Fundamental Physics Wolfram vs. Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen, Bell, Schrödinger, Bohr, Heisenberg,...

Fundamental PhysicsFundamental PhysicsFundamental PhysicsFundamental PhysicsWolfram vs. Einstein, Podolsky,Wolfram vs. Einstein, Podolsky,Rosen, Bell, Schrödinger, Bohr, Heisenberg, Rosen, Bell, Schrödinger, Bohr, Heisenberg,

Planck, Born, Minkowski, Schwarzschild, Misner, Thorne, Planck, Born, Minkowski, Schwarzschild, Misner, Thorne, Wheeler, …Wheeler, …

or

Aren’t they cute when they try to understand quantum physics?

A Few Simple Constraints

TG

JF 4 0][ F

EH

0GD


It’s all in the definition…

AAF

RgRG2

1

xUm

H

22

2

AA

,

RRgR RR

R

gggg 2

1


Wolfram’s Alternatives• Cellular Automota• Networks• Multidimensional Substitution

Systems• Mobile Automota• Multiway Systems


Thermodynamics• The first law of thermodynamics

says you can’t win. (Conservation of mass-energy)

• The second law says you can’t even break even. (Entropy can never decrease reversible processes must have no change in entropy)


Wolfram Inconsistencies

• Demands an explanation for why the 2nd law of thermodynamics must be true, but is willing to accept 1st law.

• Will discard cellular automata that violate reversibility, but not those that violate the 2nd law.


Conserved Quantities• Demonstrates systems that conserve

various features. Cellular automata should only be considered models – conserved quantities can be considered mass-energy, 4-momentum, lepton number, etc. (Electron number is not conserved!)

• Does not demonstrate systems that conserve more than one feature at a time, e.g., mass-energy and 4-momentum.


Nature of Space• Do not confuse Wolfram’s

constraint to only consider systems with three connections with Wolfram claiming that these are the only systems possible.


Relationship of Space and Time

• If universe is really a mobile automata, we do not need to invoke a master clock to keep track of time. Each node sees changes since last visit as happening simultaneously.

• This predicts significantly different results than special relativity, but it’s only one example!


Sequencing of Events• Considers several type of substitution

systems.– First substitution: the first possible

substitution is used.– All substitution: all possible substitutions

are used.– Random substitution: of all possible

substitutions, one is chosen at random.• What does random mean in this context?


Sequencing of Events• Investigates rules where differing

orders of replacement do not produce different causal networks to deal with lack of a global clock.

• These rules also have a concept of simultaneity that differs from special relativity.


Uniqueness and Branching in Time

• Wolfram’s multiway system almost matches the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.

• More paths leading to a state increase the number of universes experiencing that state.


Evolution of Networks• Uses a LRU algorithm• Addresses tie-breaking conflicts by

examining rules that are order independent


Space, Time and Relativity

• Fundamental concept of relativity is that the universe can be divided into five sections, relative to an event– Time-like past– Light-like past– Space-like– Light-like future– Time-like future



• Wolfram’s causal networks divide the universe into three sections, relative to an event– Events that caused this event (directly or

indirectly)– Events that are independent of this event

(might have common causes or effects)– Events caused by this event (directly or

indirectly)



• Nearby means events that can be reached in a small number of hops– If one considers something a meter away to

be nearby, then small means ≤ 1035

– If two events separated by a second to be nearby, then small means ≤ 1043

• EPR pairs might then be considered to have a wormhole between them! (This is not the typical interpretation.)



• An approximate definition of relative simultaneity can be constructed by:

1. Picking an event that simultaneity will be defined relative to. (Event A)

2. Choosing an event far in the future of event A. (Event B)

3. Finding all events that are the same number of hops from event B as event A. These events approximate simultaneity relative to event A. None of these events can cause or be caused by A.

• As event B approaches an infinite number of hops from event A, this approximation approaches true relative simultaneity.


Elementary Particles• Hand-waving and resorting to authority

– Provides some very high-level interesting concepts, but shows no way of exploring them – even in the notes

– Mentions lots of technical details that have been derived by others, seemingly to imply that all of them can be explained by his model


Gravity• Discusses several possible

geometries, but mainly more hand waving– Still resorts to tensors in the notes– Does have the consistent effect that

his elementary particle postulates would naturally imply distortion of space-time


Quantum Phenomena• Suggests that quantum

phenomena are deterministic• In order to explain basic results,

seems to contradict hand-waving on elementary particles


EPR Pairs• His solution to EPR pairs seems to

involve a virtual wormhole between pairs – this violates the standard theory which suggests that no information can be communicated “faster than light” with these pairs


Bell’s Inequalities• Seems to believe that experiments

violating Bell’s inequalities are flawed• Closely related to quantum computing

0

102

1

B

A 11002

1BA

Fundamental Physics Wolfram vs. Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen, Bell, Schrödinger, Bohr, Heisenberg,...

Documents

Transcript of Fundamental Physics Wolfram vs. Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen, Bell, Schrödinger, Bohr, Heisenberg,...