FORA.tv

Fuel the Enlightenment

FORA.tv Series: 'One Small Step' -- Unlocking the Secrets of Space

Leonard Susskind - The Black Hole War

Commonwealth Club
Rate It
34,586 Views
  • Info
  • Bio
  • Full Program
  • Highlights
  • Transcript
  • Download
  • More
mgbeach Avatar
mgbeach
Posts: 1
Posted: 07.25.09, 12:10 PM
One of the best talks on physics that I've seen in some time. I love Dr. Susskind's ability to explain concepts of the highest complexity to a lay audience without at all seeming to condescend or patronize. Based on this video I am on my way to the bookstore to purchase his book "The Black Hole War: My Battle with Stephen Hawking to Make the World Safe for Quantum Mechanics"
Permalink
Psycel Avatar
Psycel
Posts: 3
Posted: 09.13.09, 11:56 PM
Hi. This is realy nice to watch. I have no degree in the field of physycis. I just have a mental picture of something that might explane/or put into perspective what I think could be the source of gravity. This is imagination! I will name this thought: The universe at siege
What if everything around us creates enourmes amounts of collisions-
and everytime there is a collision, it will send a lot of "fragments" in various sizes and in almost every direction, and of various qualities. In this mental picture think of them as allmost infinitely small and that there is a lot of them. They would be undetectable unless they impact, perhaps on the core of a atom, or on an electron, or they might make a more rare impact with something smaller. Every time they impact they influence what they hit, give it a little kick, give a little push. But they are constanly bombarding us from all directions at the same time. Now lets think of two atoms(a and b) in a surroundig where they are in a constant bombardment from all dirrections. They will be moved in all directions at the same time - exept that they will be blocking a minuscule amount of the fragments that will hit the other atom thus they would be pushed together, and they would be blocking more of these fragments as they move closer to each other, thus decreasing the amount of pushes the atom a gets in the direction away from atom b, thereby it would seem as if they are attracted to each other, with a groving intensity the closer they are to one another. But this is not true if there are a large amount of unobservable collisions inbetween them, that are sending fragments in all directions, including the direction of both atoms! If there is a larger amount of collisions (fragments moving in the direction of the atoms a and b) between them than the amount of collisions (fragments moving in the direction of atom a and b) in a straight line through the atom and on the other side. This would make the the atoms move away from each other at great distances, thus creating what would be observed as the expanding universe.

This was my thoughts on gravity
Peter
Permalink
nightlight Avatar
nightlight
Posts: 31
Posted: 10.30.09, 10:55 PM
As a science minded person I took astronomy in college along with other science courses in my search for something to do. I come to realize that college is not for people in search of something to do but for people with goals, but this exploration led me to taking physics 101, termed as physics for dummies.
Though I really enjoyed the astronomy class I discovered that astronomy was actually a mathematical discipline, not exactly as I had Imagined it, but by then I was already into the physics course. I also really enjoyed this course but discovered that it was even more into mathematics.
Coming up with the ways to come up with the numbers to plug into the formulas wasn't to bad but what formula for what, there's a lot of them, and much of physics is theoretical, which a description in words was fun but mathematically was something else.
Look up theoretical in the dictionary and you get words like speculation, hypothesis, abstract, conjecture which might lead to some interesting science fiction and discussion but is this real science? Of course it is in the realm of theoretical physics, which leads to black holes. We know how they are produced, at least some of them, and a lot about them but what we think we know, at this point, is hypothetical. I'm more of a observable science person myself but I see hypothetical scientist as pioneers into where no man has gone before, peering into the unknown and leaving markers so that observable scientist can follow when technology and technique are available. After all wasn't many, if not most, of the knowledge that is common place today at one time only a idea or theory in someones mind, and like as has happened before, when, if ever, we are able to actually study the physical makeup of a black hole will we have to alter our theories to match the observable and empirical facts or discover that we had misinterpreted the laws of physics. These theoretical possibilities are in the realm of theorist and , thank god, it's not my job to deal with it.
Permalink
Bourbaki Avatar
Bourbaki
Posts: 6
Posted: 12.08.09, 03:53 PM
Well nightlight, I am a pure mathematician and my work has resolved around the classification of ergodic dynamical systems.

I did some theoretical physics in my youth, gravitation is one of the more complex course I took: I wish I had the kind of brain to understand this theory and those related, but no, even today when I play around the Misner-Thorne-Wheeler I am still mistyfied by the black hole solutions of Einstein's solution.

As much as I understand the maths behind those models, I fail to understand the physics... At some point I did, as a hobby, some readings of D'Eath books (Black Holes,Suppersymmetry) to no avail.

Its not that these theories are hard (they are very hard actually :P), it is that you need to completely understand the physic intuition behind their building blocks and it is where imagination or a good abstract sense are usefull: mathematics are not everything!
Permalink
Please log in or register to post a comment.
Advertisement

Related Programs

The Search for a World Like Our Own: Imagine Earth 2.0 The Search for a World Like Our Own: Imagine Earth 2.0
01:07:48 min | 6,498 Views
Jennifer Heldmann: The Moon Jennifer Heldmann: The Moon
00:44:11 min | 82,497 Views
Richard Muller on Physics for Future Presidents Richard Muller on Physics for Future Presidents
01:06:03 min | 12,267 Views
Peter Diamandis - Long-Term X Prizes Peter Diamandis - Long-Term X Prizes
01:14:06 min | 8,476 Views
The Large Hadron Collider and Unified Field Theory The Large Hadron Collider and Unified Field Theory
01:06:29 min | 39,784 Views

Browse Programs by Tag

Arts Books Climate Change Computing Conflict Credit Crunch Defense Democratization Economic Policy Education Election 2008 Emerging Markets Energy Entertainment Entrepreneurship Environment Film Food Globalization Health & Wellness Healthcare History Internet Investing Law Medicine Music Muslim World Natural Sciences New Media Personal Technology Philanthropy Religion Social Issues Social Sciences Sustainability Terrorism The Bailout U.S. Foreign Policy White House 2009

Advertisement