Is the speed of light a constant? Or can it vary? If so, in what kinds of situations, or how much?

[Hans Blaster]

He is doing work on the theoretical underpinnings of physics. That counts as being active in physics. And even the link you gave shows that his most recent publication was in 2023 on the subject of thermodynamics.

Three entries this century? Two postings to the arXiv without evidence of publication and an abstract from a meeting where anyone who is a member has a *right* to present? This

Here is where his current efforts are being released:
Wolfram physics project technical documents

Posting stuff to your own webpage is hardly engaging in the community.

On a different approach, may I ask why you are so contrarian about this guy? I mean, what do you care if he wastes his time and spins his wheels?

You may not.

As above, Sabine dislikes it when wild-goose projects siphon money away from other researchers. But I am pretty sure Wolfram is self-funded. In that Weinsein / Wolfram / Keating video I linked to before, they had a discussion about why there was push back from many in the physics community. They wondered if it was because people were resentful of, or distrustful of, mavericks operating outside the usual channels etc. Wolfram (who I suspect is on the autism spectrum) denied that there was push back, but Weinstein assured him that there is.

Every time I've seen anything with Weinstein he is all about his politics. (Yes, even when he is discussing science.)

So I am wondering what your personal concerns are? I have demonstrated that Wolfram is smart, knows his math, and is working hard. He is publishing his work in an open source manner. And while, by the usual odds of the universe, he is likely wrong, that seems to be besides the point with you. I think you just don't like him on some fundamental level, and you don't seem to like someone coming along and claiming that they have figured something new out.

Physics isn't math. Does Wolfram know this? I don't know. Wolfram, Lisi, Weinstein, String theory all appear to be dead ends. Why should we waste any time on any of them

Einstein was working as a clerk in a patent office when he was pondering relativity. Not everyone has to have a university position and follow the usual rank and file.


KT

This is an old and weird canard. Einstein was a ABD graduate student that didn't have a stipend and needed to feed his family, so he took a job. Then he finished his papers and defended his degree and got a faculty job.

 

[KevinT]

Posting stuff to your own webpage is hardly engaging in the community.

I think this is the heart of people's concerns about Wolfram. He is forging a trail off on his own. A programmer that publishes code on GitHub is considered to be engaging with others in open source. But that is not the same as submitting his research to the criticism of peers and reaching bar to get published in main journals. During the interview, Keating forwarded a question about why Wolfram was not going through the usual peer-reviewed channels. He commented that all the stuff he puts on his web page has a button where someone can submit a peer review. He said he was disappointed that no one had ever used this system. So Wolfram seems to be saying, I'm going down this path. You can come along if you want, but I'm not going to depend on what others think. And this is what seems to rub people the wrong way. I don't think he has very good people skills. Every time I have watch an interview with him, he dominates too much of the conversation.

Every time I've seen anything with Weinstein he is all about his politics. (Yes, even when he is discussing science.)

I don't know much about Weinsein. I have heard him talk during some of these interviews, but he is researching areas that are beyond my comprehension. So there is nothing to hook me in. I personally have never seen his politics come up. But I just went and looked and apparently he supports left-wing policies. Good to know, though so far his beliefs in this regard have not affected me.

Physics isn't math. Does Wolfram know this? I don't know. Wolfram, Lisi, Weinstein, String theory all appear to be dead ends. Why should we waste any time on any of them

This is Sabine's contention as well. And I understand you not wanting to spend time on this issue. I personally am going to continue to believe in realism and be supportive and interested in research in this area. But if that is not your cup of tea, I totally understand.

Best wishes,

KT

 

[Hans Blaster]

I think this is the heart of people's concerns about Wolfram. He is forging a trail off on his own. A programmer that publishes code on GitHub is considered to be engaging with others in open source. But that is not the same as submitting his research to the criticism of peers and reaching bar to get published in main journals. During the interview, Keating forwarded a question about why Wolfram was not going through the usual peer-reviewed channels. He commented that all the stuff he puts on his web page has a button where someone can submit a peer review. He said he was disappointed that no one had ever used this system. So Wolfram seems to be saying, I'm going down this path. You can come along if you want, but I'm not going to depend on what others think. And this is what seems to rub people the wrong way. I don't think he has very good people skills. Every time I have watch an interview with him, he dominates too much of the conversation.

Science is not an "I do my own thing and don't care if you pay attention" type of enterprise. It is collaborative and communicative. It thrives on challenge, not isolation. If those who know enough look at the basis of something and they see nothing, then it isn't up to them to engage with it.

I don't know much about Weinsein. I have heard him talk during some of these interviews, but he is researching areas that are beyond my comprehension. So there is nothing to hook me in. I personally have never seen his politics come up. But I just went and looked and apparently he supports left-wing policies. Good to know, though so far his beliefs in this regard have not affected me.

His politics are largely his gripes against academia and the scientific process. As for "left-wing", I don't know his specific positions, but he associates a lot with very "right-wing" political people.

This is Sabine's contention as well. And I understand you not wanting to spend time on this issue. I personally am going to continue to believe in realism and be supportive and interested in research in this area. But if that is not your cup of tea, I totally understand.

Best wishes,

KT

 

[KevinT]

Science is not an "I do my own thing and don't care if you pay attention" type of enterprise. It is collaborative and communicative. It thrives on challenge, not isolation. If those who know enough look at the basis of something and they see nothing, then it isn't up to them to engage with it.

I agree with you, but I'm wondering if things are changing. I saw a documentary once about mathematician Andrew Wiles who, in 1993, solved the infamous Fermat's Last Theorem. He apparently researched this for many (~7) yrs on his own until he was able to deliver his findings. And though he had community help ironing out some details, it was mostly an individual effort. My point is that perhaps much of the "easy" stuff has already been done and today's advancements call for even more extraordinary focus, dedication, and new tools. Could Wiles have achieved this faster if he was part of a larger team? Maybe, but no team had taken up the challenge, so he did it on his own. Sometime multiple bright minds can help and support each other. Sometimes egos get in the way and the partnership is counterproductive -- like designing something by committee.

Eric Weinstein (I'm setting aside any of his possible personal failings) said on the interview that he was tired of people saying that they could not understand his research and that it was too confusing. He felt that others should roll up their sleeves and master the various fields he is trying to combine. Apparently this is not being done. Why? Well, because everyone has their own funded projects and are busy on their own research. If we were to count the number of people on the planet capable of currently understanding Weinstein's research, would that number be 100? 5,000? I doubt more than that without additional study. So how many of those are interested or willing to pick through his work? If he doesn't have a completed theory, it really isn't publishable. And perhaps the community of his peers are just not interested in what he is doing. Should he just stop at that point? Going back to Andrew Wiles, should he have been publishing papers about every step and misstep he took on his path to success?

My main point I'm trying to work towards here is the idea of the need for advanced logic tools. Let's consider string theory. It took a generation of smart people, involving many many individuals, trying to work out out all the consequences and deductions from the initial conjectures. It was an expensive undertaking and since not much came of it, people are leery of repeating such mistakes. But what if computer tools could have cranked through all the math and given this final analysis in a short time? It would lower the cost of exploring new ideas. I'm sure I'm not the first to dream of such an analytical machine, but with the recent AI breakthroughs, it gives me hope that perhaps a new generation of tools is forthcoming.

His politics are largely his gripes against academia and the scientific process. As for "left-wing", I don't know his specific positions, but he associates a lot with very "right-wing" political people.

I'll keep my ears open to see which way his flag blows.

Best wishes,
KT

 

[Hans Blaster]

I agree with you, but I'm wondering if things are changing. I saw a documentary once about mathematician Andrew Wiles who, in 1993, solved the infamous Fermat's Last Theorem. He apparently researched this for many (~7) yrs on his own until he was able to deliver his findings. And though he had community help ironing out some details, it was mostly an individual effort. My point is that perhaps much of the "easy" stuff has already been done and today's advancements call for even more extraordinary focus, dedication, and new tools. Could Wiles have achieved this faster if he was part of a larger team? Maybe, but no team had taken up the challenge, so he did it on his own. Sometime multiple bright minds can help and support each other. Sometimes egos get in the way and the partnership is counterproductive -- like designing something by committee.

Physics is not math.

Eric Weinstein (I'm setting aside any of his possible personal failings) said on the interview that he was tired of people saying that they could not understand his research and that it was too confusing. He felt that others should roll up their sleeves and master the various fields he is trying to combine. Apparently this is not being done.

I don't know that that is even slightly true. I just reviewed a few articles about Weinstein's presentation of his ideas to a physics audience in a lecture or two, and it sounds like the "fields" he is "merging" are just geometry and QM. That's the core of all of the quantum gravity theories and TOEs. I don't know what Weinstein thinks people aren't familiar with who work in this area.

Why? Well, because everyone has their own funded projects and are busy on their own research. If we were to count the number of people on the planet capable of currently understanding Weinstein's research, would that number be 100? 5,000? I doubt more than that without additional study. So how many of those are interested or willing to pick through his work? If he doesn't have a completed theory, it really isn't publishable.

You can't pick through what has not been presented for picking.

And perhaps the community of his peers are just not interested in what he is doing. Should he just stop at that point?

He can do whatever he wants, but his opposition to actually engaging with physicists makes his whinging rather hollow.

Going back to Andrew Wiles, should he have been publishing papers about every step and misstep he took on his path to success?

Perhaps he should have, but I don't know how publication works in math.

My main point I'm trying to work towards here is the idea of the need for advanced logic tools. Let's consider string theory. It took a generation of smart people, involving many many individuals, trying to work out out all the consequences and deductions from the initial conjectures. It was an expensive undertaking and since not much came of it, people are leery of repeating such mistakes. But what if computer tools could have cranked through all the math and given this final analysis in a short time? It would lower the cost of exploring new ideas.

Someone could produce a symbolic math solver or something...

I'm sure I'm not the first to dream of such an analytical machine, but with the recent AI breakthroughs, it gives me hope that perhaps a new generation of tools is forthcoming.

AI? That stuff has a bad habit of making stuff up. Not useful in this context.

 

[KevinT]

Physics is not math.

I don't know that that is even slightly true. I just reviewed a few articles about Weinstein's presentation of his ideas to a physics audience in a lecture or two, and it sounds like the "fields" he is "merging" are just geometry and QM. That's the core of all of the quantum gravity theories and TOEs. I don't know what Weinstein thinks people aren't familiar with who work in this area.

You can't pick through what has not been presented for picking.

He can do whatever he wants, but his opposition to actually engaging with physicists makes his whinging rather hollow.

Perhaps he should have, but I don't know how publication works in math.

Someone could produce a symbolic math solver or something...

AI? That stuff has a bad habit of making stuff up. Not useful in this context.

@Hans Blaster , I've enjoyed our back and forth. I appreciate you taking the time to talk with me. I think I'm going to back away from the conversation for awhile.

Thanks again,

KT