Just finished the video. What he's basically saying that he things he's found a simpler way to discuss physical processes that has space time naturally fall out of it which is motivated by the fact that physics breaks down at small enough scales.
I don't think he gave enough information to know whether what he says helps progress physics just that it exists.
Regardless, a video is poor medium to communicate the idea. Publish at least a summary with actual work shown, or the video is just useless self-promotional fluff
It's a popular science talk, not a presentation of a specific research result. The re-interpretation of scattering amplitudes in terms of novel mathematical structures is almost its own subfield of theoretical particle physics. Most of the specific results he mentioned are described in this paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/1312.2007
I thought this was a very high quality lecture in that it managed to be very accessible despite being grounded in very high level physics ideas. It's a very narrow path to walk between the chasm of confusion/boredom, and the chasm of misleading pop-sci explanations.
Bookmarked to watch later, but being familiar with the Wolfram take on similar issues,
I am curious if there is any "serious" discussion within this domain, about the simulation hypothesis.
Naively, it certainly *seems* like a lot of the properties of our own universe are consistent with those one would expect from a simulated one... I am thinking specifically of eg uncertainty and "local reality"; and, absolute limits on the speed of information propagation; and even perhaps general relativity—many such things seem naturally emergent from a computed universe.
I have found it puzzling that this is not more generally discussed; I'm not sure if that's because it's considered obviously false, or, obviously true, or, irrelevant ("metaphysics") when the task at hand is just characterization of what we're living with.
9 comments
[ 0.22 ms ] story [ 30.3 ms ] threadI don't think he gave enough information to know whether what he says helps progress physics just that it exists.
I am curious if there is any "serious" discussion within this domain, about the simulation hypothesis.
Naively, it certainly *seems* like a lot of the properties of our own universe are consistent with those one would expect from a simulated one... I am thinking specifically of eg uncertainty and "local reality"; and, absolute limits on the speed of information propagation; and even perhaps general relativity—many such things seem naturally emergent from a computed universe.
I have found it puzzling that this is not more generally discussed; I'm not sure if that's because it's considered obviously false, or, obviously true, or, irrelevant ("metaphysics") when the task at hand is just characterization of what we're living with.