Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Wolfram Physics Project

writings.stephenwolfram.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 342 posts

Re: The Wolfram Physics Project

#161

Post by themodelplumber »

aaronax wrote: post #149
themodelplumber wrote: post #127

> A Project to Find the Fundamental Theory of Physics Physics noob here, but I do a lot of theory / model development in other areas, at work and in my batcave. So I'm wondering: What if there are multiple fundamental theories, just like there are millions of different ways of looking at things, all with their various leverage/application points? > we’re going to have to find the specific rule for our universe I just…

I think this might relate to what he discusses at the end of the very long Project Announcement blog/article. Something like there may be many different rules, but the one we find will be correct for us due to the framework we have for evaluating the universe (senses, math, etc.).

If it's correct to the framework we have--do we have "a framework" for evaluating the universe? It seems more like there are many. Within senses--millions of frameworks. Within math, millions. And for good reason; this lens offers a different look at this aspect, and this other lens offers a singular view of that one. Stars are white. Stars are blue or red or yellow. Stars have no color. All of these true and helpful, and also conflicting in some context or another.

Looking at the way he's evaluating universes and aiming to find one that's so well matched to ours, just intuitively I also have to wonder how many different ways there are of modeling our universe that are worth keeping around no matter how poorly they fit in even some big ways.

Interesting stuff to think about though.

Re: The Wolfram Physics Project

#162

Post by meowface »

DubiousPusher wrote: post #144
meowface wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not dead in the sense that we've done a better job of experimentally confirming things like general relativity and aspects of quantum mechanics, due to being able to accurately perform more precise observations (like with LHC and LIGO). I'd say this is a triumph of advances in experimental physics, though, rather than theoretical physics. There doesn't seem to have been any widely accepted fundamental theoretica…

This is pure speculation on my part so take it for a grain of salt. But I generally don't find that fields just stop advancing or go cold. It seems to me that usually what is happening is there is a lot of work going on at a level that does not make a lot of sense to report to a lay audience or at leas the media which covers the subject does not think a lay audience could understand or would be interested in it. Co S…

True, there probably have been some important refinements, but part of the issue is that a lot of that work has been done along very long, sometimes many-decades long, paths that so far have had zero experimental validation.

Basically, people have been building giant ladders and constantly improving them, but we don't know if any of the ladders were put up against the right wall. We have no idea if these theories actually correspond to reality or not. For example, string theory and supersymmetry.

The LHC was created partly with the goal and expectation of detecting particles that would validate supersymmetry, but so far it hasn't, and many are beginning to believe the theory may be flawed or wrong. In some sense that is a bit of a theoretical advancement, but so far, supersymmetry theorists don't appear to have a popular alternative they're considering instead. If they fail to find evidence for it in the next 10 or so years, it's probably just a total dead end. And string theory has been at it for even longer.

Re: The Wolfram Physics Project

#163

Post by gowld »

9q9 wrote: post #159
jonathan_gorard wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Our preprints are currently in peer review (for different journals, I should add). Nothing terrible has happened yet.

Why didn't you wait with the announcements until after the pre-prints were accepted by reputable journals?

Because they wanted more peer review?

Why didn't you wait for approval of your HN comment?

Re: The Wolfram Physics Project

#164

Post by alkonaut »

GuiA wrote: post #145
alkonaut wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So did a lot of other people who aren’t extreme narcissists. I think it’s reasonable to find someone’s work admirable and yet think they have terrible personalities. There is a line of thought were people should be judged by what they create rather than how they behave, but luckily not many subscribe to it. Not even grown-up Linus Torvalds subscribes to it.

Has there been any issues of Wolfram assaulting/harassing/abusing/etc other people? Or are people just upset about the pompous style of his writing? Those are different kinds of “behavior”. Because while we should totally condemn the former, it seems that we’re discussing the latter here, and it’s hard to get riled up about.

Not that I know of, no - so I completely agree, narcissism isn’t in the same division as abuse.

Re: The Wolfram Physics Project

#165

Post by api »

JackFr wrote: post #123
api wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's "just" a different way of formulating mathematics, but sometimes formulating things differently can yield insights. At least attempting physics from this angle is a project with merit, especially since it seems as if conventional mathematical theoretical physics is a little stuck lately. The problem with the CA-based physics approaches are that while you can create CA models that work and are predictive in ways…

There is an argument, and I think Wolfram has made it, that one would expect the systems and the math to become simpler the deeper and more fundamental the models became, and the opposite seems to be true with modern physics. When you say conventional math, you’re referring to math that would be quite difficult let’s say for even a dedicated undergraduate math, physics or electrical engineering major. The CA, on the…

> one would expect the systems and the math to become simpler the deeper and more fundamental the models became

The notion that there exists a single expression, CA rule, or other fundamental truth at the root of the physical universe is an arbitrary assumption. It may or may not be true. We should go where the evidence leads us.

In the end we should have a model that is no more and no less complex than what is needed to model observed reality.

Re: The Wolfram Physics Project

#166

Post by [deleted] »

smoyer wrote: post #20

I am not a physicist but as a layman there are two interesting things that my mind (which admittedly finds connections in things that others don't) thought of while reading the article: 1) Conway has obviously been in the news recently (RIP) and there have been quite a few articles talking about his "Game of Life". The fact that complex patterns emerge from three basic rules seems eerily similar to what Wolfram is no…

[deleted]

Re: The Wolfram Physics Project

#167

Post by mellosouls »

undefined1 wrote: post #80
mellosouls wrote: post #62

Could somebody explain to Stephen Wolfram physics is already underway and the normal way to join in is to publish your ideas in appropriate venues and submit them to peer review?

N'ah. It's good that folks like Wolfram and Eric Weinstein are taking a different path. Sometimes that's what it takes for new breakthroughs to emerge. If nothing else it could spark new ideas or invigorate others to take bolder approaches and move outside their comfort zone.

Folks like Wolfram and Weinstein

Millionaires with connections.

Let's not pretend there is necessarily any more merit to their theories than that of any unconnected obscure crank or even intelligent outsiders.

They aren't getting publicity on the strength of their ideas (even if there is something to them).

Re: The Wolfram Physics Project

#168

Post by SkyMarshal »

9q9 wrote: post #159
jonathan_gorard wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Our preprints are currently in peer review (for different journals, I should add). Nothing terrible has happened yet.

Why didn't you wait with the announcements until after the pre-prints were accepted by reputable journals?

Why rely on narrow peer review when you can put the ideas out in public and receive much broader feedback. Most of that feedback will be noise, but the Wolfram crew are certainly able to find the signal in it and use that to improve or fix their ideas.

Re: The Wolfram Physics Project

#169

Post by caetris1 »

knzhou wrote: post #102

I don't see anything of substance here, besides a lot of pretty graphs. Just like Wolfram's "A New Kind of Science", we have the problem that there is a vast gulf between what you need to make flashy popsci and what you need to make a real physical theory. In increasing order of difficulty, you need to: 1. make a set of dynamical rules that matches general relativity in the low energy limit, such as recovering Lorent…

All your points make sense. Also, Wolfram is trying to create a language and tool for others because he very well realizes that his part in all this won't be solving those 7 things.

Re: The Wolfram Physics Project

#170

Post by abdullahkhalids »

9q9 wrote: post #159
jonathan_gorard wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Our preprints are currently in peer review (for different journals, I should add). Nothing terrible has happened yet.

Why didn't you wait with the announcements until after the pre-prints were accepted by reputable journals?

In a lot of physics areas, things move very fast, so generally people submit to a journal and arXiv simultaneously, in case someone else posts on arXiv first and goes down in history as first.

However, rarely are arxiv publications accompanied by such fan fare.

Post reply on HN