Always refreshing when someone can say, “I don’t know.” ^.^

The entire time this dude was giving this talk he was listening to Europe performing the song "The Final Countdown" on loop at top volume.

That is exactly how I imagined particles in the wolfram universe. Neutral in the application of rules. Apart from the movement that is.

Fantastic video again! 🤗 The audio is perfect this time and the content,… oh my! What an analogy! I think it's a great entrance to not only the wonderful world of cellular automata, but Wolfram Physics itself. Great script! 👍

Really interesting. I'll have to go back and watch some of your other videos.

Very lucid explanation.

Great Video! I think we can start simulating these propogations in the hypergraph using new quantum computers. Since qubits can handle multiple states at the same time, they wouldn't have to do each single iteration of the rules on each node and edge, they could do a wide range all at once. This would require much less computing than a pc since they have to run the calculations sequentially.

I've been thinking about this a fair deal and a big part of the problem is that the scale at which the particles we are familiar with exist are so massive they're extremely computationally intensive to search for, so it may be best to work backwards from the properties of our reality as we see it and use that to narrow down our search space - once we have a rulial system with structures that match our particles we can then explore that system. If the "reference frame" of rulial structure is moving inward towards massive objects, we can assume that all or most structures with mass are terminating structures - ie they destroy nodes or convert them into "energy". Given relativity, and the way in which particles interact, we know that the structures must be robust to ranges of field strength/gradient and that the density of interactions within it is sparse enough that it can maintain structure when accelerated towards extremely high velocities. We then have the entire standard model properties, the knowledge of particle generations suggestion the structures are not scale invariant but have a few generations each only. Starting the search with photons, electrons, and neutrinos would likely be easiest. Since photons can only move at c, they have a specific interaction with the spacetime background, this should make it straightforward to narrow down to a set of candidate systems and structures and ways these fields can knot and resonate, making the path to finding the electron and neutrino more straightforward and narrow, which should then in turn clarify parts of the system and narrow down the search space for quarks, which should give a robust enough generalized understanding to start trying to make predictions. It's still a monumental task but as knowledge of and catalogue of known systems and behaviors grows, I think this task will get a lot easier a lot faster.

Love this channel!

Hey there! I loved this videos editing, and length! Great job on this one!

Great lil' summary of Wolfram's Finite Automata book thesis and extension to particle cloud (hypergraph)! This could be your channel trailer in fact 🎉👏

I will never not love the names we give interesting patterns we find in Conway's GoL. It's a space where we allow ourselves just a bit of whimsy because "it's just a game."

It doesn't just seem like there's no limit on the size of spaceships in GoL, it is known, because there are known parameterizations of families of spaceships for arbitrarily large size. Some important ways in which GoL differs from our understanding of physics, besides "it is 2D", is that it does not have any of the conservation laws that we have. For many of these conservation laws, we associate them with a corresponding continuous symmetry. E.g. conservation of momentum corresponds to spatial translation symmetry, conservation of energy corresponds to time translation symmetry, and conservation of electric charge corresponds to U(1) gauge symmetry. This correspondence between continuous symmetries of the Lagrangian and conservation laws, appears to be somewhat difficult to make work in discrete systems. Some forms of it have been obtained, I think, sorta (though the one I remember seeing still like, involved continuous numbers as part of the state of the system). There are variants of GoL which have things which one might view as corresponding to conservation of mass, where the total number of cells doesn't change. But I don't think these have this corresponding to a symmetry of the system really. In quantum mechanics, sometimes something is said like "a particle is just a representation of the Poincare group" (or, of the combination of the Poincare group with the Gauge group, I would think?) (or maybe it is specifically irreducible representations? Or, for fundamental particles anyway). This leads me to my question: How does a gauge group appear in these models? Like, how can you get U(1) symmetry? Of course, I imagine that in these systems, the idea wouldn't be "the system always has U(1) symmetry exactly, right from the start", but instead something like, "as the hypergraph gets very very big/detailed, it gets closer and closer to having a U(1) symmetry", But, in what way might it have this symmetry? Now, I think I remember some result about like, some category associated with these systems, in some way corresponding to the category of (finite dimensional?) Hilbert spaces. And, more recently, I read that "dagger compact categories are complete with respect to finite dimensional Hilbert spaces" "i.e. an equational statement in the language of dagger compact categories holds if and only if it can be derived in the concrete category of finite dimensional Hilbert spaces and linear maps" (quoted from wikipedia) So, if whatever category associated with these systems is a dagger-compact category, then, any statement that can be expressed about it using just the fact that it is a dagger-compact category, is true iff it can be shown for the category of finite-dimensional Hilbert spaces, which, is the context you would want for talking about representations of these groups. So... well, in dagger-compact categories, there is apparently a notion of a "unitary morphism" (which, as applied to fd-hilb, would correspond exactly to unitary matrices) and so, I guess for any *finite* group, we could talk about unitary representations within any dagger-compact category... But, I don't know how specifically these kinda of systems were described in terms of categories, and I'm not sure that the thing said was that the category that was come up with was dagger-compact? And like, even if it is, I'm not sure how that relates to the actual systems, because I don't know how the categories related to these systems, relate to them. And, because the symmetry groups should be continuous and not discrete, I also have the question of: can we still show things about irreducible unitary representations of continuous groups, in an arbitrary dagger-compact category, in a way where the aforementioned completeness theorem would make it correspond to the irreducible representations of those same groups in fd-hilb? Well, at least that last question I know where I can find answers. It's been a while since I tried to read about the real math of these models, so maybe it is laid out more clearly now, but last time I looked, it wasn't laid out in a way I found especially conducive to study? At least, not very searchable? But that was a couple years ago now, so it could very well be clearer now. I think Jonathan posted some videos of some lectures on the topic lately, so I should check those out.

THANK you! What I find highly dubious with respect to Wolfram et alia’s expectation that hypergraphs will be able to model physics, is that, according to the physics that we know thus far, all electrons (for example) are stable, and exactly identical. Are there, really, tangles in Wolfram’s hypergraphs that propagate and repeat exactly? And, how could you possibly justify that the electronic charge is exactly three units of quark (electric) charge, and that there is no charge of 1/2, for example?

Excellent video!! You explained this concept wonderfully. I've pondered methods to automate the search of 'particles' in GOL. My current thought is to impose some form of a law of conservation (whether by a second "heat" layer coagulating into new spawns or forcing new spawning elsewhere) and using a neural network to optimize the rules of the simulation to maximize the occurrence of local regions with negative entropy velocity. How cool would it be to find an analog of a biological cell wall emerge in a 2d cellular automata? Daydreaming aside, I hope to see more content!

May be we need special hardware working on Wolfram's principles in base to accelerate experiments? Something like nowaday video cards with many cores but with united cores (rule applicators) and memory (graph's elements).

An interesting thing with Conway physics is how fragile systems are. You can make atoms and make orbitals and make phtons and it all looks like physics, but the smallest bit error and the whole thing falls apart and can vanish, get stuck as some random repeater, shoot out gliders, become glider guns... But we don't seem to have such systems in Wolfram physics. Is this a state space thing? A sort of anthropic principle, where we live in a perfectly balanced state space, or are there mathematical ways that the "Conway stability problem" vanishes?

As Conway's game of life is turing-complete, I would say it has as much pretension to be a model of our universe as any other turing-complete model of computation has. With the right starting configuration it should model our universe just fine, its hard to imagine how it could be otherwise.

So inspiring, thanks 👏

Thank you so much. Greetings from Popayan, Colombia.

Braids and other sustained persistent structures are what we will see. As Jon points out in some of his recent work, wolfram is creating the superfluid dynamics of space but gluon by gluon. It ends up formalizing at large scale like a fluid. “Hydrodynamic Schrodiger “.

I was ALMOST asleep.. And then I heard “Still there?” 😅

The nature of the material (matter & energy) is one of the oldest and toughest questions, Democritus with his 'Atomos' was the closest anyone got for millennia.

So for two electrons to repel each other in the hypergraph, I assume they don't touch, but still interact by sending virtual photons between them. Are we searching for persistent tangles that are constantly shooting out other persistent tangles?

Very cool video, but I wonder why we still havent found a single particle in wolframs hypergraphs. I completely get the analogy to game of life and can imagine how a particle would look like in a hypergraph. But still it makes me wonder all the more about why its not visualized already as of yet.

@lasttheory I am puzzled by your statement that it is not known how Wolfram physics can model a particle. In my opinion, this implies that Wolfram's physics is not capable of modeling the universe at quantum scales. However, from what I have read Wolfram and his colleagues think they have already identified the right class of rules and constructed models that reproduce some basic principles of GR and quantum mechanics... so what are these basic principles and where can I see the hypergraphs that model these principles?

That is, it turns out that the mass of a particle is the kinetic energy of its internal structure, a cyclical change in its shape. The more complex the form, the longer the cycle of transformations, the greater the mass and inertia. This is perfectly visible on the example of the proton, which consists of quarks. The mass of a proton is concentrated in the kinetic energy of quarks. But there are such particles as the electron, where we do not observe the constituent parts and say that it is point-like. It is possible that the form of the electron is hidden from us in a high-dimensional pocket. This is similar to creating a bubble on the surface that grows in the third dimension. And so the electron grows into the fourth dimension. This idea is well demonstrated in videos that usually illustrate the pilot wave principle. Moreover, this pocket can be turned both in one direction from the volume and in another, which makes the existence of particles and antiparticles possible.

In Conway's game of life, what is the origin or the logical basis of the four rules? What do they physically represent, if anything? At first glance, they appear rather arbitrary to me. I think I understand the basic premise of having certain simple rules, which when applied to simple systems, produce complexity. The thing I've never really understood about Stephen Wolfram's approach is how one would go about back engineering the rules and the determination of the system for them to act upon to reproduce actual physical phenomenon.

Nice patterns naming, was it your idea or Wolfram's?

Isn't it enough to start with a square grid that has an asymmetrical defect, and then apply a rule that translates the defect in a fixed direction? It would be an example of particle-like behavior in a (hyper)graph at least, even if only for this very specific rule and setup. I guess you refer to the case of applying all possible rules...?

I think that the point needs some type of indirection more, something like ... layers? The particles can be an state in hipergraph but then you need some type of hipergraph layers where the state of some type of particle cant interact with other type of particles and be independient fron other particle types and even the alowed interaction must be some type of new layer in the hipergraph. So the space is the hipergraph where you first define the layers and then in the layers you define the type of particles and the type of interactions. Something like that. Sorry my english and lack of knowledge if im wrong is only an opinion.

This is awesome. Hopefully quantum computing will help us with running rules on huge sets of nodes and edges. This seems like the sort of processing that would be amenable to quantum computing, even if there are many patches that can't be computed in parallel due to causal relationships.

One day, a mathematician came up with an equation of everything and nobody agree with him

I look at these videos from time to time, and I’m not sure what to make of them. I was just wondering if the rules the people working on this physics project are looking for are what underlie the actual universe? Meaning would these rules actually give rise to the observable universe? Or is this more of a description/modeling tool? Or am I way off?

Very very interesting. 🤔

What do the Twistors of Roger Penrose and the Hopf Fibrations of Eric Weinstein and the "Belt Trick" of Paul Dirac have in common? In Spinors it takes two complete turns to get down the "rabbit hole" (Alpha Funnel 3D--->4D) to produce one twist cycle (1 Quantum unit). Can both Matter and Energy be described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature? (A string is revealed to be a twisted cord when viewed up close.) Mass= 1/Length, with each twist cycle of the 4D Hypertube proportional to Planck’s Constant. In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137. 1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface 137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted. The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.) If quarks have not been isolated and gluons have not been isolated, how do we know they are not parts of the same thing? The tentacles of an octopus and the body of an octopus are parts of the same creature. Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the constant exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together. Therefore, the gluon is a synthetic particle (zero mass, zero charge) invented to explain the Strong Force.

I recently watched a video demonstrating cymatics in 3D, a droplet of fluid levitated in an ultrasonic field forming stable oscillating shapes under different harmonics. Can’t help but think about the parallels with the shapes in the GoL, and it has me wondering if particles, atoms, proteins, etc are just more and more complex “harmonic structures” that nest together and are stable enough to persist

I only recently discovered Wolfram physics, and will admit I am highly skeptical. However I am open minded enough to keep an eye on this. In that mode of thinking, I want to point out something that might be useful here. The idea of a particle might itself be entirely wrong. The Schrodinger equation is famous enough that most people with an interest know about it. They also usually know that it gives the probability of "finding the particle". However, this is not the most advanced equation since it does not account for relativity. When you do that you get the Dirac equation, which predicts things such as quantum spin and anti-matter, and is also the basis of modern quantum field theory. The big difference is that the Dirac equation does not give a probability but a charge density. In other words, the electron (or any other entity) is not a particle with a probability, but a charge distribution with both wave and particle nature. It is a bit odd to think of, but a 'wavicle' with properties of both a wave and a particle seems to be the most fundamental unit of reality by our current models. So, trying to find a particle in Wolfram physics is likely a waste of time, what you want to find is something exhibiting 'wavicle' behavior that adheres to what is predicted by the Dirac equation. All the best to you.

IIRC the multiway graph was touted an indication of WP being able to include the probabilistic nature of the quantum world. However, this is at the most fundamental level of the hypergraph and I wonder if and how this could translate to the world of particles, which is orders of magnitude more complex than single graph nodes. (The mental image of Conways GoL somewhat hides these complexities.)

Obviously this will be incredibly computationally intensive, but cloud compute gets cheaper all the time, and ML models can be trained for the search- I would go with reinforcement learning to work backwards towards our known properties. What language are you personally using for your implementation? Do you have a GitHub repo for it? Is there a GitHub repo for people trying to do this already? Have you tried inspiring coders to actually give it a go?

I'm curious to read "the source code" to see why it's so computationally heavy to do such simulations.

Wolfram said in a stream that matter is like an Eddy in spacetime. He has so many I couldn't tell you what one it is in, but this is in line with what Vivian Robinson is proposing, and this is what I think is true. When opposing momentum meet in the same space they loop, sometimes briefly like with virtual particles but sometimes for a longer period like with matter. Sorry I wish I knew where he said this, but I promise he did say it. You can learn about Vivian Robinsons theory on the channel Quicycle if you are interested.

This little "unstable" patterns / knots, Could be the equivalent to dark matter or dark energy? Something that is definitively there but we cannot see.

The deepest characteristics of the observed universe are its apparent laws of conservation, and the associated symmetries. The interactions between patterns in cellular automata illustrated here show no such conservation. A more interesting question might be: 'What is conserved, in Wolfram's universe?'. Another question is begged, by this presentation.. 'What is a particle, in the universe of consensus physics?' That's not a given. 'Particle' may well turn out to be a term of convenience for a localized consequence of the interaction between 'measuring' and 'measured' fields.. they may not pre-exist the interaction at all.

I've watched every one of your @lasttheory videos, and while they're quite interesting, I've yet to see any evidence that Wolfram physics is a viable alternative for modeling physics at relativistic or quantum scales. To be called "the most fundamental cientific breakthrough of our time", I would hope that Wolfram's physics would be able to model at least at a basic level our current understanding of the universe, and offer predictions that can be tested.

It's pretty difficult for me to see how you could get particles with the properties we see from this. Conservation laws, forces or the laws of motion don't seem to arise nicely from this kind of model.

Becides the brute force method, is there any algorithm to derive starting conditions from any arbitrary pattern?

Though the process of cells altering states between living or dying whether or not they are in proximity of other live or dead cells ends up being basically a binary of systemic rules. When fundamental quantum mechanics principles are introduced, then superposition and quantum fluctuations erode the binary parameters for one choice or the other meaning a cell might keep to the rule of nearby associated cells or it might not, correct? Of course that's assuming the Hypergraph is likely to be the universal causal backdrop in the first place.

in some conway 'ruleiverse', have we ever got a moving form, like a glider, that never returns to it's initial configuration? It seems like such a thing _should_ be impossible. but aren't their structures that "project" an endless stream of gliders? If you don't "chop off"/disregard the projected gliders, I suppose this structure never returns to baseline.

Woah. Im getting it.😮

When I think of concurrent computation, I'm wondering if using the GPU would work for this kind of computation.

If Wolfram's universe is correct, then it MUST model the infinitesimal elements of calculus upon which theories of physics realy, which I'm guessing it doesn't. I'd be delighted to be corrected about this issue. Theories can't "model" anything. Only models disambiguate theory. Only as they refer to the CTMU, which models infinitesimals, time-frame dilation, accelerated expansion, "dark" matter & energy, et al, do physical (or any other) theories describe reality.

What do you mean by particle?

The science of particles

ok. it think i upvoted everything now 😆

What is a black hole in wolfram physics?

Why do you call it the last theory when it seems that what you are actually talking about is a model?

If in Wolfram's universe you can't yet model a particle, how are you able to claim that relativity and quantum mechanics can be derived ftom it? You need first to be able to model a particle with mass at least.

so uh .. doesn't that make the enterprise pointless (pun not intended)?

Step 1: Inject quantized angular momentum into the hyperhraph (think sinusoidal phase harmonics) Step 2: Model the nodes that exhibit particle-like behavior (think Bose Einstein condensate vortices), and match them to their real world counterparts Step 3: Get money 💰💰💰

I'm sorry, but I don't see how this can be a theory of physics if it lacks testable models for fundamental particles. Is this just built on the hope that someday we'll stumble upon the right configuration that will resemble the interactions of quarks, gluons, etc.?

can you please turn the loud sounds down and make your voice clear also don't start a vid telling everyone what a electron or photon is for the ten thousandth time and after that I didn't hear a thing you said

1st: question WHY some of this cell 'dies/born'? 2nd: what cause it? This model are dumb like many others... you just swap from unknown forces to another unknown forces. So at the end... you don't explain anything. Just swap one model to another with same unexplained nature as 1st one. So this is purely mathematical olimpiad that have almost zero 'touch' with reality. Nature in her basics must be simple as hell. ANY model with complicated basics, that not explain EVERY behavior from 'start to end' are false. String theory was also 'new great physics theory', but for me, it was bullshit from beginning. Because 'string' was physical structure, impossible to exist in reality. But for this day, many 'scientist' do this theory and they believe that they can unite physics. But from this many years they can't even explain basic behavior of this strings. So how they can explain more complex behavior? We can 'invite' infinite physics models, but we need only one. One model that we can explain EVERY physical behavior we can observe. And this model must be simple at his basics. No 'magical' energy that bonds particles or like in this one... 'born/dies' cells that implicate some energy transfer between them. (what energy? why it transfer?)

IT is not physics. Unfortunately. Just a math.

You didn't think to remove your earbuds before recording yourself? 🤦