Space | Evolution | Physics | Social Sciences | Natural Sciences | DNA | Psychology | Biotech | Medicine | Anthropology | Astronomy

Leonard Susskind - The Black Hole War

More from this series:

Commonwealth Club of California

More videos from this partner:


  • Info
  • Bio
  • Chapters
  • Preview
  • Download
  • Zoom In
There are 10 comments on this program

Please or register to post a comment.
Previous FORAtv comments:
socratus Avatar
Posted: 11.04.11, 12:40 AM
A black hole can be Vacuum. 1. A black hole has a temperature within a few millionths of a degree above absolute zero: T=0K. / Oxford. Dictionary./ 2. A stellar black hole of one solar mass has a Hawking temperature of about 100 nanokelvins. This is far less than the 2.7 K temperature of the cosmic microwave background. 3. Previous Picture of the Day articles about black holes suggested that the terminology used to describe “gravitational point sources” is highly speculative: space/time, singularities, and infinite density are abstract concepts, precluding a realistic investigation into the nature of the Universe. / Oct 12, 2011. Black hole theory contradicts itself. By Stephen Smith / =. My heretical idea: The black hole with thermodynamic temperature T= 2,7K - –--> T= 0K. is a Homogeneous Energy Vacuum Space between Galaxies. Only Vacuum can have infinite spacetime, infinite energy, infinite energy density and be real structure. =. In 1859 Kirchhoff started to study interaction between heat and radiation. In order to understand this effect he invented the imaginary model ‘black body’ Max Laue called ‘ Kirchhoff black body’ as ‘ Kirchhoff vacuum’ The same definition ‘vacuum’ we can say about ‘black body’ . Why? Because the ‘black body’, the ‘ black hole’ , the vacuum can do one and the same work: completely absorb radiant energy. And therefore they are identical objects =.. Israel Sadovnik Socratus =====.
Dahlia Avatar
Posted: 02.27.11, 08:55 AM
this was fascinating, thank you. i'm not going to pretend i understood it so much, but it has certainly answered one question for me--what it means "to grok" something! i saw this expression in a comicbook once and assumed it was some kind of street talk...very cool, i shall now use it in conversation at the earliest opportunity. ...again; truly fascinating.
richard goldwater Avatar
richard goldwater
Posted: 01.02.11, 09:23 PM
Dr. Susskind's view of a reversible universe puzzles me. I would have thought by now that in light of Nobel Laureate Ilya Prigogine's "End of Certainty" thesis that Great Newton's Ghost had been exorcised. Sussman merges a "capacity for information" which (Shannon) entropy certainly is with the message itself. Sussman's entropy is in no formation at all, so can hardly be information. Entropy is "transformation", which is the very opposite of information. Matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed. Entropy is created every instant, and cannot be destroyed. Information can be created and destroyed. Information per se requires redundancy -- unchanging elements like words or letters of an alphabet. Sussman's equations that theoretically would recover the Morse code dropped as ink drops into a dispersing bathtub might exist on paper (as information), but could never turn back the clock. Please read Prigogine, then visit: to see how these ideas apply to economics.
Dmitri Martila Avatar
Dmitri Martila
Posted: 03.30.10, 02:39 PM
Dear Susskind, there are too many unnecessary things? "Fifth wheel" things? Indeed, supposed mankind can survive without: Saturn, the Moon, without Galileo comet, fearful asteroid Apophis, extrasolar planet 581c, war in Iraq, paralyzed Stephen. Mankind can survive without Jews - taught Adolf Hitler. But where man is surrounded solely by only beneficial things? It's in the mental hospital, the known room with walls of soft material. Is such patient free and loves attendants twisting him? Jesus Christ loves us, so trusted us the freedom. As free, I produced musical "Musical on LHC Large Hadron Collider safety falloff" on youtube. PS. We can not survive without paralyzed Stephen. Army do not leave its soldiers.
Dmitri Martila Avatar
Dmitri Martila
Posted: 03.29.10, 05:43 PM
My comment on Leonard S. answer to the question "Q2: Two Pollywogs in a Black Hole". Leonard's motivation during two decades of "black hole war" with Hawking was the unacceptance of the information lost. "Information never dies", could said Leonard. But, surprisingly, Leonard answered here with "NASA", that information produced by Two Pollywogs (even their children, born inside black hole) perhaps gets lost ? Just like the Hawking is saying! So, not only bodies, but also the souls of Two Pollywogs will die? Doubtful. Was there really the 2 decade compromisless war, which is now "over"? I recommend my video, which perhaps has more rigid world-conception, than Leonard's one: "Musical on LHC Large Hadron Collider safety falloff" on youtube com. If we are - only holograms, why we are feeling the pain? The pain is very real, ask S.Hawking. Or else why the official science invented the narcosis? If someone is temporarily not intelligent enough to recognize the "Intelligent Design in the Universe", perhaps there's Someone Who can? Take a good look at night sky, full of stars, feel something? Not with your mind, but with your heart?
Bourbaki Avatar
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!
nightlight Avatar
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.
Psycel Avatar
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
mgbeach Avatar
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"