Why I took a chance on Wolfram Physics with Jonathan Gorard

Jonathan Gorard admits that it was a risk, for his academic career, to work on the Wolfram Physics project.
In this third excerpt from my recent conversation with Jonathan, I asked him how he thought about that risk and why he decided to take it.
He told me that the opportunity to work with Stephen Wolfram on this new model is a bit like being given an opportunity to work with von Neumann and Ulam on cellular automata, or with Turing, Church and Gödel on computational models, back in the early twentieth century.
So I asked Jonathan whether he thought, as I do, that the reframing physics in terms of computation feels like we’re in a scientific revolution, as important as the reframing of physics in terms of mathematics several hundred years ago.
“It’s a strong statement,” he replied, “but I don’t think it’ll end up being too inaccurate.”
For me, the opportunity to talk to Jonathan about Wolfram Physics feels a bit like being given an opportunity to interview Dirac, Heisenberg, Pauli or Schrödinger back in the early days of quantum mechanics.
These are exciting times.
-
Jonathan Gorard
• Jonathan Gorard at The Wolfram Physics Project www.wolframphysics.org/people...
• Jonathan Gorard at Cardiff University www.cardiff.ac.uk/people/view...
• Jonathan Gorard on Twitter / getjonwithit
• The Centre for Applied Compositionality www.appliedcompositionality.com/
• The Wolfram Physics Project www.wolframphysics.org/
People and Concepts mentioned by Jonathan
• John von Neumann en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_vo...
• Stanislaw Ulam en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanisl...
• Alan Turing en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Tu...
• Alonzo Church en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alonzo_...
• Kurt Gödel en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_G%...
• Quantum information theory en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum...
• Undecidability mathworld.wolfram.com/Undecid...
• Irreducibility mathworld.wolfram.com/Computa...
• Manojna Namuduri education.wolfram.com/summer-...
• Xerxes D. Arsiwalla www.wolframphysics.org/people...
• ZX-Calculus and Extended Hypergraph Rewriting Systems I: A Multiway Approach to Categorical Quantum Information Theory - Jonathan Gorard, Manojna Namuduri, Xerxes D. Arsiwalla arxiv.org/abs/2010.02752
• ZX-Calculus and Extended Wolfram Model Systems II: Fast Diagrammatic Reasoning with an Application to Quantum Circuit Simplification - Jonathan Gorard, Manojna Namuduri, Xerxes D. Arsiwalla arxiv.org/abs/2103.15820
Image credits
• John von Neumann - Los Alamos National Laboratory en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jo...
• Stanisław Ulam - Los Alamos National Laboratory commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
For images from the Los Alamos National Laboratory: Unless otherwise indicated, this information has been authored by an employee or employees of the Triad National Security, LLC, operator of the Los Alamos National Laboratory with the U.S. Department of Energy. The U.S. Government has rights to use, reproduce, and distribute this information. The public may copy and use this information without charge, provided that this Notice and any statement of authorship are reproduced on all copies. Neither the Government nor Triad makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any liability or responsibility for the use of this information.
Prefer to listen to the audio? Search for The Last Theory in your podcast player, or listen at lasttheory.com/podcast/024-wh...
Kootenay Village Ventures Inc.

[@eriklintsev]

Thanks for staying on track!

[@Self-Duality]

Jonathan is a truly humble genius!

[@lasttheory]

Yes, he's so completely straightforward, as well as precise, in the way he speaks, isn't he?

[@Self-Duality]

@@lasttheory Marvelously so!

[@SpotterVideo]

@@lasttheory Conservation of Spatial Curvature (both Matter and Energy described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature) 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 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. ------------------------ 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 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 the “Twistor Theory” of Roger Penrose, and the work of Eric Weinstein on “Geometric Unity”? 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 gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks. (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 Mesons. 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. Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. We know there is an unequal distribution of electrical charge within each atom because the positive charge is concentrated within the nucleus, even though the overall electrical charge of the atom is balanced by equal positive and negative charge. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. The model grew out of that simple idea. I was also trying to imagine a way to stuff the curvature of a 3 D sine wave into subatomic particles. .

[@kostoglotov2000]

Thanks Mark for interviewing Jonathan and thank you Jonathan for you brilliant work. Start a podcast so your fan base can follow you; I have never seen you and Newton in the same place, makes one question your true identity. Lastly can protons and electrons decay? I hope they do so that Roger Penrose is right about CCC

[@lasttheory]

Ah, proton and electron decay. It's a question of whether a persistent tangle in the hypergraph (which is what protons and electrons might be in Wolfram Physics) is _infinitely_ persistent or might eventually break down. More on particles to come, but for now I'll say that this question _might_ prove too computationally complex to answer directly from the hypergraph. I do release all my audio (only very slightly different from the audio on these videos) as a podcast. You can subscribe at lasttheory.com/podcast/ Thanks for watching and listening, and thanks for your comments!

[@lasttheory]

@Mike Fuller Yep, that's Special Relativity for you!

[@kostoglotov2000]

It is reformulating physics in terms of computation, absolutely, thats why it is so exiting, it is a principia moment for the 21st century.

[@lasttheory]

Yes, exactly!

[@peterhall6656]

I think Jonathan's analysis is on the money in terms of his professional risk. The computational dimension to quantum information theory really did bring to the fore the whole computation thing - 20 years earlier it was a different story. In a sense this is a bit like what Russell and Whitehead did with formal axiomatic systems - their 200 (?) page (I can't remember after all these years) that 1+1=2 was a stake in the ground for formal systems. Demonstrating how you can get the Einstein field equations out of the discrete system is a similar stake in the ground. I am yet to read Jonathan's big paper (plus all the other others) to really get my mind around the detail but having followed Stephen for a very long time this is an exciting intellectual development and it may have surprising spin offs in other areas. I must say that Jonathan is a superb communicator of these abstract ideas and his infectious enthusiasm should be bottled and sold !

[@lasttheory]

Thanks Peter, I couldn't agree more!

[@TheSensualSerpien]

Peter Woit's dismissal of Wolfram's theory in another video here on KZbin, essentially proves that people who have invested their entire careers in the assumption that the symbols of their conceptual spaces actually reflect reality, will always try to float one-sentence refutations to project the illusion that Wolfram is merely a crank and not worth the time of the people who are doing "real physics". Woit's statement was to the effect that "I have absolutely no sympathy for Wolfram's theories; I've spent about 10 minutes looking at this and it's just not possible everything I've observed and come to believe could be wrong". Another criticism leveled is "it's just like string theory, it can't be empirically demonstrated, so why bother?" Yet, plenty of bright minds are expending energy pursuing it simply because (to paraphrase Witten) "the math works so well that from it we can derive already-known equations and phenomena, thus string theory shouldn't be ignored". The future will show that Wolfram is on the right track.

[@lasttheory]

Yes, that’s well put, and of course I strongly agree. Thanks for taking the time to say so!

[@SerbanTanasa]

I have been following Wolfram, Gorard & Arsiwalla for a few years now. I think fundamentally, the computational universe model has to be closer to the underlying reality than the "equations" model. However, I still struggle to see the practical relevance of what's been accomplished so far. I have seen them suggest that GR and Quantum models "emerge" out of their model, but so far I think we're very thin on novel, testable predictions. Admittedly, if the scale at which these discrete graphs work is below Plank length, that might be hard, but if that's the case, how's one untestable mathematical abstraction (Wolfram computational model) more fruitful than another untestable mathematical abstraction (say String Theory)?

[@lasttheory]

Yes, thanks Serban, I think that's a good summary of where we are and how these theories are going to have to develop. I agree, there's no practical relevance so far. Jonathan Gorard's derivations of GR and QM from the hypergraph are precise and compelling, but we need to go much further to get testable predictions. It's an interesting question of how we'll arrive at these. I'm optimistic that we will, but that's just a hunch. I asked Jonathan about this, and he has some interesting answers on how we might arrive at testable predictions. For example, three-dimensional space emerges from the hypergraph model, so if we're able to find regions of space that are _not_ precisely three-dimensional, as the hypergraph model might suggest, that would be compelling evidence. I'll be releasing Jonathan's detailed answers to this question soon. Thanks for the comment!

[@TheMemesofDestruction]

“True Love, priceless. For everything else there’s Wolfram Alpha.” ☮️ ❤️ ^.^

[@lasttheory]

Ha!

[@JasonCunliffe]

Next ::: >>> Computational Electro BioLogy Michael Levine interviews, research & presentations "Intelligence goes _All the way down (in scale)" & study up on Gap Junctions

[@mz-dz2yn]

explain in a new video the creation and life of one Silver or Iron Atom from Big bang until today and also inside Wolfram Physics explain the creation and life of one Silver or Iron Atom from Big bang until today answer question ... in these two models where does energy come from to maintain one Silver or Iron Atom in perfection for 8 billion years.

[@lasttheory]

That's a challenge! I'm hoping to get to matter in the Wolfram model pretty soon here, but explaining even a single, elementary particle, such as a photon or an electron, is a tall order. I'll let you know why in a future video. And I think we'll have to resort to traditional nuclear physics to explain silver or iron. It's hard to explain a molecule, such as an iron oxide, in terms of nuclear physics: you have to explain it in terms of higher-level, chemical concepts instead. In the same way, it'll be hard to explain an atom, such as iron, in terms of Wolfram physics: you'll have to explain it in terms of higher-level, traditional nuclear physics concepts instead. Having said that, there's plenty of fascinating things to say about matter, energy and momentum in the context of Wolfram Physics. Much more to come on these things!

[@stevendavis8636]

wtf

[@williamschacht7076]

Using computers to solve systems of equations is not cheating. It is just an approximation.

[@krzysztofwos1856]

The notion that if you pursue this project, it may torpedo your academic career is a testament to how indistinguishable from religion science has become. Or perhaps, has always been. Whether it's the Catholic Church or the Church of String Theory, it's dogma through and through. Precisely the same phenomenon can be observed in AI research. Stephen Wolfram is the best example of why it is extremely important to pursue an independent source of wealth if one wants to be free to think for oneself.

[@lasttheory]

Yes, this is well said, sadly.

[@jamesrarathoon2235]

This direction of research will ultimately lead to a battle with mathematicians who still want to found their subject on the a priori existence of infinite sets. Intellectual honesty always comes at a cost and you have to be prepared to pay that cost to overturn existing dogmas in physics, rather than limit yourself to rewriting existing structures in a new language.

[@absolute062]

I think the bigger problem is that specializing in wolfram physics is risky. There could be a point in the near future where it is inreconsialbly disproven, and then everyone who has worked on it will have no relevant experience to switch into normal academia

[@lasttheory]

@@absolute062 Yes, that's a risk. But even if the Wolfram model proves inapplicable to physics, there are so many other fields of research that it might apply to that it seems worth investigating regardless. It's speculative, for sure, but speculation can yield great rewards, if you're willing to take the risk!

[@pghislain]

My god you have a big problem: you thing so much about your carrer, academic record, go after premiums... but a physicist should develop a thinking by yourself that can or may lead you to discover new insides. I am surprise how many learn by heart bits of discour about systems (teories) without the required distance betweem them, the theory and the real world. So when I ask how you test your conjecture, they say Ooo... its note mine, I say whatever, they answer, its not mine and the autor should provide those testings. I never propagate without many quotes and distance any speculative theory (unprove). There are so much do study and discover. Start to meditate and relax. The underlining ideas will popup in you like in a soda on a calme beach amazed by the beauty of nature. Try that. Give you a break to let your brain and your subconscient put order in your permanent shaker. May be you will find something genial that "must be thrue" ! That the way.

[@lasttheory]

Thanks for the feedback, Pierre! I should say that it was me who was pressing Jonathan on the question of the risk of trying something so new and unproven. I think his answer shows that he agrees with you: going for the big ideas is really important to Jonathan, as it is to me, and to you. And yes, testing is really important, but there's nothing to test without bold conjecture!

[@pghislain]

@@lasttheory I am at a stage where I feel its not importance that he agree that you agree. I just made an interaction and he / you shall integrate some part may be or nothing which is also an action. Can we decide our destiny by a market of research study ? I would be more intuitive, go where it feels better. The happiness absolutely not reside beeing on the top because there you concentrate the stress of critics. A researcher is outofthebox... be definition, itn't it ? O by the way : there's nothing to test without bold conjecture! Mmmm... be careful with unprovable proposition (Goedel). If you make bold conjecture, you have to build also the ladder that allow to connect it to a logic system of thinking, else, its a lake of focus. Undemonstrable proposals are infinites so why would one got credit more than another ? Build the ladder from god to the mortals !

[@lasttheory]

@@pghislain Yes, I think we agree on building a ladder. But it takes time. It was years between Einstein's bold conjecture that light would be deflected following the curvature of space-time and the experimental observation that light from distant stars is, indeed, deflected on passing close to the sun.

[@mrrandom9869]

Konrad Zuse already wrote a long paper discussing the idea of 'computing space' back in the 60s and many other scientists since. Yet here are Wolfram and Gorard speaking as if such ideas were novel. What has the real novel contribution of the project to fundamental physics been so far? Still next to nothing, besides pretty pictures. Pretentious people are not great. it's not the way of the scientist.

[@lasttheory]

Yes, I agree, computational models for physics aren't new! I do think there's real grounds for interest here, though. Just to give one example: Jonathan Gorard has derived General Relativity and aspects of Quantum Mechanics from the hypergraph. Jonathan downplays these proofs. In a future excerpt from our conversation, you'll hear him saying he was more relieved than surprised that General Relativity falls out of the Wolfram Model. But it's suggestive, for sure, that there's more to this model than just pretty pictures. And I promise you Jonathan's far from pretentious! You only have to hear him speak to know that he's one of the humblest people imaginable! Thanks for your comment, and I hope you'll continue to watch these excerpts from my conversation with Jonathan. I'll try to convince you that there's something here! And if you still don't agree, I look forward to your future comments so that we can debate!

[@mrrandom9869]

@@lasttheory Ok, thank you. The way he derived special relativity was already based on fallacies, so I don't think I'm going to be looking into his derivation of general relativity. But don't get me wrong, I actually Do believe that it is possible to derive SR or GR from such a graph based computation, his is just not the correct way to do it.

[@lasttheory]

@@mrrandom9869 OK, good to know, thanks. For sure, it's not clear which graph-based computational models are going to prove the most fruitful... that's what makes it exciting!

[@NightmareCourtPictures]

This guy again with the self contradictory comments that we’ve already discussed before and has already been proven as disingenuous. Ignore and move along. Calling Complex Systems, Network Theory and Graph Theory as just “pretty pictures” just shows your still living in the 60’s.

[@sorinsuciu8675]

Good to hear you again Jonathan, hope you will still contribute more on the theorem proofing framework