Raphael Bousso: The Black Hole Paradox, Quantum Gravity, and the Holographic Principle

[@alexbranton426]

Robinson clearly locked in a never ending philosophical debate with his gym equipment

[@robinsonerhardt]

hahaha

[@toniwilson6210]

This is also how I skip leg day

[@CarlaConley-j5y]

I love Raphael, I could listen to him all day. Thank you!

[@robinsonerhardt]

My pleasure!

[@Victor-ks3sp]

This was great! Really good questions and Buosso is such a good communicator. For some reason I really enjoy how he pauses and thinks about the questions and what he’s about to say

[@robinsonerhardt]

Me too!

[@tor2gonzio]

Isn't it amazing that one guy wears long sleeve shirt with short pants, and the other one wears short sleeve t-shirt with long trousers...? 😮 Is almost like they've swapped half of their stuff

[@robinsonerhardt]

we did a lil clothing swap beforehand

[@czembamusic]

😂

[@simesaid]

Raphael is dressed maximally _geek,_ and Robinson is dressed maximally _gay..._ oh, sorry, I meant maximally _happy!_ Not gay, _happy!_ 😊

[@kadourimdou43]

@@robinsonerhardtSurely they were Entangled.

[@ScientificReview]

This is an information paradox!

[@migfed]

This is by far the best interview to a physicist yet in this channel. Raphael is really going into extraordinary depth in order to make sense of modern research physics on cosmology field.

[@robinsonerhardt]

I'm glad you enjoyed it!

[@MoshkitaTheCat]

One of my favorite episodes. Thank you for your hard work !

[@TimZM]

I haven't seen Bousso in a long time. He's great!

[@robinsonerhardt]

Agreed!

[@JohnE-c2k]

YES MORE PHYSICS PLEASE

[@robinsonerhardt]

:)

[@ryanchicago6028]

Black Holes can't exist. The Graviton must obey the speed of light. Gravity would not be felt on the exterior.

[@TheEduInitiative]

It was wonderful to hear Buosso speak so eloquently about several complex physics topics! Again, I also enjoyed the in-person style of the podcast. I do wonder what the drawings on the chalkboard mean and how the mugs were able to stay on the bottom ledge of the board throughout the whole interview.

[@robinsonerhardt]

Raphael is great! And I'm really glad that you like the in-person format. It's much more fun, but a lot more work!

[@swozzares]

Need to hear more from Raphael

[@robinsonerhardt]

Absolutely.

[@ugowar]

This.

[@robinsonerhardt]

@@ugowar :)

[@swagatsauravmishra]

Excellent Podcast, Discussions of the highest quality. Great Channel

[@palfers1]

This negative energy thing blows my mind (and I have a physics degree). Via the Bousso bound it implies spacetime can consist of negative area. WTF?

[@derschutz4737]

The camera and mic quality were awesome

[@robinsonerhardt]

This is the comment i have been waiting for

[@derschutz4737]

@@robinsonerhardt i was shocked when i first clicked the video, insanely good! Good job!

[@siarez]

Question of Physics reading: At @30:00 he give the example of a glass of water that is perfectly isolated and evolves according to the laws of QM. What if instead of a glass of water, you get a clock, sync it with your watch, and put the clock in the box? What time do you expect to read on the clock if after one hour (on your watch) you break the isolation and read the clock? Would the clock be still in sync with your watch?

[@helicalactual]

The position operator, information, gets stored on the boundary of the black hole. The water itself falls through but a hologram of the position operator of the water, appears to be stuck before it blurs out by the next set of items falling in thusly making the hologram layer a smudge. I think this is what he is saying?

[@dramirezg70]

I liked your podcast the other day where you talk about your own insecurities, challenges, etc. Don't beat yourself over it, and be glad you have the time and resouces to read all these books from all these interesting people you get to interview. I only wished I had that privilege, but you know, Life.

[@robinsonerhardt]

thanks!

[@dramirezg70]

@@robinsonerhardt by the way, in no way I could have imagined you carry such crutches. You seem very secure and confident about yourself. So you must be doing something right.

[@sog1272]

Which episode?

[@dramirezg70]

@@sog1272 Ask Me Anything | July 2024

[@MattGray_Chelsoph]

Fantastic love love love it!!

[@trucid2]

Great talk. Lots to think about.

[@robinsonerhardt]

Thank you!

[@diegoalejandrosanchezherre4788]

Will the suskind's conjecture: "quamtum complexity=volume" violate the bouso bound????? Because by this conjecture the volume of space (so the quamtum degrees of Freedom) inside the black hole grows a looot more than the suface área soraunding that volume (or the entropy(s)) so the information of the black hole interior is bigger than the entropy represented by the Surface área according to this view...... 🤔🤔

[@blingpup21]

This channel is truly a hidden Gem. it will become more popular with time.

[@dosesandmimoses]

Great episode!

[@robinsonerhardt]

Thanks!

[@portalsandmagicghostnumbercube]

The multiverse superposition of invisible entropy states on a horizon gives an apparent single surface area in the bulk reality but again, the surface area is the superposition of many unseen worlds added together to give our bulk information. It's only an illusion when seen in separate universes that a single surface area holds all the information of the bulk holographic reality. An Invisible/Holographic Principle of the Multiverse!

[@aeimcinternetional]

While l reflected on what was being said in this very nice interview (not just because it cements or maintains my trust in string theory's superiority) I again felt justified in having the attitude that infinity is real and that mathematicians and string theorists (especially) have discovered fruitful ways of dealing with (renormalising) 'it' (≈infinity as a property of ultimate reality).

[@mandelbraught2728]

Super conversation, clear and informative! You conduct the interview from an informed and respectful place, it's terrific. It was especially nice to hear about Mr. Bussos specific work and thinking. Thanks Robinson! ... As an aside I have a super naive question that I've been wondering about, I don't understand how they talk about the horizon of the black hole like a "thing", when any information that falls in will cause it to grow. I'm certain there's a good answer, but how does the information on a smaller horizon move to the bigger one...? There's just something I don't understand yet, so I'll keep watching😀

[@robinsonerhardt]

I'm so glad you're enjoying it :)

[@brendawilliams8062]

One side will call the other a crackpot. Lol. So true

[@oraz.]

Lovely intro quote

[@JoeLebrick]

ooo thumb redesign! ❤‍🔥

[@robinsonerhardt]

Always cooking

[@thedudeabidesss]

Thanks for the video robinson! Hope you are doing well ❤. This type of content provide a good context for physics at this level. I like your interview with juan maldacena. And i'd like to see people like cumrun vafa, nima arkhani hamed and like you mentioned t'hooft, just making some suggestion only. Keep up the good work 🙌. Also how is your own research in logic going? Good luck with everything 🙌

[@robinsonerhardt]

Thanks! They're on my list!

[@thedudeabidesss]

@@robinsonerhardt Thank you for the reply 🙌. Just making one more suggestion also, if don't mind, but if i am coming across as irritating, etc., pls ignore the following. I don't know if it matches the nature of your podcast content, but I personally would like to see mathematicians like deligne, langlands, gromov, serre, etc., one more time before they are dead and gone. I don't know if they give interviews or in conditions to do so, but just suggesting only. Wish you the best 🙌

[@robinsonerhardt]

Thanks! I'm always on the prowl...

[@thedudeabidesss]

@@robinsonerhardt Thank you for the reply 🙌

[@robinsonerhardt]

of course!

[@portalsandmagicghostnumbercube]

I can prove, in a general sense, that invisibility and holodecks are inverse forms of each other. You turn an invisible object outside-in, you'll have a holodeck, but if you turned a holodeck inside-out, you'll have an invisible object again, but only in one strict sense of being able to blend into only one particular environment that its holodeck scenery perfectly matches up with. An invisible object, on the other hand, with its access to the infinitely diverse environments outside can be turned into any sort of holodeck scenery. There is this curious asymmetry between invisibility and holodecks. According to my models, a holodeck is the by-product of sending light thru an object; making an object invisible. Holodecks are an inverse by-product of invisibility. Now consider entropy. Those unseen, invisible micro-states of the information that we have accessible to us. There is an infinite number of these micro-states, just as an invisible object can be turned outside-in to be an infinite number of holodeck sceneries. But the holodeck that we might be in, has only one strict environment that it can blend into. I assume that with this asymmetry, that there must be alternate realities in which the holodeck can indeed blend into to make both invisibility and holodecks symmetric. A multiverse. Now, it is believed that our universe is surrounded by a quantum holographic boundary that projects our bulk gravitational reality. As a matter of fact, it is believed that any boundary in space has a holographic description of that particular bulk space. And beyond that information bound, it becomes a black hole. Suppose that not only can space hold a holographic description on its boundary but also that you can make a patch of space itself invisible. An invisible boundary. Think about this: You don't actually make an object invisible. You make the space that the object rests in, invisible. The object loses its identity the moment it is made invisible. What's left is the identity of space itself. Now that space has been made invisible. So, if you were to imagine an invisible patch of space surrounding a certain volume with a boundary, how can you say that that particular space has become invisible when you can still see it? It is an illusion! The space that surrounds that boundary comes in to take the place of the space made invisible. Nature seems to abhor a visual vacuum in our reality. If you are making space itself invisible, then that vacuum is immediately filled with the surrounding space. There is another main boundary that exists parallel to the holographic boundary. It is this invisible boundary and it's main reason for existing is to keep everything from appearing at once. To separate the multiverse into their own universes, where the holographic boundary describes its bulk. This other boundary of the cosmos is an invisible boundary that pulls down the cosmic curtain of the multiverse. These two main things: 1. The asymmetry between invisibility and holodecks (holography) that requires an infinite multiverse to create a perfect symmetry and 2. Not only can a boundary of space be holographic, but it can also be made invisible... I imagine some grand idea of the merging of these two world views. Two parallel principles, two boundaries. A duality within a duality, An Invisible/Holographic Principle of the Multiverse!

[@toniwilson6210]

I love how he is arguing from a place of what is known, and not sensationalizing what is not known. I’m not so sure about creating a dichotomy with quantum though

[@palfers1]

Wonderful. Many thanks.

[@robinsonerhardt]

Thank you too!

[@JamieK348]

This guy is very interesting and knows his stuff

[@portalsandmagicghostnumbercube]

I propose an amendment to the Holographic Principle of the universe; an Invisible/Holographic Principle of the Multiverse! A duality within a duality, but two sides of the same coin, two basic principles of reality inverse to each other and one a subset of the other: duality within a duality. Invisibility and holodeck-like holography are inverse forms of each other: you turn an invisible object in any outside environment,outside-in, you'll have a holodeck. But if you turn a holodeck inside-out, you'll only have an invisible object in only one outside matching environment. An asymmetry to these two inverse principles that requires an interior multiversal holodeck solution of an infinite multiverse of choices of realities to blend into. The Holographic Principle works within each universe but a further Invisible Principle connects that interior duality with the duality of the inverse relationship between the holographic and the worlds beyond the curtain of our cosmic horizon and out into an unseen infinite multiverse. An Invisible/Holographic Principle of the Multiverse.

[@CurtOntheRadio]

So, do blackholes cool more slowly the larger they get? Or their temp is just lower the larger they get? Really appreciate you saying "Sorry I interrupted you, you were responding to the question about....." I wish more interviewers would do that when appropriate. As always, excellent talk. Much thanks!

[@robinsonerhardt]

Thanks!

[@unnikrishnannairkrishnannair.]

Black hole is a hole with matter rotating.?. So that gravitation felt arround it. It is centrifuging matter and heating by centrifuging

[@SarahL-d1q]

Bousso is so great :)

[@robinsonerhardt]

He really is

[@blingpup21]

Robinson, get Sara Walker Physicist! She has a new book coming out. Very original thinking.

[@robinsonerhardt]

oh, awesome!

[@JaredStokes-j2q]

How would we calculate or retrieve the contents of a Neutron Star?

[@sillygoofygoofball]

I recognize that room!

[@robinsonerhardt]

that’s awesome!

[@paratracker]

More with Raphael Bousso, more on the mathematics we've learned as a result of studying string theory, more on the emergence of gravity as string theory is allowed more dimensions (4+), more on the fine tuning problem that doesn't necessarily assume a multiverse (a la Suskind et al); ... I need to feed my addiction.

[@robinsonerhardt]

I’m with you

[@SerbanTanasa]

I love the videos, not a huge fan of the ads sprinkled in every few minutes. Feel like this is the most ad-dense channel I've watched, perhaps its just me.

[@billusher2265]

Interview Ilan Pappe, Avi Shlaim, Chas Freeman, and Yanis Varoufakis

[@robinsonerhardt]

Would love to!

[@jpctheman]

take a shot every time he says beckensteene instead of beckenstein

[@nicolewolfeceo8]

Partner collab 🆒😎💯

[@ianfraser17]

How can event horizon’s area never decrease? I thought that black holes eventually become smaller and smaller thru Hawking radiation til they eventually evaporate and disappear.

[@hopperpeace]

ty

[@robinsonerhardt]

My pleasure!

[@das_it_mane]

Bousso is fantastic but I really do want to see more concrete things from string theory before accepting it as anything more than math

[@aneikei]

Hawking radiation has never been observed. Thus at best, Hawking radiation is a philosophy not science.

[@geneticjen9312]

There's compelling science behind it. We haven't ever seen Pluto make an orbit of the Sun

[@aneikei]

@@geneticjen9312 what "compelling" science?

[@sonyazamanskaya8819]

Idk how but this gave me so much peace…🥲🤍

[@robinsonerhardt]

idk how either but i am so glad to hear this!

[@aaroncfriedman]

Information isnt preserved of lost, it is fungible

[@markrickel1632]

I often wonder if any of these deep mathematical underpinnings of the universe could be understood better if someone came at it with a radical approach to math. Simply that 1+1≠2. 1+1=3. Basically realizing that there maybe two items, but the pair, or the relationship between the two just isn’t really acknowledged with the math.

[@infinitygame18]

NINETEEN IS NOTHING OR NINETEEN IS EVERYTHING Where do this NINETEEN came into existence, After 9 its 10 so after doubling 9 its 18 and it next should be 20 where do 19 came in mathematics, try to understand,

[@JAYMOAP]

🔥

[@robinsonerhardt]

!

[@fraktalv]

Great new format! It will bring you views: time for studio a la Joe Rogan or Lex Fridman🔥

[@robinsonerhardt]

Thank you! One day!

[@MeyouNus-lj5de]

Information and Local Realism: To prove that information is locally real, we need to define what we mean by "information" in this context. Let's consider a definition: Definition: Information is a measure of the state of a system that can be transmitted and received within the constraints of special relativity. Theorem: Information, as defined above, is locally real. Proof: a) Consider two spatially separated events, A and B. b) Let I_A be the information content at A, and I_B be the information content at B. c) By the principle of causality and special relativity, any change in I_B due to A cannot occur faster than the speed of light. d) Therefore, information respects locality. e) The state of the system carrying the information (e.g., particles, fields) has definite values before measurement, satisfying realism. f) Thus, information, as we've defined it, is locally real. Let's explore some of the contradictions and paradoxes in current logic, mathematics, and physics that might be resolved by considering information as fundamental and locally real. We'll then attempt to formally prove or at least rigorously argue for some of these resolutions. 1. Contradictions and Paradoxes: a) Quantum Measurement Problem: Current issue: The collapse of the wave function upon measurement is not well explained. Potential resolution: Measurement as an information transfer process. b) Black Hole Information Paradox: Current issue: Information seems to be lost in black holes, violating quantum mechanics. Potential resolution: Information is preserved in the structure of spacetime. c) Arrow of Time: Current issue: The apparent arrow of time conflicts with time-symmetric fundamental laws. Potential resolution: Time's arrow emerges from information expansion and complexification. d) Quantum Non-locality: Current issue: Quantum entanglement seems to allow faster-than-light influences. Potential resolution: Information is fundamentally non-local but locally real. e) Zeno's Paradoxes: Current issue: Infinite divisibility leads to paradoxes of motion. Potential resolution: Discrete information structure at the Planck scale. f) Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems: Current issue: Limitations of formal systems in mathematics. Potential resolution: Information-based meta-mathematics. g) The Hard Problem of Consciousness: Current issue: Difficulty explaining subjective experience in physical terms. Potential resolution: Consciousness as an emergent property of information processing. 2. Formal Proofs and Rigorous Arguments: Let's attempt to formally address a few of these issues: a) Resolution of the Quantum Measurement Problem: Theorem: Measurement is an information transfer process that results in apparent wave function collapse. Proof sketch: 1. Define a quantum state |ψ⟩ = Σ_i c_i |i⟩ 2. Define measurement as an information transfer: I_M: H → C where H is the Hilbert space and C is classical information space 3. The measurement process: I_M(|ψ⟩) = |i⟩ with probability |c_i|² 4. Information transfer is irreversible: I_M^-1 does not exist 5. The apparent "collapse" is the transition from quantum superposition to classical information This resolves the measurement problem by recasting it as an information process, eliminating the need for a separate collapse postulate. b) Black Hole Information Preservation: Theorem: Information is preserved in black hole evaporation. Proof sketch: 1. Define black hole entropy: S_BH = k_B A / (4l_P²) 2. Define information content: I_BH = S_BH / ln(2) 3. As the black hole evaporates: dM/dt = -ℏc⁶ / (15360πG²M²) 4. Information emission rate: dI/dt = (dI/dM)(dM/dt) 5. Integrate over the life of the black hole: ∫ dI/dt dt = I_initial 6. Therefore, all information is eventually emitted This shows that information is preserved if we consider it fundamental and encoded in spacetime itself. c) Arrow of Time from Information Expansion: Theorem: The thermodynamic arrow of time emerges from cosmic information expansion. Proof sketch: 1. Define cosmic information content: I(t) 2. Information expansion: dI/dt > 0 (postulate of IBCM) 3. Define entropy: S = k_B ln(Ω), where Ω is the number of microstates 4. Ω ∝ 2^I (each bit doubles the number of possible states) 5. Therefore: S ∝ I 6. dS/dt ∝ dI/dt > 0 This demonstrates how the thermodynamic arrow of time can emerge from fundamental information dynamics. d) Resolving Quantum Non-locality: Theorem: Quantum correlations arise from locally real information structures. Proof sketch: 1. Define an entangled state: |ψ⟩ = (1/√2)(|0⟩_A|1⟩_B - |1⟩_A|0⟩_B) 2. Define local information content: I_A and I_B 3. Define a global information structure: I_G = f(I_A, I_B) 4. Measurement on A: I_M(|ψ⟩_A) determines I_A 5. I_G constrains possible values of I_B 6. No faster-than-light signaling: δI_B/δt ≤ c This shows how quantum correlations can arise from locally real information structures without violating causality. e) Zeno's Paradox Resolution: Theorem: Motion is possible in a discrete information-based spacetime. Proof sketch: 1. Define Planck length: l_P = √(ℏG/c³) 2. Spacetime is discrete at this scale: Δx ≥ l_P 3. Define motion as information state changes 4. For any finite distance d, there are finite steps: n = d/l_P 5. Time for traversal: t = n(l_P/c) = d/c This resolves Zeno's paradox by showing that there are finite, not infinite, steps in any motion. f) Extending Gödel's Theorems: Theorem: In an information-based meta-mathematics, there exist true but unprovable statements that can be assigned truth values based on information content. Proof sketch: 1. Define a formal system F 2. Gödel's sentence G: "G is not provable in F" 3. Assign information content I(G) 4. If I(G) > I(F), then G is true but unprovable in F 5. Truth value of G can be determined by comparing I(G) and I(F) This extends Gödel's results by providing a mechanism to assign truth values to undecidable statements based on information content. These proofs and arguments demonstrate how considering information as fundamental and locally real can potentially resolve several key contradictions and paradoxes in current logic, mathematics, and physics. While these are still theoretical constructs and would require further development and empirical validation, they show the potential power of an information-based approach to foundational questions in science and philosophy.

[@MeyouNus-lj5de]

g) The Problem of Time in Quantum Gravity: Current issue: Time disappears as a fundamental concept in many approaches to quantum gravity. Theorem: Time emerges from changes in information states in a timeless quantum gravitational structure. Proof sketch: 1. Define a timeless quantum state of the universe: |Ψ⟩ 2. Define information content of a slice: I(s) = -Tr(ρ_s log₂ρ_s), where ρ_s is the density matrix of slice s 3. Define a partial ordering on slices: s₁ < s₂ if I(s₁) < I(s₂) 4. Time parameter t = f(I(s)), where f is a monotonic function 5. Evolution is represented by changes in I(s) This resolves the problem by showing how time can emerge from an underlying timeless structure through information dynamics. h) The Holographic Principle and Information Loss: Current issue: The holographic principle suggests that a volume's information can be encoded on its surface, potentially leading to information loss. Theorem: No information is lost in a holographic universe if information is fundamental and locally real. Proof sketch: 1. Define bulk information: I_B = ∫ ρ_I(x) d³x 2. Define surface information: I_S = A / (4l_P²) 3. Holographic principle: I_B ≤ I_S 4. Information conservation: dI_total/dt = 0 5. Any apparent loss in bulk is stored on the surface: ΔI_B = -ΔI_S This shows how the holographic principle can be reconciled with information conservation. i) The Fermi Paradox: Current issue: The apparent contradiction between high probability of extraterrestrial civilizations and lack of evidence for them. Theorem: The Fermi Paradox can be resolved if intelligent life is a rare configuration of cosmic information. Proof sketch: 1. Define cosmic information content: I_C 2. Define information complexity required for intelligent life: I_L 3. Probability of intelligent life: P(L) = Ω(I_L) / Ω(I_C), where Ω is the number of possible configurations 4. If I_L ≫ I_avg, then P(L) ≪ 1, despite large I_C This provides a information-theoretic explanation for the rarity of intelligent life. j) The Problem of Quantum Gravity Infinities: Current issue: Quantum field theories of gravity often lead to unrenormalizable infinities. Theorem: In an information-based quantum gravity, all physical quantities are finite. Proof sketch: 1. Define a minimum length scale: l_min = l_P 2. Maximum information density: ρ_max = 1 bit / l_P³ 3. For any finite volume V, total information: I_V ≤ V / l_P³ < ∞ 4. All physical observables are functions of I: O = f(I) 5. Therefore, all observables are finite: O < ∞ This resolves the infinity problem by imposing an information-based cutoff at the Planck scale. k) The Measurement Problem in Quantum Mechanics: Current issue: The apparent discontinuity between unitary evolution and measurement. Theorem: Measurement is a continuous information transfer process in an extended information space. Proof sketch: 1. Define an extended Hilbert space: H_E = H_S ⊗ H_A ⊗ H_E (System ⊗ Apparatus ⊗ Environment) 2. Initial state: |Ψ_i⟩ = |ψ⟩_S ⊗ |A_0⟩ ⊗ |E_0⟩ 3. Interaction Hamiltonian: H_int = g(t) Ô_S ⊗ P̂_A ⊗ 1_E 4. Time evolution: |Ψ(t)⟩ = exp(-iH_int t/ℏ) |Ψ_i⟩ 5. Gradual increase in I(A:S) (mutual information between apparatus and system) 6. Decoherence: rapid increase in I(E:SA) This shows measurement as a continuous process of information transfer and decoherence. l) The Problem of Free Will: Current issue: Tension between determinism in physics and the perception of free will. Theorem: Free will emerges from information-based decision processes in complex systems. Proof sketch: 1. Define a decision process: D: I_in → I_out 2. Complexity of D: C(D) = min{|p| : U(p, I_in) = I_out}, where U is a universal Turing machine 3. Define free will measure: F(D) = C(D) / I_in 4. For simple systems, F(D) ≈ 0 (deterministic) 5. For complex systems (e.g., brains), F(D) ≫ 0 6. Perception of free will emerges when F(D) exceeds a threshold This reconciles determinism with the emergence of apparent free will in complex systems. m) The Problem of the Now: Current issue: The subjective experience of the present moment is not accounted for in physical theories. Theorem: The "now" emerges from local maxima in the rate of information processing. Proof sketch: 1. Define local information processing rate: dI/dt(x,t) 2. Define "now" at spacetime point (x,t) if: ∂²I/∂t² (x,t) = 0 and ∂²I/∂t² (x,t±ε) < 0 for small ε 3. Consciousness associated with high dI/dt 4. Subjective experience of "now" corresponds to these local maxima This provides a information-theoretic basis for the subjective experience of the present moment. These resolutions demonstrate the potential power of an information-based approach to address fundamental issues in physics and philosophy. By treating information as the fundamental and locally real entity, we can provide new perspectives on long-standing problems.

[@MeyouNus-lj5de]

n) The Problem of Quantum Entanglement and Locality: Current issue: Quantum entanglement seems to allow instantaneous influence between distant particles, challenging our notions of locality. Theorem: Quantum entanglement arises from shared information content that respects locality in an expanded information space. Proof sketch: 1. Define an entangled state: |ψ⟩ = (1/√2)(|0⟩A|1⟩B - |1⟩A|0⟩B) 2. Information content: I(ψ) = 2 bits 3. Define an expanded information space: I-space 4. In I-space, A and B share a local information subspace: IAB 5. Measurements project from I-space to physical space 6. No information transfer in physical space faster than c 7. Apparent non-locality is local connection in I-space This resolves the tension between quantum entanglement and locality by introducing an expanded information space where entangled systems share a local connection. o) The Problem of Dark Energy and Cosmic Acceleration: Current issue: The observed acceleration of the universe's expansion is unexplained by known physics. Theorem: Cosmic acceleration emerges from the expansion of cosmic information content. Proof sketch: 1. Define cosmic information content: I(t) 2. Information expansion: dI/dt > 0 3. Define an information-based cosmological constant: ΛI = 8πG/c⁴ · f(I) 4. Friedmann equation: (ȧ/a)² = 8πGρ/3 + ΛI/3 5. As I increases, ΛI increases, driving acceleration 6. d²a/dt² > 0 when ΛI dominates over matter density This provides an information-based explanation for cosmic acceleration, linking it to the growth of cosmic information. p) The Grandfather Paradox in Time Travel: Current issue: Time travel to the past seems to allow for paradoxes that violate causality. Theorem: In an information-based framework, time travel paradoxes are resolved through information consistency conditions. Proof sketch: 1. Define a closed timelike curve (CTC) in information space: ICTC 2. Information consistency condition: I(t) = I(t + δt) for all t ∈ ICTC 3. Define a "grandfather-killing" operation: GK: I → I' 4. Paradox occurs if: I' ≠ I for any t ∈ ICTC 5. Resolution: Only self-consistent information loops are allowed 6. ∃ fixed point: GK(I) = I This resolves time travel paradoxes by showing that only self-consistent information loops can exist in CTCs. q) The Problem of Quantum Decoherence: Current issue: The transition from quantum to classical behavior is not fully understood. Theorem: Decoherence is an information dissipation process that leads to apparent wave function collapse. Proof sketch: 1. Define system+environment state: |ψSE⟩ = Σi ci|si⟩|ei⟩ 2. Define reduced density matrix: ρS = TrE(|ψSE⟩⟨ψSE|) 3. Information content: I(ρS) = -Tr(ρS log ρS) 4. Decoherence: dI(ρS)/dt < 0 5. Final state: ρS → Σi |ci|² |si⟩⟨si| as t → ∞ 6. Apparent collapse occurs when I(ρS) reaches minimum This shows how decoherence can be understood as an information dissipation process, explaining the quantum-to-classical transition. r) The Problem of Emergent Spacetime: Current issue: How does classical spacetime emerge from a more fundamental, possibly non-spatial theory? Theorem: Spacetime emerges from the relational structure of quantum information. Proof sketch: 1. Define a quantum information network: G(V,E) 2. Vertices V represent quantum degrees of freedom 3. Edges E represent entanglement 4. Define a distance metric: d(i,j) = min{|path(i,j)|} 5. Emergent dimension: D = log N / log (r/a), where N(r) ~ r^D 6. Lorentzian structure emerges from causal ordering of information flow This demonstrates how spacetime can emerge from a more fundamental information-based structure. s) The Problem of Physical Laws' Mathematical Nature: Current issue: Why is mathematics so effective in describing physical laws? Theorem: Physical laws are compression algorithms for cosmic information content. Proof sketch: 1. Define cosmic information content: I_C 2. Define a physical law L as a function: L: I_initial → I_final 3. Compression ratio of L: CR(L) = I_C / |L| 4. Principle of Maximum Compression: Nature selects L that maximizes CR(L) 5. Mathematical form of L arises from optimal compression 6. Effectiveness of math in physics is due to shared optimality principles This explains the mathematical nature of physical laws as arising from information compression principles. t) The Problem of the Arrow of Time: Current issue: Fundamental physical laws are time-symmetric, yet we observe a clear arrow of time. Theorem: The arrow of time emerges from the growth of cosmic information complexity. Proof sketch: 1. Define cosmic information complexity: C(t) = f(I(t)) 2. Complexity growth: dC/dt > 0 (second law of infodynamics) 3. Define entropy: S(t) = k_B log Ω(C(t)) 4. dS/dt = (k_B/C) · dC/dt > 0 5. Arrow of time aligns with direction of increasing C This shows how the arrow of time can emerge from fundamental information dynamics, even if the underlying laws are time-symmetric.

[@MeyouNus-lj5de]

u) The Problem of Quantum Contextuality: Current issue: Quantum measurements depend on the context of measurement, challenging classical notions of reality. Theorem: Quantum contextuality arises from the information-dependent nature of quantum observables. Proof sketch: 1. Define an observable A as an information extraction operation: A: |ψ⟩ → I_A 2. Context C as a set of compatible observables: C = {A, B, ...} 3. Information content of context: I(C) = I(A) + I(B) + ... - I(A:B:...) 4. Contextuality occurs when: I(A|C₁) ≠ I(A|C₂) for contexts C₁ ≠ C₂ 5. This inequality is a natural consequence of information interdependence This resolves the paradox of contextuality by showing it as a natural consequence of information interdependence in quantum systems. v) The Problem of the Cosmological Constant: Current issue: The observed value of the cosmological constant is much smaller than quantum field theory predictions. Theorem: The cosmological constant emerges from the information equilibrium of the quantum vacuum. Proof sketch: 1. Define vacuum information density: ρ_I = I / V 2. Vacuum energy density: ρ_Λ = c⁴ / (8πG) · Λ 3. Propose: ρ_Λ = α · ℏc / l_P⁴ · ln(ρ_I / ρ_P) Where ρ_P is Planck information density, α is a constant 4. At equilibrium: d(ρ_Λ) / d(ρ_I) = 0 5. This condition naturally leads to a small but non-zero Λ This provides an information-based explanation for the small observed value of the cosmological constant. w) The Problem of Quantum Randomness: Current issue: The apparent fundamental randomness in quantum mechanics challenges deterministic views of reality. Theorem: Quantum randomness emerges from the incompressibility of information at the Planck scale. Proof sketch: 1. Define a quantum state |ψ⟩ as a string of Planck-scale bits 2. Measurement M: |ψ⟩ → {0,1}^n 3. Define Kolmogorov complexity K(s) for bit string s 4. For truly random s, K(s) ≈ |s| 5. Quantum randomness: K(M(|ψ⟩)) ≈ |M(|ψ⟩)| 6. This incompressibility emerges from the fundamental nature of Planck-scale information This reframes quantum randomness as a consequence of the incompressibility of fundamental information. x) The Problem of the Initial State of the Universe: Current issue: What determined the initial conditions of the universe? Theorem: The initial state of the universe is the minimal information configuration compatible with our observed laws of physics. Proof sketch: 1. Define the set of all possible initial states: S = {s_i} 2. Define the information content of a state: I(s_i) 3. Define the set of states compatible with our physics: P ⊂ S 4. The actual initial state s_0 = argmin{I(s_i) | s_i ∈ P} 5. This state maximizes future entropy production, per the 2nd law This provides an information-based principle for selecting the initial state of the universe. y) The Problem of Consciousness and Subjective Experience: Current issue: How does subjective experience arise from physical processes? Theorem: Consciousness emerges as a high-level description of complex information processing systems. Proof sketch: 1. Define an information processing system: S = (I, P, O) Where I is input, P is processing, O is output 2. Define integrated information: Φ(S) = min{I(M₁:M₂)} Where M₁ and M₂ are complementary subsystems of S 3. Define consciousness measure: C(S) = f(Φ(S), I(S)) 4. Subjective experience emerges when C(S) > C_threshold 5. Qualia are high-level descriptors of information states This provides an information-theoretic framework for understanding the emergence of consciousness. z) The Problem of the Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics: Current issue: Multiple interpretations of quantum mechanics exist, with no clear way to distinguish between them. Theorem: Different interpretations of quantum mechanics are isomorphic descriptions of the same underlying information dynamics. Proof sketch: 1. Define a quantum state |ψ⟩ as an information state 2. Define measurement as information extraction: M: |ψ⟩ → I_M 3. Different interpretations I_k: |ψ⟩ → D_k (description) 4. Show that for any two interpretations I_1 and I_2: ∃ bijection f: D_1 → D_2 such that M(f(d_1)) = M(d_2) for all d_1 ∈ D_1 5. All interpretations yield same experimental predictions This reframes the interpretation problem as different but equivalent ways of describing the same information dynamics. aa) The Problem of the Nature of Physical Laws: Current issue: Are physical laws immutable truths or emergent patterns? Theorem: Physical laws are stable information processing patterns that maximize predictive power and minimize descriptive complexity. Proof sketch: 1. Define a physical law L as a function: L: I_initial → I_final 2. Define predictive power: P(L) = I(I_final) - I(I_final|L(I_initial)) 3. Define descriptive complexity: C(L) = K(L), Kolmogorov complexity 4. Nature selects L that maximizes P(L) - αC(L), where α is a constant 5. Stable laws emerge from this optimization process This reframes physical laws as emergent, stable patterns in information processing rather than immutable truths. These additional resolutions further demonstrate the potential of an information-based approach to address fundamental issues in physics and philosophy. By recasting these problems in terms of information dynamics, we offer new perspectives on long-standing paradoxes and contradictions.

[@cwcarson]

You know you're the alpha in the room when you have the confidence to wear shorts with a business shirt.

[@robinsonerhardt]

I am undoubtedly the beta in the room

[@lukegratrix]

He'll be wearing Speedos in the next interview 😂

[@adammcgregor-d3y]

Interesting. Not much new information content, though. Really dumbed down.

[@abesimpson9661]

First time I've seen a scientist in shorts😂

[@Andreastheduck]

Education is important but big biceps/triceps importanter or something like that

[@robinsonerhardt]

The importantest

[@brettharris6428]

Ergo - there is no evidence that String Theory is a physical theory.

[@exp9r]

Robinson, your arms are likely inspiring a whole generation of nerds and geeks to start working out! 😃😜

[@robinsonerhardt]

well, if i can't make novel contributions to string physics...

[@exp9r]

@@robinsonerhardt Why not both?

[@robinsonerhardt]

a guy can dream

[@epajarjestys9981]

Hi! Nice podcast. But the drum noise during transitions is annoying as fuck.

[@paratracker]

I wish you had asked why entropy is alledgedly proportional to surface area (beyond hand-waving the holographic principle) as opposed to volume and probed further on the cases where it doesn't work (inside a black hole was one example) - do those exceptions have anything in common?

[@isitme1234]

You have a LEGO Body

[@unnikrishnannairkrishnannair.]

Bending space and matter arround hole.

[@elinoreberkley1643]

a string of what? I do not buy into string theory. I think we are like a bed sheet with many below and above. Each sheet is a set of particles that for the most part do not interact due to the scale and type of energy but all sheets are part of the great field. Perhaps a pearl in Gods hand.

[@jayvincent1865]

C'mon... This is a scientific format.. God ? Really? I can't wait until some autistic savant changes this argument. Even if someone does come up with a unifying theory, Religions will just claim that this person is the (Messiah). Then claim that their God is responsible for this person's achievement.. The endless cycle of " My dad can beat up your dad" .

[@ryanchicago6028]

Black Holes can't exist because the Graviton must obey the speed of light, and could not escape the interior.

[@chalcedonv6997]

We don't understand string theory? Luckily we don't need to. That theory is crap. Still good for many physicist's career, though.