Is physics discovered or invented?

Daniel and Kelly get concrete about whether physics is the map or the territory, the topic of Daniel's new book "Do Aliens Speak Physics?"

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:07):
Imagine the day the Aliens finally arrive. Maybe you're picturing
an invasion, ramps dramatically unfolding from gleaming ships, snarling tentacled
monsters slithering down rapidly, overrunning Earth's meager defenses. And yet
that's fair. We're as likely to be unceremoniously fried into
human crisps by a planet wide death ray as anything else.

(00:30):
But this is seeing the alien arrival glass as half empty. Instead,
let's look at the glass as half full, even if
we aren't sure yet what it's full of. Maybe aliens
have figured out the answers to puzzles that remain impenetrable
to us, like what everything is made out of at
the smallest level, or why time only flows forward, or

(00:51):
how big the universe is. What if aliens know for
a fact how our universe began and how it all
might end. What if they know what it's like inside
a black hole, or actually understand quantum mechanics like the
back of their tentacle. Maybe to them, the universe isn't
a place of consistent mystery, but one that tindly follows
some basic rules. And what if they could just tell

(01:14):
us how everything works? So we don't have to blindly
hack away for decades or centuries to gain this elusive knowledge.
They might carry the product of millions or billions of
years of alien scientific thought to catapult us unimaginably far
in our quest to understand this wonderful, bizarre, violent, and
beautiful cosmos. If our species met up, physicists hope that

(01:36):
we'd be able to geek out together, sharing notes on
this glorious galactic journey of discovery. But could that really happen.
A lot of scientists, especially physicists, believe it. Could. They
imagine that unraveling the secrets of nature is a universal
project that would be shared by the scientists of alien
species across the galaxy, and that physics describes everything in

(01:58):
the universe, not just life on Earth, and so should
also form the foundation of alien science. Therefore, we should
be able to use physics as a mental bridge between
our species. But hold on a second. Are we accepting
those arguments too quickly? Have we really given the question
careful thought? Or are we blinded by our fantasy of

(02:19):
galactic scientific cooperation and the narrowness of our own experience.
We have only our one example of science here on Earth,
so it's hard to be sure how much of it
might be colored by human nature and culture. Are human
physics and math the only way to think about the
universe or are they just the only way we can
imagine it. Are the laws of physics something universal, something

(02:42):
we have discovered, or are the human something we have invented.
Welcome to Daniel and Kelly's Extraordinary Alien Universe.

Speaker 2 (03:04):
Hello. I'm Kelly.

Speaker 3 (03:05):
I study parasites and space, but I don't think about
aliens as much as Daniel does.

Speaker 4 (03:10):
Hi.

Speaker 1 (03:10):
I'm Daniel. I'm a particle physicist, and I do want
to figure out the secrets of the universe myself, but
I'd rather just download them from alien brains if possible.

Speaker 2 (03:18):
Yeah, that'd be nice, all right.

Speaker 3 (03:19):
So my question for you, Daniel, when you think about aliens,
which is apparently all the.

Speaker 1 (03:25):
Time, embarrassingly high fraction in my brain?

Speaker 2 (03:28):
Yes, that's right. That's right.

Speaker 3 (03:29):
For someone who's not like a conspiracy theorist or a
cryptid fan, you think about them a lot.

Speaker 1 (03:36):
You're making some assumptions there.

Speaker 3 (03:37):
I've known you for a while, But when you imagine aliens,
what do they look like in your head?

Speaker 1 (03:45):
Oh? Boy? Wow? You know I think it's almost impossible
to anticipate what aliens actually look like, or at least
I hope. So you know this two scenarios. One is
aliens show up and they're basically star trek, you know,
they're humans with fuzzy foreheads or you know, just some
little tweak on the kind of life we have here

(04:05):
on Earth. The other scenario is they show up and
they're so much weirder than we could ever possibly imagine,
And that, to me is the fascinating scenario. That's the
non Starbucks scenario. You know, it's like, you don't want
to travel the world and discover Starbucks on every corner.
That's boring. You have Starbucks at home, says you. I mean,
I like Starbucks too, but I prefer like local, weird coffee.

(04:29):
That's why I go traveling. And so if aliens show
up and they're not really weird, I'm going to be
disappointed in the universe.

Speaker 3 (04:36):
Quick side note, When I travel, I do like to
go to the McDonald's and other countries because but only
because I like to see what other stuff they have
on their menus, you know, because they usually don't have
like the US standard menu, and I like to see like, oh,
what's the how did McDonald's homogenize with this culture to
create something new? But also confession time, Zach and I

(04:58):
were in Versailles for our honey and we had this
lovely breakfast and we went to go throw away our
receipt in our trash and I noticed a McDonald's arch
and I was like, wait a minute, and it was
it looked so nice. We didn't realize we had gotten
breakfast at McDonald's on our honeymoon and it was delicious.

Speaker 2 (05:18):
We had a great time.

Speaker 1 (05:19):
In your defense, McDonald's in France is really a different
kind of thing. Yeah, it really is much more upscale, absolutely.

Speaker 3 (05:25):
Well, and that's like a cultural insight or something that
I feel like you get by visiting the McDonald's. But
anyway else I don't exclusively eat at McDonald's.

Speaker 1 (05:33):
Well. I went to a conference in TYPEI once with
an Israeli colleague and he ate every single meal at
Subway or McDonald's and like, this is Type AI people.
I mean, the food there is incredible. I was a
vegetarian at the time and we had this nineteen course
banquet dinner and they served me a separate, different vegetarian thing.
For each of the nineteen courses, and each one blew

(05:55):
my mind, Like the food there is unbelievable. Plus I
also went to the night market and like all sorts
of weird stuff that probably had eyeballs in it. But
to me, that was the joy of it, right. But
he was like, yeah, no, I'm not touching that.

Speaker 2 (06:07):
But hold on.

Speaker 3 (06:08):
If you're a vegetarian but you eat eyeballs, is that
like an eyebolitarian like a pesetarian only eats fish.

Speaker 1 (06:14):
Well, I was a vegetarian at the time, but I
also wanted to explore, and I was at the night
market and I couldn't speak the language, so I took
some risks. And I'm not sure whether or not I
ate eyeballs. I think probability Daniel ate eyeballs that evening
fifty percent.

Speaker 3 (06:26):
Yeah, good, good on you. It's good to try new awesome.

Speaker 2 (06:30):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (06:31):
Anyway, the joy of traveling is exploring the universe and
having your mind blown by how surprising it is, by
breaking out of the box of your expectations.

Speaker 3 (06:40):
Absolutely, and you always are so great at transitioning us home.

Speaker 2 (06:44):
And so here we are today.

Speaker 3 (06:46):
We're talking about the joy of studying physics and we're
trying to nail down on the philosophical question. Is physics
discovered or invented?

Speaker 1 (06:55):
Yeah, exactly, it's the physics that we have developed here
on Earth. Are we figuring out basic rules of the universe?
Or are we just telling a human story one that's
approximate and effective and kind of only makes sense to us.
And this is a philosophical question for sure, but I
like to think about it in concrete terms and inject
aliens into it by imagining the scenario that aliens arrive

(07:18):
and we try to talk to them about this because
that's when it matters, right, And might think who cares
if it's discovered or invented, it works, right, But number one,
I'm curious about whether it's really deeply true. And also
I am concerned about this situation. What if aliens show
up and they have these answers but we can't make
a scientific connection with them. That would be so frustrating.

(07:38):
And that's why I wrote my new book, Do Aliens
Speak Physics? Out November fourth from Norton and available at
all fine bookstores. Please go check it out.

Speaker 3 (07:48):
Okay, so you said that it would be a real
bummer if the aliens got here and we, like you know,
hadn't figured out the truth. Is that because you're worried
about what they're gonna think of us, In which case
I have a speed that I tell my daughter about
why you shouldn't worry about what other people think. Or
is it because it would inhibit our ability to communicate?

Speaker 1 (08:08):
In that case, my fantasy is that the aliens deliver
to us answers to some of the puzzles, you know,
like I just want to know what is inside a
black hole? What is the real story of the universe.
I would love to know the answers to these questions.
And the idea that aliens have these answers out there
is endlessly frustrating to me. If they could just show

(08:29):
up and give them to us, you know, like somebody
knows the truth, please just share it with us. So
my concern is that they show up and we're mismatched
somehow so that we can't get those answers. Maybe we're
not smart enough to understand it, or maybe we're going
down a different path, or maybe they have a different
way of explaining these things, or maybe they're asking different questions,
you know, they perceive the universe differently. And they're not

(08:51):
interested in the questions we're asking, and so I'm worried
about these scenarios where we're mismatched with the aliens, and
so we can't have that moment of scientific cross emogenation.

Speaker 3 (09:02):
I mean, do you think it's possible that we're on
the right track and they're not, or if they get
to us, then they must be on the right track
because they're doing stuff we can't.

Speaker 1 (09:11):
That's a great question. I think if we're on different tracks,
that probably says something about the nature of the universe.
If he can be described in different ways, then maybe
there is no one truth and you can't say who's
on the right track or the wrong track.

Speaker 3 (09:25):
Well, when I'm interested in finding the truth, what I
do is I reach out to the extraordinaries.

Speaker 2 (09:30):
And so that's what we did.

Speaker 3 (09:32):
We reached out to our listeners and we asked, are
the laws of physics discovered or invented?

Speaker 5 (09:38):
I think that lots of physics are somewhere in between
an invention and discovery.

Speaker 1 (09:45):
Maybe closer to the discovery I will help.

Speaker 4 (09:47):
And Einstein didn't invent space time doing its bendy, squishy,
stretchy thing. He just caught it in the act, so
definitely discovered.

Speaker 6 (09:55):
Our curiosity and need to understand the world around us
has led us to discover the laws of physics, and
we've had to invent tools to help us do that,
both abstract and physical. So it's a little bit of both.
It seems it's some of both.

Speaker 1 (10:08):
There are realities in the universe that we can discover,
and then we invent models to describe those realities.

Speaker 4 (10:15):
Surely the laws of physics discovered because they already exist.

Speaker 7 (10:21):
I think they are discovered. I think it's a little
bit of both. I think they're invented as we're kind
of putting the bits and pieces together, and then the
more we can understand it, the more we are discovering
how things actually are.

Speaker 4 (10:34):
So the laws of physics are certainly discovered, while the
maths used to describe them, or human inventions.

Speaker 6 (10:39):
The laws of physics are of course discovered, but defined
in our language as humans and correct.

Speaker 1 (10:48):
It's discovered, Otherwise it's invented because it's not correct. It
doesn't seem to make sense to me to say that
we invented gravitying.

Speaker 2 (10:58):
I would say that the way things are is discovered,
but the methodology by which we use to measure and
categorize in our own terms is invented, but.

Speaker 4 (11:07):
The laws of physics help us make order and meaning
from what we discover. But they're not immutable, so in
that sense they're invented and can change as new things
are discovered. I would say, while the fundamental mechanisms how
physics work are discovered, the laws of physics are invented.

Speaker 2 (11:22):
They are useful and necessary for set mechanisms to make
sense to our big monkey brains.

Speaker 4 (11:26):
I think the observations of the universe are constant, but
how we describe them as laws depends on our particular
moment in history and the mathematics available to us at
the time.

Speaker 2 (11:36):
I think they were both. I think the laws of
physics were first discovered and then we invented the mathod
to goal with what we discovered.

Speaker 5 (11:42):
The laws of physics must be fundamental and the way
we do Oh, there goes the dog, and we discover
it by doing inventions, and that was the dog participating.

Speaker 1 (11:53):
I hope the dog was right. These are such great,
thoughtful answers. Not surprised, of course, but impressed.

Speaker 3 (11:58):
When I started researching a city on Mars, one of
the things that I loved was that people would say, Oh,
obviously X is the case, and then you'd go and
talk to the next group and they'd be like, obviously,
why is the case? I think the most common version
for me was obviously we can't settle space right now.
And then other people would be like, obviously we're ready
to do it right now, and I'd be like, oh,
my goodness, how can everybody be so sure? But anyway,

(12:20):
so we've got a nice mix of answers.

Speaker 1 (12:22):
I love those moments because then you get to dig
into the assumptions that are leading you there and open
people's mind. So hold on a second. That's an assumption
that's not something you know, and maybe it feels natural
to you, it feels intuitive, But do you have data?
Do you have one of the reasons for holding those assumptions.
Those are the moments when your mind expands, right when
you're like, oh, wait, maybe eyeballs are a good snack

(12:44):
after all, you know.

Speaker 3 (12:45):
I feel like at the top of my list of
people that I want to correct me is you, because
when you're like, you know, when what you mean is well,
that sounds kind of wrong. Instead it sounds like an
amazing philosophical insight, and I'm like, oh, that's such a
cool way to think about and then afterwards you're like,
wait a minute, Daniel told me I'm wrong.

Speaker 1 (13:03):
You know. That's my process with students and actually with
podcast listeners. They often come to me with a question
and the question doesn't really make sense or and it
makes me realize they've absorbed some piece of information that's
wrong and that's led them down this path. And so
I feel like the job of a teacher is not
to say you're wrong, here's the right answer, but to
unravel their thought process to the moment they took the

(13:25):
wrong path and show them the right way to go.

Speaker 3 (13:27):
Yeah, And that's one of the reasons I like working
with you so much, because I feel like you're an
easy person to throw ideas out at because you're not
going to be told, well, that was stupid. So anyway,
all right, our listeners are amazing. Let's jump into what
does this question even mean? What assumptions are in that question?

Speaker 1 (13:44):
I think a lot of people might hear this question,
especially a lot of people in physics, and say, well,
of course, the laws of physics are something we're discovering,
because there's something real happening out there in the universe,
and we have this process of science for slowly deducing
the truth, and you know, we use mathematics to express
it and it just works so well, and so I
think it's the natural point of view. The place people

(14:06):
often start is that, Okay, physics is something we're figuring
out about the universe, and lots of physicists feel that.
I remember talking to string theorist Thomas van Reet and
he was like, yes, aliens will be doing string theory.
I don't even doubt it. His confidence was amazing. Yep,
I love that, and there's reasons for that. It's not
an unreasonable point of view, but it's also not the

(14:27):
only point of view. And you know, this question is
similar to another, maybe more widely discussed question in philosophy
and in popular discussion, which is about mathematics. Right, is
mathematics invented or discovered? And here mathematics is the language
of science, and so it's natural to ask, like, well,
is mathematics like our mental shorthand for the way the

(14:50):
universe works? Or is it some part of the universe?
Did the concept of seven exist before there are humans,
you know? Or is it something that we came up
with to help explain the universe around us. You know,
I think a way to sum up the question essentially,
is is physics the map or is it the territory?
Are we describing something that's happening out there in the

(15:12):
universe or are we revealing the actual truth?

Speaker 2 (15:15):
So could you give me an example?

Speaker 3 (15:16):
Like, all right, so say you've got a theory and
you make some observations and the observations matches what you
would expect from the theory, Bing bamboom, You've got it right,
And so like, why is that not sufficient?

Speaker 1 (15:29):
Yeah, that's a great question. If you have a bunch
of data and you have a theory that describes that,
there's always another theory that also fits that data, right,
because you don't have infinite data, and you could have
two theories that deviate between the two data points. Or
for example, I could just take our current theory and say,
here's another theory that also describes the universe. It's exactly

(15:49):
the same, but it predicts that in one hundred years
electrons will lose their charge. I mean that theory perfectly
describes all of our experiments. It's sort of ridiculous reason
to believe in is obviously has this added twist to
it that you don't need, and you can use outcomes
razor to reject it. But it's just an example of
how there are always more theories that do describe the data,

(16:11):
and so you can't be guaranteed just by having a
theory that matches your data that it's the only theory,
or even that it's the true theory.

Speaker 3 (16:18):
Yeah, I mean, could there be like some intermediate between
your theory and the observation that wasn't incorporated in some way,
Like you think that X causes why, but actually there's
a Z that's interacting there that wasn't in your theory
at all, and that would change predictions in another environment
or something.

Speaker 1 (16:33):
Exactly, because perhaps you only have data in a certain
set of circumstances, right, and you haven't seen the wider picture.
For example, for hundreds of years, we thought Newton was
right about gravity, and his theory bore out every single
test we did until we pushed the boundaries and we
started looking at really high speed events and you know,
the orbit of mercury and tiny little details. Only then
was it revealed that Newton's theory wasn't as accurate as

(16:56):
we thought, and in fact the whole story that it
was telling, right and forces between them, that story is
not the story of what's really happening in the universe.
Now we have another story, Einstein's story of curvature and
space time. Right, the two agree almost always in our experience,
but they tell a very very different story about what's
really happening behind the curtains. And that's philosophically sort of

(17:18):
scary because it tells you that you could have a
theory that describes almost everything you see in the universe,
but it could be telling the wrong story about reality.
And when the aliens show up and they're like, what,
what are you guys talking about? That's nonsense. Here's what's
really going on.

Speaker 3 (17:34):
Okay, But so let's imagine a world where and heaven forbid,
this is the case where we never meet aliens, Like,
I know, I'm so sorry, I'm so sorry. Would it
still matter, Like, if we've got predictions and we can
use those to make new technologies, does it matter if
we actually are right or not, or if we've just
figured out a way to understand the world that's helpful.

Speaker 1 (17:54):
Yeah, great question. I think it depends on what's important
to you. If what's important to you is, let's build
cool technology and you know, self driving toothbrushes and whatever,
then it doesn't really matter, right. But if your goal
is to reveal something true about the universe to understand,
and I think in the end that's what physics is about.

(18:14):
Fundamental physics is a desire to unravel the nature of
the universe, not just to build cool gizmos. Then it's
fundamentally frustrating to think that we're not doing that, that
we're just telling ourselves a story that works, that we're
not actually hearing from the oracle and revealing the truth
of the universe, that we're stuck in Plato's cave, essentially

(18:35):
just looking at shadows on the wall. Yeah, I think
that would be fundamentally frustrating.

Speaker 2 (18:39):
Absolutely, Yeah, I'll give you that.

Speaker 1 (18:41):
But you ask a great question because aliens haven't arrived yet,
and so you might ask, like, well, what progress can
we make anyway on this question before the aliens show up?
Do we have to just sit here and wait for
the aliens to arrive and say like yes or no,
or see how it works? And so that was sort
of the struggle I faced trying to write this book,
it's like, well, how do we make any progress before

(19:01):
the aliens show up? And it turns out you can, right,
you can look at the structure of human science and
you can ask like, well, are there places where the
choices we've made are arbitrary? Or are there things that
could only have happened this way and in this area.
I have to give a lot of credit to like biologists,
because biologists have already done this work. Congratulations, Kelly. You know,

(19:24):
like biologists have thought about is life on Earth the
only way it could be? We only have this one
example of life on Earth, but they've tried their best
to push beyond the box. For example, they see that
all life on Earth has carbon as its backbone, but
that doesn't mean you can assume that all life in
the universe is carbon based. They imagine ways it could
have gone differently. Maybe it's silicon in there, right, or

(19:46):
all life has water in it, but maybe it could
have had ammonia. So there's been a lot of this
like push beyond our one example thinking in biology, and
I wanted to do the same thing for physics, to
examine the places in physics where oh, maybe this could
be different or no, this absolutely has to be this way,
there's no other choice as a way to try to
figure out before the aliens show up, what truths were

(20:08):
revealing and what are just stories we're telling ourselves.

Speaker 3 (20:11):
All right, let's take a break and when we get back,
Daniel will tell us where we should start looking.

Speaker 2 (20:35):
All right, and we're back. So Daniel was.

Speaker 3 (20:37):
Telling us about how biologists are leading the way and
like probably everything, and physicists are trying to catch up,
and so what kind of work are they doing to
try to catch up?

Speaker 1 (20:47):
Daniel, Well, it's an impossible task as cool and as
good looking and as suave, and it's socially well adjusted
as biologists athletic, but you know we Oh sorry, I
thought you were joking. I'm going to take that totally seriously.

(21:11):
I'll have you know that we have a physics soccer
game here every year and the faculty usually win.

Speaker 2 (21:15):
Oh nice way to go.

Speaker 1 (21:16):
Yeah, So, following in the footsteps of the wise biologists,
we can ask like, well, where are the places where
physics could be making assumptions? What are the arguments that
suggest physics has to be universal? And what are the
arguments against that? And I think one of the most
powerful arguments is that physics seems to apply everywhere. Right,

(21:37):
we have this universality of physics, which really goes back
to Newton, Newton looking at the apple or thinking about
gravity and imagining, oh, maybe gravity doesn't just apply here
on Earth, it applies also in the heavens. Right. He
takes the physics that we deduce these tiny little apes
on this little rock and applies it to the cosmos.
And that's that's such a huge leap, right. It's incredible

(21:58):
to think that the laws of physics we're writing down
on pieces of paper, never having left this planet, really
with a very small number of exceptions very nearby, could
apply to things happening across the universe. And that might
sound like Hubris, right, but it's also totally backed by data,
Like we can look at distant galaxies in the telescope
and we can see they are following basically the same

(22:21):
rules of physics. We can understand what's happening there back
in time and far away.

Speaker 3 (22:26):
Ye's funny Hubvers was exactly the word I that was
rolling around in my brain the way to free Kelly's critique.

Speaker 1 (22:33):
And there's a really fantastic example of this which is
very recent maybe people heard about this validation of Hawking's
area theorem. Hawking was thinking about black holes and how
they come together, and he applied the laws of thermodynamics. Thermodynamics,
of course, having its origins in like eighteen century dudes
in essentially steampunk outfits playing with gas in valves and engines, right,

(22:55):
I'm in yeah, and they were thinking about heat and
energy transfer and they figured out some cool stuff and
Hawkings said, oh, let's apply this to black holes. And
he came up with this theorem about how black holes merge,
and because black holes have entropy. When black holes come together,
he said, well, the merger of the two black holes
have to result in a black hole that's bigger than
the sum of the two initial areas, because the area

(23:17):
of the black hole is connected to its entropy. And
we just saw this happen with this direct validation of
Hawking's area theorem. So you have this direct line from
like dudes with gas flasks to like black holes a
billion light years away. It really is incredible that the
laws of physics we figure out here seem to apply everywhere.
And so we have this, you know, Newton's leap to

(23:39):
the cosmos and then Carl Sagan and folks make another leap.
Carl Sagan, when asked, do you think that aliens do
physics and math the same way we do? He said,
quote yes, And the reason I think that's likely is
that they live in the same universe as we, so
they must deal with the same laws of physics and

(23:59):
chemistry and astronomy as we. So this is Carl Sagan, who,
of course, you know, I hesitate to disagree with on
anything because smart dude, fantastic science communicator, right the best.
Maybe I want to, but I want to underline that
he's making a second leap there, even bigger than Newton's leap,
to apply the laws of physics across the heavens. He's
saying that because the laws of physics that we have

(24:21):
to do seem to work everywhere, they must be discovered
the same way everywhere, or thought of the same way everywhere.
And that's really a step beyond right. I want to
separate those two for people, because I think a lot
of people conflate those two arguments that just because the
laws of physics apply everywhere, our description of the laws
of physics apply everywhere doesn't mean it's the only way

(24:42):
to describe them.

Speaker 3 (24:44):
So would there ever be a way that you could
convince yourself we have found the explanation or is it
just like a continuous process of testing your theories over
and over and over and over again and being willing
to get rid of them if they're wrong, but never
knowing one hundred percent for sure if they're totally right
until the aliens come.

Speaker 1 (25:01):
I don't think you can know one hundred percent for
sure if they're right, even after the aliens come. I mean,
say the aliens show up and you know, they do
physics the same way we have, and they follow the
same path, and they figured out the answers, and they're
just like, you know, the simplest possible scenario, there are
a thousand years ahead of us. That doesn't mean that
it's the only way to do it right. Even if
five different groups of aliens show up and they're all

(25:21):
doing quantum field theory, that doesn't mean that it's the
only way. Maybe we're all affected by having the same
evolutionary history or the same conditions or something. There could
always be another way to think about it that we
don't know, And so even having the aliens show up,
I don't think is conclusive. I think one way to
approach this is to think about how close the map

(25:44):
matches the territory. Right, So this is the question of accuracy.
And another argument people feel very strongly about is that
our human physics must be true, must be real, because
it works so darn well. Right. It's not just like
some fuzzied description of the territory. Right, it's like, wow,
bang on. And you know, we've talked on this podcast

(26:06):
a lot of times about the incredible power of the
standard model of particle physics. But you know, just to
highlight it, like we can predict how particles interact and
sit down and do pages and pages and pages of
calculations and predict some measurement experimentalists will try to do
to like ten decimal places. And then the experimentalists go
out and they make these measurements, and it's like, this

(26:28):
is amazing science on both sides. Like the theoretical calculation
takes so much work and careful thought. The experiment to
measure something so precisely is really difficult, requires very different skills.
But the two numbers agree. And when you have a
theory that predicts something to ten decimal places, oh, you're
tempted to make that leap and to say, yeah, this
isn't a description. This is a revelation. You know, this

(26:53):
is like we have found the source code of the universe.
And I remember thinking that as like a junior in
quantmics at Rice, hearing about these experiments and seeing them
compared to the theory and feeling like, there's no way
this is just a description. We have really pulled back
a veil on nature.

Speaker 3 (27:10):
Yeah, and that's a very inspiring idea.

Speaker 2 (27:12):
I love that.

Speaker 3 (27:12):
But then you look and you're like, oh, wait a minute,
but we don't know how to reconcile quantum mechanics and
all this other with all the other stuff, and so
like you know, I m hmm, oh, I want to say.

Speaker 1 (27:25):
There you want to just generally go hmm, have you
guys really figured it out?

Speaker 4 (27:31):
Well?

Speaker 3 (27:31):
I think maybe you all have figured a lot of
things out, and truth be told, I'm very impressed by
what you all have figured out. But you know, so
you can look at all the things you have figured out,
but there's still things that don't fit together the way
that you would expect them to, which could mean that
there's some other theory out there that would explain all
of that stuff that hasn't been found yet, which we
were talking to Ethan Siegel about the other day.

Speaker 1 (27:51):
I think, yeah, and that's the incredible puzzle of physics
that quantum mechanics is super duper accurate in scenarios where
you can ignore gravity particle collisions or interactions, right because
gravity is so weak at the particle level. And also
general relativity, a classical theory that ignores quantum mechanics, is
super duper accurate in scenarios where you ignore quantm mechanics,

(28:13):
so like black hole mergers and gravitational waves and the
orbit of mercury, and you know, ring down of binary
pulsars and frame dragging as measured in space. With these
super duper precise balls that spin in gyroscopes and satellites,
it's amazing how accurate general relativity is also, so you
can make the same argument for general relativity, So like, wow,

(28:33):
this has got to be reality, right, because it's so
correct that every test we've ever done of general relativity
has been bang on completely accurate. And it leaves you
with the impression like wow, this is also the truth.
But you make the point like you can't have two truths,
especially if they disagree with each other. And these two
don't agree. They don't agree not only on what's happening

(28:56):
out there in the universe, like what's the story, you know,
what's real, what's really running the machinery, They also don't
agree about what is going to happen. They make conflicting
predictions about what's inside a black hole, or how the
universe began, or how it's all going to end in
frustratingly places we can't test, we can't do experiments to
reconcile yet. But you're right, and that points to a

(29:19):
problem with this argument. Right, we have these very precise theories,
but all of these theories are what we call effective.
None of them, we think are actually describing the real
truth of the universe. We think that all of our
theories are describing this process we call emergence. If you
think that there's a real truth out there, that microscopically

(29:42):
the universe has something happening, and that our experience somehow
bubbles out of that, right, well, this is incredible step there,
this amazing feature of the universe that we don't have
to know how the universe works at the microscopic level.
It's fundamental base layer of reality in order to start
doing science at the macroscopic level, because this magic happens

(30:07):
where when you zoom out from the microscopic to the macroscopic,
the rules are different and somehow simple, right, Like the universe.
Imagine it's filled with these tiny buzzying strings or flings
or whatever sprayings you know, is at the base layer
of reality, And imagine you have no idea how that works. Right. Still,
somehow you can zoom out and you can describe how

(30:28):
a baseball flies across your backyard with simple mathematics. Why
is that possible? Right? Why isn't it all just chaos
from the bottom up the way Like we can't describe
hurricanes using simple mathematics because it's a bunch of rain
drops and doing all sorts of complicated things. Why doesn't
the same thing hold for zooming out from the fundamental

(30:50):
layer of reality? We don't know.

Speaker 3 (30:52):
Is it just too many moving pieces? Like you could
maybe predict what you know, two rain drops are gonna do,
but not a whole hurricane. And you can predict throw
a ball because that's there's a limited number of things
acting on that. But the more complicated it gets the
more we're.

Speaker 1 (31:06):
Like, oh, yeah, exactly. Sometimes simplicity emerges, right, and sometimes
it doesn't. And when it doesn't, the reason is chaos.
Like you have two rain drops, you can maybe describe it.
You have ten to the twenty rain jobs. There's too
many interactions and the outcome is very sensitive to how
those rain jobs started in the direction they were going,
and no simplicity emerges. It just gets more and more

(31:28):
complicated as you add rain drops. But sometimes simplicity does emerge.
You have ten to the twenty six particles moving across
your backyard. They pull together and they follow a simple parabola.
Hurricanes don't follow simple parabolas. And so because we don't
understand why it ever happens right and why it doesn't
always happen, that tells us that we're not sure if

(31:51):
it's a part of the universe. Like is the fact
that we can attack the questions of the universe and
make some progress at some levels without knowing what's going
on underneath. That we can make chicken soup without knowing
quantum gravity? Is that because that's just how the universe is.
Simplicity emerges and we'll figure that out. Why that is
at some point or is it part of our minds?

(32:12):
Is it the way that we understand and filter the universe?
Is it some selection we're making that we're like, we're
going to choose this thing to focus on, ask questions
and do signs, and we're going to choose that thing.
Is it an interplay between our brains and the universe
or is it only part of the universe. And that's
the kind of question we could answer if we had
alien brains, right, which work differently, and maybe they saw

(32:35):
different things emerging, or maybe they saw the same. We
just don't know where the line is between the human
and the universe.

Speaker 2 (32:42):
Alternative idea.

Speaker 3 (32:44):
We put a ton of money into trying to make
bats which echo locate, and bees which see in more colors.
We try to make all of them have advanced intelligence
and then see what they come up with, because now
we'll have different ways of looking at the world, and
we've discovered that biology needs more money for physics sake.

Speaker 1 (33:01):
Oh I see right, yes, Okay. In the end, it's
all just a scheme. Yeah, nice for big biology.

Speaker 2 (33:08):
I'm schemey Okay.

Speaker 3 (33:09):
So is the idea here then that like if we
could dig down and understand everything at exactly the base level,
and then we could scale up and understand the hurricane.
Would that make us feel like we had discovered something
or would we still just be inventing because we just
managed to describe what happened mm hmmm instead of necessarily
knowing why.

Speaker 1 (33:28):
Yeah, great question, And that's the temptation. And you know,
I'm a particle physicist. That's my goal. It's like, I
want to drill all the way down to the base
layer of reality and find out what are the bits there?
Because philosophically, that feels like that's a moment of possible revelation.
You forced the universe to tell you, Okay, I'm naked.
Now here are all my basic components. Now you've seen
the reality of how things work everything else, how things

(33:51):
come together and make baseballs and marching bands and whatever.
You know, that's more complex science, that's basically chemistry. But
you know, the fundamental physics is about the fundamental things
in the universe. So yeah, if we drilled all the
way down to those, wouldn't we have those in common
with aliens? Could we avoid all these questions of like
what's emergent and why? Well, the problem with that is,

(34:12):
we don't know if there is a fundamental layer. You know,
I think about our theories is sort of like a tower.
We have this tower of effective theories at different scales,
like zoom all the way out. We have like theories
about how galaxies work. Zoom a little bit in. You
have theories about how planets form. Zoom a little bit
more in. You have like classical physics of the every

(34:33):
day Zoom even more. You have chemistry, Zoom even more.
You have physics, Zoom even more, you have particle physics.
You could keep zooming. And at every level we have
a theory. Do we know that there is a foundational truth,
like a base layer to reality. We haven't found it, right, We.

Speaker 3 (34:49):
Just got to get to the plank scale.

Speaker 1 (34:52):
Well, we definitely got to keep going. But the problem is,
number one, we have no guarantee that there is a
fundamental layer. And I hear this all the time. Plank
scale is the pixel of reality. And Elon Musk likes
to say, and it's sort of out there in the
popular science world that we somehow know that the plank
scale is the layer, the finest grain we have of reality.

(35:13):
And that's just fundamentally a misunderstanding. The Plank scale is
the point where we can no longer ignore gravity when
we do our quantum mechanical calculations because things are so
hot and so dense, and we can no longer ignore
quantum mechanics when we do our gravity calculations because things
are so small and the particles are now relevant. And

(35:33):
so it's just the point beyond which we can no
longer calculate. It's sort of like an intellectual horizon, right.
We don't know anything about what's below the Plank scale.
I remember, the plank scale is not even like a
solid estimate of these things. It's just like, well, let's
take a bunch of constants and mush them together until
we get a distance. That's not like a reliable way

(35:53):
to estimate things. It's what you do when you have
no idea how to answer a question on a test.
I'm just going to guess the units and see what
numbers I can push together to get the right units.
Maybe this is close. I hope it's within a factor
of one hundred or one thousand. So the playing scale
is no guarantee that the universe has a fundamental layer.
And if you talk to philosophers, they think it's just

(36:16):
as likely that the universe as what they call gunky right,
that everything is made of something smaller, nothing is made
of itself. And immediately you're like, what come on, how
could that possibly be? But actually, if you think about it,
it's the more natural explanation. Everything we've ever seen has
been made of something else, So why would we expect

(36:39):
there to be something which is just made of itself.
It feels sort of like, you know, the cause that
needs no cause. You know, it's a bizarre philosophical construct,
and we assume it's natural even though we've never seen
it in the universe. So this is the kind of
stuff where you really got to ask yourself, why do
I accept this explanation and not that other explanation when

(37:01):
I have no evidence and not even really great arguments
for it.

Speaker 3 (37:04):
So you're saying that we might be just digging down
and down and down and down ad infinitum.

Speaker 1 (37:09):
Yeah, it could be that it goes on forever, right,
that it's just smaller and smaller and smaller down infinitely, right,
an infinite tower of effective theories, an infinite tower of
emergent phenomena. And so we can't shortcut this question by saying,
we're just going to zoom down to the fundamentals and
talk to the aliens about the sprawings or the springs

(37:29):
or the shmings or whatever is down there at the
fundamental layer, because we don't know that there is a
fundamental layer.

Speaker 3 (37:35):
Do you think they'll stop giving out Nobel Prizes eventually
if it turns out there's just like infinite fundamental layers
and they're like, you know, Kelly found the twentieth one,
Daniel found the twenty fifth.

Speaker 2 (37:45):
Hooray oh.

Speaker 1 (37:47):
In this scenario, you're a particle physicist who's discovered some
fundamental layer of reality. Love that.

Speaker 2 (37:52):
Welcome a book, ellogist, Man, I can do anything. Thanks.

Speaker 1 (37:55):
After you win the Olympics, right, and I'm gonna hang
this no next to my Olympic gold medal. Wow? Wait?
Has there ever been anybody who won an Olympic medal
and a Nobel Prize?

Speaker 3 (38:06):
Hmm oh, Philip Noel Baker is the only person who
has won both an Olympic medal and a Nobel Prize.
Amazing it was for a race in the nineteen twenty
Summer Olympics. I mean things were easier then.

Speaker 1 (38:21):
That's an incredible achievement.

Speaker 2 (38:22):
Congrats, dude, I think he's passed away.

Speaker 1 (38:27):
Yeah, so it could be the particle physics is just
a big grift for infinite Nobel prizes. Yes, that's the
answer to your question. Oh yes, you forced me to
reveal that on air.

Speaker 2 (38:37):
Thank you, amazing, amazing.

Speaker 3 (38:39):
Well, yeah, good time, My work here is done, all
right on the next episode.

Speaker 1 (38:44):
No, So, now, imagine, right, we have this tower of
effective theories that we use to describe science. We have chemistry,
we have physics, we have particle physics, we have subatomic
particle physics. And the question then is like, well, if
they there's no firmament in which to ground these things,
and we don't know why these things seem to emerge

(39:05):
to allow us to explain them, why they're not just
like totally intractable, then do we know if aliens would
or wouldn't find the same tower of effective theories? Like,
you know, the skeptic in you might say, well, look,
you know, planets are obviously a thing. Aliens are going
to think about planets, you know, orbiting stars. Like, let's
not get ahead of ourselves and get too deep in

(39:26):
the philosophy that we imagine that like aliens don't observe
planets and come up with Kepler's laws, right, That's so,
I think that's like an intuitive argument people might make
to feel like aliens are going to see the same
stuff as we.

Speaker 3 (39:38):
They're probably going to call it Zorblacks's laws or something,
you know, yeah, exactly.

Speaker 1 (39:44):
And that might be right. And I don't want to
say that that's impossible, but I do want to open
your mind maybe a little bit, to the possibility that
they wouldn't see planets. Think about why we think about
planets and does it actually make sense to think about planets,
because in reality, the Solar system is a big spectrum
of stuff. You know, you have the Sun and then
you've got a bunch of other little blobs, and those

(40:04):
blobs go all the way from Jupiter down to dust
specs and humans we like to categorize things, right, We
like to say this is A and this is B.
And historically we saw a few different kinds of things,
and so we started making boxes. But also we've seen
over time that those boxes don't really make sense. That
our categories of stuff are sort of arbitrary dotted lines

(40:27):
that we draw around things and not just randomly we
draw those arbitrary dotted lines in a way to make
ourselves more important. This whole concept of planets that we
argue with Phil Metzger about it recently on the podcast.
Does it even make sense to have this category? It's
obvious to me because this category has become so baroque.
You know, they have to add so many qualifiers. It

(40:48):
has to have cleared its path that has to be
gravitationally round. They're reverse engineering this category because we like it.
We want there to be a special category of things
that seem important and that are relevant to us. But
if you're going to take like a hard objective scientific
eye to the Solar System, you might never come up
with this special category of planets. You might just think

(41:09):
about the whole spectrum of things and not focus on
Earth like things at all.

Speaker 3 (41:14):
So would you argue that definitions are I mean, they're
certainly invented. Yeah, is a definition ever discovering the nature
of the universe? I guess it's always just our way
of grappling with stuff.

Speaker 1 (41:27):
I think definitions are helpful, but categories are often very
arbitrary and lead you down the wrong path and make
you think something is special or something is different when
in reality there's a spectrum. You know, think about gender,
think about like you know, the platypus, right, which is
like what And these categories they're helpful for organizing your thoughts.
But you got to remember that there are things we

(41:48):
impose on the universe. They're not always things that emerge
naturally from the universe. And that's the point I want
to make, is that even things that we feel like
we are just observing have a lot of our cultural
bio in them. I mean, think about the way we
represent the Solar System when we draw it out right,
like it's not representative at all. We take the planets
and we like magnify them by huge numbers to make

(42:10):
them relevant, when in reality they're pretty irrelevant. The Solar
System is basically the Sun plus a few drops of gas, right.
So it's obvious once you drill into it that there's
a lot of humanity in our choices of what to
study and think about in the universe. And so it
might be that aliens have made different choices that they're
like they grew up in the atmosphere of a star

(42:30):
and they're like planet Schmanitz, who cares? Or maybe they
evolved in a subsurface ocean on a moon, and so
to them, like who cares at all about planets? Maybe
they think about things fundamentally differently.

Speaker 3 (42:42):
All right, let's take a break and when we get
back we will answer the simple question of whether or
not there is a truth at all. And we're back

(43:11):
and we are about to answer, you know, the only
question that really matters, which is is their truth at all?
And the good news is Daniels thought a lot about
this and now we're going to know.

Speaker 1 (43:21):
Right, Yes, we're just going to wrap up a millennia
old philosophical conversation here on the pod today. So so
far we've been talking as part of the larger question
of like is physics discovered or invented? We've been asking
like could you have several maps of the same territory?
But it always in that sense assumes that there is
a territory, that there is fundamentally something that's going on.

(43:43):
I heard this sentiment in the listeners responses, right, well,
maybe our description of the universe is human, but there's
something going on. And so let's question that assumption, like,
how do we know that there really is something going
on out there in the universe one truth, whether or
not we're just discovering it or describing it or approximating it. Right,

(44:03):
how do we know that there really is something that's
going on out there? And when I first started digging
into this, I thought, well, of course there is, right,
something is happening in the universe, and there has to
be a reason why stuff happens, right, But not surprisingly,
philosophers have responses to that, and they've thought about ways
that might not be true because remember that all of

(44:25):
our descriptions of the universe, they are approximate, right, because
we can't do the really complicated calculations like we talked
about earlier. We can describe a couple of rain drops,
we can't describe the hurricane, or we can't describe like
a bunch of hurricanes smashing into each other, or really
complicated situations. There is always going to be something that
we cannot describe. Because all of our laws are approximate, right,

(44:46):
they only apply in certain situations. Like, for example, take
fluid dynamics. Right, fluid dynamics works really well. It helps
you think about how water flows down pipes. But we
know number one, it's not a fundamental description of the universe.
It's a description of an emergent phenomena. But number two,
it's only valid in certain situations. You freeze that water,

(45:07):
you no longer gonna apply fluid dynamics. You turn it
into steam, you're no longer gonna apply fluid dynamics. In
that same way, everything we can do about the universe
has boundaries where it's relevant, right, and you go beyond
those boundaries, you can no longer use your fluid dynamics
or your chemistry, even fundamental physics. Right. Quantum mechanics and

(45:27):
gravity are only relevant down to the plank scale, and
beyond that, who knows what the laws of physics are.
So there's a school of philosophy that says, h how
do we know there are laws of physics? Beyond those boundaries? Maybe,
instead of imagining that we have this patchwork of theories
that eventually we could stitch together to describe the truth,

(45:48):
maybe between those patches there's nothing. So Nancy Cartwright wrote
this book called How the Laws of Physics Lie, and
we're like, wow, bold title, right, Yeah, And she imagines
the universe where between these patches where things get complicated,
that maybe what happens happens by Hap. That's her phrase,

(46:11):
that there is no fundamental rule, And you know, every
instinct in me, every fiber of my being, says no,
that's crazy, right, the universe follows laws. But then I ask, well,
how do I know that exactly? I only know that
because it seems to work in simple situations where I
can set up a simplified experiment and I can do

(46:32):
a calculation to predict it. And that's really what experiments are.
Ways you've like tricked the universe into only doing something
simple enough that we can calculate it. That's the whole
job of experimental physics is to concoct these artificial scenarios
where things are simple enough for us to predict. Most
of the stuff that happens in the universe, from you know,

(46:52):
like tiny particles to hurricanes to even like the leaves
swirling outside my office, we could never hope to calculate.
So how do we know that it follows rules? If
you're going to be a skeptic about it, you got
to say, like, hmmm, I guess we actually don't know, right.
It could be that when things get complicated, there aren't
laws that are being followed, And I don't believe that,

(47:14):
but I don't have a scientific reason to not believe it.

Speaker 3 (47:18):
My brain has trouble wrapping itself around how that could
possibly be true. But that might be the limit of
my imagination.

Speaker 1 (47:25):
Yeah, and I think even Nancy Cartwright probably doesn't like
believe this in her soul. But it's a very valuable
exercise to think, well, is it possible for the universe
to be different from what we expect at some deep
fundamental way, because historically we've seen that happen. Right, the
universe turns out it violates lots of our intuition, you know,
the way things operate near the speed of light or microscopically,

(47:47):
the fact that cause and effect has a stochastic element
to it. These things we would have been rejected out
of hand right initially, like that's crazy, there's no way
the universe works that way. And yet it does. And
so we do need to be prepared to have our
minds blown. And that's the whole joy of this exercise,
is to imagine, like what if aliens show up and
they tell us the universe is really fundamentally different from

(48:10):
the way that we expect. That's why we want the
aliens to show up to shock us to reveal an amazing,
mind blowing truth. And yeah, it'd be kind of disappointing
to discover that the laws of physics only apply in
simplified situations. And beyond that there is this darkness right
where the universe doesn't follow laws, but we don't know

(48:30):
that it's not true.

Speaker 3 (48:31):
I feel like if the aliens came and they were like, nah,
you guys are totally wrong, like I mean, it would
be wouldn't it be decades before you could convince yourself
that they were right?

Speaker 2 (48:40):
Instead?

Speaker 3 (48:40):
Would you like, if the alien said, Daniel, you're wrong,
would you just be like, all right, I'm throwing away
everything we know the alien said so, and I'm a
super fan.

Speaker 1 (48:48):
Yeah, that's a really fun question. So in the book,
I actually imagine a bunch of different alien contact scenarios,
and one of them is that exact one. The aliens
show up and have a competing theory of physics, and
in that hypothetical example, I imagine that some humans are like, oh,
you know, our theory never made sense to me. I
really like this alien idea, and they go over to

(49:08):
the alien camp and some aliens are like, oh, you
know what, I really prefer the human way, and like
people have different ways of thinking, the way that some
people need to see something written out and other people
need to hear it, or some people need to play
with something. Right, there's different kinds of learners. So maybe
some people will find the alien description of the universe
more intuitive and easier to play with, and other people

(49:30):
will feel the opposite. It'd be fascinating how that breaks out.

Speaker 2 (49:34):
Yeah, it would. I hope I'm alive to see it.

Speaker 1 (49:38):
Another objection people make to the idea that we could
be getting physics all wrong, or that physics could have
a lot of humanity into it is the idea that
you raised at the beginning of the episode. You know what,
if we have a bunch of data and it describes
the universe, doesn't that tell us that our theory is right?
And this is this question of uniqueness, right do we
know that there has to be one explanation for the universe?

(50:03):
And earlier we were giving the examples of having a
superseded theory, like, well, maybe you have a theory and
it works for now, but then later you get more data,
so you've got toss out that theory for a new one.
That's cool. And that's almost certainly what we're doing today,
right that in the future we'll have a theory of
quantum gravity that tells us a different story about what's
happening in the universe and any of the stories we

(50:23):
have now, So we'll toss out our whole explanation for
what's really out there and come up with a new one. Cool.
But what if we find the fundamental layer of reality.
We discover it and we explain it, and we have
a theory that works perfectly and incorporates dark energy and
dark matter and the expansion and everything, and all of
our questions are answered and it tells us this beautiful
story about what's happening. Then aliens show up. Could they

(50:45):
have a different theory that explains the same experiments? Could
they have done the same experiments, made the same observations,
but draw a different line through the same data points.
The answer is, philosophically, yeah, maybe, because you'll never have
infinite data, and even if you did, you could always
still draw two different curves. Right. Just imagine, like plotting
a bunch of points on a piece of paper, how

(51:07):
many curves could you draw through those points? An infinite number? Right?
Make the curve as complex as you like, you can
draw an infinite number, and so we never really know
if our explanation is the only one. And this is
something philosophers are deeply debating, Like there's a bunch of
philosophers who say, look, if you have another theory that

(51:28):
explains the data equally, well, it's got to be equivalent,
you know, it's got to be like the same theory
dressed in different clothes. And they point to good examples,
like we used to have a wave theory of quantum
mechanics and a matrix theory of quantum mechanics, each derived
by a different German guy, and those two guys disliked
each other and called each other's theories crap. And then
later John von Neuman brought them together and said, look, guys,

(51:51):
these are actually the same theory. I can draw connections
between them and prove it. Or we used to have
a bunch of different string theories until at Witten show
they're actually just extreme points of the same m theory, right.
Or we have like Hamiltonian mechanics and Lagrange and mechanics,
two different ways to think about complex physics that are
fundamentally the same. So isn't it just like that, maybe

(52:12):
the aliens have a different description, but you know, you
can make connections. We don't know, right, We don't know
if every theory has to be that way. And another
group of philosophers say that there might be another explanation,
that it's possible to have another theory of physics that
doesn't map over, that is conceptually different to our theory,
But we don't know, right, we don't have that theory.

(52:33):
We would have a recipe for building this alternate theory.
So it's just like a speculation. It's an argument we
don't know how to defeat, which means it might be possible.

Speaker 3 (52:42):
Okay, So if we ended up discovering the theory of
everything and we felt like we had it all figured out, Yeah,
I was going to ask you if you would put
up a giant billboard saying never mind.

Speaker 2 (52:53):
Aliens, we got it all figured out.

Speaker 3 (52:55):
But what you're saying is you'd be interested to see
if they had a different way to describe everything. But
some philosophers would say, well, that doesn't really matter because
it's fundamentally going to be the same theory, even if
it's wearing different clothes.

Speaker 1 (53:08):
There's no scenario in which I'm putting up a billboard
saying aliens never mind, no scenario, but yeah, we have
a theory of everything and they show up and they
have a different theory of everything. Then that's fascinating, right,
because even if it is fundamentally the same, you're still
learning something mathematically or philosophically and it's fundamentally different. If

(53:28):
you can't make a connection between the two, boom, that
tells you something mind blowing about the universe. That you
could have two different maps of the same territory that
both work. Then, like, is there really a territory? What
does that say about our sense that there is an objective,
physical reality that's out there that doing things following some
laws that we're figuring out, Like, maybe that's not the case.

(53:50):
Maybe things are more complicated or weirder than we imagine.
So I'm always in the camp of hoping for the weird,
surprising outcome.

Speaker 3 (53:58):
Danielle, I really hope you get your aliens one day.

Speaker 1 (54:03):
I hope I do, and I hope that they don't
nuke us from space before they tell us the answers
to all of these questions.

Speaker 2 (54:09):
You are a weird one, daniel and.

Speaker 1 (54:12):
This is just a taste of all the concepts we
describe in the book Do Aliens Speak Physics, where we
do a really deep dive into these questions. It also
includes a bunch of really fun cartoons for my friend
Andy Warner, who helped me write the book, and little
hypothetical case studies to examine concrete scenarios where aliens could
show up and be weirdly different in ways you might

(54:32):
not expect. So if you enjoy these questions and enjoy
this conversation, there's lots more in the book, go check
it out Do Aliens Speak Physics. You can get it
at www dot Alienspeakphysics dot com.

Speaker 3 (54:44):
And I think if aliens do come to visit the US,
this book is going to be the first thing they
grab travel across the cosmos for this book totally makes
sense worth doing.

Speaker 1 (54:55):
I hope they're not offended by our depictions.

Speaker 3 (55:05):
Daniel and Kelly's Extraordinary Universe is produced by iHeartRadio.

Speaker 2 (55:09):
We would love to hear from you.

Speaker 1 (55:10):
We really would. We want to know what questions you
have about this Extraordinary Universe.

Speaker 3 (55:16):
We want to know your thoughts on recent shows, suggestions
for future shows.

Speaker 2 (55:20):
If you contact us, we will get back to you.

Speaker 1 (55:23):
We really mean it. We answer every message. Email us
at Questions at Danielankelly.

Speaker 3 (55:29):
Dot org, or you can find us on social media.
We have accounts on x, Instagram, Blue Sky and on
all of those platforms.

Speaker 2 (55:36):
You can find us at d and Kuniverse.

Speaker 1 (55:39):
Don't be shy, write to us.