The Escaped Sapiens Podcast

Most people view democracy as the best form of government we have, but also as a moral good. Everyone is given an equal right to vote. Leaders are replaced peacefully, and governments are encouraged to be accountable to the people because of the voting power they hold. That all sounds good compared with monarchies and dictatorships, but what if we can still do better?

In this conversation I speak with Political Philosopher and Author of `Against Democracy' Jason Brennan. He argues that because each individual vote counts for so little, democracy has no real incentive for voters to become politically well informed. As a result, the political system is driven by the ignorant, poorly informed voters. Furthermore, a wide range of social science research shows that political participation and democratic deliberation actually tend to make people more irrational, biased, and mean. For this reason, political philosophers have put forward a range of alternatives to our current system of voting.

In this discussion we cover one particularly interesting approach to voting, which attempts to count the votes of an election in a more sophisitcated manner, which simulates how a population would have voted if it had been better informed.

 

►Watch on Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pwddex9uCk&list=PLnE3V9mcAvmbGgs15Z0LkfHv0_1Hm5i9Z&index=1 

►You can find out more about Jason's work here: https://gufaculty360.georgetown.edu/s/faculty-publications?id=00336000014RXIUAA4

►Check out Jason's book: https://www.amazon.nl/Against-Democracy-Jason-Brennan/dp/0691162603

What determines who you become: your genes, your environment, or something else entirely?

 

I originally the answer lay in our environment and DNA, full stop. But it turns out there's a third ingredient. Our DNA doesn't hold enough information to specify all of the the various connections in our brain. In a certain sense the DNA specifies a charicature, and the process of development itself fills in the details. This process starts at conception, such that even two people growing with identical DNA and environment will nevertheless end up with different personality traits, intelligence, etc.

 

In this conversation I speak with Neurogeneticist Kevin Mitchel (Trinity College Dublin, author of Free Agents and Innate) about how our brains develop. He spells out the implications of the developmental process of the brain for our personalities, medical conditions, and intelligence, consciousness, and free will.

 

Correction: At 1:57:02, the claim about XYY syndrome and violence was misleading. Some studies have found a modest association with lower average IQ, but the evidence does not support XYY making someone inherently more violent.

►Watch on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EohgJnp6bNQ&list=PLnE3V9mcAvmbGgs15Z0LkfHv0_1Hm5i9Z&index=1 

►Find out more about Kevin's work: www.kjmitchell.com

►Check out Kevin's books: https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691173887/innate  https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691226231/free-agents

We can't put a real black hole in a laboratory, but we can recreate some of its most important physics. In this interview I speak with Bill Unruh, one of the pioneers of analog gravity.

The idea is fascinating: Usually we model gravity using equations and computer simulations, but there is another way. Rather than a gravitational black hole that can trap light from escaping, you can instead build a black hole using the flow in a fluid to trap sound from escaping. Such models really do mimic many of the properties predicted by the equations that describe black holes. Unruh explains how a waterfall can act as a sonic black hole, creating an analogue of a black hole event horizon where sound waves can become trapped.

In the lab, such analog systems have been built using water, but also Bose–Einstein condensates. One hope is to show that analog black holes sponateously emit sound quanta in exactly the same way that Hawking radiation is proposed to be emitted from Black holes. In particular, a key goal is to show that such radiation is `thermal', which would mean that it carries the least amount of information possible just as predicted by Hswking for black holes.

One of the key reasons for being interested in analog gravity, is that it can provide intuition about horizons and other aspects of gravitational systems that we can't explore in the lab. In this interview I ask Bill what intuition he has gained for one of the key paradoxes in gravitational physics that researchers are currently arguing over: The Black Hole Information Paradox. In particular, what happens to the information contained in matter that falls into a black hole? Can Hawking radiation carry that information back out? We also discuss what actually happens inside a black hole. Does the singularity represent a genuine physical feature, or does it signal that our current theory of gravity has reached its limits?

►Watch on Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzNAGllVWjo&list=PLnE3V9mcAvmYosrFCguPfGnFeI_CChb1j&index=1 

►Find out more about Bill's work: https://quantumgravitysociety.org/science_advisors/william-unruh/

https://news.ubc.ca/expert/william-unruh/

 

#BlackHoles #HawkingRadiation #QuantumGravity #AnalogGravity #Physics #QuantumMechanics #GeneralRelativity #StephenHawking #BlackHoleInformationParadox #TheoreticalPhysics #cosmology

 

This publication is based upon work from COST Action RQI CA23115, supported by COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology). COST is a funding agency for research and innovation networks. Our Actions help connect research initiatives across Europe and enable scientists to grow their ideas by sharing them with their peers. This boosts their research, career and innovation. For more information see: www.cost.eu .

Our understanding of gravity and black holes is currently in a funny spot that looks a little similar to how physics in general looked before quantum mechanics. Before quantum mechanics, scientists were puzzled by the stability of atoms. Shouldn't the negatively charged electrons simply fall into the positively charged nucleus? Also, the electrostatic force between charges was known to increase the closer two charged objects were to one another, and by naive extrapolation, this force should become infinite as the distance between objects goes to zero. This is known as a `singularity' in the theory. Singularities are usually a sign that our theory is being extrapolated beyond where it is applicable.

 

Quantum mechanics held the solution to the puzzle: electrons don't spiral around the nucleus; they sit in quantum orbits that can only take on certain discrete levels.

 

In our current understanding of gravity, there are objects predicted by the theory known as black holes. But just like with `classical' atoms, these objects are pretty weird. They have singularities right at the center, and just like the electrons orbiting an atomic nucleus, the classical theory of gravity says that matter should spiral into a black hole to meet the singularity. On the way, they cross an event horizon from which they can never return, and which shields anyone from looking into the black hole.

 

The singularity is an indication that our classical theory of gravity is somehow breaking down. But where? If we try to merge quantum mechanics with black holes, a clue arises: `Hawking' radiation is predicted by the merger to emanate from the black hole horizon, and this radiation leads to the evaporation of black holes, and the loss of all the information of anything that fell in.

 

But this behavior appears to break quantum mechanics because in quantum theory, information cannot be destroyed. It can be scrambled, transformed, hidden, but never fundamentally erased.

 

This is the black hole information paradox: the merger of our best gravitational theory and quantum theory seems to lead to information loss, which is incompatible with quantum theory.

 

In this episode of the podcast, I speak with theorist Niayesh Afshordi. He suggests that the black hole information paradox arises because we are extrapolating our equations beyond where they make sense. His suggestion is a little unorthodox: black holes have no center. The horizon must be replaced with a surface, beyond which there is nothing. I speak with him to try to understand his suggestion.

 

►Watch on Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68qwzsjmoxU&list=PLnE3V9mcAvmYosrFCguPfGnFeI_CChb1j&index=1 

►Find out more about Niayesh's work: https://nafshordi.com/

►Follow Niayesh on Twitter: @nafshordi 

#BlackHoles, #QuantumMechanics, #QuantumPhysics, #HawkingRadiation, #BlackHoleInformationParadox, #Gravity, #TheoreticalPhysics, #Physics #NiayeshAfshordi, #GeneralRelativity

This publication is based upon work from COST Action RQI CA23115, supported by COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology). COST is a funding agency for research and innovation networks. Our Actions help connect research initiatives across Europe and enable scientists to grow their ideas by sharing them with their peers. This boosts their research, career and innovation. For more information see: www.cost.eu.

The black hole information paradox sits at the intersection of quantum mechanics and general relativity, two of our most successful theories of nature.

According to classical general relativity, anything that crosses the event horizon of a black hole is lost to the outside universe forever. Black holes are almost featureless. It doesnt matter if you build one from tea pots, or elephants, the information of what fell in is hidden forever.

But quantum mechanics tells a different story. In quantum theory, information cannot be destroyed. It can be scrambled, transformed, hidden, but never fundamentally erased. So what happens when these two ideas collide in the most extreme environment in the universe?

If a black hole forms from a star and later evaporates through Hawking radiation, what happens to the information about everything that fell in? Does it come back encoded in the radiation? Does it remain trapped forever? Or does physics itself break down at the boundary?

To make this concrete, imagine throwing a book into a black hole. If the black hole eventually evaporates completely, the total mass returns to the universe as radiation, but what happens to the detailed information inside that book? The words, the structure, the arrangement of matter that defined it? Depending on how you answer that question, you either preserve one of the deepest principles in quantum theory, or you are forced to accept that something fundamental about our understanding of reality is incomplete.

In this conversation, I speak with theoretical physicist Carlo Rovelli, one of the leading voices in quantum gravity, to explore the black hole information paradox. He outlines what the paradox is, explains where he belives many physicists get themselves confused, and puts forward his own solution to the paradox.

►Watch on YouTube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjsof8VfOM0&list=PLnE3V9mcAvmYosrFCguPfGnFeI_CChb1j&index=2https://youtu.be/vjsof8VfOM0

 

►You can find out more about Carlo's work here: https://www.cpt.univ-mrs.fr/~rovelli/

 

►Follow Carlo on Twitter: @carlorovelli

 

This publication is based upon work from COST Action RQI CA23115, supported by COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology). COST is a funding agency for research and innovation networks. Our Actions help connect research initiatives across Europe and enable scientists to grow their ideas by sharing them with their peers. This boosts their research, career and innovation. For more information see: www.cost.eu