Join my new Substack!Follow my personal writings and EARLY ACCESS episodes here: curtjaimungal.substack.com SPONSOR (THE ECONOMIST): As a listener of TOE you can get a special 20% off discount to The Economist and all it has to offer! Visit www.economist.com/toe
Is inflation of meter space fundamental energy conservation when meter space can be of differential length? Remember, E=hf outputs lesser energy extent in contracted meter spaces comparatively to a expanded meter space, it will red shift when traverse to a non-length contracted reference frame. Therefore inflation is wrong, you must divide energy lengths in order to multiple the number of meter units, this is how our universe works (observationally proven) consensus doesn't matter when you have the right answer, inflation is wrong and not a valid physical theory. Inflation violates energy conservation and observable reality, because it's not a thermodynamic space model, it's a meter space model.
There comes a time to get back down to the fundamentals of the problems... If we have root mathematical problems then we must start there... X²*X²*X²*•••♾️ < X³ if we truly understand the logical progression of the spatial dimensions then this equation should ring correct in a logical universe.
(35:05) Excellent move in calling him out there. Just because the positive integer group is infinite, it does not mean it can contain any number in it. It can still be infinite, but will only show an infinite variation of itself.
It's rare that I am so touched by a UA-cam video. Bravo Curt for so respectfully and skillfully drawing out what felt like a confession without succumbing to the temptation to embarrass this wonderful, gentle genius. I think in the future it will be considered a turning point in the search for a theory of everything. Thanks to both of you.
Susskind was the one who introduced me to physics through the Stanford UA-cam lectures. Always really enjoyed his very precise and honest takes on things
He also introduced me to quantum physics. Even then I found him evasive and opaque. His dismissal of other physicists speaks loads about his closeness to other ideas but his own. There's a reason no one is working on follow ups of his world views.
Every interview Kurt does he is prepared to the point that he catches the majority of his new guests that domt know him off guard so to speak. Kurt is able to communicate and ask questions in such a manner not to bruise egos and he truly listens. You are very inspiring Kurt.
I have followed Dr. Susskind’s work as a layperson on and off for 30 years by reading his books and watching publicly available lectures. He has wowed me on more than one occasion and this even motivated me to write equations in notebooks to help me understand better (I have 7 notebooks full of tiny scratchings now). I’ve been having a bit of a challenging life lately, you know…getting old, but feel immensely fortunate to live in a time where I am able to sit down with a tablet in my hands and watch a discussion such as this. Maybe these acknowledgments have been a long time coming and so I hope I live long enough to be able to learn what’s coming next in physics.
You did a good job sticking up to Lenny's "consensus" b.s. You could do that only because you really know your stuff, and because you're courageous. Bravo, man!
I've learned Einstein relativity with his Stanford course some 10years ago , it totally blew my mind back then so its very special for me to hear him here . thank you v. much Curt!
I'm absolutely in awe, (as layperson with an undergraduate Physics background) at what an incredible interview this was. Certainly many of the Theoretical details eluded me, but I was compelled to watch to the end. The masterful understanding of these complexities by CJ and his very skilled and sensitive interaction with Prof. Suskind made this a masterpiece of dialogue. I've often fantasized what it might be like to interview a great Scientific mind. In my case Einstein ;) Well, that's a thought experiment that never results in the sublime display of mutual respect and understanding exhibited here. Congratulations to Curt and kudos to Prof. Suskind for a memorable moment in history and an interview clearly among peers.
in awe of a huckster (Suskind)? I guess so. But I mean even though it's a towering achievment in fraud, relatively speaking it pales in comparison to other, more elegant examples. He put forth all this constrained effort in mathematical sophism to defraud the public treasury. But look at all the other ways that's happened (gender studies etc). They got the same result -- personal enrichment, fame, basically lifetime appointment no-work jobs (mafia-esque) --- WITHOUT much effort put forth on their part. So this guy isn't even gifted in the arena of fraud and chicanery.
I'm watching Leonard Susskind's great Stanford lectures on fundamental physics while Curt uploads him discussing the frontiers of fundamental physics, nice ❤
Such an unmasking moment for the Prof. "It's time for some new" sounds way different after he adds "how it should be a more general string theory" "We need new ideas" "How about these?" "Oh no people believe so much crazy stuff"
Yes when I heard Susskind say that I wondered if he really believed it. On the surface it is a somewhat reasonable statement but we all know it has been proven false over and over.
Spot on. Raised an eyebrow the way he says "we need something new" and then when Curt asked him about 4+ theories, Prof. wasn't interested and looked a bit arrogant. The "new" portion according to him, is just generalization of s(S)tring theory.
@@katgod by the end of the interview, you could tell that no, he doesn’t. He was willing to admit that his field is often too dismissive of new ideas. He still hasn’t seen anything compelling in the alternatives. I think that view is more than fair.
Susskind introduced me to the proof that if you add a photon to a black hole the surface area of the black hole increases by one square Planck unit. This invites a lot of thought from my perspective.
The situation is, in fact, far worse than what Susskind is describing. Strictly speaking, String Theory has never even been a theory per se. It has not produced a single prediction that has been, or could be, experimentally verified; in fact so far much to the contrary. Everywhere we’ve looked we’ve not found any evidence of supersymmetry., and many of its assumptions and requirements are totally contrary to the nature of our Universe. Furthermore, as an unfalsifiable idea it technically does not even amount to a scientific endeavor. String ‘Theory’ as it stands today is in fact little more than a philosophical reverie in mathematical form. Sadly, it has destroyed the careers of many a young talented physicists who have been chasing after a wet dream.
lol wet dream. I totally agree, I was proud of Lenny for a moment for FINALLY conceding but it's such a fake pronouncement if you're just gonna say it's failed.... "so far" and we just gotta keep at it. very disappointed
I've always loved how well Leonard is able to explain complicated ideas, in a clear careful way at a pace, that even simple people like myself are able to understand.
In the end, I believe physics is going to be the study of the origination of thought. Keep being fearless Curt. Your literacy in the arbitrary mathematics of modern physics, your hopefully strong connection with actual reality, and this fearlessness might bring about some actual truth.
I love Susskind, his talent&love&effort for physiscs. The moment empty space is understood the vacum catastrofe is solved, for now its not! Meaning physics has a misunderstanding, a lack of conceptual perspective on the matter.
Fun to watch 2 highly educated people (Penrose and Susskind) have such an opposing view when both are in pursuit of the same answer. Incredible to watch unfold.
And Anton Zeilinger gets a NOBEL PRICE for proving "entanglement is correct"? Is there something wrong with our physicists, Dr. Suskind. I just love your opposition to this.
I would love to see you pursue the question about inflation further. One of your prior guests made a fine tuning argument against inflation. Basically saying yes, we have a lot of evidence showing our fine tuned inflation models matches observations, but we lack evidence for the core theoretical framework or why any of the parameters should be tuned the way they are. In this interview, the point was countered saying there is quite compelling evidence for inflation, no mention of whether that’s the theoretical framework or a fine tuned model built with the framework. Which one is it? What is the observational evidence, if any, do we have supporting inflation as a framework independent from the chosen parameters? I would love to hear an expert of inflation answer this question.
Dear Leonard Susskind, I loved hearing those words spoken at the opening of the video. I wish they could have been spoken out loud years and years ago. Edit: at around 48:00 there comes Columbus and flat earth. Is that American modern folklore? People knew since ancient times the Earth was round. Columbus just believed the Earth was smaller and the fall of the (Eastern) Roman Empire made trade along the silk route rather, so he thought he could cut corners. Basically calling people flat earthers is just throwing insults.
@@FrancisFjordCupola too bad he completely negates it later, associating Penrose with flatters, ignoring or despising alternate theories and advocating for more general string theories. He only supports 'new' if it builds somehow on his work
If QM is the ultimate true explanation of all-reality, then we are all just a temporary illusory manifestation of a superposition of probabilities. Here momentarily in the vast expanse of space-time which itself is a temporary manifestation of all probabilities, and then simply gone.
I think history will remember Lenny as a great science communicator who actually worked in the field, and had some interesting but wrong ideas. No harm in that.
As I said, nothing wrong in that. He actually did try. I just wish he, as one of the String Theory founders, would say it’s time to try something else-not a generalized version of the basic hypothesis.
A Thomas Kuhn moment. Hold onto your hats. It's going to be a bumpy ride. We will see the politics of science. How are funding panels going to act? Will young string theorists achieve tenure? Is it any coincidence that Perimeter is not in the US?
I really wasn't expecting Suskind to apeal to consensus, that only made me even more suspicious about inflation. He started talking about flat earthers all of a sudden, as a comparison, I think it was very disrespectfull to Penrose.
You should hear virologists yelling at each other. Scientists don't often have pissing contests about personalities. They are fighting over ideas and the rhetoric can sound very aggressive to laypeople. I wouldn't get too worried, they might even be great friends despite the argument.
Hello fellow nerds. The universe can be calculated with simple mathematics like algebra and calculus.Some physicists complex math is beautiful and they are just the ones who understand it. Everyone just believes a complex universe needs complex mathematics in fact a universe is just as simple as it is, it's just we are the ones who make it complicated. String theory does really fail as it can't be falsified which differs from science, actually it is not science. And also if you want to find the reconciliation of QM and Gravity you need to have a new model of gravity. Einstein's spacetime curvature really passes test after test which is really successful in its field but still has its own limit. As a skeptical person we really don't observe or have direct evidence of spacetime which is the fabric itself. Yes, we see the effect like gravitational lensing but there are many ways or models to fit in that data and who the f*ck combined the separate space and time.
I started studying string theory. I came to the point where they used the sum of all integers to be -1/12 and this was used subsequently. I quit studying it. Mathematical mapping of one space into a different lower space may be possible, but it is just a mathematical mapping. It seems it is better to stick with the three+one space to reformulate. 😂😂
String theory with a capital S = a rigorous mathematical construct with a supersymmetry framework sitting in an unprovable non-reality which is irrelevant to the everyday present expanding deSitter space-time that we all live in.
We’ve known that for a long time, the original string theory collapsed and they tried to fix it via more complex mathematics. It’s great to hear one of the founders of super string theory admit it. We’ve not answered the fundamental conflicts from the origins of QM.
Good to hear a candid conversation about the state of string theory from one of its founding fathers. Speaking of his point (that he is not aware of anyone from the next generation working on a better theory generalizing string theory to describe reality better) - here is one such theory from someone from the industry - however based on sound mathematical principles ( aka our 5 Riemann hypothesis proofs driven CPT(α,Φ) function as the foundation). Turns out, our TOE has generalized holographic principle using an q-analog/Langsland program style EPR=ER dualities -which at its root, happens to stem from the DUALITY existing between the “α governed quantum universe“ and “Φ governed classical universe”! And if I may explain it by explaining how classical reality emerges or gets birthed from quantum reality using our theory Simply put -- Our CPT(α,Φ) function( aka RH meta proof) is the measurement scale used by the universe to regulate/correlate the DUALITY existing between the “α governed quantum universe“ and “Φ governed classical universe”, by birthing the space-time of latter from the former again & again, using 5 HIGH-BARS, set by Wightman-Osterwalder-Schrader (the ultimate golden QFT yardstick, see below and visual exhibit in this link(lnkd.in/gyx9yRXf). This is where we have predicted that our universe has maximum of 68 particles (68MP + 68AMP + 1 Higgs) residing in the “α governed quantum universe“ - however only a subset interacts with Higgs and emerge as “Φ governed classical universe” by each particle popping up one at a time and yet giving us a feeling of notion like the idea of Muybridge’s horse in motion type of classical reality! This is where We have hypothesized that the model has three key spectrums 1. Classical reality with visible Higgs wrapped mass and light with time like progression in de sitter space 2. The gravitational contracting spectrum mapped to dark matter space like progression in anti de-sitter space 3. The gravitational expanding spectrum mapped to dark energy Similarly for now, our hypothesis is that dark matter may not have a Higgs wrapper like classical particles until so called axion is confirmed experimentally This is where our additional hypothesis is that black hole perhaps is just dark matter only without any classical particles Similarly for now, our hypothesis is that dark energy may or may not have a Higgs wrapper like classical particles.However it will definitely have quantum energy layer as with a halo So the event horizon is just gravitationally lensed light spinning around black hole as a halo This brings us to our TOE as I had alluded in another comment For example we visualize this Higgs field as a thin sandwiched field layer between quantum universe and classical universe acting as the embroidery machine creating the classical reality using Higgs field acting as the perturbed thread (and mass as the knot of the perturbed thread piecing through the Higgsified one at a time For example, under our theory classical reality emerges or gets birthed from quantum reality using our CPT(α,Φ) function( aka Riemann hypothesis meta proof the foundation of our theory ) - meaning - this CPT(α,Φ) function is the measurement scale used by the universe to regulate/correlate the DUALITY existing between the “α governed quantum universe“ and “Φ governed classical universe”, by birthing the space-time of latter from the former again & again, using 5 axiomatic HIGH-BARS, set by Wightman-Osterwalder-Schrader (the ultimate golden yardstick of QFT, see below and visual exhibit). Similarly Space and time are expressions of the same quantum reality, however shaped by the properties and interactions of particles with the Higgs Field and this interaction is what gives raise to the idea of Muybridge’s horse in motion type of classical reality! In other words, motion of a ball in classical standpoint is just sum of all the motions of all poincare irreducible points of the ball (as Infinitesimal is just a limit of all possible finite sizes only), in such a way that gauge gravity can emerge by orbiting smoothly like the frames of Muybridge’s Horse in Motion (using our Riemann hypothesis proof and hodge conjecture proofs as explained below) Similarly under our theory Mass arises from Yukawa couplings between particles and the Higgs Field’s vacuum expectation value (VEV) as well - however in addition this mass is driven by our 5 AITGE ( Action, Inertia , Time, Gravity, Entropy) formulas (see exhibit) whereas gravity emerges from perturbations in the Higgs Field as well - however it is caused by the 5 AITGE ( Action, Inertia , Time, Gravity, Entropy) formulas (see exhibit) driven embroidery machine process Likewise, under our theory we have two Entropies - classical entropy ( going from disorder to order) and quantum entropy ( order to disorder ). However only classical entropy iis interpreted through the lens of the Higgs Field by the 5 AITGE ( Action, Inertia , Time, Gravity, Entropy) formulas (see exhibit) This brings us to our integrated program proposal to integrate the best ideas from all theories under one umbrella -- continued below
While every theory has some good features, one of the reasons we have not solved this #1 TOE problem faced by humanity for 100+ years is following in my humble opinion For example, as much as I agree with the Professor that some communities of string theory do follow a mix of top-down and bottom-up approaches, however, at the program level, most don't follow a “true top down" strategic blueprint/roadmap driven problem solving approach ( that is common in the business/industry/tech/math world)! The outcome is that most in the communities try to solve only one sub-problem at a time ( say quantum gravity or QED or QCD or Ads/CFT duality etc) with a hope TOE will emerge from it The best approach is top down blueprint/roadmap driven approach This brings me to our proposal to integrate the best in class ideas from all the leading theories (including our theory) under one umbrella For example, if I may build my case using the 3 duality comments towards the end of the presentation..... As impressive as the Ads/CFT duality correspondence idea is, it is still a toy model correspondence only. This is where our research suggests that the root of this duality comes from the “q-analog duality mystery” -- which at its root, happens to stem from the DUALITY existing between the “α governed quantum universe“ and “Φ governed classical universe” using our CPT function, the foundational measuring scale of our universe For example, if I may prove it by summarizing first the gist of this so called “q-analog philosophy/mystery” The natural number realm of n is nothing but a limited case scenario of a geometric q series (aka when lim of q->1) n lim (1+ q+q^2+ ….+ q^n-1) =n q->1 This is where we have solved this mystery using the following axiomatic mapping, which in part is derived using the 5 Wightman-Osterwalder-Schrader axioms of our i-TOE(the ultimate golden axiomatic yardstick, see exhibit). The philosophical realm of q-analog i-TOE’s non-Gaussian random physical field of QVF, represented by the Banach space
The philosophical realm of natural numbers "n" i-TOE’s Gaussian free field, represented by the Haag complaint Hilbert space In other words, this idea of mathematically limiting the q-analog realm (to 1) to derive the realm of natural numbers "n", is physically equivalent to our CPT(α,Φ function limiting the non-Gaussian random field of QVF (represented by the Banach space) to derive the Gaussian free field (represented by the Haag complaint Hilbert space). This precisely why, we have also conjectured that this is the very same limiting mechanism that slices “n” further into 137 prime slices, using our 2nd Riemann hypothesis proof (lnkd.in/gy7XnNvs) as follows as well α = (n-∑ln(Pn)) / π(n) In other words, α is the one that regulates the density of primes within any n (by slicing it into 1/α slices), very similar to how α-slices/limits Riemann zeta function by converging it into the unit circle (using modular forms logic of our 5th RH proof) as 1/α concentric 1/α radius gapped dipoles of our i-ToE. This way everything fits together beautifully end-to-end! This brings us to our our approach follows the top down TOE as explained in this MUST READ summary article (lnkd.in/gyx9yRXf with links to 10+ such articles/papers that are in pre-print), especially for those who want to understand the breadth and depth of our "first of its kind" work integrating 15+ science and business disciplines under one framework, with a noble goal of growing the productivity and sustainability of both people and planet with a quantum leap! For example, when I say our approach is top down, I mean starting from visible nature as we see visible signs of nature displaying golden ratio (Φ) everywhere including in our body symmetry Now when we probe golden ratio (Φ) philosophically, both α and Φ are the two sides of the same coin rolled by nature to run this universe Similarly when we probe golden ratio (Φ) mathematically, golden ratio (Φ) is the classical q-analog duality of q-quantum duality of α, in the sense they are two sides of the sand coin or dice called CPT(α,Φ) function, the meta proof function of Riemann hypothesis In other words, this foundational DUALITY existing between quantum and classical universes is what manifests as a discipline specific duality symmetry everywhere including in every discipline, including the q-analog dualities of Langlands program. The next reason why we are confident that our path is the best bet path is because CPT(α,Φ) has already solved Riemann Hypothesis using 5 proofs including all $5MM+ unsolved problems of Clay Institute In other words, for any TOE path to become a final TOE, it must be anchored on this Riemann Hypothesis proof (aka FSC/golden ratio governed CPT(α,Φ) function mechanism end to end in one form or the other)! This doesn't mean we have all the answers, rather my point is that ours is the best strategic path For example, we have already integrated Ads/CFT duality of string theory with our CPT(α,Φ) function mechanism as explained above. This is why, we have also built a "Langlands program style business case for our i-TOE/SOE/ESG program“, with a hope that it will inspire the experts to collaborate with us to form it as a superset program, by incorporating all theories like string, LQG etc including Langlands program and other such programs/theories within it(lnkd.in/gyx9yRXf). Welcome complementary POVs
lol. After decades of insiting that string theory is the only game in town, Susskind finally admits that he was wrong. And just when you think he has come off of his high horse, he compares Roger Penrose to a flat earther for disagreeing with him. And he is suprised that young people are now unwilling to work on something that goes against string theory orthodoxy, after having spent decades destroying the careers of people who did exactly that.
1:34:51 around this bit, you can hear an older man knowing his faults after reflecting back on life. Do listen to that bit, who ever reads the above comment and is discouraged
One point I’d make about the landscape. In the standard model there are an infinite number of solutions corresponding to the 19 free parameters (at least ignoring neutrinos). In string theory there are no adjustable free parameters, but more than 10^500 possible discrete configurations which emerge from the theory. This in my opinion is an improvement not a flaw.
Re: entropy, I like the Shannon formulation best, being the minimum encoding. Art of the Problem is a good channel that has the reading I find most compelling. The entropy is a property of a PDF of some RV in this sense, that tells us how unpredictable it is. That seems to do a good job explaining the Shannon and Boltzmann entropies, the KL-Divergence and mutual information, just by dint of what is being predicted with what imo. I've never felt that this concept was challenged drastically tbh.
It’s awesome you stood up against Leonard when he generalized the consensus of people believing in inflation. He surprised me with the disrespect he has for such a renowned physicist like Penrose.
Penrose had the intelligence, intuition, foresight and common sense to realise, decades ago, when he learned about the ballooning dimensions needed, that string theory was a dead end as a path to construct an accurate theory of our physical world. Susskind told Penrose that he was "misguided". But now he is basically saying what Penrose said back then. He should have listened to Penrose more carefully before calling him "misguided". Susskind didn't, and wasted his entire life on this bs. Granted though, it put food on his table. Like it did for all the other string theorists, draining resources into this area of research, since the 1980s.
@@cwcarsonThat podcast is unbearable 😂 I keep trying to watch it because I love some of his guests but he asks the worst questions... I like that Curt understands enough about the field to really probe into what the guests are saying formally. Guess you could say he has experience probing fields
The absence of supersymmetry is precisely why it is the only model that describes a duality through mirror symmetry of pairing of positron and electron generation out of the vacuum of space. The He-Bec isotropic singularity model offers a solution to SUSY INVERSION where the beginning of time is observed through a lens of a Bose Einstein condensate Singularity.
Do you think you'd be able to get Gerard t' Hooft on to talk about his deterministic approach to QM, or possibly Sabine Hossenfelder to talk about deterministic approaches to interpreting Bell test results in general?
One does need a job for example to sustain their rock and roll life style but after that his advice to pursue your curiosity is spot on. My only regret at 60 is not doing this enough.
The liklihood that someone appeals to a consensus view to justify their position seems to be directly proportional to how far remived they were from the consensus byilding process. As someone who's had a background in Astrophysics and cosmology, its always surprising how much surer people outside the field appear to think the "consensus" is.
5:50 It’s because you need brilliant people to spend a decade thinking about it with uncertain chances of success, not publishing much while doing so. Can’t do that without starving.
If Susskind is looking for new departures and ideas for fundamental physics, he should look at "Lagrangian Multiform Theory". This is not only a departure from current physical theories, but an entire overhaul of the principle of least action. It is different from any other variational theory, in that it has the possibility, not only to derive equations of motion from a given Lagrangian ("a theory" in physics jargon) but to predict the Lagrangians themselves: they are no longer input (on the basis of e.g. symmetry considerations) but they are the solutions of an extended set of Euler-Lagrange equations. So to keep with the jargon: it is a theory of theories.
I would link your videos, but the truth is that I only have a surface understanding of these fascinating topics, nor do I know anyone in my circle who could, or perhaps would desire to know these things.
I am surprised that Dr. Susskind has not heard of Eric Weinstein. What he says makes me wonder if we are living in some sort of sandbox. Anyway, this is a lovely conversation. Leonard Susskind is one of my favourites.
Eric is known to anyone on the internet in this space, but for better or for worse almost nobody in academia knows who he is, and those that do think he’s a grifter.
It sounded more like a not-so-polite way of refusing to acknowledge Mr Weinstein, who very vocally called out Mr Susskind’s for being a dick, basically.
do you pay your guests ? im asking because they dont seem too eager to answer many things.. yet they like to go on your show.. even people that dont attend many podcasts like Chomsky or Susskind... yet you only have 380K subs.. so makes me wonder.. whats their incentive to be on your show ...
Entropy can also be thought of in reverse, by saying states decay to higher entropy statea most of the time. And this can be a statement involving no stochasticity, no counting at all, just prooerties of variables that evolve deterministically, in terms of what happens to them under small substitutions. This is also a measure of number of states oer macro states in a way, because a very small change doesn't change the macro state in most cases for high entropy states, but for very low entropy states it tends to produce larger changes. This is more about continous changes though. For example a double pendulum has some stable configuration, and it is the case that very small disturbances can knock them back into chaos, same thing with 3 body problems. And so on, and there is no real counting of microstates there, other than volumes of orbits on an attractor.
You said not to mention my theory of everything so I will not. My name is Scott S Gordon. Ready to be taken up on Leonard Susskind's offer to hear new ideas. I'll be giving Two presentations at the March 2025 APS meeting. You and Leonard may be interested in checking them out. They are entitled "Matt Strassler's impossible sea is possible" and how and why the Higgs field has the shape of a sombrero. Wishing you well!
I think we're in trouble if people like Leonard are in charge of science. What struck me here is that he refused to answer question about his passion on the grounds that he is not a psychologist, if you think about this for a moment it's very narrow minded attitude.
The super-symmetry of string theory is essentially explaining neutrality or the state of nothingness; the so-called destructive interference that lies at the heart of combining two opposing states. The challenge with that is Everything united leads to No-"thing"; everything comes to rest. In other words, super-symmetry is unprovable by default. So, it doesn't mean that string theory (or at least super-symmetry) is incorrect, its just unattainable. I personally wouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Just my two cents.
Re: theories by definition cannot answer questions outside their framework, Susskind wants theories to have stricter reformulations, but a ToE is obviously going to need to have a way to talk about everything that exists. One might compromise: we could reformulate a theory should we encounter _observables_ the theory finds meaningless. The empirical world is then the master the theoretic reformulation bends toward. That sounds suitably scientific...
Join my new Substack!Follow my personal writings and EARLY ACCESS episodes here: curtjaimungal.substack.com
SPONSOR (THE ECONOMIST): As a listener of TOE you can get a special 20% off discount to The Economist and all it has to offer! Visit www.economist.com/toe
Please interview John Smith...
Is inflation of meter space fundamental energy conservation when meter space can be of differential length? Remember, E=hf outputs lesser energy extent in contracted meter spaces comparatively to a expanded meter space, it will red shift when traverse to a non-length contracted reference frame. Therefore inflation is wrong, you must divide energy lengths in order to multiple the number of meter units, this is how our universe works (observationally proven) consensus doesn't matter when you have the right answer, inflation is wrong and not a valid physical theory. Inflation violates energy conservation and observable reality, because it's not a thermodynamic space model, it's a meter space model.
There comes a time to get back down to the fundamentals of the problems... If we have root mathematical problems then we must start there... X²*X²*X²*•••♾️ < X³ if we truly understand the logical progression of the spatial dimensions then this equation should ring correct in a logical universe.
Yes@@mitsaoriginal8630
(35:05) Excellent move in calling him out there. Just because the positive integer group is infinite, it does not mean it can contain any number in it. It can still be infinite, but will only show an infinite variation of itself.
It's rare that I am so touched by a UA-cam video. Bravo Curt for so respectfully and skillfully drawing out what felt like a confession without succumbing to the temptation to embarrass this wonderful, gentle genius. I think in the future it will be considered a turning point in the search for a theory of everything. Thanks to both of you.
Susskind was the one who introduced me to physics through the Stanford UA-cam lectures. Always really enjoyed his very precise and honest takes on things
He also introduced me to quantum physics. Even then I found him evasive and opaque. His dismissal of other physicists speaks loads about his closeness to other ideas but his own. There's a reason no one is working on follow ups of his world views.
Outstanding lectures!
@@pandabearguy1 Me too.
@@mr_io Hmm.. I found him to be sceptic about anything that's not certain, including his own theories. I find that important and good.
Yes! Me too. I started listening to them to fall asleep, but they were so interesting that it kept me awake.
Every interview Kurt does he is prepared to the point that he catches the majority of his new guests that domt know him off guard so to speak.
Kurt is able to communicate and ask questions in such a manner not to bruise egos and he truly listens.
You are very inspiring Kurt.
I have followed Dr. Susskind’s work as a layperson on and off for 30 years by reading his books and watching publicly available lectures. He has wowed me on more than one occasion and this even motivated me to write equations in notebooks to help me understand better (I have 7 notebooks full of tiny scratchings now). I’ve been having a bit of a challenging life lately, you know…getting old, but feel immensely fortunate to live in a time where I am able to sit down with a tablet in my hands and watch a discussion such as this. Maybe these acknowledgments have been a long time coming and so I hope I live long enough to be able to learn what’s coming next in physics.
You did a good job sticking up to Lenny's "consensus" b.s. You could do that only because you really know your stuff, and because you're courageous. Bravo, man!
I've learned Einstein relativity with his Stanford course some 10years ago , it totally blew my mind back then so its very special for me to hear him here . thank you v. much Curt!
> I've learned Einstein relativity with his Stanford course some 10years ago
Really??? That's remarkable. Einstein's been dead since 1955.
❤
@@jgrab1 You could too if you look at his lectures on the Stanford University channel.
Finally someone within the field had the courage to say it.
Over the last few years, it’s become one of the most talked about aspects of science.
@@FigmentHF Yes but not someone as Leonard Susskind. The other ones would be Witten or Maldacena.
Courage?? He is fucking old, out of it all.
Courage?? He is fucking old, out of it all.
lol great joke
I'm absolutely in awe, (as layperson with an undergraduate Physics background) at what an incredible interview this was. Certainly many of the Theoretical details eluded me, but I was compelled to watch to the end. The masterful understanding of these complexities by CJ and his very skilled and sensitive interaction with Prof. Suskind made this a masterpiece of dialogue. I've often fantasized what it might be like to interview a great Scientific mind. In my case Einstein ;) Well, that's a thought experiment that never results in the sublime display of mutual respect and understanding exhibited here. Congratulations to Curt and kudos to Prof. Suskind for a memorable moment in history and an interview clearly among peers.
in awe of a huckster (Suskind)? I guess so. But I mean even though it's a towering achievment in fraud, relatively speaking it pales in comparison to other, more elegant examples. He put forth all this constrained effort in mathematical sophism to defraud the public treasury. But look at all the other ways that's happened (gender studies etc). They got the same result -- personal enrichment, fame, basically lifetime appointment no-work jobs (mafia-esque) --- WITHOUT much effort put forth on their part. So this guy isn't even gifted in the arena of fraud and chicanery.
I'm watching Leonard Susskind's great Stanford lectures on fundamental physics while Curt uploads him discussing the frontiers of fundamental physics, nice ❤
Simply amazing-as always great work Curt. I took his QM class decades ago-an amazing teacher-would not be teaching at Johns Hopkins without him
👍 Leonard Susskind on the show, fantastic. Not a String Theory fan myself but he is great to listen to and an amazing explainer of physics theories.
Great interview as usual. Thank you for pushing back on the “counter-consensus is probably wrong” argument.
Such an unmasking moment for the Prof.
"It's time for some new" sounds way different after he adds "how it should be a more general string theory"
"We need new ideas"
"How about these?"
"Oh no people believe so much crazy stuff"
Yes when I heard Susskind say that I wondered if he really believed it. On the surface it is a somewhat reasonable statement but we all know it has been proven false over and over.
Spot on. Raised an eyebrow the way he says "we need something new" and then when Curt asked him about 4+ theories, Prof. wasn't interested and looked a bit arrogant.
The "new" portion according to him, is just generalization of s(S)tring theory.
@@katgod by the end of the interview, you could tell that no, he doesn’t. He was willing to admit that his field is often too dismissive of new ideas. He still hasn’t seen anything compelling in the alternatives. I think that view is more than fair.
Thank you, Dr. Susskind for teaching me soooooo much over the years on youtube. Truly priceless!
Amazing work once again Curt. Excited to watch the entire episode. Thank you both 🙏🏼
Susskind introduced me to the proof that if you add a photon to a black hole the surface area of the black hole increases by one square Planck unit. This invites a lot of thought from my perspective.
Can you cite a link? I'm fascinated!
Yes the Area Entropy proportionality law
What else could it increase by?
Leonard Susskind you're a very brave man. I salute you.
The situation is, in fact, far worse than what Susskind is describing. Strictly speaking, String Theory has never even been a theory per se. It has not produced a single prediction that has been, or could be, experimentally verified; in fact so far much to the contrary. Everywhere we’ve looked we’ve not found any evidence of supersymmetry., and many of its assumptions and requirements are totally contrary to the nature of our Universe. Furthermore, as an unfalsifiable idea it technically does not even amount to a scientific endeavor. String ‘Theory’ as it stands today is in fact little more than a philosophical reverie in mathematical form. Sadly, it has destroyed the careers of many a young talented physicists who have been chasing after a wet dream.
@@NothingMaster the silence after LHC didn't find the susi particles, do you remember?
lol wet dream. I totally agree, I was proud of Lenny for a moment for FINALLY conceding but it's such a fake pronouncement if you're just gonna say it's failed.... "so far" and we just gotta keep at it. very disappointed
I've always loved how well Leonard is able to explain complicated ideas, in a clear careful way at a pace, that even simple people like myself are able to understand.
THIS SHOULD GO VIRAL!! Thank god i am shifting to Condensed matter now
So many egos, so little time
Yes you pinned it
@@tap-a-dat961 Great observation
@@tap-a-dat961 😂
String theorists have to concede that so far, M theory is just fancy mathematics but not a real provable description of the world.
I have courage, but I'm Leonard's age without his brilliance, so I'll never understand the world I'm in. Thank you for this interview.
It's ok, he doesn't understand either. Nobody does
This brings me so much joy to hear!
In the end, I believe physics is going to be the study of the origination of thought. Keep being fearless Curt. Your literacy in the arbitrary mathematics of modern physics, your hopefully strong connection with actual reality, and this fearlessness might bring about some actual truth.
.."creo que la física será el estudio del origen del pensamiento"..❤❤❤
I love Susskind, his talent&love&effort for physiscs.
The moment empty space is understood the vacum catastrofe is solved, for now its not! Meaning physics has a misunderstanding, a lack of conceptual perspective on the matter.
subscribed and respected for defending Sir Roger Penrose.
Fun to watch 2 highly educated people (Penrose and Susskind) have such an opposing view when both are in pursuit of the same answer. Incredible to watch unfold.
Highly entertaining and refreshingly candid. Solid scientific attitude. High tempered at times. Lov' it.
And Anton Zeilinger gets a NOBEL PRICE for proving "entanglement is correct"? Is there something wrong with our physicists, Dr. Suskind. I just love your opposition to this.
What an amazingly humble person. Thank you.
Yeah, and especially in comparison to Susskind
At 45:37, you're correct, Curt. Well done. Peace ✌️ 😎.
I would love to see you pursue the question about inflation further. One of your prior guests made a fine tuning argument against inflation. Basically saying yes, we have a lot of evidence showing our fine tuned inflation models matches observations, but we lack evidence for the core theoretical framework or why any of the parameters should be tuned the way they are. In this interview, the point was countered saying there is quite compelling evidence for inflation, no mention of whether that’s the theoretical framework or a fine tuned model built with the framework.
Which one is it? What is the observational evidence, if any, do we have supporting inflation as a framework independent from the chosen parameters? I would love to hear an expert of inflation answer this question.
Man, this string theory crisis sounds severe..I should probably check on all the nerds I love and see if they just need someone to talk to
Great videos as always. I like it when you provide chapters so I can skip to an area of interest.
That's bad for the YT Algo
Dear Leonard Susskind, I loved hearing those words spoken at the opening of the video. I wish they could have been spoken out loud years and years ago. Edit: at around 48:00 there comes Columbus and flat earth. Is that American modern folklore? People knew since ancient times the Earth was round. Columbus just believed the Earth was smaller and the fall of the (Eastern) Roman Empire made trade along the silk route rather, so he thought he could cut corners. Basically calling people flat earthers is just throwing insults.
@@FrancisFjordCupola too bad he completely negates it later, associating Penrose with flatters, ignoring or despising alternate theories and advocating for more general string theories.
He only supports 'new' if it builds somehow on his work
If QM is the ultimate true explanation of all-reality, then we are all just a temporary illusory manifestation of a superposition of probabilities. Here momentarily in the vast expanse of space-time which itself is a temporary manifestation of all probabilities, and then simply gone.
I think history will remember Lenny as a great science communicator who actually worked in the field, and had some interesting but wrong ideas. No harm in that.
Great epitaph: "I tried."
As I said, nothing wrong in that. He actually did try. I just wish he, as one of the String Theory founders, would say it’s time to try something else-not a generalized version of the basic hypothesis.
He describes Wolframs work as him being an "advocate of little checkerboards or what you call them".
I'd bet my bottom dollar that Mr. Plumber here didn't spend _one second_ trying to actually understand Wolfram
A Thomas Kuhn moment. Hold onto your hats. It's going to be a bumpy ride. We will see the politics of science.
How are funding panels going to act? Will young string theorists achieve tenure? Is it any coincidence that Perimeter is not in the US?
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
Paradigm Shift
I have the book, read it many years ago.
Great to see Dr. Susskind, one of my heros!!
I really wasn't expecting Suskind to apeal to consensus, that only made me even more suspicious about inflation. He started talking about flat earthers all of a sudden, as a comparison, I think it was very disrespectfull to Penrose.
You should hear virologists yelling at each other. Scientists don't often have pissing contests about personalities. They are fighting over ideas and the rhetoric can sound very aggressive to laypeople. I wouldn't get too worried, they might even be great friends despite the argument.
Big up Curt for defending Penrose THE GOAT
Good of you to push back on the consensus thing. Takes some guts. Suskind is a very intimidating person.
Hello fellow nerds.
The universe can be calculated with simple mathematics like algebra and calculus.Some physicists complex math is beautiful and they are just the ones who understand it. Everyone just believes a complex universe needs complex mathematics in fact a universe is just as simple as it is, it's just we are the ones who make it complicated.
String theory does really fail as it can't be falsified which differs from science, actually it is not science. And also if you want to find the reconciliation of QM and Gravity you need to have a new model of gravity. Einstein's spacetime curvature really passes test after test which is really successful in its field but still has its own limit. As a skeptical person we really don't observe or have direct evidence of spacetime which is the fabric itself. Yes, we see the effect like gravitational lensing but there are many ways or models to fit in that data and who the f*ck combined the separate space and time.
I started studying string theory. I came to the point where they used the sum of all integers to be -1/12 and this was used subsequently. I quit studying it. Mathematical mapping of one space into a different lower space may be possible, but it is just a mathematical mapping. It seems it is better to stick with the three+one space to reformulate. 😂😂
"Anti-BullShitter Space"
😂
String theory with a capital S = a rigorous mathematical construct with a supersymmetry framework sitting in an unprovable non-reality which is irrelevant to the everyday present expanding deSitter space-time that we all live in.
You were brilliant at handling this hard interview!
Dense packed full of information. Thank you both!
We’ve known that for a long time, the original string theory collapsed and they tried to fix it via more complex mathematics. It’s great to hear one of the founders of super string theory admit it. We’ve not answered the fundamental conflicts from the origins of QM.
The good news is that there is always something to learn and somebody to learn it from.
Good to hear a candid conversation about the state of string theory from one of its founding fathers. Speaking of his point (that he is not aware of anyone from the next generation working on a better theory generalizing string theory to describe reality better) - here is one such theory from someone from the industry - however based on sound mathematical principles ( aka our 5 Riemann hypothesis proofs driven CPT(α,Φ) function as the foundation).
Turns out, our TOE has generalized holographic principle using an q-analog/Langsland program style EPR=ER dualities -which at its root, happens to stem from the DUALITY existing between the “α governed quantum universe“ and “Φ governed classical universe”!
And if I may explain it by explaining how classical reality emerges or gets birthed from quantum reality using our theory
Simply put --
Our CPT(α,Φ) function( aka RH meta proof) is the measurement scale used by the universe to regulate/correlate the DUALITY existing between the “α governed quantum universe“ and “Φ governed classical universe”, by birthing the space-time of latter from the former again & again, using 5 HIGH-BARS, set by Wightman-Osterwalder-Schrader (the ultimate golden QFT yardstick, see below and visual exhibit in this link(lnkd.in/gyx9yRXf).
This is where we have predicted that our universe has maximum of 68 particles (68MP + 68AMP + 1 Higgs) residing in the “α governed quantum universe“ - however only a subset interacts with Higgs and emerge as “Φ governed classical universe” by each particle popping up one at a time and yet giving us a feeling of notion like the idea of Muybridge’s horse in motion type of classical reality!
This is where
We have hypothesized that the model has three key spectrums
1. Classical reality with visible Higgs wrapped mass and light with time like progression in de sitter space
2. The gravitational contracting spectrum mapped to dark matter space like progression in anti de-sitter space
3. The gravitational expanding spectrum mapped to dark energy
Similarly for now, our hypothesis is that dark matter may not have a Higgs wrapper like classical particles until so called axion is confirmed experimentally
This is where our additional hypothesis is that black hole perhaps is just dark matter only without any classical particles
Similarly for now, our hypothesis is that dark energy may or may not have a Higgs wrapper like classical particles.However it will definitely have quantum energy layer as with a halo
So the event horizon is just gravitationally lensed light spinning around black hole as a halo
This brings us to our TOE as I had alluded in another comment
For example we visualize this Higgs field as a thin sandwiched field layer between quantum universe and classical universe acting as the embroidery machine creating the classical reality using Higgs field acting as the perturbed thread (and mass as the knot of the perturbed thread piecing through the Higgsified one at a time
For example, under our theory classical reality emerges or gets birthed from quantum reality using our CPT(α,Φ) function( aka Riemann hypothesis meta proof the foundation of our theory ) - meaning - this CPT(α,Φ) function is the measurement scale used by the universe to regulate/correlate the DUALITY existing between the “α governed quantum universe“ and “Φ governed classical universe”, by birthing the space-time of latter from the former again & again, using 5 axiomatic HIGH-BARS, set by Wightman-Osterwalder-Schrader (the ultimate golden yardstick of QFT, see below and visual exhibit).
Similarly Space and time are expressions of the same quantum reality, however shaped by the properties and interactions of particles with the Higgs Field and this interaction is what gives raise to the idea of Muybridge’s horse in motion type of classical reality!
In other words, motion of a ball in classical standpoint is just sum of all the motions of all poincare irreducible points of the ball (as Infinitesimal is just a limit of all possible finite sizes only), in such a way that gauge gravity can emerge by orbiting smoothly like the frames of Muybridge’s Horse in Motion (using our Riemann hypothesis proof and hodge conjecture proofs as explained below)
Similarly under our theory Mass arises from Yukawa couplings between particles and the Higgs Field’s vacuum expectation value (VEV) as well - however in addition this mass is driven by our 5 AITGE ( Action, Inertia , Time, Gravity, Entropy) formulas (see exhibit) whereas gravity emerges from perturbations in the Higgs Field as well - however it is caused by the 5 AITGE ( Action, Inertia , Time, Gravity, Entropy) formulas (see exhibit) driven embroidery machine process
Likewise, under our theory we have two Entropies - classical entropy ( going from disorder to order) and quantum entropy ( order to disorder ).
However only classical entropy iis interpreted through the lens of the Higgs Field by the 5 AITGE ( Action, Inertia , Time, Gravity, Entropy) formulas (see exhibit)
This brings us to our integrated program proposal to integrate the best ideas from all theories under one umbrella -- continued below
While every theory has some good features, one of the reasons we have not solved this #1 TOE problem faced by humanity for 100+ years is following in my humble opinion
For example, as much as I agree with the Professor that some communities of string theory do follow a mix of top-down and bottom-up approaches, however, at the program level, most don't follow a “true top down" strategic blueprint/roadmap driven problem solving approach ( that is common in the business/industry/tech/math world)!
The outcome is that most in the communities try to solve only one sub-problem at a time ( say quantum gravity or QED or QCD or Ads/CFT duality etc) with a hope TOE will emerge from it
The best approach is top down blueprint/roadmap driven approach This brings me to our proposal to integrate the best in class ideas from all the leading theories (including our theory) under one umbrella
For example, if I may build my case using the 3 duality comments towards the end of the presentation.....
As impressive as the Ads/CFT duality correspondence idea is, it is still a toy model correspondence only.
This is where our research suggests that the root of this duality comes from the “q-analog duality mystery” -- which at its root, happens to stem from the DUALITY existing between the “α governed quantum universe“ and “Φ governed classical universe” using our CPT function, the foundational measuring scale of our universe
For example, if I may prove it by summarizing first the gist of this so called “q-analog philosophy/mystery”
The natural number realm of n is nothing but a limited case scenario of a geometric q series (aka when lim of q->1)
n lim (1+ q+q^2+ ….+ q^n-1) =n
q->1
This is where we have solved this mystery using the following axiomatic mapping, which in part is derived using the 5 Wightman-Osterwalder-Schrader axioms of our i-TOE(the ultimate golden axiomatic yardstick, see exhibit).
The philosophical realm of q-analog i-TOE’s non-Gaussian random physical field of QVF, represented by the Banach space
The philosophical realm of natural numbers "n" i-TOE’s Gaussian free field, represented by the Haag complaint Hilbert space
In other words, this idea of mathematically limiting the q-analog realm (to 1) to derive the realm of natural numbers "n", is physically equivalent to our CPT(α,Φ function limiting the non-Gaussian random field of QVF (represented by the Banach space) to derive the Gaussian free field (represented by the Haag complaint Hilbert space).
This precisely why, we have also conjectured that this is the very same limiting mechanism that slices “n” further into 137 prime slices, using our 2nd Riemann hypothesis proof (lnkd.in/gy7XnNvs) as follows as well
α = (n-∑ln(Pn)) / π(n)
In other words, α is the one that regulates the density of primes within any n (by slicing it into 1/α slices), very similar to how α-slices/limits Riemann zeta function by converging it into the unit circle (using modular forms logic of our 5th RH proof) as 1/α concentric 1/α radius gapped dipoles of our i-ToE. This way everything fits together beautifully end-to-end!
This brings us to our our approach follows the top down TOE as explained in this MUST READ summary article (lnkd.in/gyx9yRXf with links to 10+ such articles/papers that are in pre-print), especially for those who want to understand the breadth and depth of our "first of its kind" work integrating 15+ science and business disciplines under one framework, with a noble goal of growing the productivity and sustainability of both people and planet with a quantum leap!
For example, when I say our approach is top down, I mean starting from visible nature as we see visible signs of nature displaying golden ratio (Φ) everywhere including in our body symmetry
Now when we probe golden ratio (Φ) philosophically, both α and Φ are the two sides of the same coin rolled by nature to run this universe
Similarly when we probe golden ratio (Φ) mathematically, golden ratio (Φ) is the classical q-analog duality of q-quantum duality of α, in the sense they are two sides of the sand coin or dice called CPT(α,Φ) function, the meta proof function of Riemann hypothesis In other words, this foundational DUALITY existing between quantum and classical universes is what manifests as a discipline specific duality symmetry everywhere including in every discipline, including the q-analog dualities of Langlands program.
The next reason why we are confident that our path is the best bet path is because CPT(α,Φ) has already solved Riemann Hypothesis using 5 proofs including all $5MM+ unsolved problems of Clay Institute
In other words, for any TOE path to become a final TOE, it must be anchored on this Riemann Hypothesis proof (aka FSC/golden ratio governed CPT(α,Φ) function mechanism end to end in one form or the other)!
This doesn't mean we have all the answers, rather my point is that ours is the best strategic path
For example, we have already integrated Ads/CFT duality of string theory with our CPT(α,Φ) function mechanism as explained above.
This is why, we have also built a "Langlands program style business case for our i-TOE/SOE/ESG program“, with a hope that it will inspire the experts to collaborate with us to form it as a superset program, by incorporating all theories like string, LQG etc including Langlands program and other such programs/theories within it(lnkd.in/gyx9yRXf).
Welcome complementary POVs
@@charlesprabakar "don't push your TOE"
@@whataboutthis10 "Stub the other guy's TOE instead"
Wow you really got to talk to Susskind!
Yes! I've been waiting for this one to happen!
Wow, that is gutsy! Lets get started on finding the new path forward then.
incredible scoop. seriously congratulations.
lol. After decades of insiting that string theory is the only game in town, Susskind finally admits that he was wrong. And just when you think he has come off of his high horse, he compares Roger Penrose to a flat earther for disagreeing with him.
And he is suprised that young people are now unwilling to work on something that goes against string theory orthodoxy, after having spent decades destroying the careers of people who did exactly that.
Hear, hear.
1:34:51 around this bit, you can hear an older man knowing his faults after reflecting back on life. Do listen to that bit, who ever reads the above comment and is discouraged
Describing entanglement with wormholes is so incredibly unimaginative.
Even when I have disagreed with him vehemently, I have always had enormous respect for Professor Susskind. I now have even more. Exponentially more.
One point I’d make about the landscape. In the standard model there are an infinite number of solutions corresponding to the 19 free parameters (at least ignoring neutrinos). In string theory there are no adjustable free parameters, but more than 10^500 possible discrete configurations which emerge from the theory. This in my opinion is an improvement not a flaw.
Thank you both for your time and objective and honest observations that others are ignoring due to complacency and self interest
Wow. Time to make myself a warm meal and curl up in bed for a real thriller! See you in the comments tomorrow boys!
Re: entropy, I like the Shannon formulation best, being the minimum encoding. Art of the Problem is a good channel that has the reading I find most compelling. The entropy is a property of a PDF of some RV in this sense, that tells us how unpredictable it is. That seems to do a good job explaining the Shannon and Boltzmann entropies, the KL-Divergence and mutual information, just by dint of what is being predicted with what imo. I've never felt that this concept was challenged drastically tbh.
PDF? RV? KL? Please expand your acronyms for us :)
@ probability density function, random variable, Kullback-Liebler Divergence.
@@Eta_Carinae__ Leibler (Cunningham's Law in action)
It’s awesome you stood up against Leonard when he generalized the consensus of people believing in inflation. He surprised me with the disrespect he has for such a renowned physicist like Penrose.
Wow! His hologram theory with black holes is mind blowing
Penrose had the intelligence, intuition, foresight and common sense to realise, decades ago, when he learned about the ballooning dimensions needed, that string theory was a dead end as a path to construct an accurate theory of our physical world. Susskind told Penrose that he was "misguided". But now he is basically saying what Penrose said back then. He should have listened to Penrose more carefully before calling him "misguided".
Susskind didn't, and wasted his entire life on this bs. Granted though, it put food on his table. Like it did for all the other string theorists, draining resources into this area of research, since the 1980s.
Totally agree. This string nonsene blocked physics for 40 years
1 hrs 40 mins I'd say Professor Susskind was generous with his time.
Yeah let's hope Science with a big "S" will be not harmed irreparably on account of this interview eating into his "deadlines"
People like you are genuinely annoying. Science wit a "big S"....smh
Even Lex only got 58 minutes
@@cwcarsonThat podcast is unbearable 😂 I keep trying to watch it because I love some of his guests but he asks the worst questions... I like that Curt understands enough about the field to really probe into what the guests are saying formally. Guess you could say he has experience probing fields
Wow,wow wow. He's back. Go lenny go.
Love to see Susskind here too as well.
The absence of supersymmetry is precisely why it is the only model that describes a duality through mirror symmetry of pairing of positron and electron generation out of the vacuum of space.
The He-Bec isotropic singularity model offers a solution to SUSY INVERSION where the beginning of time is observed through a lens of a Bose Einstein condensate Singularity.
Do you think you'd be able to get Gerard t' Hooft on to talk about his deterministic approach to QM, or possibly Sabine Hossenfelder to talk about deterministic approaches to interpreting Bell test results in general?
OMG NO WAY! I'm shocked!
Talk about someone who is so brutally honest, even with himself!
One does need a job for example to sustain their rock and roll life style but after that his advice to pursue your curiosity is spot on. My only regret at 60 is not doing this enough.
The liklihood that someone appeals to a consensus view to justify their position seems to be directly proportional to how far remived they were from the consensus byilding process. As someone who's had a background in Astrophysics and cosmology, its always surprising how much surer people outside the field appear to think the "consensus" is.
44:36 based.
Yes, amazing response to a crazy argument.
44:35 well said, ballsy
5:50
It’s because you need brilliant people to spend a decade thinking about it with uncertain chances of success, not publishing much while doing so. Can’t do that without starving.
Wow, huge episode!
If Susskind is looking for new departures and ideas for fundamental physics, he should look at "Lagrangian Multiform Theory". This is not only a departure from current physical theories, but an entire overhaul of the principle of least action. It is different from any other variational theory, in that it has the possibility, not only to derive equations of motion from a given Lagrangian ("a theory" in physics jargon) but to predict the Lagrangians themselves: they are no longer input (on the basis of e.g. symmetry considerations) but they are the solutions of an extended set of Euler-Lagrange equations. So to keep with the jargon: it is a theory of theories.
Ref?
You're awesome curt!
I would link your videos, but the truth is that I only have a surface understanding of these fascinating topics, nor do I know anyone in my circle who could, or perhaps would desire to know these things.
I am surprised that Dr. Susskind has not heard of Eric Weinstein. What he says makes me wonder if we are living in some sort of sandbox. Anyway, this is a lovely conversation. Leonard Susskind is one of my favourites.
Eric is known to anyone on the internet in this space, but for better or for worse almost nobody in academia knows who he is, and those that do think he’s a grifter.
It sounded more like a not-so-polite way of refusing to acknowledge Mr Weinstein, who very vocally called out Mr Susskind’s for being a dick, basically.
do you pay your guests ?
im asking because they dont seem too eager to answer many things.. yet they like to go on your show.. even people that dont attend many podcasts like Chomsky or Susskind...
yet you only have 380K subs.. so makes me wonder.. whats their incentive to be on your show ...
If String Theory is the wrong way, then that’s important information to know. Either way, given enough time, we will eventually figure it out.
Excited to watch this ❤
Entropy can also be thought of in reverse, by saying states decay to higher entropy statea most of the time. And this can be a statement involving no stochasticity, no counting at all, just prooerties of variables that evolve deterministically, in terms of what happens to them under small substitutions. This is also a measure of number of states oer macro states in a way, because a very small change doesn't change the macro state in most cases for high entropy states, but for very low entropy states it tends to produce larger changes. This is more about continous changes though. For example a double pendulum has some stable configuration, and it is the case that very small disturbances can knock them back into chaos, same thing with 3 body problems. And so on, and there is no real counting of microstates there, other than volumes of orbits on an attractor.
I've waited a long time for this episode. The most timid guy. ER=EPR. You must work as a plumber or carpenter to nail it.
You said not to mention my theory of everything so I will not. My name is Scott S Gordon. Ready to be taken up on Leonard Susskind's offer to hear new ideas. I'll be giving Two presentations at the March 2025 APS meeting. You and Leonard may be interested in checking them out. They are entitled "Matt Strassler's impossible sea is possible" and how and why the Higgs field has the shape of a sombrero. Wishing you well!
The mighty Susskin. Peace ✌️😎.
Virology next.
Brave. Love to hear from Witten on one of these
This is huge! 😮😮😮
I think we're in trouble if people like Leonard are in charge of science. What struck me here is that he refused to answer question about his passion on the grounds that he is not a psychologist, if you think about this for a moment it's very narrow minded attitude.
Just his character if you know him much. New York Fella
Yes. He's funny in his way.
So how does he find the strength to talk about any history - even personal - when he's not a HiStOriAn
I did not watch the episode yet. But I know his father was a plumber, and he did plumbing work as a teenager.
So he is a rather hardboiled egg.
The super-symmetry of string theory is essentially explaining neutrality or the state of nothingness; the so-called destructive interference that lies at the heart of combining two opposing states. The challenge with that is Everything united leads to No-"thing"; everything comes to rest. In other words, super-symmetry is unprovable by default. So, it doesn't mean that string theory (or at least super-symmetry) is incorrect, its just unattainable.
I personally wouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Just my two cents.
Would love to see Roger Penrose reaction to this 😂
Re: theories by definition cannot answer questions outside their framework, Susskind wants theories to have stricter reformulations, but a ToE is obviously going to need to have a way to talk about everything that exists. One might compromise: we could reformulate a theory should we encounter _observables_ the theory finds meaningless. The empirical world is then the master the theoretic reformulation bends toward. That sounds suitably scientific...
Sir Roger Penrose has been saying this from the very start of String Theory being theorised Case Closed.
"Ask me easier questions." Right off the bat. 😅