Quantum Complexity Inside Black Holes | Leonard Susskind

Leonard Susskind
Stanford & KITP
Oct 23, 2014
'Quantum Complexity Inside Black Holes' lecture given by Lenny Susskind as a KITP Theory Seminar.
Video can also be found here: online.kitp.ucs...

[@thepotato9317]

Day 52 of listening to this lecture on loop- I have now mastered the art of transcending time-space

[@paulg444]

"quantum mechanics and gravity and all that sort of stuff" - Leonard Susskind, The guy is the ultimate man!!!.. he communicates to us mortals in language we can understand.

[@Aman-tf8bt]

its really a great lecture ,Professor Suskind explains difficult concepts in such a simplistic manner

[@Yonana529]

I wish I had a better understanding for stuff like this. So fascinating

[@SkinnyCow.]

Lost me after he says "OK, so....."

[@josephlau13d77]

Einstein Rosen = Einstein Podolsky Rosen. Two entangled black holes have a wormhole between them. Entanglement = Einstein Rosen bridges.

[@brendawilliams8062]

31587.. is pounding the pavement on two separate drums and chasing exponential?? No, listen to the vid. 😂

[@petergreen5337]

❤Thank you very much Professor and class.

[@zts99]

Thank you! Very clear & easy to understand.

[@swizzbeats1212]

Leonard played Mike in Breaking Bad.

[@Strawberry_anxiety]

😂😂😂🤣

[@josephlau13d77]

nice path integral

[@harambesson1098]

@@josephlau13d77 nice homeomorphism

[@kk-qb3cj]

😂😂🤣🤣

[@dannyboy12357]

Why are the sound qualities so bad in his lectures?

[@robertosicam6240]

This great man should get an International Lifetime achievement award

[@andrewpalfreyman4727]

Now all that's needed is a way to collapse the throat and not only catch Alice & Bob in flagrante delicto, but also to open up the travel route and communication line from way over there at the other throat. Except for negative energy or lots of time, I have no idea how to do that.

[@markyounger1240]

Thanks

[@Aman-tf8bt]

at 32:45 thermalisation is a rapid process and complexity is a long process .. Ok but are there any means through which we can test the complexity in some physical system...

[@aoflex]

Quantum Complexity Inside Black Holes | Leonard Susskind

[@WilliamCasarin]

shomolya Agreed. This channel is awesome.

[@JackMyersPhotography]

+aoflex Excellent, your channel here is amazing, thanks for taking the time to share it.

[@patrciaclemons8183]

Nice vid dad, soon they'll learn. Humans take time

[@amogh5427]

😂😂

[@ddstar]

how do you know two black holes are connected? You can't see the other side and you can't pass signals out.

[@davidwilkie9551]

If navigation is done by place names, that is what conventional nomenclature does for a field of study. A referencing system that has a single origin for a single positioning system using the function that actively locates all relative positions, is what QM-Time does, so the inside of a Black Hole is "simply" a shift of relative scales similar to the internal arrangements for particles like neutrons(?). The relative proportions of properties inside a BH are Dark, and unknowable by direct sensing devices, but are possible to guess at by using the math of modulated fractal scales as they apply to the usual phase-state relationships? (In other words, I am guessing that is what Prof Maldecena is taking about by working back from boundary conditions?)

[@ianian8022]

Mathematics and black holes - a marriage made in heaven. Dark arts and dark hearts. Yadda yadda and yes, this is the best I can do. Go on with your brains! Honestly. Then maybe one day one of you clever enough to explain it to me. Well, I'll check back on occasion to see what progress you've made and when the day comes and you do crack it, please could you ask Amy give me a call and not fillipenko. Cheers all and keep up the good work. Yad.........

[@kidzbop38isstraightfire92]

What in the blithering hell are you talking about?

[@brendawilliams8062]

Thankyou

[@jonbainmusicvideos8045]

Are these the same black-holes where time halts at the event horizon but still manage to spin? Or are these the black holes where nothing gets past the event horizon that travels at lightspeed, and where gravity itself travels at lightspeed but gets past the event horizon? Or are these the black-holes that are (self-censored)?

[@kidzbop38isstraightfire92]

17:30 could someone explain to me (a) why 010101... Is considered to be the most complex version of 000000? And (b) What a z2 transformation is (when he said that 111111 is the same as 000000)?

[@viniciusgoncalves2642]

I think that he only used it as an example for the values that can change to increase the complexity and not to be taken as an actual result.

[@kidzbop38isstraightfire92]

@@viniciusgoncalves2642 actually nevermind, I think I get it. If I had a number line from -1 to 1, where 00000000 represented -1 and 1111111 represented 1, the absolute value of the two would be equal. In other words, while they are opposites, their magnitudes are the same. And since 0101010101 (which is 0 on the number line) is equidistant from 00000 and 11111, it represents the farthest away from each (i.e. the most complex). Anything other than 010101 is closer to either 000000 or 111111, so it's not the most complex.

[@harambesson1098]

Z2 means the set of all integers mod 2. Applying the “flip” operation on 0,0,0,0 yields 1,1,1,1 and he writes these tuples(in this case quadruple) as a binary number since it’s considered information. Hope that helps!

[@bigrockets]

the audio needs help on this video, if you cant understand Mr Susskind then the video is not much good he's a man with plenty to say.

[@Aman-tf8bt]

does computtaional complexity of quantum systems has an implication on classical systems?

[@nurlatifahmohdnor8939]

Now I see one can spot logistic by looking at the type of marine animals around. 1 Blue Marlin = Makaira nigricans 2 Tarpon = Megalops atlantica 3 Atlantic Cod = Gadus morhua 4 Octopus = Octopus americanus 5 Atlantic Herring = Clupea harengus harengus 6 Sandbar Shark = Carcharhinus milberti 7 Dolphin = Coryphaena hippurus 8 King Mackerel = Scomberomorus cavalla 9 Ocean Sunfish = Mola mola 10 Yellowfin Tuna = Thunnus albacares 11 Great Barracuda = Sphyraena barracuda mu-la mu-la = first

[@MrEdward86]

Chalkboard looks a bit dirty

[@VFXLtd]

wow lol hes 75

[@Aman-tf8bt]

i just wanted to get an analogy of increasing computational complexity in systems other than black holes say those in real life...What does increasing computational complexity imply for a cup of coffee?

[@returnsVoid]

very likely nothing at all, computational complexity is abstracted from entropy in thermodynamics. conceptually different arenas sharing a common terminology can be very confusing when trying to transpose ideas between the different concepts. It's like someone saying the nucleus is so small it cannot be directly observed. Then someone else says, but I can see the nucleus through a microscope, then you realise one person is a particle physicist and the other person is a bio-physicist.. both have made true statements, just in different arenas sharing terminology. otherwise we'd constantly be having to make up new words for each arena. its like charge in physics, are we talking about charge in electrons and protons, or charge in quarks, same word, totally different meaning in their respective conceptual domains. It's almost like function overloading in computer programming, where the function name is the same for many different functions, and what function is chosen for execution at runtime is based entirely on the arrangement of arguments presented to the overloaded function. think of a programming language with a function DrawCircle( x, y, r ) where 3 floating point arguments are required. and the same function which only takes one argument in the form of a Vector3, wrapping those 3 variables in a single argument DrawCircle( v ), this is function overloading. what DrawCircle function gets used depends on the arguments you use. While this may get confusing at times. it's much easier than having to constantly think up and remember different names for your functions. YES IT'S LAZY! AND SCIENTISTS ARE LAZY LIKE THIS TOO WITH THEIR TERMINOLOGY!

[@JNash317]

So, it may be possible to enter the blackhole at the center of the Milky Way, and exit through the blackhole at the center of the Andromeda Galaxy, if they are entangled?

[@JNash317]

Sorry, I forgot about non-traversability. Thank you Professor Susskind.

[@ztech6596]

Thrift store

[@lreid1457]

30 minutes of this and my brain hurts

[@Denosophem]

For real why has Nobody Said anything about this?

[@brendawilliams8062]

As long as I’ve banged the drum😂 1:42 around I come back looking for old comments

[@Incognito-vc9wj]

This is mind blowing shit he’s dropping and everyone there is either half asleep or asking dumb questions.

[@crowmagg1]

leonard you had to go in there?

[@nurlatifahmohdnor8939]

Page 303 Herodotus: Herat (349,000 in 2006) = the breadbasket of Central Asia.

[@nurlatifahmohdnor8939]

Yu Aw S. is in Momanda district.

[@nodealbrexitnow7376]

Why K/2 ? to flip each bit is K operations

[@kidzbop38isstraightfire92]

Because he is only flipping half of his bits. 000000 ---> 010101

[@joelzablow2949]

@@kidzbop38isstraightfire92 because the state 111111 is just as simple as the state 00000. So the state furthest from both, (maximum complexity), is 010101, and as mentioned above, it just requires flipping half the bits to get there.

[@সত্যকথা-ছ৪ঢ]

I understand nothing🙂.

[@godsadog]

The "stupidity" of Susskind's audience baffles me - or their dull questions at least. I have seen this throughout his presentations. Aren't those supposed to be the world's mind-elite?

[@cymoonrbacpro9426]

godsadog Your comment is self-serving, nevertheless, this is all hypothetical nonsense.

[@neurophilosophers994]

They’re trying to make sure they understand. It’s easy to think you understand harder to be sure. Nature seems to always be attempting self deception.

[@kidzbop38isstraightfire92]

They are asking just so their voices can be heard..smart people are bad about this. We had a guy in my nuclear engineering classes who would always ask the dumbest questions just to built credits with the teacher. Annoyed the hell out of everyone.

[@HaydnArlene-i9y]

Hernandez Michelle Jones John Lee Barbara

[@thevirtunaut2577]

everyone just remember to brush your teeth; this is way too much two to the K

[@HubbardGavin-e1x]

Miller Charles Martin Christopher Anderson Susan

[@kaushaltimilsina7727]

Could this make sense? Black holes without singularity and systems below the Planck scales Reference: An observer falling into a black hole observing something that is also falling into a black hole just before it: If an outside observer never observes an in-falling observer ever fall into the black hole, any particle entering the black hole should feel nothing else to be inside the black hole but only itself; because just before it entered the black hole, everything that was about to enter the black before it froze at the event horizon, so there is nothing inside the black hole but just that particle. This would mean that there would be no singularity. Second option-Now let’s say that it would feel everything to be normal-that is see its predecessors fall into the black hole and that only those outside observers accelerating away from the black hole see things freezing on the surface of the black hole. For that to happen, when the same observer is moving towards the black hole, observes things going in; but when accelerating away observes things clumping up on the horizon. If that were to happen, every time the observer went back and forth the clumping would freeze and unfreeze. Third-Or if an outside observer maintaining a constant distance from the black hole is the one that observes the clumping. When the observer moved away, if the things unfroze, entering the black hole; relativistic predictions would be incorrect. Inside the black hole: I like to talk about the first interpretation-the violation of the extrapolation of the geometry inside the black hole-that there is no singularity. If we add some definitions to the idea, it looks familiar to a question, we’ve been asking and the incomprehensible answer we’ve been getting. First, the observer sees no non-virtual particles. However, high energy virtual particles pop into and out of existence frequently. When one of such particle deforms space-time, it forms temporary gravitational influence on the “only one” non-virtual particle-“observer” before shortly ceasing to exist and no more influencing the non-virtual particle. Another virtual particle comes into existence somewhere inside the black hole and temporarily pulls the non-virtual particle in a different direction (could be the same) with different intensity depending on their relative positions. As many virtual particles pop into existence, the particle is pulled around and pulled in some other direction while some virtual particles cease to exist and some other new virtual particles come into existence. The non-virtual particle is pulled around inside the black hole in this field of virtual particles; never quite achieving the influence to escape the black hole. It could be helpful to imagine the idea as a yo-yo being pulled back and forth, allowing the movement in all directions and the intensities to be different. Since, the observation is the same for all particles, the non-virtual particle is only non-virtual to itself, and virtual to every other particle and any observation from the view of the space-time inside the black hole. The same idea can be described in a different way. The space-time inside the black hole is a high energy deformation in the portion of space-time where, as virtual particles pop into and out of existence, powerful gravitational waves move the non-virtual particle around, inside the black hole. The gravitational waves are the result of virtual particles coming into and out of existence, producing different patterns of gravitational strong fields. Explaining a very similar answer; and amazing consequences Length below the Planck length leads to answers that there should be black holes everywhere below the Planck length. While that might tell us that we don’t understand it so well, it could very well be telling us a different story this whole time. Maybe the reason systems below the Planck scales give rise to black hole scenarios is because what happens inside a black hole is very similar to what happens inside a Planck length-what happens to space-time. Below the Planck scale, space-time is not empty and virtual particles coming into existence and going out of existence make up the vacuum energy field, as well accepted. Every point in space-time is stretched, as virtual particles come into existence as the vacuum energy field fluctuation. This is exactly like the first definition we established about what happens inside the black hole. The high energy virtual particles coming into and out of existence inside the black hole, cause gravitational influence because the gravitational waves are localized. Similarly, the virtual particles coming into an out of existence in vacuum field, stretch space-time at a lot of points (theoretically all points) and in a lot of all directions (theoretically all directions), creating the effect observed as Dark Energy. There is one more definition we need to add here. As, the virtual particles inside the black holes come into and out of the existence, the virtual particles coming into and out of existence that make up the vacuum energy field-do so at inside the Planck-scales, let’s say inside the Planck volume. Since, the two phenomenon are extremely similar, that is why we get an answer that there should be black holes below the Planck scales, when we compute the prediction of our theories. But more than being similar, the two phenomena could be two observations of a single phenomenon. The Hawking Radiation and conservation of information It could very well be the case that the matter eaten by black holes in our universe appear as virtual particles in space-time outside the black holes; and that explaining why “inside the Planck scale phenomenon” and “inside the black hole phenomenon” are the same thing. Now the way this model can elegantly describe the hawking radiation or quantum tunneling as the property of the particles inside the black holes to appear outside the black holes as quantum vacuum field fluctuations-(the reason such systems are described as quantized at the Planck scales can be better discussed by explaining the Schwarzschild radius); And this does not violate information conservation. And black holes turn out to be converting matter into vacuum energy diluting the energy in our universe. An unanswered question: revisiting group splitting All along this time, we did not answer why the particle inside the black hole observes no other non-virtual particle. This idea is described using the splitting of a group; the central idea in this discussion. A black hole has the following property. Before entering the black hole, some matter can interact with each other in space and are described as being in the same system in the “volume neighborhood” or less seriously-space. A black hole can split this system into many systems that cannot interact in the “volume neighborhood”-so that each particle when observed by some other particle is just a virtual particle. According to the idea of group reconfiguration, space-time is the geometry of group configurations while volume neighborhood or dimension is one such configuration. However, the particles may interact in “other dimensions or neighborhoods”, and hence appear as virtual particles to each other in the volume neighborhood, and are able to convey gravitational influence as they continue to have defined geometries of group configurations- or less seriously interactions with space-time. According to the evolving dynamics of group reconfiguration, the virtual particles come into existence and cease to exist. A more elegant description to the Hawking radiation with an anticipated link-entanglement: We discussed that a virtual particle that ceases to exist inside a black hole, instantly appears somewhere in space-time outside the black hole as a virtual particle in the vacuum energy field and vice versa. It is not difficult to notice that entanglement is beautifully written into that idea-the opposite state is observed instantaneously-a virtual particle coming into existence and a virtual particle ceasing to exist. The idea that’s even more fascinating is that not the particles but rather the “space-time inside the black hole and the space-time outside the black hole” is entangled-and that the entanglement is dynamic. While exploring the entanglement as connections in higher dimension would be interesting, our discussion-owing to the fact that volume; a dimension, is not the same as space-time-which is not a dimension, seeks to describe that as entanglement of space-time and something fundamental to the property of space-time. So, let’s see more to that. If a virtual particle can pop into existence anywhere in space-time, all of the space-time outside the black hole should be entangled with all of the space-time inside the black hole. And that’s okay. The more the entangled entities, the noisier it gets and the states get more and more indistinguishable. So, if all of the space-time inside the black hole is entangled with all of space-time outside the black hole, the virtual particles pop in and out of existence are really noisy and totally indistinguishable. That goes along well with the idea that any virtual particle can pop into existence anywhere in space-time and it would not be possible to determine which particle popped up where-the symmetry in energy states. But really, how does all of space-time outside the black hole get entangled with all of space-time inside the black hole?

[@kaushaltimilsina7727]

When a particle is in the space-time outside the black hole, it has an influence on the curvature of space-time outside the black hole and not inside the black hole. When it moves into the black hole, it sort of disappears from the system outside the black hole sending out relaxation waves through space-time outside the black hole, and appearing into the black hole system it sends out distortion waves through space-time inside the black hole. But how could this be? The outside observer never observes the particle fall into the black hole, and hence should never observe this wave through space-time. But this wave carries information about entanglement and entanglement identifies entangled entities as discontinuous and separate and so is the information carried by this wave-which is just a fancy way of saying a part of a continuous element cannot be entangled with some other part of itself. And hence the need for quantization of space-time, and let’s see how such a wave of entanglement information travels in quantized space-time, how the entanglement occurs, and how we can still appreciate general relativity. The quantization of space-time We have discussed previously that volume is quantized at the Planck scales and that volume + time is not equivalent to space-time. And now we are going to assign a proper definition to some construction that we have already used in the discussion. How can the gravitational waves inside the black hole be localized? How can the space-time deformation be different inside and outside a black hole? Yes, because space-time is quantized. The discreet chunks of space-time can have different energies. How can we reconcile that with the fact that gravitational waves propagate in a continuous stretch of space-time? There’s a video on KZbin from Mashable Deals “Revolutionary Orange Goo used to protect Football Players from Head Traumas” -about the D30 goo. And this goo has an interesting property; when stretched slowly, it stretches behaving like plastic materials, but under sudden stress the goo acts like a non-stretchy solid-which is why it’s used in football helmets. The way I like to discuss the quantization of space-time is by believing that it is continuous and smooth to convey the smooth curvature of gravity and propagate gravitational waves. But at the boundary of black hole-the event horizon and the boundary of Planck scale volumes, space-time behaves like a non-stretchy fabric, giving a non -continuous curvature. So when a gravitational wave is propagating outside a black hole since the boundary is stiff, the entire black hole behaves like one discrete particle in the wave-because its ends are stiff. The gravitational waves inside the black holes bounce off of this stiff walls and are contained inside the black hole. The same description applied to the Planck scale volume. But what creates gives space-time this stiff property? Anything falling into the black hole is frozen at the surface of the black hole to any outside observer. The mass of the black hole is observed spread out at the horizon. So, what would be described as infinitely dense singularity is discussed in this discussion as the stiff boundary. The boundary-horizon, is in this constant rush to pack more information; like the singularity, to an outside observer observing the start of infinite inward curvature or the hole-like a sudden fall into a pit. Hence an observer outside the horizon never observes the propagation of gravitational wave outside the horizon to pass through the horizon. As for the particle inside the black hole, as it is constantly pushed and pulled around, it never reaches the horizon and every other particle it observes is virtual, so the gravitational waves inside the horizon never goes through the horizon. The same idea goes for the Planck Scale volumes. And so, quantization of space-time does not really require space-time to be composed of granular sub particles but allowing stiff boundaries in the continuous fabric-like knots in a rubber band, could better describe quantization of a smooth continuous space-time. The quantization of space-time in the group configuration interpretation If the geometry of the group configuration-space-time; is quantized, not all imaginable configuration is possible-hence the configurations are not infinite in number; and therefore a sense of relief-there are only finitely many dimensions. So, trying to define the properties of dimensions makes sense. How the entanglement information is conveyed between all of the space-time inside the black hole and all of the space-time outside the black hole Back to where we needed the space-time to be quantized, entanglement. As a particle falls into the black hole, according to the observation-rather reasoning of the particle, it observes that the space-time outside the black hole must not have the particle. And so there’s this sudden relaxation throughout space-time; or rather sudden uphill -which is another description of the idea “it’s like the sudden fall just at the event horizon of the black hole”. And following our discussion on the quantization of space-time, it is when-rather from that perspective where such sudden pits or uphill happen; that the space-time behaves quantized. And this gravitational wave of relaxation through space-time is different than the usually known kind through continuous space. Like we discussed, gravitational waves do no go through the stiff boundary; when all of the space-time is quantized-this happens: If space-time were a rope and usual gravitational waves would be transverse waves in the string, when all of the space-time is quantized and stiff, the wave would be such that the entire rope would move up and down without any element in the rope moving relative to each other-that is from the perspective of space-time ousted the black hole. And so the relaxation gravitational wave is sent through all of space without any observation of gravitational wave inside anywhere in space-time. The gravitational wave of sudden distortion is conveyed through all of space-time inside the black hole. And the fact that the relaxation wave traveling outside the black hole and the distortion wave traveling inside the black hole carry the exact opposite information entails that the two waves are entangled. And as the information about entanglement of space-time outside the black hole and space-time inside the black hole travels as the waves, all of the space-time inside the black hole is entangled with space-time outside the black hole. But how does this idea appreciate the expansion of the universe? If the rope is growing in length, how does all of it move up and down-without some of the elements going out of phase with one another? According to our discussion, the expansion of our universe is due to the virtual particles inside the black holes disappearing from inside the black holes and reappearing somewhere outside the black hole, and that idea appreciates the quantization of space-time, so when the universe expands- the space-time outside the black hole observes that the expansion is smooth and continuous, whereas the space-time inside the black hole and below the Planck scale observe that the expansion is quantized. And so the rope moving up and down could grow maintaining the phase in oscillations, while moving up and down and no inconsistent observations happen. Nothing about entropy? It’s time for the revelation. The entire discussion of group configuration, is actually a discussion about the patterns of group configuration. That means entropy is the central idea of this discussion. A very important idea This discussion appreciates volume as separate entity from space. “Observations at a point in space-time” have been termed as “The particle observes”. Since the particle is described more by its association with space-time than its association with some volume, it is important to describe reality from that perspective. But what happens when all black holes run out of food to eat? The universe could be left with just vacuum energy field fluctuations with virtual particles popping into and out of existence. Our universe’s geometry to interact in volume-neighborhood could be gone while the energy of our universe (as particles) may continue to interact in other configurations and neighborhoods. Virtual particles may form real particles. The universe could split into different systems or combine with some other system. The universe could lose its quantization as black holes disappear taking away with them the vacuum energy fluctuation making the system continuous. The continuity could be disturbed when something else interacts with our system in a big bang.

[@se4949]

Too long didn’t read. If you want people to read a small essay on the KZbin comment section I would suggest being somewhat grammatically correct within the first paragraph.

[@CoolGuy-fg3xv]

This is old material

[@JohnFHendry]

C, T, G & A.... RNA and DNA.... the code and sensory stage connected to time. The calculations below expose it when understood. Relative to an Initial Inertial Frame of Reference there is only one Observer: O=E. Call it what you like... Life's Mass has always existed and always will exist. The speed of light is created by Mass Oscillation and is Life's pendulum and it's rate of Mass oscillation connected to time is fixed and time dilation does not change that fact. The equation for the Unified Field Theory must create the first particle via the 4 forces and keep on going which exposed Life's particle making clock and the realization that the weak force must have asymmetry. Credit goes to SLAC's E158 team for supplying it's ratio value which adds one hour every thousand years. The weak force is an oscillator. Consciousness has Mass as I believe Rosalind Franklin discovered explaining why she was withholding the DNA's X-Ray. We see the photon move just as we see the Sun rotate around the Earth... and the observation is reference frame dependent. History repeats itself unless something very unusual stops it which would require an asymmetry of some type added and the next step in physics is made by accepting what the photon's non-moving clock tells us. Both views of the Sun and the photon are real, but one is an illusion we rely on in our daily affairs and the other is a technical fact. The neutrino has a function in Nature in providing the photon's needed force carrier space separating the weak force from the strong force and this is easy to prove if you can do (very) simple math thanks to CERN and SLAC that created the needed data. The neutrino is not a true antiparticle as once thought but it certainly can appear like that because it is an empty shell of transfer space left over stuck in time where it separates the weak force from the strong force. And because E=T where time like energy must be conserved it has an asymmetric partner not yet observed outside of the theory that supports it connected to the other elements of the theory have been verified... explaining well known mysteries. The asymmetry of the weak force is exposing the cause of gravity despite in all likelihood it is also confusing those holding a loose cable seeing that it's asymmetrical subtrahend of 0,20e-5 sec. in 453.6 light speed miles does not match the value of G. But the gravity created is just as real as Universal gravity outside the area of separation and as stated many years ago the two cannot mix their phase timing of force but that is a post for a later date so as not to repeat the same mistake twice as the truth like glue sets up and hardens. Related to the discussion of Time... in Sept 2011 CERN shocked the world when CERN's scientists announced that if their measurement following Fermilab's less accurate observations of muon neutrinos moving @ (v-c)/c=2.48e-5 sec. in 453.6 miles was correct then Einstein was wrong. The same guy who was "wrong" when he refused to accept the uncertainty principle and use dice to make measurements. And if you are paying attention to what's going on in astronomy then you know it is being said he was "wrong" again. Truth is he just wasn't finished with the equation E=mc2 and the E158 data he needed providing the ratio of weak force asymmetry to add was not available until 2004 Here's a copy of some simple calculations handed to the director of LIGO regarding CERN's “Superluminal” Neutrino Abnormality announced September 2011 @ (v-c)/c=2.48e-5 sec in 453.6 miles. They show using basic math that CERN's Muon phase neutrinos @ (v-c/c)=2.48e-5 sec in 453.6 miles match SLAC's E158 asymmetry of the weak force ratio @ 2.48e-5 sec in 453.6 miles creating an asymmetry in time of 20e-5 sec. A year after this was shown on Nature's Forum next to CERN's scientists trying to figure out why their data was showing Einstein was wrong if it were correct SLAC went back over their BaBar experiment's data and confirmed "looking at it differently) time has asymmetry. Of course... gravity is real. Open up a calculator and it's easy to follow along. "{a}" is the algebraic symbol of the value in effect of WF Asy: Weak Force Asymmetry {a} adds 1hour/3600 seconds every 1000 years: Re: SLAC E158 "using clocks". Muon Neutrino's do not exceed the speed of light because they were created at the SOL. Einstein was right, not wrong: 3600sec / 1000 years = 3.6 seconds WF Asy {a} added in one year. So we put that into the speed of light distance because space is relative to time. They are one and the same outside the atom. 3.6 sec x 186282 (speed of light) = 670615.2 which is the {a} WF asy in distance added to the speed of light in one year so.... 670615.2 / 365.2425 days in a year = 1836.082055072999 is the {a} WF asy SOL distance added to speed of light in one day 1836.082055072999 / 24 hours = 76.50341896137498 is the {a} WF asy time/distance added to speed of light in one hour 76.50341896137498 / 60 minutes = 1.275056982689583 is the {a} WF asy added to speed of light in one minute 1.275056982689583 / 60 seconds = 0.021250949711493 is the {a} WF asy added to speed of light in one second Now if the Earth were bigger and CERN's neutrinos had traveled a little over 186282 miles (one second + WF Asy gained @ SOL) we would be done, but since they only traveled 453.6 miles we need to keep going till we get to the amount of {a} added in 453.6 miles. So we divide the miles light travels in one second by the miles CERN's neutrinos traveled. 86282 miles or one second/453.6 miles, the percentage of a one second gain which is = 410.6746031746032 Now we divide it into the WF Asy one second gain from above (.021250949711493 ) 0.021250949711493 / 410.6746031746032= 5.174644243208279e-5 That just gave us the total forward and back total neutrino oscillation WF Asy {a} time gained in 453.6 miles. Now notice it is almost exactly double CERN's 2.48e-5 sec SOL gain announced Worldwide before the politics SLAC ignored stepped in. So pay attention because the next two simple calculations dividing it in half and using CERN's 2.48e-5 as a forward arrow "stopping point" to add the .10e-5 sec remaining difference to the other half to make it fit is a game changer from the "dice" (uncertainty principle) to two sided cards (two oscillation arrows connected to time) because CERN's data matching SLAC's E158 ratio shows time has a reverse Mass oscillation phase arrow direction, and that means the neutrino has an asymmetric reverse direction partner that measures a little bigger than the neutrino giving time an asymmetry. And note the specific and exceptionally long SOL distances that create the asymmetry of the weak force ratio SLAC's E158 team measured. Add to that I had been quoting the E158 data for years after finding it and expected it to match like this to add the asymmetry to space calling it a lesser diesis harmonic comma and you can see this was no coincidence. (This was written before SLAC went back over their BaBar data and confirmed the asymmetry in time giving the discovery a sigma 14 level of certainty in Nov 2012.) 5.174644243208279e-5 /2 = 2.58732212160414e-5 sec That gave us the forward arrow of time WF Asy gain in 453.6 miles that is .10e-5 sec over CERN's 2.48e-5 sec in CERN's equation @ (v-c)/c=2.48e-5. So we subtract the difference: 2.58e-5 - 2.48e-5 = .10e-5 sec And add it to the other half: 10e-5 + 2.58e-5 = 2.68e-5 giving the second reverse arrow an asymmetry in time of .20e-5 sec, the difference in size of the forward arrow @ 2.48e-5 2.68e-5 - 2.48e-5 = .20e-5 sec So using basic math we see that CERN's muon neutrinos @ (v-c)/c = 2.48e-5 sec in 453.6 miles creates an asymmetry in time (Einstein's Comma) of .20e-5sec just as I predicted it would simply by using CERN's forward arrow gain of 2.48e-5 sec to show where we "fold" space and add SLAC's E158 remaining ratio that fits filling in the second reverse Mass oscillation arrow with 2.68e-5 sec. If you add an asymmetry to time you must end up with one and to create gravity it must occur in the second half so the reverse arrow is a little longer. This shows Gravity is caused by the subtrahend of the electromagnetic wave where one side points up relative to the observer and the other side points down. Gravity is created by the remaining weak force asymmetry gained in the second reverse arrow of time with the forward arrow measuring 2.48e-5 sec in 453.6 miles. If it were wrong the numbers wouldn't say it was correct and someone would have corrected it in the last 4 years. BTW, I left something quite startling and important out related to the effect of weak force asymmetry in both physics and astronomy for a very good reason. I should have waited a few months after CERN's Sept 2011 announcement to show what caused it so the politics would not have tried to hide the solution not that it stopped SLAC from confirming the asymmetry in time exposed by the E158/CERN data match. But then again anyone following my work over the years would know what caused it so I had no choice if I wanted credit for the discovery in a world too often controlled by greed and a desire for power. Lucky for all of us that requires knowledge.Adding the asymmetry of the weak force to measurements on the atomic scale is like adding the drive shaft to a car allowing it to move forward without getting out and pushing it. Space is forming in an harmonic octave level structure and the further back in time we look the lower the octave level of frequency. The more roommates E and therefore G has the weaker it's vote is.. JFH^^

[@kwijung]

+John F Hendry what

[@JohnFHendry]

kwijung It was not written for the lazy layman;-) But the math is basic 6th grade level so just use a calculator and do it looking for an error (this will affect your belief system) without trying to comprehend what the numbers mean, just focus on what you are doing... simply reducing a proven ratio of an amount of time added (E158 weak force asymmetry ratio gained in one thousand years = one hour) down to what is added to the speed of light in 453.6 miles that is relative to the space added in the speed of light distance gained. What you get to see is time is connected to the distance created by the speed of light showing why space is relative to time in the simplistic view of using only two dimensions (two opposite direction arrows connected to one overall direction arrow by the order the two up and down arrows occur one before the other, what is called phase timing) instead of three dimensions where it gets too complicated without understanding the first two dimension's directions. You will also see there is an asymmetry in time we experience as gravity because time has two arrows created by Mass oscillation moving in two opposite directions where Mass must come to a complete stop (the 'particle view') before moving back in the other direction (the 'wave view' creating the mystery of "particle or wave" duality) like a swing or pendulum does. Gravity happens because the second phase arrow is longer than the first. Don't try to understand why it's longer as you need to understand the foundation of time first and how it is created as time has a "scale size" that changes. When you see there is no error do it over again. Every time you do it you repeat a pattern and after a few times doing it you will pick up on the asymmetry, the difference in the distance in length of the two opposite arrows and then you will on your way to seeing how time grows longer resulting in the creation of gravity every time Mass oscillates.

[@kwijung]

John F Hendry what

[@novasuper8378]

John F Hendry '

[@novasuper8378]

I would like to discuss theories with you

[@williamrich7638]

I don't think he's right.

[@Denosophem]

This is getting fucking rediclous

[@stephenmiller783]

This lecture is full of “uuhh” uhhms

[@cymoonrbacpro9426]

hypothetical nonsense