“Why I Went to WAR with Stephen Hawking!” Leonard Susskind (364)

Поделиться
HTML-код
  • Опубликовано: 23 дек 2024

Комментарии • 358

  • @DrBrianKeating
    @DrBrianKeating  Год назад +23

    Was Stephen Hawking right or wrong about the Black Hole information loss paradox? And Please join my mailing list here 👉 briankeating.com/list ✉️ for more resources from this episode!😅

    • @joshuabolwerk5536
      @joshuabolwerk5536 Год назад +1

      😂😂😂😂

    • @Shadow_B4nned
      @Shadow_B4nned Год назад

      Well, what do you mean by "information"? If you are asking if the black hole changes in size when mass falls in then yes.. Information escapes the black hole. If by "information" you mean reconstructing something after it's fallen in then I say probably not.

    • @p0indexter624
      @p0indexter624 Год назад

      is a black hole required ?
      information exists with in a conscious brain before it is transcribed to an external medium.
      what becomes of that information at death?
      why is this only a "black hole" paradox?

    • @markrockliff2742
      @markrockliff2742 Год назад

      I think if a little of what is within the building blocks is within the black hole Stephen Hawking maybe wrong.

    • @nunomaroco583
      @nunomaroco583 Год назад +1

      Hi, if i understand its an open question, no concensus about that. Amazing talk.

  • @daniel-bertrand
    @daniel-bertrand Год назад +26

    So grateful that Professor Susskind released his Stanford 101 courses on youtube as well as many of his lectures for all eyes to see. That's more than 200 hours of freely available content. Shows he is not only a talented researcher but also an incredibly skilled teacher. Also, grateful Nick Zentner from University of Central Washington released his 101 classes and ongoing studies on youtube. As a committed hiker, I feel less stupid whenever I stumble on a stone, watch the next ridge, or contemplate the stars at night. Puts things physical in perspective.

  • @oldionus
    @oldionus Год назад +7

    Absolutely love this intelligent conversation between two public intellectuals, each of whom has a sense of humor and cares more about knowledge than ego.

  • @john.ellmaker
    @john.ellmaker Год назад +16

    Im glad to see him interviewed again. I hope he will do more, there is a big audience eager to hear him talk more

    • @karagi101
      @karagi101 Год назад +4

      This interview is from 2020 as stated in the description.

  • @tcarr349
    @tcarr349 Год назад +1

    Thanks!

  • @kostoglotov2000
    @kostoglotov2000 Год назад +4

    Roger Penrose tells us that information is not lost, but it is removed. all information is imbedded in space time, where else would it be? What changes is the size of space time, but the ratio of information to space time stays the same. For example when information is remove so is the portion of space time that the information resides in, both fall into the black hole. Imagine 10 teacups, in each teacup resides a marble.The rule of the teacup universe is that each teacup must contain a marble... there are no exceptions to this rule. The job of monitoring the teacup universe is given to Lenny Susskind. On his rounds he has to make sure there is no contravening of the teacup rule. One teacup is removed leaving 9 teacups; no rules have been contravened.... all is well, and so on for all the teacups. Lenny does not find a single teacup empty; the ratio of marbles to teacups haven't changed, the universe has not lost information, it has simply reduced in size.
    Roger Penrose proposes this is what happen to information and eventual all information and it equivalent space time will lie behind the event horizon. Of course eventually the black holes evaporate leaving an empty universe of marbles of unmeasurable size.

  • @Paine137
    @Paine137 Год назад +7

    Penrose said several times that Hawking was “bullied” into changing his mind. I’ve always wondered about the details behind that remark.

    • @frun
      @frun Год назад

      Penrose believes black holes destroy information.

    • @seltonk5136
      @seltonk5136 9 месяцев назад

      The answer is in Salome by David Liebe Hart

  • @kadourimdou43
    @kadourimdou43 Год назад +10

    Leonard Susskind is a great communicator of science. His Demystifying the Higgs Boson talk is fantastic.

  • @alonsolopez1396
    @alonsolopez1396 Год назад +6

    Great interview and great guest, than you Dr Brian!
    Have you ever thought of inviting Samir Mathur ? His Fuzzball conjecture seems like a very interesting resolution of the black hole paradox.

  • @bentationfunkiloglio
    @bentationfunkiloglio Год назад +11

    Always enjoy hearing Dr. Susskind interviews. He’s such a talented teacher.
    He’s so talented, in fact, that even a computer scientist like me can watch his lectures and understand the big picture of the Universe as described by General Relativity.

  • @ExhumedPutrifact
    @ExhumedPutrifact Год назад +6

    That was awesome, hands down one of the most likeable and interesting physicists as well as being a living legend - what great chat that was!

  • @adampeaston2076
    @adampeaston2076 Год назад +5

    Love your work Dr Brian Keating, and always a pleasure to hear from Prof Leonard Suskind 👏🇦🇺

  • @ai_serf
    @ai_serf Год назад +2

    Around 25:00 give or take, I love Susskind's unwavering commitment to the 2nd law of thermodynamics!

  • @BiswajitBhattacharjee-up8vv
    @BiswajitBhattacharjee-up8vv Год назад +1

    A legend who after so many years of fundamental physics gifted an entropic principal . I salute his courage in looking the world around us.
    Thank you for a good channel.

  • @3zdayz
    @3zdayz Год назад +2

    The correlation of electrons outside and inside a black hole would be lost. Might as well pass one through a polarizer and the other not.
    Local hidden variable (LHV) math just needs to compare one result vs another without regard to the total, and you get a curve that fits experimental graphs better than the QM cos prediction graph... especially near the 0's where the error bars are highest. ( A+B=2C; A/C+B/C=2; a=A/C; b=B/C; a+b=2; (b-a)/b and (a-b)/a depending on whether A or B is larger; in the case of a quantum experiment in units of quarter-turn, (x-(2-x))/x or (2-x-x)/(2-x) ; ( 2x-2)/x or (2-2x)/(2-x) depending if x > 1 or < 1; where 0 is 0 degrees, 1 is 90 degrees, and 2=180 degrees. ) It's a multi-part equation, but ever so simple. The more accurate the experiment the better this curve fits.
    atomic nuclei are outside of space and cause the curvature of space; things like electrons and photons travel through space, and are not outside of space - I don't see why it's so hard to get to this conclusion. The nuclear cross section of an atomic nucleus measures smaller than it really is - since, like black holes, photons get lensed around the nucleus and only when heading directly head-on into the particle does it really 'see' and react to the forces outside of space. A black hole is really just a super large nucleus, so if an electron falls into a nucleus, is it still valid to call it entangled/correlated with any other electron?
    That two nuclei take a lot of energy in order to actually interact is because space has a sort of surface tension (quantified as the strong force). The strong force between black holes is almost irrelevant though.
    The universe happens to be a perpetual motion machine; there is no absolute tend towards entropy, because curved space causes matter to fall together and become coherent and structured; while at a certain limit that organized matter becomes radioactive and throws itself back out into the universe, only to be collected later. Black holes emit more than just 'hawking radiation'; but I'll save that rant for another day.
    It's too bad he's not more available to toss ideas at; but then my ideas are so foreign they're of course just from a noob who knows nothing about anything, and should be ignored. *shrug* At least noone will scoop my theory before I have the experiment(s) done.

  • @kylethompson1379
    @kylethompson1379 Год назад +2

    Stephen lived with MND for over 40 years, and never lost himself. That's truly heroic.

  • @walternullifidian
    @walternullifidian Год назад +2

    I realize that nothing within the universe can violate the second law of thermodynamics, but to say that the universe itself cannot violate the second law of thermodynamics seems like a category error.

  • @lorilafferty4099
    @lorilafferty4099 Год назад +6

    So refreshing thank you!

    • @DrBrianKeating
      @DrBrianKeating  Год назад +2

      Thanks so much! *What was your favorite takeaway from this conversation?* _Please join my mailing list to get _*_FREE_*_ notes & resources from this show! Click_ 👉 briankeating.com/list

  • @Myler_Litus
    @Myler_Litus Год назад +1

    55:10 You should have pressed him a bit here, seems like he was holding back. What's the "particular thing in our neighborhood" he was alluding to?

  • @whiskyngeets
    @whiskyngeets Год назад +2

    I'm a high school teacher. Hearing him talk about why he likes to explain things really resonated. If you really want to get better and understanding your craft, throw in some teaching. You'll find out pretty quickly in what areas you should be confident, and in what areas you might be fooling yourself.

  • @terryforsythe8083
    @terryforsythe8083 Год назад +4

    Leonard Susskind has an amazing intellect and is a phenomenal communicator. I did not want this episode to end. I hope you have him on over and over again!

  • @the.trollgubbe2642
    @the.trollgubbe2642 Год назад +6

    I like his physics videos, he is good at explaining

  • @Achrononmaster
    @Achrononmaster 9 месяцев назад +1

    @48:00 interesting that CPT-Symmetric proposal undermines Lenny's case here for eternal inflation multiverse. In fact, CPT-Symmetry does a lot more than give flatness, isotropy and small +Λ, it also looks on track to get dark matter ν right. (little-one joke there).

    • @seltonk5136
      @seltonk5136 9 месяцев назад

      Let's agree to disagree

  • @gariusjarfar1341
    @gariusjarfar1341 Год назад +1

    I'm a baby boomer whom fitted in despite my humble beginnings. Lucky was me to have countenance enough to work my way into the system and enough nous to take advantage. Now I'm 70 and haven't needed to work for a living since I was 40; 30 yrs of freedom, watching and thinking and indeed finding my own path leads me to be contrary. Now my consciousness leads me back to the days when we 1st saw geometry in the structure we see.

  • @MCsCreations
    @MCsCreations Год назад +1

    Dr.Susskind, try FPV as a hobby. It doesn't need to be to be with quadcopters or flying wings... Just try it with rc cars. A crawler would be the perfect first candidate, because they're slow, but go over almost anything, so you can sit down and explore.
    What I would recommend is Walksnail as the video system and ExpressLRS as the radio link.
    Anyway... In case of any questions, be free to ask me. 😊

  • @garydecad6233
    @garydecad6233 Год назад

    What a pleasure to listen to this interview with Leonard.

  • @johnqpublic2718
    @johnqpublic2718 Год назад +2

    Thanks for interviewing one of my personal "heroes"

  • @stella_7mccarty649
    @stella_7mccarty649 Год назад +1

    Incredible dialogue with very talented physicists. Totally agree and understand , is like a fresh air for intellectual curiosity. Thanks

  • @yuriomelchenko1500
    @yuriomelchenko1500 Год назад +1

    This is a great interview, with very deep and candid thoughts on everything. Thank you so much, Brian and Leonard!

    • @DrBrianKeating
      @DrBrianKeating  Год назад +2

      Thanks so much! *What was your favorite takeaway from this conversation?* _Please join my mailing list to get _*_FREE_*_ notes & resources from this show! Click_ 👉 briankeating.com/list

    • @yuriomelchenko1500
      @yuriomelchenko1500 Год назад

      *The world is a much more complex and dangerous place than a holodeck:(* Already signed up:)

  • @discogodfather22
    @discogodfather22 Год назад

    When Susskind talked about "speaking out" about some ethical consideration towards the end of the interview, what was he referring to?

  • @Prabhakar-gf2oq
    @Prabhakar-gf2oq 8 месяцев назад

    I think Prof Suskind is one the most remarkable personalities I have come across not only in terms of brilliance and clarity of thought but also a teacher. His humility humbles us all .I wish his all the success in his endeavors and hope he will be honored with a Nobel Prize which he rightly deserves .

  • @coreymorris1693
    @coreymorris1693 Год назад +1

    Does anyone know a good way to get schooling assistance. I'm a cnc machinist but I really want to go back to school for quantum chromo dynamics and compressed matter physics. I'm super interested in catastrophic quantum vacuum brake down by means of braking the schwinger energy density limit. I know there's a few way to do this one using high frequency microwaves and micro casimir cavities. the other way I know of is by using non equilibrium cold plasma.

  • @Achrononmaster
    @Achrononmaster 9 месяцев назад +1

    So Susskind did not understand CCC. A bit sad. Note Susskind validates CCC against at least the entropy problem, since information cannot be lost, Penrose's next Aeon has exactly the same entropy as the previous. Right? The entropy of a cosmological spacetime does not ever change, it is a constant (unless Fred Hoyle was right).

    • @seltonk5136
      @seltonk5136 9 месяцев назад

      The answer is in Salome by David Liebe Hart

  • @gregoryhead382
    @gregoryhead382 Год назад +1

    The Hawling temperature is a Planck equation, kind of equation. So, if meter/s^2 ~ The Hawking Unruh Temperature, includes Planck mechanics, then G, Newtonian mechanics is in the T too. 🌊

  • @Dekoherence-ii8pw
    @Dekoherence-ii8pw Год назад +1

    3:00 "Apparently no one has read the whole back and no one understands it, so why did you write it?".
    Well that's nonsense. I read the whole book and it got me interested in physics. 20 years later, I'm now familiar with Hermitian operators, and fourier transforms, and Riemann curvature tensors and all sorts.
    Plenty of people get something out of popular science books, and in some cases it does lead people to pursue the topic in greater mathematical detail. And for those who just end up having the book on the shelf, in order to impress guests, well... if he got to put his daughter through college, everyone's happy. All seems fine to me!

  • @martinwillemse8923
    @martinwillemse8923 Год назад

    The accelerating redshift can be explained by shrinking atoms, so it has to meet requirements if possible. When atoms shrink, then the wavelength also shrinks and the interaction between atoms becomes faster and time also runs faster, so it is just like a reduction in scale, where the shrinkage goes faster and faster and thus causes an accelerating redshift. If we look into space with this and we see a galaxy with 50% redshift, then you are looking at radiation with a double wavelength and then the diameter of these atoms is twice as large and the interaction between atoms is only half as fast and time also goes half as fast, just like the shrinking of the atoms. If we then look at a galaxy with 75% redshift, then you are looking at radiation that has a wavelength 4 times as large and where the interaction is only at a quarter of our speed and time also only goes at a quarter of the speed just like the shrinking of the atoms. Since the shrinkage of a galaxy with 75% redshift takes twice as long as a galaxy with 50% redshift, a galaxy with 75% redshift is 3 times as far as a galaxy with 50% redshift and there would be twice as many galaxies, between a galaxy with 75% redshift and a galaxy with 50% redshift, like between us and a galaxy with 50% redshift. To find the character of the redshift, one can also use the Parallax of the solar system orbiting the center of the galaxy, where we can use the 100-year-old pictures of Hubble to get a base of 720,000,000,000,000 kilometers, but also the pictures taken by the Hubble Space Telescope 30 years ago and with which we have a base of 216,000,000,000 kilometers.
    De accelererende roodverschuiving is met krimpende atomen te verklaren, het moet dan als het even kan aan eisen voldoen. Als atomen krimpen, dan krimpt ook de golflengte en word de interactie tussen atomen sneller en gaat ook de tijd sneller lopen, het is dan ook net een schaalverkleining, waar het krimpen steeds sneller gaat en zo een accelererende roodverschuiving veroorzaakt. Als we hiermee de ruimte in kijken en we zien een sterrenstelsel met 50% roodverschuiving, dan kijk je naar straling met een dubbele golflengte en is dan de diameter van deze atomen 2 maal zo groot en gaat de interactie tussen atomen maar half zo snel en gaat de tijd daar ook half zo snel, net als het krimpen van de atomen. Als we dan naar een sterrenstelsel kijken met 75% roodverschuiving, dan kijk je naar straling wat een 4 maal zo grote golflengte heeft en waar de interactie maar met een kwart van onze snelheid gaat en gaat de tijd ook maar met een kwart van de snelheid net als het krimpen van de atomen, aangezien het krimpen van een sterrenstelsel met 75% roodverschuiving 2 maal zo lang duurt als bij een sterrenstelsel met 50% roodverschuiving, staat een sterrenstelsel met 75% roodverschuiving 3 maal zo ver als een sterrenstelsel met 50% roodverschuiving en zouden er 2 maal zo veel sterrenstelsels zitten, tussen een sterrenstelsel met 75% roodverschuiving en een sterrenstelsel met 50% roodverschuiving, als tussen ons en een sterrenstelsel met 50% roodverschuiving. Om het karakter van de roodverschuiving te vinden kan men ook de Parallax van het zonnestelsel die om het melkwegcentrum draait gebruiken, waar we de 100 jaar oude foto´s van Hubble kunnen gebruiken om een basis te krijgen van 720.000.000.000 kilometer, maar ook de foto´s die de Hubble ruimtetelescoop 30 jaar geleden maakte en waar we een basis mee hebben van 216.000.000.000 kilometer.

  • @Faheemsnotes
    @Faheemsnotes Год назад +1

    Beautiful starting by Susakind

  • @vast634
    @vast634 Год назад

    Can two neutrons form a black hole? Or how many are needed?

  • @johnlay3040
    @johnlay3040 Год назад +2

    It's a blessing for Hawking not to experience all these. Otherwise his whole achievement as a theoretical physicist would have come to a waste. Or maybe he could come up with a better theory. So far, I think Roger Penrose is the most reasonable physicist. Rather than proposing a multiverse system, he goes for cyclical universe. We'll never know, but I do believe that there is no such thing as the absolute beginning.

  • @lindax911
    @lindax911 Год назад +1

    The Penrose/Hameroff idea of Orch OR is pretty interesting, even if it's ineffable as yet.

  • @larrygerndt
    @larrygerndt Год назад

    ❤ Brian, I love your channel and you! I have since the first time I saw your channel.

  • @stoya2s
    @stoya2s 11 месяцев назад +1

    I like the guests and the interviews. I absolutely dislike you interrupting the flow of the conversation asking people to subscribe!

  • @mgenthbjpafa6413
    @mgenthbjpafa6413 Год назад

    Leonard is always a great guest.
    Brian knows what to ask.
    🎉❤

  • @joebenham27
    @joebenham27 Год назад +1

    Perhaps Penrose is right about the universe as a perpetual motion engine, if the overall energetics of the universe as an isolated system is in some way similar to the never-ending energy of quantum particles

    • @lepidoptera9337
      @lepidoptera9337 8 месяцев назад

      The universe is a lot of things, but it's certainly not an isolated system. Technically it's not even a system. ;-)

    • @joebenham27
      @joebenham27 8 месяцев назад

      @@lepidoptera9337 is that because parts of the universe eventually travel apart at faster than causality? Anyway, where does all the energy in the universe go, if not within the same universe?

    • @lepidoptera9337
      @lepidoptera9337 8 месяцев назад

      @@joebenham27 The problem is that in the classical definition of systems systems are exchanging energy, momentum, angular momentum and charge with each other. This is what causes their evolution. The universe can't exchange anything with another system, so technically we can't really say that it evolves. This is sometimes denoted with a trivial formula Hpsi_universe=0, i.e. the Hamilton operator applied to the wave function of the universe is zero. This is intellectual nonsense because we can't even assign a wave function to the universe... one can't make an ensemble of universes (i.e. an infinite repetition of the "universe experiment"). So the way we usually understand physics (as a divide and conquer strategy) just doesn't work on "the whole".

  • @ludviglidstrom6924
    @ludviglidstrom6924 Год назад +2

    He seems like a very nice person. I also like his very reasonable support for the multiverse and the anthropic principle, far too much stupid criticism of those things in my opinion. I like how he said that the objections to the multiverse and anthropic principle are basically political or cultural rather than scientific.

  • @frun
    @frun Год назад

    Invalidity of Penrose/Steinhardt models of cosmology 25:00

  • @JB-fz1rv
    @JB-fz1rv 5 месяцев назад

    Dear Prof Susskind
    I was first very skeptical about you but it didn't stop me to watch mote of what you have to say😂
    Because I really want to understand more😅
    Thank you ❤
    Also many thanks to you Brian❤
    Best Cleaning Lady Berlin/Germany

  • @amicusaxiom
    @amicusaxiom Год назад +1

    “You can find the oil either by drilling where it is or all the places where it isn’t”

  • @PearlmanYeC
    @PearlmanYeC Год назад

    2:30 In Pearlman YeC SPIRAL cosmological redshift hypothesis and model 'Black-Hole illusion Resolution' hypothesis, we conclude the appearance of Black Holes represent PAST not ongoing hyper-density. So in a sense past information that was there, is no longer there. They are the residue of where the galaxies themselves originated Hyper-Dense! reference Pearlman YeC SPIRAL

  • @redsix5165
    @redsix5165 Год назад +1

    1:03:38 it just stuck me that consciousness is non-evolving. It is what it is. Probably always has been. So I think he’s right that computers will reveal something for us…but my bet is that it will be that we possess something that is not engineer-able.

  • @stevemarks1511
    @stevemarks1511 Год назад +1

    Very interesting very educational. Question, we know The Cosmos existed before the big bang and time is man made; why did S Hawkins say time started at the big bang?
    And
    What would happen if the universe stopped expanding and retracted regarding gravity? Would it effect any planits axis?
    Ty

  • @quantumbitz3473
    @quantumbitz3473 Год назад +1

    Wicked interview thank you.

  • @TheMikesylv
    @TheMikesylv Год назад +1

    The fact he came up with string theory within a day of another scientist just reinforces my suspicions that consciousness and mind is outside of the body as well within, which leads me to the belief or suspicion of a soul. The us patent office is filled with this phenomenon . Also I can no longer dismiss countless other examples paranormal phenomena. The atheist arguments are getting very hard to believe.

  • @davidcrane6593
    @davidcrane6593 Год назад +1

    Perfect... Steven said it exactly right... information gets lost in black holes.... they have already found the important answer...namely the singularity point of the universe yet they continue on rabbit black holes to find another answer than what was found in that singular point.... God.

  • @l.rongardner2150
    @l.rongardner2150 Год назад

    Brian, you should interview iconoclastic Prof. Alexander Unzicker, whose physics videos are available at his RUclips channel Unzicker's Real Physics. Dr. Unzicker is not convinced that black holes even exist. So you might want to have him debate Susskind on the subject. Unzicker is not shy about, in person, confronting iconic physicists regarding their ideas. He has done so with Ed Witten (at one of his lectures) and with David Gross (in an interview).

  • @SirGeneTX
    @SirGeneTX Год назад +1

    Good episode Brian

  • @philipbenson8094
    @philipbenson8094 Год назад

    Considering the whole set doesn't have external resistance, wouldn’t the whole be perpetual?

    • @frun
      @frun Год назад

      Yes, but it would be irregular.

  • @lwss1617y
    @lwss1617y Год назад

    Impressive interview, full of scientific and human wisdom. The remark "...follow your nose" is absolutely central, a great choice in the opening "overture". Congratulations!!!
    (With Prof Susskind's permission, I would only add ... and do not forget to keep on training your nose).

    • @karagi101
      @karagi101 Год назад

      Yes… follow your nose, but in the end you still need to prove what your nose finds to the scientific community.

    • @lwss1617y
      @lwss1617y Год назад

      Agreed!!! Although your observation (re)opens up the old doors of the sociology of Science and the psychology of scientists. In the end, despite one's efforts, others may be those who demonstrate fully what one's nose found, thus convincing the scientific community.

    • @karagi101
      @karagi101 Год назад

      @@lwss1617y That sometimes occurs. Hopefully by publishing first you get a significant share of the credit.

  • @spnhm34
    @spnhm34 Год назад

    Why reupload?

  • @Achrononmaster
    @Achrononmaster 9 месяцев назад +2

    @51:00 I agree with Lenny about those cultural arguments being unscientific. But (a) that does not make them wrong, and (b) he's forgetting the anthropic arguments are unscientific too, because they rely upon anthropology, they are anthropocentric, violating perhaps the most cherished notion in science, observer independence. (Don't tell me QM is observer dependent, that'd also be baloney, since what QM has is that measurements are context dependent, but that's not observer dependence). Suppose humans never came to be, but all the other life did. Sure, we'd not be around to make the Anthropic arguments, but you can then see there is no "because" - the other paramount principle of science you see, the principle of causality. You cannot throw that one away.
    It'd be sad if a old old school working class leftie turned to postmodernism. But I guess he half has in thinking Baraka Obama is someone to be admired. No neoliberal has ever been a decent politician, left-wing nor right-wing nor centrist. They're all scum of the earth, or, to be charitable, either ignorant or frauds. Are we saying these days you get points merely for not starting too many new wars or color revolutions? Ah... nevertheless, I love Lenny, he's my hero, his wife was feeding him trash NY Times bestseller list crap. Can't be blamed. I was fooled once.

  • @btaranto
    @btaranto Год назад +1

    Book is on the table! Thanks ❤🎉

  • @Platos-Den
    @Platos-Den Год назад +2

    We give too much credit to folks in this field. We make them celebrity status. People idolize them. In the end what do they really acvomplish? NADA!!!!

    • @B33t_R007
      @B33t_R007 Год назад

      i'd venture to say that they accomplish much more than other celebrities.

  • @robertelmouchi5018
    @robertelmouchi5018 Год назад

    What a great conversation! I loved listening to your logical podcast on quantum cosmology. 😊😊

  • @warrenrae32
    @warrenrae32 Год назад

    One thing that most eminent physicist recognise is that the second law can never be overturned…… and observation constantly confirms that.
    So any theory that claims to sideline entropy isn’t based on observation but rather theoretical assumptions.
    The reality is that entropy allows for a dynamic universe which presently causes work to be done and provides useful energy. Without entropy we wouldn’t be here………

    • @karagi101
      @karagi101 Год назад

      Scientists never say “never”.

  • @jonaswox
    @jonaswox Год назад

    from the relation Frequency=mass=energy , Ive always thought of frequency as fundamental to matter and energy. In this regard I think there is definitely some truth to be gained in that regard, .. Modern string theory as it stand is pretty wobbly, but the sentiment behind it is genious. And if you understand the context, string theorists are more or less trying to find a consistent framework, that gives rise to all the behavior we see on particle scale. If they succeed with this at some point, I think there will be tremendous insights to be derived from the string models.

    • @karagi101
      @karagi101 Год назад +1

      Where did you get the idea that frequency = mass?

    • @jonaswox
      @jonaswox Год назад

      @@karagi101 i misinterpreted de broglie

  • @dineshdana7378
    @dineshdana7378 6 месяцев назад

    Prof Susskind's TTM books are brilliant! Reminds of Roger Penrose's books.

  • @crucifixgym
    @crucifixgym Год назад +1

    I found Hawking’s book very easy to read and understand, it was ok. Maybe I’ll read it again, it’s been over a decade.

  • @psi.squared9448
    @psi.squared9448 Год назад +3

    He really put you back into place Brian. You kept asking him stupid personal questions about god and his jewish heritage and you clearly irritated him, it is also clear how he feels politically towards you

  • @No-thing-ness
    @No-thing-ness Год назад

    Great interview. People say never meet your hero’s. That might be more about us than the hero’s.

  • @Zantorc
    @Zantorc Год назад +1

    Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler in the background.

  • @Wolffzahn
    @Wolffzahn Год назад +2

    Physicists should start to read the works of Burkhard Heim…

  • @QuixEnd
    @QuixEnd Год назад

    I love the advice, cant expect others to tell you what to think. Gotta figure it out yourself, understand it yourself. Nothing else to it

    • @karagi101
      @karagi101 Год назад

      Yes… try to figure it out yourself, but in the end you still need to prove your conjecture to the scientific community.

  • @falvegas511
    @falvegas511 Год назад

    There are many Creative Physicists, nearly as many Theories... still, few concrete answers. Hawking & Susskind are Two Of Them...... I tend to lean toward Prof, Susskind in many matters e.g. the Conservation of Information and others.

  • @sonarbangla8711
    @sonarbangla8711 Год назад

    Reality is such that we will never know all, however comprehensible reality is. It is easy to escape with 'I don't know', but to pretend to know what singularity or a big bang is and then admit 'I don't know' is not acceptable. Neither is it a mark of greatness to deprive Nambu what credit is due to him. Even though we don't know how to prove divine design, we cannot avoid admitting there was a design, it is a mark of greatness whoever can admit it. Avoiding it is cowardice.

  • @bradleyclutton4564
    @bradleyclutton4564 Год назад

    I always wanted to be a plumber, but I could never get the weekend off to do the course!

    • @fins59
      @fins59 Год назад

      You should have gone for politician, you don't need a qualification for that.

  • @RichUniverse_
    @RichUniverse_ Год назад +1

    One of the greatest scientist’s of our time just told us 5+15 = 23
    @ 4:34 of the podcast.
    2005 I wrote that book - let me do the arithmetic that would be 15 years ❤❤❤ maybe this was recorded in 2020?
    Obviously a mistake, but that was cute …
    Great guest..

  • @RandomNooby
    @RandomNooby Год назад +1

    Love this.

  • @OralLewin-v6n
    @OralLewin-v6n Год назад +1

    Is there quantum consciousness?

  • @Vandetta333
    @Vandetta333 Год назад +1

    WAR?! Wow…that’s serious.

    • @B33t_R007
      @B33t_R007 Год назад

      😅 i don't know why a serious channel like this needs such headlines.

  • @gariusjarfar1341
    @gariusjarfar1341 Год назад

    In my hand I hold a rock, ancient, maybe older than the flood, a crystalline rock cut in facets, one side shows a star system and in it a solar system. At the squared off end the head of a cat, on another side an ancient horse; and on the other side geometry. Information from long ago stored on a crystal. Is it from our stone age or from another age? Was it a museum piece in a land once upon a time? Wonders me now we can store information on crystal structure if there is more to see! It came to me out of history and belongs to me.

  • @kokomanation
    @kokomanation Год назад

    I don't really believe that wormholes exist and Black holes probably aren't holes even but a very intense gravity field there must be a very dense matter inside them and the density of extreme mass causes the intense gravity.

    • @karagi101
      @karagi101 Год назад

      They’re not called Black Holes because they are holes.

  • @raktoda707
    @raktoda707 Год назад +1

    Splendid gentleman 😊

  • @ejenkins4711
    @ejenkins4711 Год назад +1

    Why do so many scientist still refuse to consider CGJUNG was obviously on to something with the inner universe rather than the Freudian world

    • @karagi101
      @karagi101 Год назад

      Maybe because scientists deal in evidence while Jung and Freud dealt in unproven conjectures.

  • @neaphilosophia
    @neaphilosophia Год назад +1

    New viewer and subscriber from Greece. 🏛
    Interesting stuff Brian! 👌

  • @david_porthouse
    @david_porthouse Год назад

    We need a theory of quantum mechanics which can distinguish between the following:
    (1) The interaction between an alpha particle and two molecules of nitrogen trifluoride.
    (2) The interaction between an alpha particle and two molecules of nitrogen tri-iodide.
    According to me that theory will involve tachyonic Brownian motion, but other suggestions are welcome. I think that when we get that theory, we will find that Hawking was right.

  • @WingZeroSymphonics
    @WingZeroSymphonics Год назад +2

    I ❤Leonard Susskind.

    • @DrBrianKeating
      @DrBrianKeating  Год назад +2

      Thanks so much! *What was your favorite takeaway from this conversation?* _Please join my mailing list to get _*_FREE_*_ notes & resources from this show! Click_ 👉 briankeating.com/list

    • @WingZeroSymphonics
      @WingZeroSymphonics Год назад +1

      @@DrBrianKeating That there are many lessons to learn from the old timers and that the holographic principle is in good hands, especially in the realm of celestial holography.

  • @kasperlindvig3215
    @kasperlindvig3215 Год назад

    Singularities don't exist, and information is not lost in a "black hole". Aka a plasmoid. The density of which is far lower than most people estimate.

  • @zynzy4u
    @zynzy4u Год назад +1

    I always liked Hawking for his very useful views as a perfect example of learning by exclusion. It appeared to me what ever he stated was almost exactly the opposite of reality. A person almost always wrong.

  • @jonhart-dj7fn
    @jonhart-dj7fn Год назад

    Talking about time and space " listen to even the humble for they too have their storytime"

  • @websurfer352
    @websurfer352 Год назад

    All the information going into the black hole increases the entropy of the event horizon by increasing its
    Surface area meaning all the information going in is still represented on the event horizon albeit in the form of individual bits of information!! But you can get into difficulties if you define a bit as a dimension less point, because then you deign to deal with a continuum of individual bits of information!! But such individual bits are actual and distinct from each other!! If you consider every real number as a location each location is real and distinct from every other location, and scientists usually renormalize such because continuums cause problems such as making all surfaces areas of all event horizons equal in terms of a continuum of bits as the banach tarski paradox asserts!! But if you did decide the size of an individual bit the Planck scale may be a good size??

  • @stevenfogerty2110
    @stevenfogerty2110 Год назад

    I remember once Hawkins falling asleep at an interview yet kept speaking. What an amazing man.

  • @zhavlan1258
    @zhavlan1258 Год назад +1

    Hello from Kazakhstan. We can create an educational and practical device and practically master Einstein’s theories of relativity or obtain, for example, new physics:
    Postulate 1. Light is an ordered vibration of gravitational quanta. Postulate 2. The speed of light, regardless of the source, within the “framework of the dominant gravitational field” This is determined experimentally using a hybrid fiber optic gyroscope (based on Michelson's experiment 1881-2015). Using a hybrid fiber optic gyroscope, the straight-line speed of vehicles can be measured.

  • @PeckerwoodIndustries
    @PeckerwoodIndustries 3 месяца назад

    I am just that physics crackpot, and I would like to step up to your physics answer desk, and respectfully pose a thought experiment question as follows:
    Granted E=Mc^2 , in any discrete universe were one to accelerate a single quark using all remaining matter/energy what would be the result? I posit that this case would create the point particle. It would contain all matter/energy contained in the current state of our universe. Time would slow to zero, it would both be at light speed, and at rest as it is relative to nothing, and finally, as it is alone in this discrete universe there is nothing for gravity to act upon. I believe this to be a novel idea, and consistent with our current state of physics as I understand it. This idea stemmed from the physics assertion that as an object is accelerated it becomes more massful. In order to gain a better understanding I simply chose the smallest massful object physics agrees upon, and I carried acceleration to the maximum possible value with all available resources of which physics is aware. I am truly blind to where this may be in error, and would appreciate one of two outcomes; credit for the idea should it be both novel, and correct, or a quick explanation of my error, allowing me to forget about it. Sorry to play go ask a physicist with you but I am not sure where else to receive an answer.
    In grand crackpot form I even have a title for my thought experiment as follows: A Second Method To Produce The Point Particle. This title is intended to contrast to the previously proposed cyclical gravitational collapse theory which would not seem to comport with the current observation that our universe is accelerating outward.
    I have a series of questions about this acceleration as follows: Does this expansion discount the expansion of space itself? If so what is the currently held, theoretical, upward limit of the velocity produced by this acceleration as based upon the observed rate of change in that expansion? My assumption is that under the current set of ideas every particle must eventually cease accelerating, or in the alternative case reach C at a discrete point along it's/their individual outward path. Will that particle then have traversed the entire 360 degree curvature of space as suggested by gravitational warping of the space metric? If so, would that particle appear to be originating from where we might calculate any theoretical point particle origin to have been based upon observation of current outbound particle vectors? I ask these questions because if my initial thought experiment appears valid I have some further thought on general space topology, and the implications for a 2D spiral path that results from contraction of the curvature of the space metric as the quark in the thought experiment above approaches singularity,. In other words would not the acceleration proceed along a line which follows the curvature of space in what would be an ever tightening spiral path as the quark accounted for an ever increasing percentage of the mass of the universe until at the moment of singularity it 's energy would be measurable only as spin. Were this true it could account for the observable structure of a lenticular universe lying oriented along a plane, and rotating spiral armed galaxies, and rotating bodies forming rotating solar systems around stars as we currently observe. This would need a new title for the theory like "Argument for observable spin in universal structure and its possible origination in point particle formation path geometry"
    I am in no way suggesting this is in any way the actual driver in the formation of observable cosmological structure because there is no natural mechanism to apply the total universal mass/energy to accelerate any given given quark as above but in every way it should/must be equivalent to the gravitational collapse theory of singularity formation to be valid thus offering only as a method of testing equivalency from a different mechanism.

  • @jezzusj
    @jezzusj Год назад

    This was great!

  • @bobvincent5921
    @bobvincent5921 Год назад

    Thanks. I can see deep study's by AI will raise ,not answers but more answers without obvious clear questions and this will start another chase your tail situation.

  • @bad1970muts
    @bad1970muts Год назад

    The Simulation Hypothesis assumes that consciousness can only be created by computation and thus excludes all other possibilities that are uncomputable. My Anti-Simulation Hypothesis states that since there may be infinitely many other possibilities for consciousness to emerge other than by computation alone, the probability of living in a simulation is close to zero.

  • @buckanderson3520
    @buckanderson3520 Год назад

    To say that a cyclic universe would be a perpetual motion machine and therefore impossible isn't true. It fails to take into account the reason why perpetual motion machines are impossible within the universe. Within the universe a perpetual motion machine is impossible because energy is always transferred to another part of the universe through some process. But speaking of the universe as a whole the energy isn't lost it is conserved within itself. But if the energy is lost, lost to where? Energy doesn't leak out of the universe it is still a part of it. So applying the same reason as to why perpetual motion machines are impossible within the universe doesn't hold up when talking about the universe as a whole. In fact the universe as a whole is the only circumstance where a perpetual motion machine is possible and not just possible but likely.

  • @joeimbesi99
    @joeimbesi99 5 месяцев назад

    Love Susskind . NO BS Mind

  • @smithaz1981
    @smithaz1981 Год назад +4

    Why isnt leonard working on UFOs what are we doing here. Give him a youtube channel and a ufo and lets get smart.

    • @joshuabolwerk5536
      @joshuabolwerk5536 Год назад +2

      😅😂😂😂😂

    • @benjaminbeard3736
      @benjaminbeard3736 8 месяцев назад

      One of those things is a lot easier to get than the other. And there is a reason for that.

  • @Marc_de_Car
    @Marc_de_Car Год назад

    Thanks