> Most scientists take a full stop at "my unproven theory of physics"
Not convinced that's true. Considering how many physicists still keep talking about String Theory, even though it hasn't produced a single testable prediction after 30+ years.
Not convinced that's true. Considering how many physicists still keep talking about String Theory, even though it hasn't produced a single testable prediction after 30+ years.
Not completely true. It is able model some aspects of quark gluon plasma. [1] Not a high energy theorist myself, but this is the retort some of my friends would give. It also is well motivated by an entire human history's worth of experimental data which any new theory needs to reproduce. Wolfram fails even to show that this is the case for his work. Note: I'm also not a "true believer" of string theory, but comparing it to Wolfram isn't fair.
> Not convinced that's true.
Besides making a point about string theory, do you really have a reason to believe that? I know many high energy physics folks myself and work with some of them. I have never met someone that does this professionally that has given Wolfram's theories a second thought.