Carlo Rovelli: From Dante to White Holes
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 3 ноя 2023
- Subscribe for exclusive content at lawrencekrauss.substack.com/
Learn more and support the foundation at originsproject.org/
A Note From Lawrence:
Carlo Rovelli is well known as a popularizer of science. His short book, Seven Brief Lessons on Physics, was an international bestseller. I have known Carlo as a physicist ever since he used to visit my Physics Department colleague, Lee Smolin, at Yale, when I was a Professor there. Carlo and Lee were part of a small group of physicists pioneering an idea called ‘Loop Quantum Gravity’ as a way to try and unify General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. Less well known among the public than its chief competitor, String Theory, and also less popular among physicists as a whole, Loop Quantum Gravity is nevertheless an equally serious attempt to address the vexing paradoxes associated with of quantizing General Relativity.
Black Holes are the place in physics where the various problems of quantum gravity become manifest. If Stephen Hawking was correct, and black holes do completely evaporate through quantum processes that result in the emission of thermal radiation, then it appears that the information about what fell into the black hole in the first place will be forever lost. But this violates a central feature of quantum mechanics, which preserves information. At the same time, the final state of classical black hole collapse involves a singularity of infinite density. Most physicists expect this singularity to be removed in a quantum theory of black holes.
Rovelli argues that near the singularity of a black hole quantum processes can change a black hole to be a ‘white hole’, the time reversed version of a black hole. While anything that falls into a black hole stays there, everything inside a white hole eventually reappears. If Carlo’s ideas were correct, they could go a long way toward potentially resolving black hole paradoxes.
It is a big ‘If” however, and I remain skeptical. Nevertheless I wanted to discuss these ideas with Carlo on this podcast for a variety of reasons. First, any such discussion will illuminate a lot about the physics of black holes. Secondly, I think it is useful for laypeople to listen to physicists debate and discuss ideas at the forefront, presenting challenges to each other, being willing to openly question each other’s ideas, and doing all of this with a sense of mutual respect.
At the same time, because I share Carlo’s great interest in both popularizing science, as well as connecting science and culture, I was extremely interested in discussing his motivations and thoughts about these important areas, and I was not disappointed. I hope listeners will find our discussions about science, literature, and politics equally enlightening.
The Origins Podcast, a production of The Origins Project Foundation, features in-depth conversations with some of the most interesting people in the world about the issues that impact all of us in the 21st century. Host, theoretical physicist, lecturer, and author, Lawrence M. Krauss, will be joined by guests from a wide range of fields, including science, the arts, and journalism. The topics discussed on The Origins Podcast reflect the full range of the human experience - exploring science and culture in a way that seeks to entertain, educate, and inspire.
Full Episodes Playlist:
• Ricky Gervais - The Or... 
Наука
Lawrence was extremely excited about this conversation. My man's Carlo only got half his words out 😅
Lawrence could have done the whole interview by himself. He's both making questions and answering them, questioning Carlo's thinking without giving him a change to answer. I have a word for people like that, but I guess it's better not to say it out loud.
Thank you Carlo for the knowlege and patience.
Give Carlo his own channel!!!!
Laurence was rude to invite Carlo and then interrupt him before he has a chance to answer Laurence's questions or expresses his thesis. Both Carlo and Lee Smolin, who's mentioned, are good, fresh, original thinkers who are trying to break out of the "crisis" in science; ie it has stalled for decades. Elsewhere you can get the new Carlo ideas (and much quicker).
Two amazing scientists I both admire, first time Krauss is talking less than his guest
This is just amazing. I need to thank both of you, Krauss and Rovelli, for all the work you've done as science communicators. I've been reading/watching both of you guys for years now, and to hear the two of you together has literally been music to my ears. Frankly, this channel is among the few that are really worth watching. Cheers from Italy!
Lawrence your a pain in the ass, but this was an absolutely great discussion, Carlos thank you so much for your time and understanding during this conversation, it meant that we were always moving forward and I'm very thankful that that was the outcome of this conversation, Lawrence I might be a bit of a hardass, but I really appreciate your work and preparation that it would take to be challenging to the subject matter. Thank you both Carlo and Lawrence for sharing, peace
This was a good one, and I watched while sipping on a bottle of Italian wine!
Its amazing how often scientists cannot get the audio right.
Lawrence, Lawrence, Lawrence. You have to stop interrupting all the time. You invite a brilliant man on your show and constantly talk over him. It's not just annoying, it's downright rude. The constant plugging whenever he mentions a name of someone you worked with, or was your student, is vanity. The 'clarifying' you claim to be doing is really just you being contrarian for the sake of showing hpw clever you are. Sorry to break it to you, but Carlo is far more brilliant than you. Whether he's right ot not on this or that point isn't really that important as nobody in physics has nailed these things down anyway. You should only interrupt when it helps move the conversation forward or offers the listener insight. Your interuptions come off as ego stroking most of the time. It's why I don't subscribe to Origins and only listen to an episode when there is a guest on I respect.
Laurence did interrupt more, I think they both interrupted a lot, mainly due to excitement and enjoyment, they both seemed to enjoy each others company in a way that reminded me of 2 small intelligent children with a shared passion, who have been waiting for the chance to meet...
Joining late, but am loving this conversation. Lawrence you're wonderful!
Great conversation, I learned a lot!
Absolutely loved this conversation! Especially the technical depth surrounding the connections of space in LQG and everything involving the black holes and transition to white holes. Carlo talked about the historical loop picture which was great, and then just barely mentioned that the real picture is more like a network of matter moving together through space. Would love to hear Carlo give a more in depth, technical discussion about how matter moves through space time.
'Bigger on the inside than on the outside'? So that's how Dr. who's Tardis does it! And Lawrence - enthusiasm is wonderful but please LET YOUR GUEST FINISH HIS SENTENCE, particularly if you disagree! i want to hear what it is you're (about) to disagree with! Anyway, I've got both your latest books. As usual, lots to think about in them, helped by being clearly written. Thanks to both.
Shine On, Carlo & Lawrence!🙌🏽✨🙌🏽
Great warm conversation,
Carlo is great! I’m looking forward reading his new book. I love his ideas, although we are far to prove or falsify them… Lawrence, it’ s true your passion makes you interrupt a bit to much, but that has been a great conversation. Congratulations! 👍
The ultimate secret of the Universe, the meaning of life, and everything "If a cadillac falls in its not going to come out"
I hope one day the fact that "time doesn't pass" will be featured in science textbooks and a task for people to learn.
I greatly enjoyed the part (among other fascinating parts) where you talked about the nature of reality and our experience of it. While it's often said that reality is an illusion, I think it more accurate to say not that our experience (or the experience of any other creature or object/process in the universe) is an illusion but that it is one facet of reality -- the facet that we humans (or whoever/whatever it may be) experience(s).
Then, we build contraptions (microscopes, infrared telescopes, radios, radio telescopes, high-speed photography, ad infinitum) that can experience other aspects of reality and translate them into visual, audial or other sensory information that we, too, can experience.
Great discussion! I now know more about the information paradox and black and white holes, but I'm also more confused than I used to be (which was a lot).
I'm brazilian with my mothers side being Italian, down south of brazil we receiveid a lot of german and italian imigration back in the final of the 19th century. I like italian culture a lot and Im actually trying to learn italian. I have read 2 books by Roveli at this point and got fascinated by the way he conduces his toughts on physics. I have to say I have no degree in the field, just lots of curiosity. The way he talks about the importance of the relational (dialetical?) aspect of reality mixing it with different philosofical and ancient perspetives in The Order of Time its remarcable. The fact that he has a determined political view and is a humanist is fantastic, going to read his new book definetly.
Such an entartaining debate, gets better and better in the last black hole white hole discussions.
I have a different critique. An object is falling into a black hole, from my perspertive it hits the event horizon after all its wave lengths shift to infinity, so its still there, is just so red shifted that I cannot see it. Ok. After an infinite amount of time its still frozen, but hawkings radiation is emitted. And so the black hole shrinks. So lets say I make a black hole out of cadillacs, at some point as the black hole shrinks cadillacs should start reappearing, since all those cadillacs were fixed at the moment they cross the event horizon, so where then does the hawking radiation comes from.
If Hawkings radiation is true, then it should be the case that everything that enters a black hole never goes deeper than the event horizon, it becomes a thin layer that spreads over the surface of the black hole and can never move.
Great chat fellas.
Lawrence, buddy, let the guy finish a point before interjecting.
In this case, interruptions were happening a lot in both directions, and that’s just how smart discussion often works as the interruption is to clarify points quickly back and forth so that time isn’t wasted. Lawrence also interrupted occasionally to move into new topics as he wanted to cover many topics but respect Carlo’s time. At no point did I sense any rudeness or ill intention in this conversation; actually I sensed mutual respect throughout.
He’s gonna lose his audience because he keeps doing this. It’s super annoying. He needs to leave his ego on the side if he plans to do this kind of stuff.
@ryanchristiansen you stopped watching but here you are commenting on his latest video...
He's nowhere near as bad as Jordan Peterson, the most egregious interrupter of them all.
Lawrence (even though he is a really nice guy) should become more self aware with such behaviour. I just think he has such enthusiasm for his interactions with his guests. You should see Lawrence and Neil degrasse Tyson talking together.jeeez.
I love that Lawrence puts all this work into making these. That effort is really appreciated and only a really dedicated, caring scientist would put the effort into making these. That said, if this was meant to be an interview, it didn't work very well because you interrupted all the time in a way that didn't even let your guest finish a point or sentence. Often you finished his sentences for him. If this was meant to be a debate, it did not succeed because you never stopped interrupting Carlo. As Dame Edna says, "my idea of a talk show is a monologue interrupted by others." The late Barry Humphries was a genius. This has been happening throughout though more lately in these. Often, it's not even cutting people off because you don't agree. It's cutting people off period and over controlling the course of the interview. Please let people speak and finish. Clearly you like them and wanted them on. This is not meant to dis you. I think you're great. You can disagree and take time to do so without the harsh abrupt cut offs. And you can have a vision for the interview arc that's less rigid. And this rigidity often works against you pulling off the shape and arc you see in your head. Thanks for posting.
Lawrence's interviews stand out from other interviews in a number of ways, including that he frequently interrupts his guests and, also, that he often talks about himself, when many of us have tuned in expressly to hear the guest speak. But difference (or, disequilibrium, to be precise) is what makes the world turn 'round. Why do I keep coming back? Because of Lawrence's insatiable curiosity, his contagious passion, his smile, and, yes, even his above-mentioned quirkiness. I know what I'm getting into when I click on a Lawrence Krauss interview, and I look forward to it (usually).
By reading the top two comments while listening to the intro, I am already leaving this podcast 😢
Loved it. But then Carlo is such an interesting -and likeable- character, I was always going to like it. The concept of space being stretched is.... difficult. At a superficial level the spaghetti analogy is simple enough, but trying to really get my head around any of the ideas behind the quantum world , or what happens at the extremes of relativity is mind blowing. Possibly the only thing more mind blowing is that a bunch of apes are capable of even thinking about such things. Thanks Lawrence for a wonderful 2 1/2 hrs ( from my perspective).
I enjoyed this discussion as theories tend to be presented as fact by the creator and lay readers will take it as so. This was interesting as two lions in physics and cosmology can discus, find common ground and also disagree. This illustrates that theories are such and need to evolve and be ironed out (or thrown out if they fail to live up to expectation).
Hi, question for Carlo, what your opinion about Stephen Wolfram Theory?
Wow. Oh my God. He is a fascinating guy
Thank you
I think Carlo is spot on in saying discussion about free will and other so called "illusions" is nonsensical. Table is not an illusion - it's very real. The fact that at the fundamental level (what ever that is or turns out to be) it doesn't "behave" like a table does not make it an illusion. It's just not fundamental, that's all.
Nowadays almost everything seems to be an illusion. In my opinion, people making such claims are either deeply misguided or trying to get attention by making provocative claims.
Given the hypothetical existence of white holes and their potential as the time-reversed counterparts of black holes, can the concept of "entanglement" extend to these enigmatic cosmic entities?
In other words, could white holes be linked through quantum entanglement with black holes, possibly shedding light on the nature of space-time singularity or information paradox in a unique way?
It is much simpler, when we say that white holes are the temporal inverse of black holes we mean it literally, if you analyze the evolution of any black hole in the opposite direction you are analyzing a white hole.
Best explanation of free will.
This discussion started when Rovelli mentioned Einstein debunking relational principle(s), without explaining what is the objection and at the end of the discussion the matter remained silent. Leaving me confused, how is it difficult to reconcile relativity with the passage of time? Is it centered with past being different from the future? Krauss and Carlos provides no explanation of entropy slowing down locally and not globally. The reason may not be physical but metaphysical, however the relation between cause and effect remains the same. Interesting discussion, no doubt.
🙂❣️ Wonderful Master
There are lots of book in their shelf..
I have Carlo's book, "Anaximander," the Greek who pioneered materialistic science as we know it.
And many people mistake the fourth dimension for time. It's a great illusion. Perhaps most people misunderstood the concept of Minkowski's four-dimensional space-time coordinates, which led to this idea. First of all, let me get this straight. Four dimensions is not time. In Minkowski's four-dimensional space-time coordinates x,y,z,ict, i is an imaginary number and c is the velocity of light. It is an imaginary coordinate that converts the velocity of light into length. Time is never four dimensions. It is an abstract mathematical coordinate and a very useful coordinate for calculating relativity. The greatest enemy of truth is human stereotypes and beliefs that have been entrenched for many years. This illusion generally stems from the illusion that the human five senses observing this world will be perfect. It is very difficult for any truth with logical rigor to break through long-held stereotypes. If you break prejudice, study physics a little bit, and think about the nature of time, you can come to the conclusion that time is an illusion.
❣️ from India 👍
Particularly mind bending.... 🙃
Imagine , there was a before.............the internet.
I still believe Kant was on something regarding time and space.
In order to objectively quantize space, there must be a discernable area which is not considered the "quanta" itself, yet which is set apart and differentiates between the quanta. So what is that area between which would objectively define the quanta?
Why must there be such a discernible area? What is it that you are talking about? Sounds like your discernible area is a space outside of the quantized space, which seems redundant and unnecessary.
@@timjohnson3913 That's my point precisely. You can't discretize a quanta (of anything) without a backdrop of some sort. Otherwise it can't be considered discrete. The period at the end of this sentence is identified only because it is set against the background of the screen. Or in the case of handwriting, a piece of paper. If there's no piece of paper, there can be no period.
Space in the classical sense of "matter in the void" doesn't even exist, since what we call "space" is just the gravitational field which is also merged with time.
Carlo is patient and gracious. But in answering tough questions he is taking an approach to answer like on ToE or Robinson podcast whereas LK wants him to be more technical and thus questions deeper citing technical stuff
My mother always said "there is no such thing as a stupid question, only stupid answers"
Why isn't the moon made of cheese anymore?
LK made me sad. When someone is promoting their book, you don't debate them during a general public podcast. 95% of viewers have no idea what either of you are talking about. Save that for a year later. Also, it was supercringe for LK to say he has a PhD on his wall. We all know. Yes, hearing debates is ibtereating, but this was not the spacetime. LK was being more aggressive and interruptive than usual. I feel bad dor Carlo who was so patient and congenial.
Light is an ordered vibration of gravitational quanta. Postulate 2. The gravitational field controls the frequency and speed of light in a vacuum.
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. There is a company in China that makes (fiber optic angular velocity meter) they will be able to create a hybrid device. Please, can you come to an agreement with them? I guarantee payment at cost on my part
Black Hole In Russian is literally Black hole, not frozen star
I think that black holes contain all the ant-matter, and so there is no information loss
I like that these discussions arent direct interviews, but more like we are a fly on the wall watching 2 extremely intelligent people interact
'Full marks' for Carlo :) I hope you get some better chances/interviews to expand your explanations of LCG...
I hope Lawrence will review this and see if it makes sense. It's intended to help improve such presentations. I think Lawrence as a non-expert LCG physicist needed to listen more and accept his guest as a/the leading LCG physicist. He appeared a bit too ideologically hard (argumentative? denigrative? offhand? disinterested?) with Carlo, and frequently interrupted before he could complete his sentences... and so appears to 'jump the gun' missing Carlo's contexts... Perhaps giving the appearance of an argument rather than a debate... One can always refute / 'disagree' / claim non-understanding - for any argument in one context with one terminology, by changing the context or by changing the terminology... Communicaton requires using mutually agreed and understood semantic assumptions - that seemed not to be the case here. Maybe he didn't understand and was assuming quantum scale rather than plank scale or was disinterested?
Analogy: A desk lamp may not move, but the atoms of the lamp do move... So asking "does the Lamp move?" is an unclear question since it depends on what the agreed context and semantics are... so an answer of either yes or no can be refuted by changing context or scale ie unless the scale is defined there is confusion... the terminology/grammar has to be clear - It's semantics.
The point was that Time in loop quantum gravity is an "emergent" property that 'does exist' at "quantum scales" and can be measured, even though there is no time ('it does not exist') in LCG at "plank scales"... in the same way that Temperature is an "emergent" property that can be measured and 'does exist' at "macroscopic scales" even though there is no temperature ('it does not exist') at "Quantum Scales". Neiter emergent property exists at the smaller scale - temperature becomes a velocity/momentum, and time becomes a loop interaction... So, the questions (a) what is temperature at a quantum scale? and (b) what is time at a plank scale?... have no useful answer because BOTH Temperature and Time (in the case of LCG) are averaged 'extended group' emergent properties not individual quantum or plank properties.
PS. Metaphorically, the black hole with increasing radiation rate as its size decreases 'until LCG plank effects become significant' where the radiation rate peaks and starts to decrease... is similar to the "Ultraviolet Catastrophe" where the 'total' light energy increases as wavelengths got shorter 'until quantum effects become significant' and the total energy peaks and starts to decrease...
Defend free speech while you still can. Good conversation.
1:54:25 I think that this L. Krauss' objection reveals a misunderstanding about what the " Black Hole Information loss problem" really is about...
1:59:30 ... this is actually a good objection (about the temperature discontinuity)!
But there's also an obvious discontinuity in the more popular scenario, where the Black Hole evaporates completely :
The internal huge volume suddenly disappears when the "throat" ( the horizon) of the Hole shrinks and disappears externally...
And another one :
The spacetime curvature suddenly becomes zero locally ( flat spacetime), while previously was tremendously huge, near the Planck scale!
So, it is a similar issue, "translated" from the first hypothetical scenario to the other!
From 2:00:00 to 2:09:00 the conversation becomes even more interesting, good questions/ objections and answers.
@@dimitrispapadimitriou5622Adding information to what you mention, it is a common error to attribute the information paradox only to the end of the life of the black hole, we assume that the evolution of a black hole in the opposite direction of the arrow of time is equivalent to the evolution of a white hole. It is very possible that in Kerr black holes there are already discrepancies between what the black hole accretes and what its temporal inverse ejects. If you have a black hole that swallows 3 apples but when you rewind the movie, its time inverse only expels 2 apples, we can conclude that the missing apple is as lost as it can be. This process occurs during the life of the black hole and is a loss of information.
Could white holes emit dark matter? That's why we don't detect them?
Lawrence reminds me of De Crass Tyson. He won't shut up and let the other person speak.
Dear god Krauss is full of himself. He should look up Larry King's rules for being a good interviewer before interviewing his next victim, er, guest... Rule 1 is let them talk!
Time does not exist. Of course, time doesn't even pass. There is only a relative variation in this universe with the momentum of matter and objects. Imagine this. In a world where nothing exists, time naturally disappears. Even in a world where everything has completely stopped, time naturally disappears. What these two thought experiments have in common is that time does not exist unless there is a change in the event caused by the movement of an object. If time exists independently regardless of this, you should be able to perceive that time is passing even in a world without momentum change and specify what time is. But that is absolutely impossible. But if a particle appears in a world where nothing exists, and when that particle moves in the x, y, z three-dimensional coordinate system, event changes occur, and we measure and perceive the change in momentum and position of a single particle, and the idea of time is created through our senses. So humans make time a mathematical unit called second/minute/hour. Why? We make it so that we can calculate and measure the momentum (speed), the amount of change (moving distance, location), and so on. In conclusion, we observe the world through sensory action and mistake it for time to pass. Sunset and sunrise, the movement of cars, the wind blowing, the water flowing, the microscopic vibrations of molecules in the rock standing still. All the flows we see are the motion of matter and objects, and the amount of change in energy and interaction with natural forces. The direction follows the universal laws of the universe, where entropy increases in an isolated system.
1:47:00 and afterwards:
After ~50 years, there's still this misunderstanding ( even among professionals, let aside science communicators ...) about Black Holes, that the Singularity is " a pointlike thing at the center" ...
As Rovelli ( and also other experts that have studied and understand GR, like Sean Carroll ) correctly points out, the singularity is in the future (and the "center" r = 0 is the center of the coordinate system, not the actual geometric center of the collapsed star, although it starts there, as it is obvious from the Penrose or Kruskal diagrams...).
It's also crucial that the interior spacetime geometry is not static, it's time dependent, and that's obvious from the math.
This persistent wrong understanding about what General Relativity says about the interior of Black Holes is the origin of lots of misconceptions, even now , in 2023.
I suppose that by saying that the interior geometry is not static, you mean that inside the laws of physics can vary at each point?
@@P-sv2dm No, the laws of General Relativity are the same inside! I mean the following:
-From the external perspective, if no matter or radiation falls inside , the black hole remains stationary, i.e. the Horizon area does not change.
But in the interior, the collapse of the spacetime geometry goes on, even if no new stuff crosses the horizon.
That's why Rovelli says that the interior ( the volume inside, for example) grows as time goes by.
By the way, this is related to the switch of the "character' of the coordinates in the interior: the temporal ( outside) coordinate "t" becomes spatial inside, and the "r" coordinate becomes temporal.
That's not so mysterious as some people say.
It just means that the stretching and squeezing of the geometry ( that causes the tidal deformation of any infalling object as the singularity is approaching) cannot stop.
The singularity is not a point, it's the end of the collapse, when tidal forces blow up.
@@dimitrispapadimitriou5622 For the observer who falls into the black hole, the geometry inside is minkoswki, in fact he does not even have to notice anything. I understand that you mean that for the external observer, the internal observer is not in minkoskwi
@@dimitrispapadimitriou5622 For the external observer, assuming he could see the internal metric, said internal metric would be an exact but non-physical solution of Einstein's equations, a Gödel-type metric with closed time curves and things like that, but the internal observer observes that it is found in minkoswki.
@@P-sv2dm No, Black Holes are either Schwarzschild ( when there's no angular momentum or charge), or Kerr (partially, until the internal horizon) when they have angular momentum.
Minkowski is a spacetime without intrinsic curvature , no gravity.
Black Holes are regions of very strong gravity!
Well, by default, Lee Smolin is next!
The universe is much stranger than we can imagine, thus very probably the ST, LQG or other current propositions are very far from what its very fundamentals are.
Conversations like this are really getting at the fundamentals of time. Fundamentals of wasting time.
🎉
I agree with many of the previous commentators - Lawrence was a rude host that seemed more engaged with his own opinions and talked over his guest's contibutions - in short, a verbal bully!
It's a shame Lawrence is so narcissistic. He asks good questions and progresses the conversation into fascinating areas, but Carlo is repetitively cut off, interrupted and drowned with Lawrence's references to himself.
How can a non-time-invertable thing like a black hole ever be a solution of a time-independent theory like GR? Just think about it...
The answer is really very simple:
For every GR solution, there's a time reversed one.
Usually, only one of these solutions is considered physically relevant, as is the case with black holes.
White Holes , classically, are not taken very seriously, for thermodynamical reasons.
Rovelli talks here about microscopic ( externally) WH, that have quantum gravitational origin.
At a macro level , dare one suggest that process occurs independently of the "time" . Particular process embodiments called clocks even atomic provide a numerical proxy for the underlying process.
@@dimitrispapadimitriou5622It is even simpler, every black hole has an associated white hole, which is the description of its evolution in the opposite direction of the arrow of time. It is a mistake to separate the existence of the white hole from the black hole, one is the inverse description of the other. From thermodynamics it is easy to see that they cannot exist in the classical sense of the arrow of time, but they always exist as the inverse description of any black hole.
Except that white holes in no way are time reversed versions of black holes...
@@mauijttewaal That's what they are... Just open a decent textbook about GR and see how it works, if you have the proper mathematical background.
Concept of blackhole( Kala/Shiva) and Whitewhole ( Hiranyagarbh) already exists. Time travel story ,too is there :King Raivata Kakudmi, who travels to heaven to meet the creator Brahma and is surprised to learn when he returns to Earth that many ages have passed
If he called quantum loops polygons, it would be clearer, no?
So, how does an EMFS occur? Because neither theory has a leg to stand on unless it's in this environment? Think about this before you try to dismiss it. Take Gravity out it doesn't belong. Peace ✌️
And how can gravity show any quantum effects as it is the perfect classical force?
Lawrence, please allow your guests to answer your 'problems'. You beat and berate - making interesting points - but then move on before the guests can respond. Your "Yeah yeah yeahs" end the argument rather than lead into the guests' explanations. Please stop doing that. Watching your channel for years, I know you well enough now to know that allowing others to speak without interruption is extremely difficult for you, but please try harder. Much harder. At 2:22:30 you say "I encourage people to ask questions," and you do. You just don't seem to want your guests to answer any of yours. Thanks.
Why does it have to be strange in either place? Your giving more problems then known to exist. Why. Your also assuming growth of the blacksphere. This is incorrect respectfully. The EMF around the sphere does flip it must otherwise there is no EH. Galacty are closed systems. The reason for this is the sphere it never grows or shrinks. But the area around the sphere does increase due to Thermol Dynamics and the destruction of information as the sphere spins. Peace ✌️
Black Holes, White Holes & ........
Event Horizons. Why do you think Theravadan Buddhists call depression the starting point of stream entry? A great teacher of mine (who was an early AI professor) in the Ajahn Mun tradition teaches to meditate by continuing to dig a hole in front of you. I cannot argue everyone will have the same experiences or events but when you get to one-pointedness it explodes with light.
If it's good enough for Eric Weinstein it's good enough for me :-\ (say hi to P.Err-true-dough.)
I skipped to the politics part, because I'm convinced that scientists, especially physicists, are lost in irrelevancy. If you're so damn smart, why can't you get one person to not hate another person?
He probably hates other people himself. Whining about apparently freedom of speech being taken away by the radical left cancelling people for their opinions, he sounds like Jordan Peterson. I can easily imagine what kinds of "opinions" he has that he's afraid to be cancelled for, and they're not pretty.
its about time you went on Joe Rogan again
let him know. :)
I had to stop watching this video because you kept interrupting and talking over Carlo. You tried many times to make this video about yourself but people want to hear from Carlo not you.
I only know I have just wasted my time watching this!
RAUL MIDÔN ... CAUTĂ.L și vezi ce e cu el??
..... What the babbling......
Stop interupting Lawrence.. Me thinking of unsubscribing!!
Lawrence, Lawrence, Lawrence. You have to stop interrupting all the time. You invite a brilliant man on your show and constantly talk over him. It's not just annoying, it's downright rude. The constant plugging whenever he mentions a name of someone you worked with, or was your student, is vanity. The 'clarifying' you claim to be doing is really just you being contrarian for the sake of showing hpw clever you are. Sorry to break it to you, but Carlo is far more brilliant than you. Whether he's right ot not on this or that point isn't really that important as nobody in physics has nailed these things down anyway. You should only interrupt when it helps move the conversation forward or offers the listener insight. Your interuptions come off as ego stroking most of the time. It's why I don't subscribe to Origins and only listen to an episode when there is a guest on I respect.