4 ms·
I’ve seen it claimed that the project has led to to a way of doing a numerical simulation of GR which is, in some cases more efficient? If true, that still se
by drdeca 2y ago
I’ve seen it claimed that the project has led to to a way of doing a numerical simulation of GR which is, in some cases more efficient?
If true, that still seems like something of merit, even if the project doesn’t give any progress in fundamental understanding of physics?
Maybe, rather than as they hope, being a path towards a theory of everything, it could instead be a path towards a framework for understanding good ways to do numerical simulations that respect causality, while not necessarily doing all of one time coordinate everywhere (in some reference frame) before computing later times anywhere?
- Certhas 2y agoIf you have a citation or more information on that, I'd be curious. Numerical relativity is outside my area of expertise. It doesn't seem likely to me, but I couldn't rule it out...
- drdeca 2y agoI believe this is what I was thinking of : https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.07508 https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.07508 The author is Jonathan Gorard, who is one of the people associated with “The Wolfram Physics Project”, and checking the references, it does cite at least one document/paper that is part of the “wolfram physics project”, But I don’t know for sure whether it exactly uses the central framework of the project.
- mellosouls 2y agoWell the problem is that's then essentially people involved in the project making claims about the project. That's obviously not satisfactory as a positive independent assessment, which is what this thread is calling for.
- drdeca 2y agoSure, this was just me saying “I think this was the thing based-on/using it, that was said to work well”, not “here is someone saying it works well”. The “gravitas” program is open source, so perhaps some external people may have evaluated how useful it is? (Unless it is hard to get running, idk.)
- Certhas 2y agoThank you!