Can a New Law of Physics Explain a Black Hole Paradox?

[@QuantaScienceChannel]

Read George Musser's full article on this work at QuantaMagazine.org: www.quantamagazine.org/in-new-paradox-black-holes-appear-to-evade-heat-death-20230606/ Explore related coverage: www.quantamagazine.org/tag/quantum-information-theory/

[@jamieclarke2694]

So is this why life exists? Complexity goes up, life comes from matter, brain comes from life, conscious experience comes from the brain, inevitably?

[@charlesbrightman4237]

BIG BANG THEORY: (copy and paste from my files): Okay, for those who believe that the singular big bang theory is really true and that all the energy and matter in this universe came from a very dense singularity: Please also honestly and accurately answer: 1. Where did the singularity come from or did it eternally exist throughout all of eternity past? 2. Where did the 1 iota of energy come from to trigger the singularity to 'bang' one day in eternity? 3. What forces of nature existed to allow the singularity to exist and to 'bang'? 4. What forces of nature allowed our current forces of nature to come into existence? 5. What exactly is 'space' and how exactly does space expand? 6. What exactly is 'time' and how exactly does time vary? 7. What exactly is 'gravity' and how exactly does gravity do what gravity does in this universe? 8. How exactly do numbers and mathematical constants exist in the universe for math to do what math does in this universe? 9. RED SHIFT: Consider the following: Modern science claims that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, it's one of the foundations of physics. 'IF' a photon red shifts, where does the energy from the red shifted photon go? And what makes that energy leave the photon? 10. CMBR from a singular big bang should be long gone by now and should not even be able to be seen by us. 11. There are other more 'normal' physical explanations for the 'red shift' observations.

[@youtubebane7036]

​@Jamie Clarke no consciousness is the first cause. Everything else in the universe could be reduced down to nothingness except consciousness. Consciousness gives meaning to nothingness thereby turning it into Infinity and creating everything creating everything. So I don't know if Consciousness is fundamental to nothingness or if it is emergent from nothingness but at this point I don't know if that even matters

[@youtubebane7036]

​@Charles Brightman ​ the energy comes from the fact that nothing this is larger than infinity. And the act of giving meaning to nothing this means that it must be turned into something because of the information that describes it which is also more than information that describes Infinity so out of this duality the third part is created which is the physical universe. The Singularity is is the point of paradox where the absolute nothingness realizes that it can't be nothing when there's information that describes it associated with it which is also a paradox this is the point of beginning from our perspective of this Loop in the strange Loop. The other side of the Paradox is the ending of the last strangeloop when thermal equilibrium has been established and time has stopped yet complexity hasn't

[@charlesbrightman4237]

@@youtubebane7036 "the third part is created which is the physical universe." What exactly is 'space'? "...and time has stopped yet complexity hasn't" What exactly is 'time'?

[@kronaemmanuel]

Props to the filmmaker behind this. I loved the shot where it shows 5 flowers to represent qubits, then shows the whole tree of flowers to show the exponential growth in quantum states. Damn.

[@Blankholes]

Wow really?

[@nightmareTomek]

Maybe the filmmakers were on drugs? Some good ol' LSD.

[@Blankholes]

@@nightmareTomek Yeah very likely. They think they can just say anything and it becomes reality. If some scientists or body of them come up with a theory and they get a Nobel price or whatever it is they do nowadays to celebrate themselves, and years down the line it’s proven incorrect, they should be stripped of it and made to apologize publicly. Stephen Hawkins went to his grave with one he didn’t deserve. He contradicted his own theory. He should be stripped of it postmortem, just like some brilliant people get Nobel prices postmortem.

[@brodude7194]

@@nightmareTomek If you wait long enough everyone has tried lsd

[@thickdickwad7736]

Yea I agree, good cinematography. I liked the shot of the guy shredding tree branches while talking about the information scrambler

[@prithvib8662]

Quanta Mag is consistently one of the highest quality channels on KZbin. Your staff are incredible.

[@TheDavidlloydjones]

"Quanta Mag is consistently one of the highest quality channels on KZbin. " This is called the insult by faint praise. "Your staff are incredible." An embarrassing ambiguity. Quanta is the very successful pop-sci end of the sensationalist press, National Enquirer for math and physics nerds before university.

[@prithvib8662]

@@TheDavidlloydjones your ability to find insult within praise is what's actually incredible. Given that many of my undergrad physics professors would show or recommend Quanta vids in class, there's no weight to your quips beyond petty insecurity.

[@TheKrasTel]

@@prithvib8662 murdered by words, well done

[@omission6919]

@@TheDavidlloydjones Who hurt you?

[@longsleevethong1457]

Especially if you have a custom fitted Tim foil hat

[@primenumberbuster404]

Oh Boi, what a good day to hear from Susskind. 😂 I am a big fan of his lectures.

[@bgdxmas]

Same here.

[@diegoalejandrosanchezherre4788]

X2🙌

[@chem7553]

Smartest man alive😃

[@UteChewb]

They are so good. He starts from basics and leads you gently into very foreign places of the mind.

[@sobertillnoon]

He's an inspiration to all sus kind.

[@dr.hosamaneprabhakar4722]

I am not a physicist but a physician . I do not fully understand a lot of complex concepts in physics but prof Suskind has been a source of inspiration to me and any time I hear his voice it is music to my ears . As somebody put it he is a very humble genius .We are so lucky we still have him around . Nobel prize or not I t think this brilliant man is a cut above his contemporaries and he is not a politician . Kudos to Prof Suskind !

[@anterosalo2734]

Great! As an ophtalmologist and a keen Susskind fan I am thrilled to see another colleague having had inspiration of this kind of field of physics. I am constantly looking for a symmetry or pattern in my patients. This same deep underlying sense of sort of natural harmony or balance can be found in the universe too. I I do not mean in any sort of metaphysical way but in how the nature is arranged in general. It would be great to meet prof. Susskind in person but it is unlikely to ever happen. There are simply too much of us who admire his continuous inspiration. Thank you!

[@aidanmargarson8910]

due respect .. but if you start your comment with .. I am not a physicist ..

[@musicman9023]

Wow in an alternate universe, Mike Ehrmantraut got REALLY good at physics! In all seriousness, Susskind is is amazing, one of the modern physicists I have tremendous respect for.

[@hazode]

It's like John Malkovich and Johnathon Banks had a child.

[@jurgenhasford3850]

lol

[@nightmareTomek]

To me he looks like he has no idea what he's doing. Some wannabe science. Other scientists (like Sabine Hossenfelder) are complaining that some scientists approach physics from the wrong way. They invent a particle and focus their work on proving or disproving it's existence. And whenever the data doesn't fit their theory, they make this theory more complicated until it fits the data again. They call it good science even though it isn't. It's just wasting money.

[@talithasuya8908]

@@hazode This is hilariously accurate

[@unpunnyfuns]

If only he could make the blue meth

[@JoyoSnooze]

Just discovered this channel tonight (weird, as I've had a science-centric youtube account for a long time) but, I'm very happy I have. Anything from Susskind is wonderful to ponder, but the credit really has to go to the filmmakers and animators in this video. Really, very good. Subbed.

[@azizkaraulov6872]

Me too

[@haroldfloyd5518]

It’s kind of at the heart of science that truly great thinkers like Susskind, or Ed Witten or Kip Thorne have been willing to seriously entertain seemingly crazy ideas that have subsequently opened up entirely new branches of research (like time travel and ancestor simulations).

[@atallguynh]

I love that the back of Susskind's Perimeter Institute t-shirt says "it from qubit" (a variation on Wheeler's "its from bits") when the entire thrust of this idea seems to be the opposite. The "its" of the physical world fall into a black hole and essentially become just information.

[@1vootman]

Susskink is awesome, comes from a working class background, and comes at theoretical problems from a mechanical/spacial view point

[@mervcharles8365]

This 13 minute clip was jammed packed with information

[@jmcsquared18]

I learned general relativity from Lenny while I was in high school thanks to Stanford's free KZbin content. He was and is such a fantastic teacher. I'm so pleased, now that I've graduated, that I get to see his ideas make headlines. He's an inspiration for me.

[@-_Nuke_-]

How awesome is to be in the forefront of cutting edge science?

[@marishkagrayson]

So what they are saying is that if I stare at my latte long enough, complexity will evolve? Fascinating! 😅 love Susskind, btw. He always makes “complex” ideas graspable.

[@marishkagrayson]

Does this tie-in with the conformal cyclic cosmology of Penrose fame in any way?

[@GeoffryGifari]

stare at your coffee long enough and it becomes a super-intelligent AI

[@jamesphillips2285]

The milk/cream will likely coagulate within a week. Within 2 weeks you may have some interesting mold growing.

[@SageCog801-zl1ue]

I have just read that even if you do not stare at your latte, it is possible for a single dark matter particle to exist in your latte at any given time.​@@marishkagrayson

[@professorboltzmann5709]

This man is like the John Wheeler of our generation, full of ideas and insights that tremendously help young generation theorists like me to continue the holy grail of Q.Gravity.

[@argynkuketayev4166]

Wheeler helped many young physicist to do physics. This guy brought a lot of mathematicians into physics who didn’t do anything that is testable. That’s not physics

[@rikvermeer1325]

Always great to see Mike Ehrmantraut at work!

[@faisalsheikh7846]

Incredible phenomenal channel please try to upload lengthy content

[@jamesphillips2285]

I am amazed how much they can pack into 13 minutes.

[@faisalsheikh7846]

​@@jamesphillips2285 me too

[@rodneycraft1005]

Susskind is a hero of mine. I recommend all of his KZbin videos.

[@Andrew-lo5sc]

Its not hard to imagine space itself as the only fundamental physical object that ever existed. How rare it would be for points to have the ability to settle if there was enough uniform energy in a system like a universe. Each point only an echo of the original point that settled in the first place.

[@gijane2cantwaittoseeyou203]

You dont make any sense

[@scimastory]

one of the best and most fascinating youtube videos I've ever seen. This is actually insane how so many different interesting topics completely connect and link together like this. Amazing video. This is mind-boggling.

[@NullStaticVoid]

I've always been kind of fascinated with this concept of complexity. Mundanely it comes from my audio and IT engineering. I've noticed that the more cables you introduce into an environment the greater the literal entanglement. 2 cables can't really get too tangled. 3 cables starts to see some friction developing. 4 cables or more you are certain to have a problem. When you get past 8 cables in use you just want to get out a pair of shears rather than untangle all of that. I've used every cable management tool known to man. Implemented cable change logging to force people to think about what they are doing. It's always a losing battle.

[@jeremiahlethoba8254]

😂 Ever since I learned about quantum entanglement I always flush the toilet, I don't want my privates to be entangled with strangers privates. QE doesn't respect distance or personal space

[@ivanjelenic5627]

Haha there are literal scientific papers written about cable entanglement. And 1 cable can certainly get entangled, e.g. if you keep those small in-ear headphones and their cable in your pocket, they get 100% entangled, iirc they wrote a paper researching materials and stuff to make it entangle less. And you buy quality ones, you'll often see the fruit of such research, like woven fabric around the insulated wire

[@tappetmanifolds7024]

@NullStaticVoid I once read that having gold or ofc floor cables to your transmission line loudspeakers (British made ones are the best) that in many instances they perform better when in a zig-zag configuration. As for avoiding cable entanglement from Mobius energy I seem to remember that when ai had a Sony Walkman, my expensive earphones had a small carry case in which you could wind the earphones back into the case with a clear plastic top, so that the when the cable was wound around a circular spool the whole arrangement was like a string torus, this retained the integrity of the earphones and offered ample protection. Not exactly saying these are solutions but this sprang to mind after reading your comment.

[@naysay02]

this was incredible. imagine having such deep intuition so naturally. he makes it look effortless.

[@whirledpeas3477]

His was a plumber making good money with his father before he decided to do something he loved. So awesome 👌

[@Moodboard39]

Everyone has intuition. Study carl Jung of the functions...

[@whirledpeas3477]

@Moodboard39 Thanks, but I believe you are referring to Karl Jung.

[@eksffa]

Susskind is one of the living man who I keep listening ‘till the end even if I am completely convinced that all his premises are wrong in a given sentence (say that the universe is a closed system) because I have a deep hope to have my certainties challenged and learn more :)

[@Anders01]

Circuit complexity as was mentioned seems like a good measurement. I looked it up and "The circuit-size complexity of a Boolean function f is the minimal size of any circuit computing f." And all finite computations can be performed with purely Boolean circuits.

[@jamesraymond1158]

"I don't think like a mathematician. I think like an auto mechanic." What a great way to look at Susskind.

[@horizonvariations]

One of our contemporary legends! Always love to hear from Susskind!

[@xmetax]

One of the very few good science channels on KZbin. Thumbs up for the editing which is very kind to laypeople who need a visual connection to reconcile complex ideas 👍

[@Ghostotle]

Any other ones worth mentioning?

[@kA-dc6zq]

Susskind is a great lecturer with great ideas including this " expansion of complexity" with almost no or very far end! It hasn't proved experimentally, though. I love him. He is a great physicist.

[@mbukukanyau]

My conclusion is, that they have an idea of what they do not know..., and so far they know nothing

[@stevenschilizzi4104]

Now THAT is a really mind-blowing idea. If it turns out to be a good description of how things work, boy oh boy, it’s our vision not only of the universe and spacetime but also of life and death, especially once we understand the meaning and implications of informational biology, this new and fast developing field of knowledge. What a great time to be alive! Thanks Lenny and collaborators, this is genius at work!

[@newagain9964]

😂 yeah. They’re sooooo close to figuring it all out

[@ab8jeh]

What hyperbole.

[@bootblacking]

I smell woowoo

[@vigilanthuman]

Mike from breaking bad is a scientist 😂😂

[@xninja2369]

That's the reason I clicked this video , I was like WTF 😂

[@xsparik]

He is kinda Suss

[@DarkSpiritTony]

Kid name finger

[@Sevenigma777]

Of course a guy named Susskind thought black holes were kind of sus lol

[@Kabodanki]

will smith knows a great deal about entaglement and his wife's boyfriend knows a lot about blackholes

[@cobalius]

kinda sus, that susskind was his name, yeah

[@rg8438]

And you just ruined this for me

[@Paraselene_Tao]

He's a physics professor from Stanford. I have watched only a few of his lectures. He has over 200 hours of high-quality physics lectures here on youtube. I didn't know Susskind's name until today, but his lectures are really great.

[@katharinamarschall5662]

Looks to me like Süßkind = sweet child. Süß or süss if you can’t type it with your keyboard means sweet in German.

[@MrGarrowson]

Makes sense to me. The ultimate encryption is absolute random, so its thermal equilibrium.

[@ukaszbonczol5613]

This is brilliant! Keep on going, you're doing a great job!

[@NotTheEx]

This video just blew my mind. Some things just finally made sense to me. Thanks a lot for the video.

[@mitekillem]

That's pretty awesome. The more we learn about blackholes, the stranger they get. I've always wondered why they all point in the same direction. Almost like space DOES have direction. I still think it's weird that we have no idea as to what gravity IS. We know it's affects, but not what generates it, nor what it's made of. But I wonder if it is actually just time resonance. I.e. time locally slowing down, and it's distortion has a by product that causes objects to draw closer to one another in space and time.

[@nightmareTomek]

We don't learn anything about black holes, we speculate because we REALLY havem't the slightest idea. It looks to me that whatever these dudes are doing there is some wasteful wannabe science, nothing more. Complexity increases? xD Really????? And how exactly do black holes point in the same direction? First time I heard that. Yet another, highly unscientific phrase. They might rotate in the same direction due to the swirl they're in, similar to your toilet flush going one way in the northern hemisphere and the other way in the southern one. But black holes do not point in the same direction. Edit: oh wait! There's also the whole study on misinformation, how it spreads. Google some "stupidity of crowds" (in contrast to the wisdom of crowds). In essence it's usually one individual who makes his mind up first (in this example probably Susskink), and since he has at least some sensible arguments, people start believing it and spreading his thesis around themselves while phrasing it like a fact. Even if he is actually totally wrong, the masses don't think further to realize it. Study said Americans are especially susceptible to this misinformation spread.

[@nightmareTomek]

@Soldier Boy I'm a denier of your quantum mysticism bullsh_t. And I'm not the only one complaining, scientists complain about other scientists coming up with idiotic theories in unscientific ways. They invent something, like a particle, to explain some requirement they made up themselves (supersymmetry), because in their mind math has to look pretty. And when data doesn't fit the theory at all, they make the theory more compliacted until it fits again. These scientists waste money, think they're smart and are doing great science, and it looks to me like this channel and thousands of moronic followers support that. Do the smart thing and shut up.

[@jesserigon]

​@@nightmareTomeksurprising you're not more skeptical of the study you read. I read one time that 86.79% of studies were wrong 50% of the time.

[@nightmareTomek]

​@@jesserigon I know you don't want it to be true because you know full well that it does apply to you. I noticed under every single YT video tons of followers applauding the video and the videomaker for that grant wisdom they delivered. Everytime, no matter if that wisdom was clever and useful, or if it was dumb as hell, just stringing together meaningless phrases like "grass is greener on the other side". Similar to flat earth videos. People hear just whatever and they love it. Certain videos attract certain followers, and when these followers are grouped together, they strenghten each other's opinion, even if that opinion is astonishingly dumb. You're the channels target audience, which are people who love comparing science to life in some mystical or philosophical way. They go "oh because time travels backwards before the big bang, that is like my life feels sometimes as if time travels backwards", and they feel like they've learned something. That's not physics! When I heard about the study, I wasn't the least surprised about the results.

[@jesserigon]

@@nightmareTomek yes but did you dig into the study you cited? or are you just following what they say because it aligned with your assumptions? aren't you doing what you say other people are doing. anyway don't care either way about your opinions or the videos. it's jusr weird you assume watching a video equals agreeing with it. your world view has allot of assumptions baked in that you couldn't possibly have data on. like what I, or anyone watching, believe or don't

[@omarbriones2453]

Because of complexity equilibrium and conformal cyclic cosmology, the arrow of time always more forward, and it is absolutely impossible for a person to go back in time. That is, even though some equations permit "negative" time, complexity equilibrium and conformal cyclic cosmology require that time must always be positive.

[@darksector1389]

Susskind is a very humble genius. We are so lucky to have him alive

[@brendawilliams8062]

He reminds us all that everything is a work in progress.

[@adi.olteanu.1982]

Mind-blowing !!! "What is growing over here?" . A great question When the conceous mind is asking the right questions, the subconceous mind is responding, it's like an ich that doesn't want to go away. Nice question there old champ !! Everything has an answer, if you ask the right question !!!

[@dlightfoot]

Short story: The second law of quantum complexity states that the complexity of a quantum system tends to increase over time, analogous to the increase of entropy in thermodynamic systems.

[@tristanwegner]

I expected an escape from the heat death of the universe to be post singularity problem, so happy we found a glimpse already.

[@unamngxale8286]

I rewatch this video frequently ever since it got released

[@ritswik]

Blackholes exactly do the work of that machine at 10:18 , crunches matter into fine particles, and store it in a high-density central receptacle.

[@rb26sr]

The ravens in two of the b roll shots were a nice touch alluding to death, heat death though in this case. Great information throughout.

[@andriyandriychuk]

A notion that the end is the beginning is the only hypothesis that really makes sense. So Penrose cyclic cosmology is preferable for me. It makes sense, despite how extraordinary or hard to prove it can sound

[@SageCog801-zl1ue]

I once heard that one of the problems CCC and an infinitely bouncing universe would have is entropy. The energy availability would decrease over time.

[@andriyandriychuk]

@@SageCog801-zl1ue in-between aeons, there is no time so anything is possible

[@vtrandal]

Marvelous. Best 13 minutes of my life. I am hooked on these ideas. Susskind’s intuition is fantastic.

[@melaniestarkey7868]

I think the black holes and white holes exist somewhat together similar to life and death exist in a cycle.

[@ConnorOstus]

“I have the brain of an auto mechanic” - I’ve always appreciated how normal and relatable he makes himself out to be and how he honors his blue collar upbringing.

[@bgdxmas]

It seems that the quantum information complexity growth model, based on quantum entanglement could be the answer to many things remaining unexplained.

[@willbrink]

I fought entropy and entropy won. True story.

[@MuonRay]

I always thought myself that there seemed to be a natural crossover with many body quantum systems and complexity theory. Information theory already grapples with concepts such as Information Entropy and so seems like with quantum information they are proposing the complexity will be treated as a higher order entropy too. I wonder how weird this gets potentially with the idea that black holes being potentially entangled with their Hawking radiation.

[@The_Accuser]

There are some Physicists working on what they call 'Emergent Gravity'. They are arriving to similiar concepts of Quantum Complexity, but starting with General Relativity.

[@seanspartan2023]

Bro looks like Mike Ehrmantraut from BB... "Not now Waltuh... Quantum gravity is about the complexity Waltuh... Black holes Waltuh... Let me die of heat death in peace Waltuh..."

[@UniqueUserName123]

“My good friend Feynman” what a flex

[@thoughticality6044]

Honestly though

[@numbersandsports4206]

Quantum analogy of a block cipher comparison is great.

[@dustysoodak]

What's neat about complexity is that it basically doubles for every new particle you add to the system. Its as if a black hole is a separate universe that you can't directly access but which you can provide nearly infinite free energy to at negligible cost.

[@kirkhunter146]

Yes, a black hole is another universes creation. forever inaccessible and unknowable

[@lozoft9]

That's what I think. I think black holes are the origin point of new universes, the matter and energy that is originally present when the black hole is formed becomes matter and energy in the universe it forms, and matter and energy that falls into the black hole later become dark matter and dark energy. Maybe increasing quantum complexity of the universe within a black hole is a mirror of increasing entropy in ours, too?

[@manofsan]

"provide nearly infinite free energy to at negligible cost" -- you mean every time a black hole sucks in a new particle from the outside, each additional particle is increasing the quantum complexity of the black hole exponentially?

[@tompreusser9412]

I like Susskind too and have watched a number of his videos. He talks about computational quantum networks and hopes to apply this at a cosmological level. Starting at the Higgs Networked Higgs Mechanisms already do this and point to a computational fractal universe with complexity dimension 5.333 related to dark matter , scale dimension 2.167 related to dark energy, and calculated fractal dimension for the universe of 2.167 related to information. The fact that calculated fractal dimension equals fractal scale dimension points to fractal space filling - which relates to the new law Susskind proposes.

[@Cynry]

That's nuts, thank you for sharing that insight. It's mindblowing how close we're getting. The fact that this theory also points to a self looping effect of the universe is a strong sell to me, there has to be a mechanism like that for the universe to even make sense.

[@Salted_Potato]

I love the sheer quality of Quanta Magazine's videos

[@megvt08]

Susskind is amazing. he make it sound extremely simple even though its very complex and complicated subject.

[@sayyamzahid7312]

May I ask how to make complicated subject very simple?

[@megvt08]

@@sayyamzahid7312 its the way he talks about it make it sound simple. Never said it was simple.

[@SteveCohniPI]

My goodness, I sat in on Prof Susskind's lectures on Feneral Reativity! He is (was) very clear in his presentations, and I look forward to seeing these on Quantum Complexity. However, it is 2:30am so I will have to wait a bit!

[@johnyaxon__]

*Federal Relativity

[@lirmchip]

This man talks with great confidence for a man that constantly starts every sentence with "if the universe is"

[@andrewiglinski148]

True story, I just finished a paper on quantum gravity and when I went to reach out to my old professors I found out the professor that might actually have supported the paper passed away, so I emailed his colleague for one reason and one reason only: He looks a little like Leonard Susskind.

[@stymlice2332]

What

[@andrewiglinski148]

@@stymlice2332 dude it’s pretty self explanatory?

[@steppindown6874]

@@andrewiglinski148 was he also a sus-kind of a physicist?

[@HkFinn83]

So what happened next, how does this story end?

[@theaussiewaffle4276]

Bad story.

[@grognardgaming8952]

Clicked on this as soon as I saw Susskind's face. I love that guy, super smart with a charming wit.

[@grognardgaming8952]

Interestingly I have always thought of entropy and complexity as being near synonymous terms. What is the functional difference in terms of physics. Generally the more entropy the more complexity to the point that they look much like two ways of describing the same phenomenon.

[@Dom-Nom-Nom]

The part where they base things off Penrose diagrams seems wrong: All of those horizontal yellow lines have infinite length due to how Penrose diagrams are defined, thus it's wrong to say they grow. Penrose diagrams are merely a projection (a map) of space and inferring laws from a misinterpreted and warped projection seems unfounded. Also instead of the standard Penrose diagram they start off with the whack version of a Penrose diagram that assumes that there's a white hole / black hole combination. All observations we have point towards white holes not existing.

[@charlievardar1330]

How did you measure the thermal equilibrium for a specific black hole? I am trying to say that no matter what kind of results you gain at the end regarding black holes, just keep up the good work on quantum complexity - it is the new materials building age... whenever this age might come in the future!

[@carywalker7662]

Susskind is the best! I'm sure he thought of this, but black holes evaporate. The complexity wouldn't increase to infinity as drawn. However, it would still increase for a while, so same idea.

[@kirkhunter146]

How do you know Black holes evaporate? that is only theory. How can you or Susskind prove they have found an evaporated black hole? it isn't possible to find something that no longer exists.

[@gilliamm.5732]

Glad to see Leonard again

[@GeoffryGifari]

If computational complexity plays a role in black hole physics, maybe there are phenomena related to complexity in daily life thermodynamics, supplementing the usual internal energy, entropy, heat, and work

[@mikel4879]

geoffr5 • Bingo! 👍✌️ 👍 is not for "computational complexity" which is Susskind's idiocy born of mental impotence, but for "suplement" which is true. ✌️

[@pseudolullus]

Careful, the principle only applies to Hilbert spaces (as in spaces with complex probability amplitudes), it is fundamentally quantum at least in its current form. The video is a bit too cavalier at times about the difference between quantum and classical systems.

[@joshheselton633]

@@mikel4879 The amount of people with absolutely oversized egos in this comment section is astronomical. I don't understand people who seem smart and yet are super egotistical...I suppose it's just that they're lacking an appropriate amount of the "wisdom" component. Mike, you spew insults like a catty diva.

[@akiodaku9120]

Terence McKenna had been affectively saying this since the 70's. He called it novelty theory, he thought it ment that the geometry of time was a fractal wave. A really interesting theory and this is essentially applying the same kinda of idea to rectify gravity. I'm really happy this kind of thinking is hitting the mainstream.

[@vladyslavkorenyak872]

So, complexity of a system creates volume inside a black hole? Can there be a link between our universe complexity increase and the measured expansion of the universe? Or between complexity and mass (and therefore energy and space curvature?).

[@johnyaxon__]

Yes

[@CODTALES-KILLSTREAKS]

I love that a wood chipper and tree work made it in here! As a tree service worker I love this! I am also fascinated with the idea all these people don’t understand that we are in a black hole now

[@Psychx_]

Leonard is a living legend!

[@lanatrzczka]

Roger Penrose talks about these things in his books, and has remarked that he has a "crazy idea". Unfortunately for me, his books are such a tough read that I can really only grasp a very small part of what he's saying.

[@IakobusAtreides]

Is the volume inside a black hole created instantaneously or does the black hole continue to expand over a period of time until it reaches the limit of its quantum complexity?

[@frun]

Black hole grows untill it reaches maximum quantum complexity.

[@jimbaker5110]

No one even knows if the inside of a black hole has volume. It could just be a portal to an alternate universe for all we know.

[@ExecutiveChefLance]

General Relativity states a Black Hole has Zero Volume. But Infinite Density. Since the Geometry we are working with IS Space Time "a Period of Time" is ASSUMED for Observer. But at singularity itself Instant vs. Infinite Time is meaningless because Time itself is an emergent property of Information Distribution which is propagated by Light. So the Event Horizon can Grow in Surface Area. But past that Time and Space are meaningless concepts. A Black Hole is Graphed like an Infinite Funnel on the Coordinates of Spacetime with the Singularity being at the End of the Infinite Funnel. Since from an Observer anything reaching Event Horizon takes FOREVER to reach it. Whether the "Volume" [Surface Area of Event Horizon is Really what you are talking about I.E. Solar Mass Black Hole vs Super Massive Black Hole is defined by Mass and we can determine Area of Event Horizon] is created instantly or forever is actually the exact same thing. Or a meaningless question. You would actually run into a Double Slit Phenomenon. If you point a Camera at a Black Hole to watch everything fall into it. It would take Infinite Time. BUT if you viewed the Light radiating from said Black Hole's Quasar from a Distant Galaxy 6 Billion Light years away the Mass of the Black Hole would include the Things which the Camera are watching from its perspective that have not fall into the Black Hole yet. TLDR Time and Information is a Function of Speed of Light. So any answer is some Meta-Physics Quantum Weirdness based on General Relativity Math.

[@youtubebane7036]

The Paradox explains itself. That is the point of creation that is the point where absolute nothingness becomes Infinity. It is also the key to uniting quantum physics with relativity

[@Etudio]

Susskind is such a nice guy. Love this interpretation and the proposed Law. I still hold that the "simpler" way to look at it is through information theory and dimensional analysis; spacetime itself decreases in dimensionality as we approach a black hole, and at the event horizon, from the perspective of the outside, the dimensionality of "spacetime" itself has shrunken/compressed *below* the threshold of what we consider "time", further compressing until at the heart of the black hole you've reached e-dimensional space-"time", at which point it must grow. This accounts for how long the Quantum Equilibrium takes relative to the "external" notion of time, which ends observability at the Thermal Equilibrium. It is in reaching that e-dimensional space that we achieve a "perfect" order, which is contrary to the normal interpretations of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. I posit that "spacetime" is "naturally"/neutrally pi-dimensional, that what we consider "time" is `pi - 3` in dimensionality. This accounts for the relativistic properties a particle at the *finite* speed of light experiences relative to the broader spacetime outside of it; and that speed is finite precisely because we're dealing with fractal dimensionality. Also, can we PLEASE start moving more towards QuTrits...? We all should know that ternary is inevitable in that it's closer to e than binary; Knuth noted that decades ago.

[@Etudio]

Aside: take Einstein's 4D tensor formulations and rephrase them in terms of the Complex Rationals instead of the Reals, enhanced by our known physical transcendental constants. Inaccurate model, of course, but it allows for a coarse-grain modeling of an algebraically fractal spacetime, facilitating Quantum notions of Gravity in its full spectrum from Quanta up through the macroscopic properties.

[@AskEpic]

From the outside perspective you wouldn't be able to conclude that because the shrinking makes it appear faster than light to you, but for someone inside of it, it wouldn't change for them, so its still a void to you. You can't use observation because that implies space and time relative to you, which are just illusory of your local experience, everything is still happening regardless. is space and time faster for an atom than it is for us? You can't know unless you are an atom. Maybe its extremely fast or extremely slow for quantum matter in relation to our experience but for any matter, it is what it is. Maybe it could be infinitely faster in the vacuum space around the matter which is why the matter may see it as slower than infinite. A vacuum space should respond before any matter does, how does a vacuum experience space time? You can see it relatively but I think its pointless because you can change your perspective of the system to fit your ideas.

[@Etudio]

@@AskEpic All models are false, but some models are useful. There's value in finding (coherent) perspectives on a system relative to predictive power.

[@luckyyona1101]

This made me want to go back to school. Living through new physical laws!!!!! "Everything eventually happens" I suppose. Exciting times...

[@alansmithee419]

There seems to be a fundamental misrepresentation of what a Penrose diagram is in this video, and that in combination with the fact that no *paper* seems to have been written about this leads me to seriously doubt its validity. The Penrose diagram is not Euclidean. You can't just look at it, go "Oh look this is getting wider as it goes forward in time" and conclude that a physical space is therefore getting bigger. Indeed at the extreme point - the singularity itself - this isn't a time where the black hole has maximal width, it's an infinitesimal point inside the black hole. Wide bit on Penrose diagram =/= large space. Maybe I'm missing something big, and I'm completely wrong to doubt this. But whatever I'm missing, it certainly isn't present in, or provided by, this video.

[@JonathanMarcy]

This is because a Penrose diagram is just one of the easiest models to map this phenomenon. It's basically a theoretical x-ray with which to organize known information. There are many other ways to map the exact same structure, however in this case it's just a matter of ease and simplicity. It's easy to draw a 2d on a 2d surface, and it is based on euclidean geometry. In this example his attempt is to put everything that could revolve around a black hole in one space, and to be fair he did actually a very good job. He seperate two different planes on the skewed side of either a black or white whole combination, which represents recent theories which suggest it's entirely possible for a black hole and white whole to essentially be the same object separates by time. As strange as that is to hear, basically it means that one second you got a black hole, the next you could have that black hole releasing monumental amounts of energy, such as what we see in quasars. Using this diagram he's mapping out on the board what's in his head, and honestly I wouldn't have done it any differently. Matter of fact in my thesis I provide a very similar if not exactly the same image. As far as finding a paper, to be honest Penrose diagrams isn't the focus here. It is as simply put as possible, just a medium to organize information. You could get the same result looking at the cosmic inflation model, the bell model, or in theory maybe even with just the CMB map, although it's a slight jump in logic to do so.

[@JonathanMarcy]

What he's talking about by pointing to a growing end is not to say that the black hole is, at any point in time, factually growing. Rather the approach is to understand how it COULD be growing past a certain theoretical limit.

[@JonathanMarcy]

To be fair there's a lot more to this overall model, and your right that it's not touched on in it's entirety here. But the diagram itself is literally just him illustrating the information in a way he can work with given his background, as a mechanic would be much more comfortable with this illustration then with, say, a string theory illustration. The space that's growing is representing the growing size of the event horizon. How for example if you were at the center of the black hole, the edges seem to constantly be expanding. This would be because the black holes horizon grows as it feeds on matter, and that's not at all new. It's just for a long time we haven't had a grasp on the internal makeup of a black hole to really put a theory like this into such a solid image, even in theory.

[@DoFliesCallUsWalks]

it would be my honor of a lifetime to talk to this legend

[@DoFliesCallUsWalks]

make that 83 lifetimes

[@Trainstationgr]

I thought John Malkovich was about to drop down some quantum knowledge. Was clickbaited

[@eminesavasir1237]

I hope this brilliant man gets his Nobel during his lifetime... Love you, Leonard!

[@sjzara]

I have been following this for a very long time. I’d like to know the connection between complexity and black hole volume.

[@EnginAtik]

The video ends abruptly without revealing what exactly starts again: once we reach maximum entropy , is it suggested that everything decays into photons and distances lose its meaning and a new cycle begins in the sense of Penrose's Conformal Cyclic Cosmology?

[@Discoverer-of-Teleportation]

hence proved quantum mechanics is scam

[@whawojedo]

Holy crap, John Malkovich solved black holes. 😊

[@feynstein1004]

Damn 😂😂

[@jsalem343]

Never noticed and now can't unsee 😂

[@MattHudsonAtx]

Susskind mocking himself as "poor old Lenny" is top notch humor from a top notch mind.

[@gghostbird]

Where can i get that dank shirt?

[@Z-Diode]

Damn, he's grown old like a rock or a bastion of calm! He's a giant in theoretical physics! 🎓

[@johnmalik7284]

If you wait long enough, nothing will happen.

[@Maxwell_Edison_MiM]

The Lenman just cannot be stopped. I also suggest people read his book Black Hole Wars.

[@Psychx_]

Could the inside of a black hole somewhat resemble an expanding universe? When assuming that its geometry is non-euclidean (bigger inner volume than outer radius or surface area would suggest) and it already has an internal radius of hundreds of light years, would someone who entered it still feel a pull towards the singularity, or would that be compensated by the ever increasing inner volume?

[@jinminetics599]

What a thoughtful question. Your question gave me something beautiful to think about. Are you a theoretical physicist?

[@Psychx_]

@@jinminetics599 Nah, just an enthusiast. I'm actually a pharmacologist. Nice that these thoughts have sparked your interest :D

[@lasagnahog7695]

I'm not a scientist so this is more banter than anything. Everything I've every learned about physics and math leads me to believe that the universe is a black hole. Not in any scientific/testable way, but purely in an instinctual way. It clashes with my natural tendency to dismiss instinct in favor of data in a weird way because it's something I somewhat strongly believe while not placing any value in that belief.

[@phillustrator]

This is insane. But I came up with this exact conjecture after an acid trip. I was trying to reconcile physics and information theory to understand the nature of life. (I work with both).

[@futureshocked]

A lot of cultures have--check out the 'Creation Origin Myth' of the Congolese people. It's essentially Big Bang Theory. Frankly I think the human subconcious pretty much knows what's going on. We're in a black hole, it's a fractal and thus contains more black holes which are themselves universes. Universes give birth to universes.

[@xenphoton5833]

No surprise at all 😁

[@saral2329]

Hossenfelder just came out with a video tackling the subject aswell, but with a different conclusion. Seems like this is the topic du jour of our shared self-organizing dynamic field of information :)

[@lshayo1658]

One of my hero, Leonard Susskind, love to see him. He is finally very old at this moment but keep teaching us about blackhole and universe as a whole.

[@Ekam-Sat]

Age is Relative...

[@galaxy999in]

He's young. Very young.

[@anthonyrobinson3514]

I love how he always saids his friend(s) when he’s talking about his colleagues!

[@holoman7601]

I have three objections to the above analysis that I'd like to hear some answers to if at all possible: 1. The universe considered as a holographic world is not really a closed system. The AdS/CFT correspondence can be considered a closed system because of the nature of the conformal boundary of anti-de Sitter space, but the universe considered as a holographic world is not constructed in anti-de Sitter space, but rather de Sitter space due to the effect of a positive cosmological constant. Every observer is at the central point of view of its own observed accelerated expansion of space, in which space expands away from the observer's central point of view, and has its observations in space limited by its own de Sitter cosmic horizon, where space appears to expand away from the observer at the speed of light. If we encode qubits of information on the observer's de Sitter cosmic horizon along the lines of a matrix model, as formulated in the work of Tom Banks, all the observations of that holographic world are observer dependent. As Banks has argued, the cosmological constant is only a boundary condition for the construction of that holographic world. We have to assume a value for the cosmological constant, which sets the distance to the observer's cosmic horizon, before we can construct that holographic world. The inflationary cosmology theory of the big bang assumes that dark energy and the cosmological constant must transition from a higher to a lower value in order to explain the early history of the universe, which in effect resets the boundary condition. When the cosmological constant transitions to a lower value, the observer's cosmic horizon increases in radius and surface area, and by the holographic principle, encodes more qubits of information. Every such transition of the cosmological constant to a lower value in effect creates a new big bang event, which inherently is a state that is far away from thermal equilibrium and tells us that the universe cannot be a closed system since the boundary condition changes. See the Roger Penrose discussion of inflationary cosmology in his book The Road to Reality. 2. The AdS/CFT correspondence relies on the idea of unitary time evolution, which is only a valid idea since the conformal boundary of anti-de Sitter space is a conformal Minkowski space in which the idea of time translation invariance is a valid concept. This means that all observers will agree upon the same definition of time. This is not the case in de Sitter space, where the only valid definition of time is the observer's own proper-time, which can vary from observer to observer based upon how different observers are moving relative to each other with accelerated motion. See the argument Roger Penrose makes in The Road to Reality for why the idea of unitary time evolution is generally not a valid concept in a generic curved space-time geometry, like de Sitter space with gravity. The whole idea of conventional quantum theory is based on the idea of unitary time evolution. which underlies the Feynman sum over all possible paths formulation of quantum theory. The problem is this is generally not a valid concept in any curved space-time geometry with gravity other than the AdS/CFT correspondence. 3. The above analysis ignores and does not take into account the effect of observation. In the AdS/CFT correspondence, for which unitary time evolution is a valid concept, each such observation can be considered to be an initial or final condition in the Feynman sum over all possible paths formulation of the quantum state. Each initial or final condition is an observational event that disentangles the quantum state in the sense of a quantum state reduction, which is the nature of an observation. See Roger Penrose for a discussion of how observation disentangles the quantum state through quantum state reduction. Unitary time evolution tells us that the quantum state becomes increasingly entangled as it evolves between the initial and the final state. In the sense of qubits of information encoded on a bounding surface of space. like the conformal boundary of anti-de Sitter space or an observer's cosmic horizon in de Sitter space, the quantum state becomes increasingly entangled as it evolves in time and the qubits become increasingly entangled. What is called the complexity of the quantum state is only a measure of this degree of quantum entanglement of the qubits, which become increasingly entangled over time from the initial disentangled state, which is a state of observation. The initial state could even be a state of thermal equilibrium, and the qubits will become increasingly entangled over time as the quantum state evolves from this initial disentangled state. Thermal equilibrium is best understood in terms of the equal partition of energy, which tells us that at thermal equilibrium, all the dynamical degrees of freedom for the system of interest carry the same amount of thermal energy given in terms of temperature as E=kT. For a holographic world, those dynamical degrees of freedom are qubits of information encoded on a bounding surface of space. like an observer's event horizon. Thermal equilibrium only means that all the qubits carry the same amount of thermal energy given in terms of temperature. The initial state could even be a state of thermal equilibrium, and yet the quantum state will evolve in time in terms of complexity from that initial disentangled state due to an increase in the degree of quantum entanglement of all the qubits that evolve in time. The complexity of the quantum state only measures this degree of quantum entanglement of the qubits, which increases between observational events that disentangle the quantum state. That evolution of the quantum state continues until the next observational event, which is the final state in the sum over all possible paths that disentangles the quantum state. The idea of complexity increasing to a maximal value assumes that there is no observational event that disentangles the quantum state, which is not a valid assumption as long as there are observers around like us that make observations of the universe and thereby disentangle the quantum state through their observations of the universe. It just doesn't make any sense to speak of the quantum state as increasing in complexity to a maximal value when we're making observations of the universe. That's why a second law of complexity makes no sense. It does make sense to speak of a second law of thermodynamics, which is only about the universe coming to thermal equilibrium in the sense of the equipartition of energy of all the qubits, but it makes no sense to speak of a second law of complexity, where the quantum state becomes increasingly entangled until it reaches its maximum value of the entanglement of all the qubits, which assumes that no observations are ever made that disentangle the quantum state. Hey Lenny, do you have any answers to the above objections?

[@benjamink7105]

Leonard is the man. I stumbled upon his book "the cosmic landscape" because the subheading was something about "they myth of intelligent design." You know, I was reading like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris diatribes on religion and thought this would be something like that. Nah! Much more enlightening. My introduction to physics, really. And I've been into it ever since. And lost a little of militant atheism along the way. Thanks Lenny!

[@HE4DLE55]

really thought John Malkovich was boutta give me a physics lecture

[@djayjp]

What a great production, QM!

[@BugMateo]

Good news is Lenny will make up (concoct) yet another interpretation and/or derivation to finally explain whatever he couldn't explain before... he's great

[@NATESOR]

Very much in the "Yes. Absolutely. I know some of these words." level of understanding on this one.

[@claragabbert-fh1uu]

"Thermal equilibrium" on a universae level becomes a product of 3 independent modalities: (light speed radiation:tachyonic speed ejection)/Depletion. Particle break up helps to homogenize the system by dissociating aggregates into fields of common influence. So fields homogenize but black holes modally transform into inaccessible latent dimensions. Black holes create curvumferential equilibria amid radial simplifying transform. Fields create stasis equilibria; black holes create process equilibria like shock waves. Black holes are subject to mass capacitance limiting their life by size or by time unto collision with another boack hole. Yin Yang speaks volumes.

[@meepk633]

Quanta has the best pop science content anywhere.