Sean Carroll
Blog post with audio player, show notes, and transcript: https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/podcast/2019/05/06/episode-45-leonard-susskind-on-quantum-information-quantum-gravity-and-holography/
Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/seanmcarroll
For decades now physicists have been struggling to reconcile two great ideas from a century ago: general relativity and quantum mechanics. We don’t yet know the final answer, but the journey has taken us to some amazing places. A leader in this quest has been Leonard Susskind, who has helped illuminate some of the most mind-blowing ideas in quantum gravity: the holographic principle, the string theory landscape, black-hole complementarity, and others. He has also become celebrated as a writer, speaker, and expositor of mind-blowing ideas. We talk about black holes, quantum mechanics, and the most exciting new directions in quantum gravity.
Leonard Susskind received his Ph.D. in physics from Cornell University. He is currently the Felix Bloch Professor of Physics at Stanford University. He has made important contributions to numerous ideas in theoretical physics, including string theory, lattice gauge theory, dynamical symmetry breaking, the holographic principle, black hole complementarity, matrix theory, the cosmological multiverse, and quantum information. He is the author of several books, including a series of pedagogical physics texts called The Theoretical Minimum. Among his numerous awards are the J.J. Sakurai Prize and the Oskar Klein Medal.
Source
👍👍👍🙂🙂
The Christopher Walken of physics
[April 4, 2021 | 03:14 CEST]
Should I stay (meaning “say something”) or should I (just) go? [I already know what the predominant hypothetical answer to that question would be, yet still…] Even though I am going to give this post a “thumbs up”, there’s a cost to that: I have to leave a comment.
That is so, because – on [the] one hand – I enjoyed the conversation between Sean [Carroll] & [Leonard] Susskind, but – on the other hand – I’m a little bit irritated. Although I (still) don’t subscribe to the many-world QM (if nothing less, it’s philosophically & metaphysically hollow), I nonetheless find Sean an exquisite science tutor (or lecturer of a rare kind) and excellent conversationalist, so I don’t want to spoil this good conversation he had with renowned colleague… And, although he also knows how to be pushy, sometimes, asserting (with intellectual force) some academic options in the field – as “100% proven reasonable without any doubt” (even though there’s no plain binary truth about the subject, yet, or there’s equally accepted duality view), it’s his guest that I’m referring to.
Let me be clear: I’m nowhere near any one (and both) of them, overall academically, and in physics, in particular, but I could pull off a pretty decent & meaningful scientific conversation with both. Of that I’m sure, especially given the (positive) view Susskind has on intelligent crack-pot conversations (from his youth) and the (belief in) ability of laymen to discuss the higher-academic matters… The space is limited, here (I once hit that limit), and, likewise, I would (most certainly) digress explaining that alone, but suffice to say: Knowledge is (figuratively) half of the story; the other half may be the combination of creativity, well-intent and good, sound logic, and, to that, I’m no stranger. Equally, I may even dare to say that (and this specific trade has been invoked in the conversation by Susskind), as far as IT & computer programming is involved, I’m not behind these two, but ahead of them.
And, I really respect both the notion & the factuality of having authority in the field, any field of human intellectual or physical faculty (unlike many of those modern-day crack-pot skeptics that don’t know a scholastic thing about the subject, yet have many “alternative theories” and distrust the authorities a priori – except, of course, their own beloved political leaders): I, for one, was lucky to have many respectable & extraordinary teachers during my lifetime. What pisses me off, a bit, [my apologies to Sean for using the street language] is somewhat arrogant assertion of things that are still nowhere near “final & definitive” academic resolution, that are forced as such, with the (“spoken or unspoken”, but certainly “assumed & exercised”) power of authority. For one, that’s not superiority.
Yes, Hawking conceded to Susskind about the information paradox (and lost a bet), but Susskind is, himself – in my humble crack-pot, pop-psychological view – no stranger to “academic stubbornness”, either. Well, some people know how to pull it off, because it “nicely blends” with their presumed character (think Krauss, for example, although I’m sure I would have had a colorful exchange with him in a debate). But others have more of a “strongmen” scent/optics of it, and that’s no-go in these times of attempted cultural revival & rejuvenation of scientific thought (that come after “4Y era” of exhausting falsehoods shouted countless times from the position of authority). So, gentler approach to all viable scientific & logical explanations of the “unknown” is advisable, from where I stand.
Now, I myself would be portrayed (by more than one acquaintance) as someone prone to “hard-core” dismissal of opponent’s “opposing view”. Well, I am such a guy, indeed, but only with matters that go far beyond “hypothetical & unknown”, “personal & preferential (by style or character)”, “optional & idiosyncratic”, “probable & indeed logical”; we, as a species, really need to agree on the (real-world, cognitive) fundamentals, if these have been scientifically proved/verified, or hypothesized in sound logic. Not everything can be in the realm of “preferences, fondness & personal New-Age opinion”, and people, even the younger (Millennial) kind, tend to have exactly this approach to life & career, these days. We cannot question everything, we cannot dismiss centuries of knowledge-gathering.
So, what I could bet anyone, including, presumably, Susskind – if the bets of the kind where all-legal and applicable in all – is that it would be precisely the synergy & interoperation of different sciences (say physics, math, computer science & philosophy for sure) – NOT physics alone (however smart it may be) – that together, in cooperation (i.e. creative “complementation” & supplementation of each other’s paradigms) will reveal the most profound truths & enigmas of the Universe. If physics alone were sufficient to find & decipher that truth, then it would render other sciences “second-grade & poorly founded, maybe organized & methodological, yet ‘lesser’ cognitive human enterprises” – and, thus, in short, obsolete. That’s not the case: the Nature is conceptually diverse. Therefore, it’s kind of arrogant to force a hand on this. Highly educated people who have a superior command in gathered knowledge in their own filed sometimes tend to express dismissal of all other expertise and relevance – so easily. [Chemistry was once touted as a solution to everything, and although its many fantastic applications made human lives better, it promoted oil & produced the “forever” chemicals…]
Once perhaps even of a milder temperament than these days, but certainly always – I have willfully been the noble gentleman who fairly concedes a defeat of his theory & stance, once he had been proven wrong, even by the power of dialectic. That, I think, should be the declaration of supreme consciousness, one that tames & contains the hubris of one’s own trade. §
Great scott!
Wish there was video for this as well
Woohoo, my favourite plumber!
Why doesnt susskind have his own podcast?
كأن التصوُّف يصادق على مفهوم المبدأ الهولوجرامي – إليكم هذا المقطع القصير نسبيا
https://youtu.be/4i7aR787nA4
Penrose dares to differ Lenny
welchem Idioten das nicht aufgefallen sein sollte… l33t :DDDD
so awesome!
If one adheres to the idea of 'virtual' particles rising from the black hole, as did hawking, doesn't that dismiss his following assumptions that nothing can escape therefore it can't be recontructed?
One has to bare in mind, regardless of derivatives sciences, that fundamentally the models we use are just that 'individual pictures,' and not to be misconstrued of evidence of what the universe really is outside of these pictures. Art, in this sense, precedes math and not vice versa.
The information is entanglement to the black hole just like a laser into a glass apple. You can detect it because the black hole exist. The information is never lost it just went into are gravity and excelled into are dna 🧬- this is the universe
Ok, last one:-) I envision space/time (I lean toward them being less intimately connected) "tipping" from more space, to more time as I cross the eh. The "closer" I come to the singularity, the more time dominates space. What else works this way? Gravity. I think I could substitute the word G for T, without changing my view.
"in practice, in the laboratory, the black hole is gone…". Forgive me for pointing out the obvious, but Leonard said "in practice" and "in the laboratory". He once eluded to " making a black hole from silicon", in a past talk, then walked that back…. Humans have made black holes.
OMG! I didnt know that Mr. Susskind expounded on string theory.
a photon has a speed c in vacuum so i always know its speed and its position from its source after n seconds is lightspeed*n. so was Heisenberg wrong?
I wonder about quantum information loss when merging black holes partially evaporate due to gravity waves?
He is truly Leonard
Dream big like these two and share your crackpot thoughts, because the next Sean and Lenny are already out there thinking deeply and trying to make sense of the world. Best possible interview on the subject IMHO!
I think we can all thank lenny for doing what he's doing, I myself am a computer science student and this type of talk is amazing I never thought about learning such things in a field that distant of mine (I figured out not that distant actually lol)
A better understanding of time, light and the structure of space will be key to a better understanding of the universe(s). Time is the sequence of space as it opens up. Not an independent entity.
How can such an intimate interview have such bad audio
I respect all the scientists but being a retired editorial cartoonist I am more monkey than human. Your honesty with humor is what I need the most.
Carroll is batshit insane but he seems like a nice guy and he's great at explaining complex physics ideas. Can't wait to listen this conversation.
❤️ thank you for posting this I love physics s
Susskind is even beyond Feynman in explaining something clearly and interestingly
two brilliants I admire!
maybe the third time I listen and reflect. The event horizon problem is nigh but not here.
Talking about black holes should be confronted to Heisenberg's and General relativity inconsistencies concerning gravity, namely quantum loop or others, dreaming for LISA.
Quantum Gravity and String Theories seems a dream lead too far.
Or there is a Planck Constant or it can be upgraded.
Science's history is made of "quantum" leaps..assuming the therm is in common use.
There isn't any protocol about information or matrix mechanics relating to black holes.
When almost all the respectable "savants" refuse to answer about the foundations, it suggests that Sean Carroll or Nina Arkani-Ahmed, for instance, are those who should "speculate" on the edge and try to,discard the unacceptable models.
The process of elimination merged with old falsifiability, informed with deep learning performing algorithms…I am not a blind believer about A.I. potentialities. Congratulations for teaching humanitarianism concepts, from Maxwell passing by Curie, Dirac, Feynman….you know. Gratefulnesses by the privileged listener.,
Cool… Sean inviting some Tim Morton ideas into the convo… i love when physicist bring up philosophers and vice versa
Two great scientists
Can you use quantum entanglement to create instant communications (ftl) between vast distances as long as the 2 communication stations start out together?
2 genius personalities coming together for our beautiful entertainment and learning
Pure
The job of a physicist is to explain the physical world, how planets revolve around their stars and if possible to explain the evolution of conscious beings living in this/these planets. Maldacena conjectures that the whole universe is a self-error correcting QC function, Susskind thinks that the universal design brings order to 'infinite complexity', Lee Smolin thinks fine tuning the parameter space and self-organizing property of matter brings order. If we assume cosmic consciousness' design as divine, what little we know of sure is it was maddeningly successful, human consciousness can comprehend the incomprehensible. But not quite.The algorithm that brings order to infinite complexity is the work of the mind of god and we may never discover it. But we can see how they are entangled. Our universe is so finely tuned, so when we invented cars we found oil underground and when we invented the train we found coal. If that is an accident, then how is it that in the particular phase of 'eternal inflation', we comprehend what is the right time to understand the whole, before it evolves into smithereens or how our planet is protected from cosmic catastrophe of millions of BH moving at great speed, through the Milky Way, yet not one ever came near our solar system, obliterating any chance for us to evolve, in the last 4,5 billion years.
Did I hear Sean take the mane of 'God'?
I admire Mr Carroll's work and have subscribed but this Mr Susskind sounds like a madman, whose every word must be taken seriously, the more so when it has no logic. He sounds like a deranged rabbi who can only quote from the Kabbalah!
i dont know where they get there info from "( they only have QC of a feu qbits ") , considering the pentagon just purchased a 500 qbit DWave QC form google, ??
59:24 "And the other thing that makes you think you're on the right track, is when something that you've been thinking about, turns out the same mathematics, the same sets of principles, turn up in another area…" awesome to hear stuff like that from one of the great theoretical minds I've had the pleasure of listening to. Thanks Drs. Carroll and Susskind,!