back to index

Peter Woit: Theories of Everything & Why String Theory is Not Even Wrong | Lex Fridman Podcast #246


small model | large model

link |
00:00:00.000
The following is a conversation with Peter White,
link |
00:00:02.460
a theoretical physicist at Columbia,
link |
00:00:04.720
outspoken critic of string theory,
link |
00:00:06.640
and the author of the popular physics and mathematics blog
link |
00:00:10.000
called Not Even Wrong.
link |
00:00:13.400
This is the Lex Friedman podcast.
link |
00:00:15.600
To support it, please check out our sponsors
link |
00:00:17.580
in the description.
link |
00:00:18.760
And now, here's my conversation with Peter White.
link |
00:00:23.640
You're both a physicist and a mathematician.
link |
00:00:27.360
So let me ask, what is the difference
link |
00:00:29.020
between physics and mathematics?
link |
00:00:31.680
Well, there's kind of a conventional understanding
link |
00:00:33.800
of the subject that they're two quite different things.
link |
00:00:37.280
So that mathematics is about making rigorous statements
link |
00:00:41.600
about these abstract things,
link |
00:00:45.600
things of mathematics, and proving them rigorously.
link |
00:00:48.360
And physics is about doing experiments
link |
00:00:51.000
and testing various models and that.
link |
00:00:53.940
But I think the more interesting thing
link |
00:00:55.880
is that there's a wide variety of what people do
link |
00:01:00.840
as mathematics, what they do as physics,
link |
00:01:02.520
and there's a significant overlap.
link |
00:01:04.040
And that, I think, is actually a very interesting area.
link |
00:01:09.000
And if you go back kind of far enough in history
link |
00:01:12.600
and look at figures like Newton or something,
link |
00:01:15.760
at that point, you can't really tell,
link |
00:01:17.280
was Newton a physicist or a mathematician?
link |
00:01:19.880
Mathematicians will tell you he was a mathematician.
link |
00:01:21.700
The physicists will tell you he was a physicist.
link |
00:01:23.380
But he would say he's a philosopher.
link |
00:01:26.040
Yeah, that's interesting.
link |
00:01:28.880
But yeah, anyway, there was kind of no such distinction
link |
00:01:32.400
then that's more of a modern thing.
link |
00:01:35.000
But anyway, I think these days,
link |
00:01:36.100
there's a very interesting space in between the two.
link |
00:01:38.080
So in the story of the 20th century
link |
00:01:40.820
and the early 21st century,
link |
00:01:42.360
what is the overlap between mathematics and physics,
link |
00:01:44.640
would you say?
link |
00:01:45.960
Well, I think it's actually become very, very complicated.
link |
00:01:49.800
I think it's really interesting to see
link |
00:01:51.520
a lot of what my colleagues in the math department
link |
00:01:54.280
are doing, most of what they're doing,
link |
00:01:56.880
they're doing all sorts of different things,
link |
00:01:58.140
but most of them have some kind of overlap
link |
00:02:00.360
with physics or other.
link |
00:02:02.360
So, I mean, I'm personally interested
link |
00:02:03.840
in one particular aspect of this overlap,
link |
00:02:06.640
which I think has a lot to do with the most fundamental ideas
link |
00:02:09.680
about physics and about mathematics.
link |
00:02:12.040
But you kind of see this really everywhere at this point.
link |
00:02:17.040
Which particular overlap are you looking at, group theory?
link |
00:02:20.480
Yeah, so at least the way it seems to me
link |
00:02:24.440
that if you look at physics
link |
00:02:25.520
and look at our most successful laws of fundamental physics,
link |
00:02:29.960
they have a certain kind of mathematical structure,
link |
00:02:33.480
it's based upon certain kind of mathematical objects
link |
00:02:36.240
and geometry, connections and curvature,
link |
00:02:38.800
the spinners, the Dirac equation.
link |
00:02:41.720
And this very deep mathematics provides kind of a unifying
link |
00:02:47.720
set of ways of thinking that allow you
link |
00:02:50.480
to make a unified theory of physics.
link |
00:02:52.720
But the interesting thing is that if you go to mathematics
link |
00:02:55.480
and look at what's been going on in mathematics
link |
00:02:58.440
the last 50, 100 years, and even especially recently,
link |
00:03:02.640
there's a similarly some kind of unifying ideas
link |
00:03:06.720
which bring together different areas of mathematics
link |
00:03:08.840
and which have been established in the last 50, 100 years.
link |
00:03:11.680
Especially powerful in number theory recently.
link |
00:03:13.680
And there's a book, for instance, by Edward Frankel
link |
00:03:17.720
about love and math.
link |
00:03:19.240
Yeah, that book's great, I recommend it highly.
link |
00:03:21.320
It's partially accessible.
link |
00:03:24.160
But there's a nice audio book that I listened to
link |
00:03:27.800
while running an exceptionally long distance,
link |
00:03:31.920
like across the San Francisco bridge.
link |
00:03:35.500
And there's something magic about the way he writes about it.
link |
00:03:38.940
But some of the group theory in there
link |
00:03:40.520
is a little bit difficult.
link |
00:03:42.240
Yeah, that's the problem with any of these things,
link |
00:03:44.000
to kind of really say what's going on
link |
00:03:45.960
and make it accessible is very hard.
link |
00:03:48.880
He, in this book and elsewhere, I think takes the attitude
link |
00:03:52.360
that kinds of mathematics he's interested in
link |
00:03:54.440
and that he's talking about provide
link |
00:03:57.080
kind of a grand unified theory of mathematics.
link |
00:03:59.240
They bring together geometry and number theory
link |
00:04:03.160
and representation theory, a lot of different ideas
link |
00:04:06.840
in a really unexpected way.
link |
00:04:09.700
But I think, to me, the most fascinating thing
link |
00:04:11.440
is if you look at the kind of grand unified theory
link |
00:04:13.840
of mathematics he's talking about
link |
00:04:15.440
and you look at the physicist kind of ideas
link |
00:04:17.520
about unification, it's more or less
link |
00:04:19.800
the same mathematical objects are appearing in both.
link |
00:04:22.600
So it's this, I think there's a really,
link |
00:04:24.880
we're seeing a really strong indication
link |
00:04:26.440
that the deepest ideas that we're discovering about physics
link |
00:04:30.240
and some of the deepest ideas that mathematicians
link |
00:04:32.400
are learning about are really, are intimately connected.
link |
00:04:36.120
Is there something, like if I was five years old
link |
00:04:38.840
and you were trying to explain this to me,
link |
00:04:40.640
is there ways to try to sneak up
link |
00:04:43.720
to what this unified world of mathematics looks like?
link |
00:04:47.400
You said number theory, you said geometry,
link |
00:04:50.200
words like topology.
link |
00:04:52.520
What does this universe begin to look like?
link |
00:04:54.520
Are these, what should we imagine in our mind?
link |
00:04:57.500
Is it a three dimensional surface?
link |
00:05:00.840
And we're trying to say something about it.
link |
00:05:03.240
Is it triangles and squares and cubes?
link |
00:05:07.320
Like what are we supposed to imagine in our minds?
link |
00:05:09.460
Is this natural number?
link |
00:05:10.560
What's a good thing to try to,
link |
00:05:13.880
for people that don't know any of these tools
link |
00:05:16.800
except maybe some basic calculus and geometry
link |
00:05:19.000
from high school that they should keep in their minds
link |
00:05:22.240
as to the unified world of mathematics
link |
00:05:24.860
that also allows us to explore the unified world of physics.
link |
00:05:30.480
I mean, what I find kind of remarkable about this
link |
00:05:33.120
is the way in which these, we've discovered these ideas,
link |
00:05:38.200
but they're actually quite alien
link |
00:05:40.240
to our everyday understanding.
link |
00:05:42.440
We grow up in this three spatial dimensional world
link |
00:05:45.640
and we have intimate understanding
link |
00:05:47.480
of certain kinds of geometry and certain kinds of things.
link |
00:05:50.440
But these things that we've discovered
link |
00:05:53.520
in both math and physics are,
link |
00:05:56.060
that they're not at all close,
link |
00:05:58.300
have any obvious connection
link |
00:05:59.800
to kind of human everyday experience.
link |
00:06:02.040
They're really quite different.
link |
00:06:03.160
And I can say some of my initial fascination with this
link |
00:06:06.040
when I was young and starting to learn about it
link |
00:06:08.400
was actually exactly this kind of arcane nature
link |
00:06:14.160
of these things.
link |
00:06:15.000
It was a little bit like being told,
link |
00:06:17.420
well, there are these kind of semi mystical experience
link |
00:06:21.040
that you can acquire by a long study and whatever,
link |
00:06:24.340
except that it was actually true.
link |
00:06:27.000
There's actually evidence that this actually works.
link |
00:06:29.560
So I'm a little bit wary of trying to give people
link |
00:06:33.000
that kind of thing,
link |
00:06:33.840
because I think it's mostly misleading.
link |
00:06:35.200
But one thing to say is that geometry is a large part of it.
link |
00:06:39.880
And maybe one interesting thing to say very,
link |
00:06:43.280
that's about more recent, some of the most recent ideas
link |
00:06:45.800
is that when we think about the geometry
link |
00:06:48.440
of our space and time,
link |
00:06:50.040
it's kind of three spatial and one time dimension.
link |
00:06:53.640
It's a physics is in some sense
link |
00:06:56.760
about something that's kind of four dimensional in a way.
link |
00:07:00.760
And a really interesting thing about
link |
00:07:03.720
some of the recent developments and number theory
link |
00:07:06.160
have been to realize that these ideas
link |
00:07:09.960
that we were looking at naturally fit into a context
link |
00:07:12.760
where your theory is kind of four dimensional.
link |
00:07:15.860
So, geometry is a big part of this
link |
00:07:19.840
and we know a lot and feel a lot about
link |
00:07:22.160
two, one, two, three dimensional geometry.
link |
00:07:24.600
So wait a minute, so we can at least rely
link |
00:07:28.100
on the four dimensions of space and time
link |
00:07:31.520
and say that we can get pretty far
link |
00:07:32.920
by working in those four dimensions.
link |
00:07:35.640
I thought you were gonna scare me
link |
00:07:36.700
that we're gonna have to go to many, many, many,
link |
00:07:39.000
many more dimensions than that.
link |
00:07:40.640
My point of view, which goes against
link |
00:07:43.360
a lot of these ideas about unification
link |
00:07:44.800
is that no, this is really,
link |
00:07:47.320
everything we know about really is about four dimensions
link |
00:07:50.560
and that you can actually understand a lot of these
link |
00:07:54.800
structures that we've been seeing in fundamental physics
link |
00:07:56.840
and in number theory, just in terms of four dimensions,
link |
00:08:01.480
that it's kind of, it's in some sense I would claim
link |
00:08:05.400
has been a really, has been kind of a mistake
link |
00:08:09.040
that physicists have made for decades and decades
link |
00:08:12.880
to try to go to higher dimensions,
link |
00:08:16.560
to try to formulate a theory in higher dimensions
link |
00:08:19.040
and then you're stuck with the problem
link |
00:08:21.600
of how do you get rid of all these extra dimensions
link |
00:08:23.400
that you've created
link |
00:08:25.080
because we only ever see anything in four dimensions.
link |
00:08:27.440
That kind of thing leaves us astray, you think?
link |
00:08:29.920
So creating all these extra dimensions
link |
00:08:31.960
just to give yourself extra degrees of freedom.
link |
00:08:35.800
Isn't that the process of mathematics
link |
00:08:38.360
is to create all of these trajectories for yourself
link |
00:08:41.280
but eventually you have to end up at the final place
link |
00:08:45.920
but it's okay to sort of create abstract objects
link |
00:08:52.600
on your path to proving something.
link |
00:08:55.880
Yeah, certainly and from a mathematician's point of view,
link |
00:08:59.640
I mean, the kinds of,
link |
00:09:01.360
mathematicians also are very different than physicists
link |
00:09:03.440
in that we like to develop very general theories.
link |
00:09:06.040
We like to, if we have an idea,
link |
00:09:07.200
we want to see what's the greatest generality
link |
00:09:09.680
in which you can talk about it.
link |
00:09:11.140
So from the point of view of most of the ways geometry
link |
00:09:14.200
is formulated by mathematicians,
link |
00:09:17.040
it really doesn't matter, it works in any dimension.
link |
00:09:19.080
We can do one, two, three, four, any number.
link |
00:09:22.120
There's no particular, for most of geometry,
link |
00:09:24.860
there's no particular special thing about four.
link |
00:09:28.240
But anyway, but what physicists have been trying to do
link |
00:09:33.240
over the years is try to understand
link |
00:09:35.800
these fundamental theories in a geometrical way
link |
00:09:38.320
and it's very tempting to kind of just start bringing in
link |
00:09:41.960
extra dimensions and using them to explain the structure.
link |
00:09:46.200
But typically this attempt kind of founders
link |
00:09:51.320
because you just don't know,
link |
00:09:53.340
you end up not being able to explain why we only see four.
link |
00:09:59.320
It is nice in the space of physics
link |
00:10:01.800
that like if you look at Fermat's last theorem,
link |
00:10:04.520
it's much easier to prove that there's no solution
link |
00:10:06.680
for n equals three than it is for the general case.
link |
00:10:12.120
And so I guess that's the nice benefit of being a physicist
link |
00:10:16.360
is you don't have to worry about the general case
link |
00:10:18.640
because we live in a universe with n equals four
link |
00:10:22.160
in this case.
link |
00:10:23.440
Yeah, physicists are very interested in saying something
link |
00:10:27.880
about specific examples and I find that interesting
link |
00:10:31.440
when I'm trying to do things in mathematics
link |
00:10:33.760
and I'm even teaching courses into mathematics students,
link |
00:10:36.920
I find that I'm teaching them in a different way
link |
00:10:40.200
than most mathematicians because I'm very often
link |
00:10:43.880
very focused on examples on what's kind of the crucial
link |
00:10:47.800
example that shows how this powerful new mathematical
link |
00:10:52.480
technique, how it works and why you would want to do it.
link |
00:10:55.680
And I'm less interested in kind of proving a precise theorem
link |
00:11:00.040
about exactly when it's gonna work
link |
00:11:01.400
and when it's not gonna work.
link |
00:11:02.440
Do you usually think about really simple examples,
link |
00:11:05.160
like both for teaching and when you try to solve
link |
00:11:09.080
a difficult problem, do you construct the simplest
link |
00:11:12.160
possible examples that captures the fundamentals
link |
00:11:14.360
of the problem and try to solve it?
link |
00:11:15.720
Yeah, exactly, that's often a really fruitful way
link |
00:11:19.640
to if you've got some idea to just kind of try
link |
00:11:22.520
to boil it down to what's the simplest situation
link |
00:11:27.000
in which this kind of thing is gonna happen
link |
00:11:28.680
and then try to really understand that and understand that
link |
00:11:31.320
and that is almost always a really good way
link |
00:11:33.520
to get insight into it.
link |
00:11:34.480
Do you work with paper and pen or like, for example,
link |
00:11:37.720
for me coming from the programming side,
link |
00:11:41.560
if I look at a model, if I look at some kind
link |
00:11:43.880
of mathematical object, I like to mess around
link |
00:11:47.360
with it sort of numerically.
link |
00:11:49.600
I just visualize different parts of it,
link |
00:11:51.600
visualize however I can so most of the work
link |
00:11:54.160
is like when you're on networks, for example,
link |
00:11:56.160
is you try to play with the simplest possible example
link |
00:11:59.360
and just to build up intuition by any kind of object
link |
00:12:04.440
has a bunch of variables in it and you start
link |
00:12:07.280
to mess around with them in different ways
link |
00:12:09.040
and visualize in different ways to start
link |
00:12:10.480
to build intuition or do you go the Einstein route
link |
00:12:14.720
and just imagine everything inside your mind
link |
00:12:19.160
and sort of build thought experiments
link |
00:12:21.200
and then work purely on paper and pen?
link |
00:12:24.840
Well, the problem with this kind of stuff
link |
00:12:28.120
I'm interested in is you rarely can kind of,
link |
00:12:31.880
it's rarely something that is really kind of,
link |
00:12:34.780
or even the simplest example, you can kind of see
link |
00:12:38.600
what's going on by looking at something happening
link |
00:12:40.800
in three dimensions.
link |
00:12:42.240
There's generally the structures involved
link |
00:12:44.600
are either they're more abstract
link |
00:12:47.960
or if you try to kind of embed them in some kind of space
link |
00:12:50.720
and where you could manipulate them
link |
00:12:53.800
in some kind of geometrical way,
link |
00:12:55.200
it's gonna be a much higher dimensional space.
link |
00:12:57.320
So even simple examples,
link |
00:13:00.080
the embedding them into three dimensional space,
link |
00:13:02.080
you're losing a lot.
link |
00:13:03.040
Yeah, but to capture what you're trying to understand
link |
00:13:06.960
about them, you have to go to four or more dimensions.
link |
00:13:09.720
So it starts to get to be hard to,
link |
00:13:12.000
I mean, you can train yourself to try it as much
link |
00:13:14.680
as to kind of think about things in your mind
link |
00:13:18.200
and I often use pad and paper
link |
00:13:21.000
and often if I'm in my office, I have to use the blackboard
link |
00:13:25.480
and you are kind of drawing things
link |
00:13:26.920
but they're really kind of more abstract representations
link |
00:13:29.600
of how things are supposed to fit together
link |
00:13:32.560
and they're not really, unfortunately,
link |
00:13:35.240
not just kind of really living in three dimensions
link |
00:13:37.640
where you can.
link |
00:13:39.200
Are we supposed to be sad or excited
link |
00:13:41.620
by the fact that our human minds
link |
00:13:43.160
can't fully comprehend the kind of mathematics
link |
00:13:45.040
you're talking about?
link |
00:13:46.000
I mean, what do we make of that?
link |
00:13:48.760
I mean, to me, that makes you quite sad.
link |
00:13:50.740
It makes it seem like there's a giant mystery out there
link |
00:13:53.960
that we'll never truly get to experience directly.
link |
00:13:58.320
It is kind of sad how difficult this is.
link |
00:14:01.720
I mean, or I would put it a different way
link |
00:14:03.680
that most questions that people have
link |
00:14:06.600
about this kind of thing,
link |
00:14:08.640
you can give them a really true answer
link |
00:14:12.240
and really understand it
link |
00:14:13.080
but the problem is one more of time.
link |
00:14:16.580
It's like, yes, I could explain to you how this works
link |
00:14:20.360
but you'd have to be willing to sit down with me
link |
00:14:23.040
and work at this repeatedly for hours and days and weeks
link |
00:14:28.000
and it's just gonna take that long for your mind
link |
00:14:31.540
to really wrap itself around what's going on
link |
00:14:34.360
and so that does make things inaccessible which is sad
link |
00:14:40.560
but it's just kind of part of life
link |
00:14:43.000
that we all have a limited amount of time
link |
00:14:45.000
and we have to decide what we're gonna spend our time doing.
link |
00:14:49.760
Speaking of a limited amount of time,
link |
00:14:52.280
we only have a few hours, maybe a few days together
link |
00:14:55.640
here on this podcast.
link |
00:14:57.760
Let me ask you the question of amongst many of the ideas
link |
00:15:02.320
that you work on in mathematics and physics,
link |
00:15:05.280
which is the most beautiful idea
link |
00:15:07.560
or one of the most beautiful ideas, maybe a surprising idea
link |
00:15:11.200
and once again, unfortunately, the way life works,
link |
00:15:13.960
we only have a limited time together
link |
00:15:15.680
to try to convey such an idea.
link |
00:15:18.440
Okay, well, actually, let me just tell you something which
link |
00:15:22.520
I'm tempted to kind of start trying to explain
link |
00:15:25.260
what I think is this most powerful idea
link |
00:15:26.980
that brings together math and physics,
link |
00:15:28.600
ideas about groups and representations
link |
00:15:31.060
and how it fits in quantum mechanics
link |
00:15:33.200
but in some sense, I wrote a whole textbook about that
link |
00:15:35.560
and I don't think we really have time
link |
00:15:37.440
to get very far into it so.
link |
00:15:39.080
Well, can I actually, on a small tangent,
link |
00:15:41.320
you did write a paper towards a grant unified theory
link |
00:15:43.600
mathematics and physics, maybe you could step there first,
link |
00:15:47.840
what is the key idea in that paper?
link |
00:15:49.520
Well, I think we've kind of gone over that.
link |
00:15:51.480
I think that the key idea is what we were talking about
link |
00:15:53.560
earlier that just kind of a claim that if you look
link |
00:15:58.360
and see what have been successful ideas in unification
link |
00:16:01.400
in physics and over the last 50 years or so
link |
00:16:05.160
and what's been happening in mathematics
link |
00:16:07.760
and the kind of thing that Frankel's book is about
link |
00:16:10.800
that these are very much the same kind of mathematics
link |
00:16:13.000
and so it's kind of an argument that there really is,
link |
00:16:16.420
you shouldn't be looking to unify just math
link |
00:16:19.720
or just fundamental physics but taking inspiration
link |
00:16:23.140
for looking for new ideas in fundamental physics
link |
00:16:25.560
that they are gonna be in the same direction
link |
00:16:27.380
of getting deeper into mathematics
link |
00:16:30.200
and looking for more inspiration in mathematics
link |
00:16:33.280
from these successful ideas about fundamental physics.
link |
00:16:37.320
Could you put words to sort of the disciplines
link |
00:16:39.480
we're trying to unify?
link |
00:16:40.400
So you said number theory, are we literally talking
link |
00:16:42.920
about all the major fields of mathematics?
link |
00:16:45.040
So it's like the number theory, geometry,
link |
00:16:48.280
so the differential geometry, topology.
link |
00:16:51.040
Yeah, so the, I mean, one name for this
link |
00:16:55.400
that this is acquired in mathematics
link |
00:16:57.600
is the so called Langlands program
link |
00:16:59.760
and so this started out in mathematics.
link |
00:17:01.960
It's that Robert Langlands kind of realized
link |
00:17:05.120
that a lot of what people were doing
link |
00:17:07.480
and that was starting to be really successful
link |
00:17:11.080
in number theory in the 60s
link |
00:17:13.600
and so that this actually was,
link |
00:17:18.960
anyway, that this could be thought of
link |
00:17:21.160
in terms of these ideas about symmetry
link |
00:17:24.120
and groups and representations
link |
00:17:26.100
and in a way that was also close
link |
00:17:29.600
to some ideas about geometry
link |
00:17:32.020
and then more later on in the 80s, 90s,
link |
00:17:35.200
there was something called geometric Langlands
link |
00:17:38.120
that people realize that you could take
link |
00:17:40.500
what people have been doing in number theory in Langlands
link |
00:17:43.120
and get rid, just forget about the number theory
link |
00:17:45.560
and ask what is this telling you about geometry
link |
00:17:48.000
and you get a whole, some new insights
link |
00:17:49.960
into certain kinds of geometry that way.
link |
00:17:52.360
So it's, anyway, that's kind of the name
link |
00:17:54.860
for this area is Langlands and geometric Langlands
link |
00:17:58.080
and just recently in the last few months,
link |
00:17:59.680
there's been, there's kind of really major paper
link |
00:18:02.760
that appeared by Peter Schultze and Laurent Farg
link |
00:18:06.660
where they made some serious advance
link |
00:18:11.040
to try to understand very much kind of a local problem
link |
00:18:16.000
of what happens in number theory
link |
00:18:17.960
near a certain prime number
link |
00:18:19.760
and they turned this into a problem
link |
00:18:22.060
of exactly the kind that geometric Langlands people
link |
00:18:26.040
had been doing, this kind of pure geometry problem
link |
00:18:28.880
and they found by generalizing mathematics,
link |
00:18:32.360
they could actually reformulate it in that way
link |
00:18:34.280
and it worked perfectly well.
link |
00:18:36.680
One of the things that makes me sad is I'm a pretty
link |
00:18:42.760
knowledgeable person and then, what is it?
link |
00:18:46.440
At least I'm in the neighborhood
link |
00:18:48.280
like theoretical computer science, right?
link |
00:18:50.480
And it's still way out of my reach
link |
00:18:52.320
and so many people talk about like Langlands, for example,
link |
00:18:54.960
is one of the most brilliant people in mathematics
link |
00:18:57.640
and just really admire his work
link |
00:18:59.960
and I can't, it's like almost I can't hear the music
link |
00:19:03.720
that he composed and it makes me sad.
link |
00:19:05.820
Yeah, well, I mean, I think unfortunately,
link |
00:19:09.000
it's not just you, it's I think even most mathematicians
link |
00:19:13.200
have no, really don't actually understand
link |
00:19:15.080
what this is about.
link |
00:19:15.920
I mean, the group of people who really understand
link |
00:19:19.400
all these ideas and so for instance,
link |
00:19:21.040
this paper of Schultz and Farg that I was talking about,
link |
00:19:24.040
the number of people who really actually understand
link |
00:19:26.320
how that works is anyway, very, very small
link |
00:19:31.000
and so I think even you find if you talk to mathematicians
link |
00:19:35.200
and physicists, even they will often feel that,
link |
00:19:38.000
there's this really interesting sounding stuff going on
link |
00:19:40.320
and which I should be able to understand,
link |
00:19:42.840
it's kind of in my own field, I have a PhD in
link |
00:19:44.960
but it still seems pretty clearly far beyond me right now.
link |
00:19:49.780
Well, if we can step into the back to the question
link |
00:19:52.640
of beauty, is there an idea that maybe
link |
00:19:56.320
is a little bit smaller that you find beautiful
link |
00:19:59.560
in the space of mathematics or physics?
link |
00:20:02.040
There's an idea that I kind of went, got a physics PhD
link |
00:20:05.320
and spent a lot of time learning about mathematics
link |
00:20:07.120
and I guess it was embarrassing
link |
00:20:10.000
that I hadn't really actually understand
link |
00:20:11.720
this very simple idea until I kind of learned it
link |
00:20:15.560
when I actually started teaching math classes,
link |
00:20:18.160
which is maybe that there's a simple way
link |
00:20:23.320
to explain kind of the fundamental way
link |
00:20:24.840
in which algebra and geometry are connected.
link |
00:20:28.080
So you normally think of geometry as about these spaces
link |
00:20:31.680
and these points and you think of algebra
link |
00:20:35.000
as this very abstract thing about these abstract objects
link |
00:20:38.800
that satisfy certain kinds of relations,
link |
00:20:40.680
you can multiply them and add them and do stuff
link |
00:20:44.360
but it's completely abstract,
link |
00:20:45.960
there's nothing geometric about it
link |
00:20:47.720
but the kind of really fundamental idea
link |
00:20:51.680
is that unifies algebra and geometry
link |
00:20:54.680
is to think whenever anybody gives you
link |
00:20:58.800
what you call an algebra, some abstract thing
link |
00:21:01.920
of things that you can multiply and add
link |
00:21:04.280
that you should ask yourself,
link |
00:21:06.400
is that algebra the space of functions on some geometry?
link |
00:21:10.640
So one of the most surprising examples of this,
link |
00:21:12.560
for instance, is a standard kind of thing
link |
00:21:16.840
that seems to have nothing to do with geometry
link |
00:21:18.640
is the integers.
link |
00:21:21.920
So you can multiply them and add them, it's an algebra
link |
00:21:26.920
but it seems to have nothing to do with geometry
link |
00:21:31.000
but what you can, it turns out,
link |
00:21:32.160
but if you ask yourself this question
link |
00:21:33.720
and ask, you know, are integers,
link |
00:21:36.240
can you think, if somebody gives you an integer,
link |
00:21:37.760
can you think of it as a function on some space,
link |
00:21:40.800
on some geometry?
link |
00:21:42.200
And it turns out that yes, you can
link |
00:21:44.280
and the space is the space of prime numbers
link |
00:21:47.240
and so what you do is you just,
link |
00:21:48.600
if somebody gives you an integer,
link |
00:21:50.400
you can make a function on the prime numbers
link |
00:21:53.120
by just, you know, at each prime number taking that,
link |
00:21:56.960
that integer modulo that prime.
link |
00:21:58.880
So if you say, I don't know, if you're given 10,
link |
00:22:02.480
you know, 10 and you ask, what is its value at two?
link |
00:22:05.560
Well, it's five times two, so mod two, it's zero,
link |
00:22:09.600
so it's zero one.
link |
00:22:10.640
What is its value at three?
link |
00:22:13.640
Well, it's nine plus one, so it's one mod three.
link |
00:22:17.400
So it's zero at two, it's one at three
link |
00:22:19.920
and you can kind of keep going.
link |
00:22:21.880
And so this is really kind of a truly fundamental idea.
link |
00:22:26.960
It's at the basis of what's called algebraic geometry
link |
00:22:29.240
and it just links these two parts of mathematics
link |
00:22:31.400
that look completely different
link |
00:22:32.920
and it's just an incredibly powerful idea
link |
00:22:35.120
and so much of mathematics emerges
link |
00:22:37.240
from this kind of simple relation.
link |
00:22:39.760
So you're talking about mapping
link |
00:22:41.760
from one discrete space to another.
link |
00:22:44.720
So for a second, I thought perhaps mapping
link |
00:22:49.600
like a continuous space to a discrete space,
link |
00:22:51.600
like functions over a continuous space, because yeah.
link |
00:22:56.320
Well, I mean, you can take, if somebody gives you a space,
link |
00:23:00.000
you can ask, you can say, well, let's,
link |
00:23:03.200
and this is also, this is part of the same idea.
link |
00:23:05.240
The part of the same idea is that if you try
link |
00:23:07.000
and do geometry and somebody tells you, here's a space,
link |
00:23:10.560
that what you should do is you should wait,
link |
00:23:11.920
so say, wait a minute,
link |
00:23:12.760
maybe I should be trying to solve this using algebra.
link |
00:23:15.760
And so if I do that, the way to start is,
link |
00:23:18.280
you give me the space,
link |
00:23:19.680
I start to think about the functions of the space, okay?
link |
00:23:22.800
So for each point in the space, I associate a number.
link |
00:23:26.160
I can take different kinds of functions
link |
00:23:27.600
and different kinds of values,
link |
00:23:29.080
but basically functions on a space.
link |
00:23:31.560
So what this insight is telling you is that
link |
00:23:36.280
if you're a geometer, often the way to work
link |
00:23:39.640
is to change your problem into algebra
link |
00:23:41.920
by changing your space, stop thinking about your space
link |
00:23:44.840
and the points in it and think about the functions on it.
link |
00:23:47.640
And if you're an algebraist
link |
00:23:49.760
and you've got these abstract algebraic gadgets
link |
00:23:52.240
that you're multiplying and adding, say, wait a minute,
link |
00:23:55.080
are those gadgets, can I think of them in some way
link |
00:23:58.520
as a function on a space?
link |
00:23:59.680
What would that space be
link |
00:24:00.760
and what kind of functions would they be?
link |
00:24:02.880
And that going back and forth really brings
link |
00:24:05.720
these two completely different looking areas
link |
00:24:08.200
of mathematics together.
link |
00:24:09.600
Do you have particular examples where it allowed
link |
00:24:13.400
to prove some difficult things
link |
00:24:15.000
by jumping from one to the other?
link |
00:24:16.760
Is that something that's a part of modern mathematics
link |
00:24:19.680
where such jumps are made?
link |
00:24:21.680
Oh yeah, this is kind of all the time.
link |
00:24:23.720
Much of modern number theory is kind of based on this idea.
link |
00:24:27.160
But, and when you start doing this,
link |
00:24:29.880
you start to realize that you need,
link |
00:24:32.880
what simple things on one side of the algebra
link |
00:24:37.520
start to require you to think about the other side,
link |
00:24:40.920
about geometry in a new way.
link |
00:24:42.360
You have to kind of get a more sophisticated idea
link |
00:24:44.120
about geometry, or if you start thinking
link |
00:24:46.960
about the functions on a space,
link |
00:24:49.120
you may need a more sophisticated kind of algebra.
link |
00:24:52.040
But in some sense, I mean,
link |
00:24:53.960
much or most of modern number theory
link |
00:24:55.560
is based upon this move to geometry.
link |
00:24:58.920
And there's also a lot of geometry
link |
00:25:01.240
and topology is also based upon, yeah, change.
link |
00:25:05.040
If you want to understand the topology of something,
link |
00:25:06.800
you look at the functions, you do drum comology
link |
00:25:09.480
and you get the topology.
link |
00:25:12.400
Anyway.
link |
00:25:13.640
Well, let me ask you then the ridiculous question.
link |
00:25:16.200
You said that this idea is beautiful.
link |
00:25:18.960
Can you formalize the definition of the word beautiful?
link |
00:25:22.680
And why is this beautiful?
link |
00:25:24.880
First, why is this beautiful?
link |
00:25:26.240
And second, what is beautiful?
link |
00:25:29.720
Yeah, well, and I think there are many different things
link |
00:25:32.320
you can find beautiful for different reasons.
link |
00:25:34.120
I mean, I think in this context, the notion of beauty,
link |
00:25:37.900
I think really is just kind of an idea is beautiful
link |
00:25:41.280
if it's packages a huge amount of kind of power
link |
00:25:45.720
and information into something very simple.
link |
00:25:48.800
So in some sense, you can almost kind of try and measure it
link |
00:25:54.640
in the sense of what are the implications of this idea?
link |
00:25:58.320
What non trivial things does it tell you
link |
00:26:00.880
versus how simply can you express the idea?
link |
00:26:06.320
And so.
link |
00:26:07.160
So the level of compression,
link |
00:26:08.520
what is it correlates with beauty?
link |
00:26:12.400
Yeah, that's one aspect of it.
link |
00:26:15.000
And so you can start to tell that an idea
link |
00:26:16.800
is becoming uglier and uglier
link |
00:26:18.840
as you start kind of having to,
link |
00:26:21.280
it doesn't quite do what you want.
link |
00:26:22.360
So you throw in something else to the idea
link |
00:26:24.560
and you keep doing that until you get what you want.
link |
00:26:27.360
But that's how you know you're doing something uglier
link |
00:26:29.560
and uglier when you have to kind of keep adding
link |
00:26:31.960
and more into what was originally a fairly simple idea
link |
00:26:36.960
and making it more and more complicated
link |
00:26:40.380
to get what you want.
link |
00:26:41.820
Okay, so let's put some philosophical words on the table
link |
00:26:45.340
and try to make some sense of them.
link |
00:26:47.100
One word is beauty, another one is simplicity
link |
00:26:49.780
as you mentioned, another one is truth.
link |
00:26:53.300
So do you have a sense if I give you two theories,
link |
00:26:57.060
one is simpler, one is more complicated.
link |
00:27:02.480
Do you have a sense of which one is more likely to be true
link |
00:27:05.820
to capture deeply the fabric of reality,
link |
00:27:13.240
the simple one or the more complicated one?
link |
00:27:15.340
Yeah, I think all of our evidence,
link |
00:27:18.540
what we see in the history of the subject
link |
00:27:20.100
is the simpler one though.
link |
00:27:22.380
Often it's a surprise, it's simpler in a surprising way.
link |
00:27:26.300
But yeah, that we just don't, we just,
link |
00:27:31.100
anyway, the kind of best theories
link |
00:27:32.980
we've been coming up with are ultimately
link |
00:27:35.460
when properly understood, relatively simple
link |
00:27:38.740
and much, much simpler than you would expect them to be.
link |
00:27:41.860
Do you have a good explanation why that is?
link |
00:27:43.500
Is it just because humans want it to be that way?
link |
00:27:46.020
Are we just like ultra biased
link |
00:27:47.540
and we just kind of convince ourselves
link |
00:27:51.080
that simple is better because we find simplicity beautiful?
link |
00:27:53.720
Or is there something about our actual universe
link |
00:27:57.340
that at the core is simple?
link |
00:28:00.060
My own belief is that there is something about a universe
link |
00:28:02.980
that's simple and as I was trying to say that,
link |
00:28:05.580
there is some kind of fundamental thing about math,
link |
00:28:08.020
physics and all this picture, which is in some sense simple.
link |
00:28:14.500
It's true that, it's of course true that our minds
link |
00:28:18.580
have certain, are very limited
link |
00:28:20.840
and can certainly do certain things and not others.
link |
00:28:23.680
So it's in principle possible
link |
00:28:26.500
that there's some great insight in,
link |
00:28:29.380
there are a lot of insights into the way the world works,
link |
00:28:31.300
which just aren't accessible to us because
link |
00:28:33.460
that's not the way our minds work, we don't.
link |
00:28:35.500
And that what we're seeing, this kind of simplicity
link |
00:28:37.340
is just because that's all we ever have any hope of seeing.
link |
00:28:42.540
So there's a brilliant physicist
link |
00:28:46.120
by the name of Sabine Hassenfelder
link |
00:28:49.060
who both agrees and disagrees with you.
link |
00:28:51.060
I suppose agrees that the final answer will be simple.
link |
00:28:57.260
Yeah.
link |
00:28:58.420
But simplicity and beauty leads us astray
link |
00:29:01.580
in the local pockets of scientific progress.
link |
00:29:05.900
Do you agree with her disagreement
link |
00:29:08.660
and do you disagree with her agreement?
link |
00:29:11.140
And agree with the agreement and so on.
link |
00:29:14.060
Anyway, yes, I found it was really fascinating
link |
00:29:17.100
reading her book and anyway,
link |
00:29:19.420
I was finding disagreeing with a lot,
link |
00:29:21.420
but then at the end when she says yes,
link |
00:29:23.340
when we find, when we actually figure this out,
link |
00:29:26.580
it will be simple and okay, so we agree in the end.
link |
00:29:31.220
But does beauty lead us astray,
link |
00:29:32.860
which is the core thesis of her work in that book.
link |
00:29:37.620
I actually, I guess I do disagree with her on that so much.
link |
00:29:41.160
I don't think, and especially,
link |
00:29:42.660
and I actually fairly strongly disagree with her
link |
00:29:44.580
about sometimes the way she'll refer to math.
link |
00:29:47.180
And so the problem is, physicists and people in general
link |
00:29:51.460
just refer to it as math and they're often meaning
link |
00:29:56.140
not what I would call math,
link |
00:29:57.220
which is the interesting ideas of math,
link |
00:29:59.160
but just some complicated calculation.
link |
00:30:03.260
And so I guess my feeling about it is more that it's very,
link |
00:30:09.180
the problem with talking about simplicity
link |
00:30:11.120
and using simplicity as a guide is that it's very,
link |
00:30:16.140
it's very easy to fool yourself
link |
00:30:17.620
and it's very easy to decide to fall in love with an idea.
link |
00:30:23.340
You have an idea, you think, oh, this is great
link |
00:30:26.000
and you fall in love with it.
link |
00:30:26.980
And it's like any kind of love affair,
link |
00:30:29.500
it's very easy to believe that the object of your affections
link |
00:30:32.820
is much more beautiful than the others might think
link |
00:30:35.300
and that they really are.
link |
00:30:36.660
And that's very, very easy to do.
link |
00:30:39.380
So if you say, I'm just gonna pursue ideas about beauty
link |
00:30:43.980
and this and mathematics and this,
link |
00:30:46.460
it's extremely easy to just fool yourself, I think.
link |
00:30:50.740
And I think that's a lot of what the story
link |
00:30:54.060
she was thinking of about where people have gone astray,
link |
00:30:56.260
that I think it's, I would argue that it's more people,
link |
00:30:59.100
it's not that there was some simple, powerful,
link |
00:31:01.960
wonderful idea which they'd found
link |
00:31:03.660
and it turned out not to be useful,
link |
00:31:08.340
but it was more that they kind of fooled themselves
link |
00:31:10.340
that this was actually a better idea than it really was
link |
00:31:13.080
and that it was simpler and more beautiful
link |
00:31:15.180
than it really was, is a lot of the story.
link |
00:31:18.860
I see, so it's not that the simplicity of beauty
link |
00:31:20.700
leads us astray, it's just people are people
link |
00:31:22.900
and they fall in love with whatever idea they have
link |
00:31:27.180
and then they weave narratives around that idea
link |
00:31:30.260
or they present it in such a way
link |
00:31:31.540
that emphasizes the simplicity and the beauty.
link |
00:31:36.740
Yeah, that's part of it.
link |
00:31:37.960
But I mean, the thing about physics that you have
link |
00:31:40.840
is that what really can tell,
link |
00:31:44.160
if you can do an experiment and check
link |
00:31:46.140
and see if nature is really doing what your idea expects,
link |
00:31:50.840
you do in principle have a way of really testing it
link |
00:31:54.020
and it's certainly true that if you thought
link |
00:31:58.380
you had a simple idea and that doesn't work
link |
00:32:00.160
and you go out and do an experiment
link |
00:32:01.900
and what actually does work is some more,
link |
00:32:04.120
maybe some more complicated version of it,
link |
00:32:05.900
that can certainly happen and that can be true.
link |
00:32:10.780
I think her emphasis is more,
link |
00:32:13.140
that I don't really disagree with,
link |
00:32:14.580
is that people should be concentrating
link |
00:32:18.820
on when they're trying to develop better theories
link |
00:32:21.980
on more on self consistency, not so much on beauty,
link |
00:32:25.740
but not is this idea beautiful,
link |
00:32:28.300
but is there something about the theory
link |
00:32:30.400
which is not quite consistent and use that as a guide
link |
00:32:35.340
that there's something wrong there which needs fixing.
link |
00:32:37.980
And so I think that part of her argument,
link |
00:32:40.700
I think we're on the same page about.
link |
00:32:43.220
What is consistency and inconsistencies?
link |
00:32:48.300
What exactly, do you have examples in mind?
link |
00:32:53.000
Well, it can be just simple inconsistency
link |
00:32:55.700
between theory and an experiment that if you,
link |
00:32:58.700
so we have this great fundamental theory,
link |
00:33:01.000
but there are some things that we see out there
link |
00:33:02.980
which don't seem to fit in it,
link |
00:33:04.260
like dark energy and dark matter, for instance.
link |
00:33:07.500
But if there's something which you can't test experimentally,
link |
00:33:09.600
I think she would argue and I would agree
link |
00:33:12.020
that, for instance, if you're trying to think about gravity
link |
00:33:15.100
and how are you gonna have a quantum theory of gravity,
link |
00:33:17.380
you should kind of test any of your ideas
link |
00:33:21.540
with kind of a thought experiment.
link |
00:33:24.980
Does this actually give a consistent picture
link |
00:33:26.780
of what's gonna happen, of what happens
link |
00:33:28.740
in this particular situation or not?
link |
00:33:32.300
So this is a good example.
link |
00:33:33.460
You've written about this.
link |
00:33:36.460
Since quantum gravitational effects are really small,
link |
00:33:40.600
super small, arguably unobservably small,
link |
00:33:44.260
should we have hope to arrive
link |
00:33:46.480
at a theory of quantum gravity somehow?
link |
00:33:49.580
What are the different ways we can get there?
link |
00:33:51.540
You've mentioned that you're not as interested
link |
00:33:53.340
in that effort because basically, yes,
link |
00:33:56.940
you cannot have ways to scientifically validate it
link |
00:34:02.500
given the tools of today.
link |
00:34:04.160
Yeah, I've actually, you know, I've over the years
link |
00:34:06.460
certainly spent a lot of time learning about gravity
link |
00:34:08.900
and about attempts to quantize it, but it hasn't been
link |
00:34:11.940
that much in the past the focus
link |
00:34:14.060
of what I've been thinking about.
link |
00:34:16.000
But I mean, my feeling was always, you know,
link |
00:34:18.720
as I think Sabina would agree that the, you know,
link |
00:34:22.880
one way you can pursue this if you can't do experiments
link |
00:34:25.800
is just this kind of search for consistency.
link |
00:34:29.140
You know, it can be remarkably hard to come up
link |
00:34:31.840
with a completely consistent model of this
link |
00:34:34.980
in a way that brings together quantum mechanics
link |
00:34:37.420
and general relativity.
link |
00:34:39.420
And that's, I think, kind of been the traditional way
link |
00:34:42.700
that people who have pursued quantum gravity
link |
00:34:44.440
have often pursued, you know,
link |
00:34:48.340
we have the best route to finding a consistent theory
link |
00:34:52.420
of quantum gravity and string theorists will tell you this,
link |
00:34:55.740
other people will tell you it,
link |
00:34:57.120
it's kind of what people argue about.
link |
00:35:00.060
But the problem with all of that is that you end up,
link |
00:35:03.340
you know, the danger is that you end up with,
link |
00:35:08.620
that everybody could be successful.
link |
00:35:10.140
Everybody's program for how to find a theory
link |
00:35:14.620
of quantum gravity, you know, ends up with something
link |
00:35:16.540
that is consistent.
link |
00:35:18.500
And so, and in some sense you could argue
link |
00:35:20.780
this is what happened to the string theorists.
link |
00:35:23.860
They solved their problem of finding a consistent theory
link |
00:35:26.300
of quantum gravity and they ended up,
link |
00:35:27.800
but they found 10 to the 500 solutions.
link |
00:35:30.300
So you, you know, if you believe that everything
link |
00:35:34.620
that they would like to be true is true,
link |
00:35:35.980
well, okay, you've got a theory,
link |
00:35:38.380
but it ends up being kind of useless
link |
00:35:41.100
because it's just one of an infinite,
link |
00:35:43.860
essentially infinite number of things
link |
00:35:46.060
which you have no way to experimentally distinguish.
link |
00:35:48.340
And so this is just a depressing situation.
link |
00:35:52.220
But I do think that there is a,
link |
00:35:55.260
so again, I think pursuing ideas about what,
link |
00:35:57.780
more about beauty and how can you integrate
link |
00:36:01.380
and unify these issues about gravity
link |
00:36:04.340
with other things we know about physics.
link |
00:36:06.020
And can you find a theory where these fit together
link |
00:36:08.860
in a way that makes sense and hopefully predict something.
link |
00:36:12.340
That's much more promising.
link |
00:36:14.020
Well, it makes sense and hopefully,
link |
00:36:15.620
I mean, we'll sneak up onto this question a bunch of times
link |
00:36:19.620
because you kind of said a few slightly contradictory things
link |
00:36:23.540
which is like, it's nice to have a theory that's consistent,
link |
00:36:27.220
but then if the theory is consistent,
link |
00:36:29.940
it doesn't necessarily mean anything.
link |
00:36:32.860
So like.
link |
00:36:33.700
It's not enough, it's not enough.
link |
00:36:35.220
It's not enough and that's the problem.
link |
00:36:36.780
So it's like, it keeps coming back to,
link |
00:36:39.460
okay, there should be some experimental validation.
link |
00:36:43.380
So, okay, let's talk a little bit about strength theory.
link |
00:36:47.020
You've been a bit of an outspoken critic of strength theory.
link |
00:36:52.420
Maybe one question first to ask is what is strength theory?
link |
00:36:56.680
And beyond that, why is it wrong?
link |
00:37:01.900
Or rather as the title of your blog says, not even wrong.
link |
00:37:06.540
Okay.
link |
00:37:07.900
Well, one interesting thing
link |
00:37:08.740
about the current state of strength theory is that,
link |
00:37:10.380
I think it, I'd argue it's actually very, very difficult
link |
00:37:13.340
to at this point to say what strength theory means.
link |
00:37:15.880
If people say they're a strength theorist,
link |
00:37:17.380
what they mean and what they're doing
link |
00:37:19.820
is kind of hard to pin down the meaning of the term.
link |
00:37:24.140
But the initial meaning I think goes back to,
link |
00:37:28.380
there was kind of a series of developments starting in 1984
link |
00:37:32.100
in which people felt that they had found a unified theory
link |
00:37:36.420
of our so called standard model of all the standard,
link |
00:37:41.300
well known kind of particle interactions and gravity
link |
00:37:44.620
and it all fit together in a quantum theory.
link |
00:37:46.620
And that you could do this in a very specific way
link |
00:37:49.940
by instead of thinking about having a quantum theory
link |
00:37:54.900
of particles moving around in space time,
link |
00:37:57.200
think about a quantum theory of kind of one dimensional
link |
00:38:00.380
loops moving around in space time, so called strings.
link |
00:38:03.420
And so instead of one degree of freedom,
link |
00:38:06.580
these have an infinite number of degrees of freedom.
link |
00:38:08.220
It's a much more complicated theory, but you can imagine,
link |
00:38:12.300
okay, we're gonna quantize this theory of loops
link |
00:38:14.780
moving around in space time.
link |
00:38:16.780
And what they found is that you could do this
link |
00:38:21.160
and you could fairly, relatively straightforwardly
link |
00:38:23.420
make sense of such a quantum theory,
link |
00:38:26.900
but only if space and time together were 10 dimensional.
link |
00:38:31.580
And so then you had this problem,
link |
00:38:32.980
again, the problem I referred to at the beginning of,
link |
00:38:34.820
okay, now once you make that move,
link |
00:38:37.260
you gotta get rid of six dimensions.
link |
00:38:39.620
And so the hope was that you could get rid
link |
00:38:42.300
of the six dimensions by making them very small
link |
00:38:44.820
and that consistency of the theory would require
link |
00:38:48.740
that these six dimensions satisfy a very specific condition
link |
00:38:52.860
called being a Calabi out manifold.
link |
00:38:55.180
And that we knew very, very few examples of this.
link |
00:38:58.300
So what got a lot of people very excited back in 84, 85
link |
00:39:02.340
was the hope that you could just take
link |
00:39:05.180
this 10 dimensional string theory
link |
00:39:07.060
and find one of a limited number of possible ways
link |
00:39:10.900
of getting rid of six dimensions by making them small
link |
00:39:14.620
and then you would end up with an effective
link |
00:39:16.700
four dimensional theory, which looked like the real world.
link |
00:39:18.820
This was the hope.
link |
00:39:20.020
So then there's then a very long story
link |
00:39:22.580
about what happened to that hope over the years.
link |
00:39:25.900
I would argue and part of the point of the book
link |
00:39:28.780
and its title was that this ultimately was a failure
link |
00:39:33.900
that you ended up, that this idea just didn't,
link |
00:39:38.940
there ended up being just too many ways of doing this
link |
00:39:41.060
and you didn't know how to do this consistently,
link |
00:39:44.100
that it was kind of not even wrong in the sense
link |
00:39:46.740
that you couldn't even, you never could pin it down
link |
00:39:49.140
well enough to actually get a real falsifiable prediction
link |
00:39:53.580
out of it that would tell you it was wrong.
link |
00:39:55.220
But it was kind of in the realm of ideas
link |
00:39:59.340
which initially looked good, but the more you look at them,
link |
00:40:02.100
they just, they don't work out the way you want
link |
00:40:05.460
and they don't actually end up carrying the power
link |
00:40:07.740
or that you originally had this vision of.
link |
00:40:10.220
And yes, the book title is not even wrong.
link |
00:40:14.180
Your blog, your excellent blog title is not even wrong.
link |
00:40:17.780
Okay, but there's nevertheless been a lot of excitement
link |
00:40:20.900
about string theory through the decades, as you mentioned.
link |
00:40:24.180
What are the different flavors of ideas that came,
link |
00:40:29.420
like that branched out?
link |
00:40:31.340
You mentioned 10 dimensions.
link |
00:40:32.700
You mentioned loops with infinite degrees of freedom.
link |
00:40:36.540
What other interesting ideas to you
link |
00:40:38.780
that kind of emerged from this world?
link |
00:40:41.020
Well, yeah, I mean, the problem
link |
00:40:42.020
with talking about the whole subject
link |
00:40:43.260
and part of the reason I wrote the book
link |
00:40:45.740
is that it gets very, very complicated.
link |
00:40:48.740
I mean, there's a huge amount,
link |
00:40:52.100
a lot of people got very interested in this,
link |
00:40:54.460
a lot of people worked on it.
link |
00:40:55.580
And in some sense, I think what happened
link |
00:40:57.900
is exactly because the idea didn't really work
link |
00:41:01.340
that this caused people to,
link |
00:41:04.540
instead of focusing on this one idea
link |
00:41:06.220
and digging in and working on that,
link |
00:41:08.220
they just kind of kept trying new things.
link |
00:41:11.020
And so people, I think, ended up wandering around
link |
00:41:14.020
in a very, very rich space of ideas
link |
00:41:15.860
about mathematics and physics
link |
00:41:17.660
and discovering all sorts of really interesting things.
link |
00:41:19.980
It's just the problem is there tended
link |
00:41:22.020
to be an inverse relationship
link |
00:41:23.380
between how interesting and beautiful and fruitful
link |
00:41:26.100
this new idea that they were trying to pursue was
link |
00:41:28.820
and how much it looked like the real world.
link |
00:41:31.820
So there's a lot of beautiful mathematics came out of it.
link |
00:41:34.500
I think one of the most spectacular
link |
00:41:36.020
is what the physicists call
link |
00:41:38.340
two dimensional conformal field theory.
link |
00:41:40.620
And so these are basically quantum field theories
link |
00:41:44.620
and kind of think of it as one space
link |
00:41:46.300
and one time dimension,
link |
00:41:47.780
which have just this huge amount of symmetry
link |
00:41:51.220
and a huge amount of structure,
link |
00:41:53.620
which there's some totally fantastic mathematics behind it.
link |
00:41:57.420
And again, and some of that mathematics
link |
00:42:00.340
is exactly also what appears in the Langlands program.
link |
00:42:03.260
So a lot of the first interaction between math and physics
link |
00:42:07.780
around the Langlands program has been
link |
00:42:09.140
around these two dimensional conformal field theories.
link |
00:42:12.580
Is there something you could say
link |
00:42:15.220
about what are the major problems are with string theory?
link |
00:42:18.980
So like, besides that there's no experimental validation,
link |
00:42:25.820
you've written that a big hole in string theory
link |
00:42:30.420
has been its perturbative definition.
link |
00:42:34.500
Perhaps that's one, can you explain what that means?
link |
00:42:36.940
Well, maybe to begin with,
link |
00:42:38.140
I think the simplest thing to say is,
link |
00:42:42.580
the initial idea really was that,
link |
00:42:45.220
okay, we have this, instead of what's great
link |
00:42:48.380
is we have this thing that only works,
link |
00:42:50.740
it's very structured and has to work in a certain way
link |
00:42:54.180
for it to make sense.
link |
00:42:55.540
But then you ended up in 10 space time dimensions.
link |
00:43:01.700
And so to get back to physics,
link |
00:43:03.620
you had to get rid of five of the dimensions,
link |
00:43:05.380
six of the dimensions.
link |
00:43:06.860
And the bottom line I would say in some sense is very simple
link |
00:43:09.620
that what people just discovered is just,
link |
00:43:12.780
there's kind of no particularly nice way of doing this,
link |
00:43:15.660
there's an infinite number of ways of doing it
link |
00:43:17.460
and you can get whatever you want
link |
00:43:18.740
depending on how you do it.
link |
00:43:20.140
So you end up the whole program of starting at 10 dimensions
link |
00:43:24.020
and getting to four just kind of collapses
link |
00:43:26.780
out of a lack of any way to kind of get to where you want
link |
00:43:29.740
because you can get anything.
link |
00:43:31.540
The hope around that problem has always been
link |
00:43:34.380
that the standard formulation that we have of string theory,
link |
00:43:38.940
which is, you can go by the name perturbative,
link |
00:43:42.540
but it's kind of, there's a standard way we know
link |
00:43:46.300
of given a classical theory of constructing a quantum theory
link |
00:43:50.700
and working with it, which is the so called
link |
00:43:56.100
perturbation theory that we know how to do.
link |
00:43:59.260
And that by itself just doesn't give you any hint
link |
00:44:04.460
as to what to do about the six dimensions.
link |
00:44:06.660
So actual perturbed string theory by itself
link |
00:44:09.180
really only works in 10 dimensions.
link |
00:44:11.340
So you have to start making some kinds of assumptions
link |
00:44:14.380
about how I'm gonna go beyond this formulation
link |
00:44:19.380
that we really understand of string theory
link |
00:44:21.700
and get rid of these six dimensions.
link |
00:44:24.060
So kind of the simplest one was the Klabiau postulate,
link |
00:44:29.380
but when that didn't really work out,
link |
00:44:31.820
people have tried more and more different things.
link |
00:44:33.940
And the hope has always been that the solution,
link |
00:44:38.500
this problem would be that you would find a deeper
link |
00:44:41.540
and better understanding of what string theory is
link |
00:44:44.220
that would actually go beyond this perturbative expansion
link |
00:44:47.860
and which would generalize this.
link |
00:44:51.820
And that once you had that, it would solve this problem of,
link |
00:44:57.220
it would pick out what to do with the six dimensions.
link |
00:44:59.580
How difficult is this problem?
link |
00:45:01.140
So if I could restate the problem,
link |
00:45:05.100
it seems like there's a very consistent physical world
link |
00:45:09.860
operating in four dimensions.
link |
00:45:13.340
And how do you map a consistent physical world
link |
00:45:16.700
in 10 dimensions to a consistent physical world
link |
00:45:19.260
in four dimensions?
link |
00:45:21.180
And how difficult is this problem?
link |
00:45:23.100
Is that something you can even answer?
link |
00:45:27.720
Just in terms of physics intuition,
link |
00:45:30.340
in terms of mathematics,
link |
00:45:32.280
mapping from 10 dimensions to four dimensions.
link |
00:45:35.060
Well, basically, I mean, you have to get rid
link |
00:45:36.580
of the six of the dimensions.
link |
00:45:38.140
So there's kind of two ways of doing it.
link |
00:45:41.620
One is what we called compactification.
link |
00:45:44.020
You say that there really are 10 dimensions,
link |
00:45:46.860
but for whatever reason,
link |
00:45:48.220
six of them are so, so small, we can't see them.
link |
00:45:51.860
So you basically start out with 10 dimensions
link |
00:45:54.660
and what we call, make six of them not go out to infinity,
link |
00:45:58.980
but just kind of a finite extent
link |
00:46:00.780
and then make that size go down so small, it's unobservable.
link |
00:46:05.460
But that's like, that's a math trick.
link |
00:46:08.300
So can you also help me build an intuition
link |
00:46:11.420
about how rich and interesting the world
link |
00:46:15.580
in those six dimensions is?
link |
00:46:17.900
So compactification seems to imply...
link |
00:46:21.020
Well, it's not very interesting.
link |
00:46:22.660
Well, no, but the problem is that what you learn
link |
00:46:24.700
if you start doing mathematics
link |
00:46:26.780
and looking at geometry and topology
link |
00:46:28.900
and more and more dimensions is that,
link |
00:46:31.600
I mean, asking the question like,
link |
00:46:34.180
what are all possible six dimensional spaces?
link |
00:46:36.540
It's just, it's kind of an unnatural question.
link |
00:46:38.580
It's just, I mean,
link |
00:46:39.620
it's even kind of technically undecidable in some way.
link |
00:46:42.020
There are too many things you can do with all these,
link |
00:46:46.180
if you start trying to make,
link |
00:46:47.500
if you start trying to make one dimensional spaces,
link |
00:46:49.540
it's like, well, you got a line, you can make a circle,
link |
00:46:52.140
you can make graphs, you can kind of see what you can do.
link |
00:46:55.180
But as you go to higher and higher dimensions,
link |
00:46:58.260
there are just so many ways you can put things together
link |
00:47:02.140
of and get something of that dimensionality.
link |
00:47:05.460
And so unless you have some very, very strong principle,
link |
00:47:09.820
we're just gonna pick out some very specific ones
link |
00:47:12.920
of these six dimensional spaces.
link |
00:47:15.400
And there are just too many of them
link |
00:47:17.340
and you can get anything you want.
link |
00:47:19.500
So if you have 10 dimensions,
link |
00:47:22.540
the kind of things that happen,
link |
00:47:24.460
say that's actually the way,
link |
00:47:26.700
that's actually the fabric of our reality is 10 dimensions.
link |
00:47:29.740
There's a limited set of behaviors of objects.
link |
00:47:33.100
I don't know even know what the right terminology
link |
00:47:35.180
to use that can occur within those dimensions,
link |
00:47:39.380
like in reality.
link |
00:47:41.500
And so like what I'm getting at is like,
link |
00:47:44.540
is there some consistent constraints?
link |
00:47:47.280
So if you have some constraints that map to reality,
link |
00:47:51.080
then you can start saying like,
link |
00:47:53.460
dimension number seven is kind of boring.
link |
00:47:56.260
All the excitement happens in the spatial dimensions,
link |
00:47:58.900
one, two, three.
link |
00:48:00.380
And time is also kind of boring.
link |
00:48:02.740
And like some are more exciting than others,
link |
00:48:05.380
or we can use our metric of beauty.
link |
00:48:08.100
Some dimensions are more beautiful than others.
link |
00:48:10.260
Once you have an actual understanding
link |
00:48:12.260
of what actually happens in those dimensions
link |
00:48:15.280
in our physical world,
link |
00:48:16.500
as opposed to sort of all the possible things
link |
00:48:18.620
that could happen.
link |
00:48:19.600
In some sense, I mean,
link |
00:48:20.660
just the basic fact is you need to get rid of them.
link |
00:48:22.240
We don't see them.
link |
00:48:23.080
So you need to somehow explain them.
link |
00:48:25.580
The main thing you're trying to do
link |
00:48:26.580
is to explain why we're not seeing them.
link |
00:48:28.820
And so you have to come up with some theory
link |
00:48:32.540
of these extra dimensions and how they're gonna behave.
link |
00:48:35.420
And string theory gives you some ideas
link |
00:48:38.180
about how to do that.
link |
00:48:39.020
But the bottom line is where you're trying to go
link |
00:48:43.580
with this whole theory you're creating
link |
00:48:45.660
is to just make all of its effects essentially unobservable.
link |
00:48:49.540
So it's not a really,
link |
00:48:54.780
it's an inherently kind of dubious and worrisome thing
link |
00:48:57.300
that you're trying to do there.
link |
00:48:58.300
Why are you just adding in all this stuff
link |
00:49:00.600
and then trying to explain why we don't see it?
link |
00:49:02.220
Exactly.
link |
00:49:03.060
This may be a dumb question,
link |
00:49:04.260
but is this an obvious thing to state
link |
00:49:07.780
that those six dimensions are unobservable
link |
00:49:11.580
or anything beyond four dimensions is unobservable?
link |
00:49:16.180
Or do you leave a little door open
link |
00:49:19.540
to saying the current tools of physics,
link |
00:49:23.180
and obviously our brains aren't unable to observe them,
link |
00:49:26.980
but we may need to come up with methodologies
link |
00:49:29.940
for observing them.
link |
00:49:30.780
So as opposed to collapsing your mathematical theory
link |
00:49:33.140
into four dimensions,
link |
00:49:35.020
leaving the door open a little bit too,
link |
00:49:37.140
maybe we need to come up with tools
link |
00:49:38.760
that actually allow us to directly measure those dimensions.
link |
00:49:42.700
Yes, I mean, you can certainly ask,
link |
00:49:45.260
assume that we've got model,
link |
00:49:49.200
look at models with more dimensions and ask,
link |
00:49:51.340
what would the observable effects, how would we know this?
link |
00:49:54.180
And you go out and do experiments.
link |
00:49:55.500
So for instance, you have a,
link |
00:49:58.780
like gravitationally you have an inverse square law of forces.
link |
00:50:02.660
If you had more dimensions,
link |
00:50:04.100
that inverse square law would change to something else.
link |
00:50:06.620
So you can go and start measuring the inverse square law
link |
00:50:09.540
and say, okay, inverse square law is working,
link |
00:50:12.060
but maybe if I get,
link |
00:50:14.660
and it turns out to be actually kind of very, very hard
link |
00:50:16.540
to measure gravitational effects
link |
00:50:18.140
and even kind of somewhat macroscopic distances
link |
00:50:21.940
because they're so small.
link |
00:50:23.300
So you can start looking at the inverse square law
link |
00:50:26.220
and say, start trying to measure it
link |
00:50:28.020
at shorter and shorter distances
link |
00:50:29.380
and see if there were extra dimensions
link |
00:50:33.180
at those distance scales,
link |
00:50:34.440
you would start to see the inverse square law fail.
link |
00:50:36.780
And so people look for that and again, you don't see it,
link |
00:50:40.520
but you can, I mean, there's all sorts of experiments
link |
00:50:43.220
of this kind you can imagine which test
link |
00:50:46.580
for effects of extra dimensions
link |
00:50:48.420
at different distance scales, but none of them,
link |
00:50:53.860
I mean, they all just don't work.
link |
00:50:55.940
Nothing yet.
link |
00:50:58.220
Nothing yet, but you could say, ah, but it's just much,
link |
00:51:01.860
much smaller, you can say that.
link |
00:51:05.180
Which by the way makes LIGO
link |
00:51:06.900
and the detection of gravitational waves
link |
00:51:09.980
quite an incredible project.
link |
00:51:13.300
Ed Witten is often brought up
link |
00:51:15.680
as one of the most brilliant mathematicians
link |
00:51:17.420
and physicists ever.
link |
00:51:21.060
What do you make of him and his work on string theory?
link |
00:51:24.460
Well, I think he's a truly remarkable figure.
link |
00:51:26.820
I've had the pleasure of meeting him first
link |
00:51:30.140
when he was a postdoc.
link |
00:51:31.100
And I mean, he's just completely amazing
link |
00:51:36.060
mathematician and physicist.
link |
00:51:38.020
And he's quite a bit smarter
link |
00:51:41.460
than just about any of the rest of us
link |
00:51:43.380
and also more hardworking.
link |
00:51:44.580
It's a kind of frightening combination
link |
00:51:46.780
to see how much he's been able to do.
link |
00:51:50.540
But I would actually argue that his greatest work,
link |
00:51:53.540
the things that he's done that have been of
link |
00:51:55.820
just this mind blowing significance of giving us,
link |
00:51:58.660
I mean, he's completely revolutionized
link |
00:52:00.100
some areas of mathematics.
link |
00:52:02.180
He's totally revolutionized the way we understand
link |
00:52:04.220
the relations between mathematics and physics.
link |
00:52:07.160
And most of those, his greatest work
link |
00:52:10.660
is stuff that has little or nothing
link |
00:52:13.700
to do with string theory.
link |
00:52:15.140
I mean, for instance, so he was actually one of Fields.
link |
00:52:19.180
The very strange thing about him in some sense
link |
00:52:20.920
is that he doesn't have a Nobel Prize.
link |
00:52:23.660
So there's a very large number of people
link |
00:52:25.940
who are nowhere near as smart as he is
link |
00:52:28.300
and don't work anywhere near as hard
link |
00:52:30.140
who have Nobel Prizes.
link |
00:52:31.740
I think he just had the misfortune
link |
00:52:33.180
of coming into the field at a time
link |
00:52:35.820
when things had gotten much, much, much tougher
link |
00:52:37.740
and nobody really had, no matter how smart you were,
link |
00:52:41.380
it was very hard to come up with a new idea
link |
00:52:44.020
that was gonna work physically and get you a Nobel Prize.
link |
00:52:47.740
But he got a Fields Medal for a certain work he did
link |
00:52:52.980
in mathematics, and that's just completely unheard of.
link |
00:52:56.540
For mathematicians to give a Fields Medal
link |
00:52:58.380
to someone outside their field in physics
link |
00:53:00.860
is really, you wouldn't have, before he came around,
link |
00:53:05.620
I don't think anybody would have thought
link |
00:53:06.680
that was even conceivable.
link |
00:53:08.040
So you're saying he came into the field
link |
00:53:11.020
of theoretical physics at a time when,
link |
00:53:13.700
and still to today, is you can't get a Nobel Prize
link |
00:53:18.240
for purely theoretical work.
link |
00:53:20.200
The specific problem of trying to do better
link |
00:53:22.320
than the standard, the standard model
link |
00:53:23.880
is just this insanely successful thing,
link |
00:53:26.680
and it kind of came together in 1973, pretty much.
link |
00:53:30.600
And all of the people who kind of were involved
link |
00:53:34.320
in that coming together, many of them ended up
link |
00:53:37.200
with Nobel Prizes for that.
link |
00:53:38.600
But if you look post 1973, pretty much,
link |
00:53:43.720
it's a little bit more, there's some edge cases,
link |
00:53:47.160
if you like, but if you look post 1973
link |
00:53:50.200
at what people have done to try to do better
link |
00:53:53.240
than the standard model and to get a better idea,
link |
00:53:56.160
it really hasn't, it's been too hard a problem.
link |
00:53:58.440
It hasn't worked.
link |
00:53:59.280
The theory's too good.
link |
00:54:00.100
And so it's not that other people went out there
link |
00:54:03.320
and did it, and not him, and that they got Nobel Prizes
link |
00:54:07.340
for doing it, it's just that no one really,
link |
00:54:08.960
the kind of thing he's been trying to do
link |
00:54:10.480
with string theory is not, no one has been able to do
link |
00:54:13.360
since 1973.
link |
00:54:15.540
Is there something you can say about the standard model,
link |
00:54:17.380
so the four laws of physics that seems to work very well,
link |
00:54:20.720
and yet people are striving to do more?
link |
00:54:24.980
Talking about unification, so on, why?
link |
00:54:27.580
What's wrong, what's broken about the standard model?
link |
00:54:30.900
Why does it need to be improved?
link |
00:54:33.080
I mean, the thing that's gets most attention
link |
00:54:34.880
is gravity, that we have trouble.
link |
00:54:39.160
So you want to, in some sense, integrate what we know
link |
00:54:44.120
about the gravitational force with it
link |
00:54:46.320
and have a unified quantum field theory
link |
00:54:48.640
that has gravitational interactions also.
link |
00:54:50.340
So that's the big problem everybody talks about.
link |
00:54:53.640
I mean, but it's also true that if you look
link |
00:54:55.940
at the standard model, it has these very, very deep,
link |
00:54:58.380
beautiful ideas, but there's certain aspects of it
link |
00:55:01.600
that are very, let's just say that they're not beautiful.
link |
00:55:08.240
They're not, you have to, to make the thing work,
link |
00:55:11.440
you have to throw in lots and lots of extra parameters
link |
00:55:14.240
at various points, and a lot of this has to do
link |
00:55:17.480
with the so called Higgs mechanism and the Higgs field,
link |
00:55:21.960
that if you look at the theory, it's everything is,
link |
00:55:25.960
if you forget about the Higgs field and what it needs to do,
link |
00:55:28.940
the rest of the theory is very, very constrained
link |
00:55:33.520
and has very, very few free parameters,
link |
00:55:35.320
really a very small number.
link |
00:55:36.400
There's very small number of parameters
link |
00:55:38.060
and a few integers which tell you what the theory is.
link |
00:55:40.900
To make this work as a theory of the real world,
link |
00:55:42.960
you need a Higgs field and you need to,
link |
00:55:45.480
it needs to do something.
link |
00:55:48.080
And once you introduce that Higgs field,
link |
00:55:50.840
all sorts of parameters make an appearance.
link |
00:55:54.440
So now we've got 20 or 30 or whatever parameters
link |
00:55:58.760
that are gonna tell you what all the masses of things are
link |
00:56:00.880
and what's gonna happen.
link |
00:56:02.160
So you've gone from a very tightly constrained thing
link |
00:56:05.500
with a couple of parameters to this thing,
link |
00:56:09.000
which the minute you put it in,
link |
00:56:11.120
you had to add all this extra,
link |
00:56:13.200
all these extra parameters to make things work.
link |
00:56:15.320
And so that, it may be one argument as well,
link |
00:56:19.120
that's just the way the world is,
link |
00:56:20.480
and the fact that you don't find that aesthetically pleasing
link |
00:56:24.160
is just your problem, or maybe we live in a multiverse
link |
00:56:27.320
and those numbers are just different in every universe.
link |
00:56:30.080
But another reasonable conjecture is just that,
link |
00:56:33.620
well, this is just telling us that there's something
link |
00:56:36.020
we don't understand about what's going on in a deeper way,
link |
00:56:40.200
which would explain those numbers.
link |
00:56:41.680
And there's some kind of deeper idea
link |
00:56:44.240
about where the Higgs field comes from and what's going on,
link |
00:56:47.240
which we haven't figured out yet.
link |
00:56:49.040
And that's what we should look for.
link |
00:56:52.820
But to stick on string theory a little bit longer,
link |
00:56:55.960
could you play devil's advocate
link |
00:56:58.580
and try to argue for string theory,
link |
00:57:01.880
why it is something that deserved the effort that it got,
link |
00:57:07.000
and still, like if you think of it as a flame,
link |
00:57:10.400
still should be a little flame that keeps burning?
link |
00:57:14.160
Well, I think the, I mean, the most positive argument
link |
00:57:17.600
for it is all sorts of new ideas about mathematics
link |
00:57:22.120
and about parts of physics really emerge from it.
link |
00:57:24.800
That was very a fruitful source of ideas.
link |
00:57:28.420
And I think this is actually one argument you'll definitely,
link |
00:57:30.720
which I kind of agree with,
link |
00:57:31.600
I'll hear from Whitten and from other string theorists,
link |
00:57:34.280
say that this is just such a fruitful and inspiring idea
link |
00:57:38.960
and it's led to so many other different things
link |
00:57:41.320
coming out of it that there must be something
link |
00:57:43.680
right about this.
link |
00:57:45.160
And that's, okay, anyway, I think that's probably
link |
00:57:48.880
the strongest thing that they've got.
link |
00:57:52.760
But you don't think there's aspects to it
link |
00:57:55.800
that could be neighboring to a theory
link |
00:58:00.440
that does unify everything, to a theory of everything.
link |
00:58:03.160
Like it could, it may not be exactly,
link |
00:58:08.080
exactly the theory, but sticking on it longer
link |
00:58:11.240
might get us closer to the theory of everything.
link |
00:58:14.360
Well, the problem with it now really
link |
00:58:15.400
is that you really don't know what it is now.
link |
00:58:17.280
You've never, nobody has ever kind of come up
link |
00:58:19.880
with this nonperturbative theory.
link |
00:58:23.360
So it's become more and more frustrating
link |
00:58:27.400
and an odd activity to try to argue with a string theorist
link |
00:58:30.320
about string theory because it's become
link |
00:58:34.080
less and less well defined what it is.
link |
00:58:37.200
And it's become actually more and more kind of a,
link |
00:58:40.080
whether you have this weird phenomenon
link |
00:58:42.280
of people calling themselves string theorists
link |
00:58:44.780
when they've never actually worked on any theory
link |
00:58:47.480
where there are any strings anywhere.
link |
00:58:49.520
So what has actually happened kind of sociologically
link |
00:58:52.560
is that you started out with this
link |
00:58:54.760
fairly well defined proposal.
link |
00:58:56.480
And then I would argue because that didn't work,
link |
00:58:59.120
people branched out in all sorts of directions
link |
00:59:01.720
doing all sorts of things.
link |
00:59:02.800
It became farther and farther removed from that.
link |
00:59:05.520
And for sociological reasons,
link |
00:59:07.880
the ones who kind of started out or now
link |
00:59:12.400
or were trained by the people who worked on that
link |
00:59:15.360
have now become this string theorists.
link |
00:59:18.880
And, but it's becoming almost more
link |
00:59:23.640
kind of a tribal denominator than a,
link |
00:59:26.640
I think so it's very hard to know
link |
00:59:28.120
what you're arguing about
link |
00:59:29.040
when you're arguing about string theory these days.
link |
00:59:30.680
Well, to push back on that a little bit,
link |
00:59:32.120
I mean, string theory is just a term, right?
link |
00:59:34.560
It doesn't, like you could,
link |
00:59:37.040
like this is the way language evolves
link |
00:59:39.780
is it could start to represent something
link |
00:59:41.360
more than just the theory that involves strings.
link |
00:59:43.440
It could represent the effort to unify the laws of physics.
link |
00:59:49.160
Right?
link |
00:59:50.000
At high dimensions with these super tiny objects, right?
link |
00:59:54.680
Or something like that.
link |
00:59:56.120
I mean, we can sort of put string theory aside.
link |
00:59:59.320
So for example, neural networks
link |
01:00:00.840
in the space of machine learning,
link |
01:00:02.680
there was a time when they were extremely popular.
link |
01:00:05.480
They became much, much less popular
link |
01:00:07.160
to a point where if you mentioned neural networks,
link |
01:00:09.000
you're getting no funding
link |
01:00:10.440
and you're not going to be respected at conferences.
link |
01:00:13.300
And then once again,
link |
01:00:15.440
neural networks became all the rage
link |
01:00:18.480
about 10, 15 years ago.
link |
01:00:20.720
And as it goes up and down
link |
01:00:22.040
and a lot of people would argue
link |
01:00:23.640
that using terminology like machine learning
link |
01:00:26.700
and deep learning is often misused over general,
link |
01:00:33.760
everything that works is deep learning,
link |
01:00:35.200
everything that doesn't, isn't something like that.
link |
01:00:38.280
That's just the way,
link |
01:00:40.080
again, we're back to sociological things,
link |
01:00:42.960
but I guess what I'm trying to get at is
link |
01:00:45.320
if we leave the sociological mess aside,
link |
01:00:50.540
do we throw out the baby with the bathwater?
link |
01:00:53.140
Is there some, besides the side effects of nice ideas
link |
01:00:57.160
from the Ed Wittons of the world,
link |
01:00:59.220
is there some core truths there that we should stick by
link |
01:01:04.300
in the full beautiful mess of a space
link |
01:01:08.260
that we call string theory,
link |
01:01:09.640
that people call string theory?
link |
01:01:11.440
You're right, it is kind of a common problem
link |
01:01:14.360
that how what you call some field changes and evolves
link |
01:01:19.520
and in interesting ways as the field changes.
link |
01:01:22.760
But I mean, I guess what I would argue
link |
01:01:27.760
is the initial understanding of string theory
link |
01:01:30.480
that was quite specific,
link |
01:01:31.640
we're talking about a specific idea,
link |
01:01:33.200
10 dimensional super strings
link |
01:01:34.920
compactified to six dimensions.
link |
01:01:36.880
That to my mind, the really bad thing has happened
link |
01:01:41.280
to the subject is that it's hard to get people to admit,
link |
01:01:45.840
at least publicly, that that was a failure,
link |
01:01:48.160
that this really didn't work.
link |
01:01:49.800
And so de facto, what people do is people stop doing that
link |
01:01:53.280
and they start doing more interesting things,
link |
01:01:55.440
but they keep talking to the public about string theory
link |
01:02:00.960
and referring back to that idea
link |
01:02:03.280
and using that as kind of the starting point
link |
01:02:05.360
and as kind of the place where the whole tribe starts
link |
01:02:11.760
and everything else comes from.
link |
01:02:13.320
So the problem with this is that having as your initial name
link |
01:02:17.960
and what everything points back to,
link |
01:02:20.480
something which really didn't work out,
link |
01:02:25.560
it kind of makes everybody, it makes everything,
link |
01:02:28.280
you've created this potentially very, very interesting field
link |
01:02:31.040
with interesting things happening,
link |
01:02:32.080
but people in graduate school take courses
link |
01:02:37.040
on string theory and everything kind of,
link |
01:02:38.840
and this is what you tell the public
link |
01:02:40.160
in which you're continually pointing back.
link |
01:02:41.680
So you're continually pointing back to this idea
link |
01:02:43.520
which never worked out as your guiding inspiration.
link |
01:02:48.560
And it really kind of deforms your whole way
link |
01:02:51.600
of your hopes of making progress.
link |
01:02:54.120
And that's, to me, I think the kind of worst thing
link |
01:02:57.640
that's happened in this field.
link |
01:02:59.200
Okay, sure, so there's a lack of transparency, sort of authenticity
link |
01:03:02.560
about communicating the things that failed in the past.
link |
01:03:07.120
And so you don't have a clear picture of like firm ground
link |
01:03:10.920
that you're standing on.
link |
01:03:12.080
But again, those are sociological things.
link |
01:03:13.840
And there's a bunch of questions I want to ask you.
link |
01:03:18.720
So one, what's your intuition about why the original idea failed?
link |
01:03:26.720
So what can you say about why you're pretty sure it has failed?
link |
01:03:32.480
I mean, the initial idea was, as I try to explain it,
link |
01:03:35.400
it was quite seductive in that you could see why Whitten
link |
01:03:39.000
and others got excited by it.
link |
01:03:40.440
It was, you know, at the time it looked like there were only
link |
01:03:45.000
a few of these possible clobby owls that would work.
link |
01:03:47.600
And it looked like, okay, we just have to understand
link |
01:03:50.000
this very specific model and these very specific
link |
01:03:53.160
six dimensional spaces, and we're going to get everything.
link |
01:03:55.760
And so it was a very seductive idea, but it just, you know,
link |
01:03:59.240
as people learned, worked more and more about it,
link |
01:04:03.120
it just didn't, they just kind of realized that there are just
link |
01:04:07.280
more and more things you can do with these six dimensions
link |
01:04:09.240
and you can't, and this is just not going to work.
link |
01:04:12.720
Meaning like, it's, I mean, what was the failure mode here?
link |
01:04:21.240
Is it, you could just have an infinite number of possibilities
link |
01:04:24.200
that you could do so you can come up with any theory you want,
link |
01:04:27.160
you can fit quantum mechanics, you can explain gravity,
link |
01:04:30.720
you can explain anything you want with it.
link |
01:04:32.880
Is that the basic failure mode?
link |
01:04:34.280
Yeah, so it's a failure mode of kind of that this idea
link |
01:04:37.120
ended up being kind of being essentially empty,
link |
01:04:39.920
that it just doesn't, ends up not telling you anything
link |
01:04:43.240
because it's consistent with just about anything.
link |
01:04:47.280
And so, I mean, there's a complex, if you try and talk
link |
01:04:50.760
with string theorists about this now, I mean,
link |
01:04:52.280
there's an argument, there's a long argument over this
link |
01:04:54.720
about whether, oh no, no, no, maybe there still are
link |
01:04:58.960
constraints coming out of this idea or not.
link |
01:05:01.680
Or maybe we live in a multiverse and everything is true
link |
01:05:06.160
anyway, so you can, there are various ways you can kind of,
link |
01:05:10.200
that string theorists have kind of react to this kind of
link |
01:05:12.520
argument that I'm making, but I try to hold onto it.
link |
01:05:17.080
What about experimental validation?
link |
01:05:18.880
Is that a fair standard to hold before a theory
link |
01:05:26.040
of everything that's trying to unify
link |
01:05:27.360
quantum mechanics and gravity?
link |
01:05:28.960
Yeah, I mean, ultimately, to be really convinced
link |
01:05:32.520
that some new idea about unification really works,
link |
01:05:36.680
you need some kind of, you need to look at the real world
link |
01:05:39.720
and see that this is telling you something true about it.
link |
01:05:44.200
I mean, either telling you that if you do some experiment
link |
01:05:49.840
and go out and do it, you'll get some unexpected result
link |
01:05:52.440
and that's the kind of gold standard, or it may be just that
link |
01:05:57.240
like all those numbers that are,
link |
01:05:58.840
we don't know how to explain,
link |
01:06:00.060
it will show you how to calculate them.
link |
01:06:02.200
I mean, it can be various kinds of experimental validation,
link |
01:06:05.260
but that's certainly ideally what you're looking for.
link |
01:06:08.640
How tough is this, do you think, for a theory of everything,
link |
01:06:11.240
not just string theory, for something that unifies
link |
01:06:13.880
gravity and quantum mechanics,
link |
01:06:14.960
so the very big and the very small?
link |
01:06:17.520
Is this, let me ask you one way,
link |
01:06:20.200
is it a physics problem, a math problem,
link |
01:06:25.520
or an engineering problem?
link |
01:06:27.920
My guess is it's a combination of a physics
link |
01:06:30.420
and a math problem that you really need.
link |
01:06:33.820
It's not really engineering, it's not like there's some kind
link |
01:06:36.520
of well defined thing you can write down
link |
01:06:39.400
and we just don't have enough computer power
link |
01:06:41.540
to do the calculation.
link |
01:06:43.240
That's not the kind of problem it is at all.
link |
01:06:46.320
But the question is, what mathematical tools you need
link |
01:06:49.400
to properly formulate the problem is unclear.
link |
01:06:53.440
So one reasonable conjecture is the way,
link |
01:06:55.960
the reason that we haven't had any success yet
link |
01:06:58.760
is just that we're missing,
link |
01:07:01.600
either we're missing certain physical ideas
link |
01:07:04.240
or we're missing certain mathematical tools,
link |
01:07:06.260
which there are some combination of them,
link |
01:07:08.440
which we need to kind of properly formulate the problem
link |
01:07:12.740
and see that it has a solution
link |
01:07:15.760
that looks like the real world.
link |
01:07:17.280
But those you need, I guess you don't,
link |
01:07:19.400
but there's a sense that you need both gravity,
link |
01:07:24.600
like all the laws of physics to be operating
link |
01:07:27.360
on the same level.
link |
01:07:28.440
So it feels like you need an object like a black hole
link |
01:07:31.580
or something like that in order to make predictions about.
link |
01:07:38.100
Otherwise, you're always making predictions
link |
01:07:40.360
about this joint phenomena or can you do that
link |
01:07:45.280
as long as the theory is consistent
link |
01:07:46.960
and doesn't have special cases for each of the phenomena?
link |
01:07:48.840
Well, your theory should, I mean,
link |
01:07:50.600
if your theory is gonna include gravity,
link |
01:07:52.160
our current understanding of gravity
link |
01:07:53.520
is that you should have,
link |
01:07:56.340
there should be black hole states in it.
link |
01:07:57.840
You should be able to describe black holes in this theory.
link |
01:08:00.040
And just one aspect that people have concentrated a lot on
link |
01:08:04.320
is just this kind of questions about
link |
01:08:06.640
if your theory includes black holes like it's supposed to
link |
01:08:09.880
and it includes quantum mechanics,
link |
01:08:11.840
then there's certain kinds of paradoxes which come up.
link |
01:08:13.880
And so that's been a huge focus of kind of
link |
01:08:16.120
quantum gravity work has been just those paradoxes.
link |
01:08:20.240
So stepping outside of string theory,
link |
01:08:23.240
can you just say first at a high level,
link |
01:08:26.520
what is the theory of everything?
link |
01:08:28.560
What is the theory of everything seek to accomplish?
link |
01:08:32.200
Well, I mean, this is very much a kind of reductionist
link |
01:08:34.760
point of view in the sense that, so it's not a theory.
link |
01:08:38.080
This is not gonna explain to you anything.
link |
01:08:42.320
It doesn't really, this kind of theory,
link |
01:08:44.520
this kind of theory of everything we're talking about
link |
01:08:46.260
doesn't say anything interesting,
link |
01:08:48.320
particularly about like macroscopic objects,
link |
01:08:50.240
about what the weather is gonna be tomorrow,
link |
01:08:52.320
or things are happening at this scale.
link |
01:08:54.800
But just what we've discovered is that
link |
01:08:57.240
as you look at the universe that kind of,
link |
01:09:02.000
if you kind of start, you can start breaking it apart
link |
01:09:05.640
into, and you end up with some fairly simple pieces,
link |
01:09:08.440
quanta, if you like, and which are doing,
link |
01:09:11.160
which are interacting in some fairly simple way.
link |
01:09:14.480
And it's, so what we mean by theory of everything is
link |
01:09:19.800
a theory that describes all the object,
link |
01:09:24.160
all the correct objects you need to describe
link |
01:09:26.840
what's happening in the world and describes how
link |
01:09:29.080
they're interacting with each other
link |
01:09:30.160
at our most fundamental level.
link |
01:09:31.880
How you get from that theory to describing some macroscopic,
link |
01:09:36.800
incredibly complicated thing is,
link |
01:09:38.840
there that becomes, again, more of an engineering problem
link |
01:09:41.160
and you may need machine learning,
link |
01:09:42.640
or you may, you know, a lot of very different things
link |
01:09:44.740
to do it, but.
link |
01:09:45.580
Well, I don't even think it's just engineering.
link |
01:09:48.760
It's also science.
link |
01:09:50.400
One thing that I find kind of interesting
link |
01:09:55.200
talking to physicists is a little bit, there's a,
link |
01:10:05.300
a little bit of hubris.
link |
01:10:07.220
Some of the most brilliant people I know are physicists,
link |
01:10:09.740
both philosophy and just in terms of mathematics,
link |
01:10:12.340
in terms of understanding the world.
link |
01:10:14.300
But there's a kind of either hubris or what would I call it?
link |
01:10:19.500
Like a confidence that if we have a theory of everything,
link |
01:10:22.740
we will understand everything.
link |
01:10:24.500
Like this is the deepest thing to understand.
link |
01:10:26.740
And I would say, and like the rest is details, right?
link |
01:10:29.820
That's the old Rutherford thing.
link |
01:10:33.140
But to me, there's like, this is like a cake or something.
link |
01:10:37.940
There's layers to this thing
link |
01:10:39.140
and each one has a theory of everything.
link |
01:10:42.020
Like at every level from biology,
link |
01:10:46.580
like how life originates, that itself,
link |
01:10:50.860
like complex systems.
link |
01:10:52.700
Like that in itself is like this gigantic thing
link |
01:10:56.860
that requires a theory of everything.
link |
01:10:58.860
And then there's the, in the space of humans,
link |
01:11:01.680
psychology, like intelligence, collective intelligence,
link |
01:11:04.700
the way it emerges among species,
link |
01:11:07.180
that feels like a complex system
link |
01:11:09.260
that requires its own theory of everything.
link |
01:11:11.580
On top of that is things like in the computing space,
link |
01:11:15.460
artificial intelligence systems,
link |
01:11:16.820
like that feels like it needs a theory of everything.
link |
01:11:19.460
And it's almost like once we solve,
link |
01:11:24.780
once we come up with a theory of everything
link |
01:11:26.660
that explains the basic laws of physics
link |
01:11:28.500
that gave us the universe,
link |
01:11:30.320
even stuff that's super complex,
link |
01:11:32.620
like how the universe might be able to originate,
link |
01:11:37.120
even explaining something that you're not a big fan of,
link |
01:11:39.460
like multiverses or stuff
link |
01:11:40.940
that we don't have any evidence of yet.
link |
01:11:42.900
Still, we won't be able to have a strong explanation
link |
01:11:47.580
of why food tastes delicious.
link |
01:11:52.700
Yeah, I know.
link |
01:11:53.660
No, anyway, yeah, I agree completely.
link |
01:11:55.620
I mean, there is something kind of completely wrong
link |
01:11:58.700
with this terminology of theory of everything.
link |
01:12:00.860
It's not, it's really in some sense a very bad term,
link |
01:12:04.100
very hubristic and bad terminology,
link |
01:12:06.420
because it's not, this is explaining,
link |
01:12:11.020
this is a purely kind of reductionist point of view
link |
01:12:13.160
that you're trying to understand
link |
01:12:15.260
a certain very specific kind of things,
link |
01:12:17.900
which in principle, other things emerge from,
link |
01:12:23.560
but to actually understand how anything emerges from this
link |
01:12:27.660
is, it can't be understood in terms of
link |
01:12:31.740
this underlying fundamental theory is gonna be hopeless
link |
01:12:35.740
in terms of kind of telling you what about this,
link |
01:12:39.620
this various emergent behavior.
link |
01:12:40.980
And as you go to different levels of explanation,
link |
01:12:43.060
you're gonna need to develop new,
link |
01:12:44.660
different, completely different ideas,
link |
01:12:46.100
completely different ways of thinking.
link |
01:12:47.380
And I guess there's a famous kind of Phil Anderson's slogan
link |
01:12:52.500
is that, you know, more is different.
link |
01:12:54.380
And so it's just, even once you understand how,
link |
01:12:59.300
what a couple of things,
link |
01:13:00.580
if you have a collection of stuff
link |
01:13:01.940
and you understand perfectly well
link |
01:13:03.220
how each thing is interacting with the others,
link |
01:13:07.320
what the whole thing is gonna do
link |
01:13:08.600
is just a completely different problem.
link |
01:13:10.160
It's just not, and you need completely different ways
link |
01:13:12.260
of thinking about it.
link |
01:13:13.520
What do you think about this?
link |
01:13:15.100
I got to ask you at a few different attempts
link |
01:13:17.420
that a theory of everything, especially recently.
link |
01:13:20.060
So I've been for many years,
link |
01:13:23.240
a big fan of cellular automata of complex systems.
link |
01:13:25.620
And obviously because of that,
link |
01:13:28.140
a fan of Stephen Wolfram's work in that space,
link |
01:13:31.500
but he's recently been talking about a theory of everything
link |
01:13:35.180
through his physics project, essentially.
link |
01:13:38.100
What do you think about this kind of discreet
link |
01:13:40.340
theory of everything like from simple rules
link |
01:13:45.140
and simple objects on the hypergraphs
link |
01:13:47.660
emerges all of our reality where time and space are emergent.
link |
01:13:51.500
Basically everything we see around us is emergent.
link |
01:13:53.980
Yeah, I have to say, unfortunately,
link |
01:13:55.420
I've kind of pretty much zero sympathy for that.
link |
01:13:58.440
I mean, I don't, I spent a little time looking at it
link |
01:14:01.660
and I just don't see, it doesn't seem to me to get anywhere.
link |
01:14:04.940
And it really is just really, really doesn't agree at all
link |
01:14:08.780
with what I'm seeing,
link |
01:14:10.900
this kind of unification of math and physics
link |
01:14:13.180
that I'm kind of talking about around certain kinds
link |
01:14:15.440
of very deep ideas about geometry and stuff.
link |
01:14:17.860
This, if you want to believe that your things
link |
01:14:22.400
are really coming out of cellular automata
link |
01:14:25.140
at the most fundamental level,
link |
01:14:26.780
you have to believe that everything that I've seen
link |
01:14:30.480
my whole career and as beautiful, powerful ideas,
link |
01:14:34.340
that that's all just kind of a mirage,
link |
01:14:35.740
which just kind of randomly is emerging
link |
01:14:38.200
from these more basic, very, very simple minded things.
link |
01:14:41.480
And you have to give me some serious evidence for that
link |
01:14:44.980
and I'm seeing nothing.
link |
01:14:46.240
So Mirage, you don't think there could be a consistency
link |
01:14:50.420
where things like quantum mechanics could emerge
link |
01:14:54.500
from much, much, much smaller, discreet,
link |
01:14:58.480
like computational type systems.
link |
01:15:00.100
I think from the point of view of certain mathematical
link |
01:15:02.540
point of view, quantum mechanics is already mathematically
link |
01:15:06.400
as simple as it gets.
link |
01:15:07.420
It really is a story about really the fundamental objects
link |
01:15:13.620
that you work within when you write down a quantum theory
link |
01:15:16.420
are in some form point of view,
link |
01:15:18.500
precisely the fundamental objects
link |
01:15:21.220
at these deepest levels of mathematics
link |
01:15:22.900
that you're working with, they're exactly the same.
link |
01:15:25.060
So, and cellular automata are something completely different
link |
01:15:28.460
which don't fit into these structures.
link |
01:15:30.000
And so I just don't see why, anyway,
link |
01:15:32.540
I don't see it as a promising thing to do.
link |
01:15:37.340
And then just looking at it and saying,
link |
01:15:38.580
does this go anywhere?
link |
01:15:39.480
Does this solve any problem that I've ever,
link |
01:15:42.440
that I didn't, does this solve any problem of any kind?
link |
01:15:45.300
I just don't see it.
link |
01:15:46.740
Yeah, to me, cellular automata and these hypergraphs,
link |
01:15:50.580
I'm not sure solving a problem is even the standard
link |
01:15:55.280
to apply here at this moment.
link |
01:15:57.700
To me, the fascinating thing is that the question it asks
link |
01:16:00.580
have no good answers.
link |
01:16:02.020
So there's not good math explaining,
link |
01:16:04.580
forget the physics of it,
link |
01:16:06.020
math explaining the behavior of complex systems.
link |
01:16:09.180
And that to me is both exciting and paralyzing.
link |
01:16:12.340
Like we're at the very early days of understanding
link |
01:16:17.100
how complicated and fascinating things emerge
link |
01:16:19.980
from simple rules.
link |
01:16:21.300
Yeah, and I agree.
link |
01:16:22.740
I think that is a truly great problem.
link |
01:16:25.460
And depending where it goes, it may be,
link |
01:16:30.940
it may start to develop some kind of connections
link |
01:16:33.600
to the things that I've kind of found more fruitful
link |
01:16:36.740
and hard to know.
link |
01:16:38.740
It just, I think a lot of that area,
link |
01:16:41.380
I kind of strongly feel I best not say too much about it
link |
01:16:45.740
because I just, I don't know too much about it.
link |
01:16:48.220
And again, we're back to this original problem
link |
01:16:51.580
that your time in life is limited.
link |
01:16:54.340
You have to figure out what you're gonna spend
link |
01:16:55.780
your time thinking about.
link |
01:16:56.820
And that's something I've just never seen enough
link |
01:16:59.060
to convince me to spend more time thinking about.
link |
01:17:01.460
Well, also timing, it's not just that our time is limited,
link |
01:17:03.940
but the timing of the kind of things you think about.
link |
01:17:07.180
There's some aspect to cellular automata,
link |
01:17:09.740
these kinds of objects that it feels like
link |
01:17:12.820
we're very many years away from having big breakthroughs on.
link |
01:17:18.260
And so it's like, you have to pick the problems
link |
01:17:20.420
that are solvable today.
link |
01:17:21.780
In fact, my intuition, again, perhaps biased,
link |
01:17:26.400
is it feels like the kind of systems that,
link |
01:17:30.180
complex systems that cellular automata are,
link |
01:17:32.840
would not be solved by human brains.
link |
01:17:36.260
It feels like something post human
link |
01:17:40.300
that will solve that problem.
link |
01:17:41.840
Or like significantly enhanced humans,
link |
01:17:45.020
meaning like using computational tools,
link |
01:17:47.700
very powerful computational tools to crack
link |
01:17:51.740
these problems open.
link |
01:17:54.420
That's if our approach to science,
link |
01:17:58.140
our ability to understand science, our ability
link |
01:18:00.420
to understand physics will become more and more
link |
01:18:02.500
computational, or there'll be a whole field
link |
01:18:04.660
that's computational in nature,
link |
01:18:06.300
which currently is not the case.
link |
01:18:07.740
Currently, computation is the thing that sort of assists us
link |
01:18:12.460
in understanding science the way we've been doing it
link |
01:18:15.640
all along, but if there's a whole new,
link |
01:18:17.980
I mean, we're from a new kind of science, right?
link |
01:18:20.540
It's a little bit dramatic, but you know,
link |
01:18:23.360
if computers could do science on their own,
link |
01:18:28.680
computational systems, perhaps that's the way
link |
01:18:34.600
they would do the science.
link |
01:18:35.600
They would try to understand the cellular automata,
link |
01:18:37.760
and that feels like we're decades away.
link |
01:18:39.980
So perhaps it'll crack open some interesting facets
link |
01:18:43.980
of this physics problem, but it's very far away.
link |
01:18:46.320
So timing is everything.
link |
01:18:48.680
That's perfectly possible, yeah.
link |
01:18:51.040
Well, let me ask you then, in the space of geometry,
link |
01:18:55.280
I don't know how well you know Eric Weinstein.
link |
01:18:57.280
Oh, quite well, yeah.
link |
01:19:00.000
What are your thoughts about his geometric community
link |
01:19:03.600
and the space of ideas that he's playing with
link |
01:19:07.660
in his proposal for theory of everything?
link |
01:19:09.800
Well, I think that he has, he fundamentally has,
link |
01:19:14.140
I think, the same problems that everybody has had
link |
01:19:17.800
trying to do this, and there are really versions
link |
01:19:20.960
of the same problem that you try to get unity
link |
01:19:26.160
by putting everything into some bigger structure.
link |
01:19:28.840
So he has some other ones that are not so conventional
link |
01:19:33.460
that he's trying to work with,
link |
01:19:35.040
but he has the same problem that even if he can,
link |
01:19:41.480
if he can get a lot farther in terms of having
link |
01:19:43.640
a really well defined, well understood,
link |
01:19:45.860
clear picture of these things he's working with,
link |
01:19:50.300
they're really kind of large geometrical structures
link |
01:19:53.240
of many dimensions of many kinds,
link |
01:19:55.160
and I just don't see any way,
link |
01:19:57.400
he's gonna have the same problem the string theorists have,
link |
01:19:59.520
how do you get back down to the structures
link |
01:20:02.680
of the standard model, and how do you, yeah.
link |
01:20:06.860
So I just, anyway, it's the same,
link |
01:20:10.760
and there's another interesting example
link |
01:20:13.320
of a similar kind of thing is Garrett Leasy's
link |
01:20:16.040
theory of everything.
link |
01:20:17.400
Again, there, it's a little bit more specific
link |
01:20:20.040
than Eric's, he's working with this E8,
link |
01:20:22.520
but it, again, I think all these things found
link |
01:20:25.980
are at the same point, that you don't,
link |
01:20:29.480
you know, you create this unity,
link |
01:20:30.760
but then you have no, you don't actually have a good idea
link |
01:20:34.920
how you're gonna get back to the actual,
link |
01:20:40.880
to the objects we've seen, how are you gonna,
link |
01:20:42.680
you create these big symmetries,
link |
01:20:43.920
how are you gonna break them?
link |
01:20:45.340
And, because we don't see those symmetries
link |
01:20:47.480
in the real world, and so ultimately,
link |
01:20:49.720
there would need to be a simple process
link |
01:20:53.840
for collapsing it to four dimensions.
link |
01:20:56.280
You'd have to explain, well, yeah,
link |
01:20:58.480
I forget in his case, but it's not just four dimensions,
link |
01:21:01.000
it's also these structures you see in the standard model,
link |
01:21:05.400
there's, you know, there's certain very small
link |
01:21:07.600
dimensional groups of symmetries,
link |
01:21:09.160
so called U1, SU2, and SU3, and the problem with,
link |
01:21:13.800
and this has been a problem since the beginning,
link |
01:21:15.240
almost immediately after 1973, about a year later,
link |
01:21:18.880
two years later, people started talking about
link |
01:21:20.600
grand unified theories, so you take the U1,
link |
01:21:24.280
the SU2, and the SU3, and you put them together
link |
01:21:27.120
into this bigger structure called SU5 or SO10,
link |
01:21:31.520
but then you're stuck with this problem that,
link |
01:21:33.560
wait a minute, now how, why does the world not look,
link |
01:21:36.440
why do I not see these SU5 symmetries in the world,
link |
01:21:40.960
I only see these, and so, and I think, you know,
link |
01:21:45.960
the kind of thing that Eric, and all of a sudden Garrett,
link |
01:21:49.880
and lots of people who try to do it,
link |
01:21:51.000
they all kind of found her in that same way,
link |
01:21:55.160
that they don't have a good answer to that.
link |
01:21:58.560
Are there lessons, ideas to be learned from theories
link |
01:22:01.800
like that, from Garrett Leacy's, from Eric's?
link |
01:22:05.360
I don't know, it depends, I have to confess,
link |
01:22:07.080
I haven't looked that closely at Eric's,
link |
01:22:11.020
I mean, he explained this to me personally a few times,
link |
01:22:14.240
and I've looked a bit at his paper, but it's,
link |
01:22:17.560
again, we're back to the problem
link |
01:22:19.280
of a limited amount of time in life.
link |
01:22:22.360
Yeah, I mean, it's an interesting effect, right?
link |
01:22:26.680
Why don't more physicists look at it?
link |
01:22:33.080
I mean, I'm in this position that somehow,
link |
01:22:37.560
you know,
link |
01:22:38.400
I've, people write me emails, for whatever reason,
link |
01:22:45.700
and I've worked in the space of AI,
link |
01:22:47.460
and so there's a lot of people,
link |
01:22:49.180
perhaps AI is even way more accessible than physics,
link |
01:22:52.300
in a certain sense, and so a lot of people write to me
link |
01:22:54.980
with different theories about what they have
link |
01:22:56.720
for how to create general intelligence,
link |
01:23:00.000
and it's, again, a little bit of an excuse, I say to myself,
link |
01:23:03.380
like, well, I only have a limited amount of time,
link |
01:23:05.420
so that's why I'm not investigating it,
link |
01:23:07.940
but I wonder if there's ideas out there
link |
01:23:11.620
that are still powerful, that are still fascinating,
link |
01:23:14.700
and that I'm missing because I'm dismissing them
link |
01:23:21.360
because they're outside of the sort of the usual process
link |
01:23:24.740
of academic research.
link |
01:23:26.780
Yeah, well, I mean, the same thing,
link |
01:23:28.340
and pretty much every day in my email,
link |
01:23:29.940
there's somebody who's got a theory or everything
link |
01:23:32.980
about why all of what physicists are doing,
link |
01:23:35.180
and perhaps the most disturbing thing I should say
link |
01:23:38.940
about being a critic of string theory
link |
01:23:41.740
is that when you realize who your fans are,
link |
01:23:45.700
every day I hear from somebody who says,
link |
01:23:47.060
oh, well, since you don't like string theory,
link |
01:23:48.620
you must, of course, agree with me
link |
01:23:49.980
that this is the right way to think about everything.
link |
01:23:52.260
Oh, no, oh, no, and most of these are,
link |
01:23:57.620
you quickly can see this person doesn't know very much
link |
01:24:00.800
and doesn't know what they're doing,
link |
01:24:02.500
but there's a whole continuum to,
link |
01:24:05.100
people who are quite serious physicists and mathematicians
link |
01:24:08.060
who are making a fairly serious attempt
link |
01:24:10.380
to try to do something, like Eric and Eric,
link |
01:24:14.620
and then your problem is you do try to spend more time
link |
01:24:21.380
looking at it and trying to figure out
link |
01:24:22.600
what they're really doing,
link |
01:24:23.700
but then at some point you just realize,
link |
01:24:26.220
wait a minute, for me to really, really understand
link |
01:24:28.220
exactly what's going on here would just take time
link |
01:24:32.340
I just don't have.
link |
01:24:33.620
Yeah, it takes a long time, which is the nice thing about AI
link |
01:24:36.940
is unlike the kind of physics we're talking about,
link |
01:24:41.140
if your idea is good, that should quite naturally lead
link |
01:24:46.660
to you being able to build a system that's intelligent.
link |
01:24:49.820
So you don't need to get approval from somebody
link |
01:24:52.280
that's saying you have a good idea here.
link |
01:24:54.460
You can just utilize that idea in an engineer system,
link |
01:24:56.940
like naturally leads to engineering.
link |
01:24:58.860
With physics here, if you have a perfect theory
link |
01:25:01.940
that explains everything, that still doesn't obviously lead
link |
01:25:06.060
one, to scientific experiments that can validate
link |
01:25:12.020
that theory, and two, to like trinkets you can build
link |
01:25:15.700
and sell at a store for $5.
link |
01:25:18.580
You can't make money off of it.
link |
01:25:21.220
So that makes it much more challenging.
link |
01:25:25.820
Well, let me also ask you about something that you found,
link |
01:25:28.580
especially recently appealing,
link |
01:25:30.540
which is Roger Penrose's Twister theory.
link |
01:25:34.340
What is it?
link |
01:25:35.180
What kind of questions might it allow us to answer?
link |
01:25:37.820
What will the answers look like?
link |
01:25:39.900
It's only in the last couple of years
link |
01:25:41.620
that I really, really kind of come to really,
link |
01:25:43.380
I think, to appreciate it and to see how to really,
link |
01:25:46.060
I believe to see how to really do something with it.
link |
01:25:48.500
And I've gotten very excited about that
link |
01:25:49.980
the last year or two.
link |
01:25:51.220
I mean, one way of saying one idea of Twister theory
link |
01:25:54.820
is that it's a different way of thinking about
link |
01:25:59.080
what space and time are and about what points
link |
01:26:01.660
in space and time are, which is very interesting
link |
01:26:05.100
that it only really works in four dimensions.
link |
01:26:07.420
So four dimensions behaves very, very specially
link |
01:26:09.700
unlike other dimensions.
link |
01:26:11.180
And in four dimensions, there is a way of thinking
link |
01:26:14.500
about space and time geometry,
link |
01:26:17.580
as well as just thinking about points in space and time.
link |
01:26:21.280
You can also think about different objects,
link |
01:26:25.140
these so called twisters.
link |
01:26:26.240
And then when you do that,
link |
01:26:27.860
you end up with a kind of a really interesting insight
link |
01:26:30.900
that you can formulate a theory,
link |
01:26:35.340
and you can formulate a very,
link |
01:26:37.100
take a standard theory that we formulate
link |
01:26:39.420
in terms of points of space and time,
link |
01:26:41.660
and you can reformulate in this Twister language.
link |
01:26:44.460
And in this Twister language,
link |
01:26:45.820
it's the fundamental objects actually are more kind of the,
link |
01:26:51.340
are actually spheres in some sense, kind of the light cone.
link |
01:26:54.140
So maybe one way to say it,
link |
01:26:56.900
which actually I think is really, is quite amazing.
link |
01:27:02.100
If you ask yourself, what do we know about the world?
link |
01:27:05.140
We have this idea that the world out there
link |
01:27:07.900
is all these different points and these points of time.
link |
01:27:11.340
Well, that's kind of a derived quantity.
link |
01:27:13.220
What we really know about the world is when we open our eyes,
link |
01:27:16.300
what do you see?
link |
01:27:17.460
You see a sphere.
link |
01:27:19.580
And that what you're looking at is you're looking at,
link |
01:27:23.100
a sphere is worth of light rays coming into your eyes.
link |
01:27:26.420
And what Penrose says is that,
link |
01:27:29.140
well, what a point in space time is, is that sphere,
link |
01:27:33.820
that sphere of all the light rays coming in.
link |
01:27:36.620
And he says, and you should formulate your,
link |
01:27:39.180
instead of thinking about points,
link |
01:27:40.700
you should think about the space of those spheres,
link |
01:27:43.100
if you like, and formulate the degrees of freedom
link |
01:27:46.860
as physics as living on those spheres, living on,
link |
01:27:50.020
so you're kind of living on,
link |
01:27:51.940
your degrees of freedom are living on light rays,
link |
01:27:53.660
not on points.
link |
01:27:55.180
And it's a very different way of thinking about physics.
link |
01:28:00.660
And he and others working with him developed
link |
01:28:03.260
a beautiful mathematical formulas
link |
01:28:08.420
and a way to go back from forth between some aspects
link |
01:28:11.540
of our standard way we write these things down
link |
01:28:14.180
and work in the so called twister space.
link |
01:28:17.380
And certain things worked out very well,
link |
01:28:20.380
but they ended up, I think kind of stuck by the 80s or 90s
link |
01:28:24.940
that they weren't a little bit like string theory
link |
01:28:27.980
that they, by using these ideas about twisters,
link |
01:28:31.220
they could develop them in different directions
link |
01:28:33.100
and find all sorts of other interesting things,
link |
01:28:34.780
but they were getting,
link |
01:28:36.900
they weren't finding any way of doing that
link |
01:28:38.580
that brought them back to kind of new insights into physics.
link |
01:28:43.140
And my own, I mean, what's kind of gotten me excited really
link |
01:28:46.420
is what I think I have an idea about
link |
01:28:49.700
that I think does actually work,
link |
01:28:52.580
that goes more in that direction.
link |
01:28:54.180
And I can go on about that endlessly
link |
01:28:56.780
or talk a little bit about it,
link |
01:28:57.820
but that's the, I think that's the one kind of easy
link |
01:29:02.620
to explain insight about twister theory.
link |
01:29:05.260
There are some more technical ones.
link |
01:29:06.860
I should mean, I think it's also very convincing
link |
01:29:09.340
what it tells you about spinners, for instance,
link |
01:29:11.260
but that's a more technical.
link |
01:29:12.980
Well, first let's like linger on the spheres
link |
01:29:14.980
and the light cones.
link |
01:29:17.460
You're saying twisted theory allows you to make
link |
01:29:20.780
that the fundamental object with which you're operating.
link |
01:29:23.740
Yeah.
link |
01:29:24.660
How that, I mean, first of all,
link |
01:29:26.340
like philosophically that's weird and beautiful,
link |
01:29:32.260
maybe because it maps,
link |
01:29:34.500
it feels like it moves us so much closer
link |
01:29:37.020
to the way human brains perceive reality.
link |
01:29:40.500
Yeah.
link |
01:29:41.340
So it's almost like our perception is like the content
link |
01:29:46.340
of our perception is the fundamental object of reality.
link |
01:29:54.580
That's very appealing.
link |
01:29:55.900
Yeah.
link |
01:29:57.260
Is it mathematically powerful?
link |
01:30:01.860
Is there something you can say,
link |
01:30:04.740
can you say a little bit more about what the heck
link |
01:30:06.540
that even means for,
link |
01:30:08.380
because it's much easier to think about mathematically
link |
01:30:11.260
like a point in space time.
link |
01:30:13.740
What does it mean to be operating on the light cone?
link |
01:30:16.900
It uses a kind of mathematics that's relative,
link |
01:30:19.380
that kind of goes back to the 19th century
link |
01:30:22.060
among mathematicians.
link |
01:30:23.020
It's not, anyway, it's a bit of a long story,
link |
01:30:26.420
but one problem is that you have to start,
link |
01:30:28.860
it's crucial that you think in terms of complex numbers
link |
01:30:31.700
and not just real numbers.
link |
01:30:32.900
And this, for most people, that makes it harder to,
link |
01:30:36.340
for mathematicians, that's fine.
link |
01:30:37.620
We love doing that.
link |
01:30:38.460
But for most people, that makes it harder to think about.
link |
01:30:41.380
I think perhaps the most,
link |
01:30:43.100
the way that there is something you can say
link |
01:30:45.540
very specifically about it in terms of spinners,
link |
01:30:49.060
which I don't know if you want to,
link |
01:30:50.060
I think at some point you want to talk, so maybe you can.
link |
01:30:52.340
What are spinners?
link |
01:30:53.340
Let's start with spinners,
link |
01:30:54.180
because I think that if we can introduce that,
link |
01:30:55.980
then I can say it.
link |
01:30:57.300
By the way, twister is spelled with an O
link |
01:31:01.020
and spinner is spelled with an O as well.
link |
01:31:03.700
Yes, okay.
link |
01:31:05.260
In case you want to Google it and look it up,
link |
01:31:07.660
there's very nice Wikipedia pages as a starting point.
link |
01:31:10.940
I don't know what is a good starting point
link |
01:31:12.380
for twister theory.
link |
01:31:13.540
Well, one thing you say about Penrose,
link |
01:31:16.060
I mean, Penrose is actually a very good writer
link |
01:31:18.100
and also a very good draftsman.
link |
01:31:19.380
He's a draftsman, to the extent this is visualizable,
link |
01:31:22.020
he actually has done some very nice drawings.
link |
01:31:23.700
So, I mean, almost any kind of expository thing
link |
01:31:26.460
you can find him writing is a very good place to start.
link |
01:31:29.820
He's a remarkable person.
link |
01:31:32.540
But the, so spinners are something
link |
01:31:36.060
that independently came out of mathematics
link |
01:31:38.380
and out of physics.
link |
01:31:40.060
And to say where they came out of physics,
link |
01:31:42.620
I mean, what people realized when they started looking
link |
01:31:44.620
at elementary particles like electrons or whatever,
link |
01:31:47.580
that there seem to be some kind of doubling
link |
01:31:51.660
of the degrees of freedom going on.
link |
01:31:53.140
If you counted what was there in some sense
link |
01:31:57.060
in the way you would expect it
link |
01:31:58.180
and when you started doing quantum mechanics
link |
01:32:00.020
and started looking at elementary particles,
link |
01:32:01.780
there were seen to be two degrees of freedom,
link |
01:32:03.700
they're not one.
link |
01:32:04.900
And one way of seeing it was that if you put your electron
link |
01:32:09.860
in a strong magnetic field and asked what was the energy
link |
01:32:13.860
of it, instead of it having one energy,
link |
01:32:15.540
it would have two energies, there'd be two energy levels.
link |
01:32:17.940
And as you increase magnetic field,
link |
01:32:20.500
the splitting would increase.
link |
01:32:22.100
So physicists kind of realized that, wait a minute.
link |
01:32:24.980
So we thought when we were doing,
link |
01:32:27.020
first started doing quantum mechanics,
link |
01:32:28.260
that the way to describe particles was in terms
link |
01:32:31.660
of wave functions and these wave functions
link |
01:32:33.540
were complex to complex values.
link |
01:32:35.860
Well, if we actually look at particles,
link |
01:32:38.020
that that's not right.
link |
01:32:38.860
They're pairs of complex numbers.
link |
01:32:42.060
They're pairs of complex numbers.
link |
01:32:44.100
So one of the kind of fundamental,
link |
01:32:46.900
from the physics point of view,
link |
01:32:47.820
the fundamental question is why are all our kind
link |
01:32:50.220
of fundamental particles described
link |
01:32:53.900
by pairs of complex numbers?
link |
01:32:55.740
Just weird.
link |
01:32:56.740
And then you can ask, well, what happens
link |
01:33:00.220
if you like take an electron and rotate it?
link |
01:33:03.140
So how do things move in this pair of complex numbers?
link |
01:33:08.140
Well, now, if you go back to mathematics,
link |
01:33:10.940
what had been understood in mathematics,
link |
01:33:13.860
some years earlier, not that many years earlier,
link |
01:33:16.380
was that if you ask very, very generally,
link |
01:33:20.500
think about geometry of three dimensions and ask,
link |
01:33:24.260
and if you think about things that are happening
link |
01:33:25.820
in three dimensions in the standard way,
link |
01:33:28.260
everything, the standard way of doing geometry,
link |
01:33:30.500
everything is about vectors, right?
link |
01:33:32.540
So if you've taken any mathematics classes,
link |
01:33:35.220
you probably see vectors at some point.
link |
01:33:36.700
They're just triplets of numbers tell you
link |
01:33:39.420
what a direction is or how far you're going
link |
01:33:41.620
in three dimensional space.
link |
01:33:42.980
And most of everything we teach in most standard courses
link |
01:33:46.260
in mathematics is about vectors
link |
01:33:49.700
and things you build out of vectors.
link |
01:33:51.420
So you express everything about geometry
link |
01:33:53.060
in terms of vectors or how they're changing
link |
01:33:55.420
or how you put two of them together
link |
01:33:57.620
and get planes and whatever.
link |
01:34:00.940
But what had been realized that,
link |
01:34:03.660
Rianna, is that if you ask very, very generally,
link |
01:34:05.820
what are the, if you have, what are the things
link |
01:34:09.140
that you can kind of consistently think about rotating?
link |
01:34:13.020
And so you ask a technical question,
link |
01:34:16.340
what are the representations of the rotation group?
link |
01:34:18.620
Well, you find that one answer is they're vectors
link |
01:34:22.220
and everything you build out of vectors,
link |
01:34:24.660
but then people found, but wait a minute,
link |
01:34:26.420
there's also these other things,
link |
01:34:29.220
which you can build out of vectors,
link |
01:34:31.820
but which you can consistently rotate.
link |
01:34:34.420
And they're described by pairs of complex numbers,
link |
01:34:37.020
by two complex numbers.
link |
01:34:38.420
And they're the spinners also.
link |
01:34:40.580
And to make a lot, and to make,
link |
01:34:43.020
and you can think of spinners in some sense
link |
01:34:45.060
as more fundamental than vectors
link |
01:34:46.660
because you can build vectors out of spinners.
link |
01:34:48.860
You can take two spinners and make a vector,
link |
01:34:51.180
but you can't, if you only have vectors,
link |
01:34:54.940
you can't get spinners.
link |
01:34:56.620
So they're in some sense, there's some kind of level
link |
01:34:59.220
of lower level of geometry beyond what we thought it was,
link |
01:35:02.140
which was kind of spinner geometry.
link |
01:35:04.260
And this is something which even to this day,
link |
01:35:07.340
when we teach graduate courses in geometry,
link |
01:35:09.460
we mostly don't talk about this
link |
01:35:11.700
because it's a bit hard to do correctly.
link |
01:35:15.380
If you start with your whole setup is in terms of vectors,
link |
01:35:20.420
describing things in terms of spinners
link |
01:35:22.020
is a whole different ball game.
link |
01:35:24.860
But anyway, it was just this amazing fact
link |
01:35:28.780
that this kind of more fundamental piece of geometry,
link |
01:35:33.020
spinners, and what we were actually seeing,
link |
01:35:35.500
if you look at electron, are one and the same.
link |
01:35:37.900
So it's, I think it's kind of a mind blowing thing,
link |
01:35:41.300
but it's very counterintuitive.
link |
01:35:44.860
What are some weird properties of spinners
link |
01:35:47.020
that are counterintuitive?
link |
01:35:50.220
That there are some things that they do,
link |
01:35:51.540
for instance, if you rotate a spinner around 360 degrees,
link |
01:35:56.300
it doesn't come back towards,
link |
01:35:58.260
it becomes minus what it was.
link |
01:36:00.020
Or, so it's, anyway, so the way rotations work,
link |
01:36:04.660
there's a kind of a funny sign
link |
01:36:05.900
you have to keep track of in some sense.
link |
01:36:08.180
So they're kind of too valued in another weird way.
link |
01:36:11.020
But the fundamental problem is that it's just not,
link |
01:36:14.700
if you're used to visualizing vectors,
link |
01:36:17.540
you just, there's nothing you can do
link |
01:36:19.600
visualizing in terms of vectors
link |
01:36:20.560
that will ever give you a spinner.
link |
01:36:21.860
It just is not gonna ever work.
link |
01:36:23.820
As you were saying that I was visualizing a vector
link |
01:36:26.600
walking along a Mobius strip,
link |
01:36:29.100
and it ends up being upside down.
link |
01:36:32.460
But you're saying that doesn't really capture.
link |
01:36:34.820
So, I mean, what really captures it?
link |
01:36:36.860
The problem is that it's really,
link |
01:36:39.460
the simplest way to describe it
link |
01:36:41.020
is in terms of two complex numbers.
link |
01:36:43.420
And your problem with two complex numbers
link |
01:36:45.060
is that's four real numbers.
link |
01:36:46.820
So your spinner kind of lies in a four dimensional space.
link |
01:36:50.540
So you, that makes it hard to visualize.
link |
01:36:53.820
And it's crucial that it's not just any four dimensions.
link |
01:36:57.540
It's just, it's actually complex numbers.
link |
01:36:59.340
You're really gonna use the fact that
link |
01:37:01.740
these are two complex numbers.
link |
01:37:03.180
So it's very hard to visualize.
link |
01:37:06.140
But to get back to what I think is mind blowing
link |
01:37:09.300
about twisters is that the,
link |
01:37:11.980
another way of saying this idea about talking about spheres,
link |
01:37:15.780
another way of saying the fundamental idea of twister theory
link |
01:37:18.640
is in some sense, the fundamental idea of twister theory
link |
01:37:21.540
is that a point is a two complex dimensional space.
link |
01:37:28.700
So that every, and that it lives inside,
link |
01:37:32.020
the space that it lies inside is twister space.
link |
01:37:34.540
So in the simplest case, it's four,
link |
01:37:36.700
twister space is four dimensional
link |
01:37:38.480
and a point in space time
link |
01:37:40.820
is a two complex dimensional subspace
link |
01:37:44.900
of all the four complex dimensions.
link |
01:37:47.500
And as you move around in space time,
link |
01:37:49.000
you're just moving, your planes are just moving around.
link |
01:37:51.620
Okay.
link |
01:37:52.460
And that, but then the.
link |
01:37:54.540
So it's a plane in a four dimensional space.
link |
01:37:56.980
It's a plane.
link |
01:37:58.660
Complex.
link |
01:37:59.480
Complex plane.
link |
01:38:00.320
So it's two complex dimensions in four complex.
link |
01:38:03.060
Got it.
link |
01:38:03.900
But then to me, the mind blowing thing about this
link |
01:38:05.780
is this then kind of tautologically answers the question
link |
01:38:09.380
is what is a spinner?
link |
01:38:10.380
Well, a spinner is a point.
link |
01:38:14.100
I mean, the space of spinners at a point is the point.
link |
01:38:17.920
In twister theory, the points are the complex two planes.
link |
01:38:21.520
And you want me to, and you're asking what a spinner is.
link |
01:38:24.620
Well, a spinner, the space of spinners is that two plane.
link |
01:38:28.260
So it's, you know, just your whole definition
link |
01:38:31.820
of what a point in space time was
link |
01:38:33.380
just told you what a spinner was.
link |
01:38:35.180
It's, they're just, it's the same thing.
link |
01:38:37.220
Yeah, but we're trying to project that
link |
01:38:38.500
into a three dimensional space
link |
01:38:39.760
and trying to intuit, but you can't.
link |
01:38:42.300
Yeah, so the intuition becomes very difficult,
link |
01:38:44.140
but from, if you don't, not using twister theory,
link |
01:38:49.740
you have to kind of go through a certain
link |
01:38:51.300
fairly complicated rigmarole to even describe spinners
link |
01:38:54.600
to describe electrons.
link |
01:38:55.980
Whereas using twister theory,
link |
01:38:57.220
it's just completely tautological.
link |
01:38:58.820
They're just what you want to describe.
link |
01:39:03.100
The electron is fundamentally the way
link |
01:39:05.980
that you're describing the point in space time already.
link |
01:39:08.180
It's just there, so.
link |
01:39:10.740
Do you have a hope?
link |
01:39:11.580
You mentioned that you found it appealing recently.
link |
01:39:14.940
Is it just because of certain aspects
link |
01:39:17.260
of its mathematical beauty,
link |
01:39:18.500
or do you actually have a hope
link |
01:39:19.660
that this might lead to a theory of everything?
link |
01:39:22.580
Yeah, I mean, I certainly do have such a hope
link |
01:39:25.120
because what I've found, I think the thing which I've done,
link |
01:39:27.980
which I don't think, as far as I can tell,
link |
01:39:29.740
no one had really looked at from this point of view before
link |
01:39:33.380
is, has to do with this question of how do you treat time
link |
01:39:39.000
in your quantum theory?
link |
01:39:40.840
And so there's another long story
link |
01:39:44.440
about how we do quantum theories
link |
01:39:46.700
and about how we treat time in quantum theories,
link |
01:39:48.700
which is a long story.
link |
01:39:51.780
But the short version of it is that what people have found
link |
01:39:55.580
when you try and write down a quantum theory,
link |
01:39:58.460
that it's often a good idea to take your time coordinate,
link |
01:40:05.220
whatever you're using to your time coordinate,
link |
01:40:07.100
and multiply it by the square root of minus one
link |
01:40:09.920
and to make it purely imaginary.
link |
01:40:11.980
And so all these formulas,
link |
01:40:13.580
which you have in your standard theory,
link |
01:40:18.460
if you do that to those,
link |
01:40:19.900
I mean, those formulas have some very strange behavior
link |
01:40:23.660
and they're kind of singular.
link |
01:40:25.380
If you ask even some simple questions,
link |
01:40:27.800
you have to take very delicate singular limits
link |
01:40:31.020
in order to get the correct answer,
link |
01:40:33.260
and you have to take them from the right direction,
link |
01:40:35.060
otherwise it doesn't work.
link |
01:40:36.980
Whereas if you just take time,
link |
01:40:39.980
and if you just put a factor of square root of minus one,
link |
01:40:42.120
wherever you see the time coordinate,
link |
01:40:44.240
you end up with much simpler formulas,
link |
01:40:47.340
which are much better behaved mathematically.
link |
01:40:49.900
And what I hadn't really appreciated until fairly recently
link |
01:40:52.900
is also how dramatically that changes
link |
01:40:55.500
the whole structure of the theory.
link |
01:40:57.260
You end up with a consistent way of talking
link |
01:40:59.800
about these quantum theories,
link |
01:41:01.600
but it has some very different flavor
link |
01:41:04.280
and very different aspects that I hadn't really appreciated.
link |
01:41:07.380
And in particular, the way symmetries act on it
link |
01:41:10.900
is not at all what I originally had expected.
link |
01:41:15.060
And so that's the new thing that I have,
link |
01:41:17.660
or I think gives you something,
link |
01:41:19.580
is to do this move,
link |
01:41:21.820
which people often think of as just kind of a mathematical
link |
01:41:26.340
trick that you're doing
link |
01:41:27.380
to make some formulas work out nicely,
link |
01:41:29.780
but to take that mathematical trick as really fundamental.
link |
01:41:33.180
And it turns out in Twister theory
link |
01:41:35.940
allows you to simultaneously talk about your usual time
link |
01:41:39.540
and the time times the square root of minus one,
link |
01:41:41.900
they both fit very nicely into Twister theory.
link |
01:41:45.500
And you end up with some structures
link |
01:41:48.380
which look a lot like the standard models.
link |
01:41:51.980
Well, let me ask you about some Nobel prizes.
link |
01:41:54.140
Okay.
link |
01:41:55.300
Do you think there will be,
link |
01:41:56.660
there was a bet between Michio Kaku
link |
01:42:01.780
and somebody else about.
link |
01:42:04.100
John Horgan.
link |
01:42:05.020
John Horgan about,
link |
01:42:07.380
by the way, maybe discover a cool website,
link |
01:42:09.140
longbets.com or.org.
link |
01:42:11.140
Better, yeah, yeah.
link |
01:42:11.980
Yeah, it's cool.
link |
01:42:12.980
It's cool that you can make a bet with people
link |
01:42:16.380
and then check in 20 years later.
link |
01:42:18.860
I really love it.
link |
01:42:19.700
There's a lot of interesting bets on there.
link |
01:42:21.300
I would love to participate,
link |
01:42:22.460
but it's interesting to see,
link |
01:42:24.020
time flies and you make a bet about
link |
01:42:27.460
what's going to happen in 20 years.
link |
01:42:28.900
You don't realize 20 years just goes like this.
link |
01:42:31.900
And then you get to face out
link |
01:42:33.700
and you get to wonder what was that person?
link |
01:42:39.620
What was I thinking?
link |
01:42:41.060
That person 20 years ago
link |
01:42:42.780
was almost like a different person.
link |
01:42:43.900
What was I thinking back then to think that?
link |
01:42:46.340
It's interesting.
link |
01:42:47.500
So let me ask you this on record,
link |
01:42:49.620
20 years from now or some number of years from now,
link |
01:42:54.020
do you think there will be a Nobel Prize given
link |
01:42:55.780
for something directly connected
link |
01:42:58.300
to a first broadly theory of everything?
link |
01:43:01.740
And second, of course, one of the possibilities,
link |
01:43:05.980
one of them, string theory?
link |
01:43:10.940
String theory, definitely not.
link |
01:43:13.420
Things have gone, yeah.
link |
01:43:16.180
So if you were giving financial advice,
link |
01:43:18.140
you would say not to bet on that?
link |
01:43:19.140
No, do not.
link |
01:43:20.380
And even, I actually suspect
link |
01:43:22.660
if you ask string theorists that question,
link |
01:43:24.260
you're gonna get a few of them saying,
link |
01:43:27.500
I mean, if you'd asked them that question 20 years ago,
link |
01:43:29.620
again, when Kaku was making this bet or whatever,
link |
01:43:32.140
I think some of them would have taken you up on it.
link |
01:43:35.460
And certainly back in 1984,
link |
01:43:37.020
a bunch of them would have said, oh, sure, yeah.
link |
01:43:39.020
But now I get the impression that
link |
01:43:43.060
even they realize that things are not looking good
link |
01:43:45.700
for that particular idea.
link |
01:43:46.900
Again, it depends what you mean by string theory,
link |
01:43:48.620
whether maybe the term will evolve to mean something else,
link |
01:43:51.940
which will work out.
link |
01:43:53.800
But I don't think that's not gonna like it to work out,
link |
01:43:57.400
whether something else.
link |
01:43:59.060
I mean, I still think it's relatively unlikely
link |
01:44:01.220
that you'll have any really successful theory of everything.
link |
01:44:04.940
And the main problem is just the,
link |
01:44:08.900
it's become so difficult to do experiments at higher energy
link |
01:44:11.980
that we've really lost this ability
link |
01:44:13.620
to kind of get unexpected input from experiment.
link |
01:44:19.140
And you can, while it's maybe hard to figure out
link |
01:44:22.260
what people's thinking is gonna be 20 years from now,
link |
01:44:24.900
looking at high energy particle,
link |
01:44:28.780
high energy colliders and their technology,
link |
01:44:30.940
it's actually pretty easy to make a pretty accurate guess
link |
01:44:33.580
what you're gonna be doing 20 years from now.
link |
01:44:37.300
And I think actually, I would actually claim that
link |
01:44:42.300
it's pretty clear where you're gonna be 20 years from now.
link |
01:44:44.540
And what it's gonna be is you're gonna have the LHC,
link |
01:44:50.020
you're gonna have a lot more data,
link |
01:44:51.500
an order of magnitude or more data from the LHC,
link |
01:44:56.100
but at the same energy.
link |
01:44:57.580
You're not gonna see a higher energy accelerator
link |
01:45:01.940
operating successfully in the next 20 years.
link |
01:45:05.340
And like maybe machine learning
link |
01:45:08.140
or great sort of data science methodologies
link |
01:45:10.240
that process that data will not reveal
link |
01:45:12.580
any major shifts in our understanding
link |
01:45:17.380
of the underlying physics, you think?
link |
01:45:19.180
I don't think so.
link |
01:45:20.020
I mean, I think that field, my understanding
link |
01:45:23.060
is they're starting to make a great use of those techniques,
link |
01:45:26.940
but it seems to look like it will help them
link |
01:45:29.540
solve certain technical problems
link |
01:45:30.980
and be able to do things somewhat better,
link |
01:45:32.500
but not completely change the way they're looking at things.
link |
01:45:36.600
What do you think about the potential quantum computers
link |
01:45:39.580
simulating quantum mechanical systems
link |
01:45:41.300
and through that sneak up to sort of through simulation,
link |
01:45:46.600
sneak up to a deep understanding of the fundamental physics?
link |
01:45:51.540
The problem there is that that's promising more
link |
01:45:54.780
for this, for Phil Anderson's problem,
link |
01:45:59.420
that if you wanna, there's lots and lots of,
link |
01:46:06.060
you start putting together lots and lots of things
link |
01:46:08.580
and we think we know they're pair by pair interactions,
link |
01:46:11.060
but what this thing is gonna do,
link |
01:46:13.380
we don't have any good calculational techniques.
link |
01:46:16.540
Quantum computers may very well give you those.
link |
01:46:19.540
And so they may, what we think of
link |
01:46:21.660
is kind of a strong coupling behavior.
link |
01:46:23.260
We have no good way to calculate.
link |
01:46:26.780
Even though we can write down the theory,
link |
01:46:28.300
we don't know how to calculate anything with any accuracy
link |
01:46:31.580
and the quantum computer may solve that problem.
link |
01:46:34.620
But the problem is that I don't think
link |
01:46:36.660
that they're gonna solve the problem
link |
01:46:38.140
that they help you with the problem
link |
01:46:39.220
of not having the, of knowing
link |
01:46:41.860
what the right underlying theory is.
link |
01:46:44.220
As somebody who likes experimental validation,
link |
01:46:48.580
let me ask you the perhaps ridiculous sounding,
link |
01:46:51.300
but I don't think it's actually a ridiculous question
link |
01:46:53.300
of do you think we live in a simulation?
link |
01:46:56.700
Do you find that thought experiment
link |
01:46:58.340
at all useful or interesting?
link |
01:47:00.220
Not really, I don't, it just doesn't.
link |
01:47:03.680
Yeah, anyway, to me, it doesn't actually lead
link |
01:47:08.700
to any kind of interesting, lead anywhere interesting.
link |
01:47:11.980
Yeah, to me, so maybe I'll throw a wrench into your thing.
link |
01:47:16.700
To me, it's super interesting
link |
01:47:17.860
from an engineering perspective.
link |
01:47:19.620
So if you look at virtual reality systems,
link |
01:47:23.140
the actual question is how much computation
link |
01:47:28.220
and how difficult is it to construct a world
link |
01:47:32.980
that like there are several levels here.
link |
01:47:36.680
One is you won't know the difference,
link |
01:47:39.700
our human perception systems
link |
01:47:41.340
and maybe even the tools of physics
link |
01:47:42.720
won't know the difference
link |
01:47:43.820
between the simulated world and the real world.
link |
01:47:47.160
That's sort of more of a physics question.
link |
01:47:51.020
The most interesting question to me
link |
01:47:53.060
has more to do with why food tastes delicious,
link |
01:47:55.740
which is create how difficult
link |
01:47:58.700
and how much computation is required
link |
01:48:00.380
to construct a simulation
link |
01:48:02.860
where you kind of know it's a simulation at first,
link |
01:48:06.100
but you want to stay there anyway.
link |
01:48:07.860
And over time, you don't even remember.
link |
01:48:13.340
Yeah, well, anyway, I agree,
link |
01:48:15.860
these are kind of fascinating questions
link |
01:48:18.340
and they may be very, very relevant
link |
01:48:20.020
to our future as a species,
link |
01:48:21.900
but yeah, they're just very far from anything I think.
link |
01:48:26.060
Well, so from a physics perspective,
link |
01:48:27.580
it's not useful to you to think,
link |
01:48:29.420
taking a computational perspective to our universe,
link |
01:48:32.380
thinking of it as an information processing system
link |
01:48:35.140
and then they give it as doing computation
link |
01:48:37.420
and then you think about the resources required
link |
01:48:39.440
to do that kind of computation and all that kind of stuff.
link |
01:48:42.260
You could just look at the basic physics
link |
01:48:43.820
and who cares what the computer it's running on is.
link |
01:48:46.700
Yeah, it just, I mean, the kinds of,
link |
01:48:48.020
I mean, I'm willing to agree
link |
01:48:49.940
that you can get into interesting kinds of questions
link |
01:48:51.860
going down that road,
link |
01:48:52.820
but they're just so different from anything
link |
01:48:55.220
from what I've found interesting and I just,
link |
01:48:57.420
again, I just have to kind of go back to life is too short
link |
01:49:01.280
and I'm very glad other people are thinking about this,
link |
01:49:03.700
but I just don't see anything I can do with it.
link |
01:49:08.500
What about space itself?
link |
01:49:11.480
So I have to ask you about aliens.
link |
01:49:14.300
Again, something, since you emphasize evidence,
link |
01:49:18.740
do you think there is, how many,
link |
01:49:20.820
do you think there are and how many
link |
01:49:23.000
intelligent alien civilizations are out there?
link |
01:49:25.900
Yeah, I have no idea, but I have certainly,
link |
01:49:28.540
as far as I know, unless the government's covering it up
link |
01:49:30.700
or something, we haven't heard from,
link |
01:49:32.980
we don't have any evidence for such things yet,
link |
01:49:35.780
but there seems to be no,
link |
01:49:38.720
there's no particular obstruction why there shouldn't be, so.
link |
01:49:43.220
I mean, do you, you work on some fundamental questions
link |
01:49:47.460
about the physics of reality.
link |
01:49:49.140
When you look up to the stars,
link |
01:49:51.620
do you think about whether somebody's looking back at us?
link |
01:49:55.260
Yes, yeah, well, actually,
link |
01:49:56.100
I originally got interested in physics.
link |
01:49:58.140
I actually started out as a kid interested in astronomy,
link |
01:50:00.180
exactly that, and a telescope and whatever that,
link |
01:50:02.300
and certainly read a lot of science fiction
link |
01:50:05.620
and thought about that.
link |
01:50:08.340
I find over the years, I find myself kind of less,
link |
01:50:12.020
anyway, less and less interested in that one,
link |
01:50:15.100
just because I don't really know what to do with them.
link |
01:50:19.120
I also kind of, at some point,
link |
01:50:20.420
kind of stopped reading science fiction that much,
link |
01:50:23.060
kind of feeling that there was just too,
link |
01:50:25.140
that the actual science I was kind of learning about
link |
01:50:27.100
was perfectly kind of weird and fascinating,
link |
01:50:29.920
and unusual enough, and better than any of the stuff
link |
01:50:33.140
that Isaac Asimov, so why should I?
link |
01:50:36.620
Yeah, and you can mess with the science
link |
01:50:39.740
much more than the distant science fiction,
link |
01:50:43.180
the one that exists in our imagination
link |
01:50:45.400
or the one that exists out there among the stars.
link |
01:50:49.500
Well, you mentioned science fiction.
link |
01:50:51.180
You've written quite a few book reviews.
link |
01:50:54.060
I gotta ask you about some books, perhaps,
link |
01:50:56.420
if you don't mind.
link |
01:50:57.580
Is there one or two books that you would recommend to others
link |
01:51:03.500
and maybe if you can, what ideas you drew from them?
link |
01:51:09.300
Either negative recommendations or positive recommendations.
link |
01:51:12.660
Do not read this book for sure.
link |
01:51:15.220
Well, I must say, I mean, unfortunately,
link |
01:51:18.260
yeah, you can go to my website
link |
01:51:19.860
and you can click on book reviews
link |
01:51:21.700
and you can see I've written, read a lot of,
link |
01:51:24.060
a lot of, I mean, as you can tell from my views
link |
01:51:27.180
about string theory, I'm not a fan
link |
01:51:28.780
of a lot of the kind of popular books
link |
01:51:31.020
about, oh, isn't string theory great?
link |
01:51:32.740
And yes, I'm not a fan of a lot of things of that kind.
link |
01:51:37.660
Can I ask you a quick question on this, a small tangent?
link |
01:51:41.420
Are you a fan, can you explore the pros and cons
link |
01:51:46.540
of, if I get string theory, sort of science communication,
link |
01:51:51.620
sort of Cosmos style communication of concepts
link |
01:51:56.620
to people that are outside of physics,
link |
01:51:59.040
outside of mathematics, outside of even the sciences
link |
01:52:02.240
and helping people to sort of dream
link |
01:52:04.780
and fill them with awe about the full range
link |
01:52:07.560
of mysteries in our universe?
link |
01:52:10.420
That's a complicated issue.
link |
01:52:11.260
You know, I think, you know, I certainly go back
link |
01:52:13.680
and go back to like what inspired me
link |
01:52:15.680
and maybe to connect it a little bit
link |
01:52:18.440
to this question about books.
link |
01:52:19.320
I mean, certainly when the books,
link |
01:52:21.540
some books that I remember reading when I was a kid
link |
01:52:23.980
were about the early history of quantum mechanics,
link |
01:52:26.280
like Heisenberg's books that he wrote about, you know,
link |
01:52:29.080
kind of looking back at telling the history
link |
01:52:31.120
of what happened when he developed quantum mechanics.
link |
01:52:32.960
It's just kind of a totally fascinating, romantic,
link |
01:52:36.640
great story, and those were very inspirational to me.
link |
01:52:40.040
And I would think maybe other people
link |
01:52:41.840
might also find them that, but the...
link |
01:52:45.160
And that's almost like the human story
link |
01:52:47.240
of the development of the ideas.
link |
01:52:49.120
Yeah, the human story, but yeah, just also how, you know,
link |
01:52:51.800
there are these very, very weird ideas
link |
01:52:53.760
that didn't seem to make sense,
link |
01:52:54.800
and how they were struggling with them
link |
01:52:56.280
and how, you know, they actually...
link |
01:52:58.320
Anyway, it's, I think it's the period of physics
link |
01:53:01.840
kind of beginning, you know, 1905 with Planck and Einstein
link |
01:53:06.080
and ending up with the war
link |
01:53:08.400
when these things get used to, you know,
link |
01:53:11.280
make massively destructive weapons.
link |
01:53:14.060
It's just the truly amazing...
link |
01:53:15.720
And so many, so many new ideas.
link |
01:53:17.580
Let me, on another, a tangent on top of a tangent
link |
01:53:19.800
on top of a tangent, ask,
link |
01:53:21.500
if we didn't have Einstein, so how does science progress?
link |
01:53:26.740
Is it the lone geniuses?
link |
01:53:28.980
Or is it some kind of weird network of ideas
link |
01:53:32.980
swimming in the air and just kind of the geniuses
link |
01:53:36.620
pop up to catch them and others would anyway?
link |
01:53:39.260
Without Einstein, would we have special relativity,
link |
01:53:42.580
general relativity?
link |
01:53:44.740
I mean, it's an interesting case to case basis.
link |
01:53:47.260
I mean, special relativity, I think we would have had,
link |
01:53:51.820
I mean, there are other people.
link |
01:53:53.940
Anyway, you could even argue that it was already there
link |
01:53:56.700
in some form in some ways,
link |
01:53:57.900
but I think special relativity you would have had
link |
01:54:00.340
without Einstein fairly quickly.
link |
01:54:03.300
General relativity, that was a much, much harder thing to do
link |
01:54:07.580
and required a much more effort, much more sophisticated.
link |
01:54:11.700
That I think you would have had sooner or later,
link |
01:54:13.960
but it would have taken quite a bit longer.
link |
01:54:16.820
That took a bunch of years to validate scientifically,
link |
01:54:20.500
the general relativity.
link |
01:54:21.700
But even for Einstein, from the point where he had
link |
01:54:24.540
kind of a general idea of what he was trying to do
link |
01:54:26.820
to the point where he actually had a well defined theory
link |
01:54:29.900
that you could actually compare to the real world,
link |
01:54:31.840
that was, I forget the number of the order of magnitude,
link |
01:54:35.340
10 years of very serious work.
link |
01:54:36.720
And if he hadn't been around to do that,
link |
01:54:39.740
it would have taken a while before anyone else
link |
01:54:41.900
got around to it.
link |
01:54:43.060
On the other hand, there are things like,
link |
01:54:45.020
with quantum mechanics, you have Heisenberg and Schrodinger
link |
01:54:51.260
came up with two, which ultimately equivalent,
link |
01:54:55.140
but two different approaches to it
link |
01:54:58.180
within months of each other.
link |
01:54:59.620
And so if Heisenberg hadn't been there,
link |
01:55:02.380
you already would have had Schrodinger or whatever.
link |
01:55:04.020
And if neither of them had been there,
link |
01:55:05.180
it would have been somebody else a few months later.
link |
01:55:07.580
So there are times when the, just the,
link |
01:55:12.420
a lot often is the combination of the right ideas
link |
01:55:16.540
are in place and the right experimental data is in place
link |
01:55:19.600
to point in the right direction.
link |
01:55:20.780
And it's just waiting for somebody who's gonna find it.
link |
01:55:25.620
Maybe to go back to your aliens,
link |
01:55:28.380
I guess the one thing that I often wonder about aliens is,
link |
01:55:30.780
would they have the same fundamental physics ideas
link |
01:55:33.940
as we have in mathematics?
link |
01:55:35.600
Would their math, you know, would they, you know,
link |
01:55:39.660
how much is this really intrinsic to our minds?
link |
01:55:42.140
If you start out with a different kind of mind
link |
01:55:43.780
when you end up with a different ideas
link |
01:55:46.140
of what fundamental physics is
link |
01:55:47.340
or what the structure of mathematics is.
link |
01:55:49.820
So this is why, like if I was, you know,
link |
01:55:54.160
I like video games, the way I would do it
link |
01:55:56.460
as a curious being, so first experiment I'd like to do
link |
01:55:59.560
is run Earth over many thousands of times
link |
01:56:02.560
and see if our particular, no, you know what?
link |
01:56:06.700
I wouldn't do the full evolution.
link |
01:56:08.140
I would start at Homo sapiens first
link |
01:56:10.180
and then see the evolution of Homo sapiens
link |
01:56:12.620
millions of times and see how the ideas
link |
01:56:15.620
of science would evolve.
link |
01:56:16.500
Like, would you get, like how would physics evolve?
link |
01:56:19.700
How would math evolves?
link |
01:56:21.340
I would particularly just be curious
link |
01:56:22.720
about the notation they come up with.
link |
01:56:25.920
Every once in a while I would like throw miracles
link |
01:56:28.420
at them to like, to mess with them and stuff.
link |
01:56:31.180
And then I would also like to run Earth
link |
01:56:33.260
from the very beginning to see if evolution
link |
01:56:35.460
will produce different kinds of brains
link |
01:56:37.220
that would then produce different kinds
link |
01:56:38.820
of mathematics and physics.
link |
01:56:40.220
And then finally, I would probably millions of times
link |
01:56:43.460
run the universe over to see what kind of,
link |
01:56:48.460
what kind of environments and what kind of life
link |
01:56:52.260
would be created to then lead to intelligent life,
link |
01:56:55.400
to then lead to theories of mathematics and physics
link |
01:56:59.100
and to see the full range.
link |
01:57:00.840
And like, sort of like Darwin kind of mark, okay.
link |
01:57:04.940
It took them, what is it, several hundred million years
link |
01:57:10.260
to come up with calculus.
link |
01:57:13.780
I would just like keep noting how long it took
link |
01:57:16.020
and get an average and see which ideas are difficult,
link |
01:57:19.020
which are not and then conclusively sort of figure out
link |
01:57:23.420
if it's more collective intelligence
link |
01:57:27.340
or singular intelligence that's responsible for shifts
link |
01:57:30.180
and for big phase shifts and breakthroughs in science.
link |
01:57:33.820
If I was playing a video game and ran,
link |
01:57:36.380
I got a chance to run this whole thing.
link |
01:57:38.260
Yeah, but we're talking about books
link |
01:57:41.620
before I distracted us horribly.
link |
01:57:42.460
About books, okay, so books, yeah, go back, books.
link |
01:57:44.420
Yeah, so and then, yeah, so that's one thing I'd recommend
link |
01:57:47.180
is the books about the, from the original people,
link |
01:57:50.660
especially Heisenberg about the, how that happened.
link |
01:57:53.640
And there's also a very, very good kind of history
link |
01:57:55.740
of the kind of what happened during this 20th century
link |
01:58:00.460
in physics and up to the time of the Standard Model in 1973.
link |
01:58:05.300
It's called The Second Creation by Bob Kreis and Mann.
link |
01:58:10.380
That's one of the best ones.
link |
01:58:11.500
I know that's, but the one thing that I can say is that,
link |
01:58:14.780
so that book, I think, I forget when it was, late 80s, 90s.
link |
01:58:20.320
The problem is that there just hasn't been much
link |
01:58:22.200
that's actually worked out since then.
link |
01:58:24.060
So most of the books that are kind of trying to tell you
link |
01:58:26.660
about all the glorious things that have happened
link |
01:58:28.400
since 1973 are, they're mostly telling you
link |
01:58:32.660
about how glorious things are,
link |
01:58:33.900
which actually don't really work.
link |
01:58:35.260
And it's really, the argument people sometimes make
link |
01:58:38.580
in favor of these books as well, oh, they're really great
link |
01:58:41.540
because you want to do something that will get kids excited.
link |
01:58:43.780
And then, so they're getting excited about things,
link |
01:58:45.780
something that's not really quite working.
link |
01:58:47.700
It doesn't really matter, the main thing is get them excited.
link |
01:58:50.720
The other argument is, wait a minute,
link |
01:58:53.580
if you're getting people excited about ideas that are wrong,
link |
01:58:56.720
you're really kind of, you're actually kind of discrediting
link |
01:58:59.000
the whole scientific enterprise in a not really good way.
link |
01:59:02.220
So there's this problem.
link |
01:59:04.620
So my general feeling about expository stuff is, yeah,
link |
01:59:07.940
it's to the extent you can do it kind of honestly
link |
01:59:10.660
and, well, that's great.
link |
01:59:12.780
There are a lot of people doing that now,
link |
01:59:14.760
but to the extent that you're just trying to get people
link |
01:59:20.180
excited and enthusiastic by kind of telling them stuff,
link |
01:59:22.940
which isn't really true,
link |
01:59:24.420
you really shouldn't be doing that.
link |
01:59:26.540
You obviously have a much better intuition about physics.
link |
01:59:28.980
I tend to, in the space of AI, for example,
link |
01:59:32.660
you could use certain kinds of language,
link |
01:59:37.620
like calling things intelligent
link |
01:59:41.300
that could rub people the wrong way.
link |
01:59:43.340
But I never had a problem with that kind of thing,
link |
01:59:46.060
saying that a program can learn its way
link |
01:59:48.340
without any human supervision as AlphaZero does
link |
01:59:52.180
to play chess.
link |
01:59:53.720
To me, that may not be intelligence,
link |
01:59:57.820
but it sure as heck seems like a few steps
link |
02:00:01.660
down the path towards intelligence.
link |
02:00:04.500
And so I think that's a very peculiar property
link |
02:00:09.060
of systems that can be engineered.
link |
02:00:10.860
So even if the idea is fuzzy,
link |
02:00:12.460
even if you're not really sure what intelligence is,
link |
02:00:15.180
or if you don't have a deep fundamental understanding
link |
02:00:19.500
or even a model what intelligence is,
link |
02:00:21.620
if you build a system that sure as heck is impressive
link |
02:00:24.500
and showing some of the signs
link |
02:00:26.740
of what previously thought impossible
link |
02:00:29.740
for a nonintelligent system,
link |
02:00:32.940
then that's impressive and that's inspiring
link |
02:00:34.900
and that's okay to celebrate.
link |
02:00:36.660
In physics, because you're not engineering anything,
link |
02:00:39.860
you're just now swimming in the space,
link |
02:00:41.820
directly when you do theoretical physics,
link |
02:00:43.940
that it could be more dangerous.
link |
02:00:45.440
You could be out too far away from shore.
link |
02:00:48.740
Yeah, well, the problem, I think physics is,
link |
02:00:52.820
I think it's actually hard for people even to believe
link |
02:00:55.180
or really understand how that this particular kind
link |
02:01:00.140
of physics has gotten itself into a really unusual
link |
02:01:02.900
and strange and historically unusual state,
link |
02:01:05.300
which is not really.
link |
02:01:06.660
I mean, I spent half my life among mathematicians
link |
02:01:09.500
and half of the physicists,
link |
02:01:10.620
and mathematics is kind of doing fine.
link |
02:01:12.860
People are making progress
link |
02:01:14.180
and it has all the usual problems,
link |
02:01:16.100
but also, so you could have a,
link |
02:01:19.340
but I just, I don't know,
link |
02:01:21.100
I've never seen anything at all happening in mathematics
link |
02:01:23.780
like what's happened in this specific area in physics.
link |
02:01:26.340
It's just the kind of sociology of this,
link |
02:01:29.820
the way this field works banging up
link |
02:01:33.580
against this harder problem without anything
link |
02:01:37.080
from experiment to help it.
link |
02:01:38.560
It's really, it's led to some really kind
link |
02:01:41.780
of problematic things.
link |
02:01:43.300
And those, so it's one thing to kind of oversimplify
link |
02:01:48.020
or to slightly misrepresent,
link |
02:01:49.740
to try to explain things in a way that's not quite right,
link |
02:01:52.380
but it's another thing to start promoting to people
link |
02:01:56.740
as a success as ideas, which really completely failed.
link |
02:02:00.300
And so, I mean, I've kind of a very, very specific,
link |
02:02:03.600
if you used to have people, I won't name any names,
link |
02:02:07.500
for instance, coming on certain podcasts like yours,
link |
02:02:09.500
telling the world, this is a huge success
link |
02:02:12.560
and this is really wonderful.
link |
02:02:13.740
And it's just not true.
link |
02:02:16.520
And this is really problematic
link |
02:02:19.620
and it carries a serious danger of once,
link |
02:02:24.460
when people realize that this is what's going on,
link |
02:02:29.020
that the loss of credibility of science
link |
02:02:32.380
is a real, real problem for our society.
link |
02:02:34.700
And you don't want people to have an all too good reason
link |
02:02:39.700
to think that what they're being told
link |
02:02:44.420
by kind of some of the best institutions
link |
02:02:46.860
or a country or authorities is not true.
link |
02:02:49.140
You know, it's not true, it's a problem.
link |
02:02:52.300
That's obviously characteristic of not just physics,
link |
02:02:55.860
it's sociology.
link |
02:03:00.500
And it's, I mean, obviously in the space of politics,
link |
02:03:02.940
it's the history of politics is you sell ideas to people,
link |
02:03:11.940
even when you don't have any proof
link |
02:03:14.020
that those ideas actually work in the US
link |
02:03:16.060
because if they've worked in that,
link |
02:03:17.980
that seems to be the case throughout history.
link |
02:03:23.700
And just like you said, it's human beings running up
link |
02:03:26.500
against a really hard problem.
link |
02:03:28.500
I'm not sure if this is like a particular like trajectory
link |
02:03:35.420
through the progress of physics
link |
02:03:37.060
that we're dealing with now
link |
02:03:38.380
or it's just a natural progress of science.
link |
02:03:40.240
You run up against a really difficult stage of a field
link |
02:03:44.800
and different people behave differently in the face of that.
link |
02:03:53.100
Some sell books and sort of tell narratives
link |
02:03:56.140
that are beautiful and so on.
link |
02:03:57.820
They're not necessarily grounded in solutions
link |
02:04:00.980
that have proven themselves.
link |
02:04:02.740
Others kind of put their head down quietly,
link |
02:04:05.460
keep doing the work.
link |
02:04:06.340
Others sort of pivot to different fields
link |
02:04:08.180
and that's kind of like, yeah, ants scattering.
link |
02:04:11.420
And then you have fields like machine learning,
link |
02:04:14.500
which there was a few folks mostly scattered away
link |
02:04:17.100
from machine learning in the 90s,
link |
02:04:19.580
in the winter of AI, AI winter, as they call it.
link |
02:04:22.980
But a few people kept their head down
link |
02:04:24.740
and now they're called the fathers of deep learning.
link |
02:04:27.140
And they didn't think of it that way.
link |
02:04:31.380
And in fact, if there's another AI winter,
link |
02:04:33.300
they'll just probably keep working on it anyway,
link |
02:04:35.560
sort of like loyal ants sticking to a particular thing.
link |
02:04:40.380
So it's interesting, but you're sort of saying
link |
02:04:43.140
that we should be careful over hyping things
link |
02:04:46.660
that have not proven themselves
link |
02:04:48.380
because people will lose trust in the scientific process.
link |
02:04:53.380
But unfortunately, there's been other ways
link |
02:04:56.780
in which people have lost trust in the scientific process.
link |
02:04:59.740
That ultimately has to do actually
link |
02:05:01.140
with all the same kind of behavior as you're highlighting,
link |
02:05:04.020
which is not being honest and transparent
link |
02:05:07.260
about the flaws of mistakes of the past.
link |
02:05:10.620
Yeah, I mean, that's always a problem.
link |
02:05:12.140
But this particular field is kind of fun.
link |
02:05:14.700
It's always a strange one.
link |
02:05:17.780
I mean, I think in the sense that
link |
02:05:20.500
there's a lot of public fascination with it
link |
02:05:22.140
that it seems to speak to kind of our deepest questions
link |
02:05:24.780
about what is this physical reality?
link |
02:05:27.540
Where do we come from?
link |
02:05:28.380
And these kind of deep issues.
link |
02:05:30.300
So there's this unusual fascination with it.
link |
02:05:33.060
Mathematics is very different.
link |
02:05:34.540
Nobody's that interested in mathematics.
link |
02:05:36.620
Nobody really kind of expects to learn really great,
link |
02:05:40.580
deep things about the world from mathematics that much.
link |
02:05:42.580
They don't ask mathematicians that.
link |
02:05:44.180
So it's a very unusual,
link |
02:05:46.660
it draws this kind of unusual amount of attention.
link |
02:05:50.140
And it really is historically in a really unusual state.
link |
02:05:54.860
It's gotten itself way kind of down a blind alley
link |
02:06:01.220
in a way which it's hard to find
link |
02:06:04.700
other historical parallels to.
link |
02:06:06.500
But sort of to push back a little bit,
link |
02:06:08.380
there's power to inspiring people.
link |
02:06:10.660
And if I just empirically look,
link |
02:06:13.140
physicists are really good at combining science
link |
02:06:21.740
and philosophy and communicating it.
link |
02:06:24.420
Like there's something about physics often
link |
02:06:26.220
that forces you to build a strong intuition
link |
02:06:28.900
about the way reality works, right?
link |
02:06:31.300
And that allows you to think through sort of
link |
02:06:34.260
and communicate about all kinds of questions.
link |
02:06:37.340
Like if you see physicists,
link |
02:06:38.780
it's always fascinating to take on problems
link |
02:06:41.140
that have nothing to do with their particular discipline.
link |
02:06:43.500
They think in interesting ways
link |
02:06:45.900
and they're able to communicate
link |
02:06:47.180
their thinking in interesting ways.
link |
02:06:48.660
And so in some sense, they have a responsibility
link |
02:06:52.180
not just to do science, but to inspire.
link |
02:06:55.580
And not responsibility, but the opportunity.
link |
02:06:58.060
And thereby, I would say a little bit of a responsibility.
link |
02:07:02.660
Yeah, yeah.
link |
02:07:03.820
But I don't know, anyway, it's hard to say
link |
02:07:06.340
because there's many, many people doing this kind of thing
link |
02:07:10.620
with different degrees of success and whatever.
link |
02:07:15.580
I guess one thing, but I mean,
link |
02:07:19.740
what's kind of front and center for me
link |
02:07:21.140
is kind of a more parochial interest
link |
02:07:22.860
is just kind of what damage do you do
link |
02:07:27.100
to the subject itself, ignoring,
link |
02:07:30.100
okay, misrepresenting what high school students think
link |
02:07:33.460
about string theory and that doesn't matter much,
link |
02:07:36.540
but what the smartest undergraduates
link |
02:07:40.220
or the smartest graduate students in the world think about it
link |
02:07:43.140
and what paths you're leading them down
link |
02:07:45.140
and what story you're telling them
link |
02:07:47.060
and what textbooks you're making them read
link |
02:07:49.580
and what they're hearing.
link |
02:07:51.380
And so a lot of what's motivated me
link |
02:07:53.020
is more to try to speak to this kind of a specific population
link |
02:07:57.340
of people to make sure that, look, people,
link |
02:08:01.660
it doesn't matter so much what the average person
link |
02:08:05.500
on the street thinks about string theory,
link |
02:08:06.980
but what the best students at Columbia or Harvard
link |
02:08:12.060
or Princeton or whatever who really wanna change,
link |
02:08:14.860
work in this field and wanna work that way,
link |
02:08:16.620
what they know about it, what they think about it
link |
02:08:19.300
and that they not be going to the field being misled
link |
02:08:22.020
and believing that a certain story,
link |
02:08:23.820
this is where this is all going,
link |
02:08:25.060
this is what I gotta do, that's important to me.
link |
02:08:29.020
Well, in general, for graduate students,
link |
02:08:31.380
for people who seek to be experts in the field,
link |
02:08:34.220
diversity of ideas is really powerful
link |
02:08:36.460
and is getting into this local pocket of ideas
link |
02:08:40.700
that people hold on to for several decades is not good,
link |
02:08:43.820
no matter what the idea.
link |
02:08:44.860
I would say no matter if the idea is right or wrong,
link |
02:08:47.860
because there's no such thing as right in the long term,
link |
02:08:51.540
like it's right for now until somebody builds on
link |
02:08:56.380
something much bigger on top of it.
link |
02:08:58.100
It might end up being right,
link |
02:09:00.060
but being a tiny subset of a much bigger thing.
link |
02:09:03.500
So you always should question sort of the ways of the past.
link |
02:09:07.460
Yeah, so how to kind of achieve
link |
02:09:10.260
that kind of diversity of thought
link |
02:09:12.700
and within kind of the sociology
link |
02:09:15.060
of how we organize scientific researches.
link |
02:09:17.660
I know this is one thing that I think it's very interesting
link |
02:09:19.500
that Sabina Hassenfelder has very interesting things
link |
02:09:22.700
to say about it.
link |
02:09:23.540
And I think also Lee Smolin in his book,
link |
02:09:25.540
which is also about that very much in agreement with them
link |
02:09:29.900
that there's a really kind of important questions
link |
02:09:36.780
about how research in this field is organized
link |
02:09:41.460
and what can you do to kind of get more diversity of thought
link |
02:09:46.580
and get people thinking about a wider range of ideas.
link |
02:09:53.100
At the bottom, I think humility always helps.
link |
02:09:55.980
Well, the problem is that it's also,
link |
02:09:59.900
it's a combination of humility to know when you're wrong
link |
02:10:02.780
and also, but also you have to have a certain
link |
02:10:06.700
very serious lack of humility to believe
link |
02:10:08.620
that you're gonna make progress on some of these problems.
link |
02:10:11.180
I think you have to have like both modes
link |
02:10:13.260
and switch between them when needed.
link |
02:10:18.420
Let me ask you a question
link |
02:10:19.460
you're probably not gonna wanna answer
link |
02:10:21.220
because you're focused on the mathematics of things
link |
02:10:25.460
and mathematics can't answer the why questions,
link |
02:10:27.720
but let me ask you anyway.
link |
02:10:30.620
Do you think there's meaning to this whole thing?
link |
02:10:33.420
What do you think is the meaning of life?
link |
02:10:34.980
Why are we here?
link |
02:10:36.860
I don't know.
link |
02:10:37.700
Yeah, I was thinking about this.
link |
02:10:39.580
So the, and it did occur to me,
link |
02:10:42.300
one interesting thing about that question
link |
02:10:45.660
is that you don't,
link |
02:10:47.180
yeah, so I have this life in mathematics
link |
02:10:51.060
and this life in physics
link |
02:10:52.020
and I see some of my physicist colleagues,
link |
02:10:55.900
kind of seem to be, people are often asking them,
link |
02:10:59.740
what's the meaning of life?
link |
02:11:00.580
And they're writing books about the meaning of life
link |
02:11:02.300
and teaching courses about the meaning of life.
link |
02:11:04.580
But then I realized that no one ever asked
link |
02:11:06.460
my mathematician colleagues.
link |
02:11:08.980
Nobody ever asked mathematicians.
link |
02:11:10.660
Yeah, that's funny.
link |
02:11:11.500
So yeah, everybody just kind of assumes,
link |
02:11:15.020
okay, well, you people are studying mathematics,
link |
02:11:16.620
whatever you're doing, it's maybe very interesting,
link |
02:11:19.380
but it's clearly not gonna tell me anything useful
link |
02:11:21.180
about the meaning of my life.
link |
02:11:22.300
And I'm afraid a lot of my point of view is that
link |
02:11:25.820
if people realized how little difference there was
link |
02:11:28.180
between what the mathematicians are doing
link |
02:11:29.700
and what a lot of these theoretical physicists are doing,
link |
02:11:32.260
they might understand that it's a bit misguided
link |
02:11:35.740
to look for deep insight into the meaning of life
link |
02:11:39.020
from many theoretical physicists.
link |
02:11:42.540
It's not, they're people,
link |
02:11:45.580
they may have interesting things to say about this.
link |
02:11:47.220
You're right, they know a lot about physical reality
link |
02:11:50.220
and about, in some sense about metaphysics,
link |
02:11:53.900
about what is real of this kind.
link |
02:11:56.740
But you're also, to my mind,
link |
02:12:02.260
I think you're also making a bit of a mistake
link |
02:12:03.740
that you're looking to, I mean, I'm very, very aware
link |
02:12:07.940
that I've led a very pleasant
link |
02:12:10.620
and fairly privileged existence
link |
02:12:11.980
and fairly without many challenges of different kinds
link |
02:12:15.220
and of a certain kind.
link |
02:12:16.700
And I'm really not in no way the kind of person
link |
02:12:21.460
that a lot of people who are looking for
link |
02:12:24.260
to try to understand in some sense the meaning of life
link |
02:12:27.460
in the sense of the challenges that they're facing in life.
link |
02:12:30.300
I can't really, I'm really the wrong person
link |
02:12:32.660
for you to be asking about this.
link |
02:12:34.020
Well, if struggle is somehow a thing that's core to meaning,
link |
02:12:39.660
perhaps mathematicians are just quietly the ones
link |
02:12:42.460
who are most equipped to answer that question
link |
02:12:45.140
if, in fact, the creation or at least experiencing beauty
link |
02:12:53.660
is at the core of the meaning of life.
link |
02:12:55.860
Because it seems like mathematics is the methodology
link |
02:12:59.420
by which you can most purely explore beautiful things, right?
link |
02:13:04.060
Yeah, yeah.
link |
02:13:05.280
So in some sense,
link |
02:13:06.220
maybe we should talk to mathematicians more.
link |
02:13:08.900
Yeah, yeah, maybe, but unfortunately,
link |
02:13:12.620
people do have a somewhat correct perception
link |
02:13:14.900
that what these people are doing every day
link |
02:13:17.100
or whatever is pretty far removed from anything.
link |
02:13:21.940
Yeah, from what's kind of close to what I do every day
link |
02:13:26.140
and what my typical concerns are.
link |
02:13:28.060
So you may learn something very interesting
link |
02:13:29.740
by talking to mathematicians,
link |
02:13:31.060
but it's probably not gonna be,
link |
02:13:33.940
you're probably not gonna get what you were hoping.
link |
02:13:37.120
So when you put the pen and paper down,
link |
02:13:39.540
you're not thinking about physics
link |
02:13:41.460
and you're not thinking about mathematics
link |
02:13:43.380
and you just get to breathe in the air and look around you
link |
02:13:46.820
and realize that you're going to die one day.
link |
02:13:49.220
Yeah.
link |
02:13:50.060
Do you think about that?
link |
02:13:53.300
Your ideas will live on, but you, the human.
link |
02:13:56.940
Not especially much.
link |
02:13:58.460
Certainly, I've been getting older.
link |
02:14:00.180
I'm now 64 years old.
link |
02:14:01.900
You start to realize, well,
link |
02:14:02.740
there's probably less ahead than there was behind.
link |
02:14:05.700
And so you start to, that starts to become,
link |
02:14:09.580
what do I think about that?
link |
02:14:10.420
Maybe I should actually get serious
link |
02:14:13.420
about getting some things done,
link |
02:14:14.740
which I may not have,
link |
02:14:17.020
which I may otherwise not have time to do,
link |
02:14:18.740
which I didn't see.
link |
02:14:20.300
And this didn't seem to be a problem when I was younger,
link |
02:14:22.220
but that's the main,
link |
02:14:24.060
I think the main way in which that thought occurred.
link |
02:14:26.860
But it doesn't, you know, the stoics are big on this.
link |
02:14:30.040
Meditating on mortality helps you
link |
02:14:33.460
more intensely appreciate the beauty
link |
02:14:36.580
when you do experience it.
link |
02:14:38.020
I suppose that's true, but it's not,
link |
02:14:41.140
yeah, it's not something I've spent a lot of time trying,
link |
02:14:45.880
but yeah.
link |
02:14:47.180
Day to day, you just enjoy the positives, the mathematics.
link |
02:14:49.780
Just enjoy, yeah, our life in general.
link |
02:14:52.460
Life is, I have a perfectly pleasant life and enjoy it.
link |
02:14:57.120
And I often think, wow, this is,
link |
02:15:00.220
things are, I'm really enjoying this.
link |
02:15:02.600
Things are going well.
link |
02:15:04.300
Yeah, life is pretty amazing.
link |
02:15:06.540
I think you and I are pretty lucky.
link |
02:15:08.180
We get to live on this nice little earth
link |
02:15:11.300
with a nice little comfortable climate,
link |
02:15:13.380
and we get to have this nice little podcast conversation.
link |
02:15:17.160
Thank you so much for spending your valuable time
link |
02:15:19.100
with me today and having this conversation.
link |
02:15:21.180
Thank you.
link |
02:15:22.020
Glad to, thank you, thank you.
link |
02:15:25.220
Thanks for listening to this conversation with Peter White.
link |
02:15:27.960
To support this podcast,
link |
02:15:29.260
please check out our sponsors in the description.
link |
02:15:32.060
And now, let me leave you with some words
link |
02:15:34.100
from Richard Feynman.
link |
02:15:36.180
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself,
link |
02:15:40.220
and you are the easiest person to fool.
link |
02:15:43.120
Thank you for listening and hope to see you next time.