The Black Hole War: My Battle with Stephen Hawking to Make the World Safe for Quantum Mechanics

The Black Hole War: My Battle with Stephen Hawking to Make the World Safe for Quantum Mechanics


View All Available Formats & Editions


What happens when something is sucked into a black hole? Does it disappear? Three decades ago, a young physicist named Stephen Hawking claimed it did-and in doing so put at risk everything we know about physics and the fundamental laws of the universe. Most scientists didn't recognize the import of Hawking's claims, but Leonard Susskind and Gerard t'Hooft realized the threat, and responded with a counterattack that changed the course of physics. THE BLACK HOLE WAR is the thrilling story of their united effort to reconcile Hawking's revolutionary theories of black holes with their own sense of reality-effort that would eventually result in Hawking admitting he was wrong, paying up, and Susskind and t'Hooft realizing that our world is a hologram projected from the outer boundaries of space.
A brilliant book about modern physics, quantum mechanics, the fate of stars and the deep mysteries of black holes, Leonard Susskind's account of the Black Hole War is mind-bending and exhilarating reading.

Product Details

ISBN-13: 9781433276439
Publisher: Findaway World
Publication date: 02/28/2009
Product dimensions: 4.70(w) x 7.80(h) x 1.20(d)

About the Author

Leonard Susskind has been the Felix Bloch Professor in theoretical physics at Stanford University since 1978. The author of The Cosmic Landscape, he is a member of the National Academy of Science and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and the recipient of numerous prizes including the science writing prize of the American Institute of Physics for his Scientific American article on black holes. He lives in Palo Alto, California.

Read an Excerpt

The Black Hole War My Battle with Stephen Hawking to Make the World Safe for Quantum Mechanics

By Leonard Susskind Little, Brown
Copyright © 2008
Leonard Susskind
All right reserved.

ISBN: 978-0-316-01640-7


San Francisco, 1983

The dark clouds of war had been gathering for more than eighty years by the time the initial skirmish took place in the attic of Jack Rosenberg's San Francisco mansion. Jack, also known as Werner Erhard, was a guru, a supersalesman, and a bit of a con man. Prior to the early 1970s, he had been just plain Jack Rosenberg, encyclopedia salesman. Then one day, while crossing the Golden Gate Bridge, he had an epiphany. He would save the world and, while he was at it, make a huge fortune. All he needed was a classier name and a new pitch. His new name would be Werner (for Werner Heisenberg) Erhard (for the German statesman Ludwig Erhard); the new pitch would be Erhard Seminars Training, aka EST. And he did succeed, if not in saving the world, at least in making his fortune. Thousands of shy, insecure people paid several hundred dollars each to be harangued, harassed, and (according to legend) told that they couldn't go to the toilet during the sixteen-hour motivational seminars run by Werner or one of his many disciples. It was a lot cheaper and faster than psychotherapy, and in a way it was effective. Shy and uncertain going in, the attendees appeared confident, strong, and friendly-justlike Werner-coming out. Never mind that they sometimes seemed like manic, hand-shaking robots. They felt better. "The training" was even the subject of a very funny movie called Semi-Tough with Burt Reynolds.

EST groupies surrounded Werner. Slaves would definitely be too strong a term; let's call them volunteers. There were EST-trained chefs to cook his food, chauffeurs to drive him around town, and all manner of house servants to staff his mansion. But ironically, Werner himself was a groupie-a physics groupie.

I liked Werner. He was smart, interesting, and fun. And he was fascinated by physics. He wanted to be part of it, so he spent wads of money bringing groups of elite theoretical physicists to his mansion. Sometimes just a few of his special physics buddies-Sidney Coleman, David Finkelstein, Dick Feynman, and I-would meet in his home for spectacular dinners catered by celebrity chefs. But more to the point, Werner liked to host small, elite conferences. With a well-equipped seminar room in the attic, a staff of volunteers to cater to our every whim, and San Francisco as the venue, the mini-conferences were lots of fun. Some physicists were suspicious of Werner. They thought he would use the physics connection in some devious way to promote himself, but he never did. As far as I can tell, he just liked hearing about the latest ideas from the characters who were hatching them.

I think there were three or four EST conferences altogether, but only one left an indelible imprint on me, and on my physics research. The year was 1983. The guests included, among other notables, Murray Gell-Mann, Sheldon Glashow, Frank Wilczek, Savas Dimopoulos, and Dave Finkelstein. But for this story, the most important participants were the three main combatants in the Black Hole War: Gerard't Hooft, Stephen Hawking, and myself.

Although I had met Gerard only a few times before 1983, he had made a big impression on me. Everyone knew that he was brilliant, but I sensed much more than that. He seemed to have a steel core, an intellectual toughness that exceeded that of anyone else I knew, with the possible exception of Dick Feynman. Both of them were showmen. Dick was an American showman-brash, irreverent, and full of macho one-upmanship. Once, among a group of young physicists at Cal Tech, he described a joke that the graduate students had played on him. There was a sandwich place in Pasadena where they served "celebrity" sandwiches. You could get a Humphrey Bogart, a Marilyn Monroe, and so on. The students had taken him to lunch there-I think for his birthday-and one after another ordered the Feynman sandwich. They had conspired with the manager beforehand, and the guy behind the counter didn't bat an eye.

After he finished the story, I said, "Gee, Dick, I wonder what the difference would be between a Feynman sandwich and a Susskind sandwich."

"Oh, they'd be about the same," he replied, "except the Susskind sandwich would have more ham."

"Yeah," I responded, "but a lot less baloney." That was probably the only time I beat him at that game.

Gerard is a Dutchman. The Dutch are the tallest people in Europe, but Gerard is short and solidly built, with a mustache and the look of a burgher. Like Feynman, 't Hooft has a strong competitive streak, but I am sure that I never got the better of him. Unlike Feynman, he is a product of old Europe-the last great European physicist, inheritor of the mantle of Einstein and Bohr. Although he is six years younger than I am, I was in awe of him in 1983, and rightfully so. In 1999 he was awarded the Nobel Prize for his work leading to the Standard Model of elementary particles.

But it wasn't Gerard whom I most remember from Werner's attic. It was Stephen Hawking, whom I first met there. It's where Stephen dropped the bomb that set the Black Hole War in motion.

Stephen is also a showman. He is a physically tiny man-I doubt that he weighs a hundred pounds-but his small body contains a prodigious intellect and an equally outsized ego. At that time, Stephen was in a more or less ordinary powered wheelchair, and he could still talk using his own voice, though he was very hard to understand unless you spent a lot of time with him. He traveled with an entourage that included a nurse and a young colleague who would listen to him very carefully and then repeat what he said.

In 1983 his translator was Martin Rocek, now a well-known physicist and one of the pioneers in an important subject called Supergravity. At the time of the EST conference, however, Martin was quite young and not so well known. Nevertheless, from previous meetings I knew that he was a very capable theoretical physicist. At some point in our conversation, Stephen (through Martin) said something that I thought was wrong. I turned to Martin and asked him for clarification of the physics. He looked at me like a deer caught in the headlights. Later he told me what had happened. It seems that translating Stephen's speech required such intense concentration that he was usually unable to keep track of the conversation. He barely knew what we were talking about.

Stephen is an unusual sight. I am not talking about his wheelchair or the obvious physical limitations of his body. Despite the immobility of his facial muscles, his faint smile is unique, simultaneously angelic and devilish, projecting a sense of secret amusement. During the EST conference, I found talking to Stephen very difficult. It took a long time for him to answer, and his answers were usually very brief. These short, sometimes single-word answers, his smile, and his almost disembodied intellect were unnerving. It was like communicating with the Oracle at Delphi. When someone submitted a question to Stephen, the initial response was absolute silence, and the eventual output was often incomprehensible. But the knowing smile said, "may not understand what I'm saying, but I do, and I am right."

The world sees the diminutive Stephen as a mighty man, a hero of extraordinary courage and fortitude. Those who know him see other sides: Stephen the Playful and Stephen the Bold. One evening during the EST conference, a few of us were out walking on one of San Francisco's famous brake-busting hills. Stephen was with us, driving his powered chair. When we reached the steepest section, he turned on the devilish smile. Without a moment's hesitation, he took off down the hill at maximum velocity, the rest of us startled. We chased him, fearing the worst. When we got to the bottom, we found him sitting and smiling. He wanted to know whether there was a steeper hill to try. Stephen Hawking: the Evel Knievel of physics.

Indeed, Hawking is very much a daredevil of a physicist. But perhaps his boldest move ever was the bomb he dropped in Werner's attic.

I can't remember how his lecture worked at EST. Today a physics seminar given by Stephen has him sitting quietly in his chair while a disembodied computer voice lectures from a previous recording. That computerized voice has become Stephen's trademark; as flat as it is, it is full of personality and humor. But back then, maybe he talked and Martin translated. However it happened, the bomb fell with full force on Gerard and me.

Stephen claimed that "information is lost in black hole evaporation," and, worse, he seemed to prove it. If that was true, Gerard and I realized, the foundations of our subject were destroyed. How did the rest of the people in Werner's attic receive the news? Like the coyote in the roadrunner cartoon who overruns the edge of the cliff: the ground had disappeared beneath their feet, but they didn't know it yet.

It is said of cosmologists that they are often in error but never in doubt. If so, Stephen is only half a cosmologist: never in doubt but hardly ever wrong. In this case, he was. But Stephen's "mistake" was one of the most seminal in the history of physics and could ultimately lead to a profound paradigm shift about the nature of space, time, and matter.

Stephen's lecture was the last that day. For about an hour afterward, Gerard stood glaring at the diagram on Werner's blackboard. Everyone else had left. I can still see the intense frown on Gerard's face and the amused smile on Stephen's. Almost nothing was said. It was an electric moment.

On the blackboard was a Penrose diagram, a type of diagram representing a black hole. The horizon (the edge of the black hole) was drawn as a dashed line, and the singularity at the center of the black hole was an ominous-looking jagged line. Lines pointing inward through the horizon represented bits of information falling past the horizon into the singularity. There were no lines coming back out. According to Stephen, those bits were irretrievably lost. To make matters worse, Stephen had proved that black holes eventually evaporate and disappear, leaving no trace of what has fallen in.

Stephen's theory went even further. He postulated that the vacuum-empty space-was full of "virtual" black holes that flashed into and out of existence so rapidly that we didn't notice them. The effect of these virtual black holes, he claimed, was to erase information, even if there was no "real" black hole in the vicinity.

In chapter 7, you will learn exactly what "information" means and also what it means to lose it. For now, just take it from me: this was an unmitigated disaster. 'T Hooft and I knew it, but the response from everyone else who heard about it that day was "Ho hum, information is lost in black holes." Stephen himself was sanguine. For me the toughest part of dealing with Stephen has always been the irritation I feel at his complacency. Information loss was something that just could not be right, but Stephen couldn't see it.

The conference broke up, and we all went home. For Stephen and Gerard, that meant back to Cambridge University and the University of Utrecht, respectively; for me a forty-minute drive south on Route 101 back to Palo Alto and Stanford University. It was hard to concentrate on the traffic. It was a cold day in January, and every time I stopped or slowed down, I would draw the figure from Werner's blackboard on my frosty windshield.

Back at Stanford, I told my friend Tom Banks about Stephen's claim. Tom and I thought about it intensely. To try to learn some more, I even invited one of Stephen's former students to come up from Southern California. We were very suspicious of Stephen's claim, but for a while we weren't sure why. What's so bad about losing a bit of information inside a black hole? Then it dawned on us. Losing information is the same as generating entropy. And generating entropy means generating heat. The virtual black holes that Stephen had so blithely postulated would create heat in empty space. Together with another colleague, Michael Peskin, we made an estimate based on Stephen's theory. We found that if Stephen was right, empty space would heat up to a thousand billion billion billion degrees in a tiny fraction of a second. Although I knew that Stephen was wrong, I couldn't find the hole in his reasoning. Perhaps that was what irritated me the most.

The ensuing Black Hole War was more than an argument between physicists. It was also a war of ideas, or perhaps a war between fundamental principles. The principles of Quantum Mechanics and those of General Relativity always seemed to be fighting each other, and it was not clear that the two could coexist. Hawking is a general relativist who had put his trust in Einstein's Equivalence Principle. 'T Hooft and I are quantum physicists who felt certain that the laws of Quantum Mechanics could not be violated without destroying the foundations of physics. In the next three chapters, I will set the stage for the Black Hole War by explaining the basics of black holes, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics.


Excerpted from The Black Hole War by Leonard Susskind
Copyright © 2008 by Leonard Susskind. Excerpted by permission.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.

Table of Contents

Introduction 3

Part I The Gathering Storm

1 The First Shot 17

2 The Dark Star 25

3 Not Your Grandfather's Geometry 50

4 "Einstein, Don't Tell God What to Do" 76

5 Planck Invents a Better Yardstick 111

6 In a Broadway Bar 117

7 Energy and Entropy 126

8 Wheeler's Boys, or How Much Information Can You Stuff in a Black Hole? 143

9 Black Light 157

Part II Surprise Attack

10 How Stephen Lost His Bits and Didn't Know Where to Find Them 179

11 The Dutch Resistance 193

12 Who Cares? 200

13 Stalemate 211

14 Skirmish at Aspen 225

Part III Counterattack

15 The Battle of Santa Barbara 233

16 Wait! Reverse the Rewiring 265

17 Ahab in Cambridge 271

18 The World as a Hologram 290

Part IV Closing the Ring

19 Weapon of Mass Deduction 309

20 Alice's Airplane, or The Last Visible Propeller 354

21 Counting Black Holes 366

22 South America Wins the War 395

23 Nuclear Physics? You're Kidding! 422

24 Humility 433

Epilogue 442

Acknowledgments 449

Glossary 451

Index 457

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

See All Customer Reviews

The Black Hole War: My Battle with Stephen Hawking to Make the World Safe for Quantum Mechanics 4.1 out of 5 based on 0 ratings. 54 reviews.
Kallanreed More than 1 year ago
Susskind is a really engaging author. Honestly I was surprised that a quantum physics book could be so entertaining. The book is accessible, so it's great for a casual physics lover. It's clear and concise with lots of great explanations to help the reader visualize the abstract ideas that are introduced and finally it has a plot. The book is really a story about his work to prove that black holes can't "lose information" and the physics is presented along the way as "aha! moments" and discovery from others in the field. If you're a physics enthusiast, you need to read this book.
J_H_Bytell More than 1 year ago
I am by no means a physicist. Just your basic computer guy, with an interest in ideas of all kinds. Having read Hawking's 'A Brief History of Time', I thought I'd see what Susskind had to say. It's scary: I think I understand most of what he is saying. Not, of course, on a practical level. Not on a level where I could pass one of his courses. But on a basic level. You have to trust yourself that you are capable of grasping concepts that you have no business being able to grasp. If you allow yourself that leeway, this book turns out to be a pretty nice read. You can really get into the battle of ideas going on here, and come away with an unexpected sense of passion for the subjects. At times, of course, the depth of the subject can overwhelm. But there's a lot of wit, humor, and respect for his colleagues' ideas. I was pleasantly surprised with the overall readability. For some, Susskind's approach will seem way too intellectual; too 'out there' to be of any practical use. After all, who but a theoretical physicist gives a damn about black holes? But try to get past it; there's a pretty good look into an area most people will never even glance into, and those people will have missed a fascinating story.
Mndgy More than 1 year ago
Susskind is one of the most interesting and colorfully thinkers we have. This book is gracious and interesting
review4U More than 1 year ago
For the scientifically literate lay person who is not intimidated by a few equations and graphs this is a superb book. Although I am not a physics professional I am a junkie for accessible books on relativity, quantum mechanics, black holes and abstract math. Within this broad category 'The Black Hole War' is one of the best books I have ever read. The author has a great sense of humor and is so thoroughly knowlegable about his subject matter that his explanations are accessible and elegant. His references to life sciences and the humanities also enliven the text. I would take an intro course with this guy in a minute. He is also able to bring his own contributions and thinking on relativity and quantum mechanics to life and unlike many experts in this field appears approachable and modest.
jasonlf on LibraryThing More than 1 year ago
One of the best popular physics books I have read in a long time. Leonard Susskind's The Black Hole War spends 450 pages focused on one question: what happens when information is absorbed by a black hole? It is a debate between Stephen Hawking and other general relativists who think that the information is lost and Gerard 't Hooft, Leonard Susskind and others, who are deeply uncomfortable with the conclusion that black holes can violate the second law of thermodynamics by reducing entropy.In the course of explaining this debate, Susskind necessarily goes through quantum mechanics, general relativity, string theory, and other areas of physics. And it is leavened with first person discussion of his personal odyssey and his obsession with Stephen Hawking, whose unvarnished portrait as epically arrogant and self-centered yet brilliant and charismatic is considerably more impressive than the pop culture version. The first person account not only makes for interesting reading it also lets you learn something about how science is advanced and debates are settled. Hawking posed his view in 1981. By 1993, there was significant theory/evidence that it was wrong but it still was not universally clear: at a conference in Santa Barbara the Susskind view prevailed in a 39-25 vote, not exactly the method most of us would recognize in determining universal scientific truths. By 2007 Hawking himself conceded in writing and paid a debt.What makes the book so good, however, is how much Susskind explains in a fundamental way, as close to first principals as possible. One of the remarkable results of the last few decades is that the amount of information stored in a black hole is proportional to its surface area, not its volume. Susskind shows how this result is derived by solving several equations, most of them explained or semi-derived in the text itself, ending with the remarkable result that almost all of the arbitrary constants cancel and you're left with what appears to be one of those fundamental equations that make you believe that physicists really have figured out some of the fundamental laws of nature.From explanations of Hawking radiation and Black Hole entropy, the book takes you through understanding why Hawking's view was so persuasive and the physical discoveries that were needed to overthrow it -- almost all of them generated by simple and profound thought experiments. The book shows that whether or not string theory is "true," it still helps settle existing questions and generate new ones, including the fact that the world can be thought of us a hologram that has a dual in a lower-dimensional, gravity-less world.I felt myself following almost everything until the last quarter of the book, which focused on Quantum Chromodynamics and string theory. Not sure if my increasingly low comprehension rate was anything that could be remedied by Susskind or inherent in the material.
muness on LibraryThing More than 1 year ago
Recommended by a friend, I enjoyed this book as an introduction to several physics topics I only knew of. I found it more engaging than previous attempts to read book in the same arena by Hawking and others. The book made me wish for "There are no Electrons" style books for quantum mechanics and string theory.
davesmind on LibraryThing More than 1 year ago
When I first saw the title, I must admit that I expected that this would be some bitter tirade regarding the relative value of the theories of Hawking and Susskind. I was very very wrong. This is a wonderful, imaginative, generous introduction to some of the deepest problems in physics. It has a joy running through it - without a shred of bitterness. Susskind clearly has a great passion for his work. He also has a great gift in his ability to explain difficult ideas. I have read many of the popular books on cosmology, string theory etc. I must say that this is my favorite.
drsnowdon on LibraryThing More than 1 year ago
A fantastic course through the world of modern physics aimed at the layman willing to address difficult concepts.
readermom on LibraryThing More than 1 year ago
This book was like a summary of everything I love about physics; the thought experiments, the elegant mathematics, the condensing of everyday reality into really bizarre activities on a subatomic level and the necessity of thinking in a completely new way to even begin to understand it all. The only thing I didn't like about this book is the continual regret that I do not have the mathematical chops to follow the math he didn't include.Susskind not only follows the progression of some extremely difficult physics with a translation everyone can understand, he also describes the personalities involved in the scientific dispute with wit and warmth. A scientific argument of this scale does not happen all that frequently and it is interesting to note that human qualities of curiosity, persistence and complacency have just as much to do with scientific achievement as mere cold facts do.The equal parts respect and frustration that are accorded to Stephen Hawking is also interesting. The one physicist that everyone knows about is proven to be wrong about an essential fact of science. That alone is enough to make a good general reading book. We have a tendency to put great scientists on pillars they don't deserve. Ever since Einstein people have thought of physicists as our society's answer to mystic gurus who have the keys to the universe the plebeian masses cannot understand. But they are people who have egos just like the rest of us.The author is direct in stating that String Theory and the interesting things happening in physics now is just the beginning of a revolution perhaps as epic as the changes that happened around the turn of the 20th century. There are a lot of things still to be figured out in this field, it is a very exciting time to be a physicist.
Johne37179 on LibraryThing More than 1 year ago
I have enjoyed Susskind's other books and this is no exception. My only complaint is that I wish someone would take a middle ground in writing science books. Either they are for those educated readers with interest, but little background in science, or they are for those with a PhD in the subject. I struggle through Penrose, and read the science for the millions. My doctorate is not in science, but my undergrad degree is and I just wish there were books written at the grad school level. I understand the issue of how formulas may be off-putting, but it is harder to gain a true understanding without them. The Feynman lectures have done well with some real science included. I wish Susskind had include more formulas and derivations. On the other hand, this is a very enjoyable read even if not presented with the depth the subject deserves.
ddowell on LibraryThing More than 1 year ago
The good: clearly written and entertaining exposition of very complex ideas about the tension between quantum theory and general relativity. The less good: self-serving version of intellectual rivalry between Susskind and Stephen Hawking.
Romina13 More than 1 year ago
He is my favorite writer. All of his books are a must. For me he is the best writer in Physics . I love all of his examples because they put you in a place where you can see whats is happening without getting lost. Much better writer than Hawking or Green .
windfeather More than 1 year ago
I have been intrigued and baffled by physics ever since I failed my first physics 101 college test, way back in 1973. Having been a class for non-science majors the professor was kind and merciful to us and most of us passed the class anyway. I have read quite a bit on all aspects of the subject since then and Susskind has done us liberal arts and agricultural students a favor. This is one of the most readable, informative and, as I said, entertaining physics books I have read. Make no mistake; this subject is deep and you must have a strong desire about wanting to know how humanity has come to understand the universe.
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Anonymous More than 1 year ago