#### Susskind

I do not like QM but I have immense respect for those who teased it out of nothing.
I know that I could not have and that QM explains some things with no other known quantitative explanation.
I have little basis for judging Susskind’s contributions but I heard one lecture of his that was somewhere between the level of his popular lectures and his professional level.
I was impressed.
I fear that the current unification attempts are biased toward warping GR instead of QM. (starting with Hawking’s black hole radiation)
I am more steeped in GR than QM.
If I ever see a convincing unification, I fear it will be even weirder than QM.
The math of QM is still embedded in a flat manifold, except for some of the Perimeter Institute folk and some odd-balls in Europe.

As I read:

I like that he invokes the computer metaphor; it makes the conundrum plainer for some here in Silicon Valley.
This is a Scheme value that produces pairs of entangled particles.
In Scheme it is a mutable value two holders of which cannot communicate thru.
It conforms to Suskind’s restrictions; `th` is the global state that the particles consult as they decide whether to let a filter stop them.

Despite appearances the nonlocal features of entanglement cannot be used to transmit messages superluminally (faster than light).

This was proven in a QM course in Berkeley.
I wish I remembered the proof; I was impressed.
Just now it occurs to me to worry about what happens to an ER bridge when, in one of the neighborhoods, another black hole runs into the first.
Is there no visible phenomenon in the other neighborhood?

EPR