Wolfram Physics I: Basic Formalism, Causal Invariance and Special Relativity

Find more information about the summer school here: education.wolf...
Stay up-to-date on this project by visiting our website: wolfr.am/physics
Check out the announcement post: wolfr.am/physic...
Find the tools to build a universe: wolfr.am/physi...
Find the technical documents: wolfr.am/physi...
Follow us on our official social media channels.
Twitter: / wolframresearch
Facebook: / wolframresearch
Instagram: / wolframresearch
LinkedIn: / wolfram-research
Stephen Wolfram's Twitter: / stephen_wolfram
Contribute to the official Wolfram Community: community.wolf...
Stay up-to-date on the latest interest at Wolfram Research through our blog: blog.wolfram.com
Follow Stephen Wolfram's life, interests, and what makes him tick on his blog: writings.steph...

[@keepmoving1185]

Thank you, I can now fix my time machine!

[@123amsterdan456]

6:50 for the start

[@skaramicke]

Someone pin this comment!

[@tacopacopotato6619]

It's really big of you guys to show this stuff off online like this for free. Super cool!

[@tarkajedi3331]

When I first read NKS I felt there was a path - Now with Wolfram and his clever team I think real breakthroughs have already been disovered)))

[@tarkajedi3331]

I believe this work is the most interesting work since the golden age !!! Not only does it answer some questions from GR, SR and Quantum Mechanics the Wolfram Model is able to suggest some incredible things! The Tools are very helpful and I think Noble Prizes are o the horizon!!! It must be said that this breakthourgh is exciting and Wolfram has some brilliant people with him on this journey! Send this to anyone young that you know!!!

[@pascaljosiah6866]

What are some of the thngs it suggest? I do like the use of graph theory, however I am not much of a physicist/

[@tarkajedi3331]

@@pascaljosiah6866 I suggest get into the Wolfram language...

[@pascaljosiah6866]

I will get you a copy

[@value8035]

I just watched this out of curiosity, and also tried at x.75 speed. But still, i'm sure some of my brain cells exfoliated over the nature of these charming explanation of these extremely complex ideas of combinatorics. Sounds promising, but I am skeptical whether I can understand and use it in any form with my little brain. Hmm , Shall I continue learning or abort right now? To me this lecture is just "trust me, It is all good." kind of thing. Its intimidating and seems a long way for me to go and learn the theories and consequences of words and terms used here.

[@Garganzuul]

Don't mistake your ability to understand for someone's ability to explain. The list of pedagogic mistakes this guy makes is... extensive. He needs to get better at it if he really wants these ideas to catch on.

[@penumbraman99]

For the first on KZbin, I had to slow his speech down to x.75 to heard what he’s saying. Unfortunately, I don’t enough about this subject to understand the terms you are using. It’s totally over my head. It’s like listen to a Japanese speaker.

[@123amsterdan456]

I am so thrilled to be watching this. Amazing

[@yohanj5239]

To prove the existence of causal relationship, forward arrow is not enough. Forward arrow or if-then statement only represents conditional probabilities which is NOT causal invariance. You must do backward checking at runtime(A B) for equivalency. Holy grail of how the universe works. Loss of causality occurs when an event does not follow the predefined structured pathway of hypergraph.

[@mymacaintwag]

I just love this guy! He is explaining exactly what I am interested in. Thank you

[@georgetsatas6022]

6:50

[@MathPhilosophyLab]

Amazing!!! I think the HyperGraph would be an epic video game

[@kisho2679]

But hasn't it already been in the domain of "Theoretical Physics" to search for solution models to quests/problems in physics that have not necessarily been observed?

[@SkillsToLearn]

Dr. Stephen Wolfram, can we just run differentiable models in your WP framework to emulate ours universe creation possibilities and then filter them out?

[@dimicdragan5922]

A question: since hypergraph ticks/calculations are time, does it mean that there is only run-time... universe exists only at runtime...? what about past, future? What about the "loaf-of-bread" view of the universe, where everything (past present futire ) exists... tick is just next slice... what is next slice in hypergraph model? My guess is a history of branching of the hypergraph. But how do you access it. Also hypergraph ticks, do they propagate at some speed? Or we percieve them as simultaneous...

[@zzzoldik8749]

could you give the simple explanation, because I still under graduate, I can not understand it. I mean like just give general idea and give some animation for it?

[@metaphorpritam]

Where can I get the presentation slides? Thank you!

[@silberlinie]

A formal suggestion. Your cursor should take a special shape when you move it over a graphic. At the moment you have the problem of accidentally clicking into a graphic of the slide and the graphic is selected. But you do not want that. Here the cursor should take a special shape over the graphic and the selection should be prevented.

[@tarkajedi3331]

Even though I have been learning for a while now I still found this insightful, enriching and powerful))) I needed this to reinforce my understanding and help my confidence! I think I could describe this now without too many mistakes!!!! Thank you!!!

[@SpotterVideo]

Does the following quantum model agree with the Spinor Theory of Roger Penrose? Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules: "A theory that you can't explain to a bartender is probably no damn good." Ernest Rutherford 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. (More spatial curvature). 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 actually a part of the quarks. 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 Force" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" make sense based on this concept. Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. 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 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. 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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone. 1/137 1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface 137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface A Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting 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?

[@frun]

Rewriting rule is reminiscent of Relative locality(Emergence) 15:00 kzbin.info/www/bejne/hqHGnKSeicmqipIm

[@xdgameryt6990]

Thank you , for your kindly instructions

[@kirsty_iso]

I want to see an animation of this , is it 3D . ?

[@policyfirst4399]

I'm just waiting for this theory to be tested.

[@jookovjook]

Can not understand anything. But it's very interesting

[@tycoleman2845]

after watching the episode with eric. Have you tried running the rule with 14 degrees matching his geometric unity theory?

[@nodelayfordays8083]

Which episode?

[@_tgwilson_]

@@nodelayfordays8083 Dr Brian Keating with Stephen and Eric

[@petexii]

Beautiful stuff to think about! It still doesn't address the basement-level question, "How does anything exist." But it's the best attempt to answer the question "How does our universe exist", right down to the background static. Looking forward to watching this crossword of crosswords unfold :)

[@jandroid33]

Super with these lectures, thanks!

[@taraspokalchuk7256]

where is the second part?

[@redmi8781]

hyperbolic space? like in DMT ?

[@nolan412]

Was starting to feel like time to take it from the top.

[@inar684]

This is the greatest thing humanity has ever done. But Jonathan, do you realise the power that emanates from the 'unified field theory'. Is that not scary considering our track record?

[@mattkafker8400]

I was drawn to this video because I saw my name! Just kidding, of course. Very cool lecture.

[@philipm3173]

Talk starts at 6:55

[@kisho2679]

how is AI implemented for this?

[@christopherchang6378]

nothin' like a smart dude with a brain naturally on overdrive boosted by amphetamines'.

[@petexii]

Haha I thought about Paul Erdős frequently while watching this.

[@aurelienyonrac]

Holy moly.

[@tarkajedi3331]

Brilliant !!!!

[@vjfperez]

19:06 Can In(B) and Out(A) be non unique sets? How update events are defined without specifying underlying input/output hypergraph states?

[@vjfperez]

I'm taking that the update event is defined abstractly as an enumeration of node locations being transformed by the update rule, presumably as an equivalence class over all possible input/output pairs of hypergraph states for which such update event specification would be compatible/maximal.

[@TechyBen]

Presenter Casually states: "This produces a thing called the multiway evolution graph... that there is no canonical reference frame in our universe... [that describes our special relativity and quantum mechanics seamlessly]" Wow, that's a power move! :D

[@beilkster]

Starts at 6:49

[@dima_krezu]

starts at 6:50

[@Yo-vx3zx]

Gracias :D

[@puppetperception7861]

I hear if you wear round spectacles you can actually see the universe like us normal people

[@vjfperez]

15:50 - "Construct a maximally non-overlapping sequence of transformations at each step" - this strikes me as a counter-intuitive and undesirable specification as it seems to condition the update order in a location to remote aspects of the global hypergraph structure

[@vjfperez]

I think I see how it works: you are not trying to maximize the number of compatible subgraphs that gets transformed by an update event, you are only constraining the updating input set to be maximal in the sense that no compatible subgraph is left untransformed, but not constrained to update events with the maximum possible number of transformations

[@vjfperez]

Or, in the causal graph, you just run one local update event at each node of the causal graph. And then your foliation choice defines what updates are simultaneous. So the causal graph depends on the particular order of the local update events, and causal invariance property stipulates that this does not matter because the causal graphs are all isomorphic

[@crehenge2386]

This really explains why most phycisists dismisses this

[@schmetterling4477]

Yes, physicist are generally dismissive of bullshit.

[@PixelPhobiac]

How exactly?

[@vjfperez]

A persuasive proposal for a fundamental shift in perspective is considered successful if its presentation is met with pretentious anti-enthusiasm from status quo stakeholders.

[@Garganzuul]

The material is good but your pace if frantic. Remember thar you are teaching, not taking a test.

[@johnalley8397]

At Microsoft it was 7 minutes for a peer and 11 for your boss. then meeting adjourned.

[@JonathanFetzerMagic]

Only a madman would think he can generate the entire universe in his computer.

[@schmetterling4477]

Especially since he should know better. Wherever we look, from classical mechanics to quantum mechanics to general relativity to quantum field theory, nature builds hard boundaries to knowledge and simulation.

[@cristian6402-t8y]

Had to check the speed on my youtube player, this dude be speaking too fast

[@plamindset1168]

what programming language is used to make these models?

[@schmetterling4477]

It doesn't matter because they don't work.

[@ahmsokhbu4913]

I get it

[@ModuliOfRiemannSurfaces]

Hypergraph go brr

[@sudoboat]

That's... Nothing really new.b

[@paltieri11]

👍

[@rikkerthindriks3478]

Interesting piece of mathematics, no doubt. As far as actual predictions are concerned; it seems that everything that comes out of the model has been put in there from the start. The available pre-prints only confirm this impression. Forget about modern physics and first try to derive the basic laws of thermodynamics. As it is presented now, it's just a bunch of pretentious nonsense.

[@substantivalism6787]

Technically quantum mechanics is more basic than thermodynamics.

[@comeinhandynow]

Edit this video! What an amateurish start, the first 7 minutes are wasted, cut it. Also stop jumping around slides back and forth so often and so rapidly.

[@mikemcculley]

This makes me believe that we really do exist in a computer simulation.

[@realist4859]

oh god.. I think i'm confluent! help pls!

[@puppetperception7861]

Bro if you can’t see the universe it’s probably because you just can’t see it

[@rg3412]

Please talk more slowly

[@alexbenzie6585]

You can slow down the video lol....

[@imapimplykindapimp]

He pretty much sounds normal at 0.75 haha

[@777666777MICHAEL]

This is nonsense

[@parker9163]

To you, yes

[@leschwartz]

Minkowski space is a diagram of the imagined relationship between space and time, its not isomorphic to anything beyond explaining some macro concepts in relativity, (including your choice of any multidimensional manifold with any number of dimensions and properties and constraints you like). Nothing in the diagrammatic Minkowski world is the foundation for actual physical laws, including gravity, quantum mechanics, and it never will be. Apart from all of the manifestations of energy and matter, space itself has no properties or structure of itself so a mathematical formulation assigning properties to some hypothetical manifold with any set of properties and constraints is a huge distraction and basically as failed string and m-brane theory has proved its a wasted effort. Physicists and mathematicians have been at this fools errand for almost 100 years and have not noticed it is getting them no-where toward understanding physical laws at a more fundamental level.

[@schmetterling4477]

Yes and no. The problem is that, whether we like this or not, the physical vacuum is three dimensional and filled with fields. We need a deeper explanation for the number three and for the structure of the fields.

[@leschwartz]

@@schmetterling4477 No, space - the so called 'physical vacuum' is not a thing, it is not a first order phenomenological object with self owned properties. its nothing, it is the absence of everything, it does not have dimensionality, or any other property. Fields are an aspect of energy - matter. As soon as you start ascribing the properties of energy and energy fields to 'space' your are lost and confused and will end up in the same fruitless tail chasing confusion physics has been in for 100 years.

[@schmetterling4477]

@@leschwartz The physical vacuum is not empty and can not be. We are talking about physics here, not Aristotle's bullshit.

[@leschwartz]

@@schmetterling4477 Hilarious, you obviously do not know that the most renown physicists have stated just what I am telling you again, Tesla, Heaviside, etc. You and many others are allowing the illusion created by your senses to incorrectly assume that space is a thing. It isn't, its no more a first order phenomenological object than is a shadow. I will explain it for you simply, no light, no obstruction, no shadow. Its the same for 'space', no energy, no matter, then no 'space'. Prior to the big bang when there was no energy or matter in the universe there was no space, that is standard physics, not metaphysics.

[@schmetterling4477]

@@leschwartz Tesla? Sure. Now I am turning around and walking away slowly. :-)

[@aceghani1327]

to the NSA, i am studying this theory right now, and your operatives are still bombarding me with microwaves, can you please order them to stop.

[@schmetterling4477]

Why do they assume that nature is causal???? It boggles the mind how little self-awareness mathematicians have about physics and the implicit assumptions people put into physical models that are not backed up by any evidence.

[@substantivalism6787]

Casual and non-casual patterns in nature go hand in hand. He says casual relationships and you desire for noncasual but repetitive patterns of experience (when A thing is near B thing then C happens). Same thing really. Regardless of your philosophical opinions on causes nature is highly repetitive nonetheless in certain generalities.

[@schmetterling4477]

@@substantivalism6787 My main philosophical opinion is that philosophy is bullshit. I can back that up with the fact that the philosophy department hasn't delivered anything of value in 2500 years, while the science departments have changed it completely to the better in approx. 400. Now you can go and argue with facts for all I care.

[@substantivalism6787]

@@schmetterling4477 I can agree but perhaps philosophy has scaffolding that abstractly builds our world. Though, if I considered my own philosophical perspective the world is nothing but experiences and the patterns there in while the true reasons are forever lost to us.

[@schmetterling4477]

@@substantivalism6787 Plate, cave, laugh.

[@substantivalism6787]

@@schmetterling4477 what does this mean?