I'm not much knowledgable of the actual theory, but one thing that struck me from the beginning is that the scale, or resolution if you will, of the graph/knitted nodes is many (20?) orders of magnitude smaller(!) than any of the elementary particles we know. So I always wondered if and when a seed universe was found which actually lead to the creation of the particles we know. With the scaling I mentioned, the visualization would be far more challenging but I think this would be a criticial first step. Your animations seem to to suggest you are jumping ahead of this but remaining on the smallest of scales (the Planck level, perhaps.) That said, I love your dedication to make this stuff more available to us non-geniuses.
Yes, this is a problem. It's difficult to say how many orders of magnitude smaller than elementary particles the hypergraph might be (20? 60? more?) Even if it's only 20, that makes simulation of elementary particles beyond that current capabilities of our computers. Will we be able to do some coarse graining that allows us to simulate the hypergraph at a larger scale? It's difficult to say. So you're right to question whether we'll ever be able to simulate elementary particles. Thanks for the comment!
Very good question indeed! After thinking about this, my money is on intelligence emerging before matter (to drive the process further)! Because a hypergraph of the size 10^20 will sure as hell be concious (think AI today on much much smaller systems).
@@VladislavGoryachev Fascinating point, but not necessarily a valid one. Complexity or scale does not at all imply emergence of intelligence (a crystall could grow however big and still not have any smarts) so that angle even more speculative imho. At this point I'd be more intested in whether it's possible to get a grasp of how elementary particles would emerge/look like in the WP hypergraph. Parallels have been drawn from Conways GoL model where descrete structures appear. But in this case we would need so much more. Essentially the entire QED, QFT etc must be "generated." Not ruling it out, but I see no need for intelligence, just complex machinery.
I am a little out of engagement rn, and Chatty also wanted to say something, so here we go: --- Who knew the universe was just a cosmic knitting project all along? 🧶😄 Guess we've got to give our compliments to the ultimate knitter! Can't wait for more of these amazing animations to help me 'stitch' together my understanding of the Wolfram model. Keep 'em coming! 👏🌌
Thanks! Yes, it's still going. There's a summer school this year. We don't hear so much from Stephen Wolfram about it these days, but still going on in the background!
Although suggestive, brilliantly simply helpful as usual. Thank you. I have to admit though Mark, you’ve left me wondering about a business for you producing new fabrics? Perhaps this could be an addendum to the wood work? Actual “Fabrics of a Universe”, as opposed to THE fabric of the Universe. Just a thought🤭
Cool. Have you tried giving meaning to these nodes and arrows? After all, they're that sort of quantum properties that, when being self-referential in their appearancce within rule-time, so to speak, create lasting patterns that can indeed be called (and, well, are) things like particles, physical properties and all sorts of physical entities. I mean even if we're talking about space. What's a particle? What's speed? Where can electrons and up-down quarks appear? What about entanglement? How would universal computation propagate into real-life conscious thought-space of the structure of our real-life reality? In these nets of universes.
These are the questions! And Wolfram Physics doesn't have all the answers yet. But yes, it seems likely that particles are "lasting patterns" (good term). If that's the case, speed is a pretty straightforward concept, it's just the rate at which these "lasting patterns" propagate through the hypergraph (though time is a surprisingly slippery concept in Wolfram Physics). And because the hypergraph can have non-local edges, entanglement seems like it could fit right into this model. Wolfram Physics does have very precise definitions of energy and momentum, which I'll get into in future videos. There's so much here to dig into... much more coming as soon as I can get to it!
Nice graphics to show how some kind of iterative procedure can be "space filling". I guess the vertices represent some kind of irreducible points of spacetime. Guessing further the edges mean some kind of irreducible spacetime intervals. So this generation procedure establishes a relationship or geometry among neighboring points? If that told us something meaningful or useful about spacetime I guess this would be interesting. Einstein's theories originated from key motivating insights about the physical world. Is there a motivating insight underlying this, or is it more like string theory where an arbitrary mathematical idea is evaluated for a possible relationship with reality?
Thanks David. Yes, the nodes represent irreducible points, though they're points of space rather than space-time. (Time is the evolution of the hypergraph through the application of rules.) And yes, the edges are discrete steps of space, and yes, the hypergraph establishes a geometry of space. The truly compelling result here is if you make just a few basic assumptions, the geometry is precisely that described by the Einstein equations, i.e. you can derive the geometry of space-time according to general relativity directly from the hypergraph. Jonathan Gorard talks about these assumptions and his derivation of general relativity in my video _How to derive general relativity from Wolfram Physics_ th-cam.com/video/1tjhE0U-mgc/w-d-xo.html The insight underlying all this is that the hypergraph _is_ space, and everything in it. For example, matter is merely persistent tangles of nodes and edges propagating through the hypergraph. That idea blows my mind, hope it does yours, too!
@@ethanellis465 I don't mind you asking at all, I enjoy digging into the implementation details! I wrote my software in C. Well, technically it's C++, but mostly it's C, which tends to be faster, avoiding the repeated allocation and deallocation of memory that comes with creating and deleting objects in C++.
If someone could show a graph rewrite rule that generated space and time and any familiar particle, it would be much easier to take this seriously. All possible computations can be represented with these graph rewrite rules, so it doesnt help to say physics could be a graph rewrite rule.
Love seeing these rules animated!
Yes, it really helps see what's going on, thanks!
I'm not much knowledgable of the actual theory, but one thing that struck me from the beginning is that the scale, or resolution if you will, of the graph/knitted nodes is many (20?) orders of magnitude smaller(!) than any of the elementary particles we know. So I always wondered if and when a seed universe was found which actually lead to the creation of the particles we know. With the scaling I mentioned, the visualization would be far more challenging but I think this would be a criticial first step. Your animations seem to to suggest you are jumping ahead of this but remaining on the smallest of scales (the Planck level, perhaps.) That said, I love your dedication to make this stuff more available to us non-geniuses.
Yes, this is a problem. It's difficult to say how many orders of magnitude smaller than elementary particles the hypergraph might be (20? 60? more?) Even if it's only 20, that makes simulation of elementary particles beyond that current capabilities of our computers. Will we be able to do some coarse graining that allows us to simulate the hypergraph at a larger scale? It's difficult to say. So you're right to question whether we'll ever be able to simulate elementary particles. Thanks for the comment!
Very good question indeed! After thinking about this, my money is on intelligence emerging before matter (to drive the process further)! Because a hypergraph of the size 10^20 will sure as hell be concious (think AI today on much much smaller systems).
@@VladislavGoryachev Fascinating point, but not necessarily a valid one. Complexity or scale does not at all imply emergence of intelligence (a crystall could grow however big and still not have any smarts) so that angle even more speculative imho.
At this point I'd be more intested in whether it's possible to get a grasp of how elementary particles would emerge/look like in the WP hypergraph. Parallels have been drawn from Conways GoL model where descrete structures appear. But in this case we would need so much more. Essentially the entire QED, QFT etc must be "generated." Not ruling it out, but I see no need for intelligence, just complex machinery.
Hey there! Thanks for the lovely animations 🤗
Got some animorphs action @8:47… love it! 😻
You obviously get WolframPhysics 🤓
Thanks Harrie! Yes, there was a slight glitch in the universe at that point, but I managed to come out intact on the other side.
@@lasttheory Good to hear. I'm glad. And a little dimensional divergence has never harmed anyone 😶🌫
So Awesome! More Rules Please!
Thanks, David, I'll keep them coming!
I am a little out of engagement rn, and Chatty also wanted to say something, so here we go:
---
Who knew the universe was just a cosmic knitting project all along? 🧶😄 Guess we've got to give our compliments to the ultimate knitter! Can't wait for more of these amazing animations to help me 'stitch' together my understanding of the Wolfram model. Keep 'em coming! 👏🌌
I like that: "cosmic knitting!" And yes, I really like making these animations, much more to come!
@@lasttheory yeah, me too. just the sheer amount of puns it managed to put into so few sentences.
Wow very impressive stuff
Thanks! These hypergraph animations are fun to create!
Very nice!
Still no word on whether the project lives or if it's fizzled out?
Thanks! Yes, it's still going. There's a summer school this year. We don't hear so much from Stephen Wolfram about it these days, but still going on in the background!
Although suggestive, brilliantly simply helpful as usual. Thank you.
I have to admit though Mark, you’ve left me wondering about a business for you producing new fabrics? Perhaps this could be an addendum to the wood work? Actual “Fabrics of a Universe”, as opposed to THE fabric of the Universe. Just a thought🤭
Thanks @Terpsichore! And yes, a fabrics business... maybe it could be called Universal Fabrics?
@@lasttheory Perfect!
Cool. Have you tried giving meaning to these nodes and arrows? After all, they're that sort of quantum properties that, when being self-referential in their appearancce within rule-time, so to speak, create lasting patterns that can indeed be called (and, well, are) things like particles, physical properties and all sorts of physical entities. I mean even if we're talking about space. What's a particle? What's speed? Where can electrons and up-down quarks appear? What about entanglement? How would universal computation propagate into real-life conscious thought-space of the structure of our real-life reality? In these nets of universes.
These are the questions! And Wolfram Physics doesn't have all the answers yet.
But yes, it seems likely that particles are "lasting patterns" (good term). If that's the case, speed is a pretty straightforward concept, it's just the rate at which these "lasting patterns" propagate through the hypergraph (though time is a surprisingly slippery concept in Wolfram Physics). And because the hypergraph can have non-local edges, entanglement seems like it could fit right into this model.
Wolfram Physics does have very precise definitions of energy and momentum, which I'll get into in future videos. There's so much here to dig into... much more coming as soon as I can get to it!
@@lasttheory Hold on a minute! We don't need spooky action at the distance when we already have superdeterminism for free!😂
Nice graphics to show how some kind of iterative procedure can be "space filling". I guess the vertices represent some kind of irreducible points of spacetime. Guessing further the edges mean some kind of irreducible spacetime intervals. So this generation procedure establishes a relationship or geometry among neighboring points? If that told us something meaningful or useful about spacetime I guess this would be interesting.
Einstein's theories originated from key motivating insights about the physical world. Is there a motivating insight underlying this, or is it more like string theory where an arbitrary mathematical idea is evaluated for a possible relationship with reality?
Thanks David.
Yes, the nodes represent irreducible points, though they're points of space rather than space-time. (Time is the evolution of the hypergraph through the application of rules.)
And yes, the edges are discrete steps of space, and yes, the hypergraph establishes a geometry of space.
The truly compelling result here is if you make just a few basic assumptions, the geometry is precisely that described by the Einstein equations, i.e. you can derive the geometry of space-time according to general relativity directly from the hypergraph.
Jonathan Gorard talks about these assumptions and his derivation of general relativity in my video _How to derive general relativity from Wolfram Physics_ th-cam.com/video/1tjhE0U-mgc/w-d-xo.html
The insight underlying all this is that the hypergraph _is_ space, and everything in it. For example, matter is merely persistent tangles of nodes and edges propagating through the hypergraph.
That idea blows my mind, hope it does yours, too!
Are you using Mathematica to construct your hypergraphs?
I'm actually using software I wrote myself. I figured that'd help me understand what's going on in the hypergraph all the better!
Nice!
What did you write it with? If you don't mind me asking.
@@ethanellis465 I don't mind you asking at all, I enjoy digging into the implementation details!
I wrote my software in C. Well, technically it's C++, but mostly it's C, which tends to be faster, avoiding the repeated allocation and deallocation of memory that comes with creating and deleting objects in C++.
If someone could show a graph rewrite rule that generated space and time and any familiar particle, it would be much easier to take this seriously.
All possible computations can be represented with these graph rewrite rules, so it doesnt help to say physics could be a graph rewrite rule.