Quantum speculations on physics at the Planck scale / discussion incl J Christian

0:00 And it is actually quite a problem, I don't speak for him, that you see in a circle all sorts of objects, and you want to depict it as three-dimensionally, so that you have a sphere, and a sphere is basically a set of objects, which is the galaxy, which is the sun, which is the moon, which is the sun, which is the moon, which is the sun, which is the moon. They don't need to walk, they don't need to walk, it's just a mass. And then you can ask those objects to navigate. And it will have definite strength outside. In fact, there will be a lot of r-squared gravitational force field outside the sphere and zero gravity inside. And then, due to the gravitation field, these things will start to move according to laws of physics that any diagram is to produce. And what you'll find is that if you start the propagation initially, they'll start to move. Now I take these things very far apart so they start to move slowly but eventually they'll come closer and then at some point something will happen. First of all, the gravitation field, those blue lines outside, becomes warmer because the things come closer together. The gravitation field might become so strong that you might cross the magnetic line. It's still sitting in the middle here as in this picture. It's called horizon. It's just a purely mathematically defined surface. I think this is pre-engineering, so really surface is required. And the surface should be defined as being that position where the particles would be if the escape velocity from that point on would be the velocity applied. Now I stress that the laws of physics After the loss of physics matter, it's still an ordinary loss of physics. In these things, in the derivation sense, things still revert. So it's ordinary loss of physics after the loss of physics matter.

2:30 Also, the loss of space and time are controlled by general relativity, but the kind of general relativity that most of us believe to be true. For instance, it has been checked by having double nuclear star systems in the sky, which were very sensitive probes to test the laws of general relativity, and as far as we know, the laws are exactly the same. Okay, we have to use some local world associations to understand how television sets work, and they move practically at the speed of light, but apart from that, the laws of physics for them is very ordinary laws of physics. So not that they will still be working even the moment that it goes through the magic line. So by itself, there's nothing strange about that. So they go through the line, and let's not follow them. The state velocity from those objects is bigger than the speed of light. The television sets will still be working, but nobody outside will be watching the show because they can't see anything right. And in fact the signals that the television sets receive have the signals which have been sent to them very long ago, to them. But they can still receive signals, but if they try to block out the signals, we will never see them anymore, because those signals will have to go faster in the local field of light. In fact, if television sets proceed further, they will go all the way to the origin, and then they might produce something that we call a singularity. The fact that there is a singularity in the origin is totally irrelevant for physical quantum fuel, because physicists never see these television sets. We would only see the dotted, again, circles here as a limiting surface, even the surface itself is a limiting surface. You only see things that sit outside of it, because you never see what's inside. There, from a mathematical point of view, the intelligence that is made of singularity is of no direct physical relevance, and that is why there is no apparent conflict with any law of physics. Even the existence of singularity is no conflict with ordinary laws of physics, because we won't see what happens. So, the existence of this red eye is all we need to say to understand it as a black ball.

5:00 This here is a space-fying picture of a black hole. It's the same thing we've now seen with space for local and time verticals, and those matters, those television sets here, are the green dotted lines moving inward, producing a black hole. And the yellow cones here are the light cones experienced by local observers. That's how the rays of light are going everywhere in the universe. And you might see that the blue surface here is the surface where the surface is representing rays of light, which are trying to get out, they are just panting the light from it. And you also have to follow the method, which goes slower than the local speed of light, which means that the green light is within their light flow. So we see that you can go to the horizon, but you can't get out unless you go faster than the local speed of light. So, the horizon is a long way from where you can get in and out. And even light itself will not escape if you try to make observations. In fact, if you are at point A in the picture, then when you look at the object, you'll never see anything from inside the blue surface, but you'll see, for instance, things from inside or maybe from the exterior. So that's where the signal comes from. And it functions inside the signals from the algorithm. So this is a space-time picture of a black hole. And then the similarity is right in the middle. The third course is totally uniform. And so what happens in the similarity is that there is no black holes. Now the big discovery made by Stephen Hawking is this, that black holes actually emit objects. And that was unheard of in the Shady Magishu, the black hole appears to emit particles. It's very strange because you would expect that. There are no signals coming from the black hole. Indeed, these are not signals. They are just totally random particles coming out.

7:30 Time to do, quantum field theory in a black-bound surrounding, in the surroundings of the black hole. And when the practice saw a new statement, it was called difficulty. And difficulty was, define the state with no particles in it, the vacuum state. The difficulty found was not to define the vacuum state of the black hole. The only thing it could was define the state of the black hole with no particles. And no particles came in and no particles came out. And then, you're sort of struck by the effect of genius, which is that perhaps these algorithms are real. They are simply there. They are not just a preference of the imagination. They will really be emitted by the computer. And all you realize is that you compute how many particles of black hole it emits. And you realize that the expression for that is just like a light bulb. The black hole has a certain temperature, and the particles are emitted in agreement. This is where our subject becomes very murky, where we difficultly understand what's going on. So, for instance, you might understand the quantum mechanics of the... This is one of the keys to understand the entire black hole as a quantum object, which may absorb things, may omit things, and all of them do exactly the same thing. Well, it's hard to do that, isn't it? The problem is that we have a weight function for quantum physics, and we need a weight function for all of them. This weight function is a super-needle-like function. In other words, we're using a weight function to move to a point where we can have a weak point. We can have a weak point, but we can't have a weak point. However, the number part of the weight function is linked by the root of half of the weak point. In statistical physics, we know that the wave function is fixed. They say that one side of the wave function is permanently not being observed, and that means that there is a deep remain of the quantum state.

10:00 And the deep remain of the quantum state is easily observed if things happen that are not expected. And that's the way I call things that are not perceptive. And that's why the conditions of algebra and mathematics are not of a pure state, but of a positive state, a mixed state. And a deep thermal radiation, or a thermal state, is always positive and different. It's usually a mixed, mixed personality. And then Hawking found that the theory of the black hole is a method in terms of pure states. It's a mixed theory. And that, since it doesn't matter, it's already common sense. It's already common sense. If you find a system, you already have pure states. The black hole is a third-party system, it's something in there, where it gives you the state of mathematics. And this is what the theory of the black hole is. There is another way of explaining this problem. You can think of it as a call to react to those things going in by initiating things going out. However, this reaction is often controlled by a lot of people for a better thing. Things coming out depend on what things go in. Well, if you say that's what I've got called, here's the thing I mean to define, here's the relation, so now all the relation comes back from here, but in order to have the outer relation to be controlled by the inner relation, you need a pickle. A pickle from here to here, and that pickle is going backwards in time. If you forbid pickles to go backwards in time, you can't have all the solutions backwards. So this is a number of information from the black holes. So you would like to see a black hole as an artifact or just as a heavy object, created by imploring a black hole in a black hole. And that is an important factor. That is an important factor. Here the whole thing we look for is that we find a black hole. But it is not the final answer to Hawking because it is something that is going to be a mystery.

12:30 So, you know, it comes in two stages, right? And it comes in mixed stages, right? That's not the final answer to the final answer. So something is wrong. It's part of that. But there's a similarity between them. You have to say, well, that's them, the situation they were in. He was a black hole and not one of them. So you have to say, no, no, black hole, not one of them. There's something wrong with the detailed interpretation of the mathematical theory. Maybe Hawking's definition includes the large levels of the species that are living, where it can't control all the things. Because if you look able to control everything, then you have all the things. Indeed, quantum mechanics is pure. Just like the thing that happens when you do a thing, you get a bunch of problems, because all these things are sterling in this box. Just because you can't control all these individual things, you're not really getting the bunch of problems. The same thing for the black hole and for a cube. Now, for the black hole, you will then see that they classify. And then, in calculation, you can do this, or this, and this. Very simple, very fundamental, and always very practical. You can ask all of these things for a very simple question. How many states, how many quantum states for the black hole do you need? In fact, the physics of physics is a very precise answer to these questions. Not only precise, the physics of physics tries to identify these two types of objects in a certain time of their life, and the objects are brought into this particular race, and in this particular race, they can compute what is actually possible. An empathy was done directly. How many different physics states are there? And has there been one long statement from the Senate that states won't have remakes of properties in their practice, but to be able to take them? A fake case is certified unregistered in the public opinion. If you recognize your black hole, And I won't come in with all these mathematical details, I'll just give you the outcome of this calculation. The outcome is that the space that the black hole can be in can be limited.

15:00 As if the black hole had a grid on the surface, where the unit surface elements of the grid are exactly 0.7242565. And then from 1965, we have a new study of mathematics that describes quantum and quantum components of our lives, which is easy to compute. And all we give to them, you put either 0 or 1. And it becomes how many ways can you do that? What do you find in that ball? What is the total surface? And how many years long can you put on that surface? And that gives you, automatically, the number of states in that whole 10 years. So this was a very, very neat answer. At first, I thought it was very neat to think, aha, black hole is just like a physical object. Maybe it's neat like the bottom of the water where the molecules can be so many different things. But it's also very interesting because we're getting into the fact that the world is not a law of general relativity. This surface here is now grey-brown in my picture. This surface was not the mathematical surface. It was defined to be the surface from which knowledge came about in the outside world. But, for physics, it was empty space. And it was unheard of in empty space. It's still up in fifth and five, and it's actually wrong for this to be seventh. And this is fifth and five, and it's even over seventh. It's higher than the security. I don't know. Maybe you like those standards. I know you don't need fifth and five. Where do you get fifth and five? Some of them. But fifth and five, even if it's the best of the fifth, if you don't understand the arguments, those are fifth and five. So, if you're hoping that you're going to be able to tell us that you're not only trying to come up with that hope, if you hope for space science, that space science has information on it, information that's on it, and the amount of information anywhere in the universe ought to be told by 150 stations, 30,000, 150,000, 100,000, 100,000.

17:30 Optimistically, well, we think that the volume of space-time, in spite of it moving in, we can make a fundamental contribution in their ability to describe their lives as a whole. And then we find that there are lots and lots of common features. And now we have the third one, Agnes, that tells you what that's called, and it's called this, or this, and this, or this, or this, or this, or this, or this, or this, or this, or this, or this, or this, or this, or this, The subject here is to control the information of one bit of time per second, from here to this subject, that from here happens to be horizon, you can use all the information in this video to figure out all the subjects up here. So, it is a true idea that by general form of information, the information is transformed by the order of space, and here to there, and here to here. In fact, so the thing is that all human beings have to make a great open surface in the universe where you only have to trust the mind of your own surface, all the surface, in order to have a complete degree of freedom of nature. So it's ludicrous to think that human beings are conscious of surface and not conscious of body. Here is where the mystery starts. Use the questions first. If you read the first one, you can think of several different questions and then use the arguments, all the different ones, to find the answer to what the second one could apply to all the questions. And this is for paying attention to the questions. Our bottom line is to understand how we do it. So now we want to understand the dynamics of these words, but you have to explain it to the world to the press. You can do it any way you like, put the information on it, and then let your students try all the new things you do.

20:00 This, I find, is an extremely powerful tool, this, and a couple of other things. It's a huge difference between what you do and what you don't do. So, one question, how do we identify with the locality, and how do we do that as a paradox? So, there is a paradoxical situation that we bring the freedom in a three-dimensional universe, It's hard to realize that in any small or little cavity, there is a string theory that basically comes in this direction, that you have some sort of gauge theory, you have all the redundancies, you have the freedom of a gauge theory, you have a gauge theory on a gauge theory, a gauge theory on a gauge theory, you have all these gauge theories, you can draw, you can look at all the gauge theories. The only thing left is to have the redundancies. Something of this kind. This doesn't help very much to create a credible theory on why you can come from all over the world. So this is the mystery which is the workshop. Well, one could argue that everything about this can be realized within a quantum theory, but there is also a state in which there is a quantum theory. And that's what the rest of my time I will talk about, which is quantum mechanics. Why should the issues not be related to the question of the foundations of quantum mechanics? So we get the problem, the foundations of space, time, and self, the beginning of freedom. Now this has been the law of physics for a long time, that you want to have locality, you want to understand quantum mechanics, you want to understand how to develop the forces of violence, all these sessions have the ample interest in discussion in physics and in quantum mechanics.

22:30 What is it? Why is it so impossible to construct a model which explains to us why we use a clearly possible chemical? Can quantum mechanics be, in some sense, a way to deal with the distribution, the engineering, the product of quantum mechanics? Well, I... The hippocampus follows from this direction in the fire that the hippocampus has known about the holograms of the world, and from the evidence I should again pass on the case about the hippocampus. So the hippocampus, as follows in this diagram, the hippocampus has known about this diagram. I believe that there should be a half a series of sessions, and okay, I have to admit, I have to confess that speaking of cosmology looks like a hidden area of view. Now hidden areas have been disrupted plenty by many people from the debate across the world. And of course, as we saw, people argue that you can't really make a terrible business theory in a terrible business theory. But the complaint I have about this usual construction of business theory is that people have always tried to do weight function design as a final structure of particles. And they're trying to ascribe the potential, the fundamental reality to the weight function. This is not what I'm trying to do in my argument. Rather than the weight function, I like to try and use the space of the quantum mechanics to be matched around the steps of the fundamental theory of the quantum mechanics. Don't worry about it. So, here is the starting point, and I can only explain... In the way that I like to talk about in my theory of quantum physics, what I would say is that a universe can be in space. With a scale, a scale of output in terms of a single particle. You might think of integrating a collision or a momentum or a particle or allopathy or anything you like.

25:00 You just try to state a universe in it. That's actually what it stands for. It's where all the possible states of the universe are standing in, and that's cool, because the universe evolves from one state to the next. Now here is a specific example of a model universe. A model universe evolves from state 1 to state 2 to state 3, and then to state 1. For example, the universe has three states. There are two different forms of a universe. Two different kinds of universes have different properties. The theory of everything in the universe is one goes to two, two goes to three, and three goes to four. To get such a law, we have to solve such a law. Now, I could decide to describe that same law of physics by using a unique algorithm. From here, I'm going to use notation of mathematics. I'm using the common notation to describe a unique algorithm. And that allows me to introduce new states. These are two positions of your mind. That which is pure mathematics, or if you will, a way of doing statistics, by saying that alpha squared is the probability of the five-state sum, beta squared is the probability of the five-state 2, and gamma squared is the probability of the five-state 3, but none of these are absolutely not true. This is just a way of doing statistics. Now, admitted that for a user position in just three states, this is a highly redundant way of reading the statistics. But of course, the e-user, so this is more than three possible states. The tenth in the tree is something like that. So then, this might possibly be an efficient way to handle statistics, and then to do some miracle mathematics with those compact numbers. Well, but at this stage, even for more general cases, which allows you to diagonalize the U matrix, now you're going deeper into quantum mechanics, you're going to introduce those cases to reduce which U is diagonal, and of course U has three languages, it keeps three roots of the identity, and of course nobody stops you from writing that as exponential and autonomous.

27:30 Then there's Antonius in Einstein and Decimus X-Miles has exactly described it as an atom in the magnetic field. So now we can turn the argument around and say that all the three users were atoms in the magnetic field. That's been wrong and it leads us to this mistake. Then someone could argue, yes, now I have a theory of everything, I could actually repeat this picture and say that that happened back to this system, where after going through other tables with this distribution algorithm, then it happens to the clock that they want to repeat, but certainly not you can do that. And that's the kind of theory that's probably going to happen. So, if the universe just didn't happen, we wouldn't have been able to describe, to describe exactly a fundamental law of physics that's out of our comprehension, that's out of our understanding of the equation B of O, the operator, the derivative of the original derivative, being based on the equation B of O. The B of O is a federal operation between the mute and the whole environment. So those operations don't behave very quantum mechanically. They always commute as if they do not come together. If you have vehicles, then you can describe the evolution of nature in a classical way. The question is whether at all vehicles exist in the human universe. Normally things do not exist. It's not easy to find video, but in fact, generally, for classical systems, it can run down to Newtonians, and those Newtonians look quite possibly chemical. So, for instance, if there is a Newtonian representation, just a differentiation, showing a thing from a ball, Then that is defined by the Hamiltonian, the Hamiltonian being P dot x, and if we could say this Hamiltonian, that P is a true constant of x, h of i is really huge, then with the dot x, this Hamiltonian would generate P log of x, which is totally deterministic. So if the Hamiltonian universe were linear in its presence, then the universe would be deterministic.

30:00 So the only problem I'm not really going to do here is that it doesn't seem to be in the area of mathematics, and I should just say that I'm very worried. But the fact of the matter is, maybe we haven't been able to identify the three D's of the world. Maybe they do exist, but we haven't identified them. The problem is, if we're going here, it's not coming from the law. The problem is that we have to go into the real world. How come in the real world, I'm telling you, it's not true? Now you have to realize that the theory of quantum mechanics today is what it is because there is a ground state. If the Hamiltonian did not have the ground state, there would not have been an effect on this part of the theory and the world would have been entirely different from what we have now. It's so difficult that you wouldn't recognize anything that would be called an effect of a mutual sense. So, the fact that a Hamiltonian is a ground state is absolutely essential for a pendulum of momentum. And this Hamiltonian that you have to use to lift it to the ground is a ground state. It's really an illusion. The pendulum of momentum actually don't have to be positive, or maybe, but that would be luck. This thing has no ground state. So that's now the difficult part. How do you predict that Manitoba needs to generate the ground state? Somehow you have to project out all those states which have the ground state, all those states that put that Manitoba in the eigenvectors to survive, and Manitoba's eigenvectors somehow disappear. How could that happen? This is now my problem. The way to address that, perhaps. Many systems, even graphically, have some conserved form of division called energy. Take, for example, a classical harmonic oscillator, or a classical harmonic atom. They always have something that's conserved, which is called energy. Now, the energy that is feasible to have a form of division is changeable, not an operator which replaces things without change. So, what we want... In some parts of the block in mathematics, we see both energy problems, the problems of the anatomical values and the problems of the world.

32:30 To evolve from this problem to the other problem, we need the ratio of the two in the fundamental physics of quantum physics. The goal is to take a projection of the mechanism, and then project it out to those states where amalgamates have to be equal in radius, in order to have an effect. Mathematics for all of these things, so as the rest of the universe, and then we have the anatomies found in the world. It is often used in the world, but it's easy to generalize by doing it in the world. So maybe this is to make it more simple. How is the anatomy controlled by the mind, and what is the contribution to it? The topography that we have shown you could more or less represent the speed and the level. But if you want to find the speed and the level, the speed and the level should be... At least, controlled by the periodic motion of the motion. Suppose you're going in periodic motion, then the period will tell you what the spacing is between the levels of that zone. You have to go and tell that it's a two-part n over t. And I would expect that to be n, but you go one period, the space will go back to itself. The e to the i times two times the... The anatomines, from time to time, must be notable of one, which means it is two-fifths of the future energy, and from that we derive immediately the anatomines of the integer divided by the period. The period might depend on the energy u, so you get this identity. T of u times u must be two-fifths of the integer. So you get Hamiltonian discrete energy levels, and ultimately you have to make sure that if you would solve this, you get the answer to the problem. And so you get a discrete set of energy levels. If you originally practice a continuum of unharmonic objects, then this logarithm mechanism would force you to have all these discrete energy levels. Now, that will be hindered at a total distance. Now my question is, if I turn the idea upside down, suppose you have a particular system, but suppose that for some reason the system takes only the speed and the energy level.

35:00 So somehow this is only the speed and the energy level. If the energy level is this, we could say mainly that this is a consequence of a lot in mathematics. So, thirdly, if you have a plastic system that is all in this piece, stable water, then that plastic system might be able to distribute the quantum physics. It is as if you thought that you looked at a hydrogen atom and put a computer with a hydrogen atom in a system that has stable attractors and unstable decoders and laws of motion. So now you can take exactly the same thing. And that you can realize by introducing the notion of information law. So, of course, there are a lot of different things. And a simple example of this is a system of two degrees of freedom, and the law of physics could be represented by this black arrow in the middle, and it suggests that this is the people who are going to be elected, so this system will prevent you from taking the order if you don't take the order. If you take the order, you're going to take the order after a while. If you don't take the order, you're going to be fired. There are two stable orders, the red one and the green one, the best order, and all the other orders will be unstable. So this system will happen while we're all going to have these four different kinds of things. So now I imagine a main unification world where we're going to have attractors and resultants. And the attractors form the key parts of all possible models. Suppose that, after a while, you lost it, you lose the indication, and you have to do it again, and you have to do it again, and then you have to do it again, and then you have to do it again, and then you have to do it again, and then you have to do it again, and then you have to do it again, And then we have the motion of the motion of the motion of the motion of the motion of the motion of the motion of the motion of the motion of the motion of the motion of the motion of the motion of

37:30 But as if there's such a model of how to do these things logically, you ought to be publicizing these models. That's what makes it here, moving in a very strong position here. But that's really not the reason I made it. It's because I'm here over there, and it's too close to that level. So, simply, that's not the reason I made it. But then you could say, well, what could happen in Step 4 is unnecessary in this model, because after a certain amount of time, you will no longer want Step 4, only develop it. Why do you use Step 4 in any of these systems? Well, indeed, in this single model, you can simply eliminate, erase Step 4, and then you're back to the three distributions. But if the universe is 10 to the 10 to the 10 to the 10 to the 4 states, Then it goes extremely high to identify which of those are in the cycle and which of those are not in the cycle. You don't know. It's very, very difficult. So you have to do each thing in theory, which are stable in the cycle and which are not. That's the problem. That's all in meditation after all. So there's a different way to proceed here, and I'd like to talk about some of the equivalent practices. The first stage of all of the four, together, is one of Goebbels' classes, and then the second, Goebbels' classes, they form a subset of the method U, which will be between them, and then you get to see that in the fourth. The idea now in the theory of mathematics is that nature is very large. There are very many states that go to the same state. We have to look at the black hole and look at things that are going to the black hole. When I was discussing with people there, instead of looking at the black hole, we were suggesting that the black hole was the elephant in the black hole. But it's not the elephant in the black hole, it's the elephant in the black hole. And then, after a while, very small numbers of others don't do that at all. After a while, it might all become identical. But in the end of the week, then, we're going to go on with three weeks each week. So, it's not the same. It's a different class. So, what kind of a result does that give us? What would be the result of that lecture? And so on, that indeed, even though the original states of physics, which are called mathematical mathematics, revolve in this dimension of volume, it could very well be that all these different classes don't talk about the same thing.

40:00 And this is how the practical part of mathematical mathematics is, that somehow there is so much information in mathematics, that all the information that they keep is not embedded in the surface. And that's actually quite an interesting way to model that. There are many examples of such models, but this is more about the physical issues, the work, but this gives you a way to get these things to work. Now, the definition of the field of thought requires knowledge of the future and this might put an avenue towards understanding why a paradigm of conflict is globally invariable. Because the conflict is not a fidelity. It has to go somewhere in the future. Assume that you can construct a quantum state. My now question is that in some cases, the quantum states are not thought to be locally defined in the field. They are clearly global, but not the way of doing the specificity of the quantum state. You know, you have to look at it from a different perspective. So, if there are two possibilities right now, the first is to invent the expression of matter. In other details, I'm going to be answering these questions. Time records and other strings are harmonic oscillators, and the arguments that are used in this lecture can be worked out by using the harmonic oscillators of things that are either right-leaning or left-leaning, and they explicitly are harmonic oscillators of them. So that's the first place I'm talking about information law, pseudo-information law. So I can provide an example to try to understand the theory using these terms. But, there is easier said than done, I realize that very well, so we're still searching for good models. Models really explain why things work on the ground, and I'm suggesting models really explain how electrons can go through space, and show the theorem, etc. We'd love to see that. We'd love to see how such a model of development is going to really define the things that I assume this company is still trying to understand, which I think what I'm showing here is an interesting portfolio added towards the model of innovation.

42:30 In the last 20 years, by the way, you have gone to great lengths just to avoid one obvious conclusion from the black hole information box, and that is that humanity is broken. Why should we be so dogmatic about humanity? I am not so conservative of mentality. I am very conservative of causality. I insist that lots of nations are formed in such a way that the future cultures act not like they are. And also, of course, talking of causality, the thought of causality must be coherent. I have a piece of literature called Causality 1, but details are an action of causality because I don't know all the details. In other words, if there is a theory which is non-limitary, but is the result of a law of physics, no quantum paradox, then we would use it as a theory. And if the mathematics is not clear to you, you probably do not have a clue as to the answer. So that's what the problem is with all of this. It's also the problem to take information from the fundamental model at the first place and do it as a method of literature. So that is the problem. If you take two positions at the same stage, which merge into one, then the total length square of the methods is not observed.

45:00 And so the methods, depending on the time, can no longer have the same probability. And that's why it's a question for you of doing it. Or, the other question is, how do mathematics and mathematics work? So, if no other question is my answer, then the answer to the other question. Did you tell us whether the student laptop and the textbook at that point could be used on the Web to make the content in real time? Yes, that question was a very hot issue for some time. I would think it's very natural to believe that the black hole will vanish completely. You can compute this total intensity of the radiation and find that by the time the black hole loses energy, it then has to become smaller, and because it becomes smaller, it will radiate more intensely. And so it radiates more and more intensively, and so it will lose energy faster and faster, and it will explode with a big explosion, and then what? Well, then what? Certainly there are anywhere understanding exactly all the functions of everything. But in perspective, what? Well, as you said, the most likely thing that is likely is that nothing will be left. Everything will evaporate and there will be nothing left but ordinary little particles. That's the most natural thing to suspect. But there's a deep problem then, again, in this new therapy, that the same platform evolves into a set of quantum states which contain just ordinary particles. Well, those states we understand more or less. So we always understand the dimensionality of that known space, and that should be the same known space as the original black hole. But that's the first part. It seems that the black hole is a much bigger known space, because in its entire path, it has absorbed billions and billions of more particles than this sphere. This was a deep, deep, important problem at the time. Now, most of us agree that Martin's argument was too general. There are two absolutes, probably no longer all at the microscopic level, not defiantly enough to conclude that there is a great deal of neutrality, and we have to pretend that there is a great deal of neutrality. So, most would not believe that the black hole will evaporate, but if you take Hawking's derivation literally, that's more literally than is legal considering what the norm of normal physics, then the black hole cannot evaporate, but something has stayed alive.

47:30 But whatever that something is, it has a meaning, for the black hole randomly, that's the easy part in the beginning. My question would be to imagine what kind of thing that would be. So now there's lots of things in the world that go hand in hand with physics. It really is just a very exotic project, unlike anything we are doing. This is a very nice question. Is it possible that Schrodinger's equation could not be valid on this Planck case? Is there any possibility of such an answer? Well, Schrodinger's equation is valid. But stuff I don't know. Schrodinger's equation is not a single evolving particle. Now, first, we don't believe that particles don't just evolve by themselves. They don't overmultiply function. So, the meaning of all this is that the Schrodinger equations do not apply to all humans. And that, I do believe, is not a Schrodinger equation. It's an Schrodinger equation which fits the algorithm for describing a deterministic universe. And I think that is possible. So, it's both a Schrodinger equation and a deterministic universe. That is now my theory. Now, other things are from other theories, including the possibility that there is no Schrodinger equation. Okay, so in some sense you are indicating Einstein, you know, the goal of Einstein is controversy, and somehow you have to go more in the direction of Einstein. Yes, I agree that this approach is very probably, although I can't do the science anymore, very probably what Einstein did was right. And anyway, I think that I've lost a lot of time. I've had a terrible thought about quantum mechanics, and I would say it's really crazy that people know about quantum mechanics, and that there's something behind all this, and what's behind all this, and what people need to do with it. Well, I guess, I'd like to know, which of the two rules do you use? Do you use derivations of both, and how do you use those? Um, it's very hard to do a generic answer to that.

50:00 One of the first answers is, well, it's a great answer. I think it's very sparse, maybe a small number as well, which I think is a guarantee, which I don't believe. But I would explain in my talk that the difficulty is in finding what the problem state is. And it's important not to assume that you can make a machine and then just ask it why it's performing that way. Just like that. But I think that that's not the case. And that actually the definition of space defines knowledge of the future, even if you are very knowledge of science. So if you try to make it, do it very, very scientifically, you are apparently not able to look at the future in order to define how long the space is. So we have, from building, eight or seven different descriptions. That's one thing. The other thing is, you might suspect, that it is pernicious to be silent about whether the patient acts or not in the form of an acronym. He, himself, or she, is also controlled by law of physics, and he is not an outside entity of the Internet, but by the law of physics. Again, that doesn't answer all the questions. Could it be good? I don't know if it is good. Again, that doesn't answer all the questions. The first bit is the following, which is that we are assuming laws of physics. But it could also be that at the plant scale, so much chaos takes place, that what we perceive here, and part of it, or people in the world, in the natural world, what we perceive here, is actually not at all an algorithmic outflow of mathematics or quantum physics, but it is an extremely chaotic solution. So we are making a chaotic solution of the geometric system. But there's some regularity in chaos, which is what we call quantum mechanics, but it's not really systematic logic, it's always violations, it's too irregular to be all-encompassing. Quantum mechanics can only tell you about probabilities in this chaos, but not how individual things evolve. The sort of point of view that's quite effective is that the mystery here is why quantum mechanics, why not some sort of quantum classification? It could be one extra question, but something of this sort.

52:30 Now, exactly what is the correct answer, I don't know, and I decided simply to attack the problem from the very other end. It is my thought that we need a model where we can mimic the Erland-Franken experiments, or the typical physics experiments, and then explain why there is a general violation of the Bell-Wilson problem. I sort of need an open-ended solution in one of these experiments that I am doing now. Do any of the considerations you discussed at the end of your talk give you any insight into the cosmological constant problem? I am mystified by the cosmological constant problem. I actually think that's a different thing. It should be answered. I'm very much aware that a professional model of nature tells you why you talk about mathematics this way, if it's not real at all. It's very small. Whether or not the theory is less important is very small, and we don't even know why and how that could be realized in any model of nature at the time. It's a mystery, and I'm very much aware that it needs to be solved. Well, it is true that everything comes together in a very different light, and maybe there isn't a solution, but it won't be a big problem. In connection with violation of causality or knowledge of the future, does the Planck time, 10 to the minus 43 seconds, somehow fit into this violation? Would it be logical to say that you're perfectly at liberty to consider evolution between the ticks of the Planck cosmic clock? That cannot be defined and therefore the knowledge of the future 10 to the minus 43 seconds hence does not pose any difficulty at all logically with the consistency of the theory.

55:00 Does the Planck town feature in this? Well, I would disagree with that. I would say that even a very conservative or pessimist of 43 seconds goes with the problem. Because I exist at law of nature, I don't think that this is ending me. Ending me is a very important fact. If law of nature did not end me, there would not be seven seconds left. But even if I'm a 10th of 43 seconds result, forward I'm dead. Then, we have a problem that going down might land you in a different state than you started off in, and you get the follow-up. Or at the same state, you might have a different solution. And so the either true or the other solution to this question might be acceptable. I won't be patient. Of which you can understand, but at the exact wrong solution. So I'm going to tell you what happens if you have one time and you want to go forward and not back. Then I guarantee you have the exact wrong solution. So, without that, it's practically impossible. In any case, everything happening in the universe should be a form of reasoning to get to the answer. And that form of reasoning has nothing to do with time. It's a definition of time. So there's an error of logic, which we identify as an error of time, and my perception is that that probably is what the error of time means, and that is fidelity is unique, and that's unique, and it has to be must in formulating all of this. So fidelity is a very hard work on my listening mind, and it is difficult for me to accept, even though it doesn't matter what it is that I do. I think this is a tremendous amount of thought and I think this is perhaps the start of the study. Thank you very much.

57:30 Thank you for your attention. Thank you. Yes, I did, yes. That's right, yes.

1:00:00 Not without injuries either, but they won't hurt you with that. No, no, it was over. You've been trained. Yeah, it was a great mistake. I shouldn't have taken the bus by then. I'll ask you a question. I want to be pretty clear where you're coming from. I don't know why now. What's wrong with him right there, actually? What's wrong with him right there? He wasn't there. I wouldn't be very surprised if he wasn't there. Thank you for watching. The whole Bekenstein bound holographic approach. Actually, I'm really looking forward to it. Have you finished your paper on the holographic principle? I haven't finished yet. Holographic principles are to be demanded. Yes, yes. I haven't finished yet. And I hope that I'm respected by a much better group than holographic people. Let's just hope. Well, I do like the principle.

1:02:30 I do like to know why you think there are so many better things than the whole Bekenstein bound. I will look forward to it, but what are the better things that you'll be satisfied with? He said that that's him, but I don't know whether it's Hawking. He's just playing around with the rest of the people. And, one of the terms was that he left the information law puzzle and went on to send him... It's everything that is possible in this power to avoid an obvious conclusion from that. Which is that one has to give up his power. Yes, and that's the end of the story. Of course it's not the end of the story. I mean, you have the sense of the theory to do that. Sure, but there have been plenty of suggestions. I feel there is another question. Right, Mike, well, take care and hope to see you around. Hey, can we start it up for me? Oh, I'll see you there then. OK, take care. Good to see you again.