Manny's Reviews > A Project to Find the Fundamental Theory of Physics

A Project to Find the Fundamental Theory of Physics by Stephen Wolfram
Rate this book
Clear rating

by
1713956
In his classic How to Cheat at Chess, Bill Hartston explains that it's easy to annotate chess games once you know the result. If a complicated sacrifice worked, praise it as "the logical conclusion to a well-played attack"; if it didn't, dismiss it as "desperation, but White was lost anyway." Hartston says that when you see a chess journalist intently studying the position in an ongoing tournament game, you can be sure that what they're doing is mentally composing those two parallel narratives, so that they'll be able to mail in the right one as soon as the game is finished.

Inspired by Hartston's remarks, I offer you the following two reviews of Stephen Wolfram's new book. I'm hopeful that at least one of them will turn out to be right.

Positive review

People who want to score big often need to do things their own way. Einstein, who changed the face of science for ever, spent his most productive years working as a patent clerk; it gave him time to develop his thoughts at leisure, away from the relentless pressure of the academic world. Wolfram has been no less original. Starting off as a science wunderkind - he got his PhD at 20 - he soon realised that what physics needed most was better computational tools. He started developing the software that eventually turned into the Mathematica package, and founded a successful company to market it.

The more he worked with computation, the more he began to suspect that this was the true substrate of reality. Investigating a huge range of computational systems, he found that even the very simplest ones - in particular, the remarkable 'Rule 30' - could display astonishingly complex behaviour. In his 2002 bestseller, A New Kind of Science, he presented his initial findings, but then returned to growing his company. Now, in this latest book, he completes the Odysseus-like journey that has led him back to the fundamental physics he started from, and shows new ways to address the problems that people have been stuck on since the 70s. Instead of increasingly recalcitrant mathematical frameworks, Wolfram uses a twenty-first century approach and shows how the power of modern computer technology can be harnessed to simulate artificial universes that are starting to reproducing the physical phenomena we see in our own world.

Wolfram's bold hypothesis is that the universe, at its deepest level, consists of a huge network, which is constantly evolving according to a single rule whose precise formulation is, literally, the ultimate answer. His intuition, honed on a lifetime of working with such systems, tells him that this rule is very simple - so simple, in fact, that it can be found by having machines systematically check through the possibilities. He has not yet found it, but he says he's close. Already, he has been able to demonstrate that a large class of these systems follow the equations that define Einstein's theory of general relativity. He has an incomplete but suggestive argument, developed with a student, to show that a slightly more restricted class of systems also display behaviour characteristic of the quantum mechanics we see in our own universe, and in particular reproduce the path integral formula developed by his one-time mentor Richard Feynman.

Wolfram takes a broad-brush approach, and freely admits that important details still need to be resolved. (In particular, it is still not quite clear how to resolve the difficulties posed by Bell's Inequalities). But he thinks his initial successes cannot possibly be accidental, and that we're now within sight of the answer. He is making all his findings and methods generally available, and encourages other people to join in. It's hard not to believe that there will be an enthusiastic response.

Exciting times!

Negative review

People who have screwed up big often feel an urge to justify themselves. Einstein, who wasted the second half of his life on a fruitless search for the Unified Field Theory, ignored horrified entreaties from his friends to stop throwing good money after bad after bad and move on. Similarly, Stephen Wolfram, despite all the evidence to the contrary, is unable to accept that his strategy for investigating the nature of reality might be totally mistaken. Having abandoned a promising career in fundamental physics to start a software company, he is determined to show that software engineering is going to reveal the secrets of the universe. He says himself that his physicist friends beg him in vain to do something else.

Discovering that simple rewriting systems like the overpublicised 'Rule 30' can sometimes create complex structure (a result already well-known, for example, from Conway's 'Game of Life' and the Mandelbrot set), Wolfram decided that the nature of reality had to be in some way related to this finding. In his 2002 self-published screed, A New Kind of Science, Wolfram outlined these ideas and was met with a resounding lack of interest from the scientific community. He went back to working on his company. But he has evidently not had the sense to leave well alone, and is now wheeling out the same old arguments again. He seems to have forgotten how to work with equations. Instead, he shows us interminable pages of output from his simulations, and tries to convince us that they are somehow better.

Wolfram's tired hypothesis, all too familiar from the earlier book, is that the universe, at its deepest level, is some kind of rewriting system. The novelty this time round is that it is, specifically, a certain type of graph rewriting system. A New Kind of Science already made the unsupported claim that systems of this kind can display behaviour describable using the formal apparatus of general relativity. Here, there are a few more details and a link to a recent arXiv paper by a student. There is some extremely handwavy speculation about how quantum mechanics fits into the picture. I do not understand the claimed derivation of the Feynman path integral, which relies on some legerdemain in which energies are related to angles in "multiway causal graph space" (where does the geometry of multiway causal graph space come from?) and the magic formula ∫ exp(iHt)dt emerges from what certainly looks like Wolfram's sleeve. He has still not found any actual rewriting system that displays the properties he keeps promising us must be there.

Bell's Inequalities come up momentarily in the final chapter and are then brushed under the rug, despite the fact that, as Wolfram says, they are the standard objection to hidden variables accounts of quantum mechanics. The best known book on this kind of framework, Nobel laureate Gerard 't Hooft's The Cellular Automaton Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, is not even mentioned. For some reason, Wolfram thinks his work is interesting, and is making it all publicly available. Knowledgeable people seem less than blown away. You can see some typical comments here.

Depressing times.
105 likes · flag

Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read A Project to Find the Fundamental Theory of Physics.
Sign In »

Reading Progress

June 21, 2020 – Started Reading
June 21, 2020 – Shelved
June 21, 2020 –
page 0
0.0% "My copy just arrived. Thank you Paige!"
June 22, 2020 –
page 40
5.19% "Wow. You can't accuse this book of thinking too small.

Spoiler alert: "Loop Quantum Gravity" and "Regge calculus" both occur in the index, but when I turn to the relevant pages I find that Wolfram says his scheme is completely different. And after a bit more page-flipping, I see his minimum length differs from the LQG one by dozens of orders of magnitude. I'm now curious to find out why."
June 22, 2020 –
page 75
9.74% ""One cannot help remarking," said Holmes, "on the surprising relationship between this work and Gerard t'Hooft's The Cellular Automaton Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics."

"I fail to grasp your meaning," I said, mystified. "Wolfram's book does not even mention Professor t'Hooft.""
June 24, 2020 –
page 200
25.97% "Come on Wolfram. You promised me emergent general relativity and quantum mechanics, but all you've shown me so far is a zillion pretty pictures of output from rewriting systems. I feel like a twelve year old grimly trawling through Lady Chatterley in search of the sex."
June 26, 2020 –
page 300
38.96% "Now 300 pages in, and maybe fifteen of those pages were about physics. If anything, I'm being generous. Given the title of the book, I can't help feeling that 5% is a low hit rate."
June 26, 2020 –
page 420
54.55% "After 420 pages, I finally reach the long-promised explanation of how general relativity emerges from a graph rewriting system with suitable properties, and am referred to an arXiv paper which gives the details. It's here. Two immediate reactions:

a) Jesus Christ, why didn't you say that earlier?

b) Are there any such systems? You haven't yet shown us one."
June 28, 2020 –
page 540
70.13% "There is a startling disconnect between Wolfram's comments on physicists (they are out of touch with twenty-first century methods, which have decisively moved away from equations and towards computation), and physicists' comments on Wolfram (he is out of touch with mainstream physics and has no idea what he is doing).

An empirically testable prediction would be nice here."
June 29, 2020 – Shelved as: science-fiction
June 29, 2020 – Shelved as: science
June 29, 2020 – Shelved as: the-tragedy-of-chess
June 29, 2020 – Shelved as: received-free-copy
June 29, 2020 – Shelved as: twofer
June 29, 2020 – Finished Reading

Comments Showing 1-21 of 21 (21 new)

dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Rodrigo (new)

Rodrigo Nemmen thanks for the insightful review(s)


message 2: by Manny (new) - added it

Manny I promise you this much, whether you believe the first version or the second: just in terms of visual appearance, you've never seen anything like it.


message 3: by Matt (new)

Matt Let us put the two reviews in a box and let a radioactive particle decide which one of those is the right one (details to be worked out). As long as we don't open the box, both reviews are right and wrong at the same time and we can turn to the more important things in life, such as the new Play Station 5, which, I heard, is amazing.


message 4: by Manny (new) - added it

Manny It's a nice idea, but we can't do it in Australia. We had someone to dinner the other day who works in ethics review, there's not a hope in hell that this will get human subjects approval. We might just get away with exposing them to radioactive isotopes, but forcing them to read Wolfram books?

Unless - wait a minute! - we could replace the human reader with a cat. That's it. You've got to think out of the box.


message 5: by Manny (new) - added it

Manny Thank you Kuldeep! I'm looking forward to hearing what other people have to say about this book, which I think is officially released today.


message 6: by The Architect (new)

The Architect Last I heard, virtually no serious physicists took his recent claims seriously. I've decided against wasting my time.


message 7: by Manny (new) - added it

Manny Ah, so you're Team Negative?


message 8: by Gaz (new)

Gaz Superb review. I expect that your second review is the closest to the mark regarding the worth of Wolfram's work. If that is the case it seems unnecessary to trawl through 770 pages to confirm this. I applaud you for your sacrifice.

To be charitable it appears that Wolfram has mistaken the map for the territory. To be able to apply a language to phenomenon does not necessarily mean that what you describe is true. Yet again back to the Greeks and the same old problems, can we ever leave the cave?

More allegorical misunderstanding.


message 9: by Manny (new) - added it

Manny Thank you Gaz! I see you're also a member of Team Negative :)

For my money, quantum mechanics is the best attempt yet to leave the Cave and find the Sun. I've wondered many times what Plato would have thought of it.


message 10: by Radiantflux (last edited Jun 30, 2020 03:49PM) (new)

Radiantflux So his talk at Caltech was related to his 2002 book—either just before or just after it was published. It doesn't sound like he has made much progress in the last 20 years.

I am confident that if he could show something compelling or interestingly original in his work it would not be ignored.

Did he have anything to say about Dark Energy or Dark Matter?


message 11: by Manny (last edited Jun 30, 2020 03:39PM) (new) - added it

Manny Yes, he thinks that the elementary particles we see are all quite large in terms of the number of edges in the underlying graph, and that dark matter consists of much smaller particles, which are weakly interacting with every force except gravity.

His minimum length is about 50 orders of magnitude smaller than the Planck length. I wonder if this might not lead to testable predictions. It's certainly very different from any other physical theory I've come across.


message 12: by Manny (last edited Jul 11, 2020 05:23AM) (new) - added it

Manny If Wolfram's ideas turn out to be correct, he will rightly be called a genius; people will say that his intuition surpassed Dirac's. But yes, the argument right now looks like a mass of holes. As opposed to Dirac holes.


message 13: by Manny (new) - added it

Manny You are right. Some days, I wonder whether it really is 42. The derivation is not entirely convincing.


message 14: by Matthias (new)

Matthias Masch Great review, thanks


message 15: by Manny (new) - added it

Manny He's an interesting guy. His memoirs, which came out last year, are fun to read.


message 16: by Frank (new)

Frank Love it!


message 17: by Manny (new) - added it

Manny I don't know why I ever thought I had to make that unpleasant choice between having and eating my cake.


message 18: by The (new) - added it

The Coat Great double review, thank you! Can't help siding with the negative ("where does the geometry of multi way causal space come from"!!!!!???) But appreciate the other perspective


message 19: by Manny (new) - added it

Manny Thank you The! I am not qualified to talk seriously about this book, but I decided I was at any rate qualified to talk snarkily.


message 20: by Sherron Wahrheit (new)

Sherron Wahrheit I’m not even qualified to talk seriously about this book’s reviews, much less the book itself. I like your allusion to “mass of holes,” regarding lack of evidence. People from New Hampshire and Maine call the people from my state MASSholes, but they apparently have evidence to do so, since the name has stuck. Also, I think there’s some quite compelling, generally overlooked evidence in support of 42. In ASCII, 42 represents an asterisk. That’s like, profound evidence, man.

But seriously, your comment that Einstein wasted the second half of his life working on something he never solved got me thinking of irony, as according to popular opinion, he is (incorrectly) credited with the aphorism that “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” I don’t know his biography like you do, but in light of your comment regarding his focus on ideas pertaining to relativity, this quote seems the exact opposite of something he would say! I’ve always read the quote as referring to figuratively as single-minded focus and not literally as in, say the Shining, where the (insane) protagonist author repeatedly types the proverb that “All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy” and passes it off as writing a novel. I realize that using The Shining as an example is not a perfect fit, but with some duct tape, a sawzall, and some squinting, it’s close enough. And it involves insanity!


message 21: by Manny (new) - added it

Manny I think people are actually rather unfair to Einstein when they say he wasted half his life looking for the Unified Field Theory, a quest that had no chance of success. They said just the same thing when he started looking for general relativity, and he got there after ten years of hard work. There was no obvious reason why UFT was going to be impossible. Kaluza and Klein had already come up with a version which seemed tantalizingly close to correct. Maybe it was just a question of finding the right way to tweak it. He tried lots of ideas, but none of them came out.

People should remember Yogi Berra's wise words: one out of two ain't bad.


back to top