Leonard Susskind - How Do Particles Explain the Cosmos?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 26 янв 2016
- The cosmos is vast, the largest stuff that exists. Particles are tiny, the smallest stuff that exists. Yet the particles compose the cosmos; there is nothing in the cosmos other than the particles, and the fields and forces that are associated with them.
Click here to watch more interviews from Leonard Susskind bit.ly/1xAleZd
Click here to watch more interviews about particles and the cosmos bit.ly/1PjtEeb
Click here to buy episodes or complete seasons of Closer To Truth bit.ly/1LUPlQS
I find him one of your best clearest guest ever.
anyone who’s ever had him as a prof or advisor is incredibly fortunate
I really like him too. One of my fav. Him and Sean
Yes, so now gravitational waves HAVE been seen in the year 2015. This was published Jan 27 2016 but in the video Susskind is still waiting for this proof which will upend string theory in some way. I really like listening to Susskind. His passion to share knowledge is obvious and makes it so enjoyable to listen to him.
Yes and what does he think overall about string theory now??
Be careful - it seems you missed a crucial part of Leonard's statement. He did not say that any gravitational wave detection would upend string theory. Instead he referred to gravitational signatures in the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB), which gives a glimpse of the early Universe at the time of so-called recombination (~400,000 years after Big Bang). In contrast, the first (and Nobel-prize-earning) gravitational wave detection in 2015 gave a glimpse of two black-holes merging ~12.6 billion years after the Big Bang (1.2 billion light years from us). So, string theory does not (yet) suffer the digestive problems he warns of!
@@JayAyyWhy1231 What you are saying makes more sense than what I said and I'm too lazy to go back and watch the video again to make sure you're right. LOL A man of Leonard's intelligence would obviously be aware of the 2015 gravitational wave detection a year earlier than this interview. I defer to your superior listening ability in this matter. Cheers
@@BladeRunner-td8be This is actually from years ago. There's another clip on RUclips of this segment uploaded nine years ago.
"Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real." ~ Niels Bohr
Open-minded Skeptic then the ‘imaginary’ portion of all complex numbers is MISTAKENLY referred to as “real”, regardless.
The photon is the most mysterious of them all, a package of energy which can be stored 'for later', this changed everything.
Physics see the daily world as nobody can’t.
@@Deliquescentinsight That was Einstein when he quantized the radiation field between 1905 and 1907. For 20 years he was virtually the only scientist in Europe who believed in Wave-Particle Duality. Bohr ridiculed quantization for many years. Oh the irony.
I do so admire mr. Susskind.
miss
jan kåre Austinat “miss.”* abbr. of ‘mistress’.
Thank you for your very interesting videos. Suskind is great at explaining cosmology.
love these old geezers talking about the universe.
+Blood Beryl what the hell??
hehe lovely peaceful people
If all geezers would be so, it would be a better world!
I love you kids listening :)
GanstaCatCT who the hell?
How does Dr Susskind feel about Simulation Theory? Anyone know/links?
I would like to see the whole interview, not the selected bits and pieces. This was the interview where Susskind said "The jury is still out on whether or not photons have mass." I've seen that bit but it seems to have gone missing from RUclips.
THIS GUY knows how to do an interview
damn good job CTT
this type of thinking really makes me feel better about everything.
What a really excellent presentation of extra dimensions to the layman. Thank you.
what about dimensions as explained in the E8 theory? Doesn't that make the sense they are looking for?
What's that special chair Leonard's sitting in?
It is super comfortable and huge.
How did he get this piece?
In my country we call it "couch." One must climb an Ikea to get one.
susskind always reminds me of actor john malkovics older brother...
Susskind reminds me of Mike from breaking bad
yap, also a bit. but more jm
This guy looks like how I always image Plato or Aristotle looked. He just has a regal, wise look about his face.
So true man.
@@gritlup2089 spoken like somebody who never went to school
Nice to listen to such a legend in physics.
I just have one thing that annoys me when physisists are talking about the universe and the possibility of extra dimensions.
They often talk about "small" dimension that are curved up or whatever.
A dimension cannot be small or curved up. It is just an integer (or sometimes non-integer when talking about fractals).
What I suppose they mean is that the universe is a mainfold of a certain dimension. That manifold can then be curve or small in some direction or whatever.
Not that I'm an expert: Look into "symplectic geometry", if you haven't already. "Holonomy" deals with issues of failure to preserve geometrical data (parallel transport and closed loops) in regard to "curvature" (on smooth manifolds) -- as I see it. These manifold representations become something like fanciful pendants or talismans of art, far as my limited perspective goes.
Every time I hear about the extra dimensions of string theory, I can't help but wonder how we got to the dimensions we currently experience. When you move from a singularity to present day, did each of our current dimensions pop into existence one at a time? And as the universe continues to expand, is possible that the curled up dimensions of string theory will inflate to join today's normal dimensions?
"When you move from a singularity to..."
That part's probably not a thing.
First off, it's "possible" that string theory is horse crap.
Three dimensions works well enough on this little rock, along with the complications of temporality. Seriously: Reading some Ouspensky, though his interests often touch on some obscure issues, is helpful for a phenomenology of spatio-temporal puzzles. Leaning towards questions of self-conscious awareness and mystic states, he was also a first rate mathematician and logician.
I was not about to say from hearing at 1:05, that space has to have more than 3 dimensions, sounds weird because space is 3 dimensions - then he said it.
Such a pity the audio level is so low
A pity and an annoyance!
just remember to turn down your volume after you're done with this video
You’ll find the same nature with all talking heads in a newsy atmosphere: they recede to a vocal growl whenever they arrive at the portion of a report which they feel is inconsequential to the audience. This could be reinforced in postproduction by an attentive editor.
use head phones
Does the following quantum model agree with the Spinor Theory of Roger Penrose?
Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules: "A theory that you can't explain to a bartender is probably no damn good." Ernest Rutherford
When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. (More spatial curvature). What if gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks. (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are actually a part of the quarks. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Force" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" make sense based on this concept. Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons.
Does an electron travel through space like a threaded nut traveling down a threaded rod, with each twist cycle proportional to Planck’s Constant? Does it wind up on one end, while unwinding on the other end? Is this related to the Higgs field? Does this help explain the strange ½ spin of many subatomic particles? Does the 720 degree rotation of a 1/2 spin particle require at least one extra dimension?
Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons
. Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. The phenomenon of Supercoiling involving twist and writhe cycles may reveal how overtwisted quarks can produce these new particles. The conversion of twists into writhes, and vice-versa, is an interesting process.
Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Within this model a black hole could represent a quantum of gravity, because it is one cycle of spatial gravitational curvature. Therefore, instead of a graviton being a subatomic particle it could be considered to be a black hole. The overall gravitational attraction would be caused by a very tiny curvature imbalance within atoms.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone. 1/137
1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface
137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface
A Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting occurs. 720 degrees per twist cycle.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
How many neutrinos are left over from the Big Bang? They have a small mass, but they could be very large in number. Could this help explain Dark Matter?
Best non mathematical explanation for us mere mortals I have heard yet.
Audio is too low..
What would Leonard say in 2021 with the evidence of gravitational waves to the string theorist?
I feel like I'm getting closer to truth.
Gorazd Žagar - check out Bernardo Kastrup
Also - smoke 5meo-dmt
The reason you can't have gravitational waves as old as the universe, in laymen terms, is because that would mean that gravity had an effect right after the big bang and wasn't a property that emerged during the cooling process. That is important, or otherwise everything would immediately form an inescapable black hole, regardless of the amount of matter/energy material. If the current laws of physics applied to anything as dense as what is claimed to have existed moments after the big bang, then why are things spread out at all and aren't a massive black hole? String theory demands gravity to be an emergent property and it cannot exist at the beginning, and if we encounter a timing mismatch in the arrival of gravitational waves and light from events like supernovas, then it raises a lot of mathematical questions. Are we measuring things wrong, or are we assuming things wrong?
Maybe it is because the expansion, the "blast" of the big bang was just stronger than gravity?
Charming, intelligent and gruff. Love him
Interesting.
Please improve your sound quality. Excellent video though.
'tippe top' elementary endocrinology watt are the ductless g-lands are inner fish
What bothers me is that tiny beings going around the beeded wire are simply going up and down. It doesnt seem to be an extra dimention involved at all from where im standing. Also, i think string theory requires multiple additional dimentions (cant remember if its 9 or 11). Particules appear out of nothingness into reality and disappear again. I cant understand why this action of coming in and out is not viewed as a dimension. In anycase, i will be more excited about string theory the day i learn more about these numerous dimentions. Love the man though.
My question for you is this. If you were a god making the rules of the universe, what, and how would you do it? Is it at some point in time an expression, with answers?
I love listening to conversations like these, on all of the various topics this guy covers. However, there’s a drawback now. This video is 6 years old, at the time of my watching, which means that both participants will have totally different views now. The field of physics is developing so fast now that it’s barely worth reading any books that weren’t published within the last year, if you don’t want to be out of date. I’m sure Susskind would have different views and things to say now, as the interviewer would probably have a completely different questions.
Shouldn't those microscopic dimensions also expand along with the expansion of the universe What is holding it curled ?
Those dimensions would be roled up and act like a force. The foldings tell the universe how to behave, e.g. expanding
Imagine tying a knot in the middle of a rubber sheet. Now imagine stretching it way out in all directions. Anything printed on the rubber gets stretched out but the knot stays the same size.
@@MelindaGreen Great description
But why no one does a very long discussion with him? One like this one, just longer. Of course, you need a clever interviewer.
Why do you think Robert isn't clever enough?
‘It can be shown that we should not see gravity’, is like an APB for the sighted. -Hugh Bris.
The volume in these videos are always terrible
In that analogy: What would explain why the big beads can’t ‘see’ the extra dimension?
Well I guess if light only travels along the line. Ok.
And they saw it
Professor Susskind is the best physicist at explaining to the common man with a reasonable level of intelligence, theories that take an enormous amount of intelligence to really understand. Perhaps it was his previous life as a Plummer that makes him so good at exp[laining complicated science. As a working-class guy with an enormous amount of curiosity, I cannot thank him enough for helping me understand these things!
yes they did found gravitational waves, like a few months ago, so what does this mean its wrong?
The waves he was talking about were variations in the Microwave Background radiation... that's not what was found a few months ago. There was a group of scientists that claimed to have found what Susskind was talking about (like 2 years ago) but it was errors introduced by dust. So far, there is no solid evidence of gravitational waves in the CMB.
So intelligent more people should know who he is
Didn't ligo confirm gravitational waves?
Actually, the existence of gravity waves was demonstrated indirectly in 1978 by Joe Taylor from data obtained from the decaying mutual orbits of two pulsars. For this work, he and his grad student were awarded the Nobel Prize in 1993. astronomy.com/bonus/gravity
He is talking about detecting them in the cosmic microwave background - basically radiation left from the early stages of the universe
@@bobcrunch Excellent comment! The Hustle-Taylor binary pulsar. The craziest part is how Einstein could envision all of this in his mind decades before actual observations. Crazy.
The difference between History +Mythology.
Creation is H+M
String Theory does not have
H+M but StruM Theory does
This implies the Strings needs to be vibrated.
to give Creation
MBraithwaite Yorkshire Viking
I believe that this talk was before LIGO did see gravity waves. If so, that fear that string theorists have about it have come true. I’d love to see another talk with him that reflects that discovery.
That's incorrect. The gravity waves LIGO is seeing are from local events in the universe such as black hole mergers. They are testing General Relativity, not directly string theory. They are completely different from gravity wave signatures in the cosmic microwave background from the very early universe. Those have not been seen.
Pierre no. he was wrong and string theory is a lie
@@mattheww797 Not true. We need stronger telescopes to be able to track them. This is why we are building a LIGO in space now that we know Einstein was right.
One of the best things about string theory, in my layman's opinion, is listening to Susskind talk about physics. (I have no opinion and no idea about whether string theory is right, or even what it says.)
7:24 would be funny if that snoop dogg music played right after he says this lol
Why do theorists always equivocate physical dimensions with realms?
String theory on polar coordinates can avoid the difficulties but gravitational waves is a simple ripple phenomena of gravitoetherton soup and relativists are beating their drums and giving prizes .
Simple answer: They can't and never will. The Entire Universe works off of one thing and one thing only. The fight between field pressure's i.e. Field pressure mediation.
Material particles are high-entropy entangled energy just like physical things are high-entropy entangled particles.
And so what? What are the implications that you see from this conclusion? Does it tells you or me anything new?
i can hardly hear it. maybe wear a microphone or get louder voices lol.
Too quiet
Did he say "compactified?"
Doug Lynch would you prefer packed like ribbonified prune skins into concentric Möbius strips shoved into a Klein bottle?
Gravity, Electro Magnetic field and light are all made from the same quant. That is why polarized light bends in magnetic field. A photon can travel at the speed of light or 0. In gravity the speed of the photon is 0...and the photons make an "net" that everything "sticks" to. Light bends in gravity because reacts with "gravity photons" that are fixed like a net in the gravity field (yes the warping of space thing....but this is quantified warped space OOOOK). It must be that way. Because of this graviton has very small energy and cannot be detected.....but....if it is knocked out the gravity web it can be detected...this can explain why photons from the sun can "push" the earth 1kg even though they have 0 mass...because they have mass of 1 graviton.....pilot wave is just a wave of gravitons...
time slows down with speed because "static" gravitons get energy with speed and slow everything down...even a thought is a chemical process with moving molecules so everything slows down...that is why the two observers will se the speed of ight the same. the amount of energy that graviton receives is equal to the time dilation. Static graviton gets the energy exactly so the both observers will see the same speed of light because of the time dilation....this can only happen if the light, graviton and photon is the same particle ....
How to prove this experimentally.... if a object in space radiates strong light and magnetic field it must "steal" gravitons, ....because photons and gravitons are the same particle and mater cannot be created from nothing ... the mass of that object will get smaller....measure it and it will weight less.
The graviton is still merely a hypothetical elementary particle; the photon is a real elementary particle, and both are classified as quanta. One of these can, in exceedingly rare cases, become the other, but that is not the same as an unobserved particle becoming in fact the real particle e.g. actually and regularly being the single particle or identity of force. (Both are better thought of as "epicycles" in a theory.) Besides which, any effect on matter has no real "cause" in the sense that a particle "acquiring" mass is not precisely the same as an hypothesizing of "symmetry breaking", which would seem to be some characterization of what is meant by a causal explanation. Of course, I'm no physicist. And it's all about "conservation" in the end.
Well gravitational waves are "seen" in 2017 so does that make string theory null and void as per Mr. Susskind?
No, not the same kind of g waves.
G waves in the cmb would contradict string theory
If Leonard Sussking was born 1000 years ago he would be a Viking warrior
It’s clear to me that you understand your field. I wish you could explain it better. Dimensions for example.
string theory helps explain why gravity is so weak. extra dimensions could explain that gravity is weak in this universe, but thats because it is stronger in the extra dimensions?? is that right?
If you have 10 dimensions of space,the gravitons can escape from your 3-dimensions space into others,the dilution effect of gravity may become averaged same to each dimension. Like you have 10 apples,3 of them got grabbed by you in our space,but in each extra dimension there is just one apple. To think this way, you may consider that the gravity is strongest in our 3 dimensions space and weakest in others.
I like how it starts out blurry as if we could have no concept, no idea of what the hell he's talking about.
Particles are IONS!! I now understand the Pyramid and its association with Orion!! The Pyramid was/is
A Time Machine!!!MB
He reminds me of John malkovich
10 to the 20th power billions smaller than what is seen really!
And which is the leading, protecting and mental force? A casuality in black matter??
Keep your feet on the ground, even looking to the end of universe.... you wont get the deeper answers....
Of course its a fascinating thing discovering step by (little) step this incredible large, complicate and detalled universe, but we should not forget the spiritual fact -
in future all experts (astrophysics, philosopher, religious and border scientists) have to work together when the questions (and answers) getting more complicate...
I agree with you, but probably not all the religions
How can a dimension be "too small", or "twisted", or "rolled up or curled up"? Makes no sense. It's like saying "width is too small", or "the height is curled up".
The idea of dimension to most properly describe a phenomenon is one of relevance. If you make a measurement to within a certain length, you would observe only features observable within that accuracy. If you have a 1 km tube with a circumference of 1 cm, the surface would effectively be described by its length alone until you get down to approaching a resolution of 1 cm. At that point, the surface could be better described by two coordinates, the distance along the tube, and the radian measure (
Imagine a dimension that is finite and closed, like a circle, not infinite as we're used to. You might not notice your movement in that closed circular dimension, if it's small.
I would like to know.What mr.Susskind thinks now about the string theory.Cause LIGO detected the first gravitational waves..So what is the state of the string theory?Is it still possible or not and so on...PEACE!..I'm ouT!..mr.bugsone
Strings, if they exist, are 10^20 smaller than protons. Wow! Mind officially blown..again!
Just because you can't see the other dimensions doesn't mean they're too small to see, actually they must occupy the same time and space to be another dimension.
Don't quote me but I don't think it's possible to see anything smaller than a photon of light
That's true, but there are a lot of thing much bigger than a mass-less photon, which you can't see. You can't see most molecules with the naked eye, but you can see a much smaller single photon in the visible spectrum, in an otherwise perfectly black room.
But if the dimensions are much smaller than photons we will only perceive them abstractly. None of our senses can perceive things much smaller than the particles that illuminate.
What a brilliant and easy to understand man. Imagine where we might be as a species if we invested more into discovering this kind of knowledge than spending a few trillion dollars a year devising more and more clever ways to kill one another or to possess more "stuff" temporarily.
What if we take 9 dimensions of space... 1 dimension of time and 1 of gravity... Considering gravity a physically accessible dimension.... Just some wild thesis....
Not impossible. The real work is when you try to turn a vague idea into a mathematical model to see if it actually works or not
It can be shown!!! If it’s real.
I’d love to see brain cox on here
Whoever was responsible for the audio fucked up big time!
‘Particles’ do not explain the universe.. But the wave-energy that forms ‘particles’ does..
spaceandmotion
Or vortex- energy if you explain all by vortices of a medium the vacuum space must consist of otherwise nothing would exist. Also waves need a medium to be transferred in. Everybody also him wants to avoid to name what is called "ether" a century ago! A pity.
Particles are sooo 19th Century. Fields concept will lead to new ideas.
Fields, lol, soooo 20th century.
...so now that gravitational waves have been observed, where does this leave string theorist
But is that not the oposite of what he said? Who is right/wrong here?
He wasn't talking about gravitational waves in general, just effects of a primordial g wave in the CMB, which has not been detected. (And probably won't be anytime soon.)
The man writes great books that you can read slowly to think about what he says as you go.
Everything is particles and particles don't exist.
Susskind is a fucking monster of physics, great interview!
7:55 The multiverse theory esoteric? Well not like your old run-of-mill string theory. Come on, we all went to grade school!
Ha ha. That's priceless!
Twisted in three dimensions?
I am going to leave a name here: Arthur M Young, because this man was on this road many years ago, he was dismissed by the establishment, the consensus tribe, because he was unwilling to fall into line. Once he had delivered a working helicopter (nobody else could do it) he was consigned to the 'cranks', people can be such idiots.
Physics orthodoxy has killed many bright minds. David Bohm being another.
These ideas work... to some extent... for a while.
What happens after a while?
@@afonsodeportugal They degrade into self-serving gibberish.
I would love this video but apparently i becomed deaf.
Electron Neutrinos? Quarks?
i thought a cylinder was a 3d object....
The earth is also a 3D object, but we can only walk on its surface in two dimensions. Same principle.
abstractpaper got it :)
The answer lies in the supernatural, metaphysical, spiritual.
Motivation, intention, desire, etc. Beyond the understanding of science and man.
Albert Einstein said, “if you cannot explain it simply, you do not understand it well.”
It's too bad they didn't study the depths of narcissism.
I often wonder how theoretical physicists make a living?
…...but a cylinder is 3 dimensional… not 2 dimensional.
Andreas Vågane yeah but they mean the surface of the cylinder which is 2 dimensional
@@italoger8677 Of course.. Thank you!
Andreas Vågane no problem!
Pizza Hut ad on this... 😂
You do realize that the ads target the individual viewers, so seeing a Pizza Hut add only implies something about you, not so much the video.
Kind of a sussy man this Leonard
I love how devout religious people see something like this and comment on it (bastardize is) and yet they are using a computer to do so - a computer based on the laws of physics.
The universe is infinite? How would we know what infinite is? The fact it goes on for billions of light years means it IS infinite as far as we are concerned
That's a wrong way to approach it, just because you don't see land when you look at the horizon at sea it doesn't mean that you are situated on the only piece of land on Earth.
No, not a good analogy. You can atill physically distinguish between land being there or not (there are experiments you can carry out to confirm it), whereas there is no experiment that you could pull to distinguish betweeen a very large expanding universe to tell it apart from infinite
Horrible analogy.
if you dont love them.. you dont have a heart!
Paul G even Atrayu’s only wish gave The Nothing a heart. What’s their excuse?
And here we are today with string theory in the dumpster
Interviewer: "I want to learn about Cosmology, but I'm too lazy to learn about Cosmology" 90% of people outside of Science.
Kline bottle
da Vinci
When did John malkovich become a scientist?