Leonard Susskind | Lecture 3: Entanglement and the Hooks that Hold Space Together
Vložit
- čas přidán 19. 03. 2016
- Third of three Messenger lectures at Cornell University delivered by Leonard Susskind
Theoretical physicist Leonard Susskind delivered the last of his three Messenger Lectures on "The Birth of the Universe and the Origin of Laws of Physics," May 1, 2014. Susskind is the Felix Bloch Professor of Theoretical Physics at Stanford University, and Director of the Stanford Institute for Theoretical Physics. - Věda a technologie
Love him. He sparks such joy into the subject matter of every lecture he gives.
This is a gift, thank you for posting this, My hero, Leonard Susskind.
I think that if we get past Susskind's brilliance, the fact that he is lecturing 50 years after Feynman as Paul points out is also remarkable. Paul's introductions to all 3 lectures are very entertaining, and the post docs and postgrads should all sign up to his challenge.
just one word to say,,"awesome"lecture,,and thanks for your upload💓
❤Thank you very much Professor and class
Thank you for this series of lectures! The part about entanglement of the vacuum filled in a lot of gaps for my layman’s understanding of physics, and it was a very enjoyable watch.
Great lecture. Love the stuff about entanglement being important to the structure of space. Fascinating!
Thanks for adding this videos
Thank you so much for the upload!
As I see it now, superdeterminism is superior to the er=epr conjecture. However, they say, that superdeterminism is still nonlocal.
Such a smart man. Yes, spacetime is laced up like a corset - like John Wayne's corset. Very old guys who keep up with the times and work to dismantle the prejudices they were brought up with are admirable. Not all old physicists have done that.
And the lecture was fascinating.
Does the type of entanglement differ if you make a black hole from X particles each with mass 10 M or 10 X particles each with mass M? Is the "amount" of entanglement the same?
1.06.00 "... reasonable to say we life inside a EInstein-Rosen Bridge." (that started with the big bang)!
Just at the beginning. Why does he say that he will always get plus one but also when you point the mesurer on a direction you get random answers?
59:50. Crystals, man!!!
Superb!
Where is the second lecture? Watched the first and this but no number two?
+Tore Lund
czcams.com/video/_3Z8RxXmoWU/video.html
+Tore Lund I also updated Its playlist
I’m not a physicist but I have this weird idea that must be wrong, but I don’t know how to dismiss it. Can you help me?
general relativity tells us that massive objects bend space time around them such that time passes more slowly near these massive objects. the closer you are to a massive object, the slower the time passes.
on the other hand, consider the quantum vacuum energy of the space and the way it interacts with the objects that happen to be in that space. think of the casimir effect, for example. quantum energy of the vacuum creates a kind of pressure on the objects, pushing them around in some circumstances.
now if you have an object (a teapot) in the gravitational field of another more massive object (let's say a planet). the quantum fluctuations from the gravitational field of the planet will spontaneously emerge at a lower rate, because time flows more slowly near a massive object, right? so that the pressure that these quantum fluctuations on the part of the teapot pointing to the planet will be smaller, according to the rate that they are produced. therefore the space between the teapot and the planet will have
less quantum events to generate "pressure" than the rest of the surrounding space. is it that space will push the teapot towards the planet, as the vectorial sum of all those infinitesimally small interactions of the object with the spacetime around it will be a vector pointed towards the planet.
So it’s not that the planet attracts the teapot, the quantum vacuum around the teapot pushes the teapot towards the planet because of the reduced rate at which quantum events happen in the gravitational field of the planet.
where am i wrong?
One obvious concern with the Casimir effect as a mechanism for gravity is that the Casimir effect needs two plates which are both good conductors of electric currents to be observed. The moment you stick ideal resistors in there, say, it wouldn't be expected to work. That has dire implications for your possible mechanism for gravity, it would mean that any resistors to an electric field would not experience the gravitational force. That would also, in turn, mean a strong and obviously detectable violation of the equivalence principle, a violation which has never been detected.
A second concern is the _range_ of the Casimir force, or Casimir vacuum pressure, which is extremely small indeed and which isn't an inverse square law but an inverse quartic for plates having a fixed area. So if this were somehow the same thing as a gravitational force you would not and could not get parabolic projectile motion local to the earth's surface which depended on the square of the time, you would not and could not have Keplerian orbits for planets going around stars, there would be no conservation of angular momentum and that means Kepler's law of planets tracing out equal areas in equal times could also not hold. All three of Kepler's laws would have to fail... all those things we like about gravity because they are observed, would instead not be observed. So it's a nice idea for obvious reasons but it cannot possibly explain gravity.
So, when Bob and Alice jump into their respective entangled black holes to meet in the center, between the black holes, they meet in a very short time even though the black holes are zillions of light years apart.
57:45 - If you measure the states locally, the states become product states, which are non-entangled states, no? Local measurement is not a local operation?
How energy radiates away in the vacuum? Im mean, the vacuum is in ground state(zero point energy)? Where does the energy expended in "breaking" entanglement comes from? Where it goes when entanglement is restored?
By the way, this lecture is awesome.
The energy comes from a mass that you put into the vacuum. E=MC2. I am not sure I understand the rest of it, but I think the mass causes the vacuum to unentangle, which costs energy. Over zillions of years the vacuum will relax to an entangled state again by lowering the local energy (mass). That energy is released by black body radiation over time. But the immediate effect on the vacuum of a localized energy (mass) present is that we are aware of the energy (mass) in a vacuum and we call it gravity. That is, I think why Susskind says that there is really no distinction to be made between vacuum entanglement and gravity. They are two sides of the same coin. ER=EPR. I am a political science man, so no physics degree here. But this is how I understood it. Please correct me if I misunderstood !
But where this mass that you put in comes from? If the vacuum is the entire system you need another "meta" system... and again and angain
bronx guy! lol love it
The entire universe came from a speck, so the entire universe is entangled!
hmm, yes, I know some of these words
Lenny at 6:50... "It is clear to me that Einsteins view (compared to Bohr) was much deeper." This is no less than a paradigm-shift compared to the consensus of the last 50 years. I´m glad to feel my own intuition about the Bohr-Einstein debate confirmed by one of the leading physicists of our time.
I don't get it....
Me neither I watch anyway for hundreds of hours
Amazing lecture. The audience might have had to courtesy to laugh a little bit when Susskind tried to make jokes during his demonstrations. Found myself getting annoyed at the blank silence that came after his jokes.
alice and bob can meet under horizon of einstein bridge, ONLY, if she or he is inside of the collapsing material (interior) of the corresponding black hole, i.e. one has to be under surface of the neutron star, before it collapses to black hole (if you survive pushing to the density of the singularity, then you can meet)..
casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/stc5big_gif.html
In a QM wave, the only certainty is the infinitesimal .dt, in an integrated field of liquid uncertainty, (in principle), so effectively, .dt , as the only "known" position, is entangled with all potential positions between +/-infinity. Then the universe is one entangled state of relative time rates of liquid (shape changing) probability. (?)
A comment need not have to convert the nomenclature? eg a "liquid" partial probability is interpreted as momentum?
Green shirt Bert.
He’s hot I assume he’s smart too?