Wolfram Physics Project: Working Session Tuesday, May 5, 2020 [Finding Black Hole Structures]
Stephen Wolfram & Jonathan Gorard continue answering questions about the new Wolfram Physics Project, this time for a working session on black hole structures in the Wolfram Model. Begins at 19:03
Originally livestreamed at: / stephen_wolfram
Stay up-to-date on this project by visiting our website: wolfr.am/physics
Check out the announcement post: wolfr.am/physics-announcement
Find the tools to build a universe: wolfr.am/physics-tools
Find the technical documents: wolfr.am/physics-documents
Follow us on our official social media channels:
Twitter: / wolframresearch
Facebook: / wolframresearch
Instagram: / wolframresearch
LinkedIn: / wolfram-research
Stephen Wolfram's Twitter: / stephen_wolfram
Contribute to the official Wolfram Community: community.wolfram.com
Stay up-to-date on the latest interest at Wolfram Research through our blog: blog.wolfram.com
Follow Stephen Wolfram's life, interests, and what makes him tick on his blog: writings.stephenwolfram.com
Find the notebooks for this session here: www.wolframcloud.com/obj/wolframphysics/WorkingMaterial/2020/BlackHoleDetector.nb & www.wolframcloud.com/obj/wolframphysics/WorkingMaterial/2020/BlackHoles-02.nb
Note: start at 19:00 :)
Amazing work!
The Casimir effect again! Excellent. I read somewhere the term vacuum pressure used as referring to gradients in the vacuum energy. That's the Casimir effect. Maybe everything is gradients of the vacuum energy. An atom for example is a stable vortex of different gradients than the surrounding vacuum pressure. And inertia is caused when the atom is accelerated in relation to the vacuum, NOT in some arbitrary Einsteinian reference frame. "Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo." - Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics
There was an interesting discussion about worm holes, and I am not sure if this means anything but can there be a difference at the mouth of the hole depending if it opened naturally/made to open naturally, or if it was "torn"/"forced" potentially causing a push back. Like opening a closed bear trap.
In one part I have two poorly worded questions because they don't realize it but so many people type comments that I actually asked those two questions like 20-30 minutes prior really fast haha but I have been thinking about what I meant to ask and they partially answer it if you have a rule space that rewrites according to some stochastic combinatorial process then you couldn't allow the production of an invariant gauge field from which the entanglement network (of which each node serves as a starting point for time orientation) aka the entanglement reference frame is equivalent to some Feynman integral path sum for a single particle. They also answered it when they said that a Feynman diagram is like a sub graph of the multi way hypergaph. As for the Higg's field question relating the Planck scale it was just asking I think fundamentally about the 10^60 difference from the zero point energy, since I think that the Planck scale depends on the cosmological constant and the Higg's field wouldn't it ? Also, the subgraph of the multi way hypergraph for an electron as Stephen suggested may be 10^30 edges but it gets reduced to a Feynman diagram.
Penrose’s quantum coherence OR-ORCH vs the idea of decoherence - recoherence. I don’t see how you can maintain coherence ?
When you visualize these graphs and draw conclusions from your visualizations, you are using a function GraphPlot that "attempts to place vertices to give a well-laid-out version of the graph", and other such functions. I suspect these functions are quite complicated and use a bunch of ad-hoc rules to create shapes for graphs. How is this not an elephant in the room that needs to be addressed more clearly? When you say a simple rule makes a complex shape, or a certain shape, isn't this just your GraphPlot function deciding to lay it out that way, and in a sense, since you wrote that function, you yourself adding a whole bunch of complexity deciding to lay out certain relations in one way and others in a different way?
Imagine if recoherence occurs in the brain to make up for bits that have been decohered ? Having many poor q bits instead of whatever # of logical q bits. Haha doubt it but...what if black holes do this? Susskind’s surface complexity as quantum circuits ?
To finish yesterday's first? Black holes do have causal effects...indirectly?
Can't ignore the causal effects of gravity if you want to include gravity.
The energy would be coming from the BH's mass.
Negative mass...intergalactic space where dark energy rules?
Domain wall == black hole firewall?
TV [antenae] detectors also mentioned in Disco and Atomic War.
I wonder if you folks have an incling for what you are really brushing up against. I suspect you will see it in time if you do not yet. Assuming you actually get all of this right and find the code.
And no I am not talking about simulation theory.