His constructs have yet to explain one iota of actual physics. Can he get the spectrum of the hydrogen atom? Can he even get parabolic motion? … If you want an actual physics guru, I suggest reading Feynman and watching Susskind.
I think that’s very uncharitable and not a standard that anyone would apply to, e.g. ‘string theory’ (in any of their forms) or loop quantum gravity.
His whole ‘paradigm’ is also pretty distinct, i.e. ‘computational exploration’. I don’t think I’ve ever read a plausible account of ‘hypothesis/theory generation’ for physics generally, especially for any of the work people are pursuing for various GUTs.
It seems perfectly reasonable to start with ‘oh, look, something like General Relativity’.
not a standard that anyone would apply to, e.g. ‘string theory’ (in any of their forms) or loop quantum gravity.
I think that’s unfair to string theory. People have constructed string theory universes that reduce to quantum field theory in the domains where quantum field theory is known to apply, and that reduce to general relativity in the domains where general relativity is known to apply, and that offer self-consistent microscopic explanations of things that involve the overlap between QFT & GR, like black hole entropy and Hawking radiation.
I don’t think anyone has yet found a string theory universe with the exact spectrum of particles that are known to exist in our universe; but compare that to the suggestion (elsewhere in the comment thread, I wouldn’t know either way) that Wolfram theories haven’t been demonstrated to be compatible with even the most basic aspects of quantum mechanics like the Bell inequality.
People have constructed string theory universes that reduce to quantum field theory in the domains where quantum field theory is known to apply, and that reduce to general relativity in the domains where general relativity is known to apply, and that offer self-consistent microscopic explanations of things that involve the overlap between QFT & GR, like black hole entropy and Hawking radiation.
I didn’t know that – thanks!
I’ll try to update ‘against’ Wolfram’s ideas at least a little based on that. (And I’ll try to be more charitable to string theory and update a little away from ‘string theory has been a giant waste of time’.)
His constructs have yet to explain one iota of actual physics. Can he get the spectrum of the hydrogen atom? Can he even get parabolic motion? … If you want an actual physics guru, I suggest reading Feynman and watching Susskind.
I think that’s very uncharitable and not a standard that anyone would apply to, e.g. ‘string theory’ (in any of their forms) or loop quantum gravity.
His whole ‘paradigm’ is also pretty distinct, i.e. ‘computational exploration’. I don’t think I’ve ever read a plausible account of ‘hypothesis/theory generation’ for physics generally, especially for any of the work people are pursuing for various GUTs.
It seems perfectly reasonable to start with ‘oh, look, something like General Relativity’.
I think that’s unfair to string theory. People have constructed string theory universes that reduce to quantum field theory in the domains where quantum field theory is known to apply, and that reduce to general relativity in the domains where general relativity is known to apply, and that offer self-consistent microscopic explanations of things that involve the overlap between QFT & GR, like black hole entropy and Hawking radiation.
I don’t think anyone has yet found a string theory universe with the exact spectrum of particles that are known to exist in our universe; but compare that to the suggestion (elsewhere in the comment thread, I wouldn’t know either way) that Wolfram theories haven’t been demonstrated to be compatible with even the most basic aspects of quantum mechanics like the Bell inequality.
I didn’t know that – thanks!
I’ll try to update ‘against’ Wolfram’s ideas at least a little based on that. (And I’ll try to be more charitable to string theory and update a little away from ‘string theory has been a giant waste of time’.)