/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11731484
Physics is a very complicated thing right? But a lot of concepts are basically related. An easy example is how you go from length to velocity to acceleration to jerk by dividing by time each step. Stephen Wolfram thinks that, if we can find the right relationship between all of the concepts of physics, we can create a single unified theory that explains everything. Rather than using brute force to figure out this relationship, if you set up simple rules, you can create very complex relationships that you can analyze. If we try enough basic rules, we should be able to find out a grand unified theory of physics that can explain everything.

>>11731515
thanks for the reply Anon

>>11731484
He's just a pseudo that discovered graph theory.

There is absolutely nothing novel about his "theory". All he's doing is saying "guys, I think you can express things using a big graph" and then making no effort of his own to express using that graph. He's a total retard.

Well of course you can express it using a graph. All a graph network is, is a map of all associations and connections. You can literally express any concept using a graph network. The hard part is POPULATING said network. I hope Wolfram realises how embarrassing his little "theory" looks.

>>11731484
>>11731515
>>11732128
how do you have a theory that works on a discrete graph on discrete time scales explain GR which is continuous

>>11731515
Sounds like an autistic version of De Genes' approach to physical quantities plus some pseudo-compsci thrown in for good measure. What role does empirical experience even play here?

>>11732697
Spacetime is probably discrete; GR should arise from the theory in the limit where this discreteness is very fine.

>>11732730
>Spacetime is probably discrete
explain yourself? i've read some John Baez posts about how R doesn't seem to describe reality even in newton physics...

>>11732730
Ever heard of Planck?

>>11732128

He had no choice but to peddle this. Physics was unified by a nobody. You know who. This was a save face. Same for winestain. Unified by someone from their tribe no less.

Harvard hosted him for a colloquium (god knows why, maybe he donates) and he attempted to explain this giant shitburger:
https://youtu.be/Ps5wovm3OQ4

what i understood from that is that spacetime is a graph of spacetime points that has some rule that makes it rule turn into some thing that resembles a spacetime manifold, particles are weird anomalies between points in the graph, and what we see as "space" is a slice through this manifold-looking graph....?

at the end of the talk, andy strominger asked a few questions and basically made wolfram disintegrate

>>11733287
He had no choice but to peddle this. Physics was unified by a nobody. You know who. This was a save face. Same for winestain. Unified by someone from their tribe no less.

>>11733291
>Physics was unified by a nobody. You know who.
?

This is worse than philosophy. Come back when it makes a novel prediction or something.

>>11733291
>>11733302
pay no mind, it's Gary the pseudlet

>>11733311

Who?

>>11733316
don't worry about it, he's a retard

>>11733318

Then why are you talking about him?

>>11733287
time? that's not reflected in the comments.

>>11733332
time is the axis of the space like slice through his graph thing... honestly it’s a really noob-tier thing in that every question about space and time in his “theory” is basically answered by saying you take a cross-section of his graph

>>11731484
time cube, but in graphs

He's trying to fix physics and you all should be thanking him.

>>11733776
>>11731484
>STRONG SPACETIME TENSOR FLOW AND HIGH PROBABILITY FLUX DENSITIES WILL COME TOO YOU
>BUT ONLY IF YOU REPLY TO THIS POST WITH "THANKS MR COMPUTER SCIENCE MAN"

>>11734062
fuck you, cunt

>>11732128
I mean as long as he's funding the grants who cares? We might get some useful graph theory results from it all.

>>11734101
because he's trying to peddle his "theory" as actually useful or even novel.

He should have actually come up with some implemented examples rather than present graph theory as some novel concept. The big brainers that already looked at this problem know the true difficulty is populating the graph network, not knowing the existence of a graph network (that in itself is trivial to anyone that has half a brain).

>>11734224
You are right, but also a lot of people in research and academia do the same thing...

>>11734224
You say it isn't novel, but can you give even a single paper that describes a similar thing. Bear in mind that Stephen began writing about this topic back in the 80's.

>>11732730
>Spacetime is probably discrete
Pretty much everybody in the scientific community disagrees with this.

>>11735683
I'm not saying spacetime is discrete or continuous, but I've never heard a good explanation for why it has to be continuous (or discrete)

>>11736269
>discrete or continuous
whats the difference between both?

>>11735673
He hasn't presented anything other than "use graph theory".

>>11735683
The Earth is also at the centre of the solar system

I read the entire article of his on that and while it didnt sound completely waky some of his stuff was questionalble, i honestly already kinda forgot most of it but i remember i felt like some of his points were kinda stretched, he many times claims of some real things being representative of graphs evolved to very large step based on his estimations, but never explains where those numbers come from, and the numbers are always so b ig its out of question to check it out, he first and foremost tried to explain phenomena explained by GR and QM as natural stuff happening in the graphs, like i remember his time slices and path integration and i felt like it was so generic that maybe all information stuctures could be represented as having these things, the worst thing about the entire affair is that its even less realistically testable than M theory due to his guesstimates being insanely small/big, it only explains the most generic phenomena on binary level of present/not present correlation to our natural observations without any attempt to touch any quantifiable values, it doesnt explain 99,9999% of current known physics at all and the worst of all it doesnt have any predictions what so ever, and thus its scientific value is approaching zero, at best we can hope he will contribute to math with something new in graph theory/markov chains with how much he fiddles with them

>>11736491
it's discrete but every discrete point contains a continuous subspace that is not contiguous with any other continuous subspace

>>11737249
discrete meaning

>>11737269
"judicious in one’s conduct or speech; careful; circumspect; prudent; modest"

>>11735683
in sociology maybe

>>11734224
>He should have actually come up with some implemented examples rather than present graph theory as some novel concept.
He has as far as I can tell. He's created a "derivation" for various physical laws. The one he's most "proud" of is his development of Einstein's Equation.

>>11741022
Really? Last I heard him field a question asking for examples, he just sort of fudged some excuse. Do you have a link? That would be interesting.

>>11733287
that black chick looks cool

>>11736491
>>11737249
This is the idea that there is some minimum measurement between two points in spacetime, right? Like if you segment it small enough, you reach an interval where there is literally no difference, so you can even measure time as having distinct steps.

>>11733287
hahaha he dropped his glass of water

>>11734224
What is exactly "populating a graph"?

>>11741515
Adding in the transformations/types/functions required to turn the graph into a predictor of real world states.

>>11731484
Its how they translate horoscopes

>>11734062
thanks mr computer science man

>>11731484
He's basically saying he's proven our universe functions as a 3 dimensional cellular automata. Like a giant 3D version of Conway's game of life, but with some varies rules.

Because it's a cellular automata, you can create "other" variations of cellular automatas, examine them, and if you discover a new rules that can be applies to all automatas, then they can be applies to physics in our universe as well.

It's a new approach to discovering new physics. Instead of trying to examine our own universe, we create micro universes and examine them instead.

>>11742446
>Instead of trying to examine our own universe, we create micro universes and examine them instead.
I like the idea that this universe could be a simulation to find out more about the real universe.
and that we aren't even in the first simulated layer.
maybe it is simulations all the way up.

>>11742496
forgot pic

>>11736269
If it is discrete it's probably some form of grid, but then why is there no difference of any physics at all when rotating things (which would be relative to this grid)?
If it's not a regular grid that would be even weirder (which is not an argument I'm aware)

fallen so in love with modelling that he's decided that the fact that you can map the territory means that the map is the territory
That's okay, because it's ahead of the current attempts at forcing the territory into outdated maps since at least it's attempting to model using new frameworks more representative of the actual state of affairs, largely due to their complexity. Yes, I am saying that almost the only thing he gets right is that the universe is difficult to model and explain, and banks partly on people not understanding him. The very fact of people not understanding him is almost built into the model and his presentation and that, at least, is to his credit.

But it's still missing a lot. A more accurate attempt using similar tools would no longer be an attempt to get it right by choosing at last the 'right;' method for mapping the territory, but would instead be explicit about being only one map using one set of tools, and encourage people to attempt to use their own means to answer the questions raised.

>>11742657
Can you post that again in English?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22869274
heres links to 2 papers that I haven't read but that are also about this and at least they are in pdf format lel

>>11732743
Not the anon you replied to, but Carl Rovelli's book on covariant loop quantum gravity gives a pretty coherent argument that the volume element of spacetime is quantized. I think a PDF of the book is free online.

shit I just realized all this graph rewriting reminds me a lot of that toy chemistry project, it looked kinda crackpotty in that it had a needlessly flashy presentation (sort of springy moving graphs with nodes flying in from all sides) but it was also quite cool, lemme see if I can find it

>>11742899
bump

Physics is useful bullshit anyway. Do you seriously think that we can know, model, and predict 'reality'? All such theories are gimmicks. Wolfram's fiction (sorry, theory) is just derivative, uninspired, and quite frankly: S-T-O-O-P-I-D. The only value that can come from this is the revenue he will earn from more pseuds buying his shitty book, shilled by the Arabic sophist Taleb.

>>11743172
>Physics is useful bullshit anyway
>Do you seriously think that we can know, model, and predict 'reality'?
>All such theories are gimmicks.

>>11743217
Stop falling for lazy bait.

>>11732730
um... lqg and spin foam?

>>11742496
>I like the idea that this universe could be a simulation to find out more about the real universe.
What does that mean when we are the eyes and ears the observe and analyze this universe. pic related

>>11742446
>a 3 dimensional cellular automata
No, you stupid fuck.

>>11743169
it was called chemlambda

>>11744633

>>11745367
neat

>>11745367
>Soccer ball factory ran by the ayylmaos that were left on earth because they had a few too many chromosomes

>>11744203
how is it wrong?

>>11751620
Cellular automata presupposes a space, a grid, where the the cells exist. Also, there is nothing 3D about Wolfram's model. It can just as well describe a 1D world or 100D world, depending on how you choose the rule.

>>11731515
>Monolithic physics system
That's not very unix like.