TEDxCaltech – Leonard Susskind – Richard Feynman
September 9, 2011 by Actaphysica
Filed under Physics Videos
Leonard Susskind is the Felix Bloch Professor of Physics at Stanford University. His research interests include string theory, quantum field theory, quantum statistical mechanics, and quantum cosmology. He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and, since 2009, has been serving as Director of the Stanford Institute for Theoretical Physics. About TEDx, x = independently organized event: In the spirit of ideas worth spreading, TEDx is a program of local, self-organized events that bring people together to share a TED-like experience. At a TEDx event, TEDTalks video and live speakers combine to spark deep discussion and connection in a small group. These local, self-organized events are branded TEDx, where x = independently organized TED event. The TED Conference provides general guidance for the TEDx program, but individual TEDx events are self-organized. (Subject to certain rules and regulations.) On January 14, 2011, Caltech hosted TEDxCaltech, an exciting one-day event to honor Richard Feynman, Nobel Laureate, Caltech physics professor, iconoclast, visionary, and all-around “curious character.” Visit TEDxCaltech.com for more details.
Video Rating: 4 / 5
Dr Brian Cox and Leonard Susskind talk about String Theory
Video Rating: 4 / 5
Incoming search terms:
- brian cox caltech
- black hole conservation of information professor leonard susskind
- black hole wars leonard susskind pdf fileshare
- black holes conservation of information
- Expert authors in our free article directory correctional institutions
- leonard susskind september 2011
- susskind feynman
- susskind filesonic
- the black hole wars lennoard susskind google video
![The Dark Matter & Dark Energy [1/5]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/rLmcbjLVPKc/default.jpg)
They should have given susskind the extra time to finish his stories. This was the best talk.
[Reply]
@10:38 “The Russian Mathematical Physicist” is Landau, not exactly a unknown Russian Mathematical Physicist, Feynman probably wouldn’t appreciate
[Reply]
I love Leonard Susskind, and everyone should read his books, especially The Black Hole War.
[Reply]
You know a story is going to be good when it has Feynman in the title. Its like a fairy tale but with physics; a Fey Tale.
[Reply]
I’m 15. I hate the government, religion and the system yet I’m thrilled to live in a world in which my parents actually want me to go to collage, and furthermore, will fund it for me. I hope to have a professor like Leonard Susskind.
[Reply]
I so much enjoyed this.
[Reply]
@DexterHaven49 Who exactly are “we”? I mean none of your comments have any thumbs up. And that’s basicly the way he talks about feynman. He’s NOT wikipedia, but a rather special human beeing and he is talking about Feynman using himself as a tol for that, so if you don’t understand the way he talks, JUST FUCKING GOOGLE IT!
[Reply]
@xsmopsis I just fact-checked your reference to “0:54″ and saw it’s WRONG, DUMMY!! He doesn’t make any substantive statement about Feynman there. After that, as the minute ends he merely mentions his name as a topic of discussion!!! We already knew that, dummy. Except you, I guess.
[Reply]
@xsmopsis LOL! Look who’s talking! You use “immaturishly” when the proper form of the word is “immaturely.” I rounded off the time to the nearest half minute, which is reasonable in the context. You didn’t “give” anything of any value. You are being even more pedantic now by still splitting hairs not worth splitting and ignoring his obvious irrelevancies. Figures you made a false inference about “trolling” too. You can’t seem to make valid points. If you can’t “understand,” think harder…
[Reply]
@DexterHaven49 Apearentley you don’t understand the way he talks about him. Would you rather hear his birth date facts about his life with no metaphore or humor? Well no since you so immaturishly rejected time what I gave to you (with precision), so i’d have to conclude, that you’re just trolling. (BTW i couldn’t understand half of your comment, because it’s so badly organised).
[Reply]
@xsmopsis LOL, you look silly nit-picking the seconds like that in a pedantic manner, missing the general point. He knew the allotted time for his speech. Did he manage it well? Free of clutter and collateral matters so as to tell his essential stories? No, as Three Dog Night sang, in “The Show Must go On,” he “wasted time, wasted, wasted, so much time…” And wasted it on silly vain talk, which makes it a worse sin.
[Reply]
@DexterHaven49 Lol, idiot, at 0.54 he already talks about Richard Feynman, and really, you don’t seem to be too interested in him as well.
[Reply]
This is awesome.
[Reply]
@thecalitree No, it took longer than a minute. He knew how long he could speak, but he was too busy drinking from his stupid flask and talking about his big ego. He had every chance to tell his stories in the allotted time, but mismanaged it. So shut up, yourself, if you can’t see the simple truth.
[Reply]
@DexterHaven49 Excuse the man for taking a whole minute to introduce himself and warm up the crowd.
So shut up.
[Reply]
What an ego case this guy is! He wasted so much time in the first half talking about himself!! He’s a great granddad, a ham, likes to play macho games, yada, yada. Who cares!! Follow E.B, White’s first rule of style: “Place yourself in the background.” He ran out of time for the good stories, because of his silly vain ego. Shame on you, sir!!! Get the baloney out of your own ego! The first five minutes is a complete waste of time.
[Reply]
@andyrooney12 Who flashed a nipple?! Link?
[Reply]
@endoras0666 Most videos really worth watching on Youtube get few views. Youtube is mostly still the equivalent of the ’80s MTV. It’s a fantastic resource. Hopefully things will change.
[Reply]
Awesome.
[Reply]
Feynman is a great guy, and this talk is a great talk, as amazing and funny as himself. Thou I hope he have enough time to finish the last part (What naughty thing Feynman did on the problem of proton structure?)
Thanks Mr. Susskind!
[Reply]
odds are the people that clicked “dislike” just missed the “like” button. or just critters on the internet, like creationists
[Reply]
Damn, this guy came to my university recently and the dean had the nerve to ask him to postpone his lecture because of a basketball game…..
[Reply]
Awesome Awesome Awesome!!! Probably one of the very best TED talks ever.. thanks Caltech!
[Reply]
brilliant.
[Reply]
@WastedTourist
I really liked it too. I think it’s pretty much a tie with Paul Watson’s introduction to his talk:
watch?v=spHn7Twt8w8
I say to close to call.
[Reply]
Does anyone know what programme this is from please?
[Reply]
@INNATEHUMAN I can’t tell what it is you’re getting at, I am sorry.
[Reply]
@NorthernEmperor what i understand is ’cause and effect’ that both are observable, to me, meaning if we know it (cause and effect) we have already been able to take empiricle action, meaning violation is contractictory..i think.
[Reply]
@audience2 now that statement of yours is is interesting.finally i am writing to a reply that is not pretentious. Actually, i never thought of bubbles. So, if bubbles, im thinking that meansyour considering positive and negitive space, if string, that would mean… positve space =a blank page. negative space= i.e dots for example. a closed of connection still has a connection. i.e light rays, sorry i cant really explain what im thinking but i do not doubt the bubbbles idea
[Reply]
@mattysimsoficial there is no certainty, (as you said.. theory should be self explainatory in the 21c at least by now) probability…shut up. do we all not want/ need the truth…please if your smart and not pretentious sift the truth. i need to know dont you?
[Reply]
Awesome.
[Reply]
Porque Lenard Susskind no es tan famoso? es un genio!
[Reply]
@NorthernEmperor Thank you, your input is very clear and appreciated.
[Reply]
@fntime . . .could actually figure out what happened to every particle in it and piece them all back into that original block of ice. But black holes are sucking things in with such force that images literally can’t travel fast enough to escape their pull and make it out into the rest of the universe, so Hawking thought the evidence that anything sucked into a black hole ever existed was lost, i.e. not conserved. Susskind proved him wrong (In theory at least) with the holographic principle.
[Reply]
@fntime In a broad sense, I’d describe information is just anything that tells us something is there, an image, a sound, etc. Conservation of information is the idea that this evidence that something is there can take on different forms, but will always be there, eg if you put a block of ice in a room, come back, and it’s melted into water, the original block of ice might not be there anymore, but everything that made it up is still there, and knowing the processes that caused the change . . .
[Reply]
@NorthernEmperor I know this might sound stupid, but what exactly
is the ‘information’ and what is ‘conservation of information’?
Your statement is pretty clear, so I’m really looking forward
to your explaination.
Thank you very much!!!
[Reply]
@raydredX Hawking said black holes violated conservation of information because information cannot travel fast enough to escape their event horizon and therefore can never be observed. Susskind said that once something is sucked into a black hole, a holographic image of it is produced on the black hole’s surface meaning there’s observable evidence for anything and everything that enters it, so it obeys conservation. His calculations backed it up, and Hawking eventually admitted he was wrong.
[Reply]
Can anyone please tell me what show is this clip extracted from?
Thanks
[Reply]
@raydredX It has to do with information from something entering a black hole. You might want to read all about that in “The Black Hole War” by Leonard Susskind.
[Reply]
@nicolara9 I dunno exactly what the relevancy of that would be but, I’m just curious about what exactly was said by Hawking to be proved wrong?
[Reply]
“Far smaller than we can see with any kind of microscope that exists and that includes the worlds biggest accelerators” *smile*… He just punched Brian lol xD
[Reply]
@nicolara9 in other words, there is no certainty in this subject. Only calculated theory.
[Reply]
@nicolara9 Correction, they are both as right as much as they are both wrong. Neither are 100% if even 50%…
[Reply]
i don’t like string theory but when i think who actually invented it, i just shut up… IT IS IMPORTANT TO KNOW (for those who don’t) THAT LEONARD PROVED HAWKING WRONG . . . .
[Reply]