This Theory of Everything Actually Makes a Prediction: New Physics in Black Holes

Mathematician Stephen Wolfram has attempted to develop a theory of everything using hypergraphs, which are essentially sets of graphs that can describe space-time. Recently, another mathematician named Jonathan Gorard has used hypergraphs to describe what happens if a black hole accretes matter. He claims that evidence for hypergraphs should be observable in the energy that is emitted during the accretion. Big if true, as they say. Let’s take a look.

🔗 Join this channel to get access to perks ➜

#science #sciencenews #physics #blackholes

[ConorGrogan-e]

Great to see Jonathan getting more mainstream attention!

[VaShthestampede]

A rough wall and a smooth wall can affect a fluid flow quite a bit, even though the surface roughness is "negligible" compared to the fluid flow.

[ericberman]

Sabine, would you consider having an online discussion with Jonathan Gorard to explore his work?

[cherubinth]

At least he is trying to get a prediction. Something too many scientists don't seem to care about anymore.

[TheNorgesOption]

The only criticism that will work is the experiment. If you can find that effect, then something will obviously be up. Otherwise, the trash bin is in that direction. But at least it is better than some theories that can not be tested.

[blinkingmanchannel]

... can't look away 😂❤

I am trying to read about QM, and doing that does bring me to have sympathy for the mathematicians who wander in there. 🤣

The very notion of holding the math still, (quanta) while rotating the vectors around in space, because electrons, and then tweaking for relativity (that's my perception so far) seems pretty darned math-y to me. But yeah: what's the point if you can't turn it all back into a battery or a superconductor... or just break those oxygens off that darned carbon?!?!😢

My question of the moment is: what makes us think electrons have mass, again?

Keep going! As always, I love both the way you address claims and the humor with which you don't take yourself too seriously. 🥰

[michaelschwartz]

Mathematicians know nothing about theory development, you say? I see that, but I raise you one Emmy Noether.

[metallicneutronbang]

Thank you Sabine for explaining these concepts so elegantly.

[bazimyan]

I understand Weinstein is strictly a mathematician but I don't think that's entirely accurate for Stephen Wolfram considering his PhD was in particle physics at Caltech and that he had published multiple papers in that field. I think his words and intuitions in the field of physics therefore should carry credibility as well as more weight than people like Weinstein.

[ar]

As a mathematician, I appreciate the heads-up about the snake pit.

[donwayne]

I understood every word of this presentation. The sentences and ideas are another matter.

[AdvantestInc]

The distinction between math and practical physics is fascinating here. While hypergraphs offer a compelling framework, it seems validating them in the chaotic environment of fluid dynamics will be the real challenge. Great breakdown.

[louisgiokas]

That's strange. When I hear Wolfram talk, he makes it clear that there are multiple people working on the details of the project. He almost never uses the phraseology "I figured this detail out" or anything like that. He has been on your friend Brian Keating's channel several times discussing his concept and always talks about others who are working out a lot of the details. I have also seen him elsewhere. It is true he rarely mentions names. But, in the article on his website titled " How We Got Here: The Backstory of the Wolfram Physics Project" he mentions Gorard, among others. He also has a bio on his website where he has the following to say about what Gorard is doing on the physics project (that is not his only role at Wolfram, evidentially): "He is also one of the principal researchers on the Wolfram Physics Project, having made several key contributions to the mathematical formalism of the Wolfram model (particularly in regards to the derivations of general relativity and quantum mechanics and its connections to quantum information theory);"

You may want to dig a little deeper.

[dennisclapp]

"... you know that it's not going to end well but you just can't look away." Sabine, you have the most entertaining way of expressing your opinion. It is refreshing. Thank you.

[michaelblacktree]

Sabine's analogies are savage. I love it. 😎

[logaandm]

Getting involved in physics worked out well for Gauss, Minkowski, Dirac and Penrose. All mathematicians with an interest in physics. Didn't Newton create modern physics after he invented calculus? The two topics go hand in hand. Mathematics models, Physics give purpose. Curiosity drives. Three things humans have in abundance and variable proportions.

[Sajgoniarz]

"Physics isn't maths" this is exactly what my physics professor was telling back in university. He was an excellent teacher that wasn't teaching us math. He was teaching us physics in quantised way, so we were actualy able to come up with equations in form of derivatives and calculus pretty intuitively. Lot of people from my group were coming from mathematical profiled highschools and many of them struggled with this idea, because for whole life they were presented with ready to use equations. It was amazing class and I'm sometimes sad that i left university for sake of work as programmer.

[LuisAldamiz]

I respect both Gorard and Wolfram: they're dedicated and very smart, and passionate about their theory (in the making, it's some sort of open source research rather than a finished theory, which I also respect). I have troubles with Wolfram claims about emergent time however, because iterative time lays at the foundation of his idea (and only synchronicity would be emergent therefore, not time as such) but otherwise I wish them the best: I like that they're thinking "outside the box" because "inside the box" all possibilities seem exhausted already.

[brendanwood]

Atomic clocks work based on measuring a static atomic resonance frequency. Any changes in this atomic frequency are associated with quantum effects and velocity according to conventional theory. However, we also know that an atom is essentially a dynamic electromagnet. The atomic radius and thus frequency is contracted as an atom moves at higher velocities. However, we have never completely isolated an atom from all external fields when measuring these changes.

It is entirely possible that the contraction occurs due to interactions with electromagnetic fields from the sun and the galaxy itself. MRI machines work on a similar principle by amplifying the magnetic field of the body. Taking usually disorganized atoms and aligning them due to the field interactions.

To test this kind of theory we would need to accurately model atoms and input the modeled atomic clock into a simulated celestial system with electromagnetic field properties. We know from experiments that there is a very strong electric current induced into orbital structures. STS-75 gathered valuable scientific data in this regard by conducting the tethered satellite experiment.

If oscillating field interactions alone can alter the atomic radius and create a resultant contraction that would prove the relativistic effects can result without any mystical spacetime fabric. Likewise, open the avenue into investigations into the frequency related nature of gravity as it pertains to atomic structures. Evident by the intrinsic relationship between special relativity and electromagnetism.

[andywe]

Thanks for th news, Sabine. Always appreciate, when you look at new ideas and explaine them for us! Greetings - Andreas