10:00

of time vanishes because the

10:02

phenomenon itself doesn't exist. And,

10:04

okay, so, all right. So then

10:07

let me ask you about the idea of entropy a

10:09

little bit. So

10:14

it's very difficult for me to

10:16

understand entropy except in relationship to

10:18

something like a goal.

10:21

So let me lay out

10:24

how this might work psychologically. Carl

10:29

Friston has been working on this. He's

10:31

the world's most cited neuroscientist and I

10:33

interviewed him relatively recently. He

10:35

has a notion of positive

10:38

emotion that's associated

10:40

with entropy reduction. And

10:43

our work is run parallel with

10:46

regards to the idea of

10:48

anxiety as a signal of entropy. So

10:50

imagine that you have a

10:52

state of mind in mind

10:55

that's a goal. You

10:59

just want to cross the street. That's a

11:02

good simple example. Now

11:07

imagine that what you're doing is comparing the

11:09

state that you're in now, you're

11:11

on one side of the street, to the state that you

11:14

want to be in, which is for

11:16

your body to be on the other side of the

11:18

street. And then

11:21

you calculate the transformations that

11:23

are necessary, the energy expenditure

11:25

and the actions that are

11:27

necessary to transpose the one

11:29

condition into the state

11:31

of the other condition. Then you

11:33

could imagine there's path length between

11:35

that, right, which would be the

11:38

number of operations necessary to undertake

11:40

the transformation. Then you

11:42

could imagine that you could assign to

11:44

each of those transformations something approximating an

11:47

energy and materials expenditure

11:49

cost. And then

11:51

you could determine whether the advantage of

11:53

being across the street, maybe it's closer

11:56

to the grocery store, let's say, whether

11:58

the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. Okay,

12:01

now, if you

12:03

observe yourself successfully taking steps that

12:06

shorten the path length across the

12:09

street, that produces positive emotion. And

12:12

that seems to be technically true. And then if

12:14

something gets in your way,

12:17

or an obstacle emerges, or

12:19

something unexpected happens, then that

12:22

increases the path length and

12:24

costs you more energy

12:27

and resources, and that produces

12:29

anxiety. Now, the

12:32

problem with that from an entropy perspective is

12:34

it seems to make what

12:37

constitutes entropy dependent on

12:39

the psychological

12:42

nature of the target. Like,

12:46

I don't exactly know how

12:48

to define one state

12:50

as say more entropic, and maybe

12:53

it doesn't make sense, more entropic

12:55

than another, except in relationship to

12:57

a perceived endpoint. I mean, otherwise,

13:00

I guess you associate

13:02

entropy with a random walk through

13:04

all the different configurations that a

13:06

body of material might take at

13:09

a certain temperature. It's something like that. I

13:13

would say analogous to

13:15

that, but a little bit different. So what

13:17

we do is we look

13:20

at the space of all possible

13:22

configurations of a system, whether it's

13:24

a psychological system or whether it's

13:27

air molecules in a box. It

13:29

doesn't really matter to us the

13:32

way we humans interpret that system.

13:34

We simply look at the particles

13:36

that make up the system and

13:38

we divide up the space of

13:40

all possible configurations into regions that

13:42

from a macroscopic perspective are largely

13:45

indistinguishable, right? The air in this

13:47

room, it doesn't matter to me

13:49

whether that oxygen molecule is in

13:51

that corner or that corner, it

13:53

would be indistinguishable. But if all

13:55

the air was in a little

13:58

functionally equivalent. But if all

14:01

the air was in a little

14:03

ball right over here and none

14:05

was left for me to breathe,

14:07

then I would certainly know the

14:09

difference between that configuration of the

14:11

gas and the one that I'm

14:13

actually inhabiting at the moment. So

14:15

they would belong to different regions

14:17

of this configuration space, which I

14:19

divide up into blobs that macroscopically

14:21

are indistinguishable. And we

14:23

simply define the entropy in some

14:25

sense to be the volume of

14:27

that region. So high entropy means

14:29

there are a lot of states that more

14:31

or less look the same like the gas in

14:33

this room right now. But if

14:35

the gas was in a little ball, it

14:37

would have lower entropy because there are far

14:39

fewer rearrangements of those constituents that look the

14:42

same as the ball of gas. So

14:44

it's a very straightforward

14:46

mathematical exercise to

14:49

enumerate the entropy of a configuration by

14:51

figuring out which of the regions it

14:54

belongs to. But none

14:56

of that involves the psychological states

14:58

that you make reference to. So

15:00

now there may be interesting analogies,

15:03

interesting poetic resonances, interesting rhyming between

15:05

the things that one is interested

15:07

in from a psychological perspective and

15:10

from a physics perspective. But the beauty or

15:12

the downfall, depending how you look at it,

15:14

of the way we define things in physics,

15:17

we kind of strip away the

15:19

psychological, we strip away the observer-dependent

15:21

qualities, we strip away the interpretive

15:23

aspects in order to just have

15:25

a numerical value of entropy that

15:27

we can associate to a given

15:29

configuration. In today's chaotic world,

15:31

many of us are searching for a way

15:33

to aim higher and find spiritual peace. But

15:36

here's the thing, prayer, the most common

15:38

tool we have, isn't just about saying whatever

15:40

comes to mind. It's a skill that needs

15:42

to be developed. That's where Hallo

15:44

comes in. As the number one

15:46

prayer and meditation app, Hallo is launching an

15:49

exceptional new series called How to Pray. Imagine

15:52

learning how to use scripture as a

15:54

launch pad for profound conversations with God,

15:56

how to properly enter into imaginative prayer,

15:59

and how to incorporate prayers reaching far back

16:01

in church history. This

16:04

isn't your average guided meditation. It's a

16:06

comprehensive two-week journey into the heart of

16:08

prayer, led by some of the most

16:10

respected spiritual leaders of our time. From

16:12

guests including Bishop Robert Barron, Father Mike

16:15

Schmitz, and Jonathan Rumi, known for his

16:17

role as Jesus in the hit series

16:19

The Chosen, you'll discover prayer techniques that

16:21

have stood the test of time while

16:23

equipping yourself with the tools needed to

16:26

face life's challenges with renewed strength. Ready

16:28

to revolutionize your prayer life? You

16:30

can check out the new series

16:33

as well as an extensive catalog

16:35

of guided prayers when you download

16:37

the Hallo app. Just go to

16:39

hallo.com/Jordan and download the Hallo app

16:41

today for an exclusive three-month trial.

16:43

That's hallo.com/Jordan. Elevate your prayer

16:45

life today. Right,

16:48

well what you're trying to do

16:50

when you control a situation psychologically

16:52

is to specify the,

16:54

I suppose it's something like

16:56

specifying the entropy, right?

16:58

Because you're trying to calculate the number of

17:00

states that the situation that you're in now

17:03

could conceivably occupy if you

17:05

undertook an appropriate, what

17:09

would you say, an appropriate course of action. And

17:12

as long as while you're specifying

17:14

that course of action, the system maintains

17:17

its desired behavior, then it's

17:20

not, for example, it's not anxiety provoking and

17:22

you can presume that your course of action

17:24

is functional. And I think

17:26

that proves to me, if that

17:28

proves to be a valuable definition

17:30

to acquire insight into perhaps

17:33

human behavior of the psychological reasons

17:35

for crossing that street, as you

17:37

were describing before, then

17:40

that may be valuable within

17:42

that environment. The reason why

17:44

we find entropy valuable as

17:46

physicists is we like

17:48

to be able to figure out the

17:50

general way in which systems evolve over

17:53

time. And when the systems are very

17:55

complicated, again, be it gas in this

17:57

room or the molecules inside of our

17:59

heads. it's simply too complicated

18:01

for us to actually do the

18:04

molecule by molecule calculation of how

18:06

the particles are going to move

18:08

from today until tomorrow. Instead,

18:10

we have learned from the work

18:12

of people like Boltzmann and Gibbs

18:15

and people of that nature a long time ago, we've

18:17

learned that if you take a step back

18:20

and view the system as a

18:23

statistical ensemble, as an average, it's

18:26

much easier to figure out on average how

18:28

the system will evolve over time. Systems

18:31

tend to go from low entropy

18:33

to high entropy, from order toward

18:35

disorder, and we can

18:37

make that quite precise in the mathematical

18:39

articulation, and that allows

18:42

us to understand overall

18:44

how systems will change through time

18:47

without having to get into the

18:49

detailed microscopic calculations. Okay,

18:52

so there's some implications from that as far as I

18:54

can tell. One is that

18:56

time itself is a

19:00

macroscopic phenomena. And

19:03

then the other... See,

19:07

there's times when it seems to

19:09

me, and correct me if I'm wrong, that

19:12

you're moving something like

19:14

a psychological frame of reference into

19:16

the physical

19:19

conceptualizations. Because,

19:23

for example, you described

19:25

a situation where if there was a

19:27

room full of air, one

19:31

of the potential configurations is that all the

19:33

air molecules are clustered in one corner, and

19:35

at least it's denser there. Now,

19:38

it's going to be the case that on average,

19:41

the vast majority of possible

19:43

configurations of air molecules in

19:45

a room are

19:48

going to be

19:50

characterized by something approximating random

19:53

disbursement. And so

19:55

that fraction of potential configurations

19:57

where there's... what

20:00

would you say? There's differences

20:02

in average density are going to be rare,

20:06

but what

20:08

you did say, you used the term ordered,

20:12

and I guess I'm wondering

20:15

if there is a physical definition

20:18

for order, because

20:21

the configuration

20:23

where there's density

20:26

differences has a

20:28

certain probability. It's very low, but

20:30

it has a certain probability. There

20:32

isn't anything necessary that marks it

20:34

out as distinct from the rest

20:36

of the configurations except its comparative

20:38

rarity. But

20:41

you can't define any given

20:43

configuration as differentially rare because

20:45

every single configuration is equally

20:47

rare. So how does the

20:49

concept of order, how

20:54

do you clarify the concept of order from

20:56

the perspective of pure physics? And

20:59

so you're absolutely right. When

21:02

you begin to delineate configurations

21:04

that you describe as ordered

21:06

or disordered, low entropy or

21:09

high entropy, it is

21:11

by virtue of seeing the group

21:13

to which they belong as opposed

21:16

to analyzing them as individuals on

21:18

their own terms. And

21:20

when we invoke words like order

21:23

and disorder, obviously those are human

21:25

psychologically developed terms. And

21:27

where does it come from? It comes

21:30

from the following basic fact, which

21:32

is if you have

21:34

a situation that typically we humans would

21:36

call ordered, for instance,

21:38

if you have books on a shelf that are

21:40

all alphabetical, there are

21:42

very few ways that the books

21:45

can meet that criterion. In fact,

21:47

if you're talking about making them

21:49

alphabetical, there's only one configuration that

21:51

will meet that very stringent definition

21:53

of order. You could have

21:55

other definitions of order like all the blue ones

21:57

are here and all the red covers are here.

22:00

Then there's a few, you can mix up the

22:02

blues, you can mix up the reds, but you

22:04

can't mix them together. So again, you have

22:07

a definition of ordered. Disordered

22:09

is when you can have any

22:11

of those configurations at all. So

22:14

clearly an ordered configuration

22:16

is one that's harder to achieve.

22:18

It's more special. It

22:21

differs from the random configuration

22:23

that would arise in its

22:25

own right if you weren't

22:27

imposing any other restrictions. And

22:29

so that's why we use

22:31

those words, but you're absolutely

22:33

right. Those words are of human origin

22:36

and they do require. Yeah.

22:38

It's partly improbability and rarity. And

22:41

then the emotional component seems to

22:43

come in in that it's not

22:46

only rare and

22:48

unlikely, but it also has some degree

22:50

of functional significance. I mean, the reason

22:53

that you alphabetize your books is so

22:55

that you can find them. And

22:58

so it's a rare configuration that

23:00

has functional utility and that's not

23:02

a bad definition of order, but

23:04

the problem with that from a

23:06

purely physical perspective is a definition

23:08

that involves some subjective

23:10

element of analysis. So that's

23:12

fine. It does. And this

23:14

is by, but I should say this

23:17

has bothered physicists for a very long

23:19

time that when you invoke the notion

23:21

of entropy, unlike most

23:23

other laws in physics, like

23:25

Einstein's equations of general relativity

23:27

or Newton's equations for the

23:29

motion of objects, you

23:31

can write down the symbols. Everybody

23:33

knows exactly what they means and you

23:35

can simply apply them and start with

23:37

a given configuration and figure out definitively

23:39

what it will look like later. Entropy

23:42

and thermodynamics and statistical mechanics, which

23:45

is the area of physics that

23:47

we're talking about here is of

23:49

a different character. Because for instance,

23:51

the second law of thermodynamics that

23:53

speaks about the increase of entropy

23:56

going from order to disorder, your

23:58

books are nice and alphabet. but you pull them

24:00

out, you start to put them back, and you're

24:03

gonna lose the alphabetical order unless you're very careful

24:05

about putting the books back in. It's more likely

24:07

that you get to this disordered state where they're

24:09

no longer alphabetized in the future. But

24:12

that's not a law, that's

24:14

a statistical tendency. It

24:17

is absolutely possible for systems

24:19

to violate the second law

24:21

of thermodynamics. It's just highly

24:23

improbable. If I take

24:25

a handful of sand and I drop it on

24:27

the beach, most of the

24:29

time it's just gonna splatter and move

24:31

those sand particles all over the surface.

24:34

But on occasion, is it possible that

24:36

I drop that handful of sand and

24:38

it lands in a beautiful sand castle?

24:40

Statistically unlikely, probabilistically unlikely,

24:42

but could it happen?

24:45

Yes, and if it did, that would be

24:47

going from a disordered to an ordered state,

24:50

violating the second law of thermodynamics. So that's

24:52

why this law is of a different character

24:54

than what we are used to in physics.

24:56

Yeah, well, that's what we've been trying to

24:59

wrestle with to some degree on the neuroscience.

25:04

So, okay, so let me ask you another question. It's

25:08

probably obvious to you, but I just also wanna make

25:10

sure that I've got it right, is that there

25:14

is a widespread consensus, let's

25:16

say, that

25:18

the universe is expanding.

25:21

And is there

25:23

any difference between that proclivity for

25:26

the universe to expand and

25:28

time itself, and

25:31

also more specifically, the forward direction

25:33

of time? Like, is

25:35

the expansion of the universe the

25:38

macro equivalent of the arrow of

25:40

time at the more

25:42

micro and subjective level? Some

25:45

people have thought so. There was a

25:47

time even when Stephen Hawking a while

25:49

ago made a claim of a similar

25:51

sounding sort. Currently, we

25:53

do not believe so. We have

25:55

theoretical models in which the universe

25:57

can expand and even then can.

26:01

even though the direction of time has not reversed when

26:04

the rate or direction of expansion

26:06

has changed. And so the idea

26:09

that the way in which the

26:11

universe expands is intrinsically

26:13

tied to the arrow of time

26:16

is not one that is

26:18

currently at all in favor. In

26:21

fact, the issue of the

26:23

arrow of time is one of the

26:26

big perplexing questions which

26:28

we can only at the moment

26:30

give the following answer to when

26:33

you're talking cosmologically. If

26:35

entropy is meant to increase toward

26:38

the future, then just running it

26:40

backward, you'd think that entropy

26:42

must have been lower in the past.

26:45

And if you take that directive and

26:47

you push it to its limits,

26:49

it would suggest that at the

26:51

big bang, entropy was in a

26:53

really low value, really ordered state.

26:56

Now that's confusing because A,

26:59

we don't really know how the universe

27:01

came into existence, but B, if it's

27:03

so ordered, you ask yourself, how

27:06

did it get so ordered? I mean,

27:08

when the books on the shelf are

27:10

alphabetized, we know how they got ordered.

27:12

Some intelligent being came along, you or

27:15

me or my kid, and put the

27:17

books in alphabetical order. But if the

27:19

moment of creation was so highly ordered,

27:21

the question is who did that

27:23

or what did that or what's the origin of

27:26

this order? And this is a vital question, because

27:29

if the big bang was not

27:31

highly ordered, if it was disordered,

27:33

if it had high entropy, there'd

27:35

be no opportunity for ordered structures

27:37

like stars and planets and life

27:39

forms to ever exist. So

27:42

we owe our existence to the

27:44

apparent fact that the big bang

27:47

was highly ordered, giving the opportunity

27:49

for ordered structures to then emerge

27:51

as the unfolding and change. What's

27:54

the relationship? Okay, I have two

27:56

questions on that front then. What's

27:59

the relationship? between the ordered state

28:01

at the hypothetical Big Bang and the

28:03

emergence of order on a

28:06

cosmological and galactic level following the Big

28:09

Bang. I don't understand that relationship. And

28:11

then, so that's one question. The other

28:13

question is, you know, I read a

28:16

brief history of time, a long time ago. So

28:22

I want to ask a couple of questions about that.

28:24

So when the

28:26

universe is contracting within Hawking's model,

28:29

there is this proclivity, as you just

28:31

pointed out, for everything to

28:33

move from a state of relative disorder

28:35

and dispersal to a state of relative order.

28:37

And Hawking seemed to imply in

28:39

that book that that meant that the arrow

28:42

of time was running backwards. But

28:44

that puzzled me in two ways. And

28:46

one would be that there

28:48

could still be all sorts of random

28:51

perturbations and systems that were collapsing. And

28:53

the other is that it seems to

28:55

me that the notion of quantum uncertainty

28:57

also disproves the idea that the

29:00

time, the arrow of time would

29:02

run backwards in some deterministic way,

29:04

because there's no, so, okay, so

29:06

that's the question on the Hawking

29:08

side. So, yeah. So

29:10

let me answer those in reverse order,

29:12

because it's worthwhile noting that Hawking himself

29:15

changed his mind on

29:17

this point regarding the reversal of

29:19

the arrow of time upon contraction.

29:21

So much of your concern with

29:23

that is actually borne out by

29:26

our views as well. So nobody

29:28

really takes seriously this idea anymore

29:30

that the arrow of time would reverse.

29:32

But the first question of how

29:34

do you get the ordered structures like

29:36

stars and galaxies from this Big

29:38

Bang beginning is a

29:41

deep one. And I believe that we have

29:43

some insight into that, which more or less

29:45

goes like this. The

29:47

Big Bang happens, universe

29:49

starts swelling rapidly, and

29:52

the energy that drove that

29:54

expansion then disintegrates into a

29:56

bath of particles that fill

29:58

space. You might

30:00

think about the particles filling space, that

30:02

sounds disordered, that sounds really high entropy,

30:05

like the gas in this room, the

30:07

particles are filled out through the room.

30:10

Perhaps things would just stay that way,

30:12

and there would never be clumps of

30:14

particles. And what changes

30:16

is when gravity matters, and

30:19

it does on cosmological scales, it doesn't

30:21

matter in this room. Gravity is irrelevant

30:23

to the air molecules in this room.

30:25

But gravity does matter if you have

30:28

enough particles filling space, and that certainly

30:30

happens with the universe as a whole.

30:33

And what that means is gravity starts

30:35

to pull little inhomogeneities,

30:37

a little denser knot of

30:39

particles here, a little less dense

30:42

over here. The denser one

30:44

starts to pull in more particles,

30:46

it gets denser still. And because

30:48

it's denser, its gravitational pull

30:50

is yet stronger, and it pulls

30:53

in more particles. And ultimately

30:55

you get these locations where particles

30:57

begin to implode in on themselves,

31:00

getting hotter and denser, ultimately

31:02

igniting nuclear processes and a star is

31:04

born. And the beautiful thing

31:06

about this, and this is incredibly subtle, but

31:08

the beautiful thing is, this

31:10

formation of the star is indeed

31:12

a drop in entropy.

31:14

A star is more ordered

31:16

than the original configurations, but

31:18

in the formation of the

31:21

star, the star gives

31:23

off heat and light that emits

31:25

entropy to the wider environment. I

31:28

like to call this the entropic two-step.

31:31

Entropy goes down in the formation of

31:33

the star, but it goes up in

31:35

the wider environment. And overall the entropic

31:38

balance works, the overall entropy goes up,

31:40

even though you get a pocket of

31:42

order in the wake of that entropic

31:45

increase. Okay, well human beings do that

31:47

too. Exactly, that's

31:49

what we do, right? So,

31:51

we eat food, we take

31:53

in these orderly sources of

31:55

energy, we burn that fuel

31:57

to allow biological processes place,

32:00

keeping our entropy low, but in

32:02

the process, we go off heat,

32:04

we expel waste. And if you

32:06

take account of that, then the

32:08

overall entropy of us and the

32:10

environment does go up. But

32:13

our entropy is able to kind of thumb

32:15

its nose at the second law of thermodynamics,

32:17

at least while we're living, and are able

32:19

to keep our entropy stable. Going

32:22

online without ExpressVPN is like not paying attention

32:25

to the safety demonstration on a flight. Most

32:27

of the time, you'll probably be fine, but

32:30

what if one day that weird yellow mask

32:32

drops down from overhead and you have no

32:34

idea what to do? In our hyper-connected world,

32:37

your digital privacy isn't just a luxury,

32:39

it's a fundamental right. Every

32:41

time you connect to an unsecured network

32:43

in a cafe, hotel, or airport, you're

32:45

essentially broadcasting your personal information to anyone

32:47

with a technical know-how to intercept it.

32:50

And let's be clear, it doesn't take a

32:52

genius hacker to do this. With some off-the-shelf

32:55

hardware, even a tech-savvy teenager could potentially access

32:57

your passwords, bank logins, and credit card details.

32:59

Now, you might think, what's the big deal?

33:01

Who'd want my data anyway? Well, on the

33:04

dark web, your personal information could fetch up

33:06

to $1,000. That's

33:09

right, there's a whole underground economy built

33:11

on stolen identities. Enter

33:13

ExpressVPN. It's like a digital

33:15

fortress, creating an encrypted tunnel between your

33:17

device and the internet. Their

33:19

encryption is so robust that it

33:21

would take a hacker with a

33:24

supercomputer over a billion years to

33:26

crack it. But don't let its

33:28

power fool you, ExpressVPN is incredibly

33:30

user-friendly. With just one click, you're

33:32

protected across all your devices. Phones,

33:34

laptops, tablets, you name it. That's

33:36

why I use ExpressVPN whenever I'm

33:38

traveling or working from a coffee

33:40

shop. It gives me peace of

33:42

mind knowing that my research, communications,

33:44

and personal data are shielded from

33:47

prying eyes. Secure your online data

33:49

today by visiting expressvpn.com/Jordan. That's E-X-P-R-E-S-S

33:51

vpn.com/Jordan and you can get an

33:53

extra three months free. expressvpn.com/Jordan.

34:01

So, let me ask you a

34:03

question about that initial clumping.

34:08

It occurred to me, I'm sure this

34:10

isn't an original idea, that,

34:14

so if that initial state, that

34:16

initial state immediately after the Big

34:18

Bang can't be homogenous, perfectly

34:21

homogenous, because quantum

34:23

uncertainty with regards to the positioning of

34:26

the particles would mean that there would

34:28

be some lack of homogeneity.

34:30

And the explanation you gave seems

34:33

to imply that even

34:35

minor deviations in homogeneity would

34:37

start a clumping process, would

34:40

begin the clumping process, and then once

34:42

it starts, it's going

34:45

to capitalize on itself. And

34:48

so is the lack

34:50

of homogeneity after the Big Bang a

34:53

direct consequence of quantum uncertainty with regards

34:55

to the position of the particles? It

34:58

is, it is, that's exactly right.

35:00

And it's even more than just an

35:03

interesting idea. What we've

35:05

been able to do, and these are calculations that

35:07

go back to the 1980s, we've been

35:10

able to model the early

35:13

universe mathematically using quantum physics,

35:15

using Einstein's general relativity. And

35:17

we've been able to calculate how

35:20

the uncertainty in the

35:22

positions and the energies and the speeds of

35:25

the particles should affect

35:27

the environment. And

35:29

we've been able to calculate that it should

35:31

cause tiny inhomogeneities as well in the temperature

35:33

of the night sky and the temperature of

35:35

space, which means that if

35:38

you could measure the temperature of the

35:40

night sky to adequate precision, you

35:42

should be able to test the prediction. And this

35:44

is what we have been able to do with

35:47

the so-called cosmic microwave background radiation. This

35:49

is heat left over from the Big Bang. And

35:52

starting in the 1990s with

35:54

ever greater precision, we've used space telescopes

35:56

and other devices to measure the temperature

35:58

of the night sky. of

36:00

space and the agreement

36:03

between the theoretical predictions and

36:06

the observations is so incredibly accurate

36:08

that to see the error bars

36:10

in the measurements, you have to

36:12

magnify them by like a factor

36:14

of 500 so that the naked

36:16

eye can even see them on the graph. That's

36:19

how tightly there is an agreement

36:21

between the mathematical calculations that we

36:23

humans do, these little

36:25

biological systems crawling around this

36:27

planet, barely coming of age

36:29

in the Milky Way galaxy, have been

36:31

able to calculate conditions billions of years

36:34

ago and compare them to observations and

36:36

they agree to spectacular precision. This is

36:38

one of the great triumphs of

36:41

modern science. I see. So

36:43

you could detect lack of homogeneity in

36:45

the background temperature and that was also

36:48

indicative of lack of homogeneity

36:51

in terms of dispersal particle density.

36:54

Exactly. Oh, wow. Okay, that's very cool.

36:56

All right, so that's so interesting because

36:58

that implies as well that, or

37:02

indicates that quantum uncertainty makes it

37:04

impossible for there to be a

37:06

homogenous distribution of particles. There's

37:08

gonna be asymmetries emerge and

37:12

those asymmetries- There have to be. Right, and then the

37:15

asymmetries expand up

37:18

until they manifest themselves at a

37:20

cosmological level with stars and galaxies

37:22

and those large filaments that the

37:24

galaxies appear to congregate in. Wow,

37:28

okay, so that's how that turns out. We are the progeny of

37:30

quantum uncertainty writ

37:34

large across the universe. Right, right, right. Okay,

37:36

okay. So, all right, let me, if you

37:38

don't mind, I have one other specific question

37:40

before I turn to maybe

37:42

the more particular details of your work,

37:46

especially with regards to string theory. So,

37:48

you know, I've been perplexed like so many people

37:52

with the double slit experiment. And

37:54

the fact that if you,

37:56

I'll just review it for people

37:58

very briefly, if you shine light

38:00

through- through a cardboard sheet

38:02

that has slits in it, and

38:06

you put a photographic plate behind

38:08

it, you can produce

38:10

interference patterns that

38:13

you can capture with

38:16

the photographic emulsion. And

38:19

the hypothesis is that when

38:21

the light beams go through the slits,

38:24

they interfere with one another. And so you get

38:26

these variegated zebra-like patterns

38:28

on the photographic emulsion. But the

38:30

peculiar thing about that

38:33

setup is that if you slow

38:36

the transmission of the

38:38

light through the slits down to one

38:41

photon per unit of time, so

38:44

that there's only one photon being admitted, you

38:46

still get the interference patterns. Okay,

38:49

so I had a thought

38:51

about that, and I want you to correct it if

38:53

it's wrong or

38:55

indicate if it's right. So

38:57

my understanding is that as, that

39:00

at the speed of light, the

39:03

universe is flat, perpendicular

39:05

to the direction of the travel of the

39:07

light beam, and that there is

39:09

no time. And so is

39:11

it not fair to say that from the

39:14

perspective of the photons, like

39:16

from our perspective, we're firing one photon

39:19

at a time, but from the perspective of the light

39:21

beam, the light beams, there's

39:23

no difference between the one photon

39:26

at a time state and the

39:30

shining light beam that's composed

39:33

of an indefinite number of photons at

39:35

the same time. If there's no time

39:37

from the perspective of the light

39:39

beam, then it's all the same to the light,

39:41

whether it's one photon at a time or a

39:45

plethora of light. Now,

39:47

so I don't exactly understand what that means

39:49

because I can't understand

39:51

the difference between the time-free frame

39:53

of reference that the light beam

39:55

has and our expansion

39:58

of that. Is

40:02

there something wrong in my reckoning with

40:04

regards to the idea that the time

40:06

has collapsed and so it's irrelevant from

40:08

the perspective of the light? Well,

40:11

what I would say there is

40:13

that from a poetic

40:15

sensibility, if you apply

40:17

Einstein's special theory of relativity to the

40:19

frame of reference of a photon, then

40:22

the things that you say are correct.

40:26

But I always caution my

40:28

students against taking that perspective

40:30

because what you're ultimately doing

40:32

is you're infusing the photon

40:34

with the very things that

40:37

we care about, such as

40:39

time and space and interference

40:41

patterns. But the photon

40:43

doesn't have any capacity to care

40:45

about those things. The photon doesn't

40:47

have any conscious experience. What we

40:50

want to do is explain our

40:52

experiences in our frame of reference.

40:54

And in our frame of reference,

40:57

photon upon photon upon photon do

40:59

have temporal separations. So

41:01

while it's kind of mind-slapping

41:03

to imagine yourself in the

41:07

perspective of a photon, it's not a

41:09

perspective that any material object can ever

41:11

have. The special thing about a photon

41:14

is that it's massless and only massless

41:16

objects can ever achieve

41:18

the speed of light. And

41:20

that's why us and material

41:22

objects will never have that perspective. So if

41:25

we want to explain the things that we

41:27

encounter, the things that we experience, we have

41:29

to use a frame of reference that is

41:31

not moving at the speed of light in

41:34

the manner that you describe. And

41:36

so if it offers some sort of

41:38

poetic insight to imagine that there's no

41:40

time from the point of view of

41:43

a photon, there's no space. It's all

41:45

been Lorenz contracted infinitely far. These are

41:47

actually pushing Einstein's ideas a little too

41:49

far. Poetically, you can do it, but

41:52

Einstein's derivation of time dilation Lorenz contraction,

41:54

it all was from the perspective of

41:56

a massive body that was not itself

41:58

traveling at light. somehow

44:01

still produce this interference pattern that is

44:03

a wave-like phenomenon, but what does it

44:05

mean to have a wave when you've

44:08

got one particle, right? That's the big

44:10

puzzle. And the solution

44:12

that we've come to is

44:14

that individual particles do themselves

44:16

have a wave-like quality, an

44:18

unexpected one. It's a

44:20

quantum wave that was introduced by

44:22

the great thinkers in the early part of the

44:25

20th century, beginning with Einstein and

44:27

then Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg and Erwin

44:29

Schrodinger and Max Born and Paul Dirac and

44:31

all the people who developed these ideas. But

44:34

the bottom line is individual

44:36

particles have a spread out wave-like

44:38

quality. And that wave is not

44:41

an electromagnetic wave. It's not

44:43

a wave of light, if it's

44:45

a photon, say. Rather, it's a

44:48

probability wave. It's a

44:50

wave that no one had ever

44:52

anticipated arising in our understanding of

44:54

the physical world. The idea of

44:56

being the best you can ever

44:58

do is predict the likelihood

45:00

or the probability of a particle being here or

45:02

here or there. Unlike what

45:04

Newton would have said, Newton would have

45:06

said, just tell me where the particle is and

45:08

how fast it's moving right now. And

45:11

I'll use my math to tell you exactly where

45:13

it will be later on. And

45:15

quantum physics had to turn to Newton and say,

45:18

you're asking for an impossibility. You can't

45:20

tell where a particle is and how

45:22

fast it's moving. There's quantum uncertainty and

45:24

the best you can do because of

45:26

that is predict probabilities of a particle

45:28

being one place or another. Right,

45:30

okay. So let me delve into that a

45:32

little bit. I know that's like

45:34

impossibly incomprehensible in a way, but

45:39

the wave that you're describing as

45:41

a probability wave, that's the

45:44

possibility that a given

45:46

phenomena, let's say

45:49

speed and location might make itself

45:51

manifest, but it's indeterminate.

45:53

There's some circumstances under which

45:55

it's indeterminate. And

45:57

I don't exactly understand the circumstances.

46:00

under which it's indeterminate. In

46:02

conventional quantum mechanics, it would

46:04

be all situations. Conventional quantum

46:06

mechanics would say, you

46:08

physicists or you human beings, you're

46:11

asking for too much. Your

46:13

intuition based on everyday experience has

46:15

misled you into thinking that you

46:17

can talk about the position and

46:20

the speed of objects. You can't.

46:22

You can talk about one or

46:24

the other, or you can talk

46:26

approximately about each, but you can't

46:29

delineate both simultaneously with total precision.

46:31

It simply can't be done. You've

46:33

been misled by common experience. Macroscopic

46:35

experience. Macroscopic experience is

46:37

a completely misleading guide to how the

46:39

microscopic world works. And, you know, we

46:42

really shouldn't be too surprised by that.

46:44

Why should it be the case? They're

46:46

the things that we experience in everyday

46:48

life also govern the incredibly small, they're

46:50

in the incredibly big, and it turns

46:52

out that they don't. But I will

46:54

say one thing just on the

46:56

side. There are alternative

46:58

ways of talking about

47:01

quantum physics and articulating it

47:03

mathematically that have not achieved

47:05

the kind of widespread acceptance

47:07

as the version that I'm

47:09

relying upon in our conversation

47:11

here. And in some of

47:13

those alternative versions, which are perfectly good,

47:15

they make the same predictions. You

47:18

have a situation where you

47:21

can delineate a particle's speed

47:23

and position. They are determinate.

47:26

The indeterminacy comes into the equations

47:28

in a different manner. So

47:30

this is an approach that was developed by David

47:32

Bohm. It was developed by Louis

47:34

de Broglie. It got

47:36

completely ignored in the history

47:38

of quantum physics for the most part. There's some

47:41

people who think about it today, but I only

47:43

raised this to say, even

47:45

with a subject like quantum physics, which we

47:47

can now use to make predictions that agree

47:49

with experiments to nine or

47:51

10 decimal places, that's how precise these

47:53

ideas are, they're still an

47:56

interpretive quality. They're still struggling to make

47:58

sense of- is what it is that

48:00

it's really telling us about reality. And

48:02

there are alternate versions that are out

48:04

there right now that in principle

48:07

are each as good as the other in

48:09

the minds of their different proponents. Right, right.

48:11

So it's useful to keep in mind the

48:13

fact that those interpretive, that there's

48:16

a variety of opinions with regards to the

48:18

plethora of interpretive frameworks that might be

48:21

appropriate. So- Yeah,

48:23

there is a dominant one. I don't wanna

48:25

give an incorrect view. Most physicists who you

48:27

talk to will speak in the manner that

48:29

we were a moment ago, but I always

48:31

feel that it's worthwhile pointing out that that's

48:33

not the only way that you can talk

48:35

about quantum physics. Attention,

48:38

men who still believe in the American dream.

48:40

In a world gone mad, the Precision 5

48:42

from Jeremy's Razors stands as a beacon of

48:44

sanity. Five blades of superior engineering

48:46

offer a shave as unshakable as your faith

48:48

that the nation's best days still lie ahead.

48:51

Experience an exceptionally smooth, remarkably close shave and

48:53

a testament to the fact that merit still

48:55

matters. Stop giving your money to WOLC corporations

48:57

that hate you. Get Jeremy's

49:00

Razors Precision 5 instead. Available

49:02

now at jeremisrazors.com, walmart.com and

49:04

amazonprime. Do

49:08

you, this is a very ill

49:11

formed question and

49:14

it sort of pushes me to the edge of my understanding.

49:18

I've spent a lot of time studying

49:20

mythology and the

49:23

ordering effect of consciousness

49:25

is something that's represented in deep

49:28

narratives universally.

49:31

And the story is something

49:33

like an ordering

49:36

agent encountering a field

49:38

of possibility and casting it

49:40

into a determinant and

49:43

somewhat fixed order. So

49:47

for example, in the Genesis account,

49:52

the waste and chaos that the

49:54

spirit of God encounters is the

49:56

Tohu Va'bohu and it's

49:58

something locations

52:00

where the first particle might be, and there

52:02

are three coordinates, I should say, that would

52:04

delineate the location of the second part. So

52:07

three coordinates for the first, three coordinates for

52:09

the second. If you have three particles, that

52:11

wave lives in nine dimensions, four particles, it

52:13

lives in 12 dimensions. You

52:16

know, if you have a

52:18

trillion particles, that wave lives

52:20

in three trillion dimensions. How

52:23

do you think about that

52:25

wave? So that wave as

52:28

something that for one particle is

52:30

at least it's tricky, but at

52:32

least you can envision it as,

52:35

you know, some gossamer substance that's

52:37

filling space and where that gossamer

52:39

substance is a little bit, you

52:41

know, more opaque, high probability, where

52:44

it's thinner, low, you can think

52:46

about it, you can cogitate on

52:48

that. I don't know how to

52:50

cogitate on the version that describes

52:52

many particles because it's beyond my

52:55

capacity to envision the arena within

52:57

which that wave exists. So

52:59

it's a tough, tough question. And sort

53:01

of the way it relates, at least the

53:03

way I try to make it relate to

53:06

the kinds of topics that you were speaking

53:08

of, be it the Bible, be it mythology,

53:11

I sort of see reality as

53:13

dry-ated, stratified into different layers that

53:15

all relate to each other. And

53:17

you need to choose the right

53:20

language, the right story, if you

53:22

will, to gain insight into whatever

53:24

layer you're interested in. And if

53:26

you're interested in the rock bottom

53:28

reality, quantum physics is where you

53:30

should absolutely go. If you're interested

53:33

in the layer where particles come

53:35

together into molecules, well, that's more

53:37

chemistry, how they come together into

53:39

cells, more biology, how they come

53:41

together into living systems, you know,

53:44

then you get into self-consciousness, neurology,

53:46

psychology. So you see all these

53:48

necessary stories. Are they reliant upon

53:50

quantum physics? In the rock bottom

53:52

reality, they are. But the language

53:54

that's more useful at the higher

53:57

levels, of course, is the higher

53:59

level language. that we invoke. And

54:01

so, you know, to me, mythology is

54:04

this wonderful realm where we human

54:06

beings have struggled to find coherence

54:08

at the societal level, to try to

54:11

understand our own mortality, to try to

54:13

understand where we came from and where

54:15

we're going not from general relativity, but

54:17

from a more human standpoint. And

54:20

so that's where I see those stories interfacing

54:23

with the cosmological and quantum

54:25

mechanical story. Okay, so

54:28

you talked about the difficulty of

54:30

mapping that three trillion

54:32

dimension space, let's say, that emerges

54:36

as a consequence of the interaction

54:38

of a plethora of

54:40

particles. I mean, it

54:43

seems to me that that's

54:45

actually, and this is

54:47

a huge leap, and I'm not claiming it's

54:49

correct, but there's something to it, because of

54:51

course, I'll

54:54

lay it out first. I

54:56

mean, we use imaginative projection

54:58

to envision alternative potential

55:01

futures, right? And we seem to concentrate

55:03

on the ones that are relatively

55:06

statistically likely. Like

55:09

when you're, I've been thinking a lot about

55:11

how consciousness operates. And you can think of

55:13

us as deterministic

55:15

creatures who are driven

55:17

by mechanical algorithms to

55:21

move forward robotically lockstep

55:23

as we're driven by

55:25

material causality. But you

55:29

can also think about us

55:31

as imaginative visionaries who

55:34

flesh out realms of possibility

55:36

and then implement

55:39

processes to bring those about. And I

55:41

think the latter conceptualization

55:44

is much more accurate with regards

55:46

to the contents of our consciousness,

55:48

because what consciousness

55:50

focuses on isn't

55:53

constants. Consciousness focuses

55:56

on variability. So

55:58

for example, if something unexpected happened

56:00

in your sensory field right at the moment, you

56:03

would orient towards it and you do that implicitly,

56:06

but your consciousness would focus

56:08

on the uncertainty and the

56:10

variability. And so we seem to

56:12

use consciousness to shape variability.

56:15

And so I guess the first

56:17

thing I'm wondering is, is

56:19

it reasonable to suppose that the purpose

56:21

of the imagination is to map out

56:24

that dimensional, multi-dimensional space

56:26

with regards to its most

56:28

likely configurations. And

56:30

the second question is, this

56:33

is a more oblique question, is that is

56:36

it reasonable to assume that the

56:38

possibility that consciousness appears to be

56:41

contending to, like the field of

56:43

possibility that opens up to your

56:45

imagination, let's say when you wake

56:47

up in the morning and start

56:49

to apprehend the possibilities of the

56:51

day, is that a

56:53

manifestation of the, what? Is

56:56

that a manifestation of that? Is

57:00

it a higher level manifestation of

57:02

that field of possibility that characterizes

57:04

the micro

57:06

realm? You know what

57:08

I mean? There's possibility at the quantum

57:10

level. Does that possibility make

57:13

itself manifest all the way up to

57:16

the level of macro experience? Because

57:19

we seem to be dealing with something like

57:21

possibility rather than deterministic algorithmic

57:23

actuality. And so- There definitely

57:26

is a rhyming between the

57:29

two kinds of ideas for

57:31

sure. But how is

57:33

it that quantum physics at that

57:35

rock bottom story bubbles up and

57:38

influences conscious experience? I

57:41

don't know and nobody does. It's too complex a

57:43

problem right now. But what I would say is

57:46

there are things about consciousness

57:48

that the rock bottom story does

57:50

give insight into. And one

57:53

of the big ones is free will, right? I mean, there

57:56

have been arguments about free will going on

57:58

for thousands of years. And to me,

58:01

it's quite clear that when

58:03

you recognize, if you believe that the physical

58:06

is all that there is, and I don't

58:08

know that that is the case, but let's

58:10

just take that as an assumption for the

58:13

moment that there's no consciousness field that's out

58:15

there in the world that we somehow are

58:17

tapping into, that there's no greater power that's

58:19

somehow beyond the laws of physics. If all

58:22

we are are bags of particles governed by

58:24

physical law and our brains are nothing but

58:26

gloppy, three pound collections of particles that are

58:28

organized sufficiently to somehow yield the

58:31

information processing that we call conscious awareness, if

58:33

that's all that it is, and I think

58:35

that is all that it is, then

58:37

there's no opportunity for us to

58:39

have any freedom of the will

58:41

because our particles are going to

58:43

do what they're going to do

58:45

governed by the quantum laws, and

58:47

there's no opportunity for an eye

58:49

to intercede in that lawful if

58:51

probabilistic projection. So that's

58:53

just the way things work. And so

58:56

the view that we can somehow cause

58:58

our particles perhaps to hold still for

59:00

a moment, wait for Brian to make

59:02

a decision, and once Brian makes a

59:05

decision, then carry on with whatever motion

59:07

that you were going to do by

59:09

the laws of physics, that's

59:12

incoherent. That's ludicrous. And

59:14

so however much we may feel

59:17

that we are the ultimate authors

59:19

of our actions, I don't

59:21

see any opportunity for that because we

59:23

can't intercede in the lawful progression of

59:25

the particles that govern, whether I move

59:27

my arm, whether I say this or

59:29

I say that, it's all just the

59:31

motion of particles that are instantiated in

59:33

my biological form. Do you

59:35

feel that what's your opinion

59:37

about, okay, you

59:41

can make causally determinant

59:43

arguments very far, very

59:46

high up the resolution

59:48

spectrum. What

59:51

spectrum? So the

59:54

more macro the system, the

59:57

more deterministic processes seem to be at

59:59

play. but when you push all the

1:00:01

way down to the micro level, you

1:00:05

have this fundamental indeterminacy. And

1:00:07

so why would you

1:00:10

presume that the

1:00:12

deterministic argument holds true, given

1:00:15

that at its most fundamental

1:00:17

basis, there's indeterminacy? You

1:00:20

know, isn't it the case that if

1:00:22

you wanted to make an algorithmic case

1:00:24

that you'd need like

1:00:26

predictable algorithmic causality all the way

1:00:28

from the most micro levels all

1:00:30

the way up? Or are you

1:00:33

making the case that once you get to the

1:00:35

macro level, the deterministic takes over to the point

1:00:37

where there is no possibility for such a thing

1:00:39

as free will? No,

1:00:41

I think that the indeterminacy

1:00:44

of quantum physics turns out to

1:00:46

be irrelevant to

1:00:49

the particular story that I'm telling in the

1:00:51

following sense. So what

1:00:53

I'm not saying that we are determinate in

1:00:55

the sense that I can't predict what you're

1:00:57

going to do next, because

1:01:00

you are ultimately a quantum system. Let me

1:01:02

look right down at the level of your

1:01:04

particles. Imagine I could zoom in on you

1:01:06

and see your individual particles. The best I

1:01:09

can do is predict the likelihood or the

1:01:11

probability that those particles are going to evolve

1:01:13

from one configuration to another through time. But

1:01:16

that probabilistic prediction, that uncertainty,

1:01:19

that's not freedom of your

1:01:21

will. You aren't controlling which

1:01:23

outcome happens. You aren't determining

1:01:26

which outcome is more likely

1:01:28

or less likely. You still

1:01:30

are just going along for

1:01:32

this probabilistic ride. And so

1:01:35

whether physics is probabilistic as

1:01:37

quantum mechanics says, or

1:01:39

in the classical determinate view that Isaac

1:01:41

Newton would have said, we know it's

1:01:43

the former, not the latter, but even

1:01:45

in the former, you aren't

1:01:48

controlling that uncertainty. And therefore you

1:01:50

aren't controlling how things are unfolding.

1:01:52

You aren't controlling what you do

1:01:54

or what you say at

1:01:56

that fundamental level. So you are

1:01:59

nothing. but this collection of particles

1:02:01

still fully governed by laws, which

1:02:04

I should say, the quantum

1:02:06

laws as mathematical equations, they

1:02:08

are as deterministic as the

1:02:10

classical laws, but what they

1:02:13

determine are likelihoods, probabilities. And

1:02:15

so once those probabilities are

1:02:18

determined by mathematics, you

1:02:20

are out of the equation. And that's the

1:02:22

way in which you don't have the freedom

1:02:24

of will that you feel that you do.

1:02:28

Mm-hmm, okay, yeah, I understand the

1:02:30

argument. I guess, of course, the

1:02:33

classic, what would you say,

1:02:35

rejoinder to that is that we

1:02:38

structure, and I don't know how to reconcile

1:02:40

the two. I'm not claiming that I

1:02:42

do in the least, but we structure

1:02:44

our societies on the

1:02:46

presumption of something approximating responsible free will.

1:02:49

And insofar as we do that, we

1:02:51

seem to be able to hold people

1:02:53

responsible, help them govern their behaviors, integrate

1:02:56

them psychologically, and produce stable communities.

1:02:58

And so it's a very

1:03:00

strange situation that the presumption of free

1:03:03

will seems to be a

1:03:05

pragmatic and metaphysical necessity, but it's

1:03:07

hard to square with the kind

1:03:09

of modeling that emerges, well, in

1:03:11

your argument, either from a more

1:03:13

Newtonian deterministic view of physics or

1:03:15

even from the quantum view. You

1:03:18

know, it's a gap that's- But I think I have an answer. Starting

1:03:21

a business can be tough, but thanks to

1:03:23

Shopify, running your online storefront is easier than

1:03:26

ever. Shopify is the global commerce platform that

1:03:28

helps you sell at every stage of your

1:03:30

business. From the launch your online shop stage,

1:03:32

all the way to the did we just

1:03:34

hit a million orders stage, Shopify is here

1:03:36

to help you grow. Our marketing

1:03:39

team uses Shopify every day to sell our

1:03:41

merchandise, and we love how easy it is

1:03:43

to add more items, ship products, and track

1:03:45

conversions. With Shopify, customize your

1:03:47

online store to your style with

1:03:50

flexible templates and powerful tools, alongside

1:03:52

an endless list of integrations and

1:03:54

third-party apps like on-demand printing, accounting,

1:03:56

and chatbots. Shopify helps you

1:03:58

turn browsers into- with the internet's best

1:04:01

converting checkout, up to 36% better

1:04:03

compared to other leading e-commerce platforms.

1:04:06

No matter how big you wanna grow, Shopify gives

1:04:08

you everything you need to take control and take

1:04:10

your business to the next level. Sign

1:04:13

up for a $1 per

1:04:15

month trial period at shopify.com/JBP,

1:04:17

all lowercase. Go to

1:04:19

shopify.com/JBP now to grow your

1:04:22

business no matter what stage

1:04:24

you're in. That's shopify.com/JBP. I

1:04:29

think I have an answer to that, but

1:04:32

these are difficult issues. So I don't by

1:04:34

any means think it's all settled, but

1:04:37

I still think that in a world

1:04:39

of the sort that I've described, which

1:04:41

I think is our world, I think

1:04:43

you still bear responsibility for

1:04:45

your actions. It's of a slightly

1:04:47

different nature than the responsibility in

1:04:49

a world that does have freedom

1:04:52

of the will. But if you

1:04:54

are the causal actor that results

1:04:56

in a certain effect, if you

1:04:58

are part of the causal chain

1:05:00

that results in certain things happening,

1:05:02

then you are responsible for the

1:05:05

things happen because you are linking

1:05:07

the causal chain. And the closer

1:05:09

your link is to the outcome,

1:05:11

the more responsibility you bear. So

1:05:13

what does that mean for- So

1:05:15

pragmatism. Right, right, I see. Exactly,

1:05:18

and so my view on punishment

1:05:20

from a societal perspective is it

1:05:22

can't be from the standpoint of retribution.

1:05:25

That would seem to require free will

1:05:28

if you're gonna actually take a

1:05:30

punitive stance on someone's

1:05:32

behavior. But rather I

1:05:34

think punishment should be viewed

1:05:36

as shaping future behaviors based

1:05:39

upon current actions. I

1:05:41

mean, the example that I like to use to sort of

1:05:43

take this out of the emotional realm with human beings, imagine

1:05:46

you have a Roomba, many of us do,

1:05:48

that cleans your floor, right? That

1:05:50

Roomba doesn't have free will, that's not

1:05:53

controversial. And yet when that

1:05:55

Roomba bounces or bangs into furniture, its

1:05:57

intern if it's a high-end version, we're

1:22:00

talking about distance scales that make the

1:22:02

atomic seem large by comparison. So we're

1:22:05

way, way down at a distance scale

1:22:07

of like 10 to the minus 33

1:22:09

centimeters. You know, an

1:22:11

atom is like, you know, 10 to the minus 10

1:22:14

centimeters or something. So we're talking 20 orders

1:22:16

of magnitude smaller than an atomic ingredient.

1:22:18

So we're far, far from the familiar

1:22:20

things that we use to base our

1:22:23

understanding of the world upon. Right, right.

1:22:25

But the question then you ask is,

1:22:27

how do you test this? And

1:22:30

what practical use is it? Yeah, well,

1:22:32

quantum mechanics is obviously insanely

1:22:34

practically useful. I mean, it's produced

1:22:37

technologies that are world transforming, so.

1:22:40

But let me just point out on that,

1:22:42

because that's a very vital realization. If you

1:22:44

would have asked the people who developed quantum

1:22:47

mechanics like Niels Bohr and Schrodinger, if you

1:22:49

ask them way back in the 1920s, what's

1:22:53

the practical utility of what you're working

1:22:55

on? I'm pretty sure they would have

1:22:57

said, not much. We're

1:22:59

just trying to understand. And so

1:23:01

then it's 80 years later, we

1:23:03

go from understanding to harnessing. So

1:23:05

I always find it dangerous

1:23:07

to talk about practical utility

1:23:10

of ideas when they're being formulated, because it

1:23:12

may be a century more before they're actually

1:23:14

put in practice. But you still need to

1:23:16

ask the question, why should you

1:23:18

believe any of this stuff? Are there

1:23:21

any experimental tests? Yes, yes. Well, the

1:23:23

same was true of Maxwell when he

1:23:25

discovered electricity, right? Electromagnetism, yeah, so. And

1:23:28

I'm always in the elegant universe back in

1:23:30

1999, and today

1:23:32

I am forthright in saying, there

1:23:35

are no experimental observations. There

1:23:38

are no definitive predictions that

1:23:40

we can test with today's

1:23:42

technology. So we have not

1:23:44

been able to bridge the gap between

1:23:47

the theory and the observation. They say,

1:23:49

what the heck are you guys doing?

1:23:51

Why are you still thinking about something?

1:23:53

And the answer is, we

1:23:55

have made such stunning, and

1:23:57

I am saying this from

1:23:59

the perspective. made

1:30:00

up of smaller ingredients, but there's also

1:30:02

a whole literature that suggests that they

1:30:05

may be the fundamental entity in a

1:30:07

certain domain of the theory, and there

1:30:09

isn't something finer within them. But

1:30:12

let me give one, if you don't mind, because you

1:30:14

were saying we're gonna slightly wrapping up this part, I

1:30:16

want to leave one idea, which

1:30:18

is one of the more spectacular ones, it'll

1:30:20

just take me a moment to describe of

1:30:23

recent insight in string theory. Many

1:30:25

of your viewers and listeners may

1:30:27

be familiar with the idea of

1:30:29

quantum entanglement, which is the

1:30:31

idea that two distant particles can have

1:30:34

kind of a invisible quantum link between

1:30:36

them, where what you do in one

1:30:38

particle instantaneously affects the other particle. The

1:30:40

particles are said to be quantum entangled,

1:30:42

a mind blowing idea that comes from

1:30:45

the work of Albert Einstein in 1935.

1:30:49

Your viewers, listeners may also be familiar with

1:30:51

the notion of a wormhole, a completely different

1:30:53

idea, that in general relativity,

1:30:55

you can have a tunnel through the

1:30:57

fabric of space, linking one location and

1:30:59

the other. Einstein developed

1:31:01

that idea too in 1935, just

1:31:04

two months apart from quantum entanglement. For 90

1:31:07

years, nobody thought there was any connection

1:31:09

between these two ideas. String

1:31:11

theory has recently revealed that it's

1:31:13

very likely that these two ideas are

1:31:16

the same idea described in different

1:31:18

languages, that when you have two particles

1:31:20

that are quantum entangled, in some sense,

1:31:22

there is a tunnel through the fabric

1:31:25

of space, a wormhole that

1:31:27

is connecting them together. And

1:31:29

if this idea holds up, it

1:31:32

shows that a general relativistic idea,

1:31:35

a tunnel through the fabric of space,

1:31:37

and a quantum idea, quantum

1:31:39

entanglement across space, are the

1:31:41

same idea, which would

1:31:43

suggest that general relativity and quantum

1:31:45

mechanics are deeply connected from the

1:31:48

get-go. It's not so much

1:31:50

that we need to find a way

1:31:52

of bringing them into union, that may

1:31:54

already be in union, and what we

1:31:56

need to do with string theory or

1:31:58

whatever approach is understand that.