back to index

Leonard Susskind: Quantum Mechanics, String Theory and Black Holes | Lex Fridman Podcast #41


small model | large model

link |
00:00:00.000
The following is a conversation with Leonard Susskind.
link |
00:00:03.080
He's a professor of theoretical physics
link |
00:00:04.840
at Stanford University and founding director
link |
00:00:07.640
of Stanford Institute of Theoretical Physics.
link |
00:00:10.400
He is widely regarded as one of the fathers
link |
00:00:13.040
of string theory and in general,
link |
00:00:14.920
as one of the greatest physicists of our time,
link |
00:00:17.400
both as a researcher and an educator.
link |
00:00:20.400
This is the Artificial Intelligence Podcast.
link |
00:00:23.320
Perhaps you noticed that the people I've been speaking with
link |
00:00:26.120
are not just computer scientists,
link |
00:00:27.880
but philosophers, mathematicians, writers,
link |
00:00:30.640
psychologists, physicists, and soon other disciplines.
link |
00:00:34.240
To me, AI is much bigger than deep learning,
link |
00:00:37.400
bigger than computing.
link |
00:00:39.000
It is our civilization's journey
link |
00:00:40.880
into understanding the human mind
link |
00:00:42.880
and creating echoes of it in the machine.
link |
00:00:45.880
If you enjoy the podcast, subscribe on YouTube,
link |
00:00:48.800
give it five stars on iTunes, support it on Patreon,
link |
00:00:51.840
or simply connect with me on Twitter
link |
00:00:53.680
at Lex Friedman, spelled F R I D M A M.
link |
00:00:57.600
And now, here's my conversation with Leonard Susskind.
link |
00:01:02.760
You worked and were friends with Richard Feynman.
link |
00:01:05.360
How has he influenced you, changed you
link |
00:01:07.640
as a physicist and thinker?
link |
00:01:10.160
What I saw, I think what I saw was somebody
link |
00:01:13.920
who could do physics in this deeply intuitive way.
link |
00:01:18.600
His style was almost to close his eyes
link |
00:01:21.080
and visualize the phenomena that he was thinking about.
link |
00:01:24.540
And through visualization, outflank the mathematical,
link |
00:01:30.520
the highly mathematical and very, very sophisticated
link |
00:01:34.360
technical arguments that people would use.
link |
00:01:37.020
I think that was also natural to me,
link |
00:01:39.400
but I saw somebody who was actually successful at it,
link |
00:01:43.960
who could do physics in a way that I regarded
link |
00:01:47.760
as simpler, more direct, more intuitive.
link |
00:01:55.520
And while I don't think he changed my way of thinking,
link |
00:01:59.080
I do think he validated it.
link |
00:02:01.480
He made me look at it and say, yeah,
link |
00:02:03.080
that's something you can do and get away with.
link |
00:02:06.280
Practically didn't get away with it.
link |
00:02:08.680
So do you find yourself, whether you're thinking
link |
00:02:12.000
about quantum mechanics or black holes
link |
00:02:14.720
or string theory, using intuition as a first step
link |
00:02:19.400
or step throughout using visualization?
link |
00:02:22.160
Yeah, very much so, very much so.
link |
00:02:24.680
I tend not to think about the equations.
link |
00:02:27.720
I tend not to think about the symbols.
link |
00:02:30.160
I tend to try to visualize the phenomena themselves.
link |
00:02:34.660
And then when I get an insight that I think is valid,
link |
00:02:38.400
I might try to convert it to mathematics,
link |
00:02:40.360
but I'm not a natural mathematician.
link |
00:02:44.400
I'm good enough at it.
link |
00:02:46.280
I'm good enough at it, but I'm not a great mathematician.
link |
00:02:49.820
So for me, the way of thinking about physics
link |
00:02:52.440
is first intuitive, first visualization,
link |
00:02:57.760
scribble a few equations maybe,
link |
00:02:59.680
but then try to convert it to mathematics.
link |
00:03:02.980
Experience is that other people are better
link |
00:03:04.800
at converting it to mathematics than I am.
link |
00:03:08.000
And yet you've worked with very counterintuitive ideas.
link |
00:03:12.000
No, that's true.
link |
00:03:12.840
That's true.
link |
00:03:13.680
You can visualize something counterintuitive.
link |
00:03:15.600
How do you dare?
link |
00:03:16.440
By rewiring your brain in new ways.
link |
00:03:19.920
Yeah, quantum mechanics is not intuitive.
link |
00:03:22.680
Very little of modern physics is intuitive.
link |
00:03:26.840
Intuitive, what does intuitive mean?
link |
00:03:29.480
It means the ability to think about it
link |
00:03:31.800
with basic classical physics,
link |
00:03:33.720
the physics that we evolved with throwing stones,
link |
00:03:38.720
or splashing water, whatever it happens to be.
link |
00:03:44.800
Quantum physics, general relativity,
link |
00:03:47.080
quantum field theory are deeply unintuitive in that way.
link |
00:03:51.160
But after time and getting familiar with these things,
link |
00:03:55.200
you develop new intuitions.
link |
00:03:57.040
I always said you rewire.
link |
00:03:59.680
And it's to the point where me and many of my friends,
link |
00:04:04.360
I and many of my friends,
link |
00:04:05.680
can think more easily quantum mechanically
link |
00:04:10.280
than we can classically.
link |
00:04:11.520
We've gotten so used to it.
link |
00:04:13.520
I mean, yes, our neural wiring in our brain
link |
00:04:17.240
is such that we understand rocks and stones and water
link |
00:04:20.400
and so on.
link |
00:04:21.240
We sort of evolved for that.
link |
00:04:22.060
Evolved for it.
link |
00:04:23.320
Do you think it's possible to create a wiring
link |
00:04:26.720
of neuron like state devices that more naturally
link |
00:04:31.160
understand quantum mechanics, understand wave function,
link |
00:04:35.880
understand these weird things?
link |
00:04:38.120
Well, I'm not sure.
link |
00:04:39.040
I think many of us have evolved the ability
link |
00:04:42.480
to think quantum mechanically to some extent.
link |
00:04:46.360
But that doesn't mean you can think like an electron.
link |
00:04:50.220
That doesn't mean another example.
link |
00:04:53.600
Forget for a minute quantum mechanics.
link |
00:04:55.880
Just visualizing four dimensional space
link |
00:04:58.660
or five dimensional space or six dimensional space,
link |
00:05:02.080
I think we're fundamentally wired
link |
00:05:05.780
to visualize three dimensions.
link |
00:05:08.240
I can't even visualize two dimensions or one dimension
link |
00:05:11.960
without thinking about it as embedded in three dimensions.
link |
00:05:16.040
If I wanna visualize a line,
link |
00:05:18.280
I think of the line as being a line in three dimensions.
link |
00:05:23.000
Or I think of the line as being a line on a piece of paper
link |
00:05:25.580
with a piece of paper being in three dimensions.
link |
00:05:28.160
I never seem to be able to, in some abstract and pure way,
link |
00:05:33.240
visualize in my head the one dimension,
link |
00:05:35.920
the two dimension, the four dimension, the five dimensions.
link |
00:05:38.840
And I don't think that's ever gonna happen.
link |
00:05:41.400
The reason is I think our neural wiring
link |
00:05:43.600
is just set up for that.
link |
00:05:47.000
On the other hand, we do learn ways
link |
00:05:49.060
to think about five, six, seven dimensions.
link |
00:05:52.600
We learn ways, we learn mathematical ways,
link |
00:05:56.200
and we learn ways to visualize them, but they're different.
link |
00:06:00.800
And so yeah, I think we do rewire ourselves.
link |
00:06:04.800
Whether we can ever completely rewire ourselves
link |
00:06:07.240
to be completely comfortable with these concepts, I doubt.
link |
00:06:11.680
So that it's completely natural.
link |
00:06:13.560
To where it's completely natural.
link |
00:06:15.080
So I'm sure there's somewhat, you could argue,
link |
00:06:18.160
creatures that live in a two dimensional space.
link |
00:06:22.400
Yeah, maybe there are.
link |
00:06:23.560
And while it's romanticizing the notion of curse,
link |
00:06:28.640
we're all living, as far as we know,
link |
00:06:30.040
in three dimensional space.
link |
00:06:31.680
But how do those creatures imagine 3D space?
link |
00:06:35.600
Well, probably the way we imagine 4D,
link |
00:06:37.640
by using some mathematics and some equations
link |
00:06:40.480
and some tricks.
link |
00:06:44.440
Okay, so jumping back to Feynman just for a second.
link |
00:06:48.380
He had a little bit of an ego.
link |
00:06:52.700
Yes.
link |
00:06:54.780
Why, do you think ego is powerful or dangerous in science?
link |
00:07:00.140
I think both, both, both.
link |
00:07:02.880
I think you have to have both arrogance and humility.
link |
00:07:06.500
You have to have the arrogance to say, I can do this.
link |
00:07:10.620
Nature is difficult, nature is very, very hard.
link |
00:07:13.620
I'm smart enough, I can do it.
link |
00:07:16.140
I can win the battle with nature.
link |
00:07:19.020
On the other hand, I think you also have to have
link |
00:07:21.020
the humility to know that you're very likely
link |
00:07:26.460
to be wrong on any given occasion.
link |
00:07:29.060
Everything you're thinking could suddenly change.
link |
00:07:33.300
Young people can come along and say things
link |
00:07:35.500
you won't understand and you'll be lost and flabbergasted.
link |
00:07:39.820
So I think it's a combination of both.
link |
00:07:42.620
You better recognize that you're very limited,
link |
00:07:46.660
and you better be able to say to yourself,
link |
00:07:49.280
I'm not so limited that I can't win this battle with nature.
link |
00:07:53.460
It takes a special kind of person
link |
00:07:56.640
who can manage both of those, I would say.
link |
00:07:59.820
And I would say there's echoes of that in your own work,
link |
00:08:03.020
a little bit of ego, a little bit of outside of the box,
link |
00:08:05.900
humble thinking.
link |
00:08:08.260
I hope so.
link |
00:08:09.580
So was there a time where you felt,
link |
00:08:16.500
you looked at yourself and asked,
link |
00:08:18.080
am I completely wrong about this?
link |
00:08:19.920
Oh yeah, about the whole thing or about specific things?
link |
00:08:23.980
The whole thing.
link |
00:08:24.900
What do you mean?
link |
00:08:25.900
Wait, which whole thing?
link |
00:08:27.060
Me and me and my ability to do this thing.
link |
00:08:29.960
Oh, those kinds of doubts.
link |
00:08:31.420
First of all, did you have those kinds of doubts?
link |
00:08:33.840
No, I had different kind of doubts.
link |
00:08:35.940
I came from a very working class background
link |
00:08:37.940
and I was uncomfortable in academia for,
link |
00:08:41.100
oh, for a long time.
link |
00:08:43.760
But they weren't doubts about my ability or my,
link |
00:08:48.020
they were just the discomfort in being in an environment
link |
00:08:52.740
that my family hadn't participated in,
link |
00:08:56.620
I knew nothing about as a young person.
link |
00:08:58.320
I didn't learn that there was such a thing called physics
link |
00:09:00.700
until I was almost 20 years old.
link |
00:09:02.340
Yeah, so I did have certain kind of doubts,
link |
00:09:09.560
but not about my ability.
link |
00:09:11.860
I don't think I was too worried
link |
00:09:14.000
about whether I would succeed or not.
link |
00:09:18.040
I never felt this insecurity, am I ever gonna get a job?
link |
00:09:23.080
That had never occurred to me that I wouldn't.
link |
00:09:27.180
Maybe you could speak a little bit to this sense
link |
00:09:29.860
of what is academia.
link |
00:09:31.720
Because I too feel a bit uncomfortable in it.
link |
00:09:37.800
There's something I can't put quite into words
link |
00:09:40.040
what you have that's not, doesn't, if we call it music,
link |
00:09:45.240
you play a different kind of music than a lot of academia.
link |
00:09:48.520
How have you joined this orchestra?
link |
00:09:51.960
How do you think about it?
link |
00:09:54.480
I don't know that I thought about it
link |
00:09:56.080
as much as I just felt it.
link |
00:09:58.240
Thinking is one thing, feeling is another thing.
link |
00:10:02.800
I felt like an outsider until a certain age
link |
00:10:07.100
when I suddenly found myself the ultimate insider
link |
00:10:10.740
in academic physics.
link |
00:10:14.520
And that was a sharp transition, and I wasn't a young man.
link |
00:10:19.600
I was probably 50 years old.
link |
00:10:22.280
So you were never quite, it was a phase transition,
link |
00:10:24.960
you were never quite in the middle.
link |
00:10:27.360
Yeah, that's right, I wasn't.
link |
00:10:29.440
I always felt a little bit of an outsider.
link |
00:10:32.080
In the beginning, a lot an outsider.
link |
00:10:37.200
My way of thinking was different,
link |
00:10:40.440
my approach to mathematics was different,
link |
00:10:43.040
but also my social background
link |
00:10:47.160
that I came from was different.
link |
00:10:49.320
Now these days, half the young people I meet,
link |
00:10:51.520
they're parents or professors.
link |
00:10:53.020
That was not my case.
link |
00:10:59.900
But then all of a sudden, at some point,
link |
00:11:02.220
I found myself at very much the center of,
link |
00:11:06.260
maybe not the only one at the center,
link |
00:11:07.840
but certainly one of the people in the center
link |
00:11:09.860
of a certain kind of physics.
link |
00:11:12.220
And all that went away, it went away in a flash.
link |
00:11:17.700
So maybe a little bit with Feynman,
link |
00:11:21.780
but in general, how do you develop ideas?
link |
00:11:24.500
Do you work through ideas alone?
link |
00:11:26.100
Do you brainstorm with others?
link |
00:11:27.820
Oh, both, both, very definitely both.
link |
00:11:31.400
The younger time, I spent more time with myself.
link |
00:11:36.580
Now, because I'm at Stanford,
link |
00:11:39.460
because I have a lot of ex students
link |
00:11:44.460
and people who are interested in the same thing I am,
link |
00:11:50.840
I spend a good deal of time, almost on a daily basis,
link |
00:11:54.320
interacting, brainstorming, as you said.
link |
00:11:57.360
It's a very important part.
link |
00:12:00.400
I spend less time probably completely self focused
link |
00:12:03.720
than with a piece of paper
link |
00:12:07.800
and just sitting there staring at it.
link |
00:12:09.640
What are your hopes for quantum computers?
link |
00:12:13.320
So machines that are based on,
link |
00:12:16.240
that have some elements of leverage quantum mechanical ideas.
link |
00:12:21.240
Yeah, it's not just leveraging quantum mechanical ideas.
link |
00:12:24.840
You can simulate quantum systems on a classical computer.
link |
00:12:29.840
Simulate them means solve the Schrodinger equation for them
link |
00:12:33.200
or solve the equations of quantum mechanics
link |
00:12:36.640
or solve the equations of quantum mechanics
link |
00:12:40.200
on a computer, on a classical computer.
link |
00:12:43.600
But the classical computer is not doing,
link |
00:12:47.400
is not a quantum mechanical system itself.
link |
00:12:49.760
Of course it is.
link |
00:12:50.640
Everything's made of quantum mechanics,
link |
00:12:52.120
but it's not functioning.
link |
00:12:53.280
It's not functioning as a quantum system.
link |
00:12:56.080
It's just solving equations.
link |
00:12:58.560
The quantum computer is truly a quantum system
link |
00:13:01.840
which is actually doing the things
link |
00:13:05.000
that you're programming it to do.
link |
00:13:07.360
You want to program a quantum field theory.
link |
00:13:12.040
If you do it in classical physics,
link |
00:13:13.680
that program is not actually functioning in the computer
link |
00:13:17.600
as a quantum field theory.
link |
00:13:18.760
It's just solving some equations.
link |
00:13:21.760
Physically, it's not doing the things
link |
00:13:23.720
that the quantum system would do.
link |
00:13:27.240
The quantum computer is really a quantum mechanical system
link |
00:13:30.400
which is actually carrying out the quantum operations.
link |
00:13:34.120
You can measure it at the end.
link |
00:13:36.320
It intrinsically satisfies the uncertainty principle.
link |
00:13:40.480
It is limited in the same way that quantum systems
link |
00:13:44.320
are limited by uncertainty and so forth.
link |
00:13:47.440
And it really is a quantum system.
link |
00:13:49.240
That means that what you're doing
link |
00:13:51.360
when you program something for a quantum system
link |
00:13:53.360
is you're actually building a real version of the system.
link |
00:13:58.160
The limits of a classical computer,
link |
00:14:00.440
classical computers are enormously limited
link |
00:14:02.920
when it comes to the quantum systems.
link |
00:14:07.160
They're enormously limited
link |
00:14:09.040
because you've probably heard this before,
link |
00:14:12.240
but in order to store the amount of information
link |
00:14:14.960
that's in a quantum state of 400 spins,
link |
00:14:19.920
that's not very many, 400 I can put in my pocket,
link |
00:14:23.040
I can put 400 pennies in my pocket.
link |
00:14:27.840
To be able to simulate the quantum state
link |
00:14:32.160
of 400 elementary quantum systems, qubits we call them,
link |
00:14:37.640
to do that would take more information
link |
00:14:39.880
than can possibly be stored in the entire universe
link |
00:14:43.120
if it were packed so tightly
link |
00:14:46.560
that you couldn't pack any more in.
link |
00:14:50.380
400 qubits.
link |
00:14:52.240
On the other hand, if your quantum computer
link |
00:14:54.520
is composed of 400 qubits,
link |
00:14:56.320
it can do everything 400 qubits can do.
link |
00:14:59.420
What kind of space, if you just intuitively think
link |
00:15:02.280
about the space of algorithms that that unlocks for us,
link |
00:15:06.320
so there's a whole complexity theory
link |
00:15:08.480
around classical computers,
link |
00:15:10.080
measuring the running time of things,
link |
00:15:12.440
and P, so on, what kind of algorithms
link |
00:15:14.880
just intuitively do you think it unlocks for us?
link |
00:15:18.360
Okay, so we know that there are a handful of algorithms
link |
00:15:22.080
that can seriously beat classical computers
link |
00:15:25.760
and which can have exponentially more power.
link |
00:15:28.200
This is a mathematical statement.
link |
00:15:29.480
Nobody's exhibited this in the laboratory.
link |
00:15:32.320
It's a mathematical statement.
link |
00:15:33.600
We know that's true, but it also seems more and more
link |
00:15:37.640
that the number of such things is very limited.
link |
00:15:40.320
Only very, very special problems
link |
00:15:45.080
exhibit that much advantage for a quantum computer,
link |
00:15:49.600
of standard problems.
link |
00:15:52.120
To my mind, as far as I can tell,
link |
00:15:53.900
the great power of quantum computers
link |
00:15:55.600
will actually be to simulate quantum systems.
link |
00:15:59.880
If you're interested in a certain quantum system
link |
00:16:02.760
and it's too hard to simulate classically,
link |
00:16:07.360
you simply build a version of the same system.
link |
00:16:09.840
You build a version of it.
link |
00:16:11.100
You build a model of it
link |
00:16:12.040
that's actually functioning as the system.
link |
00:16:14.440
You run it, and then you do the same thing
link |
00:16:16.880
you would do to the quantum system.
link |
00:16:18.500
You make measurements on it, quantum measurements on it.
link |
00:16:21.820
The advantage is you can run it much slower.
link |
00:16:26.140
You could say, why bother?
link |
00:16:27.540
Why not just use the real system?
link |
00:16:29.580
Why not just do experiments on the real system?
link |
00:16:32.340
Well, real systems are kind of limited.
link |
00:16:33.900
You can't change them.
link |
00:16:34.780
You can't manipulate them.
link |
00:16:36.300
You can't slow them down so that you can poke into them.
link |
00:16:40.420
You can't modify them in arbitrary kinds of ways
link |
00:16:43.420
to see what would happen if I change the system a little bit.
link |
00:16:48.420
I think that quantum computers will be extremely valuable
link |
00:16:55.500
in understanding quantum systems.
link |
00:17:00.940
At the lowest level of the fundamental laws.
link |
00:17:04.340
They're actually satisfying the same laws
link |
00:17:06.540
as the systems that they're simulating.
link |
00:17:09.860
Okay, so on the one hand, you have things like factoring.
link |
00:17:13.060
Factoring is the great thing of quantum computers.
link |
00:17:17.580
Factoring large numbers, that doesn't seem that much
link |
00:17:20.620
to do with quantum mechanics.
link |
00:17:22.580
It seems to be almost a fluke that a quantum computer
link |
00:17:28.540
can solve the factoring problem in a short time.
link |
00:17:34.420
And those problems seem to be extremely special, rare,
link |
00:17:38.520
and it's not clear to me
link |
00:17:40.300
that there's gonna be a lot of them.
link |
00:17:42.740
On the other hand, there are a lot of quantum systems.
link |
00:17:45.180
Chemistry, there's solid state physics,
link |
00:17:47.900
there's material science, there's quantum gravity,
link |
00:17:51.020
there's all kinds of quantum field theory.
link |
00:17:54.540
And some of these are actually turning out
link |
00:17:56.780
to be applied sciences,
link |
00:17:58.100
as well as very fundamental sciences.
link |
00:18:01.120
So we probably will run out of the ability
link |
00:18:05.140
to solve equations for these things.
link |
00:18:07.960
Solve equations by the standard methods of pencil and paper.
link |
00:18:11.620
Solve the equations by the method of classical computers.
link |
00:18:16.380
And so what we'll do is we'll build versions
link |
00:18:18.740
of these systems, run them,
link |
00:18:22.120
and run them under controlled circumstances
link |
00:18:24.280
where we can change them, manipulate them,
link |
00:18:26.840
make measurements on them,
link |
00:18:28.100
and find out all the things we wanna know.
link |
00:18:30.540
So in finding out the things we wanna know
link |
00:18:33.640
about very small systems, is there something
link |
00:18:38.640
that we can also find out about the macro level,
link |
00:18:42.080
about something about the function, forgive me,
link |
00:18:45.040
of our brain, biological systems,
link |
00:18:48.080
the stuff that's about one meter in size
link |
00:18:50.380
versus much, much smaller?
link |
00:18:53.260
Well, what all the excitement is about
link |
00:18:55.200
among the people that I interact with
link |
00:18:56.880
is understanding black holes.
link |
00:18:58.960
Black holes.
link |
00:18:59.800
Black holes are big things.
link |
00:19:02.160
They are many, many degrees of freedom.
link |
00:19:04.100
There is another kind of quantum system that is big.
link |
00:19:08.740
It's a large quantum computer.
link |
00:19:11.760
And one of the things we've learned
link |
00:19:13.140
is that the physics of large quantum computers
link |
00:19:15.700
is in some ways similar to the physics
link |
00:19:17.580
of large quantum black holes.
link |
00:19:19.740
And we're using that relationship.
link |
00:19:22.000
Now you asked, you didn't ask about quantum computers
link |
00:19:24.780
or systems, you didn't ask about black holes,
link |
00:19:28.100
you asked about brains.
link |
00:19:29.940
Yeah, about stuff that's in the middle of the two.
link |
00:19:32.300
It's different.
link |
00:19:34.060
So black holes are,
link |
00:19:36.580
there's something fundamental about black holes
link |
00:19:39.580
that feels to be very different than a brain.
link |
00:19:42.180
Yes.
link |
00:19:43.300
And they also function in a very quantum mechanical way.
link |
00:19:45.980
Right.
link |
00:19:46.820
Okay.
link |
00:19:47.820
It is, first of all, unclear to me,
link |
00:19:50.620
but of course it's unclear to me.
link |
00:19:52.140
I'm not a neuroscientist.
link |
00:19:55.340
I have, I don't even have very many friends
link |
00:19:58.100
who are neuroscientists.
link |
00:20:00.200
I would like to have more friends who are neuroscientists.
link |
00:20:02.580
I just don't run into them very often.
link |
00:20:05.620
Among the few neuroscientists
link |
00:20:07.420
I've ever talked about about this,
link |
00:20:09.640
they are pretty convinced
link |
00:20:12.440
that the brain functions classically,
link |
00:20:16.740
that it is not intrinsically a quantum mechanical system
link |
00:20:20.600
or it doesn't make use of the special features,
link |
00:20:23.640
entanglement, coherence, superposition.
link |
00:20:26.460
Are they right?
link |
00:20:27.380
I don't know.
link |
00:20:28.960
I sort of hope they're wrong
link |
00:20:30.340
just because I like the romantic idea
link |
00:20:32.900
that the brain is a quantum system.
link |
00:20:35.180
But I think probably not.
link |
00:20:38.680
The other thing,
link |
00:20:40.100
big systems can be composed of lots of little systems.
link |
00:20:44.180
Materials, the materials that we work with and so forth
link |
00:20:47.700
are, can be large systems, a large piece of material,
link |
00:20:52.880
but they're made out of quantum systems.
link |
00:20:55.140
Now, one of the things that's been happening
link |
00:20:57.180
over the last good number of years
link |
00:21:00.580
is we're discovering materials and quantum systems,
link |
00:21:04.720
which function much more quantum mechanically
link |
00:21:08.220
than we imagined.
link |
00:21:09.640
Topological insulators, this kind of thing,
link |
00:21:12.020
that kind of thing.
link |
00:21:13.500
Those are macroscopic systems,
link |
00:21:15.220
but they're just superconductors.
link |
00:21:17.860
Superconductors have a lot of quantum mechanics in them.
link |
00:21:22.900
You can have a large chunk of superconductor.
link |
00:21:25.040
So it's a big piece of material.
link |
00:21:26.780
On the other hand, it's functioning and its properties
link |
00:21:29.640
depend very, very strongly on quantum mechanics.
link |
00:21:32.840
And to analyze them, you need the tools of quantum mechanics.
link |
00:21:37.380
If we can go on to black holes
link |
00:21:41.100
and looking at the universe
link |
00:21:42.940
as a information processing system,
link |
00:21:45.140
as a computer, as a giant computer.
link |
00:21:46.740
It's a giant computer.
link |
00:21:48.560
What's the power of thinking of the universe
link |
00:21:50.900
as an information processing system?
link |
00:21:52.340
Or what is perhaps its use
link |
00:21:55.160
besides the mathematical use of discussing black holes
link |
00:21:59.740
and your famous debates and ideas around that
link |
00:22:02.820
to human beings,
link |
00:22:06.080
or life in general as information processing systems?
link |
00:22:08.800
Well, all systems are information processing systems.
link |
00:22:13.300
You poke them, they change a little bit, they evolve.
link |
00:22:16.740
All systems are information processing systems.
link |
00:22:18.340
So there's no extra magic to us humans?
link |
00:22:22.660
It certainly feels, consciousness intelligence
link |
00:22:25.020
feels like magic.
link |
00:22:26.060
It sure does.
link |
00:22:26.900
Where does it emerge from?
link |
00:22:29.340
If we look at information processing,
link |
00:22:33.620
what are the emergent phenomena
link |
00:22:35.100
that come from viewing the world
link |
00:22:37.500
as an information processing system?
link |
00:22:39.880
Here is what I think.
link |
00:22:41.940
My thoughts are not worth much in this.
link |
00:22:43.540
If you ask me about physics,
link |
00:22:44.620
my thoughts may be worth something.
link |
00:22:46.660
If you ask me about this,
link |
00:22:48.060
I'm not sure my thoughts are worth anything.
link |
00:22:50.880
But as I said earlier,
link |
00:22:53.280
I think when we do introspection,
link |
00:22:55.780
when we imagine doing introspection
link |
00:22:57.500
and try to figure out what it is
link |
00:22:58.980
when we do when we're thinking,
link |
00:23:00.540
I think we get it wrong.
link |
00:23:03.500
I'm pretty sure we get it wrong.
link |
00:23:04.840
Everything I've heard about the way the brain functions
link |
00:23:07.260
is so counterintuitive.
link |
00:23:09.740
For example, you have neurons which detect vertical lines.
link |
00:23:14.380
You have different neurons
link |
00:23:15.620
which detect lines at 45 degrees.
link |
00:23:17.880
You have different neurons.
link |
00:23:19.420
I never imagined that there were whole circuits
link |
00:23:21.800
which were devoted to vertical lines in my brain.
link |
00:23:25.380
Doesn't seem to be the way my brain works.
link |
00:23:28.100
My brain seems to work if I put my finger up vertically
link |
00:23:31.140
or if I put it horizontally
link |
00:23:32.220
or if I put it this way or that way.
link |
00:23:33.380
It seems to me it's the same circuits.
link |
00:23:36.220
It's not the way it works.
link |
00:23:38.860
The way the brain is compartmentalized
link |
00:23:41.460
seems to be very, very different
link |
00:23:43.660
than what I would have imagined
link |
00:23:45.580
if I were just doing psychological introspection
link |
00:23:49.660
about how things work.
link |
00:23:51.940
My conclusion is that we won't get it right that way,
link |
00:23:55.920
that how will we get it right?
link |
00:23:59.640
I think maybe computer scientists will get it right eventually.
link |
00:24:03.220
I don't think there are any ways near it.
link |
00:24:04.420
I don't even think they're thinking about it,
link |
00:24:06.680
but eventually we will build machines perhaps
link |
00:24:11.440
which are complicated enough
link |
00:24:15.040
and partly engineered, partly evolved,
link |
00:24:18.340
maybe evolved by machine learning and so forth.
link |
00:24:21.060
This machine learning is very interesting.
link |
00:24:23.500
By machine learning, we will evolve systems
link |
00:24:26.020
and we may start to discover mechanisms
link |
00:24:30.320
that have implications for how we think
link |
00:24:35.340
and for what this consciousness thing is all about
link |
00:24:39.500
and we'll be able to do experiments on them
link |
00:24:42.060
and perhaps answer questions
link |
00:24:43.700
that we can't possibly answer by introspection.
link |
00:24:49.660
So that's a really interesting point.
link |
00:24:51.700
In many cases, if you look at even a string theory,
link |
00:24:55.240
when you first think about a system,
link |
00:24:56.780
it seems really complicated, like the human brain,
link |
00:24:59.620
and through some basic reasoning
link |
00:25:02.460
and trying to discover fundamental low level behavior
link |
00:25:07.060
of the system, you find out that it's actually much simpler.
link |
00:25:10.140
Do you, one, have you, is that generally the process
link |
00:25:13.580
and two, do you have that also hope
link |
00:25:15.580
for biological systems as well,
link |
00:25:17.920
for all the kinds of stuff we're studying at the human level?
link |
00:25:21.740
Of course, physics always begins
link |
00:25:23.080
by trying to find the simplest version of something
link |
00:25:25.500
and analyze it.
link |
00:25:26.560
Yeah, I mean, there are lots of examples
link |
00:25:28.420
where physics has taken very complicated systems,
link |
00:25:33.360
analyzed them and found simplicity in them for sure.
link |
00:25:36.980
I said superconductors before, it's an obvious one.
link |
00:25:39.900
A superconductor seems like a monstrously complicated thing
link |
00:25:42.520
with all sorts of crazy electrical properties,
link |
00:25:45.980
magnetic properties and so forth.
link |
00:25:48.380
And when it finally is boiled down
link |
00:25:50.460
to its simplest elements,
link |
00:25:52.940
it's a very simple quantum mechanical phenomenon
link |
00:25:56.100
called spontaneous symmetry breaking,
link |
00:25:59.260
and which we, in other contexts, we learned about
link |
00:26:04.820
and we're very familiar with.
link |
00:26:06.760
So yeah, I mean, yes, we do take complicated things,
link |
00:26:10.540
make them simple, but what we don't want to do
link |
00:26:13.740
is take things which are intrinsically complicated
link |
00:26:16.540
and fool ourselves into thinking
link |
00:26:18.420
that we can make them simple.
link |
00:26:20.640
We don't want to make, I don't know who said this,
link |
00:26:22.380
but we don't want to make them simpler
link |
00:26:23.660
than they really are, okay?
link |
00:26:26.740
Is the brain a thing which ultimately functions
link |
00:26:30.820
by some simple rules or is it just complicated?
link |
00:26:35.580
In terms of artificial intelligence,
link |
00:26:37.780
nobody really knows what are the limits
link |
00:26:40.840
of our current approaches, you mentioned machine learning.
link |
00:26:43.020
How do we create human level intelligence?
link |
00:26:44.840
It seems that there's a lot of very smart physicists
link |
00:26:48.220
who perhaps oversimplify the nature of intelligence
link |
00:26:51.260
and think of it as information processing,
link |
00:26:53.660
and therefore there doesn't seem to be
link |
00:26:55.180
any theoretical reason why we can't artificially create
link |
00:27:00.820
human level or superhuman level intelligence.
link |
00:27:02.980
In fact, the reasoning goes,
link |
00:27:04.540
if you create human level intelligence,
link |
00:27:07.300
the same approach you just used
link |
00:27:08.660
to create human level intelligence
link |
00:27:10.440
should allow you to create superhuman level intelligence
link |
00:27:13.740
very easily, exponentially.
link |
00:27:16.000
So what do you think that way of thinking
link |
00:27:18.960
that comes from physicists is all about?
link |
00:27:22.260
I wish I knew, but there's a particular reason
link |
00:27:24.180
why I wish I knew.
link |
00:27:27.420
I have a second job.
link |
00:27:30.420
I consult for Google, not for Google, for Google X.
link |
00:27:34.860
I am the senior academic advisor
link |
00:27:39.060
to a group of machine learning physicists.
link |
00:27:43.740
Now that sounds crazy because I know nothing
link |
00:27:45.700
about the subject.
link |
00:27:47.780
I know very little about the subject.
link |
00:27:49.980
On the other hand, I'm good at giving advice,
link |
00:27:52.180
so I give them advice on things.
link |
00:27:53.660
Anyway, I see these young physicists
link |
00:27:56.300
who are approaching the machine learning problem.
link |
00:27:58.660
There is a real machine learning problem.
link |
00:28:00.900
Namely, why does it work as well as it does?
link |
00:28:03.060
Nobody really seems to understand
link |
00:28:06.300
why it is capable of doing the kind of generalizations
link |
00:28:09.460
that it does and so forth.
link |
00:28:11.640
And there are three groups of people
link |
00:28:14.980
who have thought about this.
link |
00:28:17.460
There are the engineers.
link |
00:28:19.060
The engineers are incredibly smart,
link |
00:28:21.580
but they tend not to think as hard
link |
00:28:23.800
about why the thing is working
link |
00:28:26.080
as much as they do how to use it.
link |
00:28:28.220
Obviously, they provided a lot of data,
link |
00:28:31.820
and it is they who demonstrated
link |
00:28:34.060
that machine learning can work much better
link |
00:28:35.820
than you have any right to expect.
link |
00:28:37.380
The machine learning systems are systems.
link |
00:28:40.180
The system's not too different
link |
00:28:41.940
than the kind of systems that physicists study.
link |
00:28:44.900
There's not all that much difference
link |
00:28:46.740
between quantum, in the structure of mathematics,
link |
00:28:51.540
physically, yes, but in the structure of mathematics,
link |
00:28:54.480
between a tensor network designed
link |
00:28:57.660
to describe a quantum system on the one hand
link |
00:29:01.420
and the kind of networks that are used in machine learning.
link |
00:29:05.100
So there are more and more, I think,
link |
00:29:08.940
young physicists are being drawn
link |
00:29:10.940
to this field of machine learning,
link |
00:29:12.820
some very, very good ones.
link |
00:29:15.100
I work with a number of very good ones,
link |
00:29:16.820
not on machine learning, but on having lunch.
link |
00:29:20.380
On having lunch?
link |
00:29:21.300
Right.
link |
00:29:22.460
Yeah.
link |
00:29:23.860
And I can tell you they are super smart.
link |
00:29:27.620
They don't seem to be so arrogant
link |
00:29:30.540
about their physics backgrounds
link |
00:29:32.020
that they think they can do things that nobody else can do.
link |
00:29:35.100
But the physics way of thinking, I think,
link |
00:29:37.460
will add great value to,
link |
00:29:41.780
or will bring value to the machine learning.
link |
00:29:43.980
I believe it will.
link |
00:29:45.740
And I think it already has.
link |
00:29:47.980
At what time scale do you think
link |
00:29:50.500
predicting the future becomes useless
link |
00:29:53.180
in your long experience
link |
00:29:55.340
and being surprised at new discoveries?
link |
00:29:57.680
Well, sometimes a day, sometimes 20 years.
link |
00:30:03.480
There are things which I thought
link |
00:30:07.040
we were very far from understanding,
link |
00:30:09.840
which practically in a snap of the fingers
link |
00:30:12.420
or a blink of the eye suddenly became understood,
link |
00:30:17.440
completely surprising to me.
link |
00:30:21.220
There are other things which I looked at and I said,
link |
00:30:24.120
we're not gonna understand these things for 500 years,
link |
00:30:27.320
in particular quantum gravity.
link |
00:30:29.280
The scale for that was 20 years, 25 years.
link |
00:30:32.840
And we understand a lot
link |
00:30:33.800
and we don't understand it completely now by any means,
link |
00:30:35.920
but I thought it was 500 years to make any progress.
link |
00:30:40.780
It turned out to be very, very far from that.
link |
00:30:42.960
It turned out to be more like 20 or 25 years
link |
00:30:45.200
from the time when I thought it was 500 years.
link |
00:30:48.400
So if we may, can we jump around quantum gravity,
link |
00:30:51.940
some basic ideas in physics?
link |
00:30:53.720
What is the dream of string theory mathematically?
link |
00:30:59.280
What is the hope?
link |
00:31:00.120
Where does it come from?
link |
00:31:01.440
What problem is it trying to solve?
link |
00:31:03.560
I don't think the dream of string theory
link |
00:31:05.000
is any different than the dream
link |
00:31:06.540
of fundamental theoretical physics altogether.
link |
00:31:09.560
Understanding a unified theory of everything.
link |
00:31:12.680
I don't like thinking of string theory
link |
00:31:15.040
as a subject unto itself
link |
00:31:17.320
with people called string theorists
link |
00:31:19.440
who are the practitioners
link |
00:31:21.560
of this thing called string theory.
link |
00:31:24.120
I much prefer to think of them as theoretical physicists
link |
00:31:28.160
trying to answer deep fundamental questions about nature,
link |
00:31:32.060
in particular gravity,
link |
00:31:33.400
in particular gravity and its connection
link |
00:31:35.040
with quantum mechanics,
link |
00:31:38.040
and who at the present time find string theory
link |
00:31:41.320
a useful tool rather than saying
link |
00:31:44.520
there's a subject called string theorists.
link |
00:31:46.440
I don't like being referred to as a string theorist.
link |
00:31:48.680
Yes, but as a tool, is it useful to think about our nature
link |
00:31:54.080
in multiple dimensions, the strings vibrating?
link |
00:31:57.500
I believe it is useful.
link |
00:31:59.040
I'll tell you what the main use of it has been up till now.
link |
00:32:02.120
Well, it has had a number of main uses.
link |
00:32:03.920
Originally, string theory was invented,
link |
00:32:06.360
and I know that I was there.
link |
00:32:07.520
I was right at the spot
link |
00:32:08.960
where it was being invented literally,
link |
00:32:13.080
and it was being invented to understand hadrons.
link |
00:32:16.960
Hadrons are subnuclear particles,
link |
00:32:19.120
protons, neutrons, mesons,
link |
00:32:21.960
and at that time, the late 60s, early 70s,
link |
00:32:28.580
it was clear from experiment
link |
00:32:30.120
that these particles called hadrons could vibrate,
link |
00:32:33.680
could rotate, could do all the things
link |
00:32:36.800
that a little closed string can do,
link |
00:32:39.640
and it was and is a valid and correct theory of these hadrons.
link |
00:32:47.920
It's been experimentally tested, and that is a done deal.
link |
00:32:53.940
It had a second life as a theory of gravity,
link |
00:32:56.240
the same basic mathematics,
link |
00:32:58.100
except on a very, very much smaller distance scale.
link |
00:33:02.360
The objects of gravitation are 19 orders of magnitude
link |
00:33:07.360
or orders of magnitude smaller than a proton,
link |
00:33:10.080
but the same mathematics turned up.
link |
00:33:12.000
The same mathematics turned up.
link |
00:33:14.300
What has been its value?
link |
00:33:15.980
Its value is that it's mathematically rigorous in many ways
link |
00:33:20.720
and enabled us to find mathematical structures
link |
00:33:27.040
which have both quantum mechanics and gravity.
link |
00:33:30.120
With rigor, we can test out ideas.
link |
00:33:34.080
We can test out ideas.
link |
00:33:35.160
We can't test them in the laboratory.
link |
00:33:37.240
They're 19 orders of magnitude too small
link |
00:33:39.840
are things that we're interested in,
link |
00:33:41.280
but we can test them out mathematically
link |
00:33:43.160
and analyze their internal consistency.
link |
00:33:47.800
By now, 40 years ago, 35 years ago, and so forth,
link |
00:33:53.720
people very, very much questioned the consistency
link |
00:33:57.120
between gravity and quantum mechanics.
link |
00:33:59.240
Stephen Hawking was very famous for it, rightly so.
link |
00:34:02.840
Now, nobody questions that consistency anymore.
link |
00:34:05.840
They don't because we have mathematically precise
link |
00:34:09.240
string theories which contain both gravity
link |
00:34:12.680
and quantum mechanics in a consistent way.
link |
00:34:15.760
So it's provided that certainty that quantum mechanics
link |
00:34:21.280
and gravity can coexist.
link |
00:34:22.840
That's not a small thing.
link |
00:34:24.160
It's a very big thing.
link |
00:34:25.000
It's a huge thing.
link |
00:34:25.840
Einstein would be proud.
link |
00:34:27.240
Einstein, he might be appalled.
link |
00:34:28.800
I don't know.
link |
00:34:29.640
He didn't like it.
link |
00:34:30.460
He didn't like it.
link |
00:34:31.300
He might not be appalled, I don't know.
link |
00:34:32.920
He didn't like quantum mechanics very much,
link |
00:34:34.560
but he would certainly be struck by it.
link |
00:34:37.680
I think that may be, at this time,
link |
00:34:40.060
its biggest contribution to physics
link |
00:34:42.000
in illustrating almost definitively
link |
00:34:45.360
that quantum mechanics and gravity
link |
00:34:46.800
are very closely related
link |
00:34:48.640
and not inconsistent with each other.
link |
00:34:51.000
Is there a possibility of something deeper,
link |
00:34:53.840
more profound that still is consistent with string theory
link |
00:34:58.840
but is deeper, that is to be found?
link |
00:35:03.120
Well, you could ask the same thing about quantum mechanics.
link |
00:35:04.900
Is there something?
link |
00:35:05.740
Exactly.
link |
00:35:06.560
Yeah, yeah.
link |
00:35:07.400
I think string theory is just an example
link |
00:35:09.060
of a quantum mechanical system
link |
00:35:11.000
that contains both gravitation and quantum mechanics.
link |
00:35:16.600
So is there something underlying quantum mechanics?
link |
00:35:19.760
Perhaps something deterministic.
link |
00:35:21.560
Perhaps something deterministic.
link |
00:35:23.920
My friend, Ferad Etouf, whose name you may know,
link |
00:35:27.360
he's a very famous physicist.
link |
00:35:29.600
Dutch, not as famous as he should be, but...
link |
00:35:33.820
Hard to spell his name.
link |
00:35:35.160
It's hard to say his name.
link |
00:35:36.280
No, it's easy to spell his name.
link |
00:35:37.520
Apostrophe, he's the only person I know
link |
00:35:39.240
whose name begins with an apostrophe.
link |
00:35:42.040
And he's one of my heroes in physics.
link |
00:35:44.280
He's a little younger than me,
link |
00:35:45.160
but he's nevertheless one of my heroes.
link |
00:35:47.640
Etouf believes that there is some substructure to the world
link |
00:35:52.640
which is classical in character,
link |
00:35:55.640
deterministic in character,
link |
00:35:58.040
which somehow by some mechanism
link |
00:36:00.520
that he has a hard time spelling out
link |
00:36:03.840
emerges as quantum mechanics.
link |
00:36:07.400
I don't.
link |
00:36:08.240
The wave function is somehow emergent.
link |
00:36:10.680
The wave function, not just the wave function,
link |
00:36:13.080
but the whole thing that goes with quantum mechanics,
link |
00:36:16.760
uncertainty, entanglement, all these things,
link |
00:36:19.760
are emergent. So you think quantum mechanics
link |
00:36:22.680
is the bottom of the well?
link |
00:36:23.800
Is the...
link |
00:36:25.600
Here I think is where you have to be humble.
link |
00:36:30.120
Here's where humility comes.
link |
00:36:31.440
I don't think anybody should say anything
link |
00:36:33.440
is the bottom of the well at this time.
link |
00:36:36.360
I think we can reasonably say,
link |
00:36:40.960
I can reasonably say when I look into the well,
link |
00:36:44.200
I can't see past quantum mechanics.
link |
00:36:47.240
I can't see past quantum mechanics.
link |
00:36:50.480
I don't see any reason for there to be anything
link |
00:36:52.800
beyond quantum mechanics.
link |
00:36:55.040
I think Etouf has asked very interesting
link |
00:36:58.200
and deep questions.
link |
00:36:59.240
I don't like his answers.
link |
00:37:01.960
Well, again, let me ask,
link |
00:37:03.720
if we look at the deepest nature of reality
link |
00:37:06.560
with whether it's deterministic
link |
00:37:09.320
or when observed as probabilistic,
link |
00:37:13.080
what does that mean for our human level
link |
00:37:16.960
of ideas of free will?
link |
00:37:18.320
Is there any connection whatsoever
link |
00:37:21.560
from this perception, perhaps illusion of free will
link |
00:37:24.700
that we have and the fundamental nature of reality?
link |
00:37:27.760
The only thing I can say is I am puzzled by that
link |
00:37:31.400
as much as you are.
link |
00:37:32.680
The illusion of it.
link |
00:37:33.520
The illusion of consciousness,
link |
00:37:36.080
the illusion of free will, the illusion of self.
link |
00:37:39.980
Does that connect to?
link |
00:37:43.380
How can a physical system do that?
link |
00:37:45.380
And I am as puzzled as anybody.
link |
00:37:48.820
There's echoes of it in the observer effect.
link |
00:37:51.980
So do you understand what it means to be an observer?
link |
00:37:55.340
I understand it at a technical level.
link |
00:37:57.700
An observer is a system with enough degrees of freedom
link |
00:38:00.480
that it can record information
link |
00:38:02.280
and which can become entangled
link |
00:38:03.980
with the thing that it's measuring.
link |
00:38:05.740
Entanglement is the key.
link |
00:38:07.300
When a system which we call an apparatus or an observer,
link |
00:38:12.020
same thing, interacts with the system
link |
00:38:15.180
that it's observing, it doesn't just look at it.
link |
00:38:19.100
It becomes physically entangled with it.
link |
00:38:21.540
And it's that entanglement which we call an observation
link |
00:38:24.460
or a measurement.
link |
00:38:26.480
Now, does that satisfy me personally as an observer?
link |
00:38:32.520
Yes and no.
link |
00:38:33.360
I find it very satisfying
link |
00:38:34.300
that we have a mathematical representation
link |
00:38:36.680
of what it means to observe a system.
link |
00:38:40.340
You are observing stuff right now, the conscious level.
link |
00:38:44.300
Do you think there's echoes of that kind of entanglement
link |
00:38:48.100
in our macro scale?
link |
00:38:49.420
Yes, absolutely, for sure.
link |
00:38:52.200
We're entangled with,
link |
00:38:53.780
quantum mechanically entangled with everything in this room.
link |
00:38:56.740
If we weren't, then it would just,
link |
00:38:59.860
well, we wouldn't be observing it.
link |
00:39:03.140
But on the other hand, you can ask,
link |
00:39:05.620
do I really, am I really comfortable with it?
link |
00:39:10.260
And I'm uncomfortable with it in the same way
link |
00:39:12.540
that I can never get comfortable with five dimensions.
link |
00:39:15.300
My brain isn't wired for it.
link |
00:39:18.860
Are you comfortable with four dimensions?
link |
00:39:21.380
A little bit more,
link |
00:39:22.620
because I can always imagine the fourth dimension is time.
link |
00:39:26.340
So the arrow of time, are you comfortable with that arrow?
link |
00:39:29.980
Do you think time is an emergent phenomena
link |
00:39:31.980
or is it fundamental to nature?
link |
00:39:33.680
That is a big question in physics right now.
link |
00:39:37.560
All the physics that we do,
link |
00:39:40.160
or at least that the people that I am comfortable
link |
00:39:42.800
with talking to, my friends, my friends.
link |
00:39:49.400
No, we all ask the same question that you just asked.
link |
00:39:51.880
Space, we have a pretty good idea is emergent
link |
00:39:55.240
and it emerges out of entanglement and other things.
link |
00:40:00.240
Time always seems to be built into our equations
link |
00:40:03.920
as just what Newton pretty much would have thought.
link |
00:40:06.680
Newton, modified a little bit by Einstein,
link |
00:40:09.140
would have called time.
link |
00:40:12.000
And mostly in our equations, it is not emergent.
link |
00:40:19.200
Time in physics is completely symmetric,
link |
00:40:21.560
forward and backward.
link |
00:40:22.400
Right, it's symmetric.
link |
00:40:23.400
So you don't really need to think about the arrow of time
link |
00:40:27.300
for most physical phenomena.
link |
00:40:29.240
For most microscopic phenomena, no.
link |
00:40:33.400
It's only when the phenomena involve systems
link |
00:40:35.640
which are big enough for thermodynamics to become important,
link |
00:40:38.960
for entropy to become important.
link |
00:40:41.680
For a small system, entropy is not a good concept.
link |
00:40:47.960
Entropy is something which emerges out of large numbers.
link |
00:40:52.840
It's a probabilistic idea or it's a statistical idea
link |
00:40:56.600
and it's a thermodynamic idea.
link |
00:40:58.500
Thermodynamics requires lots and lots
link |
00:41:00.840
and lots of little substructures, okay?
link |
00:41:04.120
So it's not until you emerge at the thermodynamic level
link |
00:41:09.680
that there's an arrow of time.
link |
00:41:11.720
Do we understand it?
link |
00:41:13.560
Yeah, I think we understand better
link |
00:41:15.800
than most people think they have.
link |
00:41:17.160
Most people say they think we understand it.
link |
00:41:19.360
Yeah, I think we understand it.
link |
00:41:21.280
It's a statistical idea.
link |
00:41:23.900
You mean like second law of thermodynamics,
link |
00:41:26.400
entropy and so on?
link |
00:41:27.240
Yeah, take a pack of cards and you fling it in the air
link |
00:41:29.720
and you look what happens to it, it gets random.
link |
00:41:32.480
We understand it.
link |
00:41:33.400
It doesn't go from random to simple.
link |
00:41:36.200
It goes from simple to random.
link |
00:41:38.600
But do you think it ever breaks down?
link |
00:41:41.820
What I think you can do is in a laboratory setting,
link |
00:41:46.180
you can take a system which is somewhere intermediate
link |
00:41:49.020
between being small and being large
link |
00:41:53.080
and make it go backward.
link |
00:41:56.080
A thing which looks like it only wants to go forward
link |
00:41:59.560
because of statistical mechanical reasons,
link |
00:42:01.640
because of the second law,
link |
00:42:03.920
you can very, very carefully manipulate it
link |
00:42:07.120
to make it run backward.
link |
00:42:09.100
I don't think you can take an egg, a Humpty Dumpty
link |
00:42:11.400
who fell on the floor and reverse that.
link |
00:42:15.000
But you can, in a very controlled situation,
link |
00:42:18.480
you can take systems which appear to be evolving
link |
00:42:22.760
statistically toward randomness,
link |
00:42:25.360
stop them, reverse them, and make them go back.
link |
00:42:29.280
What's the intuition behind that?
link |
00:42:30.800
How do we do that?
link |
00:42:31.940
How do we reverse it?
link |
00:42:33.520
You're saying a closed system.
link |
00:42:35.600
Yeah, pretty much closed system, yes.
link |
00:42:38.320
Did you just say that time travel is possible?
link |
00:42:41.600
No, I didn't say time travel is possible.
link |
00:42:44.080
I said you can make a system go backward.
link |
00:42:45.960
In time.
link |
00:42:46.800
You can make it go back.
link |
00:42:48.040
You can make it reverse its steps.
link |
00:42:49.520
You can make it reverse its trajectory.
link |
00:42:51.520
Yeah.
link |
00:42:52.400
How do we do it?
link |
00:42:53.240
What's the intuition there?
link |
00:42:54.640
Does it have, is it just a fluke thing
link |
00:42:58.720
that we can do at a small scale in the lab
link |
00:43:00.840
that doesn't have?
link |
00:43:01.680
Well, what I'm saying is you can do it
link |
00:43:02.840
a little bit better than a small scale.
link |
00:43:05.260
You can certainly do it with a simple, small system.
link |
00:43:10.480
Small systems don't have any sense of the arrow of time.
link |
00:43:14.240
Atoms, atoms are no sense of an arrow of time.
link |
00:43:20.580
They're completely reversible.
link |
00:43:22.380
It's only when you have, you know,
link |
00:43:24.440
the second law of thermodynamics
link |
00:43:25.880
is the law of large numbers.
link |
00:43:28.480
So you can break the law because it's not
link |
00:43:30.800
a deterministic law. You can break it,
link |
00:43:31.640
you can break it, but it's hard.
link |
00:43:33.880
It requires great care.
link |
00:43:36.080
The bigger the system is, the more care,
link |
00:43:38.480
the more, the harder it is.
link |
00:43:40.760
You have to overcome what's called chaos.
link |
00:43:43.880
And that's hard.
link |
00:43:45.600
And it requires more and more precision.
link |
00:43:47.660
For 10 particles, you might be able to do it
link |
00:43:50.080
with some effort.
link |
00:43:54.000
For a hundred particles, it's really hard.
link |
00:43:56.760
For a thousand or a million particles, forget it,
link |
00:43:59.340
but not for any fundamental reason,
link |
00:44:01.220
just because it's technologically too hard
link |
00:44:03.720
to make the system go backward.
link |
00:44:08.320
So, no time travel for engineering reasons.
link |
00:44:13.440
Oh, no, no, no, no.
link |
00:44:15.280
What is time travel?
link |
00:44:16.880
Time travel to the future?
link |
00:44:19.280
That's easy.
link |
00:44:20.400
You just close your eyes, go to sleep,
link |
00:44:22.400
and you wake up in the future.
link |
00:44:23.480
Yeah, yeah, a good nap gets you there, yeah.
link |
00:44:25.960
A good nap gets you there, right.
link |
00:44:27.400
But reversing the second law of thermodynamics,
link |
00:44:32.280
going backward in time for anything that's human scale
link |
00:44:36.760
is a very difficult engineering effort.
link |
00:44:40.000
I wouldn't call that time travel
link |
00:44:41.440
because it gets too mixed up
link |
00:44:43.040
with what science fiction calls time travel.
link |
00:44:46.040
This is just the ability to reverse a system.
link |
00:44:51.040
You take the system and you reverse the direction
link |
00:44:55.680
of motion of every molecule in it.
link |
00:44:58.280
That, you can do it with one molecule.
link |
00:45:00.940
If you find a particle moving in a certain direction,
link |
00:45:03.500
let's not say a particle, a baseball,
link |
00:45:06.700
you stop it dead and then you simply reverse its motion.
link |
00:45:10.960
In principle, that's not too hard.
link |
00:45:12.840
And it'll go back along its trajectory
link |
00:45:15.240
in the backward direction.
link |
00:45:16.440
Just running the program backwards.
link |
00:45:18.200
Running the program backward.
link |
00:45:19.480
Yeah. Okay.
link |
00:45:20.460
If you have two baseballs colliding,
link |
00:45:22.400
well, you can do it,
link |
00:45:23.520
but you have to be very, very careful to get it just right.
link |
00:45:28.760
If you have 10 baseballs, really, really, better yet,
link |
00:45:32.400
10 billiard balls on an idealized,
link |
00:45:36.200
frictionless billiard table.
link |
00:45:38.840
Okay, so you start the balls all on a triangle, right?
link |
00:45:41.800
And you whack them.
link |
00:45:43.440
Depending on the game you're playing,
link |
00:45:44.640
you either whack them or you're really careful,
link |
00:45:46.000
but you whack them.
link |
00:45:48.280
And they go flying off in all possible directions.
link |
00:45:51.520
Okay, try to reverse that.
link |
00:45:54.720
Try to reverse that.
link |
00:45:55.680
Imagine trying to take every billiard ball,
link |
00:45:57.680
stopping it dead at some point,
link |
00:46:00.320
and reversing its motion
link |
00:46:01.680
so that it was going in the opposite direction.
link |
00:46:04.200
If you did that with tremendous care,
link |
00:46:07.340
it would reassemble itself back into the triangle.
link |
00:46:11.500
Okay, that is a fact.
link |
00:46:14.520
And you can probably do it with two billiard balls,
link |
00:46:16.860
maybe with three billiard balls if you're really lucky.
link |
00:46:19.920
But what happens is as the system
link |
00:46:21.840
gets more and more complicated,
link |
00:46:23.160
you have to be more and more precise
link |
00:46:26.120
not to make the tiniest error,
link |
00:46:27.880
because the tiniest errors will get magnified
link |
00:46:30.960
and you'll simply not be able to do the reversal.
link |
00:46:34.920
So yeah, but I wouldn't call that time travel.
link |
00:46:38.560
Yeah, that's something else.
link |
00:46:39.680
But if you think of it, it just made me think,
link |
00:46:43.240
if you think the unrolling of state
link |
00:46:46.980
that's happening as a program,
link |
00:46:49.840
if we look at the world,
link |
00:46:52.860
silly idea of looking at the world as a simulation,
link |
00:46:56.440
as a computer.
link |
00:46:59.080
But it's not a computer, it's just a single program.
link |
00:47:03.200
A question arises that might be useful.
link |
00:47:06.320
How hard is it to have a computer that runs the universe?
link |
00:47:11.320
Okay, so there are mathematical universes
link |
00:47:18.300
that we know about.
link |
00:47:20.040
One of them is called anti de Sitter space,
link |
00:47:22.840
where we, and it's quantum mechanics,
link |
00:47:28.520
I think we could simulate it in a computer,
link |
00:47:32.240
in a quantum computer.
link |
00:47:34.140
Classical computer, all you can do is solve its equations.
link |
00:47:36.600
You can't make it work like the real system.
link |
00:47:39.160
If we could build a quantum computer, a big enough one,
link |
00:47:41.600
a robust enough one, we could probably simulate a universe,
link |
00:47:49.880
a small version of an anti de Sitter universe.
link |
00:47:52.880
Anti de Sitter is a kind of cosmology.
link |
00:47:57.680
So I think we know how to do that.
link |
00:48:00.100
The trouble is the universe that we live in
link |
00:48:02.340
is not the anti de Sitter geometry,
link |
00:48:04.840
it's the de Sitter geometry.
link |
00:48:07.320
And we don't really understand its quantum mechanics at all.
link |
00:48:11.120
So at the present time,
link |
00:48:12.120
I would say we wouldn't have the vaguest idea
link |
00:48:14.000
how to simulate a universe similar to our own.
link |
00:48:18.020
No, we can ask, could we build in the laboratory
link |
00:48:21.120
a small version, a quantum mechanical version,
link |
00:48:27.720
the collection of quantum computers
link |
00:48:29.620
and tangled and coupled together,
link |
00:48:32.880
which would reproduce the phenomena that go on in the universe,
link |
00:48:38.120
even on a small scale.
link |
00:48:40.400
Yes, if it were anti de Sitter space,
link |
00:48:43.060
no, if it's de Sitter space.
link |
00:48:44.680
Can you slightly describe de Sitter space
link |
00:48:47.400
and anti de Sitter space?
link |
00:48:48.640
Yeah.
link |
00:48:49.860
What are the geometric properties of?
link |
00:48:51.400
They differ by the sign of a single constant
link |
00:48:54.860
called the cosmological constant.
link |
00:48:57.960
One of them is negatively curved,
link |
00:49:01.760
the other is positively curved.
link |
00:49:04.840
Anti de Sitter space, which is the negatively curved one,
link |
00:49:08.260
you can think of as an isolated system
link |
00:49:11.360
in a box with reflecting walls.
link |
00:49:14.620
You could think of it as a system
link |
00:49:16.200
of quantum mechanical system isolated
link |
00:49:19.240
in an isolated environment.
link |
00:49:21.800
De Sitter space is the one we really live in.
link |
00:49:23.740
And that's the one that's exponentially expanding,
link |
00:49:26.880
exponential expansion, dark energy,
link |
00:49:30.040
whatever we wanna call it.
link |
00:49:31.520
And we don't understand that mathematically.
link |
00:49:35.880
Do we understand?
link |
00:49:36.960
Not everybody would agree with me,
link |
00:49:38.200
but I don't understand.
link |
00:49:39.560
They would agree with me,
link |
00:49:40.600
they definitely would agree with me
link |
00:49:41.920
that I don't understand it.
link |
00:49:44.720
What about, is there an understanding of the birth,
link |
00:49:48.480
the origin, the big bang?
link |
00:49:50.320
So there's one problem with the other.
link |
00:49:51.800
No, no, there's theories.
link |
00:49:53.160
There are theories.
link |
00:49:55.840
My favorite is the one called eternal inflation.
link |
00:49:58.980
The infinity can be on both sides,
link |
00:50:00.680
on one of the sides and none of the sides.
link |
00:50:02.600
So what's eternal infinity?
link |
00:50:05.520
Okay.
link |
00:50:09.480
Infinity on both sides.
link |
00:50:13.040
Oh boy.
link |
00:50:13.920
Yeah, yeah, that's.
link |
00:50:15.480
Why is that your favorite?
link |
00:50:16.520
Because it's the most just mind blowing?
link |
00:50:21.520
No.
link |
00:50:22.360
Because we want a beginning.
link |
00:50:23.200
No, why do we want a beginning?
link |
00:50:26.800
In practice there was a beginning, of course.
link |
00:50:28.380
In practice there was a beginning.
link |
00:50:31.280
But could it have been a random fluctuation
link |
00:50:36.800
in an otherwise infinite time?
link |
00:50:39.320
Maybe.
link |
00:50:41.320
In any case, the eternal inflation theory,
link |
00:50:45.840
I think if correctly understood,
link |
00:50:47.280
would be infinite in both directions.
link |
00:50:50.680
How do you think about infinity?
link |
00:50:52.840
Oh God.
link |
00:50:53.960
So, okay, of course you can think about it mathematically.
link |
00:50:57.520
I just finished this discussion with my friend Sergei Brin.
link |
00:51:01.480
How do you think about infinity?
link |
00:51:02.800
I say, well, Sergei Brin is infinitely rich.
link |
00:51:07.960
How do you test that hypothesis?
link |
00:51:09.360
Okay.
link |
00:51:12.000
Such a good line.
link |
00:51:13.240
Right.
link |
00:51:15.400
Yeah, so there's really no way
link |
00:51:17.160
to visualize some of these things.
link |
00:51:20.240
Yeah, no, this is a very good question.
link |
00:51:22.360
Does physics have any,
link |
00:51:24.680
does infinity have any place in physics?
link |
00:51:27.360
Right.
link |
00:51:28.200
Right, and all I can say is very good question.
link |
00:51:35.840
So what do you think of the recent first image
link |
00:51:39.400
of a black hole visualized from the Horizon Telescope?
link |
00:51:43.040
It's an incredible triumph of science.
link |
00:51:45.680
In itself, the fact that there are black holes
link |
00:51:47.740
which collide is not a surprise.
link |
00:51:50.620
And they seem to work exactly
link |
00:51:52.640
the way they're supposed to work.
link |
00:51:54.760
Will we learn a great deal from it?
link |
00:51:57.040
I don't know, we might.
link |
00:52:00.160
But the kind of things we'll learn
link |
00:52:01.300
won't really be about black holes.
link |
00:52:05.240
Why there are black holes in nature
link |
00:52:09.500
of that particular mass scale and why they're so common
link |
00:52:12.780
may tell us something about the structure,
link |
00:52:15.680
evolution of structure in the universe.
link |
00:52:18.440
But I don't think it's gonna tell us
link |
00:52:19.520
anything new about black holes.
link |
00:52:22.000
But it's a triumph in the sense
link |
00:52:23.620
that you go back 100 years
link |
00:52:25.420
and it was a continuous development,
link |
00:52:28.200
general relativity, the discovery of black holes,
link |
00:52:31.480
LIGO, the incredible technology that went into LIGO.
link |
00:52:37.600
It is something that I never would have believed
link |
00:52:43.120
was gonna happen 30, 40 years ago.
link |
00:52:47.760
And I think it's a magnificent structure,
link |
00:52:51.840
magnificent thing, this evolution of general relativity,
link |
00:52:59.680
LIGO, high precision, ability to measure things
link |
00:53:03.980
on a scale of 10 to the minus 21.
link |
00:53:07.680
So, astonishing.
link |
00:53:09.400
So you're just in awe that this path
link |
00:53:12.800
took us to this picture.
link |
00:53:14.780
Is it different?
link |
00:53:17.480
You've thought a lot about black holes.
link |
00:53:19.840
How did you visualize them in your mind?
link |
00:53:23.560
And is the picture different than you've visualized it?
link |
00:53:26.240
No, it's simply confirmed.
link |
00:53:30.000
It's a magnificent triumph to have confirmed
link |
00:53:32.720
a direct observation that Einstein's theory of gravity
link |
00:53:37.320
at the level of black hole collisions actually works
link |
00:53:42.380
is awesome, it is really awesome.
link |
00:53:45.600
I know some of the people who are involved in that.
link |
00:53:48.160
They're just ordinary people.
link |
00:53:49.960
And the idea that they could carry this out,
link |
00:53:54.440
I just, I'm shocked.
link |
00:53:56.460
Yeah, just these little homo sapiens?
link |
00:53:59.360
Yeah, just these little monkeys.
link |
00:54:00.960
Yeah, got together and took a picture of...
link |
00:54:04.800
Slightly advanced limer's, I think.
link |
00:54:08.540
What kind of questions can science not currently answer
link |
00:54:11.320
but you hope might be able to soon?
link |
00:54:13.460
Well, you've already addressed them.
link |
00:54:15.080
What is consciousness, for example?
link |
00:54:17.020
You think that's within the reach of science?
link |
00:54:19.400
I think it's somewhat within the reach of science,
link |
00:54:21.640
but I think that now I think it's in the hands
link |
00:54:23.680
of the computer scientists and the neuroscientists.
link |
00:54:27.120
Not a physicist, with the help.
link |
00:54:29.520
Perhaps at some point, but I think physicists
link |
00:54:31.720
will try to simplify it down to something
link |
00:54:34.640
that they can use their methods
link |
00:54:36.320
and maybe they're not appropriate.
link |
00:54:38.560
Maybe we simply need to do more machine learning
link |
00:54:43.560
on bigger scales, evolve machines.
link |
00:54:47.800
Machines not only that learn
link |
00:54:49.360
but evolve their own architecture.
link |
00:54:51.320
As a process of learning, evolve in architecture.
link |
00:54:54.300
Not under our control, only partially under our control,
link |
00:54:56.960
but under the control of machine learning.
link |
00:55:00.320
I'll tell you another thing that I find awesome.
link |
00:55:03.200
You know this Google thing that they taught
link |
00:55:05.640
the computers how to play chess?
link |
00:55:07.480
Yeah, yeah.
link |
00:55:08.320
Okay, they taught the computers how to play chess,
link |
00:55:10.680
not by teaching them how to play chess,
link |
00:55:12.440
but just having them play against each other.
link |
00:55:14.400
Against each other, self play.
link |
00:55:15.400
Against each other, this is a form of evolution.
link |
00:55:18.800
These machines evolved, they evolved in intelligence.
link |
00:55:25.600
They evolved in intelligence
link |
00:55:27.400
without anybody telling them how to do it.
link |
00:55:30.880
They were not engineered, they just played
link |
00:55:33.240
against each other and got better and better and better.
link |
00:55:36.040
That makes me think that machines can evolve intelligence.
link |
00:55:43.500
What exact kind of intelligence, I don't know.
link |
00:55:46.580
But in understanding that better and better,
link |
00:55:49.020
maybe we'll get better clues as to what goes on
link |
00:55:52.260
in our own intelligence.
link |
00:55:53.100
What life in intelligence is.
link |
00:55:55.220
Last question, what kind of questions can science
link |
00:55:58.700
not currently answer and may never be able to answer?
link |
00:56:01.820
Yeah.
link |
00:56:02.660
Yeah.
link |
00:56:05.620
Is there an intelligence out there
link |
00:56:07.300
that's underlies the whole thing?
link |
00:56:09.260
You can call them with a G word if you want.
link |
00:56:11.980
I can say, are we a computer simulation with a purpose?
link |
00:56:18.960
Is there an agent, an intelligent agent
link |
00:56:22.560
that underlies or is responsible for the whole thing?
link |
00:56:27.180
Does that intelligent agent satisfy the laws of physics?
link |
00:56:30.560
Does it satisfy the laws of quantum mechanics?
link |
00:56:32.600
Is it made of atoms and molecules?
link |
00:56:34.460
Yeah, there's a lot of questions.
link |
00:56:36.560
And I don't see, it seems to me a real question.
link |
00:56:42.080
It's an answerable question.
link |
00:56:43.500
Well, I don't know if it's answerable.
link |
00:56:44.800
The questions have to be answerable to be real.
link |
00:56:49.300
Some philosophers would say that a question
link |
00:56:52.240
is not a question unless it's answerable.
link |
00:56:55.580
This question doesn't seem to me answerable
link |
00:56:58.300
by any known method, but it seems to me real.
link |
00:57:05.140
There's no better place to end.
link |
00:57:07.180
Leonard, thank you so much for talking today.
link |
00:57:08.660
Okay, good.