Comparing Wolfram Physics and NPQG

In 2020 Stephen Wolfram’s computational approach to identifying the fundamental basis of physics has been announced and is garnering attention. I am starting to arrive at some thoughts and impressions about Wolfram’s approach, so I thought I would start a post for collecting insights on this topic. I imagine that I will add to this post as I learn more and have deeper understanding on how to compare and contrast Wolfram’s Physics to NPQG.

The Essential Ideas of Wolfram Physics

  • Technical Introduction : A Class of Models with the Potential to Represent Fundamental Physics
  • Potential relation to physics
    • The basic concept of applying our models to physics is to imagine that the complete structure and content of the universe is represented by an evolving hypergraph. There is no intrinsic notion of space; space and its apparent continuum character are merely an emergent large-scale feature of the hypergraph. There is also no intrinsic notion of matter: everything in the universe just corresponds to features of the hypergraph.
  • For example, space is modeled as a graph network that evolves over time given a set of rules. This work builds on Wolfram’s prior work in cellular automata.

Stephen’s appeareance on the podcast of Dr. Brian Keating (UC San Diego) is a 2.5 hour session on meta characteristics of Wolfram Physics. While this is quite interesting, there is no real discussion of the actual detailed approach. Instead we learn that it is a computational approach that is much like a cellular automata in that basic primitives are supplied along with a rule set for evolving in forward moving time steps. Yet the primitives and rules are not discussed at all. However, the meta impressions that Wolfram has gleaned from this work are fascinating and several are very similar to the insights I have had working on Neoclassical Physics and Quantum Gravity.

I wrote a YouTube comment to Dr. Keating: Dr. Brian – Say, I am in San Diego as well. If you are interested I would be open to discussing NPQG with you. It is an approach to physics that starts with a Euclidean 3D space and duos of energetic, immutable, charged Planck spheres. There are only two free parameters – the density of spheres themselves and the density of the energy they carry. As you can imagine symmetry is inherent with an empty space and immutable spheres. The fascinating part is the structures that emerge. I am confident I will be able to show that this model can recover scientific observations in physics and cosmology. NPQG also lends itself extremely well to thought experiment and logic. For example, from only these ingredients I know how to turn cosmology inside out and resolve the tensions in LCDM. And best of all, after all the initial objections, I am sure this will be one of those cases where it will become entirely obvious eventually and scientists will arrive one day at the ‘of course, how could it be any other way’ moment. My work can be found at along with my contact information.”

Insights and Comparison to NPQG

NPQG models a fundamental 3D Euclidean void which has been permeated by a structure that we call Einstein’s spacetime or the quantum vacuum or more properly spacetime æther. Spacetime emerges from an abundance of æther particles which, in free space and low gravity environments like Earth, are very low energy particles that interact extremely lightly. The spacetime æther particles are undetectable directly by 2020 era technology, but we see their effects in processes like gravity, pair production, transmission of photons, and many other processes we take for granted. The evolution rules in NPQG are simply classical mechanics and electromagnetism. Compare this model to Wolfram’s more abstract computational hypergraph.

When I think of the computational approach to NPQG there is no fundamental need to calculate fields in empty Euclidean space. It is only necessary to calculate the aggregate of all electromagnetic fields at each location in absolute space and absolute time where a Planck sphere exists. The electromagnetic fields will determine the electromagnetic forces on the sphere. We must also consider the velocity and momentum of the sphere. Lastly we need to consider any in-elastic collisions between spheres that happen at that moment. The most challenging part is the first part – calculating the impinging fields from all other Planck particles, because that involves working backwards through time at increasing incremental radius and identifying all other Planck particles lying on each incremental circle Tn where n represents the number of simulation ticks backwards in time.

How do electromagnetic fields emitted by a Planck sphere propagate over time?

  1. Does the propagtion rate change depending on intervening particles? Let’s simplify for now and say no.
  2. Do the fields pass right through intervening particles like they aren’t there? Let’s simplify for now and say yes.
  3. What speed shall we assign to the propagation velocity of these fields? The most obvious choice is the asymptote of the speed of light in free space. I say asymptote because that is the speed in low energy spacetime where the spacetime particles are the largest, and would correspond to the speed of the photon when lease limited by the least energetic aether.

A significant issue for Wolfram physics is that there is no fundamental physical basis for the computational graphs. While it is not clear to me how a physical basis could be incorporated, I presume it would be possible. I would hazard a guess that with Stephen Wolfram’s experience and infractructure for computational science that if the NPQG physical basis were the starting point that rapid progress could be made.

One key similarity between NPQG and Wolfram Physics is the idea that the universe evolves as a cellular automata. All influences and reactions are local and based on physical laws (NPQG) or rules (Wolfram). This automata approach is contrasted to GR/QM/ΛCDM era physics which identifies or curve fits equations to describe nature at scales many orders of magnitude above the Planck length scale.

J Mark Morris : San Diego : California : August 23, 2020 : v1

By J Mark Morris

I am imagining and reverse engineering a model of nature and sharing my journey via social media. Join me! I would love to have collaborators in this open effort. To support this research please donate:

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s