1 00:00:08,720 --> 00:00:11,440 Speaker 1: Hey, Daniel, did you guys figure out quantum gravity yet? 2 00:00:12,160 --> 00:00:16,000 Speaker 1: Not yet? How about a dark matter Nope, still working 3 00:00:16,000 --> 00:00:19,880 Speaker 1: on it. Dark energy not that one either, Quantum wave 4 00:00:19,960 --> 00:00:23,120 Speaker 1: function collapse we got nava. Oh. Man, We've been doing 5 00:00:23,160 --> 00:00:25,759 Speaker 1: this podcast for years now, man, talking about these mysteries, 6 00:00:25,760 --> 00:00:28,800 Speaker 1: and you've made no progress. What's going on? Maybe the 7 00:00:28,800 --> 00:00:30,600 Speaker 1: problem is I've been spending a lot of time on 8 00:00:30,600 --> 00:00:34,640 Speaker 1: the podcast, or maybe you just need a new idea, 9 00:00:35,120 --> 00:00:39,239 Speaker 1: like another podcast. Yeah, Daniel, Jorge actually solves the mysteries 10 00:00:39,240 --> 00:00:41,440 Speaker 1: of the universe instead of just talking about it. We 11 00:00:41,440 --> 00:00:43,440 Speaker 1: could just put a microphone in your office, maybe the 12 00:00:43,520 --> 00:01:01,560 Speaker 1: sound of Daniel napping. Hi. I'm Orge. I'm a cartoonist 13 00:01:01,640 --> 00:01:04,479 Speaker 1: and the creator of PhD comics. Hi I'm Daniel. I'm 14 00:01:04,520 --> 00:01:07,640 Speaker 1: a particle physicist and a professor UC Irvine, and I'm 15 00:01:07,720 --> 00:01:10,440 Speaker 1: totally ready to take to the streets for the next 16 00:01:10,560 --> 00:01:13,479 Speaker 1: scientific revolution. What do you mean, take to the threets 17 00:01:13,520 --> 00:01:17,000 Speaker 1: to protest or to celebrate? I don't know. That's just 18 00:01:17,040 --> 00:01:20,080 Speaker 1: how revolutions start, right, Everybody runs into the streets and 19 00:01:20,160 --> 00:01:22,800 Speaker 1: raises a stick and yells, and boom, the government just 20 00:01:22,800 --> 00:01:25,000 Speaker 1: falls over. Isn't that what happens? Oh? I see. You 21 00:01:25,000 --> 00:01:28,360 Speaker 1: want to promote a revolution, you need to put up 22 00:01:28,400 --> 00:01:33,600 Speaker 1: like barricades and streets with equations. I guess that's right. Everybody, 23 00:01:33,640 --> 00:01:35,720 Speaker 1: grab a piece of chalk. We're gonna do physics on 24 00:01:35,760 --> 00:01:40,160 Speaker 1: the street. Literally. And then who are we claiming independence from? 25 00:01:40,240 --> 00:01:43,279 Speaker 1: Or who are we overturning big physics? Man? Of course? 26 00:01:43,440 --> 00:01:47,160 Speaker 1: Oh is that like the big lobby or good physics 27 00:01:47,240 --> 00:01:50,640 Speaker 1: or or bad physics. I'm really confused about this revolutionary idea. 28 00:01:50,720 --> 00:01:52,960 Speaker 1: It's a bunch of physicists in the back room. Instead 29 00:01:52,960 --> 00:01:55,400 Speaker 1: of smoking cigars though, they're just napping around a bunch 30 00:01:55,400 --> 00:01:58,240 Speaker 1: of chalkboards. Oh and you want to overthrow them and 31 00:01:58,320 --> 00:02:03,160 Speaker 1: put them to the guillotine theoretically speaking, yes, intellectual guillotine exactly, 32 00:02:03,760 --> 00:02:08,000 Speaker 1: the intellectual gailloty. Oh boy, heads will roll in your head, 33 00:02:09,280 --> 00:02:11,680 Speaker 1: but yeah. Welcome to our podcast Daniel and Jorge Explain 34 00:02:11,720 --> 00:02:14,160 Speaker 1: the Universe, a production of I Heart Radio in which 35 00:02:14,200 --> 00:02:17,400 Speaker 1: heads roll and minds are blown. When we talk about 36 00:02:17,440 --> 00:02:21,240 Speaker 1: the crazy ideas of the universe. We know that our 37 00:02:21,280 --> 00:02:24,000 Speaker 1: current theories of the universe must be wrong. They are 38 00:02:24,080 --> 00:02:28,320 Speaker 1: definitely incomplete. They cannot describe nature correctly, and we join 39 00:02:28,440 --> 00:02:31,200 Speaker 1: you in a search for those new ideas, probing ever 40 00:02:31,360 --> 00:02:34,760 Speaker 1: deeper into the very nature of space and time and 41 00:02:34,840 --> 00:02:38,320 Speaker 1: the universe, what this reality is around us, asking questions 42 00:02:38,360 --> 00:02:43,000 Speaker 1: about the very basic nature of consciousness and measurement and information, 43 00:02:43,200 --> 00:02:45,880 Speaker 1: and just trying to figure it all out. Man. Yeah, 44 00:02:45,880 --> 00:02:48,799 Speaker 1: because it is a pretty crazy universe full of amazing 45 00:02:48,840 --> 00:02:51,560 Speaker 1: things to discover and find out, and we're just puny, 46 00:02:51,600 --> 00:02:54,280 Speaker 1: little tiny beings on this floating rock in space trying 47 00:02:54,280 --> 00:02:56,320 Speaker 1: to figure out how it all works. It's sort of 48 00:02:56,360 --> 00:03:00,360 Speaker 1: like we are solving the biggest detective mystery in the universe, 49 00:03:00,400 --> 00:03:03,480 Speaker 1: because the whole universe is a big mystery for us 50 00:03:03,480 --> 00:03:06,959 Speaker 1: to unravel. And over thousands of years, we've been slowly 51 00:03:07,080 --> 00:03:10,280 Speaker 1: putting together a few ideas about how this bit works 52 00:03:10,280 --> 00:03:13,160 Speaker 1: and how that bit works. And sometimes those ideas even 53 00:03:13,240 --> 00:03:16,280 Speaker 1: fit together to make a bigger, clearer idea, and we 54 00:03:16,360 --> 00:03:18,920 Speaker 1: get these flashes of insight that tell us how the 55 00:03:19,000 --> 00:03:22,080 Speaker 1: universe works. Yeah, because we don't just live in the universe. 56 00:03:22,160 --> 00:03:24,800 Speaker 1: We also wonder about it and we want to figure 57 00:03:24,800 --> 00:03:28,160 Speaker 1: out how it works. Because sometimes it's very useful information, right, 58 00:03:29,000 --> 00:03:31,600 Speaker 1: it depends on who has that information. It can be useful, 59 00:03:31,680 --> 00:03:35,680 Speaker 1: it can be dangerous, but it is absolutely enticing to me. 60 00:03:35,760 --> 00:03:39,080 Speaker 1: It's all about knowing the way the universe works, revealing 61 00:03:39,120 --> 00:03:42,120 Speaker 1: that truth, peeling back those layers of reality to see 62 00:03:42,200 --> 00:03:45,360 Speaker 1: its inner mechanisms. And we've done it pretty good over 63 00:03:45,400 --> 00:03:48,040 Speaker 1: the year, as the centuries. Now that science has been 64 00:03:48,080 --> 00:03:50,400 Speaker 1: going on, and we have some pretty good theories about 65 00:03:50,400 --> 00:03:53,680 Speaker 1: how things work, and let us build amazing structures and 66 00:03:53,800 --> 00:03:56,560 Speaker 1: machines and send things to space and back. But we 67 00:03:56,640 --> 00:04:00,280 Speaker 1: are not quite theory in terms of understanding the very 68 00:04:00,320 --> 00:04:04,240 Speaker 1: small details of how the universe works, especially at the extremes. Yeah, 69 00:04:04,280 --> 00:04:06,520 Speaker 1: you might be forgiven for thinking that physics has it 70 00:04:06,720 --> 00:04:10,160 Speaker 1: mostly figured out. You know, we've developed incredible technologies. We 71 00:04:10,240 --> 00:04:12,600 Speaker 1: have revealed a lot about the way the universe works, 72 00:04:12,640 --> 00:04:16,120 Speaker 1: but we've also revealed how little we know. There's so 73 00:04:16,240 --> 00:04:19,040 Speaker 1: much of the universe that we haven't even begun to describe, 74 00:04:19,080 --> 00:04:22,560 Speaker 1: the dark matter, the dark energy, and enormous open questions 75 00:04:22,600 --> 00:04:25,520 Speaker 1: about the part of the universe that we can describe. 76 00:04:25,680 --> 00:04:28,039 Speaker 1: We don't understand a lot of the fundamental forces. We 77 00:04:28,120 --> 00:04:31,159 Speaker 1: can't bring together gravity and quantum mechanics. There are all 78 00:04:31,200 --> 00:04:33,800 Speaker 1: sorts of things where physics has hit some sort of 79 00:04:33,800 --> 00:04:36,560 Speaker 1: a roadblock. Yeah, so where would you put our estimate, 80 00:04:36,720 --> 00:04:39,000 Speaker 1: would you say that we understand about the three percent 81 00:04:39,000 --> 00:04:40,840 Speaker 1: of the universe? Now, is that what you mean by 82 00:04:40,920 --> 00:04:43,599 Speaker 1: mostly understand the universe about three percent? Because we don't 83 00:04:43,680 --> 00:04:46,040 Speaker 1: understand the full five percent of what we're made out of, 84 00:04:46,160 --> 00:04:48,080 Speaker 1: and there's like ninety five percent of the universe we 85 00:04:48,120 --> 00:04:51,000 Speaker 1: don't know anything about. Yeah, I would generously assess our 86 00:04:51,160 --> 00:04:54,000 Speaker 1: understanding the universe at zero point zero zero zero zero 87 00:04:54,040 --> 00:05:00,440 Speaker 1: one percent, And that's rounding up what from zero hang 88 00:05:00,520 --> 00:05:03,279 Speaker 1: out from? Wow, So you think out of the five 89 00:05:03,279 --> 00:05:05,160 Speaker 1: percent of the universe that is made out of, you know, 90 00:05:05,240 --> 00:05:08,920 Speaker 1: atoms and fonted particles, you think we understand about zero 91 00:05:08,920 --> 00:05:11,120 Speaker 1: point zero zero one percent of it. Yeah. I think 92 00:05:11,160 --> 00:05:13,880 Speaker 1: we are very primitive in our understanding of the nature 93 00:05:13,920 --> 00:05:16,200 Speaker 1: of reality. I think people will look back at our 94 00:05:16,279 --> 00:05:18,919 Speaker 1: ideas in a thousand years and they will chuckle. You know, 95 00:05:18,920 --> 00:05:20,760 Speaker 1: they will look down their nose at us, because our 96 00:05:20,800 --> 00:05:23,800 Speaker 1: ideas are so simple and so ridiculous, the way we 97 00:05:23,880 --> 00:05:26,760 Speaker 1: look back at the Greeks or even further back, you know, 98 00:05:26,839 --> 00:05:30,200 Speaker 1: at cave many cave women their perspective on the universe. 99 00:05:30,360 --> 00:05:33,360 Speaker 1: We are really just beginning our exploration, and so I 100 00:05:33,400 --> 00:05:36,120 Speaker 1: think we haven't even really had time to develop the 101 00:05:36,200 --> 00:05:39,640 Speaker 1: right ideas or the right way to generate those ideas. 102 00:05:39,920 --> 00:05:42,120 Speaker 1: I mean, we've been asking questions about the universe for 103 00:05:42,400 --> 00:05:45,599 Speaker 1: thousands of years, but we've only had a strategy for 104 00:05:45,720 --> 00:05:50,719 Speaker 1: building knowledge, this empirical scientific method for a few hundred years, 105 00:05:50,960 --> 00:05:53,560 Speaker 1: and you know, the mathematics to undergird it is much 106 00:05:53,640 --> 00:05:56,479 Speaker 1: more recent. So we're really just getting started. You know, 107 00:05:56,520 --> 00:05:58,480 Speaker 1: it's like we just put our shoes on. We haven't 108 00:05:58,520 --> 00:06:01,479 Speaker 1: even really walked out the door to explore the universe yet. 109 00:06:02,920 --> 00:06:06,160 Speaker 1: The feature scientists are so snobby. If you cut us 110 00:06:06,160 --> 00:06:08,000 Speaker 1: a break. You know, there's a lot going on right now. 111 00:06:08,320 --> 00:06:10,080 Speaker 1: You know, it's a lot of good stuff on Netflix, 112 00:06:10,200 --> 00:06:13,440 Speaker 1: not even just future scientists, future five year olds. Right 113 00:06:13,680 --> 00:06:16,600 Speaker 1: there will be children's books about the universe in the 114 00:06:16,680 --> 00:06:19,240 Speaker 1: year three thousand that you and I will not understand. 115 00:06:19,320 --> 00:06:22,080 Speaker 1: We would read them and go, what, that's crazy, that 116 00:06:22,160 --> 00:06:25,200 Speaker 1: can't possibly be true. That's wild. So those five year 117 00:06:25,200 --> 00:06:27,400 Speaker 1: olds give a seminar at like M. I. T. And 118 00:06:27,560 --> 00:06:31,880 Speaker 1: all of the famous physicists would go and probably be clueless. Yes, 119 00:06:32,000 --> 00:06:34,120 Speaker 1: it sort of sounds like we are not that far 120 00:06:34,160 --> 00:06:36,599 Speaker 1: along in our knowledge of the universe. Sometimes, but you know, 121 00:06:36,640 --> 00:06:39,640 Speaker 1: there's always hope, and maybe there's always a sort of 122 00:06:39,640 --> 00:06:43,520 Speaker 1: a revolution in theoretical physics and physical thinking, maybe right 123 00:06:43,520 --> 00:06:46,000 Speaker 1: around the corner. You never know, right, You never do know. 124 00:06:46,160 --> 00:06:48,680 Speaker 1: And when we look back at the development of ideas, 125 00:06:48,680 --> 00:06:51,320 Speaker 1: they seem sort of linear, you know, like Sally figured 126 00:06:51,320 --> 00:06:53,840 Speaker 1: out this, and then Alicia figured out that, and then 127 00:06:53,880 --> 00:06:56,200 Speaker 1: Bob came along and put this cherry on top and 128 00:06:56,240 --> 00:06:58,320 Speaker 1: tied it together and took credit for all of it, 129 00:06:58,400 --> 00:07:00,720 Speaker 1: and this kind of stuff. It seems sort of linear, 130 00:07:00,760 --> 00:07:02,240 Speaker 1: But when you're in the middle of it, it it feels 131 00:07:02,320 --> 00:07:05,120 Speaker 1: much more like a huge cloud of confusion. There are 132 00:07:05,160 --> 00:07:07,479 Speaker 1: people going in all sorts of directions, and nobody knows 133 00:07:07,560 --> 00:07:10,080 Speaker 1: which one is going to be the foundation of future 134 00:07:10,120 --> 00:07:12,760 Speaker 1: brilliance and which one is totally a dead end. And 135 00:07:12,760 --> 00:07:15,840 Speaker 1: so it's really hard to tell in the moment what 136 00:07:16,040 --> 00:07:18,520 Speaker 1: the path of future physics is. Yeah, it could be 137 00:07:18,560 --> 00:07:21,320 Speaker 1: that the idea that changes everything or solves everything is 138 00:07:21,360 --> 00:07:23,440 Speaker 1: out there right now in the mind of a physicist, 139 00:07:23,560 --> 00:07:26,160 Speaker 1: but then maybe nobody takes him or her seriously. Yeah, 140 00:07:26,160 --> 00:07:28,160 Speaker 1: it certainly could be. And it also could be that 141 00:07:28,200 --> 00:07:31,000 Speaker 1: there's been a new development of a kind of mathematics 142 00:07:31,000 --> 00:07:33,320 Speaker 1: that was developed just because it's math and it's fun, 143 00:07:33,520 --> 00:07:35,960 Speaker 1: and then in ten years some physicists will figure out 144 00:07:36,040 --> 00:07:38,880 Speaker 1: how to use it to solve some deep problem in physics. 145 00:07:38,920 --> 00:07:40,920 Speaker 1: We've seen that happen a bunch of times. You know, 146 00:07:41,040 --> 00:07:44,040 Speaker 1: field theory and group theory, all these things were developed 147 00:07:44,160 --> 00:07:47,400 Speaker 1: not for physics, but then we're later applied to physics 148 00:07:47,440 --> 00:07:50,200 Speaker 1: and have become incredibly useful. So you never really know 149 00:07:50,320 --> 00:07:52,640 Speaker 1: when sort of like the pieces of the puzzle are 150 00:07:52,640 --> 00:07:55,240 Speaker 1: going to find each other and click together to really 151 00:07:55,280 --> 00:07:58,000 Speaker 1: give us that glimpse of the next generation of ideas. 152 00:07:59,240 --> 00:08:01,560 Speaker 1: So today on the podcast, we'll be asking the question, 153 00:08:06,280 --> 00:08:10,800 Speaker 1: are we witnessing a revolution in theoretical physics? You mean, 154 00:08:10,800 --> 00:08:13,000 Speaker 1: like it's happening right now. We could be witnessing it. 155 00:08:13,080 --> 00:08:15,000 Speaker 1: We just don't know it. Yeah, we could be living 156 00:08:15,080 --> 00:08:18,040 Speaker 1: in the middle of it right now. Exactly. There are 157 00:08:18,080 --> 00:08:20,400 Speaker 1: some crazy new ideas that have been developed in the 158 00:08:20,480 --> 00:08:24,080 Speaker 1: last few years that suggests an entirely new way to 159 00:08:24,200 --> 00:08:27,440 Speaker 1: try to attack these questions of the fundamental nature of 160 00:08:27,440 --> 00:08:29,200 Speaker 1: the universe. And we don't know if this is a 161 00:08:29,240 --> 00:08:31,440 Speaker 1: dead end which will be added to the dust bin 162 00:08:31,560 --> 00:08:33,960 Speaker 1: of dead ends, or if you know, it will be 163 00:08:34,000 --> 00:08:37,120 Speaker 1: seen later as a critical turning point in the history 164 00:08:37,160 --> 00:08:40,080 Speaker 1: of physics. M Yeah, it's interesting because you know, if 165 00:08:40,080 --> 00:08:41,920 Speaker 1: you look back at the history of science, it does 166 00:08:41,960 --> 00:08:44,280 Speaker 1: seem like sometimes we think we figured everything out, but 167 00:08:44,320 --> 00:08:45,960 Speaker 1: then the more we look into it, the more we 168 00:08:46,040 --> 00:08:49,360 Speaker 1: realize that our theories don't work. You know, like Newtonian physics, 169 00:08:49,360 --> 00:08:51,400 Speaker 1: we thought we had unlocked, you know, the secrets of 170 00:08:51,400 --> 00:08:53,920 Speaker 1: the universe, but then eventually we found that it doesn't 171 00:08:54,000 --> 00:08:55,840 Speaker 1: work all of the time. And then we came up 172 00:08:55,880 --> 00:08:58,199 Speaker 1: with quantum theory, and we thought we had solved the 173 00:08:58,280 --> 00:09:00,920 Speaker 1: mysteries then, but then it turns out it doesn't quite 174 00:09:00,920 --> 00:09:03,600 Speaker 1: work all of the time. Yeah, exactly. That's why the 175 00:09:03,640 --> 00:09:05,960 Speaker 1: more we know, the more we realize we know less 176 00:09:05,960 --> 00:09:08,520 Speaker 1: and less, Which is why I was trying to really 177 00:09:08,559 --> 00:09:11,160 Speaker 1: hard to be conservative in giving an estimate of our 178 00:09:11,240 --> 00:09:14,079 Speaker 1: fraction of the universe that we have understood, because frankly, 179 00:09:14,280 --> 00:09:17,680 Speaker 1: it seems to just drop as time goes on. Well, 180 00:09:17,679 --> 00:09:19,840 Speaker 1: I guess maybe when you give such a low estimate, 181 00:09:19,840 --> 00:09:21,679 Speaker 1: what you really mean is that maybe the theories we 182 00:09:21,760 --> 00:09:24,240 Speaker 1: have now are you know, they work for most of 183 00:09:24,280 --> 00:09:26,040 Speaker 1: the time, and for most of the cases that we 184 00:09:26,120 --> 00:09:28,560 Speaker 1: sort of are in, you know, here on Earth sending 185 00:09:28,559 --> 00:09:30,880 Speaker 1: things to space. It works pretty well. But I think 186 00:09:30,920 --> 00:09:33,360 Speaker 1: maybe what you're thinking about is that maybe it's's like 187 00:09:33,480 --> 00:09:37,560 Speaker 1: fundamentally wrong, like there's something wrong with its very foundation. Yeah, 188 00:09:37,559 --> 00:09:40,240 Speaker 1: it could just be the wrong way to attack the problem. 189 00:09:40,320 --> 00:09:43,120 Speaker 1: And sometimes the wrong approach works for a while and 190 00:09:43,160 --> 00:09:46,040 Speaker 1: then you get stuck. You know. For example, Aristotle and 191 00:09:46,080 --> 00:09:48,280 Speaker 1: Plato and those folks, they made a lot of progress 192 00:09:48,320 --> 00:09:52,080 Speaker 1: in understanding the nature of life and experience and consciousness 193 00:09:52,120 --> 00:09:55,000 Speaker 1: and you know, laid the foundations of philosophy. But it 194 00:09:55,080 --> 00:09:58,440 Speaker 1: wasn't until Galileo and folks in the fire or so 195 00:09:58,520 --> 00:10:02,479 Speaker 1: realize that it's important to actually go out and do experiments, 196 00:10:02,480 --> 00:10:06,360 Speaker 1: to make measurements, to ask the universe questions. This branch 197 00:10:06,400 --> 00:10:10,120 Speaker 1: of science we now call experimentation was a vital contribution 198 00:10:10,280 --> 00:10:13,559 Speaker 1: to like building knowledge and adding to our machine to 199 00:10:13,880 --> 00:10:17,680 Speaker 1: systematically build more knowledge. So sometimes we don't just make 200 00:10:17,720 --> 00:10:20,360 Speaker 1: progress in the ideas, but in the ideas for how 201 00:10:20,400 --> 00:10:24,240 Speaker 1: to make new ideas, and that can reveal something fundamentally 202 00:10:24,280 --> 00:10:27,079 Speaker 1: new about the nature of the universe. M Yeah, I 203 00:10:27,120 --> 00:10:29,400 Speaker 1: guess it's kind of a philosophical thing, you know, like 204 00:10:29,600 --> 00:10:31,880 Speaker 1: if you have a theory that works ninety five percent 205 00:10:31,920 --> 00:10:34,880 Speaker 1: of the time, but it's fundamentally incorrect. Is it still 206 00:10:34,920 --> 00:10:37,160 Speaker 1: a good theory or not? You know, like our current 207 00:10:37,200 --> 00:10:39,599 Speaker 1: theories allow us to send things to Mars and to 208 00:10:40,000 --> 00:10:42,320 Speaker 1: maniplate atoms and things like that, And so I would 209 00:10:42,320 --> 00:10:44,720 Speaker 1: say as an engineer, that's pretty good. You know, we're 210 00:10:44,720 --> 00:10:47,560 Speaker 1: like nine of the way they're you know, we're not 211 00:10:47,600 --> 00:10:49,960 Speaker 1: going into a black hole anytime soon, or you know, 212 00:10:50,040 --> 00:10:52,240 Speaker 1: going faster than the speed of light anytime soon. And 213 00:10:52,280 --> 00:10:54,120 Speaker 1: so I would say we've done pretty good. But maybe 214 00:10:54,120 --> 00:10:56,360 Speaker 1: as a theoretical physicist, you might be thinking, like, what 215 00:10:56,440 --> 00:10:59,920 Speaker 1: if it's all fundamentally wrong, that means we're zero percent right. Yeah, 216 00:11:00,000 --> 00:11:02,480 Speaker 1: And it depends on the question you're asking. It depends 217 00:11:02,520 --> 00:11:05,040 Speaker 1: on what your goal is. If your goal is to 218 00:11:05,120 --> 00:11:07,040 Speaker 1: send something to Mars, then you don't really need to 219 00:11:07,120 --> 00:11:10,560 Speaker 1: understand quantum gravity and the deep fundamental nature of space time. 220 00:11:10,800 --> 00:11:13,680 Speaker 1: But if those are your motivating questions, if the reason 221 00:11:13,760 --> 00:11:15,439 Speaker 1: you get out of bed and the thing that pulls 222 00:11:15,440 --> 00:11:18,640 Speaker 1: you through life is this desire to understand the universe 223 00:11:18,679 --> 00:11:22,280 Speaker 1: at its most basic level, and it's fundamental, foundational level, 224 00:11:22,360 --> 00:11:25,640 Speaker 1: the essential ingredients that make it what it is, then 225 00:11:25,679 --> 00:11:29,200 Speaker 1: you're not satisfied with like an approximate version that mostly works, 226 00:11:29,320 --> 00:11:31,600 Speaker 1: because the theory we have today it does mostly work 227 00:11:31,640 --> 00:11:33,880 Speaker 1: for the kinds of experiments we can do. We also 228 00:11:33,960 --> 00:11:37,960 Speaker 1: know that absolutely cannot be the real theory of the universe, 229 00:11:38,080 --> 00:11:40,280 Speaker 1: the one that describes, you know, the very first few 230 00:11:40,320 --> 00:11:43,640 Speaker 1: moments and the crazy situation of very high energy and 231 00:11:43,720 --> 00:11:46,440 Speaker 1: high density. It can't describe what happens when space and 232 00:11:46,480 --> 00:11:50,000 Speaker 1: time distort very dramatically. It just fails, it breaks down, 233 00:11:50,040 --> 00:11:53,480 Speaker 1: and so it can't be the real story of the universe. 234 00:11:53,760 --> 00:11:56,079 Speaker 1: It can still be very very useful, the way Newtonian 235 00:11:56,120 --> 00:11:59,160 Speaker 1: physics is much more useful than Einsteinian physics to like 236 00:11:59,320 --> 00:12:01,960 Speaker 1: calculate the trajectory of a baseball, right, It could still 237 00:12:01,960 --> 00:12:04,839 Speaker 1: be very helpful and very effective. It's just not the 238 00:12:04,880 --> 00:12:08,440 Speaker 1: fundamental story. So that's what wakes you up in the morning, 239 00:12:08,720 --> 00:12:10,560 Speaker 1: gets you out of bed. But then what makes you 240 00:12:10,600 --> 00:12:13,120 Speaker 1: when I get taken napp then the same thing because 241 00:12:13,160 --> 00:12:17,840 Speaker 1: it's exhausting to think about. So we might be witnessing 242 00:12:17,840 --> 00:12:20,960 Speaker 1: a revolution in theoretical physics, and in particular we're going 243 00:12:21,000 --> 00:12:23,280 Speaker 1: to talk about a special kind of theory or a 244 00:12:23,280 --> 00:12:26,000 Speaker 1: special theory that it's a pretty good candidate for maybe 245 00:12:26,160 --> 00:12:29,800 Speaker 1: overtaking or overturning everything we know about physics. Right, that's right, 246 00:12:29,840 --> 00:12:33,000 Speaker 1: And this is not necessarily a new idea about what 247 00:12:33,120 --> 00:12:36,920 Speaker 1: the universe is as much as a new method to 248 00:12:37,120 --> 00:12:41,600 Speaker 1: try to find new ideas. It's like adding experiments to 249 00:12:41,720 --> 00:12:44,600 Speaker 1: your strategy for figuring out the universe. This is like, well, 250 00:12:44,679 --> 00:12:48,120 Speaker 1: let's take a new approach to finding new ideas about 251 00:12:48,120 --> 00:12:51,040 Speaker 1: the universe. Let's add to the scientific method. Let's give 252 00:12:51,040 --> 00:12:53,640 Speaker 1: it a tweak, and maybe that will reveal new ideas 253 00:12:53,640 --> 00:12:57,160 Speaker 1: we've overlooked before. It's like a meta theory, like how 254 00:12:57,160 --> 00:13:00,280 Speaker 1: to make theories theory interesting. But it's not control by 255 00:13:00,320 --> 00:13:04,360 Speaker 1: Mark Zuckerberg, thankfully, and it's real you can actually maybe 256 00:13:04,440 --> 00:13:07,880 Speaker 1: touch it. So we have this meta theory, this theory 257 00:13:07,880 --> 00:13:11,760 Speaker 1: of theories called constructor theory. That's the name of it. Yeah, 258 00:13:11,760 --> 00:13:14,520 Speaker 1: it's called the constructor theory. And it was developed by 259 00:13:14,520 --> 00:13:16,960 Speaker 1: a couple of folks at Oxford. One of them is 260 00:13:17,080 --> 00:13:21,360 Speaker 1: David Deutsch, and he's famous for doing like quantum information theory. 261 00:13:21,360 --> 00:13:24,240 Speaker 1: He's an expert in quantum computing and he's had sort 262 00:13:24,240 --> 00:13:26,560 Speaker 1: of the inspiration for this idea a while ago. And 263 00:13:26,600 --> 00:13:28,559 Speaker 1: then a grad student worked with him. Her name is 264 00:13:28,640 --> 00:13:31,559 Speaker 1: Kiara Marletto. She really elaborated it and tried to make 265 00:13:31,600 --> 00:13:33,800 Speaker 1: a concrete and try to turn it into something. And 266 00:13:33,840 --> 00:13:37,240 Speaker 1: together they've been developing this constructor theory for a few 267 00:13:37,320 --> 00:13:40,080 Speaker 1: years now and it's got quite a few converts and 268 00:13:40,240 --> 00:13:42,640 Speaker 1: lots of our listeners have written in and said, what 269 00:13:42,920 --> 00:13:47,040 Speaker 1: is this thing? Can you please explain it to us? Yeah, 270 00:13:47,080 --> 00:13:49,319 Speaker 1: because it's it sounds interesting. It sort of sounds sort 271 00:13:49,320 --> 00:13:52,160 Speaker 1: of like a toy from my childhood, like a construction 272 00:13:52,200 --> 00:13:54,080 Speaker 1: toy maybe like you get different pieces and you can 273 00:13:54,120 --> 00:13:57,160 Speaker 1: build them together, or like a transformer. I think there's 274 00:13:57,200 --> 00:14:00,120 Speaker 1: something called constructor cons Well, you know, they do have 275 00:14:00,240 --> 00:14:03,560 Speaker 1: transformations in constructor theory, so maybe you're on the right track. 276 00:14:03,559 --> 00:14:06,440 Speaker 1: Maybe they'll develop, you know, tinker toys. Also maybe watch 277 00:14:06,520 --> 00:14:09,480 Speaker 1: the same shows. So yeah, this is a new theory 278 00:14:09,520 --> 00:14:11,760 Speaker 1: of theories. And so, as usual, we were wondering how 279 00:14:11,760 --> 00:14:13,640 Speaker 1: many people out there had heard of this or had 280 00:14:13,679 --> 00:14:15,719 Speaker 1: an idea of what it could be. So Daniel went 281 00:14:15,720 --> 00:14:18,240 Speaker 1: out there into the internet to ask people what is 282 00:14:18,520 --> 00:14:21,560 Speaker 1: constructor theory? So thanks to everybody who was a willing 283 00:14:21,600 --> 00:14:24,840 Speaker 1: participant in this fun game of answer A tough physics 284 00:14:24,920 --> 00:14:28,400 Speaker 1: question without any preparation. If you'd like to participate, please 285 00:14:28,440 --> 00:14:31,000 Speaker 1: don't be shy. If you've been listening for a while 286 00:14:31,080 --> 00:14:33,480 Speaker 1: and never dipped your toes in, now is the time 287 00:14:33,760 --> 00:14:37,239 Speaker 1: right to us two questions at Daniel and Jorge dot com. 288 00:14:37,280 --> 00:14:39,280 Speaker 1: So think about it for a second. What would you 289 00:14:39,320 --> 00:14:42,960 Speaker 1: guess is constructor theory. Here's what people have to say. 290 00:14:43,280 --> 00:14:46,920 Speaker 1: I know that it is linked with physics, but I 291 00:14:47,000 --> 00:14:52,240 Speaker 1: don't know this time what it's about. I haven't heard 292 00:14:52,280 --> 00:14:55,640 Speaker 1: of constructor theory before, but I'm guessing it has to 293 00:14:55,720 --> 00:15:01,520 Speaker 1: do with an idea of how either things on a 294 00:15:01,680 --> 00:15:06,960 Speaker 1: very tiny scale or a very large scale are put together. 295 00:15:07,520 --> 00:15:12,880 Speaker 1: Constructor theory is the theory of how there is, planets, 296 00:15:12,960 --> 00:15:18,040 Speaker 1: and other types of styles have been created by ancient aliens, 297 00:15:18,560 --> 00:15:23,280 Speaker 1: maybe an alternative to creationism as opposed to the Big 298 00:15:23,280 --> 00:15:26,400 Speaker 1: Bang theory. The assumption is this has something to do 299 00:15:26,600 --> 00:15:30,680 Speaker 1: with a theory that is based upon some form of 300 00:15:30,840 --> 00:15:36,880 Speaker 1: building blocks, meaning that whatever that this constructor theory relates 301 00:15:36,920 --> 00:15:39,760 Speaker 1: to in whatever aspects of physics, this has something to 302 00:15:39,800 --> 00:15:45,320 Speaker 1: do with building upon a base of knowledge, as opposed 303 00:15:45,400 --> 00:15:50,040 Speaker 1: to something groundbreaking and out of left field by the name. 304 00:15:50,360 --> 00:15:53,640 Speaker 1: I would think it's something to do with creation, how 305 00:15:53,720 --> 00:15:59,240 Speaker 1: the universe started, or how we have been created, or 306 00:15:59,320 --> 00:16:04,600 Speaker 1: how just everything being created. Really, I've not heard of 307 00:16:04,640 --> 00:16:09,040 Speaker 1: constructor theory, but it sounds like a theory on how 308 00:16:09,040 --> 00:16:13,000 Speaker 1: the universe was made or constructed. My guess is it 309 00:16:13,040 --> 00:16:17,640 Speaker 1: would be it's to do with building something, So it 310 00:16:17,720 --> 00:16:20,200 Speaker 1: could be to do with putting atoms together or putting 311 00:16:20,200 --> 00:16:23,720 Speaker 1: subtomic particles together to make something bigger. I've never heard 312 00:16:23,760 --> 00:16:26,800 Speaker 1: of the constructor theory, but it does remind me of 313 00:16:27,200 --> 00:16:30,720 Speaker 1: the Bible and God creating everything in seven days, So 314 00:16:31,440 --> 00:16:33,680 Speaker 1: could the constructor theory have anything to do with that? 315 00:16:34,840 --> 00:16:37,720 Speaker 1: I'd say something that has to do with engineering, maybe 316 00:16:38,120 --> 00:16:43,680 Speaker 1: like building things, but I have no idea. Ten points 317 00:16:43,680 --> 00:16:48,240 Speaker 1: to the person who said something about physics, because that's 318 00:16:48,280 --> 00:16:51,680 Speaker 1: true in all situations, right, Any any answer can probably 319 00:16:51,680 --> 00:16:54,560 Speaker 1: be answered by something about physics. Yeah, that's true, and 320 00:16:54,720 --> 00:17:00,240 Speaker 1: especially when it's this podcast, so yeah, of that time, 321 00:17:00,400 --> 00:17:03,160 Speaker 1: or something about bananas that would also work. They'll take 322 00:17:03,200 --> 00:17:05,680 Speaker 1: you that last percentage home. Yeah, somebody said something about 323 00:17:05,720 --> 00:17:10,360 Speaker 1: engineering too, which I technically also applies to all answers. M. Yeah, 324 00:17:10,400 --> 00:17:13,520 Speaker 1: that's true because all engineering, fundamentally is just physics. Yeah, 325 00:17:13,560 --> 00:17:18,359 Speaker 1: and all physics is fundamentally useful only for engineering and knaps. 326 00:17:18,440 --> 00:17:21,840 Speaker 1: Engineering plus naps, that's right, Yeah, making sure that you 327 00:17:21,920 --> 00:17:23,720 Speaker 1: get enough rest. Yes, some people thought it may be 328 00:17:23,840 --> 00:17:28,080 Speaker 1: related to creation, right, constructor, like maybe you're constructing the universe. 329 00:17:28,240 --> 00:17:30,719 Speaker 1: It is a very general sounding term, right, it's a 330 00:17:30,760 --> 00:17:32,879 Speaker 1: little vague, so it doesn't give you a lot to 331 00:17:32,920 --> 00:17:35,159 Speaker 1: really work with. If you haven't heard of it before, 332 00:17:35,480 --> 00:17:38,000 Speaker 1: you probably weren't going to guess what it was just 333 00:17:38,080 --> 00:17:40,359 Speaker 1: from the name. I guess it's interesting because you can 334 00:17:40,400 --> 00:17:43,159 Speaker 1: read it as now and like constructor theory, you know, 335 00:17:43,240 --> 00:17:45,440 Speaker 1: like maybe there's a constructor, like a like a person 336 00:17:45,560 --> 00:17:48,960 Speaker 1: or an entity. We're trying to figure out how it works. Yeah, 337 00:17:49,080 --> 00:17:52,720 Speaker 1: or like who made the universe? Mmm? Oh I see, yeah, 338 00:17:52,800 --> 00:17:55,560 Speaker 1: well that explains why people were talking about God and creation. 339 00:17:57,280 --> 00:18:00,000 Speaker 1: It clicks now, I get it. Yeah, yeah, maybe there 340 00:18:00,080 --> 00:18:02,960 Speaker 1: is a constructor, you know, I see theory of the constructor. 341 00:18:03,080 --> 00:18:06,159 Speaker 1: It's just starting into a conspiracy theory. Whoever the constructor is, 342 00:18:06,200 --> 00:18:08,119 Speaker 1: I hope he took a good nap after he created 343 00:18:08,119 --> 00:18:11,240 Speaker 1: the universe. He or she or it or they. I 344 00:18:11,240 --> 00:18:14,160 Speaker 1: think that's in the pile. Daniel on the Seventh Day 345 00:18:14,280 --> 00:18:16,719 Speaker 1: the constructor took a nap. There you go. See, napping 346 00:18:16,800 --> 00:18:19,960 Speaker 1: is crucial everywhere. That's right, it's a holy concept. Naps 347 00:18:19,960 --> 00:18:22,960 Speaker 1: are sacred. Yeah, so maybe step us through Daniel. What 348 00:18:23,280 --> 00:18:26,639 Speaker 1: is constructor theory? Like, what's the overall idea of it? 349 00:18:26,880 --> 00:18:29,479 Speaker 1: The idea of constructor theory is to take a different 350 00:18:29,520 --> 00:18:33,359 Speaker 1: approach to trying to develop theories of the universe. Now, 351 00:18:33,400 --> 00:18:35,440 Speaker 1: our current approach is pretty good, but it has sort 352 00:18:35,440 --> 00:18:38,200 Speaker 1: of a singular focus. It says, try to figure out 353 00:18:38,320 --> 00:18:40,600 Speaker 1: sort of what's going on in the universe right now, 354 00:18:40,960 --> 00:18:43,960 Speaker 1: and then find the rules for how the universe is 355 00:18:44,000 --> 00:18:47,159 Speaker 1: going to change the dynamics. Like, the universe is like this, 356 00:18:47,240 --> 00:18:49,879 Speaker 1: it's two particles in this configuration. What are the rules 357 00:18:49,920 --> 00:18:52,560 Speaker 1: for how those particles should move and where will they 358 00:18:52,600 --> 00:18:55,040 Speaker 1: be in the future, and so you know, Newtonian physics, 359 00:18:55,240 --> 00:18:57,640 Speaker 1: for example, tells you if you hit a baseball, how 360 00:18:57,720 --> 00:18:59,840 Speaker 1: is it going to fly? What is its path? And 361 00:19:00,200 --> 00:19:02,520 Speaker 1: even quantum mechanics tells you if you have a wave 362 00:19:02,600 --> 00:19:05,919 Speaker 1: function and it hits a potential, well, what's going to happen? 363 00:19:06,119 --> 00:19:08,320 Speaker 1: And so a lot of current physics is what we 364 00:19:08,400 --> 00:19:11,560 Speaker 1: call like initial value problems. It says, here's the current 365 00:19:11,600 --> 00:19:13,800 Speaker 1: situation the universe, how is that going to change? And 366 00:19:13,840 --> 00:19:16,680 Speaker 1: so that's like worked for us pretty well so far, 367 00:19:16,800 --> 00:19:20,120 Speaker 1: but it does have its limitations, you mean, like it's 368 00:19:20,160 --> 00:19:22,400 Speaker 1: it's sort of embedded in the way and the reason 369 00:19:22,640 --> 00:19:25,840 Speaker 1: we do science, right, Like we sort of invented science 370 00:19:25,880 --> 00:19:28,000 Speaker 1: so we could predict the future. And so you're saying, 371 00:19:28,080 --> 00:19:30,399 Speaker 1: right now, physics and science is sort of geared or 372 00:19:30,560 --> 00:19:33,400 Speaker 1: designed or sort of assumes that you want to predict 373 00:19:33,480 --> 00:19:36,159 Speaker 1: what's going to happen in the future. Yeah, exactly, and 374 00:19:36,200 --> 00:19:38,359 Speaker 1: not just that you're going to predict what happens the future. 375 00:19:38,359 --> 00:19:40,320 Speaker 1: But that's all you want to think about, is you 376 00:19:40,359 --> 00:19:43,040 Speaker 1: take this configuration of particles or the universe in its 377 00:19:43,040 --> 00:19:44,639 Speaker 1: current state, and you just want to know what are 378 00:19:44,680 --> 00:19:47,040 Speaker 1: the rules that are going to tell it what's going 379 00:19:47,119 --> 00:19:48,639 Speaker 1: to happen in the future. How is it going to 380 00:19:48,720 --> 00:19:53,159 Speaker 1: evolve from now into the future? Right? So, and it's useful, 381 00:19:53,240 --> 00:19:55,640 Speaker 1: right because if you want to predict what your spaceship 382 00:19:55,680 --> 00:19:57,280 Speaker 1: is going to do when you throw it at the moon, 383 00:19:57,359 --> 00:19:59,240 Speaker 1: or whether your bridge is going to hold, that's kind 384 00:19:59,240 --> 00:20:01,440 Speaker 1: of what science is good for. Right. Yeah, it sounds 385 00:20:01,480 --> 00:20:04,080 Speaker 1: like a great strategy, right because it's it's very effective. 386 00:20:04,200 --> 00:20:06,639 Speaker 1: It helps you solve problems. If you have two particles 387 00:20:06,680 --> 00:20:08,680 Speaker 1: and you shoot them together, then our current laws will 388 00:20:08,720 --> 00:20:10,640 Speaker 1: tell you what's going to happen. And so that seems 389 00:20:10,720 --> 00:20:13,640 Speaker 1: very natural. And like a lot of revolutions in physics, 390 00:20:13,640 --> 00:20:16,280 Speaker 1: they come up against something which seems very intuitive and 391 00:20:16,359 --> 00:20:18,679 Speaker 1: seems like it must be all inclusive, and like, what 392 00:20:18,840 --> 00:20:22,000 Speaker 1: could be missing out of that scenario? What possibly could 393 00:20:22,000 --> 00:20:24,840 Speaker 1: you be overlooking using this approach. But those are also 394 00:20:24,880 --> 00:20:27,520 Speaker 1: the times that you need to be skeptical, when you realize, well, 395 00:20:27,560 --> 00:20:30,480 Speaker 1: maybe we've made some assumption very back in the beginning 396 00:20:30,480 --> 00:20:32,280 Speaker 1: of how we started things, and we could have taken 397 00:20:32,320 --> 00:20:35,240 Speaker 1: another path, We could have started somewhere else, and maybe 398 00:20:35,320 --> 00:20:37,480 Speaker 1: we would have gotten to a different point. It's really 399 00:20:37,480 --> 00:20:40,080 Speaker 1: hard to imagine sort of a different history of physics 400 00:20:40,280 --> 00:20:42,840 Speaker 1: if Newton hadn't been around and somebody else had conceived 401 00:20:42,880 --> 00:20:45,320 Speaker 1: physics in a different way. But that's essentially what we're 402 00:20:45,320 --> 00:20:46,880 Speaker 1: trying to do here is go back to the very 403 00:20:46,920 --> 00:20:49,600 Speaker 1: beginning and ask is there another way to formulate physics 404 00:20:49,640 --> 00:20:52,439 Speaker 1: other than this basic approach of taking the universe and 405 00:20:52,480 --> 00:20:55,120 Speaker 1: trying to write the rules of how it changes? Right? 406 00:20:55,240 --> 00:20:57,480 Speaker 1: Because I think what you're saying, is that where this 407 00:20:57,680 --> 00:20:59,919 Speaker 1: way of approaching it has taken us. It has led 408 00:21:00,080 --> 00:21:01,919 Speaker 1: to a point where we have theories about the universe, 409 00:21:01,960 --> 00:21:04,000 Speaker 1: but they fail at some point, right, like they're they're 410 00:21:04,000 --> 00:21:06,440 Speaker 1: not good all the way. And it could be that 411 00:21:06,520 --> 00:21:09,840 Speaker 1: we do find theories that follow this approach and eventually work. 412 00:21:09,960 --> 00:21:12,200 Speaker 1: Maybe somebody will come up with a theory of quantum 413 00:21:12,240 --> 00:21:15,440 Speaker 1: gravity that follows this sort of initial value problem approach 414 00:21:15,560 --> 00:21:18,560 Speaker 1: and tells us how to treat the inside of black 415 00:21:18,560 --> 00:21:22,000 Speaker 1: holes and what happens when two particles interact gravitationally. Maybe 416 00:21:22,040 --> 00:21:24,560 Speaker 1: somebody will figure that out. So far we've been stuck, 417 00:21:24,720 --> 00:21:27,120 Speaker 1: and so it's just a good idea to broaden your 418 00:21:27,119 --> 00:21:29,320 Speaker 1: bets and to say, hey, let's send a few other people, 419 00:21:29,440 --> 00:21:30,920 Speaker 1: you know, to the other side of the river or 420 00:21:31,000 --> 00:21:34,320 Speaker 1: down another path, and maybe they'll get there sooner. Right, 421 00:21:34,359 --> 00:21:39,080 Speaker 1: it's catapult um, some kind of launching mechanism. So what 422 00:21:39,160 --> 00:21:41,280 Speaker 1: are some of the ways in which our current theories 423 00:21:41,320 --> 00:21:43,720 Speaker 1: have failed and how serious are they? Yeah, well, you know, 424 00:21:43,800 --> 00:21:45,840 Speaker 1: one is just that we haven't solved some big problems. 425 00:21:45,920 --> 00:21:47,639 Speaker 1: But the other is a little bit more subtle but 426 00:21:47,720 --> 00:21:50,359 Speaker 1: really fascinating, and it's that they sort of failed to 427 00:21:50,480 --> 00:21:53,240 Speaker 1: treat some things that have become really important, you know, 428 00:21:53,320 --> 00:21:56,080 Speaker 1: like especially information, some things that turned out to be 429 00:21:56,119 --> 00:21:59,920 Speaker 1: really vital and understanding the universe, like how quantum information 430 00:22:00,119 --> 00:22:02,919 Speaker 1: moves through the universe, how it goes into black holes 431 00:22:02,920 --> 00:22:04,840 Speaker 1: and comes out of it. These things are not really 432 00:22:04,880 --> 00:22:08,720 Speaker 1: well described by our current theories because they're not exactly described. 433 00:22:08,960 --> 00:22:12,560 Speaker 1: There are emergent phenomena, there are things that like arise 434 00:22:13,040 --> 00:22:17,240 Speaker 1: from the lower level laws, but they're not really treated exactly. 435 00:22:17,359 --> 00:22:21,200 Speaker 1: They're more like statistical approximations. For example, if you describe 436 00:22:21,240 --> 00:22:23,800 Speaker 1: the universe in terms of like balls that are being 437 00:22:23,800 --> 00:22:27,439 Speaker 1: against each other, then where are you describing information? Right? 438 00:22:27,520 --> 00:22:30,280 Speaker 1: The concept of information, which we now know to be 439 00:22:30,320 --> 00:22:32,800 Speaker 1: so vital, it's just sort of like an abstract, fuzzy 440 00:22:32,880 --> 00:22:35,080 Speaker 1: thing that comes out of that. It's not like written 441 00:22:35,119 --> 00:22:38,440 Speaker 1: into the core laws of the universe. Right. I think 442 00:22:38,680 --> 00:22:41,359 Speaker 1: what you're saying is that you know because this emergent phenomenon, 443 00:22:41,640 --> 00:22:43,760 Speaker 1: like a great example of it is the weather. And 444 00:22:43,800 --> 00:22:45,480 Speaker 1: I think maybe what you're saying is that our current 445 00:22:45,480 --> 00:22:48,080 Speaker 1: theories allow us to predict, you know, one drop of water, 446 00:22:48,200 --> 00:22:50,520 Speaker 1: what happens to that drop of water, how far it's 447 00:22:50,520 --> 00:22:52,399 Speaker 1: going to fall or where the women's going to take it. 448 00:22:52,440 --> 00:22:55,119 Speaker 1: But to predict like a storm, or to predict, you know, 449 00:22:55,240 --> 00:22:57,159 Speaker 1: how cold it's going to be all over the world, 450 00:22:57,400 --> 00:23:00,400 Speaker 1: that's a much different problem. And your theory is about 451 00:23:00,400 --> 00:23:02,680 Speaker 1: the drop of water. Are not that useful in that 452 00:23:02,720 --> 00:23:05,920 Speaker 1: case in terms of describing the concept of weather. Yeah, 453 00:23:05,960 --> 00:23:08,760 Speaker 1: And anytime you're talking about emergent phenomena, it's always going 454 00:23:08,800 --> 00:23:12,520 Speaker 1: to be approximate because you can't make exact calculations from 455 00:23:12,600 --> 00:23:15,720 Speaker 1: drops of water up to hurricanes, and so it's always 456 00:23:15,760 --> 00:23:18,359 Speaker 1: going to be rough. And so when we talk about information, 457 00:23:18,440 --> 00:23:21,240 Speaker 1: for example, we don't really know in our current theories, 458 00:23:21,240 --> 00:23:24,200 Speaker 1: like what information is, you know, Like I am talking 459 00:23:24,320 --> 00:23:26,800 Speaker 1: right now, which means I'm translating ideas which are in 460 00:23:26,840 --> 00:23:31,040 Speaker 1: my brain into sound waves which gets transformed into electrical 461 00:23:31,080 --> 00:23:34,600 Speaker 1: signals in this microphone and get stored somewhere and then 462 00:23:34,640 --> 00:23:38,840 Speaker 1: eventually transmitted to these listeners. And that information hasn't changed, right, 463 00:23:38,880 --> 00:23:41,600 Speaker 1: But it's lived in lots of different physical systems. It's 464 00:23:41,640 --> 00:23:44,720 Speaker 1: been in shaking air waves, it's been in vibrating electrons, 465 00:23:44,760 --> 00:23:47,600 Speaker 1: it's been in neurons firing. But it's described by all 466 00:23:47,640 --> 00:23:49,800 Speaker 1: these different physical systems, but none of our laws of 467 00:23:49,840 --> 00:23:52,720 Speaker 1: physics really tell us what it is. It seems to 468 00:23:52,720 --> 00:23:56,159 Speaker 1: be sort of like independent from the physics itself, right, 469 00:23:56,200 --> 00:23:58,440 Speaker 1: it's not captured by any of the laws that we're 470 00:23:58,520 --> 00:24:01,639 Speaker 1: using currently. Interesting. Well, I mean that's kind of a 471 00:24:01,640 --> 00:24:06,080 Speaker 1: philosophical question, right, Is information physical a physical phenomenon or 472 00:24:06,160 --> 00:24:08,440 Speaker 1: is it like an abstract kind of like math? Right, 473 00:24:08,440 --> 00:24:11,040 Speaker 1: Like math is not necessarily a physical phenomenon, but it's 474 00:24:11,080 --> 00:24:14,600 Speaker 1: still a phenomenon, right, Well, mathematics absolutely can be abstract, 475 00:24:14,640 --> 00:24:17,119 Speaker 1: but information definitely has to be physical. It's about the 476 00:24:17,240 --> 00:24:21,080 Speaker 1: arrangement of physical objects. Right. You need a universe in 477 00:24:21,160 --> 00:24:24,480 Speaker 1: order to contain any information. So it's definitely a physical thing, 478 00:24:24,560 --> 00:24:27,280 Speaker 1: but it's not clear like where it is and sort 479 00:24:27,320 --> 00:24:30,200 Speaker 1: of like a gap in our current description of the universe. 480 00:24:30,359 --> 00:24:32,399 Speaker 1: And we have approximate ways to describe it, you know, 481 00:24:32,480 --> 00:24:35,520 Speaker 1: like the Shannon law of information captures the amount of 482 00:24:35,520 --> 00:24:38,320 Speaker 1: information you could store in a system, but again it's 483 00:24:38,359 --> 00:24:41,159 Speaker 1: sort of approximate. And that's you know, a motivation for 484 00:24:41,400 --> 00:24:44,200 Speaker 1: how you might design a different set of laws of physics. 485 00:24:44,200 --> 00:24:49,120 Speaker 1: Instead of letting important concepts emerge sort of approximately from 486 00:24:49,119 --> 00:24:52,040 Speaker 1: other laws, write them into the very core of the 487 00:24:52,040 --> 00:24:55,200 Speaker 1: new theories. Well, my head is definitely rolling a little 488 00:24:55,200 --> 00:24:57,600 Speaker 1: bit right now, and so let's get more into this 489 00:24:57,640 --> 00:25:00,520 Speaker 1: idea of information and what this constructors they theory is. 490 00:25:00,640 --> 00:25:15,160 Speaker 1: But first let's take a quick break. Alright. We're talking 491 00:25:15,160 --> 00:25:19,879 Speaker 1: about the potential next revolution in theoretical physics, the idea 492 00:25:19,960 --> 00:25:23,080 Speaker 1: that might change not just science but the way we 493 00:25:23,240 --> 00:25:26,800 Speaker 1: do science. And right now, an interesting candidate for this 494 00:25:26,880 --> 00:25:29,680 Speaker 1: is a theory called constructor theory. And Daniel, you were 495 00:25:29,680 --> 00:25:32,159 Speaker 1: telling me that it's sort of arose because we have 496 00:25:32,280 --> 00:25:34,960 Speaker 1: this gap in our current theories between what we think 497 00:25:35,040 --> 00:25:38,320 Speaker 1: is physical and this idea of information which sort of 498 00:25:38,400 --> 00:25:41,200 Speaker 1: emerges from physical phenomenons, but it's not in our theories 499 00:25:41,240 --> 00:25:44,679 Speaker 1: currently connected to the kind of physical laws we have. Yeah, 500 00:25:44,760 --> 00:25:47,159 Speaker 1: and you know, I think it isn't really interesting and 501 00:25:47,200 --> 00:25:51,160 Speaker 1: deep philosophical question, you know, about whether information is physical. 502 00:25:51,400 --> 00:25:53,760 Speaker 1: And I think to me, the best argument that information 503 00:25:53,800 --> 00:25:56,440 Speaker 1: has to be physical is that the laws that govern 504 00:25:56,600 --> 00:25:59,159 Speaker 1: it are eventually the laws of physics. It's sort of 505 00:25:59,200 --> 00:26:02,240 Speaker 1: like computing shan you know, like the laws of computation. 506 00:26:02,280 --> 00:26:05,480 Speaker 1: What you can and cannot calculate depend on the computer 507 00:26:05,600 --> 00:26:07,840 Speaker 1: that you build and the rules that it follows, which 508 00:26:07,880 --> 00:26:11,000 Speaker 1: in the end must be physical laws, which is different 509 00:26:11,000 --> 00:26:13,640 Speaker 1: from like, you know, the laws about prime numbers, which 510 00:26:13,640 --> 00:26:15,919 Speaker 1: are purely abstract. Doesn't really matter if you have a 511 00:26:16,000 --> 00:26:18,640 Speaker 1: universe as long as you have numbers. But numbers sort 512 00:26:18,640 --> 00:26:21,439 Speaker 1: of represent physical things, right Like two means too of something, 513 00:26:21,800 --> 00:26:24,760 Speaker 1: three means three of something. I guess I'm getting confused here. Yeah, 514 00:26:24,920 --> 00:26:26,760 Speaker 1: they can, but they don't necessarily have to, Like the 515 00:26:26,840 --> 00:26:29,800 Speaker 1: numbers can just be pure numbers in and of themselves. 516 00:26:29,920 --> 00:26:32,040 Speaker 1: But I think the point to underscore is that there 517 00:26:32,080 --> 00:26:35,560 Speaker 1: are these properties of the universe, things like information, that 518 00:26:35,600 --> 00:26:38,919 Speaker 1: we recognize are really important and might even like govern 519 00:26:39,000 --> 00:26:41,840 Speaker 1: how things operate. Right, Like we've talked about how black 520 00:26:41,920 --> 00:26:44,760 Speaker 1: holes are a mystery because they seem to eat information 521 00:26:44,800 --> 00:26:47,199 Speaker 1: and then evaporate and we don't understand it. So it 522 00:26:47,240 --> 00:26:49,840 Speaker 1: affects how things operate in the universe. And yet it's 523 00:26:49,840 --> 00:26:52,280 Speaker 1: not like something we deeply understand. It's just something that 524 00:26:52,359 --> 00:26:55,639 Speaker 1: sort of arises from the other laws that we've written. 525 00:26:56,840 --> 00:26:59,520 Speaker 1: I see. It's like, if you realize information is important 526 00:26:59,520 --> 00:27:01,399 Speaker 1: maybe to the whereas our theories that we've built so 527 00:27:01,480 --> 00:27:03,800 Speaker 1: far are not good for handling that or don't know 528 00:27:03,840 --> 00:27:07,280 Speaker 1: how to define it or incorporated into the physical laws 529 00:27:07,320 --> 00:27:09,919 Speaker 1: exactly if you write the universe as an initial value, 530 00:27:09,920 --> 00:27:12,320 Speaker 1: problem is just like here's the configuration of stuff, and 531 00:27:12,359 --> 00:27:15,240 Speaker 1: here the rules for how that configuration can change. And 532 00:27:15,240 --> 00:27:18,880 Speaker 1: there's no room for like really encoding information deeply into 533 00:27:18,920 --> 00:27:21,639 Speaker 1: the universe. And I think that was probably the impetus 534 00:27:21,800 --> 00:27:25,000 Speaker 1: for this new constructor theory that was actually broader than that. 535 00:27:25,040 --> 00:27:28,119 Speaker 1: It's not just about information. It's about how to write 536 00:27:28,160 --> 00:27:31,320 Speaker 1: new rules of physics that do let you encode things 537 00:27:31,400 --> 00:27:34,840 Speaker 1: like information in them. All right, well, step us through this. 538 00:27:34,920 --> 00:27:37,640 Speaker 1: How is this new theory different or what is it about? 539 00:27:37,640 --> 00:27:40,240 Speaker 1: How does it do things differently? So it's called constructor theory, 540 00:27:40,400 --> 00:27:42,719 Speaker 1: and at first glance it sounds exactly the same as 541 00:27:42,760 --> 00:27:45,280 Speaker 1: the current way we're doing things. Constructor theory is all 542 00:27:45,320 --> 00:27:50,080 Speaker 1: about understanding how the universe transforms from one state to another. 543 00:27:50,320 --> 00:27:52,480 Speaker 1: Like you have a current setup of the universe, you 544 00:27:52,520 --> 00:27:54,639 Speaker 1: have all your particles arranged in one way. It's all 545 00:27:54,680 --> 00:27:58,600 Speaker 1: about understanding what options are available for how those particles 546 00:27:58,640 --> 00:28:01,240 Speaker 1: can transform in the future. And that sounds a lot 547 00:28:01,359 --> 00:28:03,359 Speaker 1: like what we just talked about, which is like, you 548 00:28:03,359 --> 00:28:05,560 Speaker 1: have a bunch of stuff, how does it change as 549 00:28:05,600 --> 00:28:08,400 Speaker 1: you go into the future. There's a crucial difference, which 550 00:28:08,440 --> 00:28:11,960 Speaker 1: is that constructor theory doesn't just want to talk about 551 00:28:12,000 --> 00:28:14,320 Speaker 1: what happens. It wants to talk about what could have 552 00:28:14,400 --> 00:28:17,840 Speaker 1: happened and what could not have happened. It's really focused 553 00:28:17,880 --> 00:28:22,600 Speaker 1: on these a loud transformations and disallowed transformations. Rather than 554 00:28:22,640 --> 00:28:25,080 Speaker 1: just thinking about what happens, it wants to think about 555 00:28:25,119 --> 00:28:27,840 Speaker 1: what the rules are for what could have happened. So 556 00:28:27,880 --> 00:28:30,560 Speaker 1: there are all these like counter factuals they call them, 557 00:28:30,680 --> 00:28:33,280 Speaker 1: these other possibilities for things that could have happened in 558 00:28:33,280 --> 00:28:36,000 Speaker 1: the universe but just didn't happen to occur this time. 559 00:28:36,160 --> 00:28:40,480 Speaker 1: That constructor theory examines that our current theory doesn't I see, 560 00:28:40,520 --> 00:28:42,560 Speaker 1: but doesn't our current theory also sort of do that, 561 00:28:42,640 --> 00:28:45,280 Speaker 1: especially with quantum dynamics, like we have a state of 562 00:28:45,320 --> 00:28:47,760 Speaker 1: the system, and the laws of physics tells where that 563 00:28:47,840 --> 00:28:49,920 Speaker 1: state can go and what it cannot do or what's 564 00:28:49,920 --> 00:28:52,640 Speaker 1: more likely to happen or what it's less likely to happen. 565 00:28:52,720 --> 00:28:54,320 Speaker 1: Isn't that kind of what we have now? Or are 566 00:28:54,320 --> 00:28:57,880 Speaker 1: you saying there's something more sort of allowable not allowable 567 00:28:57,920 --> 00:28:59,600 Speaker 1: about it. It's more of the second. It's about what 568 00:28:59,680 --> 00:29:02,240 Speaker 1: allow out and what's not allowed. You're right, the quantum 569 00:29:02,280 --> 00:29:05,280 Speaker 1: theory is probabilistic in the end. Once you've calculated the 570 00:29:05,280 --> 00:29:07,600 Speaker 1: wave function, you can then predict what might happen, and 571 00:29:07,640 --> 00:29:10,800 Speaker 1: there are various options. But quantum theory is also fundamentally 572 00:29:10,840 --> 00:29:14,000 Speaker 1: deterministic when it comes to calculating the wave function. If 573 00:29:14,000 --> 00:29:16,080 Speaker 1: you have a certain wave function and you put it 574 00:29:16,120 --> 00:29:18,680 Speaker 1: through some system, you know exactly what the wave function 575 00:29:18,720 --> 00:29:20,360 Speaker 1: is going to look like. On the other side, it's 576 00:29:20,440 --> 00:29:23,160 Speaker 1: totally described by the Shorteninger equation. Now when it comes 577 00:29:23,200 --> 00:29:25,840 Speaker 1: to measuring it in the wave function collapse, nobody has 578 00:29:25,880 --> 00:29:28,320 Speaker 1: that figured out yet. But the actual wave function itself 579 00:29:28,400 --> 00:29:31,239 Speaker 1: is deterministic, and our current theories say, well, you have 580 00:29:31,280 --> 00:29:33,360 Speaker 1: one wave function, will tell you how to evolve it 581 00:29:33,440 --> 00:29:36,080 Speaker 1: to the wave function in the future. This constructor theory 582 00:29:36,080 --> 00:29:38,960 Speaker 1: would say, if you have this wave function, what's allowed, 583 00:29:39,080 --> 00:29:42,160 Speaker 1: what's possible for this wave function to happen? And so 584 00:29:42,200 --> 00:29:45,720 Speaker 1: it sort of examines other versions of the universe, you know, 585 00:29:45,760 --> 00:29:48,400 Speaker 1: to consider what else might happen, I say at a 586 00:29:48,400 --> 00:29:51,400 Speaker 1: fundamental level, or like at a specific system, like if 587 00:29:51,440 --> 00:29:53,800 Speaker 1: I have a baseball or I have a canister full 588 00:29:53,840 --> 00:29:56,080 Speaker 1: of gas, molecules, Does it tell me what's allowed for 589 00:29:56,160 --> 00:29:58,520 Speaker 1: those things? Or is this more in a fundamental level, 590 00:29:58,600 --> 00:30:01,560 Speaker 1: like what can a system in general do or not do? Yeah, 591 00:30:01,560 --> 00:30:03,920 Speaker 1: it's at a more fundamental level. And again it's not 592 00:30:04,000 --> 00:30:06,640 Speaker 1: rewriting the laws of physics. It's not saying this canister 593 00:30:06,720 --> 00:30:08,480 Speaker 1: of gas is now allowed to do things that it 594 00:30:08,480 --> 00:30:10,880 Speaker 1: couldn't do before. It's saying, when you go to write 595 00:30:10,880 --> 00:30:13,800 Speaker 1: the laws of physics, instead of just thinking about what's 596 00:30:13,880 --> 00:30:17,080 Speaker 1: going to happen, think about what's allowed and what's not allowed, 597 00:30:17,280 --> 00:30:19,640 Speaker 1: and that will let you write the laws of physics 598 00:30:19,680 --> 00:30:22,960 Speaker 1: in a different way, because, for example, information is not 599 00:30:23,040 --> 00:30:25,760 Speaker 1: just about the current state of your set of switches. 600 00:30:25,800 --> 00:30:28,720 Speaker 1: For example, it's about how many different states could those 601 00:30:28,720 --> 00:30:30,920 Speaker 1: switches hold. Right. If you have like a bank of 602 00:30:30,960 --> 00:30:33,560 Speaker 1: buttons in front of you, the amount of information stored 603 00:30:33,560 --> 00:30:36,240 Speaker 1: in it depends on the number of possible different ways 604 00:30:36,360 --> 00:30:39,520 Speaker 1: those buttons could be pressed or not. So thinking about 605 00:30:39,560 --> 00:30:42,320 Speaker 1: what's allowed and what's not allowed lets you like encode 606 00:30:42,360 --> 00:30:46,400 Speaker 1: information sort of more towards the core of your physical theory. 607 00:30:46,720 --> 00:30:49,160 Speaker 1: M I see. I think maybe what might be confusing 608 00:30:49,200 --> 00:30:52,360 Speaker 1: is that maybe you know physicists and theoretical people sort 609 00:30:52,360 --> 00:30:55,160 Speaker 1: of have a different idea of what information is. Kind 610 00:30:55,160 --> 00:30:57,600 Speaker 1: of like information maybe for to a regular person is 611 00:30:57,680 --> 00:30:59,840 Speaker 1: just like is the light on or off? Or is 612 00:31:00,000 --> 00:31:03,680 Speaker 1: as object red or not read? You know, like that's information. 613 00:31:03,720 --> 00:31:06,200 Speaker 1: That's good, that's sometimes useful to know. But I think 614 00:31:06,200 --> 00:31:09,000 Speaker 1: that maybe a theoretical person, information is more abstract, right, 615 00:31:09,040 --> 00:31:12,200 Speaker 1: It's about what can you know about something? Yeah, And 616 00:31:12,240 --> 00:31:15,880 Speaker 1: it's about like how many different configurations can something hold? 617 00:31:16,120 --> 00:31:18,960 Speaker 1: Like your hard drive, for example, it can store a 618 00:31:19,000 --> 00:31:21,440 Speaker 1: bunch of pictures. Why can it store that many pictures 619 00:31:21,600 --> 00:31:24,360 Speaker 1: because inside of it there are thousands and billions and 620 00:31:24,400 --> 00:31:27,760 Speaker 1: trillions maybe of tiny little switches which can either be 621 00:31:27,800 --> 00:31:30,360 Speaker 1: on or off, and you can encode those pictures in 622 00:31:30,440 --> 00:31:33,280 Speaker 1: those patterns of on and off switches. And so a 623 00:31:33,320 --> 00:31:36,760 Speaker 1: hard drive with more switches can hold more information because 624 00:31:36,760 --> 00:31:38,960 Speaker 1: it can have lots more different patterns, and so it 625 00:31:39,000 --> 00:31:42,280 Speaker 1: can hold bigger pictures or more pictures. So we measure 626 00:31:42,480 --> 00:31:45,880 Speaker 1: the information in a system by how many different states 627 00:31:45,960 --> 00:31:48,280 Speaker 1: can it be in, because that's a way to code 628 00:31:48,640 --> 00:31:51,160 Speaker 1: some vital thing. Like if you have, for example, just 629 00:31:51,240 --> 00:31:53,320 Speaker 1: a light switch, a light switch can only be in 630 00:31:53,320 --> 00:31:56,280 Speaker 1: two states, on or off, so you can only possibly 631 00:31:56,320 --> 00:31:58,800 Speaker 1: send two messages. Right, you can't send a picture of 632 00:31:58,840 --> 00:32:01,200 Speaker 1: your dog using a light switch or a picture of 633 00:32:01,200 --> 00:32:03,400 Speaker 1: your cat. But if you have a billion light switches, 634 00:32:03,520 --> 00:32:05,400 Speaker 1: then you can flip them in the way which means 635 00:32:05,480 --> 00:32:07,640 Speaker 1: the picture of your dog or means the picture of 636 00:32:07,680 --> 00:32:11,000 Speaker 1: your cat. Right. I feel like it's almost like, you know, 637 00:32:11,040 --> 00:32:14,160 Speaker 1: information for for a regular person is like whether a 638 00:32:14,240 --> 00:32:17,680 Speaker 1: ball is red, Like that's information. But to the radical person, 639 00:32:17,720 --> 00:32:20,800 Speaker 1: it's like how many colors can this ball be? More 640 00:32:20,840 --> 00:32:24,280 Speaker 1: colors it can be. The more information that ball has 641 00:32:24,480 --> 00:32:27,959 Speaker 1: or carries, or you know, manifests perfectly. I think that's 642 00:32:27,960 --> 00:32:31,520 Speaker 1: a great way to describe it. Good. I'm glad, I 643 00:32:31,520 --> 00:32:35,000 Speaker 1: wasn't happy. So if we then think about our laws 644 00:32:35,000 --> 00:32:36,920 Speaker 1: of physics in terms of like could this ball have 645 00:32:36,960 --> 00:32:38,640 Speaker 1: been red? Or could have been blue? Or could it 646 00:32:38,680 --> 00:32:41,960 Speaker 1: have been green, then we're thinking about the possible states 647 00:32:42,000 --> 00:32:44,520 Speaker 1: of the system. We're thinking about what could have happened 648 00:32:44,720 --> 00:32:47,520 Speaker 1: and what couldn't have happened. Then we're directly addressing the 649 00:32:47,560 --> 00:32:51,360 Speaker 1: information when we go to write those laws of physics. Right, 650 00:32:51,440 --> 00:32:53,480 Speaker 1: So it sounds like you're concerned about all of the 651 00:32:53,520 --> 00:32:56,480 Speaker 1: different arrangements of a system, and so our current theories 652 00:32:56,520 --> 00:32:58,640 Speaker 1: don't worry because they only sort of deal with one 653 00:32:58,720 --> 00:33:02,000 Speaker 1: arrangement at a time kind of. And so constructor theory says, 654 00:33:02,120 --> 00:33:04,480 Speaker 1: the first thing you do is not write down the 655 00:33:04,560 --> 00:33:06,440 Speaker 1: laws of what happens. The first thing you do is 656 00:33:06,440 --> 00:33:09,200 Speaker 1: you write down what can happen and what can't happen, 657 00:33:09,280 --> 00:33:12,280 Speaker 1: and you use that to constrain eventually the laws that 658 00:33:12,320 --> 00:33:14,800 Speaker 1: you do write about what does happen. So it says, 659 00:33:14,960 --> 00:33:18,840 Speaker 1: start instead from basic principles about what's allowed and what's 660 00:33:18,880 --> 00:33:22,720 Speaker 1: not allowed, and then go from there. Instead of starting 661 00:33:22,800 --> 00:33:25,440 Speaker 1: from how things move and then figuring out what the 662 00:33:25,520 --> 00:33:27,920 Speaker 1: laws of what's allowed and what's not allowed are and 663 00:33:27,960 --> 00:33:31,000 Speaker 1: making them in exact, start from exact laws of what's 664 00:33:31,000 --> 00:33:33,720 Speaker 1: allowed and what's not allowed, and from their right the 665 00:33:33,720 --> 00:33:37,000 Speaker 1: rest of the dynamics, and by allowed or not allowed 666 00:33:37,040 --> 00:33:38,960 Speaker 1: to me like from an information point of view, like 667 00:33:39,000 --> 00:33:41,760 Speaker 1: information can increase or decrease or things like that. That's 668 00:33:41,800 --> 00:33:44,200 Speaker 1: one example, but it's really quite general, and you know 669 00:33:44,280 --> 00:33:46,520 Speaker 1: there are examples in the past where this has worked 670 00:33:46,560 --> 00:33:49,720 Speaker 1: really really well. We know, for example, that special relativity 671 00:33:49,880 --> 00:33:52,440 Speaker 1: is a great example. We know that Einstein got the 672 00:33:52,480 --> 00:33:55,400 Speaker 1: idea for special relativity from observing that the speed of 673 00:33:55,480 --> 00:33:57,840 Speaker 1: light is constant. Once you start from that, you write 674 00:33:57,880 --> 00:34:01,000 Speaker 1: down this basic principle, then the rest of special relativity 675 00:34:01,120 --> 00:34:03,960 Speaker 1: sort of falls just from that. So if you start 676 00:34:04,000 --> 00:34:07,800 Speaker 1: by saying, here the basic rules of what's allowed, everybody 677 00:34:07,800 --> 00:34:09,960 Speaker 1: who measures the speed of light has to measure it 678 00:34:10,040 --> 00:34:13,359 Speaker 1: at the same speed, no matter what their velocity is. Right, 679 00:34:13,520 --> 00:34:16,759 Speaker 1: from that, that constrains the possible laws of physics that 680 00:34:16,800 --> 00:34:18,960 Speaker 1: you could develop, and it constrains it in a way 681 00:34:19,000 --> 00:34:21,920 Speaker 1: that gives us special relativity the only rules that are 682 00:34:21,920 --> 00:34:24,840 Speaker 1: consistent with that. So it's a great example of starting 683 00:34:24,840 --> 00:34:27,600 Speaker 1: from principles and then finding laws of physics rather than 684 00:34:27,600 --> 00:34:29,840 Speaker 1: starting from the other direction. Yeah, because I guess if 685 00:34:29,840 --> 00:34:32,480 Speaker 1: you had started from like just looking at a photon, 686 00:34:32,640 --> 00:34:35,000 Speaker 1: you might have built a different theory about the universe, right, 687 00:34:35,040 --> 00:34:37,319 Speaker 1: and one in which like could go as fast as 688 00:34:37,360 --> 00:34:39,480 Speaker 1: it once, or anything can go as fast as it once. 689 00:34:39,520 --> 00:34:42,640 Speaker 1: But you're saying, like relativity something that came from looking 690 00:34:42,640 --> 00:34:45,440 Speaker 1: at what's allowed and not allowed. First, Like, we've observed 691 00:34:45,480 --> 00:34:47,160 Speaker 1: that nothing can go fast in than the speed of light, 692 00:34:47,200 --> 00:34:50,520 Speaker 1: and therefore photons have to move this way with these laws. Yeah, 693 00:34:50,640 --> 00:34:53,560 Speaker 1: and before we had relativity, we knew that light travel 694 00:34:53,719 --> 00:34:55,880 Speaker 1: just at that speed. It was measured, but it wasn't 695 00:34:55,920 --> 00:34:58,680 Speaker 1: an exact statement, you know, something that sort of emerged 696 00:34:59,000 --> 00:35:03,800 Speaker 1: approximately from experiments and from our calculations and from electromagnetism. 697 00:35:03,920 --> 00:35:05,680 Speaker 1: You know that light moved at this speed, but it 698 00:35:05,719 --> 00:35:09,640 Speaker 1: wasn't an exact principle. It was approximate. So Einstein instead 699 00:35:09,800 --> 00:35:12,600 Speaker 1: enshrined it as an exact statement, right, and he said 700 00:35:12,840 --> 00:35:16,520 Speaker 1: this has to be true absolutely, and everything follows from that. 701 00:35:16,960 --> 00:35:20,239 Speaker 1: And he did something similar when he developed general relativity. Right. 702 00:35:20,280 --> 00:35:25,480 Speaker 1: In general relativity, he said that acceleration is indistinguishable from gravitation, 703 00:35:25,600 --> 00:35:28,800 Speaker 1: that you can't tell the difference between accelerating and being 704 00:35:28,880 --> 00:35:32,239 Speaker 1: an a gravitational field, and that principle led him to 705 00:35:32,560 --> 00:35:35,640 Speaker 1: general relativity. So it's been done before in the past 706 00:35:35,640 --> 00:35:38,920 Speaker 1: in this general sense of like, find the basic principles 707 00:35:39,000 --> 00:35:42,000 Speaker 1: and from that let the laws of physics flow, instead 708 00:35:42,000 --> 00:35:44,920 Speaker 1: of let's build up mechanics and then see what emerges 709 00:35:44,960 --> 00:35:47,799 Speaker 1: from it. Well, it almost feels like you're trying to 710 00:35:47,960 --> 00:35:50,920 Speaker 1: state what the laws are and then I hope they 711 00:35:50,920 --> 00:35:54,160 Speaker 1: were or see if they work, rather than you know, 712 00:35:54,160 --> 00:35:57,719 Speaker 1: the kind of discover what those laws are. Yeah, maybe 713 00:35:57,800 --> 00:35:59,799 Speaker 1: it is a little bit backwards. You know, it's sort 714 00:35:59,840 --> 00:36:02,920 Speaker 1: of like, assume some basic principles about what's allowed in 715 00:36:02,920 --> 00:36:06,240 Speaker 1: the universe and what's not allowed. See what the consequences 716 00:36:06,239 --> 00:36:07,919 Speaker 1: of that are. But then in the end you still 717 00:36:07,960 --> 00:36:09,600 Speaker 1: have to go out and check and say, well, does 718 00:36:09,640 --> 00:36:14,360 Speaker 1: that actually describe reality or not? If Einstein's predictions hadn't worked, 719 00:36:14,520 --> 00:36:15,920 Speaker 1: then you would have to toss it out, no matter 720 00:36:16,000 --> 00:36:18,759 Speaker 1: how beautiful it was. It seems like a bit of 721 00:36:18,800 --> 00:36:21,280 Speaker 1: a scatter approach. You know, I could say, hey, maybe 722 00:36:21,360 --> 00:36:23,680 Speaker 1: only pink elephants can go faster than the speed of light, 723 00:36:23,719 --> 00:36:25,359 Speaker 1: and so I would we would have to design an 724 00:36:25,360 --> 00:36:28,319 Speaker 1: experiment to prove me wrong. I'm looking forward to doing 725 00:36:28,320 --> 00:36:31,880 Speaker 1: that experiment. Actually a great way to spend an Afternoon's right, 726 00:36:32,120 --> 00:36:35,040 Speaker 1: It's been a few months writing that application. But what 727 00:36:35,120 --> 00:36:38,399 Speaker 1: are some other examples of this idea kind of working out? 728 00:36:38,560 --> 00:36:42,840 Speaker 1: Another example is Stephen Hawking making progress on quantum gravity. 729 00:36:43,040 --> 00:36:45,200 Speaker 1: You know, we have a theory of quantum mechanics that 730 00:36:45,320 --> 00:36:48,480 Speaker 1: describes how particles move, and then we have general relativity 731 00:36:48,520 --> 00:36:51,600 Speaker 1: that tells us how space bends and twists in the 732 00:36:51,600 --> 00:36:54,160 Speaker 1: presence of mass. But nobody's been able to link those 733 00:36:54,200 --> 00:36:57,640 Speaker 1: two together to understand how gravity affects tiny little particles 734 00:36:57,640 --> 00:37:00,840 Speaker 1: which seem to follow very different rules then the things 735 00:37:00,840 --> 00:37:03,680 Speaker 1: that general relativity talks about. Right, general relativity is happy 736 00:37:03,719 --> 00:37:08,319 Speaker 1: to talk about baseballs and planets and things that follow smooth, continuous, 737 00:37:08,360 --> 00:37:11,960 Speaker 1: curved paths, but quantum mechanics tells us particles don't do that. 738 00:37:12,200 --> 00:37:14,920 Speaker 1: They're here, then they're there, and there is no path 739 00:37:15,160 --> 00:37:17,720 Speaker 1: in between them, and sometimes they can be in multiple 740 00:37:17,719 --> 00:37:21,000 Speaker 1: places simultaneously, right, or have the probability to be, and 741 00:37:21,080 --> 00:37:23,440 Speaker 1: general relativity doesn't know how to handle that. And so 742 00:37:23,480 --> 00:37:26,440 Speaker 1: Stephen Hawkings said, well, let me think about what's allowed 743 00:37:26,560 --> 00:37:29,680 Speaker 1: for black holes and what's not allowed. And he said, well, 744 00:37:29,719 --> 00:37:33,279 Speaker 1: we know that black holes have some information inside of them, 745 00:37:33,360 --> 00:37:35,200 Speaker 1: because when you put something inside a black hole, that 746 00:37:35,239 --> 00:37:38,680 Speaker 1: information has to go somewhere. And therefore black holes have entropy, 747 00:37:38,760 --> 00:37:42,200 Speaker 1: they have disorder because they're gathering information to gathering stuff 748 00:37:42,239 --> 00:37:45,120 Speaker 1: as they grow, and therefore they have to have some temperature. 749 00:37:45,239 --> 00:37:47,440 Speaker 1: And this was his big breakthrough, is to apply like 750 00:37:47,520 --> 00:37:51,440 Speaker 1: statistical thermal physics to black holes, because if black holes 751 00:37:51,560 --> 00:37:54,800 Speaker 1: have some temperature, then they have to glow because everything 752 00:37:54,840 --> 00:37:58,000 Speaker 1: in the universe that has a temperature also emits radiation, 753 00:37:58,200 --> 00:38:00,920 Speaker 1: and that led him to predict talking radiation, which he 754 00:38:00,960 --> 00:38:03,239 Speaker 1: of course named after himself. And so that was sort 755 00:38:03,280 --> 00:38:05,960 Speaker 1: of like a first step in the direction of trying 756 00:38:06,000 --> 00:38:09,240 Speaker 1: to understand a quantum theory of gravity, like what happens 757 00:38:09,320 --> 00:38:12,200 Speaker 1: to tiny particles right on the boundary of a black hole. 758 00:38:12,600 --> 00:38:14,959 Speaker 1: Of course, not a full theory of quantum gravity, lots 759 00:38:14,960 --> 00:38:17,000 Speaker 1: of big questions remaining, but it's sort of like a 760 00:38:17,080 --> 00:38:20,560 Speaker 1: good step forwards starting from making statements about what is 761 00:38:20,560 --> 00:38:24,080 Speaker 1: allowed for black holes. It sort of sounds like maybe 762 00:38:24,239 --> 00:38:26,920 Speaker 1: the the idea it has to do with abstraction, maybe 763 00:38:27,000 --> 00:38:30,399 Speaker 1: like you're abstracting something from you know, a bird's eye 764 00:38:30,440 --> 00:38:32,560 Speaker 1: view really high up, and you say, all right, what, 765 00:38:32,560 --> 00:38:34,279 Speaker 1: what's sort of the general shape of this or what 766 00:38:34,360 --> 00:38:37,000 Speaker 1: should this behave as a whole, like a black hole? 767 00:38:37,080 --> 00:38:38,680 Speaker 1: Like if I just treat a black hole as a 768 00:38:38,719 --> 00:38:41,120 Speaker 1: black body, or is it hot thing in space, then 769 00:38:41,200 --> 00:38:42,800 Speaker 1: these are the things that should expect from it. And 770 00:38:42,840 --> 00:38:44,479 Speaker 1: then after that you sort of go into the Nitta 771 00:38:44,520 --> 00:38:47,239 Speaker 1: greety to make sure that's true. And then that maybe 772 00:38:47,280 --> 00:38:50,640 Speaker 1: reveals the small details of the laws of physics exactly 773 00:38:50,680 --> 00:38:53,080 Speaker 1: and it constrains you, right, it forces you to only 774 00:38:53,160 --> 00:38:56,400 Speaker 1: consider certain kinds of laws of physics, and the thing 775 00:38:56,440 --> 00:38:58,160 Speaker 1: that I like about it is that it does really 776 00:38:58,280 --> 00:39:01,560 Speaker 1: enshrine important things fun mentally into the theory and makes 777 00:39:01,560 --> 00:39:05,400 Speaker 1: them exact rather than approximate. I think about conservation of energy. 778 00:39:05,480 --> 00:39:07,480 Speaker 1: You know, if you didn't know that energy was conserved, 779 00:39:07,480 --> 00:39:09,880 Speaker 1: if that wasn't like a core thing in your theory, 780 00:39:10,040 --> 00:39:12,840 Speaker 1: and you just made a bunch of measurements and developed 781 00:39:12,840 --> 00:39:15,080 Speaker 1: the theory of chemistry and physics, then you might end 782 00:39:15,160 --> 00:39:17,880 Speaker 1: up with like an approximate conservation of energy because you 783 00:39:17,920 --> 00:39:20,680 Speaker 1: might notice like energy is almost always pretty close to 784 00:39:20,760 --> 00:39:24,239 Speaker 1: exactly conserved, but you wouldn't discover that it's like actually 785 00:39:24,400 --> 00:39:27,960 Speaker 1: really conserved. That takes like a reformulation of your theory 786 00:39:27,960 --> 00:39:29,279 Speaker 1: to say, well, you know what, we're going to put 787 00:39:29,320 --> 00:39:31,520 Speaker 1: this in at the ground level because it seems like 788 00:39:31,520 --> 00:39:34,279 Speaker 1: it really is exact. I see, you mean, like the 789 00:39:34,360 --> 00:39:37,120 Speaker 1: laws of thermodynamics, it's like, you know, we sort of 790 00:39:37,160 --> 00:39:39,720 Speaker 1: observed that they were true that you know, entropy always 791 00:39:39,719 --> 00:39:42,359 Speaker 1: increases or energy is sort of always conserved. But let's 792 00:39:42,400 --> 00:39:45,239 Speaker 1: just assume that's always true in all cases and then 793 00:39:45,280 --> 00:39:47,960 Speaker 1: build the theory of how molecules and things in a 794 00:39:48,040 --> 00:39:51,279 Speaker 1: gas canister work after that. Yeah, and let's see where 795 00:39:51,320 --> 00:39:54,200 Speaker 1: that leads us. Right, let's put these handcuffs on ourselves, 796 00:39:54,200 --> 00:39:57,560 Speaker 1: assuming that the universe also obeys those restrictions, and see 797 00:39:57,560 --> 00:39:59,640 Speaker 1: where that leads us. And it will lead you to 798 00:39:59,719 --> 00:40:02,600 Speaker 1: a theory which, if that describes the universe, should be 799 00:40:02,640 --> 00:40:05,640 Speaker 1: closer to the true theory. Or it might lead you 800 00:40:05,719 --> 00:40:09,440 Speaker 1: to a pink elephant collider or launching some pink elephants 801 00:40:09,440 --> 00:40:11,920 Speaker 1: into space exactly, and you might be handcuffed to that 802 00:40:11,920 --> 00:40:13,799 Speaker 1: pink elephant, and so it might be quite a ride. 803 00:40:15,160 --> 00:40:18,240 Speaker 1: We'll put those physicists in the back room. We'll attach 804 00:40:18,320 --> 00:40:20,359 Speaker 1: them to the pink elephants. All right, Then, what are 805 00:40:20,400 --> 00:40:23,759 Speaker 1: some maybe new developments in this theory about constructing from 806 00:40:23,800 --> 00:40:26,799 Speaker 1: the ground up. Well, one big obstacle in developing like 807 00:40:26,920 --> 00:40:29,320 Speaker 1: a theory of quantum gravity, which in the end is 808 00:40:29,360 --> 00:40:31,520 Speaker 1: one of the real big motivations for this. Like we 809 00:40:31,640 --> 00:40:34,279 Speaker 1: haven't figured out quantum gravity. What's going on. We've been 810 00:40:34,280 --> 00:40:36,040 Speaker 1: working on this for a while. Maybe we need a 811 00:40:36,040 --> 00:40:39,400 Speaker 1: new approach. One obstacle to making progress there has been 812 00:40:39,400 --> 00:40:41,719 Speaker 1: that we don't really know which direction to take. Like 813 00:40:41,800 --> 00:40:45,760 Speaker 1: there's two possibilities. One is maybe gravity is a force 814 00:40:45,960 --> 00:40:49,439 Speaker 1: like everything else, you know, like electromagnetism and the weak 815 00:40:49,480 --> 00:40:52,280 Speaker 1: force and the strong force. Gravity really is a force, 816 00:40:52,600 --> 00:40:55,600 Speaker 1: and it's quantum mechanical, and they're like little gravitons that 817 00:40:55,680 --> 00:40:57,759 Speaker 1: go back and forth. Maybe we can use our whole 818 00:40:57,840 --> 00:41:00,600 Speaker 1: quantum mechanical description of the other force is and we 819 00:41:00,640 --> 00:41:03,200 Speaker 1: can apply it to gravity somehow. We haven't figured out 820 00:41:03,200 --> 00:41:05,600 Speaker 1: how yet, but maybe that's the path forward. But then 821 00:41:05,600 --> 00:41:07,439 Speaker 1: there's a whole other group of people who are taking 822 00:41:07,440 --> 00:41:10,640 Speaker 1: a completely different approach. They're saying, no, no, no no, gravity 823 00:41:10,719 --> 00:41:13,880 Speaker 1: is different. And the way to bring general relativity and 824 00:41:14,000 --> 00:41:16,960 Speaker 1: space and time together with quantum mechanics is not to 825 00:41:17,040 --> 00:41:20,960 Speaker 1: quantize gravity, but to quantize space itself. This idea that 826 00:41:21,040 --> 00:41:23,880 Speaker 1: like maybe space is made out of tiny little pixels 827 00:41:23,920 --> 00:41:26,680 Speaker 1: and reality is like woving together this loop or this 828 00:41:26,840 --> 00:41:29,799 Speaker 1: foam of these tiny little pixels. That would also make 829 00:41:29,960 --> 00:41:32,400 Speaker 1: gravity quantized, but in a very very different way. It 830 00:41:32,400 --> 00:41:34,359 Speaker 1: wouldn't say gravity is a force. They would say it's 831 00:41:34,360 --> 00:41:37,719 Speaker 1: the curvature of space, but that space itself is quantized, 832 00:41:37,760 --> 00:41:40,440 Speaker 1: so nobody really knows like which direction to take. And 833 00:41:40,480 --> 00:41:42,760 Speaker 1: there's this idea that if we could construct an experiment 834 00:41:42,800 --> 00:41:45,200 Speaker 1: to sort of like, not tell us how gravity works, 835 00:41:45,320 --> 00:41:47,919 Speaker 1: but tell us which direction to go. That that could 836 00:41:47,920 --> 00:41:50,400 Speaker 1: be a very useful thing to do to like at 837 00:41:50,480 --> 00:41:52,359 Speaker 1: least get a clue as to which path to take. 838 00:41:53,000 --> 00:41:54,520 Speaker 1: And I see it's like we can marry the two 839 00:41:54,560 --> 00:41:58,160 Speaker 1: theories together. So let's just invent a marriage and see 840 00:41:58,160 --> 00:42:00,959 Speaker 1: if we can get the right theory from there. Yeah, 841 00:42:01,080 --> 00:42:04,080 Speaker 1: and so people are wondering, like, is gravity a quantum 842 00:42:04,120 --> 00:42:09,279 Speaker 1: force or is space itself quantized? And before we know 843 00:42:09,360 --> 00:42:11,520 Speaker 1: which direction to take, let's say if maybe we can 844 00:42:11,560 --> 00:42:14,680 Speaker 1: answer that question, And so constructor theory would say, that's 845 00:42:14,800 --> 00:42:17,840 Speaker 1: very important step to take first is to understand is 846 00:42:17,840 --> 00:42:21,439 Speaker 1: gravity quantum theory or is space itself quantized? You should 847 00:42:21,440 --> 00:42:23,040 Speaker 1: try to figure that out first, and then you should 848 00:42:23,040 --> 00:42:26,000 Speaker 1: proceed to try to figure out quantum gravity. And you 849 00:42:26,040 --> 00:42:28,239 Speaker 1: might think, well, yeah, it would be great to know that, 850 00:42:28,280 --> 00:42:30,799 Speaker 1: but how could you possibly figure that out? And people 851 00:42:30,840 --> 00:42:33,719 Speaker 1: actually have come up with a pretty cool idea for 852 00:42:33,840 --> 00:42:36,200 Speaker 1: how you might be able to figure out if gravity 853 00:42:36,239 --> 00:42:40,040 Speaker 1: is a quantum force without actually understanding quantum gravity itself. 854 00:42:40,880 --> 00:42:43,000 Speaker 1: All right, right, let's get into some of the details 855 00:42:43,000 --> 00:42:46,120 Speaker 1: of this arranged marriage and how it might let you 856 00:42:46,239 --> 00:42:49,080 Speaker 1: copy information in new and interesting ways. But first, let's 857 00:42:49,120 --> 00:43:04,000 Speaker 1: take another quick break. All right, we're talking about constructor theory, 858 00:43:04,120 --> 00:43:07,840 Speaker 1: which is not a childhood toy. It's like potentially revolution 859 00:43:07,920 --> 00:43:10,319 Speaker 1: in the way physicists think about the universe and how 860 00:43:10,360 --> 00:43:13,200 Speaker 1: they build theories that describe the universe. And so we 861 00:43:13,320 --> 00:43:15,400 Speaker 1: think it's a better approach because it might let us 862 00:43:15,400 --> 00:43:18,320 Speaker 1: connect physics two concepts that are currently not connected together, 863 00:43:18,440 --> 00:43:22,719 Speaker 1: like maybe information to physical laws, or marrying quantum mechanics 864 00:43:22,719 --> 00:43:25,800 Speaker 1: to gravity. And so, Daniel, we were talking about marrying 865 00:43:26,200 --> 00:43:29,960 Speaker 1: quantum mechanics to gravity, which we currently don't have. They 866 00:43:30,000 --> 00:43:32,160 Speaker 1: won't even talk to each other right now, So how 867 00:43:32,440 --> 00:43:34,640 Speaker 1: do we make this romance happen? Well, first we have 868 00:43:34,719 --> 00:43:36,960 Speaker 1: to figure out, you know, how this relationship is going 869 00:43:37,000 --> 00:43:40,640 Speaker 1: to work. Right, Are we gonna stick gravity into quantum mechanics? 870 00:43:40,640 --> 00:43:43,319 Speaker 1: Are we're gonna stick quantum mechanics into gravity. It's like 871 00:43:43,400 --> 00:43:45,880 Speaker 1: are we wrapping the peanut butter around the chocolate or 872 00:43:45,880 --> 00:43:48,640 Speaker 1: the chocolate around the peanut butter. That's like step number one. 873 00:43:49,320 --> 00:43:51,920 Speaker 1: That's what constructors theory would say. It's like instead of 874 00:43:51,960 --> 00:43:55,000 Speaker 1: like fiddling around in the lab trying to build a 875 00:43:55,080 --> 00:43:58,680 Speaker 1: theory from scratch and from watching individual particles. Let's decide 876 00:43:58,719 --> 00:44:01,640 Speaker 1: from the beginning whether it's chocolate and peanut butter or 877 00:44:01,680 --> 00:44:04,240 Speaker 1: peanut butter and chocolate. Yeah, let's have as many guiding 878 00:44:04,280 --> 00:44:07,840 Speaker 1: principles as possible before we get started, and let's code 879 00:44:07,840 --> 00:44:10,400 Speaker 1: those guiding principles into the very very basic layer of 880 00:44:10,440 --> 00:44:12,880 Speaker 1: how we design this theory, so it's more likely to 881 00:44:12,920 --> 00:44:14,879 Speaker 1: be right in the end. And you know that only 882 00:44:14,920 --> 00:44:17,040 Speaker 1: works if the principles you're talking about are the ones 883 00:44:17,080 --> 00:44:19,480 Speaker 1: that describe our universe, so you better make sure those 884 00:44:19,480 --> 00:44:21,759 Speaker 1: are right. Well, it tell us a little anti scientific 885 00:44:21,760 --> 00:44:24,080 Speaker 1: in a way, right, Like it's almost like you're pre 886 00:44:24,400 --> 00:44:26,400 Speaker 1: coming up with the answer in a way instead of 887 00:44:26,440 --> 00:44:30,399 Speaker 1: basing it on observation. It's like another step in developing hypotheses. Right, 888 00:44:30,480 --> 00:44:32,640 Speaker 1: It's like step zeros. Now, write down a bunch of 889 00:44:32,719 --> 00:44:35,640 Speaker 1: rules that your theories have to obey, and then step 890 00:44:35,680 --> 00:44:37,600 Speaker 1: one is write down a theory of the universe, and 891 00:44:37,640 --> 00:44:39,479 Speaker 1: then step two is go out and check and see 892 00:44:39,480 --> 00:44:41,480 Speaker 1: if it actually works. But we have this like new 893 00:44:41,520 --> 00:44:44,319 Speaker 1: step zero the constrains the kind of theories you can 894 00:44:44,320 --> 00:44:47,080 Speaker 1: write down, and step one I see, So it's like 895 00:44:47,120 --> 00:44:50,439 Speaker 1: a meta hypothesis. It's before we have a hypothesis. Let's 896 00:44:50,440 --> 00:44:53,239 Speaker 1: step back and have a meta hypothesis where we sort 897 00:44:53,239 --> 00:44:55,239 Speaker 1: of pick a direction of the way the universe is 898 00:44:55,360 --> 00:44:57,920 Speaker 1: peanut butter or chocolate coated, and then see if that works. 899 00:44:57,920 --> 00:45:00,440 Speaker 1: If it doesn't, then we'll maybe try another direction. And 900 00:45:00,480 --> 00:45:02,560 Speaker 1: the advantage is if it does work, then these like 901 00:45:02,680 --> 00:45:05,840 Speaker 1: D principles are encoded right into your laws of physics. 902 00:45:05,880 --> 00:45:08,719 Speaker 1: They're exact rather than like coming out as emergent or 903 00:45:08,760 --> 00:45:13,040 Speaker 1: approximate phenomena. But wouldn't the danger be that maybe you 904 00:45:13,160 --> 00:45:16,319 Speaker 1: pick a direction like chocolate covered inside a peanut butter, 905 00:45:16,360 --> 00:45:18,480 Speaker 1: and it works most of the time, but then eventually 906 00:45:18,520 --> 00:45:21,279 Speaker 1: down the road it turns out that it's, you know, 907 00:45:21,360 --> 00:45:24,680 Speaker 1: also an emergent thing or something. Yeah, you could take 908 00:45:24,719 --> 00:45:27,359 Speaker 1: a principle and claim that it's perfect and exactly, then 909 00:45:27,360 --> 00:45:30,040 Speaker 1: it could turn out to just be approximate. Absolutely, there's 910 00:45:30,080 --> 00:45:32,640 Speaker 1: nothing in this new constructor theory that prevents you from 911 00:45:32,640 --> 00:45:36,640 Speaker 1: overthrowing people's previous ideas developed from constructor theory. Right, you 912 00:45:36,640 --> 00:45:38,920 Speaker 1: can still do that, all right, But what I do 913 00:45:39,000 --> 00:45:41,400 Speaker 1: think is really fun is that it's motivated people to 914 00:45:41,440 --> 00:45:43,400 Speaker 1: try to ask this question of like the chocolate in 915 00:45:43,440 --> 00:45:45,880 Speaker 1: the peanut butter peanut butter and the chocolate before we 916 00:45:45,920 --> 00:45:48,720 Speaker 1: get to quantum gravity. It's like, first figure out which 917 00:45:48,719 --> 00:45:51,520 Speaker 1: direction to take before you actually get the theory. I 918 00:45:51,600 --> 00:45:54,320 Speaker 1: think that is pretty cool. That is something new because 919 00:45:54,400 --> 00:45:57,480 Speaker 1: it actually inspired people to think up a really clever 920 00:45:57,600 --> 00:46:01,520 Speaker 1: experiment that would answer that question. How does quantum gravity work? 921 00:46:01,640 --> 00:46:05,640 Speaker 1: But is gravity quantum force or is space quantized? Oh? 922 00:46:05,719 --> 00:46:08,360 Speaker 1: I see, Like maybe before because we didn't know whether 923 00:46:08,719 --> 00:46:11,440 Speaker 1: it was peanut butter or chocolate, the one that was outside. 924 00:46:11,480 --> 00:46:14,799 Speaker 1: You know, people wouldn't commit to sort of exploring experiments 925 00:46:14,880 --> 00:46:17,520 Speaker 1: or going down one path too much. But once you 926 00:46:17,560 --> 00:46:20,640 Speaker 1: sort of say, okay, let's assume it is chocolate covered 927 00:46:20,680 --> 00:46:22,879 Speaker 1: with peanut butter, and how would we build a whole 928 00:46:22,880 --> 00:46:25,160 Speaker 1: science out of this? Yeah, it's really inspirational to know 929 00:46:25,360 --> 00:46:27,799 Speaker 1: something about the answer. It really helps you drive in 930 00:46:27,800 --> 00:46:30,600 Speaker 1: the right direction. But these experiments are really hard, right 931 00:46:30,600 --> 00:46:32,920 Speaker 1: because what we're looking to do is to understand do 932 00:46:33,120 --> 00:46:37,720 Speaker 1: tiny little particles feel gravity or how do they feel gravity? 933 00:46:37,719 --> 00:46:40,400 Speaker 1: What are the rules of gravity for tiny particles? And 934 00:46:40,440 --> 00:46:43,719 Speaker 1: that's hard because tiny particles are tiny and gravity is 935 00:46:43,760 --> 00:46:47,040 Speaker 1: really really weak, and so like the gravitational forces between 936 00:46:47,040 --> 00:46:50,399 Speaker 1: two tiny particles are almost zero, which makes it really 937 00:46:50,400 --> 00:46:53,800 Speaker 1: hard to do experiments of like measuring the gravitational forces 938 00:46:53,840 --> 00:46:57,120 Speaker 1: between two electrons, for example. MM. So you're saying that 939 00:46:57,160 --> 00:47:00,040 Speaker 1: maybe just the idea of starting with like is a 940 00:47:00,040 --> 00:47:02,719 Speaker 1: would be a quantum force has inspired a whole bunch 941 00:47:02,760 --> 00:47:05,759 Speaker 1: of interesting experiments or interesting ideas about how that could work. 942 00:47:05,760 --> 00:47:08,239 Speaker 1: Whereas before people didn't really want to go down that 943 00:47:08,360 --> 00:47:10,480 Speaker 1: rabbit hole. People thought for a while that that was 944 00:47:10,600 --> 00:47:13,120 Speaker 1: not a question we could answer. First. People thought, first, 945 00:47:13,200 --> 00:47:16,000 Speaker 1: let's find a working theory of quantum gravity. Then we 946 00:47:16,000 --> 00:47:18,319 Speaker 1: can ask questions of that theory and say, like, well, 947 00:47:18,440 --> 00:47:20,560 Speaker 1: does it tell us that gravity is a quantum force 948 00:47:20,920 --> 00:47:23,600 Speaker 1: or does it tell us that the universe is quantized? Now, 949 00:47:23,640 --> 00:47:26,640 Speaker 1: instead they're saying, well, let's figure that out first, and oh, actually, 950 00:47:26,680 --> 00:47:29,319 Speaker 1: it might be possible to figure that out experimentally in 951 00:47:29,360 --> 00:47:31,400 Speaker 1: the next few years, and then we can use that 952 00:47:31,440 --> 00:47:33,320 Speaker 1: at the core of our theory and we can build 953 00:47:33,320 --> 00:47:36,560 Speaker 1: from there. So what does this experiment look like. It's 954 00:47:36,600 --> 00:47:40,040 Speaker 1: really fun. It's a crazy bonkers experiment. It involves these 955 00:47:40,040 --> 00:47:43,000 Speaker 1: super tiny little micro diamonds that are really small, and 956 00:47:43,160 --> 00:47:46,360 Speaker 1: inside of them they have like a single nitrogen atom 957 00:47:46,440 --> 00:47:49,400 Speaker 1: that can have different quantum states like different spin spin 958 00:47:49,520 --> 00:47:52,320 Speaker 1: up or spin down. The idea is that these diamonds 959 00:47:52,360 --> 00:47:55,719 Speaker 1: are so small that they're basically quantum mechanical, and the 960 00:47:55,719 --> 00:47:58,440 Speaker 1: goal of the experiment is to put these diamonds in 961 00:47:58,480 --> 00:48:01,799 Speaker 1: a quantum superposition. So like you have two diamonds and 962 00:48:01,880 --> 00:48:04,320 Speaker 1: you know, call one red and one blue, and maybe 963 00:48:04,320 --> 00:48:06,520 Speaker 1: the red one is now in a quantum superposition where 964 00:48:06,520 --> 00:48:08,319 Speaker 1: it like it could be over here or it could 965 00:48:08,320 --> 00:48:10,080 Speaker 1: be over there, and the blue one is also in 966 00:48:10,120 --> 00:48:12,719 Speaker 1: a position of where it might be. Now that's interesting 967 00:48:12,840 --> 00:48:16,160 Speaker 1: because gravity, of course depends on the distance between things. 968 00:48:16,320 --> 00:48:18,360 Speaker 1: So the part of the red diamond that might be 969 00:48:18,440 --> 00:48:21,080 Speaker 1: closer to the blue one should have a stronger gravitational 970 00:48:21,120 --> 00:48:23,480 Speaker 1: force than the part of the red diamond that might 971 00:48:23,520 --> 00:48:25,440 Speaker 1: be further away from it. So now you have this 972 00:48:25,560 --> 00:48:29,400 Speaker 1: like red diamonds in these quantum superpositions, and different parts 973 00:48:29,480 --> 00:48:33,120 Speaker 1: of those wave functions are now affected differently by the gravity. 974 00:48:33,320 --> 00:48:36,520 Speaker 1: And so if gravity is a quantum force, it will 975 00:48:36,560 --> 00:48:39,240 Speaker 1: talk to the different parts of those wave functions differently 976 00:48:39,320 --> 00:48:41,640 Speaker 1: than if gravity is not a quantum force, and it 977 00:48:41,760 --> 00:48:44,799 Speaker 1: like collapses that way function before interacting with it. So 978 00:48:44,840 --> 00:48:47,640 Speaker 1: you put these diamonds in like quantum superpositions, and then 979 00:48:47,680 --> 00:48:51,080 Speaker 1: you can see if gravity plays nicely with quantum states 980 00:48:51,160 --> 00:48:53,480 Speaker 1: or not. You mean, like almost like you're taking two 981 00:48:53,480 --> 00:48:55,480 Speaker 1: atoms and putting them close to each other and see 982 00:48:55,600 --> 00:48:59,520 Speaker 1: if there's a gravity between them. Kind of, Yes, these 983 00:48:59,560 --> 00:49:02,719 Speaker 1: diamonds drift through the experiment, they fall through the experiment, 984 00:49:02,800 --> 00:49:05,080 Speaker 1: and then they measured the distance between them to see 985 00:49:05,080 --> 00:49:08,359 Speaker 1: how gravity has tugged on these two diamonds between each other. 986 00:49:08,440 --> 00:49:11,000 Speaker 1: But before they did that, they put this quantum uncertainty 987 00:49:11,120 --> 00:49:14,120 Speaker 1: into the location of the diamonds, so it's not exactly 988 00:49:14,160 --> 00:49:16,560 Speaker 1: clear where the diamonds are. So then gravity has to 989 00:49:16,600 --> 00:49:19,000 Speaker 1: make a choice. It's like, well, my classical do I 990 00:49:19,080 --> 00:49:21,759 Speaker 1: collapse the wave function and then make gravity happen? Or 991 00:49:21,920 --> 00:49:24,320 Speaker 1: am I cool with quantum stuff because I'm a quantum 992 00:49:24,360 --> 00:49:26,440 Speaker 1: force just like everybody else, and I can just like 993 00:49:26,560 --> 00:49:29,759 Speaker 1: gravitationally attract the various bits of the wave function to 994 00:49:29,800 --> 00:49:33,160 Speaker 1: each other. Interesting, I guess you're saying that if gravity 995 00:49:33,239 --> 00:49:38,000 Speaker 1: changes the quantum wave function of the individual particles, that 996 00:49:38,080 --> 00:49:41,080 Speaker 1: means that it's a quantum force, whereas if it only 997 00:49:41,120 --> 00:49:43,920 Speaker 1: acts after you collapse the wave function, then it's not 998 00:49:43,960 --> 00:49:46,920 Speaker 1: a quantum force. Exactly, and this experiment can tell the 999 00:49:46,960 --> 00:49:51,760 Speaker 1: difference because it has these tiny little diamonds in quantum superpositions, 1000 00:49:51,840 --> 00:49:54,680 Speaker 1: and it can tell the difference between gravity collapsing those 1001 00:49:54,680 --> 00:49:58,040 Speaker 1: wave functions and then acting or gravity acting separately on 1002 00:49:58,080 --> 00:50:00,520 Speaker 1: the parts of the wave function, which would mean it's 1003 00:50:00,520 --> 00:50:03,400 Speaker 1: a quantum force. M M. I see, because it sounds 1004 00:50:03,400 --> 00:50:06,160 Speaker 1: like a really cool experiment and that maybe we should 1005 00:50:06,160 --> 00:50:08,279 Speaker 1: have thought of a while ago. That you're saying that 1006 00:50:08,320 --> 00:50:10,440 Speaker 1: we only sort of thought about it or only conceived 1007 00:50:10,440 --> 00:50:13,399 Speaker 1: this experiment because of this constructor approach of like let's 1008 00:50:13,400 --> 00:50:15,959 Speaker 1: pick a direction and go with it and then think 1009 00:50:15,960 --> 00:50:19,839 Speaker 1: of experiments or theories that fit that general meta hypothesis. Yeah, 1010 00:50:19,880 --> 00:50:22,040 Speaker 1: it was Kira Marletto herself who came up with this 1011 00:50:22,200 --> 00:50:25,120 Speaker 1: experiment as a sort of demonstration. She was thinking, if 1012 00:50:25,160 --> 00:50:27,319 Speaker 1: you want to figure out the basic principles first, you 1013 00:50:27,320 --> 00:50:30,080 Speaker 1: could actually try to attack those directly. And this is 1014 00:50:30,080 --> 00:50:34,000 Speaker 1: a good example of why like motivational principles or organizational 1015 00:50:34,080 --> 00:50:37,920 Speaker 1: strategies for theoretical physics are really important, because you're right 1016 00:50:37,960 --> 00:50:40,000 Speaker 1: that somebody could have thought of this ten years ago 1017 00:50:40,120 --> 00:50:43,160 Speaker 1: or twenty years ago, right, But the motivation for thinking 1018 00:50:43,239 --> 00:50:46,879 Speaker 1: up that this experiment was possible. Came from a new 1019 00:50:46,960 --> 00:50:49,520 Speaker 1: way of asking questions about the universe of let's try 1020 00:50:49,560 --> 00:50:52,200 Speaker 1: to figure out some basic principles first that will guide 1021 00:50:52,200 --> 00:50:55,120 Speaker 1: our theory going forward. I see, like, how would you 1022 00:50:55,160 --> 00:50:58,759 Speaker 1: design something directly to test those meta hypotheses. It's not 1023 00:50:58,840 --> 00:51:01,040 Speaker 1: something we would have come up with before, because before 1024 00:51:01,080 --> 00:51:03,200 Speaker 1: we were sort of tinkling around with the atoms and 1025 00:51:03,200 --> 00:51:05,080 Speaker 1: the particles and trying to see what was going on. 1026 00:51:05,160 --> 00:51:07,279 Speaker 1: And you know, it seems like nobody could sort of 1027 00:51:07,320 --> 00:51:09,680 Speaker 1: make heads or tales out of it. Yeah, exactly. So 1028 00:51:09,760 --> 00:51:12,000 Speaker 1: now people are setting up to do this experiment, and 1029 00:51:12,040 --> 00:51:14,960 Speaker 1: so we may know in the next few years is 1030 00:51:15,080 --> 00:51:18,279 Speaker 1: gravity a quantum force or not, which would be a 1031 00:51:18,360 --> 00:51:21,239 Speaker 1: huge piece of information. And you know, if it is, 1032 00:51:21,400 --> 00:51:23,759 Speaker 1: that means like folks like Carlo Rovelli, w've been working 1033 00:51:23,760 --> 00:51:26,560 Speaker 1: in loop quantum gravity. Well, that was fun mathematically, but 1034 00:51:26,680 --> 00:51:28,600 Speaker 1: doesn't describe nature. And we can just sort of like 1035 00:51:28,880 --> 00:51:33,239 Speaker 1: cross out huge branches of theoretical physics is inconsistent with 1036 00:51:33,320 --> 00:51:35,880 Speaker 1: our universe, and then we can dedicate our energies to 1037 00:51:35,960 --> 00:51:38,560 Speaker 1: the other direction. I see all those people holding peanut 1038 00:51:38,560 --> 00:51:41,640 Speaker 1: butter covered chocolates with the left with a lot of 1039 00:51:42,360 --> 00:51:46,560 Speaker 1: calories Uneaten. That's right and also delicious, right, mathematically a 1040 00:51:46,600 --> 00:51:48,319 Speaker 1: lot of fun and we've learned a lot about math 1041 00:51:48,400 --> 00:51:51,799 Speaker 1: and and maybe even about physics or the metaverse from that, 1042 00:51:51,960 --> 00:51:54,560 Speaker 1: but not necessarily our universe. Right, it could be true 1043 00:51:54,560 --> 00:51:57,879 Speaker 1: in another universe exactly. Maybe all those physicists will then 1044 00:51:57,920 --> 00:52:01,879 Speaker 1: DeCamp and go off to another universe. Follows they'll get 1045 00:52:01,920 --> 00:52:05,120 Speaker 1: exiled to in different country. As most revolutions, you know, 1046 00:52:05,280 --> 00:52:09,520 Speaker 1: there are always refugees, right, intellectual refugees, good Argentina. Maybe 1047 00:52:10,200 --> 00:52:12,799 Speaker 1: we wish them safe voyage. All right, Well, what are 1048 00:52:12,800 --> 00:52:16,000 Speaker 1: some of the criticisms of this constructor theory approach. One 1049 00:52:16,040 --> 00:52:19,280 Speaker 1: criticism is that, like, haven't we been doing this already? 1050 00:52:19,480 --> 00:52:22,399 Speaker 1: You know? The fact that we have previous examples like 1051 00:52:22,600 --> 00:52:27,000 Speaker 1: Einstein using this to establish relativity and Hawking using similar 1052 00:52:27,040 --> 00:52:30,640 Speaker 1: ideas to establish his ideas about black hole tells us that, like, 1053 00:52:30,680 --> 00:52:33,120 Speaker 1: it kind of has been done in the past, so really, 1054 00:52:33,160 --> 00:52:35,960 Speaker 1: what's new. I read a bunch of articles criticizing it, 1055 00:52:36,040 --> 00:52:39,120 Speaker 1: and that was essentially the strongest argument. I read that, like, 1056 00:52:39,360 --> 00:52:42,480 Speaker 1: we've already basically done this, And the response from constructor 1057 00:52:42,520 --> 00:52:45,040 Speaker 1: theory folks is like, yeah, we've done it. Before, but 1058 00:52:45,120 --> 00:52:48,440 Speaker 1: this like formalizes it, it generalizes it, It identifies it 1059 00:52:48,640 --> 00:52:51,600 Speaker 1: as a good way to do things. It encourages us 1060 00:52:51,680 --> 00:52:54,279 Speaker 1: to do all of physics this way rather than just 1061 00:52:54,400 --> 00:52:56,360 Speaker 1: you know, remarking on a couple of times that we 1062 00:52:56,400 --> 00:52:58,560 Speaker 1: did it and it worked. I see, like right now, 1063 00:52:58,560 --> 00:53:00,880 Speaker 1: it's sort of random the way we do it. Sometimes 1064 00:53:00,880 --> 00:53:03,440 Speaker 1: sometimes we start from the observation, sometimes we start with 1065 00:53:03,520 --> 00:53:06,040 Speaker 1: some guiding theory. But it's sort of random, and sometimes 1066 00:53:06,040 --> 00:53:08,279 Speaker 1: it works, sometimes it doesn't. I think you're saying this 1067 00:53:08,360 --> 00:53:11,160 Speaker 1: sort of camp or a physicist saying, let's just call 1068 00:53:11,160 --> 00:53:13,919 Speaker 1: it what it is, and let's know when we're doing 1069 00:53:13,960 --> 00:53:16,520 Speaker 1: it and not doing it. Yeah. Another criticism is that 1070 00:53:16,640 --> 00:53:18,520 Speaker 1: it's kind of fuzzy. I mean, it's even been tough 1071 00:53:18,560 --> 00:53:20,680 Speaker 1: for us to like figure out exactly what it means 1072 00:53:20,760 --> 00:53:22,640 Speaker 1: and how it would be different. And I think a 1073 00:53:22,640 --> 00:53:24,840 Speaker 1: lot of physicists sort of look at and be like, huh, 1074 00:53:24,880 --> 00:53:26,520 Speaker 1: what are you talking about. We're just going to keep 1075 00:53:26,520 --> 00:53:29,000 Speaker 1: doing physics the way we're doing physics, And so it 1076 00:53:29,080 --> 00:53:31,919 Speaker 1: hasn't like swept the world by storm. I mean, I'm 1077 00:53:31,960 --> 00:53:34,120 Speaker 1: here in a hallway with a bunch of theoretical physicists 1078 00:53:34,160 --> 00:53:36,759 Speaker 1: and none of them would say that they're doing constructor 1079 00:53:36,840 --> 00:53:39,799 Speaker 1: theory or think about constructor theory at all. So it 1080 00:53:39,920 --> 00:53:41,680 Speaker 1: might just be that, you know, it takes another few 1081 00:53:41,760 --> 00:53:44,120 Speaker 1: years to really catch on, to really break through that 1082 00:53:44,239 --> 00:53:46,960 Speaker 1: it needs to have. It's like really killer app before 1083 00:53:47,000 --> 00:53:49,160 Speaker 1: people are convinced, or could just be like, hey, that 1084 00:53:49,280 --> 00:53:51,120 Speaker 1: was kind of a cute idea, and then people move 1085 00:53:51,120 --> 00:53:52,880 Speaker 1: on to something else. We just really don't know at 1086 00:53:52,920 --> 00:53:56,120 Speaker 1: this point, right right then people move on to deconstructor theory, 1087 00:53:56,680 --> 00:54:00,560 Speaker 1: transformer theory into set to con theory, yeah, therey, and 1088 00:54:00,719 --> 00:54:03,920 Speaker 1: finally the knap theory. All right, well, it sounds like 1089 00:54:04,040 --> 00:54:06,560 Speaker 1: another state too, and it sounds like a pretty exciting idea, 1090 00:54:06,600 --> 00:54:09,680 Speaker 1: maybe a new way to look at science itself, and 1091 00:54:09,719 --> 00:54:12,640 Speaker 1: then the way we build theories about the universe, which 1092 00:54:12,719 --> 00:54:14,600 Speaker 1: could be maybe the right way. It sounds like a 1093 00:54:14,680 --> 00:54:17,160 Speaker 1: lot of progress has been made already thinking in this way, 1094 00:54:17,320 --> 00:54:19,880 Speaker 1: and it's always exciting to dig at the foundations of 1095 00:54:19,880 --> 00:54:22,920 Speaker 1: science to wonder, are the way we're doing things the 1096 00:54:23,000 --> 00:54:25,760 Speaker 1: only way? Is it the best way? We're all gone 1097 00:54:25,760 --> 00:54:28,480 Speaker 1: down one path without even realizing there was another path 1098 00:54:28,560 --> 00:54:31,160 Speaker 1: back then, a thousand years ago that we could have taken. 1099 00:54:31,280 --> 00:54:33,400 Speaker 1: So it's fun to sort of like lift up the 1100 00:54:33,480 --> 00:54:35,560 Speaker 1: layers of the rugs and look at what's underneath. And 1101 00:54:35,600 --> 00:54:38,680 Speaker 1: sometimes you find something really clever in a new direction. Right, 1102 00:54:38,800 --> 00:54:40,960 Speaker 1: Sometimes it's caramel nugat all the way down and not 1103 00:54:41,040 --> 00:54:44,520 Speaker 1: peanut butter or chocolate. Sometimes it's turtles all the way down. Right, 1104 00:54:44,560 --> 00:54:49,680 Speaker 1: isn't that a candy chocolate turtle chocolate turtle thing? All right? Well, 1105 00:54:49,719 --> 00:54:52,839 Speaker 1: another example of how science is an involving thing. It's 1106 00:54:52,840 --> 00:54:56,880 Speaker 1: always changing and transforming and constructing itself. And then and 1107 00:54:57,040 --> 00:54:59,120 Speaker 1: maybe the people out there who are listening could be 1108 00:54:59,160 --> 00:55:01,800 Speaker 1: the ones who may could all work. That's right. Maybe 1109 00:55:01,840 --> 00:55:03,640 Speaker 1: some six year old or some eight year old or 1110 00:55:03,719 --> 00:55:06,000 Speaker 1: some thirty eight year old out there is the one 1111 00:55:06,080 --> 00:55:08,520 Speaker 1: with the new idea about how the universe works, the 1112 00:55:08,560 --> 00:55:12,240 Speaker 1: one that takes us to the next level of understanding reality. 1113 00:55:12,640 --> 00:55:14,840 Speaker 1: So hopefully they'll wake up from their nap and figure 1114 00:55:14,880 --> 00:55:17,360 Speaker 1: everything out. For you, guys, we hope you enjoyed that. 1115 00:55:17,520 --> 00:55:28,280 Speaker 1: Thanks for joining us, See you next time. Thanks for listening, 1116 00:55:28,280 --> 00:55:31,000 Speaker 1: and remember that Daniel and Jorge explained the universe is 1117 00:55:31,040 --> 00:55:34,520 Speaker 1: a production of I Heart Radio or more podcast from 1118 00:55:34,560 --> 00:55:37,640 Speaker 1: my heart Radio. Visit the i heart Radio app Apple 1119 00:55:37,680 --> 00:55:42,560 Speaker 1: podcasts or wherever you listen to your favorite shows. YE