Physicist and computer scientist Stephen Wolfram claims that relativity, quantum mechanics and computational complexity are essentially the same thing viewed in different ways.
His new theory of everything makes predictions, but whether they are testable is another matter, since he leaves out the details of how this could be done.
One of his predictions is that particles like electrons are not elementary at all, but are composed of much simpler elements. By his calculations, an electron should be composed of about 10^35 of these elements.
Wolfram also predicts that simpler particles made of fewer elements should exist. He calls these 'oligons' and because they ought to exert a gravitational force, he suggests they make up the dark matter that astronomers think fills our universe.
Wolfram seems to be regarded as a bit of an outsider by the physics community.
https://writings.stephenwolfram.com...the-backstory-of-the-wolfram-physics-project/
His new theory of everything makes predictions, but whether they are testable is another matter, since he leaves out the details of how this could be done.
One of his predictions is that particles like electrons are not elementary at all, but are composed of much simpler elements. By his calculations, an electron should be composed of about 10^35 of these elements.
Wolfram also predicts that simpler particles made of fewer elements should exist. He calls these 'oligons' and because they ought to exert a gravitational force, he suggests they make up the dark matter that astronomers think fills our universe.
Wolfram seems to be regarded as a bit of an outsider by the physics community.
https://writings.stephenwolfram.com...the-backstory-of-the-wolfram-physics-project/
By the way guys, I notice there is a computer thread that you can participate in if you aren't already doing so! 🤓
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/the-computer-thread.318173/
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/the-computer-thread.318173/
I thought our segue into Computers was very untertaining (to use @mchambin's interesting new word) ...even if @AjohnL seemed to get a bee in his bonnet about KDE Linux.
We have recently learned about analog and quantum computers which are a whole new way of performing calculations.
As usual. and I say this frankly, it looks like only a very few of us actually did their homework on the subject.
Sometimes the thread just treads water while there is little exciting Space News. And at least there was no mention of Electric Plasma.
My reading list is growing silly. My friends picked out this tome for me in the 50p library sale yesterday:
It would have been ungracious to refuse it, but I may leave it on the backburner. I expect he was rightly bullied at school!
All maths is potentially useful in solving the problems of the Universe IMO.
Here's my current wheeze. It's the balance or greengrocer problem. You have some scales and some weights. How few weights can you have to weigh out any integer weight?
A binary set or multiples of 2 will work. But a multiples of 3 are even more economical if you can use weights on both sides. Interestingly in binary you could makeup, say, 3 as 1+2 or 4-1. With 3s you only have one solution.
For instance 5 is made as 9 - (1+3) on the scales. You follow? The well informed particle physicist notices that mesons come in 2 quark units, whereas baryons have 3 quark units.
I find this interesting. It suggests that binary is not the only game in town. But multiples of 4 don't work at all. I must find some use for this discovery. I just need to flesh out some details for a new generation of computers and go down in history. 😎.
We have recently learned about analog and quantum computers which are a whole new way of performing calculations.
As usual. and I say this frankly, it looks like only a very few of us actually did their homework on the subject.
Sometimes the thread just treads water while there is little exciting Space News. And at least there was no mention of Electric Plasma.
My reading list is growing silly. My friends picked out this tome for me in the 50p library sale yesterday:
It would have been ungracious to refuse it, but I may leave it on the backburner. I expect he was rightly bullied at school!
All maths is potentially useful in solving the problems of the Universe IMO.
Here's my current wheeze. It's the balance or greengrocer problem. You have some scales and some weights. How few weights can you have to weigh out any integer weight?
A binary set or multiples of 2 will work. But a multiples of 3 are even more economical if you can use weights on both sides. Interestingly in binary you could makeup, say, 3 as 1+2 or 4-1. With 3s you only have one solution.
For instance 5 is made as 9 - (1+3) on the scales. You follow? The well informed particle physicist notices that mesons come in 2 quark units, whereas baryons have 3 quark units.
I find this interesting. It suggests that binary is not the only game in town. But multiples of 4 don't work at all. I must find some use for this discovery. I just need to flesh out some details for a new generation of computers and go down in history. 😎.
Last edited:
Until you do, it will be weighing on your mind! 😀
Now, now Steve! Just what do you have against the "amazing" Professor Brian Cox?
I know his words must resonate with you:
"For the first time, we saw our world, not as a solid, immovable, kind of indestructible place, but as a very small, fragile-looking world just hanging against the blackness of space."
Attachments
You just need a single unit weight and a single unit length ruler. (And infinitely long scale of zero mass and flexure.)
Binary logic, boolean algebra......using other bases than 2 has already been extensively studied.
I did work on ternary logic. My 1969 thesis at my first engineering school is: Tachymètre en logique ternaire ( Tachometer in ternary logic ).
I mostly got involved in the design of a up down counter, implemented a ternary flip flop ( 3 stable voltage states ), had one stage of the counter with carry in, carry out, made and working.
I did work on ternary logic. My 1969 thesis at my first engineering school is: Tachymètre en logique ternaire ( Tachometer in ternary logic ).
I mostly got involved in the design of a up down counter, implemented a ternary flip flop ( 3 stable voltage states ), had one stage of the counter with carry in, carry out, made and working.
I checked, doing searches about other user names I might have used on DIYaudio...None found.
May be you have seen me as Alfred E. Neumann on another site.
May be you have seen me as Alfred E. Neumann on another site.
Last edited:
This may not explain Gravity, but it sure looks like High Frequency fun >
The efficiency (without Super Conductivity) seems quite astonishing!
PS.
It would seem that advancements in Super Conductivity are needed for Quantum Computing.
The efficiency (without Super Conductivity) seems quite astonishing!
PS.
It would seem that advancements in Super Conductivity are needed for Quantum Computing.
Back in the 1980s, BBSes were popular, and some software let you put a tagline at the end of every post. They were often funny quips. One I recall was "How do you accelerate a Macintosh? At 9.8 m/s."
News of a new theoretical framework that aims to unify quantum mechanics and classical gravity – without the need for a theory of quantum gravity:
https://journals.aps.org/prx/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevX.13.041040
There is a problem in that quantum theory assumes spacetime to be fixed, whereas general relativity says it changes dynamically in response to the presence of massive objects.
Jonathan Oppenheim at University College London attempts to overcome this problem by describing a single “classical quantum state” that describes the coupling between quantum mechanics and classical gravity, while preserving each of their unique characteristics.
Oppenheim says that the coupling could be "stochastic" - a word that decribes an event or prediction that derives from a random process or random probability distribution - and uses separate statistical theories for each of the quantum and classical gravity worlds.
I'm sure Jonathan knows what he is talking about, even if I don't! 🤓
https://journals.aps.org/prx/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevX.13.041040
There is a problem in that quantum theory assumes spacetime to be fixed, whereas general relativity says it changes dynamically in response to the presence of massive objects.
Jonathan Oppenheim at University College London attempts to overcome this problem by describing a single “classical quantum state” that describes the coupling between quantum mechanics and classical gravity, while preserving each of their unique characteristics.
Oppenheim says that the coupling could be "stochastic" - a word that decribes an event or prediction that derives from a random process or random probability distribution - and uses separate statistical theories for each of the quantum and classical gravity worlds.
I'm sure Jonathan knows what he is talking about, even if I don't! 🤓
Last edited:
There's more about the new theory and the proposed "stochastic" coupling here: https://physics.aps.org/articles/v16/203
A hybrid classical and quantum state is shown on the left. The classical part is a probability distribution and the quantum part is a set of red arrows. The dice represent the stochastic coupling that defines how the system evolves over time.
None the wiser?
Me neither! 😵
A hybrid classical and quantum state is shown on the left. The classical part is a probability distribution and the quantum part is a set of red arrows. The dice represent the stochastic coupling that defines how the system evolves over time.
None the wiser?
Me neither! 😵
Your abstract introduces a fascinating concept! I'm intrigued by the idea of the leftover force being identified as gravity. Could you elaborate on how this estimation was made or explain more about the implications of this hypothesis in understanding fundamental forces in physics?
I want to be clear I don't use AI to craft my posts. If you have concerns, let's address them directly rather than assuming things.
You forget that you have left your footprints in this forum.