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

121–130 of 342 posts

Re: The Wolfram Physics Project

#121

Post by knzhou »

stupidcar wrote: post #116
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…

The book doesn't seem to be out yet? Do you have access to an advance copy?

I'm following his "technical introduction" here: https://www.wolframphysics.org/technical-introduction/

Re: The Wolfram Physics Project

#122

Post by stupidcar »

tinman25 wrote: post #89

So basically this: https://xkcd.com/505/ huh Stephen? -Question has anyone validated and/or disproved his Geometric Rules based approach and NKS Cellular automata against traditional physics models and found predictable conclusions that can be tested via experiment? IE is it really anything other alternative notation/representation system? It essentially presupposes a computational canvas to the universe,but in what…

There's a "Discussion Forum" link on the homepage.

Re: The Wolfram Physics Project

#123

Post by JackFr »

api wrote: post #82
blablabla123 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In university a professor was explaining how Wolfram formulated Physics in the 80s through finite automata instead of Mathematics, that must be the NKS. Is it actually (at least theoretically ;)) possible to calculate something with it, so that results match for instance Newtonian Physics?

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 other hand described a process an interested child can comprehend.

Re: The Wolfram Physics Project

#124

Post by outlace »

hobofan wrote: post #92
meowface wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which subject?

He claimed that "all our laboratory mice are broken". Video links and discussion: https://www.reddit.com/r/longevity/comments/g0ioxq/if_it_is_...

He's speaking on behalf of his brother Brett Weinstein, who is qualified to say such things.

Re: The Wolfram Physics Project

#125

Post by knzhou »

covidacct wrote: post #114
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…

The substance a good dsl for implementing rewrite/string substitution systems, as well as (likely high-quality) implementations of algorithms causal invariants, knuth-bendix completion, graph isomorphism, etc. [1]. A lot of that pre-existed the Wolfram Physics Project. The new thing appears to be: 1. a rebranding with improved documentation / learning resources for using those features (hey, documentation is hard! di…

I do agree that Mathematica is great software! Physics would be much poorer without its help.

Re: The Wolfram Physics Project

#126

Post by mjburgess »

knzhou wrote: post #119
mjburgess wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is the following section a beginning of an attempt at that? https://www.wolframphysics.org/technical-introduction/potent...

Not really. It's very vague -- he is just repeatedly saying "well, you could write down X in terms of graphs in this way." But you can write down anything in terms of anything. You can write a compiler in PowerPoint because it's Turing complete. You can write the Bible in Klingon. You can write about making a burrito in category theory. Languages are just packaging. In order to have content, you have to nail down spe…

Sure, I agree. However there is value in a phrasing, eg., phrasing classical mechanics in Hamiltonian terms permitted unification with QM, and understanding of non/classical limits.

...

also,

> In our previous paper[1], we formally introduced the Wolfram Model[2] - a new discrete spacetime formalism in which space is represented by a hypergraph, and in which laws of physics are modeled by transformation rules on set systems - and investigated its various relativistic and gravitational properties in the continuum limit, as first discussed in Stephen Wolfram’s A New Kind of Science (NKS)[3]. Our central result was the proof that large classes of such models, with transformation rules obeying particular constraints, were mathematically consistent with discrete forms of both special and general relativity

https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/wolframphysics/Documents/so...

Re: The Wolfram Physics Project

#127

Post by themodelplumber »

> 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 wonder what makes someone so sure there is a specific rule, when humans are good at generating untold numbers of rules, and in my experience those rules can be very effective _and_ work best together when held lightly, rather than exclusively. (If anything, humans seem more likely to become dangerously dogmatic when they feel they have identified "the one" of something. Like a human anti-pattern.)

Re: The Wolfram Physics Project

#128

Post by diegoperini »

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…

> I mean, it's like trying to rescue a startup by translating the documentation into Esperanto.

I will quote you with this amazing analogy. Thank you!

Re: The Wolfram Physics Project

#129

Post by knzhou »

natalyarostova wrote: post #117
martythemaniak wrote: post #86

I think this has a better chance of succeeding than Hacker News having a Wolfram-related thread that isn't 50% slagging the guy.

It's super sad. I don't know much about Physics at all. But I suspect any huge breakthrough will come when 1000s of people, like Wolfram, spend their life's effort to solve an incredibly hard problem. Almost all will fail, but some will succeed, and at the start it won't be obvious who is on the right path vs. who is a 'crank.' Imagine just sitting at home, constantly talking shit and disparaging someone who has dedi…

Well, here I am talking shit about Wolfram, but I'm a physicist. There are thousands of us spending our lives on incredibly hard problems. The only difference between Wolfram and Weinstein and the rest of us is that they're declaring victory in an incredibly premature, flashy way. When the rest of us have an idea, we try hard to prove it wrong (which is fundamental to how science works), not search for a lay audience to promote it to.

Re: The Wolfram Physics Project

#130

Post by jonathan_gorard »

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…

(1) We certainly do have formal derivations of Lorentz covariance and the Einstein field equations, given in detail here:

http://wolframcloud.com/obj/wolframphysics/Documents/some-re...

(2) The article above already discusses the derivation of the matter contribution to the Lagrangian density, the derivation of energy-momentum tensor, and Lorentz transformations for elementary particles.

(3) Both Hawking radiation and black hole entropy, and connections between our formalism and the AdS-CFT correspondence, are detailed here:

http://wolframcloud.com/obj/wolframphysics/Documents/some-qu...

(4) We do not yet know how to do this.

(5) The quantum mechanics paper above makes, for instance, quite specific predictions about the location of stretched horizons around non-semiclassical black holes.

(6) (7) This we are still working on.

Post reply on HN