/sci/ - Science & Math

It’s absolute quackery. He wrote two rudimentary books about Particle physics when he was 14 in the 1970s. It shows that he still is a particle physicist by heart, because HE HAS NO IDEA WHAT HE’S DOING.

>>12173533
what is the best looking theory right now? I know the standard model is still the best we've got but the inconsistencies are piling up. Can we even add axions or sterile neutrinos into this mess without it falling apart?

>>12173529
>how the classical equations of motion would function in this system
They don't. Wolfram's theory is a collection of patches and mathematical hacks.

>>12173529
He’s right but is it the ultimate truth? Likely not. It gets us closer to the equation for everything. This is especially hard for physicists, but you have to understand science as a game of “good enough” because we are not sufficiently advanced to understand the solutions to some of these bigger questions. Our best working theories 100 years ago are wrong in so many ways and it’s very likely that the future will be no different. Some of the criticisms are valid, but so what? If Wolfram’s theory works with everything we know now, then it’s the best operating theory.

@12173670
its not even an "operating" theory faggot, whatever that means. wolframs ideas are less thought out than fucking string theory

>>12173529
it's not a matter of whether he's right. his stupid computer simulations are just that: simulations. they have nothing to do with physics no matter how much wishful thinking you do

Its clear none of the anons here understand Wolfram's theory.

>>12174686
you're right i'm just shitting. i'm sorry wolfram

>>12174686
There is no theory

>>12173529
people like Wolfram make physicists and other scientists look down on two *legitimate* avenues:

1) using computational models to understand theory and experiment, especially in physics. Computational physics is very important, but people like Wolfram suggest to everyone "well...we can't take them too seriously lmao" is the impression Wolfram's ramblings gives off.

2) using computational theory to understand to understand physics theory. Despite success with quantum Hamiltonian complexity in cmp-th, ECC in key arguments about holography in adS/CFT in hep-th, quantum information at large, and connections between algorithmic information theory and thermo via results on the Ising spin glass model, people like Wolfram make people uneasy to try and study the intersection of these fields in order to avoid seeming like a quack. "lmao there could be no physics created by COMPUTER THEORY" is the impression Wolfram's ramblings gives off.

So while Wolfram should fund scientific endeavor, I feel like his obsession with cellular automata in particle physics should be ignored.

>>12174686
explain it then

>>12173547
>what is the best looking theory right now?
The bible

>>12175013
Not him, but isn't the basic gist that he's trying to find basic mathematical fundamentals, and then use computation to spit out zillions of combinations of them, effectively generating theoretical universes (or rather, laws of these universes) from the ground up. Then he'll take some phenomena that we see in our world, and get rid of all universes that don't present that phenomena, then pick another, remove the duds, etc. Eventually, we'll have a small handful of models that describe our reality. He'll then take these models and look for new, unobserved phenomena in each, and then check if that phenomena turns out. If it does, the model is kept, if not, it's scrapped.

Rather than looking at reality and making a theory, he's making a bunch of theories and ditching the ones that don't match reality.

>>12175017
yes
at the end of the day it turns out everything is energy or "field" and conciousness is the "divine spark" that allows us to do science on the universe, it turns out the religious view on the creation of the universe are intersecting the sciencetic views specialy on the big question of conciousness

>>12175219
>>>/x/

>>12175234
>>>/x/
Let say an unknown force, that we don't understand, is at the basis of the universe creation. Let say that, for the moment, we can theorize about this unknown "force", but we cannot still investigate it by experiment. Also, the conceptualization of this "force" is clearly above human rational thinking.

Ok, now let call this "force" God. Arg, we end up in the field of bigotry! Disgusting!

Ok, now let call this "force" a string vibrating in eleven dimension! Bingo! We are now doing beautiful physic!

>>12175249
what's your first language?

>>12175032
Sounds good to me. Give him more money and get him to do it.

>>12175256
French!
Second German!
Third English!

Why? Are we asking irrelevant questions now?
Fine! What's your favorite dinosaur?

>>12173529
>I like the elegance of his idea
But anon, elegance is not science

SO WHAT?
HE SIMUALTE ONE HIDROGENIUM ATOM YET OR NOT?
FOR ME IT LOOKS LIKE FEYNMAN_DIAGRAM OF UNIVERSE.
IS ANY DIFFERENSES WITH STANDART_MODEL OT IT JUST A FORMALISATION OF SM?

>>12177170
>FORMALISATION
COMPUTATIONAL OPTIMISATION

>>12174186
>wolframs ideas are less thought out than fucking string theory
>one person's ideas are less thought out than a field with thousands of professional researchers collaborating for decades with tens of thousands of grad students

>>12177177
>thousands of professional researchers
MESSING WITH INFINITY POINTLESS STRING THEORY FOR MONEY

>>12175032
so people like >>12174710 are upset by this because they will get replaced by computers and CS pajeets, got it

>>12173529
Its the closest we have yet

OK, MORE IMPOTANT
CAN HE CALCULATE Nuclear cross section U235 ?

>>12173547
>what is the best looking theory right now?

String theory. Despite what brainlets tend to say, no other alternative has ever come close to ST. That is why all the smartest people usually work on ST.

>>12177458
>String theory.
SCAM

>>12173529
A theory stripped of all substance to the point you can pretty much add any parameter or number necessary to fit some known current physical systems. This theory predicts nothing and but will fit anything.

This theory is literally like fitting a curve by manually drawing the closest values you can and pretending you are actually able to predict anything after the fact with your retardedness. That's why Wolfram is so afraid of peer reviews, because he knows academia will call him a hack and there is no coming back from that.

>>12177504
>theory predicts nothing and but will fit anything
THE String theory.

>>12177504
IF IT MAKE CALCULATIONS FASTER IT GOOD

>>12175291
Alligator

>>12173529
Heres what I think happened:
>be wolfram
>be fuckin around creating interesting looking shit on mma
>do some graph replacement to create pretty patterns
>sometimes the replacements are ambiguous so another function returns all the possible replacements
>get idea that the ENTIRE UNIVERSE works just like this for some reason
>find a gullible impressionable little fuckboy muttie intern
>have him write some physics related shit for the idea i just had
>publish it online because i have issues

>>12177669
MORE LIKE IT IS JUST FEYNMAN_DIAGRAM OF UNIVERSE

>>12177702
Fayman diagrams ware diagrams of what? Something outside of universe?

>>12179309
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feynman_diagram

>>12179558
So that's macroverse diagrams, what's Wolframs diagrams? Megaverse diagrams? I don't have much time for reading, I first need to get stable place to live.

>>12177669
Yeah, pretty much this. It's a disgrace

BUMP

>>12173529
He does present another explanations but not experiments to explain... I want to hear more about experiments, because honestly everything since eather disproval kinda sucks a horsecock, because eather is moving along with planet.

>>12180783
it is just optimised for computers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model

>>12181042
>>12181042
So magnets bend electrons in CRT screens, that's what I understand, what in standard model is responsible for magnetism? Some gauge bosons, which and how they're related to higgs?

Is higgs having constant energies across multiple types of matter, like... Have you tried puting ALICE(I guess that's where you found it) on this experiment with Hg lamps being in flow of direct current across lamp and also from sheet metal across the bulb is the flow of electron spin so much it has effect on G?

It's same energy? That would be proof of weightless mass.

But what grinds my gears is magnets and what happens at electricity and magnets on places where field unit is exposed to both south and western pole or positive and negative charge.

There is stuff that appears out of nowhere in situations like that, just because it went to another side of object it's being attracted to exposing attractor to other charge, creating some behavioural stigma in the space and matter. When there's a friction if attracting sides are on the edge there is something created.

On magnets, between the poles there's thin layer of differently behaving field.

So are all this particles just virtual fieldions and we know just fields, not real matter, because there's no empty space, just this water there we don't percieve.

>>12181212
It hits the wall and membrane semipermeability from this negative and positive charge creates some really weird space. But it's definitive that when those charges to really meet, it takes something that takes foil of them and wrap them again...

But anyway, those quarks up and down, it's kinda... How such thing can be proven?

BUMP

>>12181214
>How such thing can be proven?
if it usefull for practical predictions it not require prove

>>12173529
What Wolfram is trying to say here?

a long time ago Wolfram stole the idea of finite automata from John Conway because his "game of life" was a popular meme at the time. Since Wolfram was thriving for attention in the shadow of Richard Feynman, he decided to try different versions of Conway's rules and publish papers/books about.

Some rules give consistent patterns, others do not. By golly, a rule that gives randomness... that must be algorithm of the universe he thought. Or at the very least it will allow me to keep getting attention from the public.

Wolfram's "theory" his essentially him jacking off to a random number generator. We might as well be looking for the universe in pi.

>>12182322
if I'd tell you explicitly I'd got banned

Imagine unloading a half-assed theory of everything into a couple of math graduates and expecting it to somehow turn into the biggest revolution in science and mathematics lmao

Also peer reviews are banned rofl

ALSO Quantum Computers IS BULLSHIT
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szozqGl97E0

>>12175272
>Give him more money and get him to do it.
He doesn't need more money, he's worth probably hundreds of millions of dollars and employs hundreds of pretty bright people.

>>12182341
CAs aren't mere PRNGs. Many of them support universal computation.

>>12173529
No, he's a fucking idiot.

>>12173670
>He's right

>>12177203
Who the fuck let these brainlets in?
I fucking hate the lex fridman generation of pseudo-intellectuals.

>>12181212
Magnetism can be shown even classically to be the relativistic effect of the electrical field.

>>12185035
Just because you can always find a graph of CA that is equivalent to any classical algorithm it doesn't mean all the other quacky hacky bullshit this shithead is spouting about general theories.

>>12185188


Fucking based.

>>12175032
Interesting, it's like trying find the seed of a Minecraft world given only some part of the map.

Reverse-engineering the seed of the universe with bruteforce computation.

>>12185188
RANDOMLY EVOLUTING graph of CA, THE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feynman_diagram IF UNIVERSE

>>12186100
>IF UNIVERSE
OF UNIVERSE

>blocks your path

>>12187030
>woman in peer review

Not so fast

Wolfram's and Bach's fundamental theories are interesting. It's clear no one in this thread portrayed Wolfram's theory even close to how he's described it (including >>12175032), though.

I'm no expert and haven't tried to analyze it closely but I suspect it's likely mostly or entirely crankery. He also talks and behaves like a crank. Not just due to his massive arrogance and ego but especially how insistent he is on stating he thinks that theory is almost certainly correct. That kind of confidence and certainty is a huge red flag.

However, on the flip side, he's clearly very intelligent in many ways, and there are certain (seemingly novel) ideas in his theory that I think could maybe have a chance of potentially proving useful in other areas in the future. Maybe not, but maybe. He also seems to me like a genuinely nice guy; just super self-important.

For anyone interested in this topic, whether to understand it or mock it, I highly recommend the recent podcast he did where he explains the whole theory in pretty deep detail. It's nearly four and a half hours long, but I think it's interesting and attention-holding the whole way through, no matter where you stand on it:

https://youtu.be/-t1_ffaFXao

>>12188838
Also, Wolfram and Bach both make the same prediction in their theories:

Their theory predicts quantum computers won't ever achieve the gains that are claimed, because they claim the common understanding of quantum mechanics and superpositions is fundamentally completely wrong.

I think this is important, because it adds falsifiability. If quantum supremacy is incontrovertibly demonstrated, they're both probably wrong. Bach is putting his money where his mouth is, too, taking monetary bets on quantum supremacy not being demonstrated in the next 15 years (with plans to extend a new bet after that point).

Wolfram left a little wiggle room, suggesting there could be some way of doing it that his team hasn't found yet, and also that quantum computing research could lead to practical speedups through things other than the current superposition approach. But he seemed fairly confident it's impossible.

So if we assume Google didn't really achieve quantum supremacy and if in 10 years it still fails to be shown, people should really look back at Wolfram's and Bach's theories and grant them, or some general class of computational theories, at least some partial plausibility.

MORE IMPOTANT
CAN HE CALCULATE Nuclear cross section of U235 for neutron ?

>>12173529
>I like the elegance of his idea but I can't even understand how the classical equations of motion would function in this system
Whenever learned men arrive at a theory because it's elegant, they've been wrong. Mans sense of what is elegant is downstream form nature. When Copernicus described the elyptic movements of the planets, learned men were outraged, because elypsis were considered ugly. Now we view what once was critiqued such as elegant.
Was it Newton who tried to fit in the planets movements into geometric shapes to find a divine elegance?

>>12185698
Bingo motherfucker

And thank you, I can use this to explain his theory to brainlets now

>>12185181
>JRE brainlet blown the fuck out by Lex Übermensch

>>12188884
Yes.... Keep up.

>>12185698
That is a really good analogy.

>>12188838
>It's clear no one in this thread portrayed Wolfram's theory even close to how he's described it (including >>12175032), though.
You're fucking wrong though and just trying to act superior because in reality you're a fucking retard.

What >>12175032 said is essentially 100% accurate.

>>12175032
You can't be serious with this horseshit.

>>12189242
Ok, ill bite, whats incorrect about what he said?

>>12189209
It's just not accurate. He's kind of describing an earlier attempt Wolfram made, but not this theory. Wolfram explicitly denies that that's what he's doing. They're no longer attempting such a reverse engineering approach and they believe that's essentially begging the question, now.

If you want to understand his theory in full, watch https://youtu.be/-t1_ffaFXao.. He explains it very clearly

Wolfram's theory is like a grid paper where you can draw anything you want as long as you chose an appropriate resolution. You can't predict stuff for shit, but you can draw nice stuff on it. Some people like to pretend it's more profound than this though, I have no clue why.

>>12175032
>Rather than looking at reality and making a theory, he's making a bunch of theories and ditching the ones that don't match reality.

So basically it's the most brutally useless intellectual effort in the history of math and science. Bravo Wolfram

>>12190115
Yes, I've seen that, how is finding the fundamental underlying ruleset of the universe any different from what anon said?

It just seems that hypergraphs are as nonsensical a notion as strings. I have no idea why you people are so eager to jump on this particular bandwagon, when you so roundly rejected the other one.

>>12188838
>>12190115
>heh plebs *tips fedora* just watch this 4.5 hour video explaining where a fucking paragraph is wrong
Summarize it for us, dweeb.

>>12190150
I think it's a clever idea, but I can really easily see it running into two problems before it even gets into "describing electrons". The first being "what happens when you do this and never get a series of fundamentals that produce anything even close to describing our universe at any level". So, you'd have to do this infinitely many times, but then, y'know, infinity, so you could be doing this until the sun dies and still have nothing.

>lets generate all the possible rules, and see what sticks

filtered me

>>12190142
Strings theory is like a grid paper where you can draw anything you want as long as you chose an appropriate resolution. You can't predict stuff for shit, but you can draw nice stuff on it. Some people like to pretend it's more profound than this though, I have no clue why.

>>12190845
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feynman_diagram
of
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model

>>12190835
>Yes, I've seen that, how is finding the fundamental underlying ruleset of the universe any different from what anon said?
>>12190651
>Summarize it for us, dweeb.
I tried to briefly with the sentences before it:

>Wolfram explicitly denies that that's what he's doing. They're no longer attempting such a reverse engineering approach and they believe that's essentially begging the question, now.

They're not trying to "enumerate all the rules and find the right one". Wolfram claims that there is no one rule, and that the universe is a computer which is executing every possible rule simultaneously. He claims all that matters is what rule a particular observer decides to use to describe what they observe, and that it's completely subjective and arbitrary. He suggests that there would be a near-insurmountable gap if we were to try to communicate with extraterrestrial intelligent life, for example.

Essentially, he claims that the special and general theories of relativity are two of the most deeply fundamental theories and can be applied at every level, including what he calls the "branchial" (quantum mechanics) and "rulial" level. Everything, including quantum observations and universal rule execution, is specific to an observational reference frame.

He also believes that concepts like Einstein's equations, curvature, and black holes have parallels in branchial and rulial space, and that those concepts can even be applied to things like computational complexity and P=NP. (That is, there may be literal, not metaphorical, curvature and even "black holes" within aspects of mathematics.)

Here's the timestamp of the part where he talks about this: https://youtu.be/-t1_ffaFXao?t=11687.. And in https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2020/04/finally-we-may-have-a-path-to-the-fundamental-theory-of-physics-and-its-beautiful/ you can start at "Why This Universe? The Relativity of Rules".

I'm pretty skeptical of many of these claims, personally, but they're interesting.

>>12182851
do it faggot

>>12187632
she looks like a /aco/ bimbo, me likey

>>12173529
isnt it conways idea ?

>>12191252
>bla bla bla
MORE IMPOTANT:
CAN HE CALCULATE Nuclear cross section of U235 for neutron ?

>>12187030

>>12191252
so, exactly what >>12175032 said, you just wanted to post those podcasts and feel clever for doing so.

>>12192862
kek

>>12192862
keep in mind that most of these people are white men and women, not Jews. The reviewers/editors are not derived from the same demographics as the actual journal board.

>>12173529
it's worthless
wolfram's approach literally got dunked on more than a decade about when he proposed this kind of project in his book new kind of science

https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0206089
We show that this proposal cannot be made compatible with both special relativity and Bell inequality violation.

>>12193404
>Bell inequality violation.
the graph evolution is true random
its not "game of live"
it is
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feynman_diagram
of
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model

>>12193487
Fuck off schizo

>>12193487
>the graph evolution is true random
that's not the issue though
you could in principle have either a deterministic or "truly random" underlying theory as long as you reproduce the distribution as suggested by Bell's inequality.
The point of the review is that if you combine that with the constraints of special relativity wolfram's project fails

>>12175032
how does it deal with edge cases like
>muh godel
and the possibility that our current observations (still electron based, I don't care who says what) are flat out wrong?

>>12192862
lel

>>12193552

MORE IMPOTANT:
CAN HE CALCULATE Nuclear cross section of U235 for neutron ?

>>12194463
Yes...

>>12175017
This why we should reopen the lion pits.

>>12194626
Yes, and throw you in it

The only problem with getting the classical equations of motion of of the Kaluza-Klein metric was that the EM field strength tensor had to be zero everywhere. If not for that problem, KK theory would have "unified physics" 100yrs ago. This paper by Overduin and Wesson is great!
>Kaluza-Klein Gravity
>https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9805018
Since the 5D Kaluza-Klein metric contains two 4D EM potential vectors, by abutting two such 5D theories and modelling our universe as a surface of tangency between two semi-infinite half-spaces, we can get four EM potential 4-vectors and that gives you the freedom needed to have a non-vanishing EM field strength tensor. Basically, what I did is just AdS/CFT but I did the "holographic duality on a surface between two bulks instead of just on the outside of one bulk. The Randall-Sundrum models are pretty similar but there was the obvious third configuration they didn't notice.

People criticize me, I guess, because I only said, "Obviously if you have four 4-vectors instead of just two, then you will have sufficient degrees of freedom to solve the problem of why KK theory didn't solve unified electrogravity 100 years ago," but I didn't go and actually replicate all the stuff from 100 years ago, as if me solving the field equations in 5D by hand would demonstrate the worth of my research more so than saying, "Why not try a boundary between two bulks instead of on the outside of just one bulk." People who make those criticisms are jealous and bitter. Literally there's a thousand people who already have KK software set up that they could do on a computer in 15 minutes what would take me who knows how long and which would probably contain arithmetic errors when I was done anyways since I work in isolation. For me, it is sufficient to include the above paper in my references. It sufficient for anyone, and anyone whose saying I needed to do more to have a proper result is holding me to an extraordinary standard that no one else gets held to.

>>12173529
Wow isn't that like a...b-brain?????
WTF I love wolfram now

Where THE FUCK do I sign to work on his theories

>>12177669
The last step is
>be well-known name so some people assume it's meaningful

>>12177458
if they were so smart they'd solve it already
checkmate stringtheists

>>12173529
Wolfram is a wannabe mathmatician, I listen to terence tao

Mochi is a real mathematician. He calls the MCM unit cell a Hodge theater.

Hairer is a real mathematician. He just won $3M for calling the MCM unit cell a regularity structure.

Wilczek calls it a time crystal. Weinstein calls it geometric unity. Very many other people call it very many other things.

The only ones who call it garbage are the ones who I ask to publish it.

back zapper