Wolfram Physics Project: General Q&A

Stephen Wolfram & Jonathan Gorard continue answering questions about the new Wolfram Physics Project, this time specifically for a general question and answer 2 weeks after launch. Begins at 1:17
Originally livestreamed at: / stephen_wolfram
Stay up-to-date on this project by visiting our website: wolfr.am/physics
Check out the announcement post: wolfr.am/physics-announcement
Find the tools to build a universe: wolfr.am/physics-tools
Find the technical documents: wolfr.am/physics-documents
Follow us on our official social media channels:
Twitter: / wolframresearch
Facebook: / wolframresearch
Instagram: / wolframresearch
LinkedIn: / wolfram-research
Stephen Wolfram's Twitter: / stephen_wolfram
Contribute to the official Wolfram Community: community.wolfram.com
Stay up-to-date on the latest interest at Wolfram Research through our blog: blog.wolfram.com
Follow Stephen Wolfram's life, interests, and what makes him tick on his blog: writings.stephenwolfram.com

[@IWillBeTheVeryBest]

Yes. A discussion with David Deutsch would be amazing. Thanks Stephen!

[@aaaarrrg3773]

Thank you Prof Wolfram. I only have higher level schooling in telecom electronics from nearly 30yrs ago so I'm struggling with a lot of what your saying but I understand enough to see the bigger picture. You've inspired me to begin learning the physics and higher math to follow along with your research. There are so many books and online resources that I have no need to go back to school and accrue debt. This will be fun. (Just ordered NKS)

[@djbabbotstown]

L

[@bariswheel]

‘ Greatly exceeded my expectations ‘ delightful!

[@finojose]

Stephen congratulation you for your courage in challenging what is established. I bought your book New kind of science 18 years ago as soon as it was released. Pay attention that there is a portfolio of projects to be executed to increase the adoption of your new theory quickly and successfully.

[@kawingchan]

I like “getting a lot out of very little”, it summarizes a lot for me.

[@newolderalso2]

How does a theory of nodes and their connections differ from a theory of open strings?

[@NightmareCourtPictures]

I’m late on this comment, but nodes and edges are formal constructs that come from complex systems and network theory and information theory…they are nothing like strings…they are necessary tools in modeling systems so your question is like asking why we use particles in a box to describe particle physics. The particle in a box construction (thinking about forces like springs and so on) is one way to model a system. Nodes and edges (modeling systems as a network) is just way more robust in a lot of ways. Something to mention, is that the atoms of space are not exactly physical really…they are real…but it’s informational…like how the “atoms of your computer” are 0’s and 1’s. The 0’s and 1’s don’t really exist in a purely physical sense but they exist informationally and this theory is based on the fact that information is equivalent to it being physical. Because of this: atoms of space being nodes and edges make the construction of the theory as simple as possible…the wolfram model at a trivial level needs no math to describe what it is that you see…where as string theory is the complete opposite: where you need towers and towers of math to understand remotely anything about it. Anyway hopefully my explanation was not that confusing…but just look up complex systems 101 on KZbin.

[@newolderalso2]

@@NightmareCourtPictures Thanks for your input. :) It all reads a bit convoluted to an aging atmospheric physicist but I suppose that's the way things have developed since I retired. I'll investigate complex systems but KZbin may be a later call in my efforts. Thanks again.

[@NightmareCourtPictures]

@@newolderalso2 ya np. When you get around to it with Complex systems you’ll almost immediately see the similarities between the wolfram model and that body of science. Complex systems more or less encompasses all the interesting things you’ve probably wondered about as an atmospheric scientist (like turbulence, scale invariance, chaos and fractals in weather systems) and models things like weather behavior as a complex system, which makes a lot more sense in trying to understand the “why” of those systems. Moreover, if you study complex systems enough you’ll inevitably draw the connection it has to computation (computational complexity) and this is the bridge that the wolfram model stands across from and ultimately is a unifier of the whole field. It’s well worth your time and very relevant to your field of study. I understand your frame of reference a bit too because I started out many years ago studying tornadoes and the supercells they come from, so I’m glad you mentioned that. Cheers,

[@newenglandbarbell4647]

Yes please get David Deutsch on 🙏

[@q2santos]

Great idea! Constructor Theory seems to have something in common with the Wolfram Physics Project.

[@EeekiE]

1:56

[@newolderalso2]

If the "fundamental length is 10^-93m" how is this not a theory of open strings?

[@lawofuniverserealityanalyt3199]

Stephen I like your idea of graphs very much, It resonates with a Holistic microscopic transportation model - never commercialized - I developed almost 30 years ago. When you described the mechanics to Lex of your physics models complete continuous (update, step) sequence it sounded like you were explaining my model; an irreducible complexity model. A graphical completeness theorem that survive Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. A bottom-up paradigm dismissed by Roger Penrose as not worth commenting on which solves hard problems; P=NP I am almost sure. @UCDRvtKDVBR5i_-wugJHXGLA: Yes, this relates to Donald Hoffman's Case against reality; it is a completeness theorem which suggests creation and reality, it seems to me.

[@nolan412]

There was the Quark Matter conference in Wuhan back in November. Almost a who's who of institutions.

[@nolan412]

Physical validation: when the graphs can run on a quantum computer that pings qubits?

[@nolan412]

Whole dimensions until the time a new one enters or leaves the picture?

[@nolan412]

Thinking a black hole only needs an explosion in connectivity...with edges in and out.

[@pepitoperez594]

It makes me so sad there is no free will :(

[@gonzaloxxx8922]

and em aaa emm aaa