The Crisis in String Theory is Worse Than You Think | Leonard Susskind

[@TheoriesofEverything]

Join my new Substack!Follow my personal writings and EARLY ACCESS episodes here: curtjaimungal.substack.com SPONSOR (THE ECONOMIST): As a listener of TOE you can get a special 20% off discount to The Economist and all it has to offer! Visit www.economist.com/toe

[@mitsaoriginal8630]

Please interview John Smith...

[@NicholasWilliams-uk9xu]

Is inflation of meter space fundamental energy conservation when meter space can be of differential length? Remember, E=hf outputs lesser energy extent in contracted meter spaces comparatively to a expanded meter space, photon will red shift when traverse to a non-length contracted reference frame (less momentum). Therefore inflation is wrong, you must divide energy lengths in order to multiply the number of meter units, this is how our universe works (observationally proven) consensus doesn't matter when you have the right answer, inflation is wrong and not a valid physical theory. Inflation violates energy conservation and observable reality, because it's not a thermodynamic space model, it's a meter space model.

[@AquarianSoulTimeTraveler]

There comes a time to get back down to the fundamentals of the problems... If we have root mathematical problems then we must start there... X²*X²*X²*•••♾️ < X³ if we truly understand the logical progression of the spatial dimensions then this equation should ring correct in a logical universe.

[@edblair5253]

Yes​@@mitsaoriginal8630

[@_John_P]

(35:05) Excellent move in calling him out there. Just because the positive integer group is infinite, it does not mean it can contain any number in it. It can still be infinite, but will only show an infinite variation of itself.

[@joedevon]

Who's here from the Eric Weinstein interview at Triggernometry?

[@itscheetah3200]

immediately

[@MatthewChichester-w3c]

Some delay.

[@seanoseamus2332]

Hell yeah

[@NineInchTyrone]

Me😅

[@ricardo-lq4bq3pp3l]

And me

[@humble_ape]

"you should work on it because you're curious," is easy to say when you're tenured faculty at Stanford. The reality is that young scientists are struggling financially and professionally, many talented physicists are leaving their fields altogether because they simply do not see a future with a decent quality of life in science.

[@noodlerancid]

You need to speak with more people, what you say its not true

[@UncoveredTruths]

one should not perpetuate vulnerability for insecurity

[@Syv_]

@@noodlerancidDon’t you think the same could be said to you? Lol

[@aunch3]

Facts. And the ones that do make decent money have to do what they’re told. It’s a lose lose but I wouldn’t expect a Bommer to understand

[@bariole]

@@aunch3 Boomer argument? Really? Pursuing scientific career and easy money being earned never went hand in hand. "Pure scientist" life was always a struggle and always required big sponsors. Mecena is historic word. IBM Labs channel here on KZbin has Nobel size winners working in 2x4m "labs".. Even man as accomplished as Susskind has to have professure to pursue scientific work, and there are just so many positions of that level. For each Susskind out there, there were other 5 - 10 colleagues which didn't get the job while being as accomplished at that point of life.

[@pandabearguy1]

Susskind was the one who introduced me to physics through the Stanford KZbin lectures. Always really enjoyed his very precise and honest takes on things

[@mr_io]

He also introduced me to quantum physics. Even then I found him evasive and opaque. His dismissal of other physicists speaks loads about his closeness to other ideas but his own. There's a reason no one is working on follow ups of his world views.

[@jonwesick2844]

Outstanding lectures!

[@robinbrowne5419]

@@pandabearguy1 Me too.

[@ComplexConfiguration]

@@mr_io Hmm.. I found him to be sceptic about anything that's not certain, including his own theories. I find that important and good.

[@amyk6403]

Yes! Me too. I started listening to them to fall asleep, but they were so interesting that it kept me awake.

[@jansenart0]

1:25:18 It's not the responsibility of the string theory critics to tell you what's right about string theory, it's YOUR responsibility to prove that it has use, that it can prove anything, that it can be experimentally verified and that it can be falsified. YOUR responsibility!

[@RogueTheology]

The internet has given us the ability to prove theoretical physicists are scam artists, that Medieval man thinking the world was flat is ahistorical propaganda, and that yes the Bible does predict Christ will be killed Daniel 9:26. The nightmare of modernity is almost over

[@w0mblemania]

It must be very hard to interview a physicist like this. Highly intelligent, but also highly opinionated, somewhat short of time, somewhat cranky and impatient. You did a good job, in the face of such strongly held opinions.

[@aearnest]

Feel like he is grumpy as he wants more recognition. He always says "my war with Stephen Hawking..." Like he wants to be considered on the same level as him.

[@Achrononmaster]

@@aearnest yeah. Tho, he has earned the license to be grumpy.

[@keithschwartz5723]

@@aearnest Grow up. This guy is in his mid eighties and is crisp as can be. He is quite relaxed. Grumpy? That he is willing to basically disown the field at this time says something about his being you know in your lingo..opinionated. That takes guts as in many ways it has been his life's work. Penrose, Susskind, Witten, Thorne, Blanding...They are all somewhat flinty and sharp and very honest. It is some of the low end popularizers who ought to shut up once in a while.

[@beatthebag]

He didn't sound grumpy to me? I thought the interviewer came off bitchier sounding than Leonard did.

[@afriedrich1452]

Good to see that Susskind is still going strong! His final advice is great.

[@edblair5253]

Every interview Kurt does he is prepared to the point that he catches the majority of his new guests that domt know him off guard so to speak. Kurt is able to communicate and ask questions in such a manner not to bruise egos and he truly listens. You are very inspiring Kurt.

[@plaiche]

He really is fantastic.

[@KinseiSensei]

I love the common “this is very technical, are you sure you want me to go through it?” “Yes, we can get technical here, what do you think about SU3?” ❤

[@mikemondano3624]

"Catching off-guard" and "bruising egos" are the same thing.

[@KinseiSensei]

@ only if they are unprepared or underinformed.

[@Nyonide]

I disagree regarding this interview - the opposite is true; the questions were often quite off the mark.

[@rudyj8948]

Nice job on this one Kurt it was very fun to see you push back on Leonard, and it was refreshing to see back him down and admit you were right at times.

[@alisaiterkan]

I couldn't agree more.

[@Nervosos]

He spent the first several minutes stating that we need to listen to people who are thinking outside of the box, and not with consensus, and then immediately turned around and said do not listen to people who are not with the consensus.

[@rogercastillo7637]

As if the weirdos aren't the one's who took the first step to get us here to this consensus. If we don't listen to the weirdos then where will new ideas come from? We'd just be patting each other on the back for what we already know.

[@Avenged666]

@42.40 is when he says go with the consensus & not with "peculiar individuals [Penrose]" How dare he insult Sir Roger! 😱

[@AlienScientist]

The fringes aren't the easiest place to surf...

[@CallOfCutie69]

Horseshoe theory…

[@CurtOntheRadio]

I imagine he'd tell you he qualified his answers. If you ignore his subtlety then hardly surprising you don't like the absurd conclusions you reach.

[@ThomasEmilioVilla]

"Professor Susskind, we can't appeal to consensus, I know you know that" it's scientific journalism at its best. Congratulations, Curt!

[@rjfday123]

Although, if we accept Kuhn's ideas about paradigms and paradigm shifts, it's impossible to pursue any practice, including science, without a consensus to follow/break. It's quite rare to break the consensus in a way that forms a new one, is what I think Susskind is saying. So there will always be far more people out there saying wacky stuff that will never stick, than there are people saying wacky stuff that eventually sticks. Even Einstein, who is commonly thought to have been a big breaker, was relying upon all sorts of precursors - he didn't just come up with his stuff out of thin air.

[@JimEadon]

eh?

[@ThomasEmilioVilla]

@@rjfday123 of course. The problem here is: has consensus been achieved on string theory? To me, consensus is achieved no sooner than the paradigm is *complete*. What should mean - according to string theorists - that the paradigm is "complete"? Well, it should be meaning that quantum gravity program is achieved in our spacetime. If so, then the paradigm is complete and we shall build a consensus around the final version. Otherwise the consensus is always provisional. Penrose's ideas about the loss of unitariety are widely discussed in philosophy of science and foundations of physics, even if they are minority in string theorist's acceptance. Yet, unitariety is NOT a theorem, and until it is a theorem we shall be free to accept every dissenting opinion to be acceptable, and recurring to authority principle, or consensus, in this case is a logical phallacy, as Curt observed.

[@OneLine122]

You can in that context. The journalist said "according to this and that person". It's an appeal to authority. It then is reasonable to either disprove that authority or bring up a bigger one. In fact it's the only thing to do really. If he had asked a more specific question based on something in the field, he might have received one like he did in other places. You can't expect experts to know every theory out there that is not in line with the consensus, nor expect them to debunk all of them. That would be the job of an apologist basically and he is a scientist.

[@BenjaminCronce]

I love how these both go back and forth, "correcting" each other in order to sus (pun) out the nuances in what was just said. The whole discussion around consensus was difficult. In one way you don't want an echo-chamber, but in another you don't want a bunch of noise. It's that balance between the new and the established. Similar to evolution. You need some mutations, and most will fail, but every so often one will improve things. Not enough mutations is a dead end. Too many is a death sentence.

[@CakeSpork]

I love the way he speaks his mind! Thank you for letting him speak, and giving him what he looked for in the conversation. None (99.99%) of us would be able to dig in the content, and he really seemed to enjoy that.

[@burnytech]

I'm watching Leonard Susskind's great Stanford lectures on fundamental physics while Curt uploads him discussing the frontiers of fundamental physics, nice ❤

[@charlesblithfield6182]

I have followed Dr. Susskind’s work as a layperson on and off for 30 years by reading his books and watching publicly available lectures. He has wowed me on more than one occasion and this even motivated me to write equations in notebooks to help me understand better (I have 7 notebooks full of tiny scratchings now). I’ve been having a bit of a challenging life lately, you know…getting old, but feel immensely fortunate to live in a time where I am able to sit down with a tablet in my hands and watch a discussion such as this. Maybe these acknowledgments have been a long time coming and so I hope I live long enough to be able to learn what’s coming next in physics.

[@goldwhitedragon]

Idealism is the future.

[@damienthorne861]

Sounds exactly like me! Thank God for susskind. His lectures made GR accessible to me

[@charlesblithfield6182]

@@deathmagneto-soy if that’s your interpretation then GHY

[@TrudyTrew]

​@@deathmagneto-soy smart alec

[@JimEadon]

Apart from text books, his career is a failure, and he has not been honest about it. Even now he's in denial.

[@fabslyrics]

I've learned Einstein relativity with his Stanford course some 10years ago , it totally blew my mind back then so its very special for me to hear him here . thank you v. much Curt!

[@jgrab1]

> I've learned Einstein relativity with his Stanford course some 10years ago Really??? That's remarkable. Einstein's been dead since 1955.

[@youerny]

❤

[@simontemplar404]

@@jgrab1 You could too if you look at his lectures on the Stanford University channel.

[@BDB78]

@@jgrab1you’re not very bright are you?

[@JohanAndre-bo4lt]

@@jgrab1 The distinction between the past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion. The only reason for time is so that everything doesn't happen at once. ~Albert Einstein.

[@bryantgaines6849]

Thanks! Curt is awesome and one of the best host I have every seen. My mind was blown. My mind was blown by the explanation. My brother and I share the love of physics. I have to replay parts all the time to grasp these video. Keep it up Curt because your channel is one of my favorite.

[@TheoriesofEverything]

Wow thank you so much! Glad you’re enjoying Bryant.

[@ericfunke]

Best interview that I've seen in a long while, from both Leonard Susskind and Curt Jaimungal. The interaction is great here and really shows what physics is facing at the moment. It's not only the scientific content at play here. Hats off for both gentlemen.

[@kadourimdou43]

👍 Leonard Susskind on the show, fantastic. Not a String Theory fan myself but he is great to listen to and an amazing explainer of physics theories.

[@SpacetimeTony]

Amazing work once again Curt. Excited to watch the entire episode. Thank you both 🙏🏼

[@dacjames]

Great interview as usual. Thank you for pushing back on the “counter-consensus is probably wrong” argument.

[@whataboutthis10]

Such an unmasking moment for the Prof. "It's time for some new" sounds way different after he adds "how it should be a more general string theory" "We need new ideas" "How about these?" "Oh no people believe so much crazy stuff"

[@katgod]

Yes when I heard Susskind say that I wondered if he really believed it. On the surface it is a somewhat reasonable statement but we all know it has been proven false over and over.

[@Zen_Cycling]

Spot on. Raised an eyebrow the way he says "we need something new" and then when Curt asked him about 4+ theories, Prof. wasn't interested and looked a bit arrogant. The "new" portion according to him, is just generalization of s(S)tring theory.

[@dacjames]

@@katgod by the end of the interview, you could tell that no, he doesn’t. He was willing to admit that his field is often too dismissive of new ideas. He still hasn’t seen anything compelling in the alternatives. I think that view is more than fair.

[@LukeEganLyrics]

And his argument isn't even correct on its own terms. History has shown that the consensus is always wrong, and they're just waiting for the next falsification from the next big scientific development.

[@johnvandenberg8883]

What a contrast with Roger Penrose, who explains technical details with patience and kindness. Susskind is grumpy, impatient, and has strong opinions on many things. Looking back on his scientific career, he can't help but conclude that he has been chasing the wrong idea for 60 years. That still doesn’t give him the right to adopt a condescending attitude toward Nobel Prize winner Roger Penrose. Also that nonsense about consensus is downright ridiculous. Groundbreaking discoveries have often come from scientists who have charted their own course. I fondly remember the eighties when my thesis advisor, Gerard 't Hooft, was already firmly convinced that string theory was not the right path to unify quantum mechanics and general relativity. He decided to follow his intuition and delve into a better understanding of black holes in a quantum mechanical context. Kurt held his own fantastically in this challenging interview!

[@olalilja2381]

Yeah, I really didn't like when Susskind dismissed Kurt's questions with a "I could explain that too you, but that would take several hours." To me, it sounded more like he actually wasn't prepared that Kurt really knows the subjects and he couldn't give a good answer to the questions. And to (indirectly) compare Roger Penrose's Conformal Cyclic Cosmology to flat earth "theory" is just plain stupid.

[@ekekonoise]

@@johnvandenberg8883 it's great that they both Penrose and Susskind exist. We need different characters for a more complete human progress.

[@dAvrilthebear]

@@johnvandenberg8883 Susskind is very good at explaining difficult things through lectures. He can explain the Holographic Principle with a story of two fish Alice and Bob... A podcast is not the best format for explaining complicated physics concepts to laymen like myself. Penrose sometimes dismisses questions for being too technical. I love them both, thank God we have these minds.

[@xantiom]

The ending, the shared wisdom is moving. What a rare gem of a professor.

[@BackTwoBaySix]

Big up Curt for defending Penrose THE GOAT

[@AndroidPoetry]

Penrose has gone off the deep end, especially with his consciousness obsessions, he is so reluctant to accept eliminativism, he's embracing any other absurd idea he can find

[@PrescottValley]

​@@AndroidPoetry nah, consciousness is fundamental, not materialism. It doesn't come from inside the brain. Penrose will be seen as great as Newton as AI, Quantum Computing, and technology advances to help confirm more and more aspects of his theories. The idealists are right. I'll take a Nobel Prize winners opinion anyway over some random KZbin commenter name Android Poetry.

[@wisentropy]

Materialism is for chumps.

[@PrescottValley]

@wisentropy Indeed. Materialism is the entire reason we have been stuck in both our understanding of consciousness AND physics for the past 100 years and not advanced at all. They keep giving old, stale, rehashed ideas, new names, and then acting like they've made progress when they clearly haven't. I'm over it and they need to be called out.

[@cosmosaic8117]

@@PrescottValley Isn’t Penrose’s official position that Consciousness doesn’t collapse the Wavefunction, but that the Wavefunction collapse (still not fully understood as to its true nature), PRODUCES Consciousness within the brain via Microtubules? I say this as someone who highly favors Idealism myself, and who has only recently gotten really blown away in discovering Penrose’s ideas. But I don’t think it’s accurate to refer to him as a pure Idealist.

[@kumoyuki]

Leonard Susskind is without question one of my favorite people to listen to. In particular, I love his basic intellectual honesty, simultaneously recognizing his own expertise as well as its limitations

[@notanemoprog]

You excel at sarcasm. Bravo, sir or madam!

[@objective_psychology]

@@notanemoprog You excel at pointlessness

[@johnhessler7019]

Simply amazing-as always great work Curt. I took his QM class decades ago-an amazing teacher-would not be teaching at Johns Hopkins without him

[@simontemplar404]

I would echo that as a layperson. Everybody with a little calculus should watch his collection of KZbin lectures at Stanford just for the sheer thrill of following the bridges he builds to teach physics. Amazing teacher.

[@albertosierraalta3223]

Kudos to Curt in this interview. I understand Susskind is a highly intelligent physicist but on a human/conversational level this wasn't a good interview from his side "Tell me, What are you most excited in physics today?" ----> "Ask me another question" "How has you passion for string theory changed over the years?"--->"That's a psychological question, ask me a physics question" "What do you think of the counter arguments for inflation?" ---> "Some people believe the earth is flat" Haven't watch it all yet but man, Curt has shown patience, respect, and great counter arguments (regarding the consensus part)

[@Syv_]

Yeah this was a big turn off for me. Hard to get through

[@RamPageMMA]

Who cares… he answered honestly! Don’t be such a snowflake

[@RamPageMMA]

When a good question is asked, he gives credit… for example 39:51

[@timealchemist7508]

@@albertosierraalta3223 ya, it is sad. The rest of the interview is pretty much more of the same… “I’m not going to answer that…”

[@CurtOntheRadio]

It isn't difficult to imagine those are fing tedious questions for a renowned theoretical physicist.

[@balazsszegedy9913]

Susskind is a great physicist. The interview was really nice but the message is more subtle than what the title suggest. 1) Susskind says that string theory is a proof of concept showing that general relativity and quantum mechanics can be reconciled. In this sense string theory is unique and valuable. Woit, Lisi, Weinstein are not serious players in this game. 2) Loop quantum gravity is a serious alternative approach but it has not produced interesting results 3) A variant of string theory could very well be the right theory 4) He says that young people should try new alternative approaches.

[@fredericharmand]

He said that quantum mechanics is still mysterious to physicists 1:21:30 so I don't see how we can talk about string theory that would unify GR with QM... GR is hard to understand but it is at least understandable. QM is not even clear. A detector entangled with the system makes no sense. Multiverse theory is bullshit.

[@JohanAndre-bo4lt]

Maybe a great physicists but does not seem to be a very nice person.

[@ytb40]

He basically says that he is fantastic, that string theory is fantastic, and that it is the fault of the world that string theory cannot be applied to it. Reality is wrong, not Prof Susskind..

[@galaxia4709]

@@JohanAndre-bo4lt I find him a very kind person

[@ehici514]

@@galaxia4709 what makes you believe that. he is so misleading in his way of framing sentences. he is telling you that black holes adhere to quantum mechanics because his model of a black hole does which he cannot confirm. the problem is hidden in his word salat. he is using a proof of concept for a theory to make definitive statements about reality not about the theory. his statement if he was an honest person should have been. according to string theory black holes behave according to quantum mechanics. its just not alright to be so unprecice in your language to hide the fact that you are sitting in a sand castle. although he admits that string theory is wrong he cannot admit his own fault in this. thats a very non nice person in my view

[@personofinterest8731]

I have courage, but I'm Leonard's age without his brilliance, so I'll never understand the world I'm in. Thank you for this interview.

[@syiunshi]

It's ok, he doesn't understand either. Nobody does

[@JimEadon]

He's career is a dead end failure, and he lied about it to the layman.

[@Mr.Anders0n_]

​@@JimEadon all the ideas in science we take for granted today (e.g. expanding universe, the standard model, general relativity, etc) are built on the corpses of wrong ones and "failures". That's how science works. No one knows right off the bat if their hypnosis is right or wrong. Promising ideas need to be investigated to determine their validity, and string theory was a promising one. Also, string theory has developed some useful mathematical tools that can be used in other theories and fields. So, you can't call a scientist's work a failure if the hypothesis they're worked on didn't turn out to be productive. The hypothesis failed, but the scientist has successfully carried out his job of moving one step closer to a more accurate description of the physical world by systematically ruling out a dead-end hypothesis. If you believe he acted maliciously by knowing for certain that string theory is wrong while still pushing it, then why are you here listening to a one hour and forty minute talk with such individual? 🤷🏻‍♂️

[@JimEadon]

@@Mr.Anders0n_ I have an MSc in Quantum Optoelectronics, and know perfectly how science works, thank you, Mr Patronising. String Theory is a scam, its cheerleaders refuse to admit its hopeless failures, and Susskind did act maliciously. The ST cult has done tremendous damage to HEP. Don't just take my word for it, read the blog of Prof Peter Woit, and other scientists Susskind attacks.

[@ytb40]

​@@Mr.Anders0n_ today's physics is in a horrible state. Even so that this year's physics Nobel prize went to Computer scientists and not physicists , because the nobel academy wanted to honor real scientists like Jeffrey Hinton, and not arrogant self-promoters and showmen with theories that do not work.

[@manuelvillarreal1021]

subscribed and respected for defending Sir Roger Penrose.

[@PeterStrider]

What a time to be alive! Legendary scientists speaking candidly to the informed and passionate public through smart and scientifically literate (and extremely well prepared!) interviewer such as Curt. This is probably the most influential science podcast there is across these topic areas. The top scientists are evidently watching and listening to what their peers and thought leaders are thinking and saying, and this is starting to trickle into changes in scientific direction. Bravo Curt and thank you again for what you are doing here!

[@nickfixit]

@@PeterStrider this is how I feel. Bringing it to fresh perspectives and new minds young and old.

[@RogueTheology]

More like exposing a scam artist. The emperor has no clothes. He displays the worst traits of a grifter. Changes definitions, moves the goal post, gaslights thinking your stupid, and it’s all rhetoric. This guy got thoroughly exposed

[@stringydev]

I respect Susskind immensely, but sometimes he can be rude and undermining, even to those who share the same curiosity about the universe as he. You handled the interview perfectly. Great stuff!

[@ilyamuromets317]

@@stringydev You'd expect someone with a 'curiosity' for the universe to show a little more interest in other people's theories. His 'curiosity' appears to start and end with his own theories and ideas...

[@theoretical-b1h]

Most physicist are like that unfortunately I'm not interested in studying physics further after my experience at university

[@stringydev]

@@ilyamuromets317 I agree. As great a Physicist he is (and btw, he’s really great), his arrogance stinks. It’s like he only enjoys conversing with people as equally smart as himself, and anything else is a chore. Like why do the interview in the first place if you clearly don’t enjoy communicating ideas to people that want to learn and are interested? Quite opposite to the likes of Feynman who loved doing that!

[@stringydev]

@@theoretical-b1h most string theorists, I agree.

[@reginaldowen4346]

No matter how good the guest, an interview is only as good as the interviewer. Curt Jaimungal is the best

[@studyaccount9662]

THIS SHOULD GO VIRAL!! Thank god i am shifting to Condensed matter now

[@user_375a82]

Parmenides was into condensed matter at the OUTSET of Greek philosophy (its a logical conclusion), but flippin' Plato veered away from the idea that he knew in his heart was correct. Xeno tried hard to back up Parmenides (with his paradoxes) who was his teacher, but they laughed Xeno out of the court room.

[@SageCog801-zl1ue]

@studyaccountant If condensed matter physics had a bosonic string state would you be able to convince the world that another world exists?

[@donnnnnnnn-ox9jb]

Penrose is on a completely different level. Susskind's speculative ideas often prioritize theoretical elegance over empirical validation, raising concerns about their scientific robustness. In stark contrast, Penrose's work, especially on black hole entropy and the implications of quantum gravity, showcases a level of intellectual rigor and mathematical depth that is truly extraordinary. His exploration of the Penrose process and twistors offers profound insights into the nature of spacetime, illustrating a commitment to grounding theoretical concepts in physical reality. While Susskind’s contributions spark curiosity, Penrose’s work stands as a testament to the profound interplay between mathematics and the fundamental laws of the universe. Susskind is simply in no position to criticize.

[@stevendaryl30161]

I certainly do agree with you about Penrose's work on black holes and twistors. But he has in recent years veered off into topics where his rigor doesn't keep up. His speculations about gravitationally induced quantum collapse, or about consciousness being connected to microtubules, for example.

[@randomname39cf]

Why does this seem written by chat gpt?

[@b8888whale]

@@stevendaryl30161his foray into consciousness is fascinating, as it seems to be entirely missing in our scrutiny of how the universe works in general.

[@PsychedelicAnxiety]

why does this sound like chatgpt lol

[@PsychedelicAnxiety]

@@randomname39cfthat’s crazy, i wrote more or less the exact same comment lol

[@the13thTone]

Wonderful. I've been following his work for over a decade now since being inspired by his Theoretical Minimum series helping get me through undergrad. It's amazing to see the conversations reaching this point at what seems to be the cusp of paradigms.

[@michaeltupper4999]

Curt, I am not a physicist and my math went as far as basic calculus. But I am human and I can feel the profound nature of this interview. You handle the confrontation of challenging someone so revered with absolute cunning, grace and respect. The way Susskind flip flops and contradicts himself was very revealing (if you’re not part of the consensus, then you’re probably wrong / looks like the consensus is wrong, if you’re young, my advice is don’t join this cult I started). Although he also handled with astonishing grace and candor what must be a profound realization for him to consider he might have wasted 50 years pursuing a dead end of his own creation. Ironically he seemingly needs to make sure he still gets credit for it, while simultaneously admitting it can’t describe our reality, and so we need to start over. Respect for that to both Curt and Susskind. But saying we need to consider alternatives because String Theory is a dead end and then immediately admitting he didn’t know of any alternatives, while condescendingly discarding any alternatives you mention was not a good look for him. It will be interesting to see if the retirement of the egos in leadership plus adding uninhibited and egoless AI to the mix will help us unlock new frontiers. We are lucky to be alive now and have front row seats for this. Congrats Curt, I’m convinced this will go down as one of those events in the timeline that generated a pivot, or even better, a course correction.

[@vagtsal]

The interviewer was amazing indeed .

[@johnryan4454]

How can you say ":wasted" - did Susskind say "wasted"? Recall that Einstein worked for over 30 years on a GUT w/out success. Science is as much about what we discover we don't know or can't know or failed at. It all adds to knowledge as in "well that didn't work, let's look at something else". Nothing bad or sad about that.

[@michaeltupper4999]

@@johnryan4454 Fair, I only say that out of hyperbole and my own ignorance. I am just a spectator, I tried to qualify my opinion with I don't know shit about this. Also, I said "might have". Everybody experiences self-doubt, so I can only imagine that he must ponder whether or not he's been chasing the wrong lead. This is just my interpretation from watching from the sideline.

[@btaist]

Few years ago I’ve seen lecture of professor Krzysztof Meissner. He said that after working 15 years with spring theory he lost hope that this theory has anything to do with the reality. He provided very good reasons for that.

[@MitchellPorter2025]

Meissner is OK

[@Suggsonbass]

44:35 Curt was bold and on the money to push back here. Props. You cans sense the occasionally cantankerous Susskind wrestling with his conscience and legacy. On the one hand he's saying "Don't listen lone voices listen and follow the consensus" whilst on the other, he says that String Theory - which IS the consensus - is bascially wrong and is wrecking careers and bold creative thinking.

[@alisaiterkan]

Yup.

[@ColdHawk]

I think that’s on target. He must be struggling on many levels. The phrase, “start over” would be hard to say about a huge chunk of your lifetime’s work.

[@Outcaster88]

I've admired Susskind for a long time, but I find hypocritical of him to judge other alternative theories based on what they have to show for themselves. What exactly did string theory demonstrate? Are there any testable predictions? I feels like the 'consensus' is a gatekeeping marry-go-round that has been going on for more than 40 years. His own words say that string theory does not describe our reality, so why not be open about other fresh new ideas?!

[@julioguardado]

Best Susskind interview ever. I would love to be a fly in the room while Susskind and his collaborators are working. I wouldn't understand any of it but I'm sure it would be fun!

[@ytb40]

What is so fun about watching men with a huge hybris discussing a theory that is a complete failure with no connection to reality? whatsoever...

[@lucabertini5209]

Congratulations on a truly remarkable interview. Hust few considerations. I belive it’s important to acknowledge the authority of this scientist and to consider his viewpoints and opinions, even if they are quite strong at times, as those of a scientist "in the field." This should not undermine those who focus on scrutinizing various perspectives to provide all of us with a comprehensive view of the current state of theoretical physics. I think in this interview, Susskind gives a very compelling view of himself-not as the highly opinionated theoretical physicist, but as a scientist who thoughtfully reflects on things, offering us a powerful example of intellectual honesty. It can’t be easy to admit first to oneself, and then to the world, that years spent in long studies have not led to an plausible and/or accepted theory. The part on SU(5) is truly fascinating.

[@RogueTheology]

Bro they knew they were guilty a long time ago. They are exactly the same as Elizabeth Holmes and should be charged with fraud.

[@datadude67]

I am not a physicist nor a cosmologist (I am a software developer) but I am very much interested in figuring out literally what makes the universe tick. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and Pauli's exclusion principle are in my mind possibly related. I think there may be something to discover if we think of the relation between time and space as waves and their interference. Mass, acceleration, and velocity affect the scale of space (and its alter ego time). The geometry of space is affected by gravity according to Einstein. If you picture an atom's nucleus as a sphere that is made of waves of space and time, perhaps the quantum uncertainty can be modified (or somewhat mitigated) by thinking of phase coherence between time and space. between time and space.

[@rg3412]

Curt, you elevate the scientific interview game with every one of your videos. And you do it with style.

[@MathTech83]

The interviewer got my high respect here “ we can’t appeal to consensus professor…Penrose is not a one off person”

[@scififan698]

I'd rather drink with Penrose, than eat with Lenny. lol

[@erawanpencil]

Agreed. That whole pro-inflation rant by the interviewee @42:00 on was just bizarre- dude, you've just admitted that essentially the consensus has been wrong since 1969 about string theory, including yourself, and now you're mocking people like Penrose for questioning inflation, because it's not 'consensus' ?! I'm sorry but I've never liked this guy, he's clearly a computationalist trying to keep his head above water in a universe that is fundamentally non-computational.

[@langdalepass]

I am no expert at all just a casual observer but the interviewee contradicts himself between asvocating taking notice of new ideas and not dismissing then, which he started right at the beginning to later speaking to the consensus penalty being correct

[@langdalepass]

And another thing that surprised me was he seems to think that scientists should not worry about getting a job the main thing should be doing the science, what on earth are they supposed to live on, and whether are that supposed too get their resources from.

[@objective_psychology]

No, that was extremely cringey and missed the point, like most of what this interviewer said

[@omnipotent1992]

In DMT-induced experiences, the concept of Anti-de Sitter (AdS) space plays a significant role because it represents a kind of hyperbolic geometry with negative curvature. This means that, like AdS space, DMT experiences may involve expanding perspectives where distances seem to grow faster as they extend outward, leading to vast and complex visuals. This hyperbolic effect aligns with the way AdS space behaves in theoretical physics, where it is modeled to expand infinitely in all directions. In contrast, de Sitter (dS) space, which has positive curvature, represents the kind of geometry associated with our observable universe, where distances tend to converge or close off rather than expand endlessly. The striking difference in geometry between AdS and dS spaces might reflect how DMT shifts consciousness from the typical Euclidean geometry of everyday perception (more like de Sitter) to a hyperbolic or negatively curved geometry (similar to AdS), where surroundings and structures are experienced in ways that feel infinitely expansive. In this sense, DMT seems to alter perception in a way that mimics moving from a positively curved or Euclidean-like framework (as in de Sitter space) to one that is hyperbolic and AdS-like, resulting in a unique and complex spatial experience.

[@HorukAI]

@@omnipotent1992 in our head we live in projective space ;)

[@paxwallace8324]

There is a book about Japanese Mythology written by a western academic called "The Nobility of Failure" but I thought gee I need to get that book. The man worked on String Theory since 1969...geez Louise. It's an amazing commitment to truth in Science that he is willing to admit he was incorrect. Every bit as inspirational as the theorists who won their races. That's an entire lifetimes worth of inspired hard work. Listen to Greens Elegant Universe when He talks about the inception of string theory

[@Iophiel]

DUDE!! Leonard Susskind!! you just keep breaking through, Curt. Legend.

[@berkeleymalagon1958]

Curt you are a fucking stud. I appreciate your focus on keeping him honest/fair. Courageous interviewing, well done

[@notanemoprog]

For some reason I misread that as "fucking stupid" and boy did I have a scathing reply to you in mind

[@mcmoose64]

I think LS was taken aback by the challenge , but respected the interviewer.

[@objective_psychology]

Oh fuсk off, he was completely fair. It's astounding that you could misread the situation so badly.

[@DevanMccallister]

It’s awesome you stood up against Leonard when he generalized the consensus of people believing in inflation. He surprised me with the disrespect he has for such a renowned physicist like Penrose.

[@GumGum-n9k]

Maybe because Penrose went esoteric

[@akirasthecat]

He didn't go esoteric at all. Listen more carefully to what Penrose says and how he point these things out.

[@GumGum-n9k]

@@akirasthecat I did and find it esoteric. What about it is scientific?

[@notanemoprog]

@@GumGum-n9k Well, unlike Lenny's life's work in not-even-wrong String with the capital S "Theory" - a total failure - it's _at least_ testable

[@moftan]

@@GumGum-n9k the CCC model is a very elegant alternative to inflation. The CCC cannot work with inflation in it. And the CCC is much more "scientific" than string theory in that it can be tested. Inflation on the other hand is very weird one you start looking at it. For one thing, how do you switch it off?

[@culturemanoftheages]

I really enjoyed the intro you added, it was great for getting into the right headspace for listening to the interview.

[@TheoriesofEverything]

Im so glad!

[@RydarkVoyager]

I enjoyed this discussion. Just admire both his intellectual honesty and willingness to self reflect. We need so much of this, and not confined to physics, but to other fields as well.

[@LarsBahner]

Highly entertaining and refreshingly candid. Solid scientific attitude. High tempered at times. Lov' it.

[@johnnyd4815]

Thank you, Dr. Susskind for teaching me soooooo much over the years on youtube. Truly priceless!

[@JimEadon]

The guy has denigrated ST's critics, and lied about ST. ST is a failure and so is Susskind.

[@bmclaughlin01]

We’ve known that for a long time, the original string theory collapsed and they tried to fix it via more complex mathematics. It’s great to hear one of the founders of super string theory admit it. We’ve not answered the fundamental conflicts from the origins of QM.

[@baaldavid]

True. But only after it was milked for years to get lots and lots of funding, even though they knew better.

[@cuzx1]

Great videos as always. I like it when you provide chapters so I can skip to an area of interest.

[@notanemoprog]

That's bad for the YT Algo

[@ronald3836]

@@notanemoprog It is respectful to the viewer.

[@blasater]

Great to see Kurt push back on Susskind on "consensus" and Penrose.

[@spracketskooch]

This man is a major reason why I don't put any stock whatsoever into credentials.

[@marfmarfalot5193]

Well I am in fact a naive young person learning theoretical physics and I can say right now that I am applying to graduate school in HET right now and one of my plans is to work on generalizing string theory. Also, I wish Susskind was a bit more appreciative of how hard it is to get a job in academia, instead of kind of blowing off that young scientist can't even work on really generating new science because of the current state Regardless of Susskind's replies, great questions and insight as always

[@MitchellPorter2025]

Yes, string theory is absolutely worth studying, it is still way ahead of anything else, which is why Susskind wants to generalize it, rather than working on any of the known alternative theories... It is worth understanding the whole pyramid of ideas (standard model, grand unification, supersymmetry, string theory) which was the dominant paradigm until the Higgs turned up unaccompanied. Then you can think about how it could be modified to accommodate what we actually see. And check hep-th archive every day

[@demirhanbaylan]

"Professor, we can't make an appeal to consensus." Thank you. You gained another subscriber. Professor's disrepect for Penrose was... (trying to find a word)... curious.

[@objective_psychology]

It was grounded in sense. How can you be skeptical of string theory but not of Penrosian BS?

[@DarthQuantum-ez8qz]

"String theorists promised us a theory of everything. Instead they gave us a theory of anything." - Sidney Coleman

[@fastcanoe105]

You handled this interview very well.

[@zhaipei]

At 6:02, the interviewer said, " In de Sitter spacetime, the boundary is time-like, so holography is more difficult to formulate." I think that is the key. A space boundary is much easier to understand, no matter if it's a room, black hole, or observable universe horizon. The current theory already reveals that in Ads, the reality inside the boundary can be a representation of the information encoded on the space boundary. However, in de Sitter spacetime, which is the world we are living in, the boundary is time, it changes all the time. And is always the NOW. You can imagine a sphere (boundary) of time is expanding around you. All the information of the universe at this moment is encoded on this NOW boundary whether you notice or not. Everything can be considered as space-information dots, either stored in a certain pattern (particles in your body), or transfer fast (light or gravity), or two space- information dots resemble each other (quantum entanglement). It is difficult to understand, because we need to imagine the boundary not as space but time, also, the information is not in space, but is space itself.

[@zhaipei]

To make a breakthrough of present stagnation in physics, we may need to reshape our minds and research methods. Instead of equations, we may need more irreducible computation. Just like in the field of AI, the breakthrough happened when people turned away from expert-system, but rely on computation networks with simple intuitive rules. Stephen Wolfram hypergraph project shines a light on the breakthrough of fundamental physics research.

[@wwkk4964]

You were brilliant at handling this hard interview!

[@charlesblithfield6182]

Susskind introduced me to the proof that if you add a photon to a black hole the surface area of the black hole increases by one square Planck unit. This invites a lot of thought from my perspective.

[@theograice8080]

Can you cite a link? I'm fascinated!

[@kidddogbites]

Yes the Area Entropy proportionality law

[@jgrab1]

What else could it increase by?

[@simontemplar404]

I remember following along to that proof. A classic. I forget how it is done now but I remember that it is so straightforward that it is simply gorgeous.

[@charlesblithfield6182]

@@theograice8080 I read it in one of his books, years ago, but I immediately wrote it down trying to understand it even though it’s very straightforward but fascinated me. If you want I could look for my notes and summarize it.

[@dacjames]

I would love to see you pursue the question about inflation further. One of your prior guests made a fine tuning argument against inflation. Basically saying yes, we have a lot of evidence showing our fine tuned inflation models matches observations, but we lack evidence for the core theoretical framework or why any of the parameters should be tuned the way they are. In this interview, the point was countered saying there is quite compelling evidence for inflation, no mention of whether that’s the theoretical framework or a fine tuned model built with the framework. Which one is it? What is the observational evidence, if any, do we have supporting inflation as a framework independent from the chosen parameters? I would love to hear an expert of inflation answer this question.

[@simontemplar404]

Inflation cures the flatness problem is something that comes to mind about compelling evidence.

[@ErikJones-u6c]

Leonard Susskind's remarks on the physics community's stagnation resonate deeply. Despite numerous theories emerging, many fail to meaningfully contribute due to a disconnect from established science and mathematics. The quest for innovation has led some to overextend imagination, neglecting foundational principles. String theory's shortcomings underscore this issue, highlighting the need for a unified quantum gravity framework. Susskind acknowledges this, emphasizing the urgency for new perspectives grounded in empirical evidence. The crux lies in refining our understanding of existing physics and mathematics, rather than hastily proposing radical theories. Advancements in technology yield daily breakthroughs, yet integrating these discoveries into a cohesive worldview remains elusive. My own research endeavors align with this vision. While still in its formative stages, I'm confident that a comprehensive framework can reconcile quantum mechanics and relativity. Key to this pursuit is rigorously building upon established knowledge, ensuring that novel ideas emerge from a deep appreciation of fundamental principles. Through diligence and dedication, I aim to contribute meaningfully to this ongoing conversation, ultimately enhancing our holistic understanding of the universe.

[@genehenson8851]

Getting Lenny on your podcast means you've made it. Congrats.

[@Jaeyaar]

In the end, I believe physics is going to be the study of the origination of thought. Keep being fearless Curt. Your literacy in the arbitrary mathematics of modern physics, your hopefully strong connection with actual reality, and this fearlessness might bring about some actual truth.

[@franvf8881]

.."creo que la física será el estudio del origen del pensamiento"..❤❤❤

[@theostapel]

An interesting synopsis - of some possible future goals of science - in serious meditation training - we try to realise this - as a personal inner experience - this same origin of thinking/being (heart) - and the inner nature - of heart and mind It is a human thing - which may even be shared (theory) and universal (practice). Am inspired that scientists - may try for this - and urge meditators - to continue - intensely. There are interesting links - with human reality and cosmic reality - or so yoga says - (in consciousness). Fare thee well - on life's journey.

[@ytb40]

In the end I believe physics has to do a turnaround of 180 degrees, so that it can be the physics again people like Newton, Heisenberg and Einstein once made such a successful discipline...

[@theostapel]

@@ytb40 Interesting. there has to be an essential reality - to our thoughts and actions. There is also a simplicity - that can only be truthful. It is as it is - is the saying. Let's hope that the quest for said experience - is evoked and used. Fare thee well - in life's journey

[@fpvmaniac]

He describes Wolframs work as him being an "advocate of little checkerboards or what you call them".

[@notanemoprog]

I'd bet my bottom dollar that Mr. Plumber here didn't spend _one second_ trying to actually understand Wolfram

[@JimEadon]

That's about right. Wolfram is another fraud, like Susskind himself.

[@JohanAndre-bo4lt]

@@notanemoprog Probably not since the likened these alternative theories to crazy people who believe the earth is flat

[@ronald3836]

When it comes to his physical theories, Wolfram is a crackpot. You cannot expect a physicist to spend time on all crackpot theories that are out there.

[@JimEadon]

@@ronald3836 He's all about self-promotion, yes. His physics ideas are fun philosophy, but unconvincing. If we're in a simulation, then it would probably be analogous to a computer game, not like what he's proposing.

[@jansenart0]

1:25:35 "Oh, this may be poison, but really we have nothing else to drink." SAME LOGIC.

[@josephboomtv7811]

Contradictions ** What’s the CMB Temp.?** The guest mentions “The universe we can see” * in expansion ** is it reasonable to think the inverse is true? Would the laws of thermodynamics fall apart in an expanding universe? * if it does, you’d have to show a mechanism why*

[@keithnicholas]

they definitionally fall apart.

[@stargenemolly]

I’ve enjoyed Susskind’s online lectures, both technical and popular. For me, his reference to consensus reflects the dynamic group process in sciences, where individuals and teams ‘orbit’ around one or more conjectures; taking time to explore and test ideas. Eventually, a coalescence occurs around a theoretical formalism, which has at least survived tests so far. Perhaps this set of ideas is not successful over the entire field of the mystery, but it may be close to an as yet undiscovered and better suite of ideas. A temporary consensus forms, to be abandoned or improved as empirical evidence becomes sharper. This is similar to the “Wisdom of Crowds” concept, where a large number of researchers, thinking fairly independently about a mystery, gradually arrive at a coherent hypothesis, which may itself be altered and improved over time. This ‘to-be-tested-and-improved” consensus has occurred throughout the history of science and is very different from notorious ‘groupthink’.

[@Mike-x9h5f]

my theory is so complicated that I cannot explain it to anyone therefore just believe me

[@eoinoconnell185]

Leonard Susskind is 84 years old. Insanely sharp.

[@RogueTheology]

Well he’s a lifelong scammer it’s second nature to him

[@roelwieers4566]

Comparing people that don't believe in inflation wth flat earthers ... That was disappointing

[@isaklytting5795]

Yes, very disappointing few minutes of impassioned defense of mediocrity there. "It almost never happens that everyone is wrong, and some individual comes up with a new idea that is right." Right, that's never happened! That's not at all how nearly all of the history of human progress has gone! On the other hand, I highly respect his willingness to listen to Curt's criticism and to give the advice of young scientists to basically think for themselves, trust in themselves, and not to let people like him tell them what's right and what's wrong.

[@RogueTheology]

God was good to us that He exposed Tyson, Suss, and Kaku in short order. Many people have been irreparably damaged by these con artists.

[@BlueMushroomSmurfCat]

This is probably the best interview I have seen from you. Great job!

[@stevenverrall4527]

I greatly admire how much you got out of Lenny Susskind. BRAVO!!!

[@phuecn]

So at one part Susskind says we need to look at entirely different models, and then when asked about Penrose’s stance on inflation he says we should go with consensus?

[@notanemoprog]

And calls Penrose a flat earther.

[@tonym6566]

LEGENDARY 🔥 Congrats on everything Kurt n please keep it up can't wait to watch what you upload next 🖖

[@kjetilknyttnev3702]

Susskind is a great teacher. I enjoyed countless hours of lectures of his from Stanford. And I'm glad he is finally picking up the glove from the failures of string theory. However, please note that Susskind has been a major bully when it comes to critics or his and other thesis on the subjects, for decades, and it's highly hypocritical to try and be some sort of a frontrunner for a shift in focus among theoretical physicists.

[@based__ai]

Yeah this was jarring to me. I came across his lectures and some talks a while and was hooked. He seemed down to earth and appreciated his attempts at straightforward explanations making complex topics more accessible to broader audience. Until this interview, I was completely unaware of this darker side. Disappointing

[@NT_1]

​@@based__ai I don't think I'm familiar with him but I guess I'm glad I first get to discover this side. I want to see a debate between michio Kaku now

[@johnjacquard863]

wonderful interview! i always loved his work! great to hear and see him speak to all these issues!

[@IncompleteTheory]

I find it amazing how many of the great scientists know next to nothing about other people's work. I have noticed that in some other of your videos, but never so bluntly as in this one. He admits to know nothing about Wolframs work but knows instantly that it's failure. Got it.

[@deputyvillageidiot]

59:07, “I don’t want a student that’s dependent on me to tell them what’s important.” He just described exactly a professor’s job and said he doesn’t want to do that. He continued that he doesn’t want a student who is “too dependent on me intellectually,” again rejecting the student/teacher relationship. That’s what a professor is supposed to do, a student is not an equal. Yet he continues still to,say that he and the student can have an intellectual conversation as equals. He seems to think students are his colleagues. He wants his students to be free labor for him.

[@alex79suited]

Lenny, can I call you Lenny, that was a terrific interview, so do more, sir. I appreciate the time. Don't let the EGO get in the way. If you can't be good, be great. And you fit the criteria. Thank you. Peace ✌️ 😎. Love the mighty Susskin.

[@krzysztofwos1856]

Whenever someone says, "I looked at them, and I didn't find anything compelling about them," I think what he really means is, "I didn't get it." I was at a conference recently where a well-known neuroscientist dismissed computational approaches to consciousness and, for example, Wolfram's model as "uncompelling." "Uncompelling" is a word one may use when one wants to ensure as little information as possible is conveyed.

[@adrianllanos8562]

In their defense, if you’re creating a theory that is so far outside of “regular” ways of thinking, it is sort of incumbent upon you to “translate” for us peasants. You can’t expect people to drop everything to study your theory just because you’re really really smart. To quote Carroll from an earlier ep, “Being a heretic is hard work”

[@krzysztofwos1856]

​ @adrianllanos8562 "Being a heretic is hard work." Indeed it is. Every day, I feel the rift between how I see the world and the people around me, growing bigger and bigger and bigger. It's not that I am not trying to bridge that gap. I like the term "jargonaut" from Peter Watts' Blindsight. Jargonaut is someone "explaining the incomprehensible to the indifferent." The key problem is that people like Susskind and other physicists, mathematicians, etc., really don't care about being understood. They care about 1) understanding and 2) the status conveyed by being the one who understands the mystery. So, we've created a system where these people are incentivized not to make you understand their ideas so they don't feel compelled to explain them to you. After all, tenure is a pretty nice deal.

[@nryle]

I also think Wolfram cares more about enticing the younger rather than older anyways.

[@dylanmenzies3973]

Great interview, really gets to the man behind the famous lectures.

[@surrendertoflow78]

This was a tough interview. You did a great job not getting intimidated and giving pushback where appropriate. I think his comments acknowledging his opinion might not be the most valuable when considering alternate theories were largely due to how you conducted yourself during this interview. By the end of it, he must have felt comfortable enough to be held accountable in that way. Bravo 👏🏻

[@Achrononmaster]

Part-1 of 2. I think Lenny is behind the 8 ball on Infarton theory Turok (not Steinhardt, not Penrose) and others have pointed out the gravity wave modes Inflation Theory predicts are not found, and it is extremely hard to fit any realistic model of inflation now to the CMBR, but what sold me is that Turok and Boyle have the CPT-Symmetric universe alternative, whihc is empirically just afar superior. So from where I sit it is game over for Inflation Theory until they get some miraculous reboot.

[@gerardopc1]

String theorists have to concede that so far, M theory is just fancy mathematics but not a real provable description of the world.

[@ColdHawk]

This set of admissions should bring about a wider recognition that a good portion of the field of Physics has wasted a heartrendingly vast amount of money, effort and time chasing a fantasy, engaged in onanistic mathematics.

[@danielkanewske8473]

Fantastic interview!

[@RWin-fp5jn]

I have a lot of respect for Leonard’s ability for abstract thinking. I like his ideas about AdS and dS space, including horizons and what happens there. The one fact the professor may however have overlooked, is that our spacetime world not only has a border at some infinite cosmic distance; it also shares a border with each individual atom nearby. And as such we might learn both borders moght conceptually be alike. What do I mean with the atomic border? Well, we know for sure there is no ‘spacetime as the grid’ inside an atom, since over the past 100 years we have NEVER observed anything moving or passing there in terms of space and time. What we DO see is motion in terms of electron eV quantum jumps which cost mass and not time to cross (Penrose aptly says we must substitute E=hf into E=MC2 to understand mass is the clock in the subatomic world). So, if energy is the grid and mass the clock, then the atom’s outer surface boundry is a measure of its internal energy, not of the amount of spacetime inside of it (as there is none). That’s a kind of holographic boundry. More importantly; Even more important; Any motion (quantum leap) inside of an atom is accompanied with photons have a greater energy if the moving electron is closest to the atomic core (where eV value of orbits is much higher, dropping off the further from the core an electron moves). So (quantum leap) motion far away from the atom’s core is joined with increasingly RED SHIFTED photons, which have nothing to do with different speeds of the electrons taking a quantum leap. Now let’s hold that thought and suggest our intragalactic fabric is dominated by the same markup as the atom (energy as the grid) causing an outer galactic border with the spacetime outside of our galaxy. What does that mean for us as internal observers when we see incoming photons associated with furthest objects (galaxies)? Well, similarly to the atomic setup, the most redshifted photons would be associated with objects (external galaxies) moving at greatest distance form our Sag A core, but NOT necessarily greatest speed or age for that matter. We would void the need for dark energy!! Likewise, if indeed there are only overlapping emergent spacetime bubbles around stars inside galaxies, which otherwise is dominated by the ‘energy as the grid’ setup, then we would also void the need for the dark matter. Because the area between galactic arms would be close to void of spacetime (hardly any stars there), making the distance of outer galactic arms in spatial terms a lot closer than they appear normalising the rotation curves. We would solve all that the professor talks about and make yet good use of his AdS ideas. He would yet be correct! I’d like the professor to ponder over that as he would yet revolutionize our cosmic model.

[@Henri-y8t]

Keep dreaming, waist your life as you want but dont try bring otters into that untrue vision. It's time to let go and modified or juste drop the standard model, Philippe 😎

[@EveK-North]

Leonard Susskind is awesome! He’s a pleasure to listen to.

[@jasonshapiro9469]

Man, this string theory crisis sounds severe..I should probably check on all the nerds I love and see if they just need someone to talk to

[@simontemplar404]

Don't worry, it is like trickle down economics. We all know that it is a lie but carry on pretending it works 40 years after discovering it is pants.

[@kitsuneirok]

It certainly begins by asking whether some singularities are a theoretical value or an actual physical phenomenon.

[@NT_1]

​@@kitsuneirok what's with comments appearing to me as written 12 days ago? I just seen a comment from 12 years ago on a video on Brain Cox and there was reply posted 12 days go . It has got to do with String theory

[@kitsuneirok]

@@NT_1 I've been wondering about dimensions and singularities in string theory for a long time, but only recently have I been able to put my question into words like this, and I still don't understand how they actually relate.

[@Achrononmaster]

@18:30 it is important to note that String theory (capital "S" or otherwise) does *_not_* unify gravity with the Standard Model. It merely unifies GR with a vanilla QM, because it has a quantized graviton. "QM" is a general theory of measurement processes, and the Standard Model is the particular such subset of QM that describes our universe's local degrees of freedom, without the graviton. String theories have a graviton, but they do not have the Standard Model (it is buried in a Swampland or whatever, or maybe not even buried, just not there at all, no one knows). While this all sounds like hair-splitting, it is not. It is as big an impasse as trying to go from AdS+CFT to dS+?. The obstacle could be insurmountable and then we will need something different to S(s)tring theory.

[@Achrononmaster]

@20:25 oh shit, I nailed it!

[@mmmao0630]

The hurdle is never the standard model, there’s always a way to break susy and arrive at SM, with more data from LHC we would eventually get there. The problem lies in the near infinite vacua solutions, and dS stable vacua.

[@wilfordlie7899]

Very interesting and inspiring! Many thanks to Professor Susskind and Jaimungal (and everyone in the video-making team ).

[@SnrKagemusha]

1:02:00 the journalistic pause coming in clutch right here lol. Great interview, not just for Susskind's responses, but as a real exemplar of how to interview a subject that is...well, let's say there's a high bar to building rapport.

[@afiguerog]

Men you got my respect when you defended Penrose scientific integrity

[@ravenecho2410]

Penrose is best, happy to see channel have their back.. and respect for a guest, especially when someone is defending a generator of a theory as a theory 😆

[@petitburger]

Quantum mechanics and general relativity seem to be to each other what the physics of individual water molecules is to that of tsunamis-not incompatible, just different entities at different scales. For water and tsunamis, fluid mechanics seems to bridge the gap. Perhaps there’s a similar mechanics that could do the same for GR and QM.

[@psmoyer63]

I totally agree. We need to start over. The only way to start is to come to the understanding that it's not about the particles, and not about how the quantum vacuum of empty space affects the behavior of particles. Instead, welcome the observation that shows us that the universe is a factory that is structured to make empty space.