Always a pleasure to hear this man speaking, it's soothing. He shows a such intellectual honesty, too little ego for someone with that amount of knowledge .
@Enter the Braggn' I'll take this point by point as this is an hour long lecture: The paradox in particle physics Wallace Thorn hill mentions in the start of his lecture, is real. The problem is that when you try to add together the probabilities of particle interactions in classical particle physics you get infinities and any attempt to deduct outcomes becomes meaningless. This has puzzled particle physics for a century. However with Quantum field theory, there is a workaround as it assumes that the quantum field has limits to its energy levels so the possible number of interactions becomes finite. This solves a lot of problems and is gaining terrain on General Relativity in explaining causality and entropy. It also fits nicely with quantum information theory and quantum thermodynamics as it is pointing at a reality that possibly entirely can be encoded by entanglement of virtual particles. So this classical road block is no longer considered the end of quantum mechanics, which is was in the 60' and 70' The Feynman qoute: "There is no model of Gravity today..." is misused by Wallace in this lecture as he says that it is a confession that there is no real explanation for Gravity today. This quote is however from Richard Feynman's book "The character of the physical law" and taken in context, what Feynman is saying is that it is impossible to get an understanding of Gravity as a law without using math or understanding math. So quite the opposite of Wallaces point! Here's the section from the Google version of the book: books.google.dk/books?id=SJNPDgAAQBAJ&pg=PA39&lpg=PA39&dq=the+character+of+the+physical+law+There+is+no+model+for+the+theory+of+gravity+today,+other+than+the+mathematical+form&source=bl&ots=Va6iTPxquq&sig=jLhfCe-QOtxL5VN1uAs3B75CGgU&hl=da&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiG96qHmKTfAhWRhKYKHU20CkcQ6AEwB3oECGEQAQ#v=onepage&q=the%20character%20of%20the%20physical%20law%20There%20is%20no%20model%20for%20the%20theory%20of%20gravity%20today%2C%20other%20than%20the%20mathematical%20form&f=false I think Wallaces point about mathematics being insufficient to get a "real" understanding, that we can understand is a fallacy, because it goes by the assumption that the Universe has to be made in a way that makes intuitively sense to humans, which is unfounded. I think math in physics assures us that whatever observations we make are not interpreted in contradiction with what we already know, which makes it the all important bookkeeping, without which, it would just be a popularity contest on which theory sounds the most appealing! Higgs: Wallace mixes mass (inertial mass) with gravitational mass! the Higgs Boson is only accredited to inertial mass and leaves Einstein alone not objecting to curving Space time as the source of Gravity. The Higgs Boson is mass carrying virtual particle, it does not exist in our low energy state Universe out in the open but is exchanged as a force, just like the strong nuclear force binding Quarks together in Protons and Neutrons. In a particle accelerator it is possible to kick the Universe hard enough to crystalize out forces as short lived particles, and that was the experiment intended in the LHC. It was not about finding a "Mass particle" every massive objects carry around. Gravity: Gravity is not considered a force in mainstream physics, even if Wallace claims it does. Stuff falling does not experience a force as they free fall. Newtons second law of motion still applies: "An object stays at rest or stays in linear motion until a force acts upon it" It is space that is "falling" towards objects bending straight trajectories into collision courses with the most massive object around! E=MC2: Wallace thinks Einstein says that matter, Mass and the speed of causality (light speed) is the same. I don't know where to start with this: The popular Equation is a shorthand version. The real longer version also accounts for an objects relative motion and thermal energy, which makes the equation perfectly fit with classical physics. Einsteins conclusion is that matter is possibly the same as energy to the Universe and by that makes the physical laws consistent, the speed of light however is the speed of causality, the speed of which things happen which also needs a fixed speed for the books to balance (thing staying in, or out of existence, and the reason you have to supply the energy equivalent of the mass of the chemical bonds in gasoline to your car to make it go) Vacuum as a medium: Wallace objects to the notion of "the Aether" as the medium for conducting light was disproved. Einstein did show that it could not be a physical medium light needed, like sound waves, but did not have the science to come up with a better explanation, so he left it there. This has not stopped science however. Quantum mechanics have had a crack at this for a long time and currently Quantum information theory is trying to come up with numbers for how fast entanglement can propagate information. In other words causality is the clock speed the Universe computer is running, so there is an "Aether" still in physics in that sense. Newton: There is still a problem in physics with celestial dynamics, as Wallace says, when applying General relativity to calculate orbits, by the fact that if Gravity has a speed the formulas get very complicated in General Relativity. However there is nothing that breaks when super computers crunches 3-5 objects interacting gravitationally. We can't just get any further with current computing power. Also in Quantum dynamics Virtual particle interactions and entanglement happens much faster than the speed of light and is to us instantaneous, so it can very well be that light speed is only constant in this part of the universe we can comprehend as mere mortals, but that is the limit of human brains and lab gear and what we consider the physical universe. Big G, the gravitational constant on Earth is tied to Mass on Earth by weight because Earth has a fixed size. Physices does not claim that G is an universal constant so this is a straw man argument. The Ultrasaurus was a fossil discovered in 1979 in Korea and later found out it was a mix of fossils from different dinosaurs. Not a hoax but an error at the dig site. Using a fossil that has been debunked for 40 years as proof that G was lower historically, makes no sense to a physicist! Sun-Moon-Earth tug of war: I thought initially that Wallace understood Newton, but apparently suggesting that the Moon should be pulled into the sun because it exerts twice the force that earth does, is face palming level. If Wallace could be bothered to take Newtons simple formula for gravity and do the numbers 3 times for the Sun-moon, the Moon-Earth and the Sun-Earth respectively, he would discover that the bodies would stay put exactly where they are supposed to be regardless of the orientation of them. Suns composition: Is mostly Hydrogen, but why shouldn't it be layered like any other object? The spectrograms of the Sun only shows Hydrogen and Helium, but everybody knows that light is only emitted from these elements so heavier stuff in the centre would not light up (fuse) at the current core temperature the Sun has. This is not a mystery! I have to stop now, unless this two hour exercise becomes an all Sunday event, but I ask you this. If his argument for the electro magnetic force being fundamental is a 25 minutes of pseudo science introduction, before he even gets to his presumably experimental easily understandable results, He is no better than a flat Earther that says NASA is lying every time provable evidence is presented. Sorry we never got to black holes, which was my original objection to your statement, if he ever mentions it in this lecture. You can point me to a specific video or section of, if we should discuss this specifically. However, I don't think Wallace is going to put up a credible argument. Cheers!
@Enter the Braggn' Excellent, he's not worth anybody's time, it is not a case of of an i'll made video with a camera shy nerdy professor , but intentional fraud.
You just never know what brilliant minds lie behind the eyes of a tradesman. I have learned a lot from folks that can’t spell to save their life but are absolute geniuses in life. Cheers
+White Boar, agreed. If you want to see another outstanding series of videos on YT try the playlist before the big bang by YT content provider SkydivePhil. I think anyone who appreciated this interview will also like that series which includes conversations with such luminaries as Hawkins, Guth, Penrose and many others.
You guys with your hands full of physics books and theories about everything, need to read some poetry before it's too late. But that might mean walking across the campus and remembering when you fell in love for the first time. Oh god, save us from these kind of idiots who listen to Beethoven to find where he went wrong. Talk about black holes.
Thank you for your time and attention to me (the public). Prof. Susskind is one person that I greatly admire and respect in that he has greatly ignited thoughts, concepts and views that have shifted me along my path of life. Again I thank you.
Excellent interview! I highly recommend Professor Susskind's physics lectures on RU-vid. He definitely has a gift for clearly clearly explaining abstract subjects like Quantum Mechanics. Not to forget he is one of the developers of String Theory!
I heard a lecture where he gave an explanation of black holes that I actually understood. It was beautiful, so now he’s my go-to when I need cosmology knowledge.
Great interview! It's not the first time I have enjoyed Professor's Susskind's great art of vulagarisation to fit my own mind, but it was great to get to know this interviewer. Well done!
I adore the interview. Leonard Susskind is a marvellous/ brilliant professor( I saw his lectures) a marvellous / brilliant cientist and a marvellous/inteligent/ wonderful person. I really appreciate him🌷
My favorite "conservative" physics guy! Reminds me of one of my best friend's dad who was a math professor (St. Olaf college) working on string theory... typical eccentric "mad scientist". He was always worked up about some new theory and eager to share it with any passer-by. One of the happy parts of my childhood.
His explanation at 1:02:00 about the value of teaching is the golden nugget in this whole fantastic interview. Someone else described it, "You don't understand something unless you can teach it." Einstein said something similar.
Susskind is a PhD physics friend from Cornell, who went to Stanford and I also did after graduation. Even with comparable education, I still watch all his lectures and still learn much from him. Wonderful educator
He is such a relatable guy. Enjoyed this interview immensely. At the very end he said something that I have completely experienced; that one learns better while teaching.
I am very happy that the RU-vid algorithm insisted and kept showing me this video over and over again. I really wanted to watch it, but whenever I checked RU-vid, I did not have the time to do so. Until now. I am deeply honored to have had this experience. And I ask what sorts of things lead to this very moment, when I am writing this comment right now. Also ask yoursevelves, why are you reading it... I have so many things I wish to write here, but I will not do so. Let me end just with one statement. I am thankful, humble and sort of honored to have had this experience. Thank you. Best wishes, Erik.
I haven't seen any Lenard videos in a couple of years. I explained his holographic principle to a guy in a bar in Amsterdam on saturday. I was drunk and pretty amazed that I was able to explain it so clearly, which is a testament to Leonard, as I learnt from him and the way that he makes it so simple to understand.
I'd give my life's work to boost the confidence and spirit of all these brilliant physicists that I watch and listen to day in and day out just to have a chance at changing the way this goes
What a great relaxed and interesting interview. RU-vid interviews like this are turning the general public on to science. Popular culture needs more interesting intelligent people like this and less mind numbing rubbish, to enrich the lives of our children.
@ 1:44 Prof Susskind meant "When you've eliminated the impossible, whatever is left no matter how improbable, must be the truth." *Yet the Electric Universe remains as possible evidence not eliminated nor improbable while in a very stable applicable form*
@38:14 I think the main point that you are trying to get at is that the universe is ultimately governed by 0's and 1's. Which is true to an extent, if you want to use electromagnetism as the basis of reality (it's pretty easy to sub 0 for - and 1 for + or vice versa).
I'm NOT a scientist - only a fan - and still I enjoyed this very much. Only the smartest people have the ability to explain something stupendously difficult in an easy matter we all somehow can understand. What a great guy. Thx a lot!!
I held on for as long as I could and after that I just enjoyed the interaction tuning in and out when I heard a word or concept I am familiar with. Will be saving to revisit as my mind grows🤗
Lenny's books and videos , now , actually help those of us ,( like his Father's friends) ,to know about real science that Lenny has studied .He is helping the next generation of 'part-time thinkers' to separate fake science from real science.Thats the next best thing to going back in time and teaching his Father's Friends.
It was Morland Holmes who said that: «When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth». It was a favorite quote of both Sherlock and Mycroft Holmes.
One of my professors published a paper with him at this time, and it's going to be a very long time before another 80 year old retains his/her physics abilities like Susskind. I'm a topologists (awesone field, BTW) with a lonhg break in research, and Susskind was one of 2 people , (Joan Birman, the other) who inspired me to go back to school and get a theoretical physics PhD at 43. I believe I'm still young enough to have a more prolific career in TP. I know it's never too late study what you love, but to still pay the bills with it is another thing.
Got it. In the meantime we have a few other physics episodes you might like: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-1D2j8nTjOZ4.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-o3hHO3S8Unk.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-0jrybODBUpA.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-LHZKDTJJknE.html
He's radical because he's a clear thinker. Logic is a very narrow path in the dark most of us can't even find, but he dances on it. I always admired him for that reason, and also for his humanity.
Dr Susskind fits nicely in the position of innovator on Everett Rogers' Diffusion of Innovations graph. But also within the Early Adopter section when it comes to other scientific proposals of merit.
Nice interview indeed. You found the perfect spots to jump in, drill deeper or steer to new directions. I only wish you had stayed a bit longer on the holographic principle and force him to explain it a little bit deeper. The radio format was good because it forced him to rely on only his words. Give him a blackboard and I won't be able to follow. :-)
31:07 "If you really, really wanted to know, and you were willing to spend 3-4 days talking about it with me"... Can you imagine anyone NOT willing to take up that offer?? That was a very entertaining chat, a perfect example of technology being used to a good end.
Dear Lenny Susskind, once referred to as the "bad boy" of physics . . . except he isn't :o) His Stanford lectures are utterly compelling and he is a complete star for all the right reasons.
Mr Susskind. Consider this: This universe is at the other end of a massive black hole surrounded by its inverted event horizon and shining down into a dark space with the dream of life in an infinite universe. And we, who are inside this shining image wonder about what this life and universe are all about. But we are just beams of light, just as everything else around us, just like existing inside a movie being played inside a theatre. There are numerous parallels to this concept and actually help to explain many of the things that we, as conscious beings, cannot seem to figure out about our lives and this universe we exist inside of. But it’s seems to real, as the movie has captivated us and sparked our emotions and imaginations. Food for thought. And I hope we meet in the lobby afterwards as i would love to invite you out for dinner to discuss the movie, entitled Life in the Universe.
50:34 Didn't Stephen Hawking once say that there are tiny Einstein-Rosen bridge(s) all around us. Maybe ERBs are the link and as it relates to the holographic principle. They are the mechanism via which information is transferred.
