Leonard Susskind | "ER = EPR" or "What's Behind the Horizons of Black Holes?" - 1 of 2

What Hacker News said

Recommends vladimirralev · 2015-08 · on “How Quantum Randomness Saves Relativity”

This is probably inspired by the recent hype about messenger lectures by Susskind [LINK] There is also more detailed lecture available here on this particular topic [this video]

Recommends Neeek · 2016-07 · on “In Search of Time’s Origin (2014)”

This kind of sounds like a variation/extension on Leonard Susskind's hologram reality, he mentions in these presentations and lectures[1] that a lot of the ideas came from Maldacena and the soup can (I hope that's the right video, it's been a while since I watched them, the related videos should offer more if I got it wrong). There's a little more math and explanation in those videos, just look for the ones regarding horizons and the like, though I'm afraid I can't help you with your search for papers. [1] [this video]

Recommends ithkuil · 2019-01 · on “Strangeness of Black Holes”

I found these lectures by Leonard Susskind very insightful: - Leonard Susskind on The World As Hologram ( [LINK] ) - Leonard Susskind | "ER = EPR" or "What's Behind the Horizons of Black Holes?" ( [this video] ) - Entanglement and Complexity: Gravity and Quantum Mechanics ( [LINK] )

Cites danbruc · 2015-12 · on “Holometer rules out first theory of space-time correlations”

Probably biased by the physicist I mostly listen to because they have a lot of lectures and talks online, Leonard Susskind and Nima Arkani-Hamed. The idea that space is quantized is pretty unlikely to be true because of relativity, i.e. because of length contraction the size of those space quanta depends on the motion of the observer. So if you find those space quanta have a specific size in your reference frame I can just go to a reference frame moving relative to yours and I will see length contracted space quanta and we will therefore disagree on their size. It is actually believed that neither space nor time are fundamental but that they emerge from something more fundamental because spa

Cites philipov · 2018-06 · on “Real-Life Schrödinger’s Cats Probe the Boundary of the Quantum World”

It seems that it is more sensible to say that entanglement is locality. The notion of two points being close to each other appears to be a course-grained approximation of high amounts of entanglement in the vacuum. If you divide the space along a boundary and break the entanglement between regions on both sides, the effect is to increase the distance between them. So perhaps it is better to think of gravity, locality and dynamical spacetime, as the "hydrodynamics of entanglement" [0] and [1] are a public lecture, [2] is colloquium [0]: [this video] [1]: [LINK] [2]: [LINK]

Cites philipov · 2018-10 · on “Are Black Holes Actually Dark Energy Stars?”

I'm not an expert either, but according to the treatments I've seen on GR, the flipping of time and space inside of black holes is just an artifact of the choice of coordinates, and can be fixed by changing your coordinate system. However, there are some ideas based on holography for solving the black hole information paradox that posit that it doesn't even make sense to talk about the inside and outside of a black hole at the same time at all (black hole complementarity), that the inside of the black hole is actually encoded on the surface of the horizon. This of course just leads to other paradoxes, and the only thing that seems certain is that GR is approximate in some way, and all these

Cites bmh100 · 2020-08 · on “A Twist on Schrödinger's Cat Paradox”

Leonard Susskind said that quantum entanglement between particles equivalent to a wormhole between black holes [1]. The collapse still propagates at the speed of light across the bridge. [1]: [this video]

Cites hughesjj · 2023-07 · on “The Physicist Who’s Challenging the Quantum Orthodoxy”

I'm definitely into the "it's an emergent phenomena" camp. I think it's inherently relational, as that's a more efficient way to encode geometry rather than space itself being a quantized "thing". Afaik this theory is the "leading"/imho most promising theory of "quantum gravity", that being the "gravity = entanglement" conjecture and the related ideas of "Complexity= action/volume/whatever" that susskind and many others have been developing for the past 20 so years. All that said I'm nowhere near a physicist and am probably just spewing a total misunderstanding of the situation from my armchair. That said, I've been incessantly watching lectures in this space to try to beat an understanding