Daily Archives: April 24, 2020

Stephen Wolfram is a cult figure in programming and mathematics. He is the brains behind Wolfram Alpha, a website that tries to answer questions by using algorithms to sift through a massive database of information. He is also responsible for Mathematica, a computersystem used by scientists the world over.

Last week, Wolfram launched a new venture: the Wolfram Physics Project, an ambitious attempt to develop a new physics of our universe. The new physics, he declares, is computational. The guiding idea is that everything can be boiled down to the application of simple rules to fundamental building blocks.

Why do we need such a theory? After all, we already have two extraordinarily successful physical theories. These are general relativity a theory of gravity and the large-scale structure of the universe and quantum mechanics a theory of the basic constituents of matter, sub-atomic particles, and their interactions. Havent we got physics licked?

Not quite. While we have an excellent theory of how gravity works for large objects, such as stars and planets and even people, we dont understand gravity at extremely high energies or for extremely small things.

General relativity breaks down when we try to extend it into the miniature realm where quantum mechanics rules. This has led to a quest for the holy grail of physics: a theory of quantum gravity, which would combine what we know from general relativity with what we know from quantum mechanics to produce an entirely new physical theory.

The current best approach we have to quantum gravity is string theory. This theory has been a work in progress for 50 years or so, and while it has achieved some success there is a growing dissatisfaction with it as an approach.

Read more: Explainer: String theory

Wolfram is attempting to provide an alternative to string theory. He does so via a branch of mathematics called graph theory, which studies groups of points or nodes connected by lines or edges.

Think of a social networking platform. Start with one person: Betty. Next, add a simple rule: every person adds three friends. Apply the rule to Betty: now she has three friends. Apply the rule again to every person (including the one you started with, namely: Betty). Keep applying the rule and, pretty soon, the network of friends forms a complex graph.

Wolframs proposal is that the universe can be modelled in much the same way. The goal of physics, he suggests, is to work out the rules that the universal graph obeys.

Key to his suggestion is that a suitably complicated graph looks like a geometry. For instance, imagine a cube and a graph that resembles it.

Wolfram argues that extremely complex graphs resemble surfaces and volumes: add enough nodes and connect them with enough lines and you form a kind of mesh. He maintains that space itself can be thought of as a mesh that knits together a series of nodes in this fashion.

How can complicated meshes of nodes help with the project of reconciling general relativity and quantum mechanics? Well, quantum theory deals with discrete objects with discrete properties. General relativity, on the other hand, treats the universe as a continuum and gravity as a continuous force.

If we can build a theory that can do what general relativity does but that starts from discrete structures like graphs, then the prospects for reconciling general relativity and quantum mechanics start to look more promising. If we can build a geometry that resembles the one given to us by general relativity using a discrete structure, then the prospects look even better.

While Wolframs project is promising, it does contain more than a hint of hubris. Wolfram is going up against the Einsteins and Hawkings of the world, and hes doing it without a life spent publishing in physics journals. (He did publish several physics papers as a teenage prodigy, but that was 40 years ago, as well as a book A New Kind of Science, which is the spiritual predecessor of the Wolfram Physics Project.)

Moreover, his approach is not wholly original. It is similar to two existing approaches to quantum gravity: causal set theory and loop quantum gravity, neither of which get much of a mention in Wolframs grand designs.

Read more: Einstein to Weinstein: the lone genius is an exception to the rule

Nonetheless, the project is notable for three reasons. First, Wolfram has a broad audience and he will do a lot to popularise the approach that he advocates. Proponents of loop quantum gravity in particular lament the predominance of string theory within the physics community. Wolfram may help to underwrite a paradigm shift in physics.

Second, Wolfram provides a very careful overview of the project from the basic principles of graph theory up to general relativity. This will make it easier for individuals to get up to speed with the general approach and potentially make contributions of their own.

Third, the project is open source, inviting contributions from citizen scientists. If nothing else, this gives us all something to do at the moment in between baking sourdough and playing Animal Crossing, that is.

See the original post here:

A new kind of physics? Stephen Wolfram has a radical plan to build the universe from dots and lines - The Conversation AU

Stephen Wolfram is a cult figure in programming and mathematics. He is the brains behind Wolfram Alpha, a website that tries to answer questions by using algorithms to sift through a massive database of information. He is also responsible for Mathematica, a computer system used by scientists the world over.

Last week, Wolfram launched a new venture: the Wolfram Physics Project, an ambitious attempt to develop a new physics of our Universe.

The new physics, he declares, is computational. The guiding idea is that everything can be boiled down to the application of simple rules to fundamental building blocks.

Why do we need such a theory? After all, we already have two extraordinarily successful physical theories.

These are general relativity a theory of gravity and the large-scale structure of the Universe and quantum mechanics a theory of the basic constituents of matter, sub-atomic particles, and their interactions. Haven't we got physics licked?

Not quite. While we have an excellent theory of how gravity works for large objects, such as stars and planets and even people, we don't understand gravity at extremely high energies or for extremely small things.

General relativity "breaks down" when we try to extend it into the miniature realm where quantum mechanics rules. This has led to a quest for the holy grail of physics: a theory of quantum gravity, which would combine what we know from general relativity with what we know from quantum mechanics to produce an entirely new physical theory.

The current best approach we have to quantum gravity is string theory. This theory has been a work in progress for 50 years or so, and while it has achieved some success there is a growing dissatisfaction with it as an approach.

Wolfram is attempting to provide an alternative to string theory. He does so via a branch of mathematics called graph theory, which studies groups of points or nodes connected by lines or edges.

Think of a social networking platform. Start with one person: Betty. Next, add a simple rule: every person adds three friends. Apply the rule to Betty: now she has three friends. Apply the rule again to every person (including the one you started with, namely: Betty). Keep applying the rule and, pretty soon, the network of friends forms a complex graph.

A simple rule multiple times creates a complex network of points and connections. (Author provided)

Wolfram's proposal is that the universe can be modelled in much the same way. The goal of physics, he suggests, is to work out the rules that the universal graph obeys.

Key to his suggestion is that a suitably complicated graph looks like a geometry. For instance, imagine a cube and a graph that resembles it.

(Author provided)

Above:In the same way that a collection of points and lines can approximate a solid cube, Wolfram argues that space itself may be a mesh that knits together a series of nodes.

Wolfram argues that extremely complex graphs resemble surfaces and volumes: add enough nodes and connect them with enough lines and you form a kind of mesh. He maintains that space itself can be thought of as a mesh that knits together a series of nodes in this fashion.

How can complicated meshes of nodes help with the project of reconciling general relativity and quantum mechanics? Well, quantum theory deals with discrete objects with discrete properties. General relativity, on the other hand, treats the universe as a continuum and gravity as a continuous force.

If we can build a theory that can do what general relativity does but that starts from discrete structures like graphs, then the prospects for reconciling general relativity and quantum mechanics start to look more promising.

If we can build a geometry that resembles the one given to us by general relativity using a discrete structure, then the prospects look even better.

Space may be a complex mesh of points connected by a simple rule that is iterated many times. (Wolfram Physics Project)

While Wolfram's project is promising, it does contain more than a hint of hubris. Wolfram is going up against the Einsteins and Hawkings of the world, and he's doing it without a life spent publishing in physics journals.

(He did publish several physics papers as a teenage prodigy, but that was 40 years ago, as well as a book A New Kind of Science, which is the spiritual predecessor of the Wolfram Physics Project.)

Moreover, his approach is not wholly original. It is similar to two existing approaches to quantum gravity: causal set theory and loop quantum gravity, neither of which get much of a mention in Wolfram's grand designs.

Nonetheless, the project is notable for three reasons.

First, Wolfram has a broad audience and he will do a lot to popularise the approach that he advocates. Proponents of loop quantum gravity in particular lament the predominance of string theory within the physics community. Wolfram may help to underwrite a paradigm shift in physics.

Second, Wolfram provides a very careful overview of the project from the basic principles of graph theory up to general relativity. This will make it easier for individuals to get up to speed with the general approach and potentially make contributions of their own.

Third, the project is "open source", inviting contributions from citizen scientists.

If nothing else, this gives us all something to do at the moment in between baking sourdough and playing Animal Crossing, that is.

Sam Baron, Associate professor, Australian Catholic University.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Read more:

Creator of Wolfram Alpha Has a Bold Plan to Find a New Fundamental Theory of Physics - ScienceAlert

By Steven Gimbel, Ph.D., Gettysburg CollegeImage of the universe, showing the visible and near-infrared spectrum, captured by NASAs Hubble Telescope in 2014. (Image: NASA/Public domain)

Einstein contended that every property in the universe had well-defined values at all times. If quantum mechanics failed to provide us these values or failed to uniquely determine these values at all times, it indicated the limitations of the theory and informed us that the theory needed to be augmented. Only then would we get a complete sense of reality.

John von Neumann, a Hungarian-American mathematician and physicist, provided us with the first picture of reality. He claimed that the superposed state was, in fact, real and that objects are spread out without well-defined values until we make an attempt to measure it.

He further claimed that it was the act of measurement that skewed reality. It caused a disturbance that forces the wave function to collapse into a single value. Since the measurement is a physical act, he contended, it changes the system and this causes the results obtained by the application of the Schrdinger equation to change into the random results we see.

Nobel Prize-winning theoretical physicist and mathematician Eugene Paul Wigner, who was a contemporary and colleague of Neumann, proposed a second picture of reality. His postulation was that the collapse occurs when the system interacts with the human mind. Human consciousness affects the system.

He contended that its simply not possible that a physical thing would violate physical law. Hence, the problem didnt lie with the method or instrument used to observe the system, but with the observer or the scientist. The problem was the conscious seeing of the value.

Learn more about Whether the Conscious Mind is Really in control of Your Body.

Its worth noting here that a number of scientists found Wigners theory of attributing human consciousness with a physical role to be strange.

American physicist Hugh Everett, the proponent of the many-worlds interpretation (MWI) of quantum physics, provided us with an even stranger image of reality. He posited that the wave function in Schrdingers equation never really collapses and that all objects in the superposed state are actually objectively real.

This is a transcript from the video series Redefining Reality: The Intellectual Implications of Modern Science. Watch it now, on The Great Courses Plus.

According to Everett, when a system is not observed, it exists simultaneously in every possible state. But when its observed, reality splits and new sub-realities or parallel universes are created. And in each of these new sub-realities or parallel universes, one possible state is represented. In other words, every time we observe a system reality is divided into multiple worlds. So, theres one world where the coin is heads and another where the coin is tails.

Learn more about What Is Reality.

These three interpretations of reality play a key role when we try to understand the greatest piece of art to be directly influenced by quantum mechanicsMichael Frayns stage play, Copenhagen. The play is based on certain events that took place during World War II, and it focuses on the uncertainty that emerged from these events.

It is a well-known fact that German theoretical physicist Werner Heisenberg, who made key contributions in the field of quantum mechanics and was also awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1932, had been recruited by the Nazis to head their nuclear weapons program, which was known as Uranverein.

It is also known for a fact that Heisenberg was stuck. Extensive research had been carried out by various scientists under the Uranverein, between September 1939 and June 1942, but no actual nuclear weapon had been developed. In June 1942, during a meeting with Albert Speer, Germanys Minister of Armaments, Heisenberg informed him that it would take at least three more years to build a nuclear bomb.

There was a minor (or rather subtle) error in Heisenbergs work, which prevented him from building a nuclear weapon for the Nazis. Heisenberg had traveled to Denmark during this period to meet his former mentor and colleague Niels Bohr, the Danish physicist and a major contributor in developing a deeper understanding of the atomic structure and quantum theory. After this meeting, Heisenberg and Bohr never spoke again, but we do not know what was said during this meeting.

Over the years, historians have put forward three hypotheses. The first claims that Heisenberg was working with utmost seriousness towards building an atomic weapon for Nazi Germany. When he got stuck, he reached out to Bohr for advice and help. On learning that Heisenberg was working for the Nazis, Bohr refused to help him. This led to a falling out between the two and thats why they never spoke again.

The second hypothesis claims that Heisenberg, in fact, was conflicted about his involvement with the Nazis. He didnt want to help them, but neither did he want any harm to come his or his familys way. This is understandable given the irrationality of the Nazis. Hence, he couldnt refuse them. This is the reason why he met Bohr, his old mentor, for fatherly advice. They discussed politics and a possible course of action for Heisenberg and physics never came up.

Finally, the third hypothesis claims that Heisenberg had been pretending to work on an atomic bomb all along. He had no intention whatsoever to build such a weapon for the Nazis. In fact, he intended to sabotage the effort. This is where Bohr comes into the picture. The error that would sabotage the effort had to be subtle so it eluded the attention of other scientists in Germany and he needed Bohrs help for this.

Learn more about Extra Dimensions.

There is no way for us to know which of these three scenarios is true or if there exists a fourth version. If we view this through the lens of quantum mechanics, we can posit that since the system is unobserved, its in a superposed state. In Copenhagen, Frayn traces out each of these possibilities in the three acts of the play. Since we didnt observe it, all three are brought to life. Is there one that really occurred or, as Everett would have it, are there three worldsin each a different possibility being the real one?

American physicist Hugh Everett had proposed the many-worlds interpretation. It is deterministic in nature. It attempts to explain why the world can appear to be indeterministic to human observers, i.e., scientists.

The wave function, which is also referred to as a state variable, is a key component of any theory. The wave function of the universe is known as the Hartle-Hawking state, named after American physicist James Hartle and English theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking. Its used to determine the start of the universe. Feynmans path integral is used to calculate this wave function.

The first attempt at establishing a German nuclear weapons program happened in April 1939, but this effort fizzled out a few months later. In September 1939, Germany made a second attempt at establishing this program, which was known as Uranverein. This second attempt coincided with the start of World War II.

To put it simply, reality represents the state of things in the form they actually exist. It doesnt take into account how things may appear to exist or as they may be imagined to exist. It includes all that currently exists and all that has existed, irrespective of whether human consciousness can observe or comprehend it or not.

See the original post here:

The Three Pictures of Reality - The Great Courses Daily News

Weird, bizarre and incompressible thats how one can best describe Quantum Mechanics, a theory of microscopic realm, with subsequent implications on Macrocosm that has dominated the turf of physics for over a century now. Starting as a response to a simple question of atomic spectrum and stability of atomic systems, the theory soon emerged as parallel epistemological model with its ramifications on everything under the sun and beyond. The theory demands a basic shift in how we look at the universe and our own consciousness, and this shift is so dramatic that scientists and philosophers are yet to come in terms with it. So deep are its implications, that when Quantum theory was emerging and our previous understanding of the universe was about to fall, Einstein wrote pessimistically that, I still believe in the possibility of model of reality that is to say of a theory that represents things themselves and not merely the probability of their occurrence.

This was actually a Critique of Quantum Mechanics that had forced the scientists to give up the rigid, classical and mechanical understanding of the universe, and to re-evaluate it in terms of probability, uncertainty and indeterminacy.

What quantum mechanics has at heart is easy to state, but difficult to come in terms with. It starts with the empirically based statement that matter at atomic and subatomic levels, tends to behave differently, rather weirdly, then how we expect it to behave. Material particles down the scale tend to exhibit wave- like properties. What this means, has been interpreted differently, the most wide interpretation being the one now known as the Copenhagen interpretation, which maintains that when an observer intervenes with subatomic systems, the particles seem to occupy no definite and specific position in space they are rather smeared, like waves, probability waves to be precise, throughout space time. It is difficult to locate a specific region of space and say that particle is residing here, what quantum mechanics gives us, is a recipe in the form of Schrodingers equation to calculate the probability of existence of particle in a particular region of space, and surprisingly, though the probability goes down as we move away from the particle, it never goes to zero. It means that there is a probability of existence of particle anywhere in the universe. This is as weird as it can be, but this is how it is. This quandrum is best brought to fore by the famous double slit experiment, that Feynman described as the only problem of Quantum Mechanics. In this experiment, electrons tend to behave both as waves as well as particles depending on configuration of the experimental set up. What this experiment reveals, a shocking revelation indeed, is that the behaviour of electrons is seriously determined by the presence of an observer at slit openings. This brings us face to face with one of the weird facets of reality as described by quantum mechanics, and that is, as Paulson stated it, An observer doesnt merely observe reality, rather he creates it.

In quantum mechanics, reality is not something objectively lying there independently in space time, it is rather created by interaction of the observer with the system, and it is only in presence of the observer that a particular event of quantum probability turns into a physical possibility . This is what is meant by the collapse of Quantum States. This involves and brings in torrent of subjectivity and squarely brings us back to Hermeneutic interpretation of life and universe. In the continental analytic split that occurred in philosophy in the beginning of twentieth century, Quantum mechanics has swung pendulum in the direction of continental tradition, so to say. Quantum mechanics posits the fact that we as individuals and as carriers of our own subjectivity chose subjectively from the objective field of reality. Amit Goswami, makes this statement the starting and culminating point of his much quoted book God is not dead. This view, along with quantum model of consciousness has diluted the Cartesian mind-body and inner-outer dichotomy and has been trying to ground being in consciousness. The quantum emphasis on consciousness and its subsequent acceptance of the fact that consciousness is something beyond the grasp of scientific structures and it can never be quantified and theorised in a structured pattern has brought this theory, circularly, very close to views held in the East since millennia. The three fold formulation of Sat-Chit-Anand seems to be fitting well in quantum scheme, though it remains debatable as to how long shall it take for quantum mechanics and therefore for entire physics to completely agree with the picture that has come to us from Eastern religious and metaphysical traditions. Neils Bohr wasnt entirely hyperbolic when he noted that in order to come in terms with epistemological issues raised by quantum mechanics one must return to the questions raised by Hindu and Buddhist monks, centuries ago. The resemblance between Quantum mechanics and traditional metaphysics becomes more acute when we listen masters from both camps crying that We cant describe what we see. Language is inadequate to describe our experiences. This indescribability of both epistemes brings them further close.

The philosophy of determinism that Newtonian mechanics has chained us to, and thereby rendering our moral responsibilities, accountability before divine redundant is also falling apart in the wake of quantum theory. The theory is based on the very premise that matter and therefore universe is governed by indeterminacy and a sort of free will at atomic and subatomic scale. This observation and its consequences on macro world is surely going to establish the theory of free will and human accountability as a rational and well proven proposition. Additionally, the quantum Maxim that things arent as they appear to be is going to throw open doors of fresh thinking and is surely expected to awaken die hard materialists to subtler levels of reality. People have already come up with scores of good and bad books on the subject which lay bare the philosophical underpinnings of quantum mechanics and subsequent boost that religion can have had from these underpinnings. Of all the diverse interpretations that philosophers have extracted from the postulates of Quantum mechanics we are bound to make a transition from our classical, rigid, deterministic and material picture of universe to its Quantum, in deterministic and subtle picture of universe. Fritjof Capra has thus summarised this paradigm shift in our thinking that In modern physics, the image of the universe as machine has been replaced by that of an interconnected, dynamic whole whose parts are essentially interdependent and have to be understood as patterns of cosmic process. What this entire episode has to offer to us and why is it important for us to understand because it touches upon our basic existential, epistemological and ontological issues and with convergences so profound, a seeker can afford no longer ignorance neither of traditional metaphysics nor of modern physics.

Read the original post:

Quantum Mechanics and horizon of impossible - Greater Kashmir

John F. Banzaf III was watching football on television with his family in the Bronx on Thanksgiving 1966 when he realized that the most strategic plays were being made off the field in the cigarette commercials whose jingles, gags, slogans and images of virile cowboys and urbane women glamorized smoking.

Two years had elapsed since the United States surgeon general declared that smoking caused lung cancer. But while Congress had voted to require health warning labels on cigarette packaging, it had, for the time being, not required them for T.V. commercials.

Mr. Banzaf, a 25-year-old recent graduate of Columbia Law School, complained in a letter to the Federal Communications Commission that while television news coverage included both sides of the tobacco debate, the cigarette commercials did not. Under the so-called fairness doctrine, which required that both sides of an issue of public concern be presented, werent opponents of smoking entitled to free airtime?

When his letter came in, it struck a responsive chord, and I thought why not use it? Henry Geller, the F.C.C. counsel at the time, recalled in an unpublished memoir.

Mr. Geller, who died on April 7 in Washington at 96, did just that. He suggested that one antismoking public service message be broadcast free for every paid cigarette advertisement.

That proposed formula so unnerved station owners afraid of jeopardizing their licenses, and tobacco companies concerned about competing with powerful antismoking commercials, that Congress was finally able to ban the advertising altogether.

The industry desperately wanted to stop these counter ads and did so by eliminating its own ads, Mr. Geller said. From April 1, 1970, forward, all cigarette advertising was eliminated from radio and television.

In effect, Mr. Banzaf said this week, Geller fortuitously made new federal law in a most unusual manner, and probably helped to save millions of lives. (Mr. Banzaf became a professor at George Washington University Law School and a litigious defender of public health, challenging cigarette, fast food and soft drink firms.)

Mr. Geller later profoundly influenced American politics by successfully challenging the fairness doctrine as a private citizen, a challenge that led to a ruling allowing for televised debates between the major presidential candidates. Such debates have been held in every presidential election since 1976.

In 1960, the networks had been granted a special dispensation by Congress to broadcast the groundbreaking face-off between Senator John F. Kennedy and Vice President Richard M. Nixon. Under the fairness doctrine, a dozen or so minor party candidates would have been entitled to participate in the debates.

After no televised debates were held in 1964, 1968 and 1972, Mr. Geller persuaded the commission that broadcasting debates was the equivalent of covering any other breaking news event and was therefore exempt from that requirement.

Mr. Geller was also instrumental in expanding the channels available to new cable subscribers in 1970, while he was still at the F.C.C. The commission voted to allow the cable industry to import distant television signals to distribute to its customers. It also required the industry both to subsidize educational programming and to compensate local broadcasters.

Unlike many of his colleagues in government, Mr. Geller never capitalized on his public service to get a high-paying job in the private sector. He worked for the RAND Corporation, the Aspen Institute and, from 1980 to 1991, Duke Universitys Washington Center for Public Policy Research, where, as director, he helped draft and successfully lobby for federal legislation that imposed limits on how much advertising was allowed on childrens programming.

Henry Geller was born on Feb. 14, 1924, in Springfield, Mass., to Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe. His father, Samuel, was a homebuilder. His mother, Sadie (Kramer) Geller, was a homemaker.

He grew up in Detroit and, after graduating from the University of Michigan at 19 in 1943 with a degree in chemistry, served with the Army in the Pacific during World War II. When he returned, he began graduate study in chemistry at Michigan. But, he later recalled, when he encountered several law school students and learned that they rarely studied, he enrolled in Northwestern University School of Law.

I thought Henry was the smartest guy in law school, Newton N. Minow, who was a year behind him at Northwestern and who later became F.C.C. chairman, told Broadcast magazine in 1979. He was a movie nut. Hed go to three movies a day and never hit the books until a week before exams.

Mr. Geller graduated second in his class in 1949, went to work for the F.C.C. and then for the National Labor Relations Board, and clerked for an Illinois state judge.

In 1955 he married Judy Foelak, who ran a speakers bureau. She survives him and confirmed his death, from complications of bladder cancer, at their home in Washington. He is also survived by their children, Peter Geller and Kathryn Edwards, and a grandson.

Mr. Geller was the F.C.C.s general counsel from 1964 to 1970 and a special assistant to the chairman until 1973. From 1978 to 1980, he was the first administrator of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration.

He remained current on evolving technology; not long ago he said he was trying to figure out how to persuade Congress to mandate attribution for online political advertising.

A rumpled man with a preference for sneakers and jeans, he played tennis into his 90s, taught himself quantum physics and could argue a complex case without a single note. He preferred movies to television which, borrowing from Frank Lloyd Wright, he referred to as chewing gum for the eyes and, when he did tune in, usually confined himself to nature documentaries or quirky British comedy like Monty Pythons Flying Circus.

Mr. Geller was that rare former public official who could not only laugh at himself but also admit a mistake such as when he advised Mr. Minow, the newly installed F.C.C. chairman, against using what would become his signature phrase.

In a scathing speech to the National Association of Broadcasters in 1961, Mr. Minow praised good television but challenged broadcast executives to spend a full day in front of their sets without any distraction. What you will observe, he said, is a vast wasteland.

I told him not to say it, Mr. Geller recalled in an oral history interview for the Fordham University Libraries in 2010. I said, You have every right to say theyre not delivering public service, but you shouldnt go around on the quality of programs. The government cant do quality. Its subjective. It violates the First Amendment.

He laughs now, Mr. Geller continued, and he always introduces me saying, This is the man who told me not to say vast wasteland.

Read this article:

Henry Geller, Who Helped Rid TV of Cigarette Ads, Dies at 96 - The New York Times

Physics is the most fundamental of the sciences, dealing with matter and energy. But despite centuries of study, scientists still struggle with the basic question of how the universe works in other words, we still lack a truly fundamental theory of physics.

And thats something Stephen Wolfram has been thinking about for nearly 50 years. Known for his work in computer science, mathematics, and theoretical physics, Wolfram announced this week that he may have found a path that leads to a fundamental theory of physics, and that it is beautiful.

Back in the 1980s, while studying the computational universe of programs, Wolfram observed that even if a systems rules are extremely simple, its behaviour can still be rich and complex. He later applied that discovery to his study of the non-computational, actual universe.

Wolfram says that by the end of the 1990s he had figured out some implications for space, time, gravity, etc. in physics. These would be expressed in his 2002 bestseller A New Kind of Science, which proposes that computation can inform an understanding of the physical world.

Wolfram says a fundamental theory of physics may now be within reach, and is inviting the global research community to help.

Weve built a paradigm and a framework, Wolfram writes in a summary published this week on his website. But now we need to finish the job. We need to work through a lot of complicated computation, mathematics and physics, and see if we can finally deliver the answer to how our universe fundamentally works.

Wolfram says the big answer lies in something simple and structureless: We can think of it as a collection of abstract relations between abstract elements. Or we can think of it as a hypergraphor, in simple cases, a graph.

When we draw the graph, all that matters is whats connected to what, he writes. It also doesnt matter what the elements are called all that matters is that the elements are distinct.

But since edges in ordinary graphs that connect pairs of nodes can hardly represent the complexity of the universe, Wolfram proposes hypergraphs, with hyperedges that can connect any number of nodes.

Wolfram says hypergraphs can be produced by applying a simple rule to graphs and doing it over and over again. When visualized, a hypergraph appears to take a definite shape which resembles the mathematical idealizations and abstractions of the universe, according to Wolfram.

In our model, everything in the universespace, matter, whatever is supposed to be represented by features of our evolving hypergraph, he writes.

Wolfram sees the universe as basically a big chunk of space in which abstract points are abstractly connected to each other as a hypergraph with countless intersection points.

Wolfram says that after zillions of computer experiments, his team began to understand how quantum mechanics works, and identified some deep structural connections between relativity and quantum mechanics.

Everything just started falling into place. All those things Id known about in physics for nearly 50 years and finally we had a way to see not just what was true, but why, Wolfram explains in a detailed technical intro.

Wolfram has officially launched his Physics Project and will be livestreaming activities, sharing discoveries, and producing educational programs around the project. The team also plans to release more than 400 hours of videos covering previous research. Wolfram has also uploaded related working materials dating back to the 1990s as well as software tools.

This is a project for the world. Its going to be a great achievement when its done. And Id like to see it shared as widely as possible, he writes.

Reaction in the scientific community has varied which is not unexpected in the face of a claim that many would regard as, well, astronomical. But history has shown that new ideas can have a tough time making a good first impression.

Sean Carroll, a California Institute of Technology physics professor and theoretical physicist specializing in quantum mechanics, gravity, and cosmology, tweeted that Wolframs approach is cool and fun. But he cautioned that science must be patient and collaborative, and that most bold ideas are wrong: please dont get too excited until others look it over.

The last word goes to Wolfram, whose enthusiasm cannot be denied: Lets have a blast. And lets try to make this the time in human history when we finally figure out how this universe of ours works!

Journalist: Yuan Yuan | Editor: Michael Sarazen

Like Loading...

See original here:

Stephen Wolfram: The Path to a Fundamental Theory of Physics May Begin With a Hypergraph - Synced

I think we all vividly remember the day when we were told that WE, Mothers who opted-out of becoming teachers, would be homeschooling our children for the remainder of the year.

I work with many women who used that glorious 7 hours of freedom to work on their business and I know stay-at-home Mothers used it to catch up on the many household and family management activities running a home requires.

To have that snatched from us so quickly and without say felt jarring.

Yet, I am starting to see something happen that I always sort of dreamed would happen in families and especially the education system.

Parents are starting to see the glaring holes in our outdated education system (and how underpaid teachers are.)

One of the largest holes being: how children are compared to the other children to the left and right of them and then being treated the same as everyone else.

Being home with you children in this way is probably one of the hardest things youll ever do and also one of the most beautiful, transformative experiences as well if you apply what I am about to tell you.

Not only will it create space and time for you to do what YOU need to do, but it will also nurture the human they came here to be.

I often get compliments on how well they get along, how they treat others, and most importantly how self-aware and assured they are. Honestly I cant take much credit, I dont do anything other than partner with them as opposed to parent them.

I dont assume I know more than them they do about themselves (the world yes themselves, no) and I listen to what THEY tell me they need and want to do.

Once I remember I was beating myself up for the amount of YouTube Ford was watching, making myself wrong and a bad mom then I learned that because of his design, this was a form of research. It was in alignment with the investigator in him and was deeply empowering to him.

So, you see it is easier to trust THEM because I know their Human Designs.

Before we begin, I will give a brief intro to Human Design and then go into some tips on how to best partner with each Design during this wild time, so when you look back at this, you see it as a blessing and the moment your relationship with your child changed forever.

Human Design is a system that tells us how WE were uniquely built logically, emotionally, physically and energetically.

It is a system that brings together the principles of the ancient I Ching, the mathematics of Astrology, The Tree of Life (Kabbalah), Hindu-Brahmin Chakra System all combined with the knowledge of genetic coding and the understanding of neutrinos (Quantum Physics).

If you thought understanding your sun sign was fascinating youre going to love this.

Think of it as Astrology on steroids.

Basically, our bodies are vehicles and every vehicle has its own mechanics. It knows where to go, what to do, and who to talk to in order for each person to live their life with the least amount of resistance.

So for example, when a warning light pops-up on your dashboard you can either read your cars user manual or you can use your mind to try and figure it out and spend hours Googling, asking friends what they think.

Totally up to you, once is just faster and creates less stress.

In this analogy, your body is the vehicle and your Human Design and your BodyGraph is the manual.

Our Type is a model for a way of life, the way our vehicle best creates and works with life. We are often told to go make things happen, that is the model we have and its not working for a large percentage of the population.

Our Authority is how we uniquely make decisions. Some people are meant to make decisions over time, riding out their emotions and habit of making emotional decisions. Some are meant to make it with their gut, and still others with their heart.

However there is ONE place all of us are not meant to make decisions from and that is the mind.

You know how they say, Kids dont come with manuals.

False, they do.

Before we dive into the types, I want you to grab your Chart as well as your Childrens.

The best way to ensure youre helping them become the person they were born to be, is first and foremost, by being the person you were. The person they chose to guide them on their unique path.

Manifestor- if your child is a Manifestor, I am sure you can already feel the power and energy that they have. It can feel very pushy and sometime you innately feel the need to control. This is who they are, they are MEANT to initiate, break the rules, and do things their way. Attempts to control them for your own comfort simply dis-empower and break their spirit.

Give them MORE freedom than YOU think that you should literally, to the point of you being uncomfortable.

Inform them of what youre doing and why, they want to feel like they are a part of the process.

Do not compare them to others, especially their siblings.

And if they experience anger (which is what happens when they are out of alignment with their design) hold the space for them to do that and dont make them wrong for it.

Generator- these children have a lot of lifeforce energy and when they are lit up about what they are doing, they are focused and are quite the finishers.

I notice my pure generator doesnt like to leave ANYTHING undone/incomplete that he is invested in and he loves to help.

These types have a very primal way of communicating, it sounds like grunting, so telling them to, Use their words actually stifles their communication.

Ask them yes or no questions instead of, Why did you do that? ask them specifically, Did you do that because _________? and let them make their primal, Un-huh or, Un-uh.

This type has to exhaust their energy every day. Make sure that they are moving, thinking, and creating at their own pace, so at the end of the day they are able to fall asleep.

Manifesting Generators somewhat a hybrid of the two. These types have initiator tendencies with the life force of a generator so they need to have a lot of different things going on in order to feel expressed.

Space, space, and more space. Give these kids creative freedom!

My little Manifesting Generator Ruby LOVES to color on herself and the walls, wherein her Brother never did. This is her way of saying, Do not limit me.

When they are focused and working on something, do NOT interrupt them, their creative process is very internal and when its interrupted it can create resistance and anger.

The same as with Generators, make sure youre asking them Yes/No questions and just like with Manifestors, that youre keeping them informed and in the loop.

Projectors this type is different than most and they need to be treated as such. Generators and even Manifestors have a move, move, move, do, do, do energy and Projectors are much more fluid.

They arent necessarily meant to move throughout the world in that way they love their naps and they love to observe.

Dont force these kids to go out to play when they do not want to and honor their need for rest it does not make them lazy.

They need to be recognized and require one on one attention more than others. Whereas other types can be independent, Projectors enjoy partnering with others.

THIS is the type you can ask open ended questions to and they will be SO happy to find an answer for you, they simply need to be invited to do so and to share it.

To make them feel special, I will ask them often what they think about any given thing and you can see their face light up.

Reflectors- with only 1% of the population falling into this type, they are very rare and have special gifts. These children are a reflection of the people and places they are near. If a Reflector child is upset, sick, unhealthy the environment or the people in it are.

Make sure you expose these types to different experiences so they can exercise their gifts and experience new things. They are evaluators so this is their job and they will feel right at home doing it.

This type will naturally love nature and being outdoors (and away from others.)

Their behavior is a direct reflection of you, so being aware of who YOU are being will innately help them.

In order to make decisions, they need to talk it out with you, over time. Unlike the other types, Reflectors arent going to be quick decision makers.

Finally, help them embrace their inconsistency as a gift. This doesnt make them wrong, this makes them who they are.

Taking care of you, putting yourself first, making sure that youre feeling your absolute best will model what it looks like to THEM.

Can you imagine what this world will look like when every single person is being who they were meant to be?

No longer being compared to the person beside them, offering the gifts they were given to the world, and loving themselves (and others) fiercely?

I can.

Here is the original post:

How Human Design can help you parent in the time of COVID-19 - Thrive Global