charles!
"Wolfram physics" is proposing to use certain mathematical tools (graphs, automata...) as the basic tools to formulate physics (formalism). Those are powerful tools that are currently not much used in physics. So, there is much "space" to investigate and potentially much to contribute to
Physics itself. "Wolfram physics" also proposes a set of ideas of how to "represent"
many physical facts (like space dimensions, or QM superposition etc.) in terms of those
mathematical tools (hyper graphs and automata).
In a way it is similar to string and M-theories that uses mathematical tools like
spaces (and also objects) with higher dimensions and different topologies and other
"advanced" mathematical tools (and should not be called "theories" either).
I think that "wolfram physics" is promising, but, like in the case of the
"string theory", there exist the "trap" of forgetting that this is physics (not
mathematics) and that empirically testable (falsifiable!) predictions should be
made asap.
An exposition of "wolfram physics" should begin by saying how the main concepts in "standard" physics emerge, for it to have some meaning to physicists. It should begin by saying, for instance: how is the spacetime interval defined in terms of the graphs/hypergraph, or how do the "amplitudes of probability" and phases of QM emerge. Does a point of spacetime corresponds to a node in the hypergraph? or does it corresponds to certain graph structures? etc. etc.
I agree with all of that, thanks Pablo. So yes, we should begin with how physics emerges from the Wolfram model.
First is General Relativity. I'm working on a series of videos about how it emerges from the hypergraph, but for a more technical overview, see _How to derive general relativity from Wolfram Physics with Jonathan Gorard_ ua-cam.com/video/1tjhE0U-mgc/v-deo.html
Next is Quantum Mechanics. This one's more difficult, conceptually, but I'm working on it! Again, for an overview, see _How to derive quantum mechanics from Wolfram Physics with Jonathan Gorard_ ua-cam.com/video/YZhCYLZanEE/v-deo.html
Also, there are the basic concepts like mass/energy, space and time. I have a few videos on space already ua-cam.com/play/PLVwcxwu8hWKkVdyXUcRLphco6Ie02OI-3.html but much more to come on these!
Hope my channel helps give you what you're looking for!
@@lasttheory Thank you for the links. I will look at them as soon as time permits.
I don't know how to relate this properly to the video but want to highlight how difficult theoretical could get and the barriers we may have ahead in increasing our understanding:
Consider there were intelligent entities emergent from interstellar matter, for who galaxies are like atoms. They've invented galaxy colliders and can collide galaxies and see that other particles (solar systems, or planets) can fly out. Now how could they get from simple understandings/observations of galaxies/planets to understanding that some planets have "life" on them? Perhaps they could create and direct a quasar or something more powerful at a planet with life and somehow look at the image created. Or there may be a ridiculously small probability that some intelligent life evolves to the point it starts manipulating galaxies, and the interstellar entities are lucky enough to be monitoring the one galaxy out of infinitely many and see that the galaxy is behaving weirdly / out of their standard model. The task of hypothesising and testing for these entities is incredibly intimidating and seems practically impossible.
That's a wonderful image, thanks Will! Do you think that maybe we have the same problem? If the scale of the hypergraph is sufficiently small, could intelligent life exist at tiny, tiny scales, unobservable to us?
@@lasttheory For all we know, in the same way that we hypothesise that space *could* be infinite, so *could* the "levels/axis of emergence" (for lack of a better name) within the universe -- or maybe a hyper-graph is at the bottom of these levels.
(note, "levels" is a simple descriptor, but emergence happens anywhere with any building blocks so the concept of levels is a bit misleading).
I think as long as some level has the possibility to host natural selection of structures then intelligent life can emerge (or maybe there is some other physical process that can lead to life).
I imagine that measuring/calculating if a given level of emergence is capable of hosting life could be a science in the future, one variable being the expressivity of the components (e.g. chemistry is extremely expressive). In fact, the notion of trying to measure this feels Wolframian.
Besides being able to detect "life" at a given level of emergence, being able to detect the level of emergence itself is the real problem. E.g. for the interstellar beings currently using galaxy colliders, it is hard to conceive that they could jump from a fundamental model at the planetary level, to technology allowing them to see some more fundamental model (perhaps some cryptic model of geology?). We cannot prove that physics will actually allow the interstellar beings to see deeper than their current understanding -- although this is quite pessimistic.
@@willcowan7678 Yes, fascinating stuff, thanks Will. I should do a video on this!
Big fan of John Gorard since i watched his irreducibly vid was one of the most interesting new things ive seen in a while. What he was saying is very similar to what was said by William Sidus in his paper on the irreversibly of the second law of thermodynamics and why such a great point there too.
Yes, Jonathan's an amazing voice. His contributions to the Wolfram Physics Project have been crucial.
Amazing talk, in the end Gorard make a reference to Salam, recently i see a video whit Salam, Sciama, Witten and Budinich, that blow my mind, all the best.....
Thanks Nuno!
Im late again!
Great video, i especially like your banners explaing terms, when Jonathan said discredit- ofcourse I hear discredit and the sound throws me off. Sounds like he's discrediting space time haha.
Anyway I was wondering if Stephen Wolfram or Jonathan has even considered going the matter creation path instead of big bang.
With a computational model theyre not restricted to a big bang model. I think they are trying to fix something that should be abandoned completely.
I have a model- narrative really- that creates the universe from consciouness and time.
When the universe first becomes conscious it begins processing- recording around it, and the movement of its attention is recorded as momentum-energy.
Conservation of energy is only local, we don't know that particle crearion is not still occuring presently at the expansion horizon, and if the universe collapses at a certain point, it will "erase" what was created so conservation of energy would still prevail.
I didn't realize Stephen was going the way of the big bang, and I really can't understand why.
I think conventional teaching is hard to break away from.
In my opinion, they should forget the big bang and start over.
Thanks Jaime! I'm not sure Jonathan or Stephen are especially attached to the traditional big bang theory. But an early, rapid expansion of space does kind of fall out of the Wolfram model. Take a look at my video _What is the Big Bang in Wolfram's universe?_ ua-cam.com/video/7GmYpKYjssY/v-deo.html for more on this.
This is the first time I've heard about the idea that the universe had a high number of dimensions at the very beginning. Everybody seems to believe in inflation which sounds like a fudge to me
EDIT: Gorard is a fantastic speaker, so clear and precise
Yes, that dimensional explanation seems, at first glance, so much neater, doesn't it? The inflation thing was always, as you say, a fudge. And yes, Jonathan's amazing!
@@lasttheory The superstring crowd has for decades talked about space having more than three dimensions but the higher dimensions are curled-up at low energies and therefore we can't see them. Why don't they jump on this?
@@trapkat8213 Good question. I always thought that the idea of curled-up dimensions was a bit of a hack. The Wolfram model idea of the non-integer dimensionality of the hypergraph being extremely high in the early universe and expanding out to our three-dimensional universe seems far more promising. I guess the superstring crowd aren't jumping on this because it comes from such a different set of premises from their own highly mathematical framework.
The calculated predictions in theortical physics have to suffice the dimensions of human thinking, but we are not shure of their validity beyond our concepts, that are located to meta-physics.
Yes, there's sometimes a fine line between physics and metaphysics. Thanks for the comment!
interesting commentary. i kinda see your point about it being a *formalism*, but i think that is more a reflection on (1) our technology, and (2) the current level of physics technology. one could argue that that is a kind of *moving the goal posts* on the definition of what a theory is in physics.
for example, lets consider a sentient being that humans created inside of a simulated physics system and this being developed science to test its universe. if that being sensed by whatever means the existence of computational operations and objects as the fundamental structure of its universe, would we consider it to be a formalism or would we consider that it is narrowing in on its own theory of everything?
Thanks for the question.
By "formalism", I don't think Jonathan means that this is a "model". All physical theories, like the one you propose created by sentient beings inside a simulated physics, are _models_ of reality. And, of course, the Wolfram model is no exception.
Rather, by "formalism", I think Jonathan means that it's a framework within which theories may be defined. For example, you could choose _one_ rule of Wolfram physics, and conjecture that applying this one rule to the hypergraph yields our universe. That's a theory. Or you could choose an entire class of rules, such as all causally invariant rules, and conjecture that some combination of these rules yields our universe. That's a _different_ theory. Point is that you can imagine any number of theories within the "formalism" of the Wolfram model.
@@lasttheory thanks for the reply. i think i understood that correctly for the most part but thank you for clarifying. the Ruliad is the broader system to the subsystem that defines our universe, but the Ruliad itself is beyond a formalism, though sufficiently robust to be used as a formalism.
the Turing Machine and Lambda Calculus are abstract (logically equivalent) structures which can be used to form a description of a physical system such as our own. however, a literal processing unit is not a formalism. Max Tegmark proposes a Mathematical Universe where the mathematical structures are indistinguishable from physical reality, despite the orders of logic also being capable of forming descriptions of whatever else.
idk it might all just be a matter of semantics
Question for Jonathan - has the fine structure constant shown any sign of making sense in Wofram Physics? It's a problem that's bugged me since my undergrad physics course, which was nearly 15 years ago. I would love for some light to be shed on the fine structure constant in my lifetime.
Yes, it would be a real breakthrough if the Wolfram model could shed light on such fundamental constants. I've added it to my list of questions for next time I talk to Jonathan. Thanks!
@@lasttheory much obliged
Thank you so much for these videos Mark, you are doing a great job! One thing I didn't understand from this video, I wonder if you could clarify? Jonathan seems to be saying that theories like Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity are showing to be generic across the whole hypergraph whereas I'm sure I've heard Stephen Wolfram say that the laws of physics are dependant on the observers viewpoint, i.e. the slice you take across branchial space. Or have I misunderstood something (quite likely!)?
Thanks Andy!
You're right, Stephen Wolfram thinks that the laws of physics depend on where you are in rulial space, in other words, the rules through the lens of which you look at the universe.
What Jonathan has shown is that whole classes of these rules yield Einstein's equations. So in _this_ case, it doesn't matter which specific rule or rules you're looking at the universe throught, they _all_ yield General Relativity. (As long as they're causally invariant, for example.)
So I don't think there's any incompatibility between Stephen Wolfram's rulial space and Jonathan's view of General Relativity.
Hope that helps!
@@lasttheory Yes, that helps thanks!
Being practical... maybe actually understanding the dynamics of space creation on a local level will allow a means to 'get a grip' on it somehow and create the holy grail of propulsion that doesnt need to carry stuff to throw out the back. Johnathon is right, getting experimentalists on board with their focus on 'doing stuff' is definitely neccesary. Until the project can generate novel technology, as fascinating as it is, its a 'who cares' situation. Quantum computers gave quantum physics a LOT of resources to play practical. If you want personel you want technological project orientation because that will attract money. Maybe there is an angle for studying fusion?
Energy and propulsion.... that stuff matters.
Yes, I hear you! The trouble with truly fundamental theoretical physics is that it's difficult to know where the technological applications will come from... and possible that there won't be any! It'll be fascinating to see what happens.
Wait a minute. Wasn't inflation proposed in the 60s or 70s, and the mapping of the CMBR done in the late 90s? Therefore it was used as a verification of the model, not an instigator?
Edited to add, this was a great interview, I thoroughly enjoyed his explanations. The above is just a minor quibble.
Right, yes, thanks Brendan.
I think inflation theory was developed in the late 70s and early 80s, and the cosmic microwave background was first discovered in 1965, though yes, that map is much later, from the 2000s.
So I confess I'm not sure of the chronology. Either way, the CBR data can be seen as a test of any theory of the early universe, and, with any luck, will be able to distinguish between the inflation theory and hypergraph theories.
In particular, if inflation theory needs to be carefully tuned to match the data, but the hypergraph theory does not, that'd be pretty compelling!
Thanks for the feedback, and sorry that I don't have a definitive answer.
CMB was serendipitous discovered in '65 by Wilson and Penzias, who took the Nobel for. They were looking for something else, pigeon poop, to quote Taleb. Other teams, who specifically were searching for the first glow weren't so lucky. Inflation theory shows up in '80.
@@radupaulalecu4119 Thanks, good to get confirmation on this!
@@radupaulalecu4119 I think they were calibrating; looking for a low level of noise.
Very nice!
Your doing work that has macro potential only do as much here as it helps you. I really want to see this flushed out it would be amazing
Thanks, Andrew. Jonathan's working on the math and I'm working on creating simple videos to explain the Wolfram model. Is there anything specifically you'd like to see flushed out?
In light of Jonathan's comment that the Wolfram Physics Project is a formalism (and not a theory), is your channel name perhaps due for a change? ;)
Thank you for all your great work!
Good question! But the explicit aim of the Wolfram Physics Project _is_ to find a theory - the book's called "A Project to Find the Fundamental Theory of Physics". Jonathan's right, of course, that what we have now is a framework, a broad class of models. But I'm optimistic that somewhere in that framework is the last theory!
“The Last Formalism”
Kinda sick name maybe I’ll take it instead 🤣
@@NightmareCourtPictures Ha! I like it!
@@lasttheory Ah! That being said, do you think that the true last theory (of physics) would be embedded in a “limiting metatheory” (in the metalogical sense)?
@@Self-Duality That's a truly meta question! I'd say that _any_ theory could be said to be within the bounds of a limiting metatheory. Take Newton's inverse square law of gravitation, for example; it's a theory within the bounds of the metatheory that forces between entities must vary with the distance between the entities, whether with the inverse square of the distance or any other function of the distance. Or am I misunderstanding you?
Phenomenal interview.
Thanks Russell! Yes, Jonathan is extremely eloquent.
I've recently been faced with evidence of the multiverse. When I opened a fortune cookie, there where TWO contradictory messages inside!
Spectacular! Don't keep us in suspense, Steve... which one came true? Did Schrödinger's cat live or die? And how did you collapse the fortune cookie wavefunction?
@@lasttheory you fool! the wave function didn't collapse. the cookie is in an intersection of two universes. everything and everyone who interacts with it, gets entangled and becomes part of the intersection. steverobbins4872 was already lost when he posted the comment. when you interacted with his comment, you became part of it too. Now it's practically unstoppable. we will live in a universe with two realities.
@@dropped_box Oops, sorry. Oops, guess I just did it again, bifurcating universes by interacting with _your_ comment too.
holy shit!!!! Jonathan is very smart!! very well said. im very impressed
Yes, he's a brilliant mind, for sure! Thanks for watching!
he would be really cool to talk too.... could ask so many questions.. haha i love learning from the brilliant minds of academia and the like.@@lasttheory
what is dimensionality in practice in relation to dynamics? effectively what you are saying is equivalent to space being in equilibrium in many more ways, interacting in many more ways non locally by any definition of locality such as one would assume according to special relativity in 3 +1 dimensions. there are many roads to rome, entanglement viewed as just long range liberalizations and interactions does exactly the same thing.
Yes, it's interesting to speculate what might be the role of long edges. Non-locality is baked into the Wolfram model on a small scale; though, of course, non-locality seems rare in our universe on a large scale. Much to dig into here.
After the first sentence of the video, I already know the answer: "Nowhere, at least for now".
Yes, that's right. We're not there... yet!
That's great to hear. We should leverage technology as it allows when we can. I look forward to my study of Physics. Something I've been lacking in for some time.
Thank You for the video!
ah gawd I'm in for aren't I ? lol
Thanks Joseph! It's an exciting time to be getting into physics... good luck!
Excellent video - does anyone know why the visual keeps focusing in and out?
Sorry if there's an issue with the video here. It was getting late in my conversation with Jonathan, and there was less light his end, so he's a bit more blurry than in earlier excerpts from our conversation. Thanks for the feedback!
It seems impossible on its face that you could ever get quantum nonlocality out of cellular automata, which are completely local, regardless of how many dimensions you are in. Similarly, how could this formalism ever give you collapse of the wave function? Am I missing something?
Good questions, thanks Mike.
With one-dimensional cellular automata, you're right, everything is local. But with hypergraphs, non-locality is possible by default. Most edges between nodes in a hypergraph will likely be local, i.e. connect nodes extremely close together in physical space. But there's no reason why there can't also be non-local edges, i.e. between nodes that are distant in physical space.
Your question about the collapse of the wavefunction is more difficult to answer.
Arguably, we wouldn't _want_ a new theory of physics to reproduce the collapse of the wavefunction, since it's among the least defensible aspects of quantum mechanics (what exactly collapses the wavefunction? observers? conscious observers? anything large? we have no good answer to this question).
But for sure, there will need to be some account of how large-scale observers like ourselves make sense of the branching multiway graph, one that takes into account that we, too, are branching.
We're not there yet, but it's one of the most fascinating aspects of Wolfram Physics, one that I'll be digging into deeply in future videos.
@@lasttheory many thanks for your clear response without evading my question!
Thank you for these.
It's a pleasure to make them... I really like thinking about these things!
This is what I imagine a conversation with Egon Spengler would be like.
The complaint I have heard concerning wolfram physics doesn’t mage predictions. I appreciate these arguments but I must confess that until we see some exponential result, much like string theory, these are just fun ideas to enjoy and play with rather than anything real.
Thanks Daniel. Isn't that true of _all_ ideas in physics, though, that they're just fun ideas at first? And if we dismiss these fun ideas because they don't _yet_ make predictions, won't we dismiss _all_ new ideas, and never make any progress in physics? Take a look at my video _Why scientific theories need not make predictions_ ua-cam.com/video/THLq17wY5nI/v-deo.html for more on this!
@@lasttheory No that isn't the case. We must adhere to the testing requirement. Proposing practically untestable ideas is very different than Gell-Mann's quark! Ex, proposing that all we need is to build a super collider the size of the solar system in order to test is practically not testable. I have a theory, inside a black hole there is a demon which is slowly eating it and makes the consequences of it's actions look exactly like Hawking radiation. All we need to do is wait until the heat death of the universe and they will all pop out! That is a terrible theory, even if it is true.
@@lasttheory I disagree with your characterization. Testing needs to be practical and possible. Dismissal is irrelevant as these ideas are no more real than a Maxwell's demon, until which time they are supported by experiment. Gell Mann didn't believe quarks were real until they were confirmed by experiment.
Ah, then we agree! Absolutely, it must be practical and possible to test a theory. I think that in this video Jonathan has pointed to several practical and possible ways we might test the Wolfram model.
So our only disagreement is in the time-frame. I'd give new ideas a chance to mature a little before requiring testable predictions, whereas you seem to want testable predictions immediately. I maintain that in practice, your approach would require that we dismiss _all_ new ideas in physics, which is not, in my mind, conducive to progress!
Many thanks!!
Wow, the mannerisms and phrases and even the rhythm of speech of Gorard is very Wolfram
Ah, that's interesting. Those guys have worked together a _lot._
Speed of maximal entanglement seems to apply to decoherence ideas!
If I understand Johnathan, he is suggesting that some deep space gravitational lensing instances might be dimensional shift lensing? Could this explain the disparity in apparent center-of-mass divergence in clustered (localized) lensing events in deep space? For example, if you examine some current images of gravitational lensing events, you can clearly and easily protract a center of mass focal point of all visible lensing arcs. Many of these C.O.M. points diverge to multiple different points in a single image where one should assume a common focal point would be detected for a purely gravitational event strong enough to curve light travel in the first place? To my thinking the nearest gravitational mass to the observer should take precedence over all others further away and that is clearly not the case in many of these images.
That's a good question, thanks Merle. I don't have the grounding in either the observations or the theory of gravitational lensing to answer this, but in principle, yes, lensing due to dimensional variations might explain any discrepancies in the data.
@@lasttheory Or maybe even something more simple such as refractive indexes which vary due to undetected baryonic particle densities (which are not dark matter) from region to region which can't yet be determined with current instruments?
Think of optical illusions from desert mirages resulting from heated atmosphere which is trillions upon trillions of atmospheric molecules between the observer and the distant object being distorted. You can see the distant object, but the light traveling through the heated atmosphere gets refracted many times before it gets to your eyes.
My thinking is that a deep space survey over the span of a decade or more, may reveal alterations in these lensing events which should cancel them out as candidates for gravitational causes. But admittedly, it's just a guess.
@@merlepatterson I hope you're right, it would be a real step forward to observe such effects!
If quarks have not been isolated and gluons have not been isolated, how do we know they are not parts of the same thing? The tentacles of an octopus and the body of an octopus are parts of the same creature.
Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the constant exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together. Therefore, the gluon is a synthetic particle (zero mass, zero charge) invented to explain the Strong Force. An artificial Christmas tree can hold the ornaments in place, but it is not a real tree.
String Theory was not a waste of time, because Geometry is the key to Math and Physics. However, can we describe Standard Model interactions using only one extra spatial dimension? What did some of the old clockmakers use to store the energy to power the clock? Was it a string or was it a spring?
What if we describe subatomic particles as spatial curvature, instead of trying to describe General Relativity as being mediated by particles? Fixing the Standard Model with more particles is like trying to mend a torn fishing net with small rubber balls, instead of a piece of twisted twine.
Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules:
“We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct.” Neils Bohr
(lecture on a theory of elementary particles given by Wolfgang Pauli in New York, c. 1957-8, in Scientific American vol. 199, no. 3, 1958)
The following is meant to be a generalized framework for an extension of Kaluza-Klein Theory. Does it agree with some aspects of the “Twistor Theory” of Roger Penrose, and the work of Eric Weinstein on “Geometric Unity”, and the work of Dr. Lisa Randall on the possibility of one extra spatial dimension? During the early history of mankind, the twisting of fibers was used to produce thread, and this thread was used to produce fabrics. The twist of the thread is locked up within these fabrics. Is matter made up of twisted 3D-4D structures which store spatial curvature that we describe as “particles"? Are the twist cycles the "quanta" of Quantum Mechanics?
When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. ( E=hf, More spatial curvature as the frequency increases = more Energy ). What if Quark/Gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks where the tubes are entangled? (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are a part of the quarks. Quarks cannot exist without gluons, and vice-versa. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Charge" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" are logically based on this concept. The Dirac “belt trick” also reveals the concept of twist in the ½ spin of subatomic particles. If each twist cycle is proportional to h, we have identified the source of Quantum Mechanics as a consequence twist cycle geometry.
Modern physicists say the Strong Force is mediated by a constant exchange of Gluons. The diagrams produced by some modern physicists actually represent the Strong Force like a spring connecting the two quarks. Asymptotic Freedom acts like real springs. Their drawing is actually more correct than their theory and matches perfectly to what I am saying in this model. You cannot separate the Gluons from the Quarks because they are a part of the same thing. The Quarks are the places where the Gluons are entangled with each other.
Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. The twist in the torus can either be Right-Hand or Left-Hand. Some twisted donuts can be larger than others, which can produce three different types of neutrinos. If a twisted tube winds up on one end and unwinds on the other end as it moves through space, this would help explain the “spin” of normal particles, and perhaps also the “Higgs Field”. However, if the end of the twisted tube joins to the other end of the twisted tube forming a twisted torus (neutrino), would this help explain “Parity Symmetry” violation in Beta Decay? Could the conversion of twist cycles to writhe cycles through the process of supercoiling help explain “neutrino oscillations”? Spatial curvature (mass) would be conserved, but the structure could change.
=====================
Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons?
Does an electron travel through space like a threaded nut traveling down a threaded rod, with each twist cycle proportional to Planck’s Constant? Does it wind up on one end, while unwinding on the other end? Is this related to the Higgs field? Does this help explain the strange ½ spin of many subatomic particles? Does the 720 degree rotation of a 1/2 spin particle require at least one extra dimension?
Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons
. Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. The production of the torus may help explain the “Symmetry Violation” in Beta Decay, because one end of the broken tube section is connected to the other end of the tube produced, like a snake eating its tail. The phenomenon of Supercoiling involving twist and writhe cycles may reveal how overtwisted quarks can produce these new particles. The conversion of twists into writhes, and vice-versa, is an interesting process, which is also found in DNA molecules. Could the production of multiple writhe cycles help explain the three generations of quarks and neutrinos? If the twist cycles increase, the writhe cycles would also have a tendency to increase.
Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves. ( Mass=1/Length )
The “Electric Charge” of electrons or positrons would be the result of one twist cycle being displayed at the 3D-4D surface interface of the particle. The physical entanglement of twisted tubes in quarks within protons and neutrons and mesons displays an overall external surface charge of an integer number. Because the neutrinos do not have open tube ends, (They are a twisted torus.) they have no overall electric charge.
Within this model a black hole could represent a quantum of gravity, because it is one cycle of spatial gravitational curvature. Therefore, instead of a graviton being a subatomic particle it could be considered to be a black hole. The overall gravitational attraction would be caused by a very tiny curvature imbalance within atoms.
In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137.
1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface
137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted.
The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.)
How many neutrinos are left over from the Big Bang? They have a small mass, but they could be very large in number. Could this help explain Dark Matter?
Why did Paul Dirac use the twist in a belt to help explain particle spin? Is Dirac’s belt trick related to this model? Is the “Quantum” unit based on twist cycles?
I started out imagining a subatomic Einstein-Rosen Bridge whose internal surface is twisted with either a Right-Hand twist, or a Left-Hand twist producing a twisted 3D/4D membrane. This topological Soliton model grew out of that simple idea.
yup the universe is one thing probably
I hope Jonathon's involvement with Wolfram physics doesn't limit his future rise up the "normal" academic ladder, if indeed he cares at all about such things. There's a chance he'll forever be labelled as 'that kooky Wolfram guy', instead of the fantastic talent he obviously is.
Yes, I hear you, Philip!
I've asked Jonathan about this: wasn't it a risk to get heavily involved in Wolfram Physics rather than play it safer academically?
He answered that his prior academic credentials were sound enough that he didn't think it too great a risk. Also, Jonathan's a mathematician more than a physicist, and in mathematics it's OK to explore entirely abstract ideas that may bear no relation to reality.
And I very much agree, he's a fantastic talent!
It's ok. Can always be another Brian.
what you really mean, independently of representation is really density of connectivity, dimensionality is not really relevant to that fundamentally, it is something a bit more subtle independently of representation, it is about the character of connectivity that builds up effective causality, the dimensionality of that connectivity can be subtly infinite dimensional even in 3+1 space. the truth to be gotten at is much more general and local dimension or global dimension change, it is something being represented as such, but has features that are all together more general outside simple one level dynamical systems of more or less independent variables.
I have been looking for this for years. I have two theory that I would like to do that I am not capable as a person to be able to come up with and design a and do observation to test with this kind of modeling.
Interesting, thanks Ty. It's interesting, with the availability of computation, it's almost like some kind of theory like this was inevitable!
Why should unexpectedly early thermal equilibrium be better explained by higher dimensionality in the early universe? Things are more likely to be in causal contact within small rather than very large dimensional space, no?
It might help to think of it like this. Assuming cartesian coordinates... In a 1-dimensional space (a line), each point is connected to 2 others (the ones either side of it along the line). In a 2-dimensional space (a plane), each point is connected to 4 others (the ones either side of it in the x-direction and the ones either side of it in the y-direction). In a 3-dimensional space like ours, each point is connected to 6 others (the ones either side of it in the x-, y- and z-directions). So you can see that the higher the dimensionality, the greater the connection. Hope that helps, thanks for the question, Christopher!
love this dude -- i both am very bullish on the wolfram physics project and imagine stephen is difficult to work with
this man must have incredible strength
"Causal contact" and the related problems motivating inflation in its current form rely on assumptions that themselves seem to me quite mistaken, without getting into this multidimensional theorizing. Yes, we could reach for dimensions here (and that has become a reflex action in theoretical physics), but, once again, the need to do that requires argument, and that argument should take seriously the idea that the quantum-mechanics "problems" with early universe may not be correctly described. There are layers of justification needed before you start explaining why we need these extra dimensions that wind up disappearing as the universe cools. Yes, an explanation that does this can be built, theoretically, but we need to exercise restraint with our construction of formal entities for the sake of describing what we experience where simpler explanations may do the job with less artifice. I need not rehash the Ptolemy example to make this point - but it is important to recognize there are arbitrarily many ways to predict comparably accurately the same phenomena. They are not all equally compelling explanations, even when they work, and we have experience in science of picking the wrong explanations and even the wrong methods.
Yes, I shared your skepticism about dimensions for a long time: physicists do seem to be rather trigger-happy on increasing the numbers of dimensions.
What's different _this_ time is that dimensions _emerge_ from the Wolfram model, rather than being posited as an expedient. The hypergraph really is extraordinarily simple: it's just nodes and edges, with rules. That's it.
So this is less proposing infinite dimensions for the sake of it, more, well, space itself emerging from the model, initially higher dimensional, eventually three dimensional.
I hope this helps overcome your skepticism enough to take a closer look at the Wolfram model!
@@lasttheory
@@lasttheory
@@lasttheory when I hear about any new or newish ideas in mathematical physics@@lasttheoryconceptual @@lasttheoryWhat is the argument, what motivates us to do this work? @@lasttheoryas you say, @@lasttheory and rules. It@@lasttheory. T@@lasttheoryin which@@lasttheory (perhaps another mechanism might replace the work, for example, done by the infinite dimensions, given the right adjustments)@@lasttheory at the time? Do we have other avenues that do not require infinite dimensions within our own universe that then congeal and combine over time somehow? Even if we require reconceptualizations of certain aspects of physics to understand our universe (and others), and I think we do, we need to be clear on what compels us to take one path rather than another, and what fantastical implications we are prepared to accept in a theory and its preferred model (or model and and its preferred theory). I don't say this to be difficult, just to say generally what kinds of things I think such a model needs to have among its background considerations.
Too often in modern physics, we find ourselves in such a rush to get to our mathematical models, and to justify those models, that we frame, motivate, and think through the implications of both the phenomena and our choices poorly and pursue dead-end theories for years. It has happened too many times in recent decades, and to extremely smart people. It is important to slow down sometimes and to think less analytically and more synthetically, which is not always what physics trains us to do.
For my part (a person who is long-term sick for a living, not doing new work on anything anymore), I need to go back to watch some of the videos in this series that I missed. Thanks for putting them up - and to your guest(s) for participating.
How does fractions of dimensions work, like the 3.01D mentioned as an example? Is it a region of space where a number of the nodes have an higher number of connections, to make the average dimensionality slightly higher than 3? Gravity becomes weaker in higher dimensional space, hence the claim of exponential gravity, a rolloff in strength of gravity from objects faster than the inverse square law. That would mean the angular size of an Einstein ring would be larger than the theoretical with a run of the mill curvature calculation? That is opposite of what Dark Matter does? what about angular speed of galaxies? We need dark matter to explain why they don't fly apart. Slightly higher dimensional space would make it even harder for galaxies to keep together? What am I not getting here?
Good questions.
Fractional dimensions aren't just averages, e.g. of 3- and 4-dimensional space. Rather, because, in the Wolfram model, the hypergraph _is_ space, and the hypergraph is not a completely regular grid (e.g. a 3-dimensional grid or a 4-dimensional grid), but a more chaotic web of nodes and edges, you can have space that really _is_ 3.01-dimensional.
What does that mean? Take a look at my trilogy of videos on the dimensionality of the universe ua-cam.com/play/PLVwcxwu8hWKlSYJ6iwzquLm5rOrykyg8c.html for more on this.
Wolfram Physics has no answer to the questions of dark matter yet, but it's possible that the problem is not missing matter so much as incorrect theories. There's a lot to work out in the Wolfram model before we can say!
Thanks for the questions!
@@lasttheory Thank you, and that alot for your proper answer. I will follow your links. I'm captivated by this, and consider it a continuation of the Ideas of entangled spacetime from 20 years ago, but then there was no math whatsoever to work on.
I have now watched your 3 videos on how fractional dimensions work in Wolfram graphs and they were excellent and made the case for how it can work. However your guest in this video is obviously (to me) at 7:06 is talking about possibly proving node space through discrepancies in measurements of gravitational lensing, which has been found but ascribed to dark matter. In that case he must be talking about local space bubbles with slightly fewer than 3 dimensions, where gravity lingers further out, which would work nicely with galaxies too, so he possible just misspoke, when talking about exponential strength of gravity? He pitches it only as an idea though, he isn't trying to argue that it would be sure proof or even how it would look different from Dark Matter, which is fair at this stage of the theory.
@@Tore_Lund Right, yes, that's a good summary of where we are. This _is_ just an idea right now, and we'll see if the Wolfram model is able to yield firmer, testable predictions.
What Jonathan meant by comparing dimensional lensing to gravitational lensing is that the dimensional lensing would vary _differently_ with the amount of dimensional variation (there's a term that's raised to the power of the number of dimensions) from the gravitational lensing (which merely contributes a quadratic term). So the dimensional lensing would be a bigger effect, which we might be able to distinguish from mere gravitational lensing.
Thanks for taking the time to dig into this!
@@lasttheory Obviously, I love promising theories I didn't know about! Yes the question is how different and in what way, good questions. I'm generally excited about this. I also have an itch that this can encompass the absolutes in general relativity! Thank you, it was a nice chat.
The UA-cam algorithm suggested this video to me but I didn’t even know what the Wolfram model is.
What are the differences with the standard model
Thanks for asking, Tim!
Briefly, the Wolfram model imagines the universe as a hypergraph: a web of nodes and edges that make up all space and matter. Rules are applied to the hypergraph to evolve it over time.
I realize that all sounds a bit abstract, so take a look at some of my earlier videos to get a better idea of what this looks like. A good place to start is with my playlist _Nodes, edges, graphs & rules: the basic concepts of Wolfram Physics_ ua-cam.com/play/PLVwcxwu8hWKnCIn_SXq8myTf2JH6ee83U.html
I have many more videos on this channel that go into detail.
If I had to give just a couple of major differences with the standard model, it'd be:
• the Wolfram model is computational rather than mathematical;
• space and time are discrete, not continous;
• general relativity and quantum mechanics emerge from the model, instead of being separate theories.
Enjoy!
@lasttheory Thanks. Going to give it a crack.
@@rajahua6268 Enjoy!
Is it possible that two distinct regions can completely encompass one another?
Do you mean two _disconnected_ regions? If so, the answer is that regions with no edges between them can't be said to have relative positions in physical space. I could render one completely encompassing the other in a visualization of the hypergraph, but that's just a visualization. Without edges to create connections between parts of one region and parts of the other, there's no way to say that they have _any_ kind of relative positions in physical space.
I didn’t realise Wolfram had invented de-ageing technology! He’s got all of his mannerisms and inflections 😂
why would the cosmic background radiation NOT be effected physically such as being "smoothed out" during expansion? It exists physically on the edges of the universe now where it was once occupying the original volume immediately after the big bang and then it would have undergone changes as it was physically stretched out and pushed outward throughout what became spacetime (is this inacurate description?) what Im saying is wouldnt certainly be effected during expansion period or is it something that can fundamentally stay the same while existing on the outside of the bubble of all the the properties that objects that occupy spacetime occur such as deformation or temperature changes due to forces exerted on it?(please let me know anything Im wrong about here, I am in no way shape or form a scientist)
These are good questions, thanks! I don't have a background in cosmology, but I'll do my best to answer.
First, it's a genuine puzzle as to why the cosmic microwave background isn't uniform. If the laws of physics were the same everywhere in the early universe, then why isn't the cosmic microwave background the same everywhere? What broke the symmetry? It's possible that Wolfram Physics, with its fundamentally discrete model, might one day shed light on this.
Second, when we're observing the cosmic microwave background, we're not looking a the early universe pushed out around us. Rather, we're looking _back in time_ to how things would have been _everywhere_ in the early universe. That's because we're looking billions of light years away, which means, given that light takes such a long time to get from there to here, that we're seeing these regions of the universe as they were billions of years ago.
Hope that helps!
@@lasttheory it does and it doesn't. but that's not due to any issues in your description/response of course, its just physics, sometimes hard for mere mortals to conceive! haha I am now certainly going to look more into Wolfram Physics. I will admit to being both a huge fan and major skeptic of his (even own a copy of "a new kind of science"! owing to the fact that Im a big fan of complexity theory and some time "experimenter" with wolfram Alpha) this video and the others of your channel I have now perused have now convinced me to learn more about it, thanks for the answer and the great content!
@@jsogman Thanks, I appreciate that! "Huge fan" and "major skeptic" is an excellent combination!
Deuterium is one of the isotopes of hydrogen and that is about my complete physics knowledge.
Nice!
A big thing is the mixing interfaces between gravitation that causes lensing in the worst case has a strength to maintain that. You could image such an interface on gravitation exiting the core of a galaxy and incoming from the surrounding though its effects may not be visible. If pressure develops internally the arms would be path of least resistance and would link them to the body of the galaxy through common background. If that interface has any strength, it could be the thing keeping galaxies arms in sync with the central rotation. Also 2 black holes or galaxies passing each other connect with common background bridge because that also is a path of least resistance for pressure in the galaxy vs the intergalactic background. If that pathway has strength, it could direct motion and increase that possibility of collision against going in orbit around a center like most stars seem to do when they meet. This would increase the likelihood of collisions vs much slower spiraling into each other. Last, cosmic string may share this common background and transition to outer space with some level of strength that holds them together and enough link up you end up with billion light year wings led together with common background glue.
Would discreet gravitation be local?
For the most part, yes, just like in General Relativity.
But (and this is what makes your question such a good one), the hypergraph allows for non-local edges between distant regions of space.
So there's no reason why matter, which causes local distortions in the hypergraph, effectively causing the curvature of space-time, might not also have non-local effects.
@@lasttheory an interaction free measurement should be able to detect this
What would a dimension perturbation behave like? How to imagine it? Is it like some bounded volume of 3d space has inside it something of higher dimension ? Is that even possible, topologically?
Good questions, Paul.
If the hypergraph is a regular cubic grid, then yes, it's quite difficult to imagine a dimension perturbation.
But I suspect it's much messier than that: an irregular hypergraph of nodes and edges that's three-dimensional only on a large scale. So the variations from three dimensions on a small scale would be regions of this irregular hypergraph where the tangles of nodes and edges form a 2.99-dimensional space or a 3.01-dimensional space.
Indeed, if the hypergraph is irregular like this, it would be astonishing if there _weren't_ local variations in dimension.
So yes, it's possible topologically. The key here is to remember that the hypergraph _is_ space, so it can have _any_ topology. It's _not_ embedded _in_ three-dimensional space, it _is_ three-dimensional space.
Take a look at my video _What are dimensions in Wolfram's universe?__ ua-cam.com/video/u2eqBOSOdeg/v-deo.html for pictures of regular grids versus irregular hypergraphs.
Thanks for the question!
@@lasttheory thanks I’ll have a look
Wouldn’t be that hypergraph the Graviton?
I don't know how the graviton would fit into the Wolfram model. My suspicion is that it's all just perturbations in the hypergraph, some of which might be interpreted as gravity waves, or gravity particles, to use the current paradigm. But maybe the hypergraph underlies each of these interpretations?
FINALLY! Proof that Peter Parker is as smart as everyone says he is! But on a serious note. Fantastic information in a fairly digestible way.
Thanks Milo ;-)
I don't even understand how levers work.
waiting to hear from Sabine and Eric.
I'd love to hear their take too!
I thought nodes and edge as used in this theory were not meant to be physical just underlying logical structures used by the theory.
Yes, the nodes and edges can be thought of as a computational model, as you say. But the hypergraph _does_ represent physical phenomena, such as space and matter. So it's as real as, say, the space-time of General Relativity or the particles of the Standard Model. Hope that makes sense!
I see no solution but for Jonathan to become a Physicist, he's already halfway there anyway.
Yes, that would be great! I wonder, though, whether Jonathan's heart is too deep in the abstract beauty of mathematics to make the switch.
Wolfram is brilliant for sure and he is not parroting away without making sense. You need to go back to Wolframs drawing board!
What he says at 7 30 min I got as well in my renders
Interesting! What kind of dimensional variations do you get? Do you see them propagating? Or do they dissipate?
@@lasttheory see my renders, also explained how spacetime emerges from 0 dimensions
@@lasttheory there is different spacetime geometries emerge, some are stable and form angular momentum, while some states broke down and form static flow, which become gradent flow. These become corpus or skeleton formation we call superclusters
@@lasttheory you may want to study floer theory, Reeb flow, Reeb orbits
@@lasttheory there is no dimensional dissipation, spacetime geometry is a composite of flow generation of 1,2,3 spatial dimensional. For instance you see earth as a spherical object but you walk on a surface. Imagine a light ray, which get deformed in different angle, now add bunch of them and all deform differently, they converge and create projective hilbert spaces. They are mirror and infinite dimensional, but reduce to finite dimensional based on if the generators break down or able to form orbits. You can also think spacetime as a photon crystal with imperfection of geometry but act as a lense
Intriguing
I've long believed that the world is three-dimensional because that is the lowest number of dimensions in which you get a transient random walk. So if you're trying to minimize dimensions while still have complexity and possibility for chaotic inflation you need that transient random walk
Yes, it's difficult to imagine a world with conscious beings in fewer than three dimensions. Stephen Wolfram might go one step further and suggest that our _perception_ is of a three-dimensional world because that's the kind of world that our conscious minds can comprehend.
I feel like the channel's title "The Last Theory" is exactly one of the things Gorard complained about. Deceitful PR that implies it's an actual physical theory, when in fact it's a formalism
Right, yes, Wolfram Physics isn't a theory... _yet._ You're right, it's currently a formalism, and the Wolfram Physics Project is described by Stephen Wolfram as "An Approach to the Fundamental Theory of Physics". But Stephen, Jonathan and I all hope that this framework will _eventually_ produce what might be the _last_ theory of physics. So yes, the title of my channel is aspirational, but it's not PR (this is just me doing my best to understand these things!) and it's not deceitful. It seems to me a good name: the last theory is what physicists have been looking for since physics began!
"The Wolfram model is a formalism that parametrizes an infinite class of theories" - right, just like String Theory.
I certainly hope it's not like String Theory! And it's very different, in this way.
Yes, there's an infinite number of possible rules, but neither Stephen Wolfram nor Jonathan Gorard thinks that finding the right theory is a matter of finding the right rule. Both think that the theory is likely to involve a _class_ of rules, such as causally invariant rules, or even all possible rules.
And there _aren't_ the same kinds of parameters in Wolfram Physics as there are in String Theory. There are no numbers to tune to get General Relativity out of the hypergraph. It just comes out. If it hadn't come out, no tuning of numbers could have _made_ it come out.
Hope that helps convince you that this is absolutely not like String Theory!
@@lasttheory I'll need to look at the theory more to really digest the answer. But I'm happy to hear that the authors are aware of 'parameter overfitting' trap and try to avoid it.
String theory has one unfixed parameter, they say: the string tension.
or maybe i should say, string theory paramaterizes an infinite class of theories using one parameter?
the infinite class of theories does pose a challenge. but the number of parameters is low.
@@nmarbletoe8210 Thanks for the pushback! If I understand correctly, yes, it can be said that there is only one parameter in String Theory, but once you start rolling up the extra dimensions, well, there are many different ways of doing that. So in effect there are many parameters. Let me know if I'm wrong about this!
Article, 'Brane Gas-Driven Bulk Expansion as a Precursor Stage to Brane Inflation' from Phy. Rev. D!.
Wow how lucid is this guy!
Yes, Jonathan's an impressive thinker, for sure!
I thought most physicists thought there were initially more than three dimensions, but most had collapsed.
Yes, you're right, there are theories that assume space has dimensions, and postulates that it had a higher number of dimensions early in the universe, and that some of these curled up later in the universe.
The Wolfram model is very different, though. It doesn't _assume_ space with any number of dimensions. Instead, space _emerges_ from the hypergraph. That makes dimensionality an emergent property, that doesn't even need to have an integer value.
I think that makes it a much more promising and much less arbitrary framework than those earlier let's-assume-there-are-9-dimensions kinds of theory!
I like that both wolfram and gorard have a proper English accent and communicate well - it makes for better understanding
Yes, both Stephen Wolfram and Jonathan Gorard are impressive communicators!
It would not be able to go over my head, my reflexes are too quick
That's what string theory people said not enough people. John you only need 1 to have an idea it's the idea that's most important not the numbers. Think about that. Great video.
Thanks Alex. You're right, of course, but take pity on the poor folks at the Wolfram Physics Project, it's a _big_ idea they're trying to explore!
Very bright guy.
Yes, Jonathan's quite brilliant. Thanks for watching, Steve!
are longer than they would be if light was traveling in a vacuum. Thus parts of the universe that appear to be not causally connected actually are. Gravitational cosmic background radiation can explain not only the non-uniform expansion of the universe but also dark matter.
Thanks Munawar. I wonder how this kind of theory might be modelled by the hypergraph of the Wolfram model? It might fit really nicely, since the hypergraph _is_ space, so highly-stressed space might be modelled by a highly-connected hypergraph.
And reality is considered to be just what exactly?
Wow, that's a big question! According to the Wolfram model, reality is a hypergraph of nodes and edges. This hypergraph, which evolves over time, _is_ space, along with everything in it. Is that the answer you were looking for?
Maybe, but where's the underlying logic? Thanks for replying.@@lasttheory
@@musicsubicandcebu1774 The logic's in the _rules_ that evolve the hypergraph over time. If you're interested in the fundamentals, take a look at this playlist of some of my earlier videos: ua-cam.com/play/PLVwcxwu8hWKnCIn_SXq8myTf2JH6ee83U.html Thanks for the comments!
Please add a membership button to this channel.
Thanks for the suggestion! What would you like to get for a membership?