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!😅
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.
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?
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.
Absolutely love this intelligent conversation between two public intellectuals, each of whom has a sense of humor and cares more about knowledge than ego.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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!
@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).
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.
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. 😊
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
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 .
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.
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).
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. 🌊
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!
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.
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.
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 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?
@@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".
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.
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
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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).
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).
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.
@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.
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!!!!
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………
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.
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
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.
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.
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..
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.
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.
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.
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
@@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.
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.
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??
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!😅
😂😂😂😂
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.
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?
I think if a little of what is within the building blocks is within the black hole Stephen Hawking maybe wrong.
Hi, if i understand its an open question, no concensus about that. Amazing talk.
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.
Where can I watch?
@@ImmortalExploreron RUclips
Absolutely love this intelligent conversation between two public intellectuals, each of whom has a sense of humor and cares more about knowledge than ego.
Im glad to see him interviewed again. I hope he will do more, there is a big audience eager to hear him talk more
This interview is from 2020 as stated in the description.
Thanks!
Thank you, brother
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.
Penrose said several times that Hawking was “bullied” into changing his mind. I’ve always wondered about the details behind that remark.
Penrose believes black holes destroy information.
The answer is in Salome by David Liebe Hart
Leonard Susskind is a great communicator of science. His Demystifying the Higgs Boson talk is fantastic.
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.
Thanks very much for the recommendation
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.
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!
Love your work Dr Brian Keating, and always a pleasure to hear from Prof Leonard Suskind 👏🇦🇺
Around 25:00 give or take, I love Susskind's unwavering commitment to the 2nd law of thermodynamics!
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.
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.
Stephen lived with MND for over 40 years, and never lost himself. That's truly heroic.
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.
So refreshing thank you!
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
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?
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.
Thank you,
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!
I like his physics videos, he is good at explaining
@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).
Let's agree to disagree
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.
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. 😊
What a pleasure to listen to this interview with Leonard.
Thanks for interviewing one of my personal "heroes"
Incredible dialogue with very talented physicists. Totally agree and understand , is like a fresh air for intellectual curiosity. Thanks
This is a great interview, with very deep and candid thoughts on everything. Thank you so much, Brian and Leonard!
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
*The world is a much more complex and dangerous place than a holodeck:(* Already signed up:)
When Susskind talked about "speaking out" about some ethical consideration towards the end of the interview, what was he referring to?
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 .
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.
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).
The answer is in Salome by David Liebe Hart
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. 🌊
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!
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.
Beautiful starting by Susakind
Can two neutrons form a black hole? Or how many are needed?
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.
The Penrose/Hameroff idea of Orch OR is pretty interesting, even if it's ineffable as yet.
❤ Brian, I love your channel and you! I have since the first time I saw your channel.
I like the guests and the interviews. I absolutely dislike you interrupting the flow of the conversation asking people to subscribe!
Leonard is always a great guest.
Brian knows what to ask.
🎉❤
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
The universe is a lot of things, but it's certainly not an isolated system. Technically it's not even a system. ;-)
@@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?
@@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".
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.
Invalidity of Penrose/Steinhardt models of cosmology 25:00
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
“You can find the oil either by drilling where it is or all the places where it isn’t”
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
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.
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
Wicked interview thank you.
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.
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.
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).
Good episode Brian
Considering the whole set doesn't have external resistance, wouldn’t the whole be perpetual?
Yes, but it would be irregular.
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).
Yes… follow your nose, but in the end you still need to prove what your nose finds to the scientific community.
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.
@@lwss1617y That sometimes occurs. Hopefully by publishing first you get a significant share of the credit.
Why reupload?
@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.
Book is on the table! Thanks ❤🎉
Hope you like it!
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!!!!
i'd venture to say that they accomplish much more than other celebrities.
What a great conversation! I loved listening to your logical podcast on quantum cosmology. 😊😊
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………
Scientists never say “never”.
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.
Where did you get the idea that frequency = mass?
@@karagi101 i misinterpreted de broglie
Prof Susskind's TTM books are brilliant! Reminds of Roger Penrose's books.
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.
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
Great interview. People say never meet your hero’s. That might be more about us than the hero’s.
Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler in the background.
Physicists should start to read the works of Burkhard Heim…
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
Yes… try to figure it out yourself, but in the end you still need to prove your conjecture to the scientific community.
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.
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.
I always wanted to be a plumber, but I could never get the weekend off to do the course!
You should have gone for politician, you don't need a qualification for that.
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..
2005= if you added frome 2005 =18 if you account it 2005 It is 18
2005+10= 2015+6=2021+2=2023=
Love this.
Is there quantum consciousness?
WAR?! Wow…that’s serious.
😅 i don't know why a serious channel like this needs such headlines.
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.
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.
They’re not called Black Holes because they are holes.
Splendid gentleman 😊
Why do so many scientist still refuse to consider CGJUNG was obviously on to something with the inner universe rather than the Freudian world
Maybe because scientists deal in evidence while Jung and Freud dealt in unproven conjectures.
New viewer and subscriber from Greece. 🏛
Interesting stuff Brian! 👌
Welcome!
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.
I ❤Leonard Susskind.
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
@@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.
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.
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.
Talking about time and space " listen to even the humble for they too have their storytime"
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??
I remember once Hawkins falling asleep at an interview yet kept speaking. What an amazing man.
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.
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.
This was great!
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.
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.
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.
Love Susskind . NO BS Mind
Why isnt leonard working on UFOs what are we doing here. Give him a youtube channel and a ufo and lets get smart.
😅😂😂😂😂
One of those things is a lot easier to get than the other. And there is a reason for that.
Thanks