Leonard Susskind—The Quantum Origins of Gravity

Prof. Susskind’s lecture starts at the 9:30 point; skip to there if you aren’t interested in the introductory material.

Here are four Leonard Susskind papers on the ER=EPR conjecture and its implications.


Well, Prof Susskind introduced two concepts that are new to me:

  • Strange Metals
  • Anti de Sitter Spacetime/Conformal Field theory

It is tough for the non-specialist to keep up … or even to understand what they are talking about!


I had a primitive inkling of ER = EPR back in 1974 writing the goofy comic book Space Time and Beyond at Caffe Deux Maggots in Paris with Fred Alan Wolf and Bob Toben. However my ER wormholes back then were traversable and my EPR entanglement allowed keyless signaling. I did not have EPR on the boundary with ER in the bulk back then.
Today Lenny’s ER = EPR is orthodox QM with no EPR signaling and non-traversable wormholes because of violation of wave action particle reaction in sense of Roderick Sutherland’s 2015 papers on arXiv.
My 1974 ER = EPR is Post-Quantum Theory with action-reaction in sense of Section 7 here

Lenny and I worked together at Cornell in 1963-4.

1 Like

I know the feeling, and yet, I can’t help but be interested in these ideas from a philosophical perspective. I am currently reading Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness, and thoroughly enjoying it. The book is written for the layperson and summarizes the most important experiments and ideas in quantum mechanics. What makes the book interesting is that the authors are especially concerned with interpreting quantum theory, i.e. understanding what “spooky actions at a distance” actually means. The authors present ten different interpretations of quantum phenomena.

A quote from the preface:

Suppose that when formulation beyond [for all practical purposes] was attempted, we find an unmovable finger obstinately pointing outside the subject, to the mind of the observer, to the Hindu scriptures, to God, or even only Gravitation? Would that not be very, very interesting?

— John Stewart Bell


Me too! In the old days, Physics was called “Natural Philosophy”. That seems in some ways to be a better name, because if we scratch deeply enough into the ideas of physics, we find ourselves facing some knotty philosophical issues.

Thanks for the book recommendation. In the same spirit, Dr. Stephen Gimbel’s Great Courses video series on “The Great Questions of Philosophy & Physics” is really interesting.