Daniel and Kelly’s Extraordinary Universe - How to make sense of quantum entanglement

Episode Date: November 13, 2025

Daniel and Kelly talk about the confusing aspects of quantum entanglement, and try to untangle the concepts.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an I-Heart podcast. What do you get when you mix 1950s Hollywood, a Cuban musician with a dream, and one of the most iconic sitcoms of all time? You get Desi Arness. On the podcast starring Desi Arnaz and Wilmer Valderrama, I'll take you in a journey to Desi's life, how he redefined American television

and what that meant for all of us watching from the sidelines, waiting for a face like hours on screen. Listen to starring Desi Arnaz and Wilmer Valdera on the IHard Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast. On an all new episode of IHard Radio's Las Culturistas, Jennifer Lawrence is dishing. Jennifer Lawrence. Let's go! From her hilariously awkward run-ins with A-Lister's.

I don't know what I was expecting, but he was just like, nice to meet you. To her unfiltered take on beauty treatments. I'm so upset I think the Botox before that. And a jaw-dropping reveal you won't see coming. I don't know if I can announce this, but I'm just going to. Open your free I heard radio. app search loss cultureista and listen to the full podcast now hi kyle could you draw up a quick document with the basic business plan just one page as a google doc and send me the link thanks hey just finished

drawing up that quick one page business plan for you here's the link but there was no link there was no business plan i hadn't programmed kyle to be able to do that yet i'm evan ratliff here with a story of entrepreneurship in the ai age listen as i attempt to build a real startup run by fake people Check out the second season of my podcast, Shell Game, on the IHeart Radio app or wherever you get your podcasts. What up, y'all? It's your boy, Kevin on stage. I want to tell you about my new podcast called Not My Best Moment, where I talk to artists, athletes, entertainers, creators, friends, people I admire who had massive success about their massive failures. What did they mess up on?

What is their heartbreak? And what did they learn from it? I got judged horribly. The judges were like, you're trash. I don't know how you got on the show. Check out Not My Best Moment with me kept on stage on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hey, everyone, it's Daniel with a quick note about my new book, which is out now. Do aliens speak physics?

It's all about how easy or hard it might be to talk to arriving aliens about physics. I think it's right up your alley, but you don't have to trust me. Here's what Seamus Blackley, creator of the Xbox, said about it. Quote, you should buy this book. If you don't buy it for the charming, smart, funny prose, buy it for the lovely and poignant illustrations. Buy it for the wonderful imaginative daydreams about how we might meet aliens and what they'd be like.

Buy it because it will gently, accidentally educate you by the history of language, translation, decryption, and the cultural impact of the writing and transmitting ideas. Not enough. Buy it for the thoughtful, clear, and genuinely entertaining grand tour of the fundamentals of math, physics, and the universality of consciousness. You won't go wrong.

So please consider picking up a copy of Do aliens speak physics? The goal of science is to make sense of the world, to unravel the laws that control it and translate them into something that makes sense to us. But there's no guarantee that the universe runs on rules that we can understand. What if our intuition built in a slow and large environment, doesn't equip us with ways of understanding that can be mapped to the quantum world.

One of the trickiest elements of quantum mechanics is its strange randomness. We like to think that the universe follows rules that determine what happens, that at any moment there is a true story of reality. But quantum mechanics says no. There are only probabilities until you look and that a random one is selected. And if you have two quantum objects whose fates are intertwined, who have to coordinate their outcomes to follow some rule, then those outcomes are somehow determined together,

even across vast distances of space. Instantaneously? How does that make sense? Today, we're going to do a deep dive into quantum entanglement and try to untangle some misconceptions. Welcome to Daniel and Kelly's extraordinary quantum universe. Hello, I'm Kelly Weiner-Smith. I study parasites and space, and I'm excited that I'm going to have all of my confusion about entangled particles cleared up today. I will be an expert.

Hi, I'm Daniel. I'm a particle physicist, and often I feel like a superposition of many Daniels. Okay, all right. Psychologist, Kelly, I'm putting on my psychology hat. What does that mean, Daniel? Well, you know, the simplest way to think about it is we have so many roles in our lives, right? You know, you're a spouse, you're a parent, you're a scientist, you're an author, you're a citizen. Sometimes it feels like such different roles with conflicting needs.

It almost feels like you're a different person in each context. Don't you get that way? Yeah, yeah, you forgot goat herder, but. And goose lord. And goose lord. Lady of the goose, the geese, lady of the geese. Lady of the geese. Yeah, we just named our geese Jacques and Francine Gusto.

We're very excited about that. And some of this is reflected in my CV, and so I have to put you on the spot, Kelly. Did you do your homework? Did I, I didn't look at your CV, no. Oh, my God, you didn't look at my CV. No. The blank stare I just got, folks. You would be amazed.

I can't believe you're asking me then. I still have dreams about forgetting to do my homework. Oh, well, no, here you go. Yeah. And giving you a zero on this one, but, you know, to turn it in late, maybe we can give you some partial credit. I didn't think you actually expected me to go find your CV. How about you send it to me in an email? Okay, I will.

Okay. It's not that hard. Just Google me. All right. All right. I'll look. Here, I'm going to make myself a note. After I heard the goats, I'll find Daniel's CV.

I'm second in importance to the goats. I feel so honored. Well, I might. might also take the geese for a swim first. All right. Well, many of you out there also have multiple roles in your lives. You are podcast listeners. You are curious about science, but you are also nurses and teachers and firefighters and bankers and all sorts of stuff.

We love hearing from you. So write in. Tell us who you are, what you do, and how this podcast superimposes on your life. Oh, man. I never get tired of physics puns. Maybe. And today we're going to hear about something I hear about a lot from listeners who really want to understand one of the weirdest, most confounding yet most revealing things we've learned about the universe, which is quantum entanglement and how it all works. This is a super confusing topic, I think. And it's one of those topics where I have to admit, and I think I've said this on the show before, I hear about it, and I think physicists are missing something.

Because this can't be true. But I'm sure by the end of the episode, you're going to convince me this is definitely true. And we should give more money to science to figure it out better. Well, you're right, actually, because the story we're going to tell at the end is about physicists misinterpreting their own results and misunderstanding it and propagating that misunderstanding for decades until we understood really what these experiments were telling us.

So even physicists at the top level, we're talking about von Neumann. and his colleagues misunderstood or misrepresented what these experiments mean. So it's not easy. I'm thrilled to report that that has never happened in biology. All right. Well, before we dig into quantum entanglement, I wanted to know what people out there thought about it and what they found confusing about it to make sure that all of the quantum itges out there got scratched.

So I reached out to our group of volunteers, which you are very welcome to join right to us to Questions at Danielandkelly.org and we'll add you to the volunteer question answering core. Here is what people had to say when I asked them, what's the most confusing thing about quantum entangled particles? And I'm going to add my voice to the chorus. All of it! Particles are entangled because they are part of a system and that entangles them. And then they go off and become part of another system.

And so they're entangled in another system. It's just how they would move from being entangled of the one to another. It just seems arbitrary how they would do that. Speed which the information travels. Like what's so special about two particles being formed at the same place and same time so that they're entangled? But probably the thing that is most confused is that it is a method for faster than light communication. I think it's confusing that,

If there's a collapse of quantum state on one particle, there's an instantaneous corresponding collapse on the other particle. But regardless of distance, this isn't a transmission of information faster than the speed of light. The most confusing part of quantum entangled particles is how we keep their states from collapsing to figure out they were entangled in the first place. I heard something recently that said entanglement could be non-transangled. reversible wormholes between particles, I'd say that's really confusing. How does the universe get the information to the other particle when one of the two is measured?

It's just mind-boggling. Well, for me, it's that there's no information transferred. So if you've got an up and a down particle and you separate them, one turns out to be up, the other one has to be down, but it's got to be more complicated than that. I can't think of anything about them that is not confusing. Well, this is just about what I expected. You know, good, deep questions about how do we know the universe really is random? How do we know it wasn't actually determined in advance somehow?

How does this whole thing happen across great distances? Can you use this to communicate faster than light? It is all very confusing. And we did chat on a previous episode about whether or not you can use it to communicate faster than light. And I remember that the answer is no. That's right. That's right. But, you know, let's remind everyone of all of the details.

And, like, all truly exciting explanations, we're going to start with definitions. So, hey, if you want to be crisp and really explain stuff, you got to use these words that mean something. And so we have to agree on what words mean, which is, well, yes, every important philosophical conversation starts with, like, what do you mean by science anyway? Because words are fuzzy and slippery, right? Yeah, no, I do, I do absolutely agree. It is important. So let's start by defining. random, which I know is a term that can get many statistics people very angry if you say I

randomly picked blah and you weren't actually random. You can see that they're like, the blood is boiling and the like steam is about to come out of their ears. And so why are statisticians mad at me when I say I pick something randomly and it wasn't really random? Yeah. And teenagers have their own definition of random. You know, like some rando on the internet. Well, it's not really random, is it? But the teenagers don't want to hear that. What teenagers don't want to hear what their parents have to say when we want to correct them and make sure they're accurate? Impossible. Actually.

That's right. That's right. So let's distinguish true randomness from our typical experience of things we call random. So, for example, we use like dice or coins when we need a random number. You're playing a game. You need a number between one and six. You don't want to chosen in advance. You roll a die. You have to decide who gets the last scoop of ice cream. you flip a coin, right? But these processes are not truly random. They're actually chaotic.

And they're not random because they're deterministic, which means that the initial conditions, exactly how you rolled the die or exactly how you flip the coin, determines the outcome. If you did it exactly the same way twice, you would get exactly the same answer because it's following laws of physics, classical physics, which are deterministic.

But, you know, you're never really doing it the same way twice. So why, why are you being this way? And you're right, that's almost impossible to do, maybe literally impossible to do, which is why it's a useful stand-in for random processes. When you need something unpredictable, then you use a chaotic process. And that's what these are. Coins and dice, they are chaotic. They are very, very difficult to predict because they're very sensitive to the initial conditions. We have these points and these edges on the dice so that If you toss it slightly differently, it has a chance to go left or a chance to go right. And the coin is very delicately balanced on its edge so that it's super sensitive to exactly how you flipped it and the wind conditions.

And if your partner is glaring at you or whatever, all these tiny details which make it effectively impossible to predict, let's the coin and the dice do its job. And we use chaos because we don't have in our normal everyday lives access to true randomness, by which I mean something. which if you ran it exactly the same way, multiple times, would give you different answers, a spectrum of answers determined by some probability distribution. But the good news is, when I use the random number generator on my computer, I do get random numbers and the statistician should leave me alone. Ooh, this is rage bait. Right, right?

No, wrong, unfortunately. Because how does your computer work? Your computer is not a quantum computer. It's a classical computer. It's deterministic. That's the best thing above the computer is that if you run the same program twice, you get the same answer. What else could it do, right?

It's literally just following the rules of digital logic, which are crisp and deterministic. And so you run a random number generator on your computer. What is it doing? It generates a string of digits and it picks one for you. This is not a random string. You set the seed to the same value. You get the same series of digits. They are roughly distributed in a uniform manner.

between two different numbers. And so in that sense, they're useful, but they're not actually random because, again, the same initial conditions lead to the same string of numbers. So if you were to use a random process to create 10 numbers and a chaotic process to create 10 numbers, like how meaningfully different would your result be? P.S. are the statisticians being silly? Statisticians are very silly because they also have this concept they call a random variable, which isn't random in the sense that we're talking about from a physics point of view.

It's like a mapping between outcomes and numbers on the number line, which really is not random at all. And so it's like totally misnamed. Statisticians, feel free to email me hate messages about this, but I will stand by this position. So your question is like, does it matter? And mostly it doesn't, which is why it takes really clever, very subtle experiments to distinguish between a universe where things really are random with the micro- microscopic level, and things are deterministic and chaotic. And we'll get into those experiments in a minute. But philosophically, it makes a big difference, right? It tells you that you live in a very different universe if the laws are deterministic and if the laws are probabilistic, right? Let's start with

deterministic laws. If the universe is fully deterministic, meaning that the current setup of the universe, every particle where it is, its velocity, determines the future completely, that says something really powerful about the universe. It says the future is determined, right? What's going to happen tomorrow? May be hard to calculate. It may require a supercomputer and may depend on a butterfly's wings, but in principle, there is only one possible future. And we might not be able to extract it from our limited knowledge of the current situation and our limited ability to computationally apply the laws of physics, but in principle, it is determined by the current state of the universe. So that deterministic universe, like a clockwork universe,

is amazing and fascinating, but also kind of scary because, like, hmm, how do I fit into that? Am I just a robot following the conditions of the universe? Okay, so just to summarize real quick, if it's chaotic, then if you rewind a situation and play it forward again, you'll get the exact same result. And if it's random, then you'll rewind the situation. And even if everything about the situation stays the same, you're going to get a different result. Exactly. And there's something really subtle there, which I think is often overlooked,

about what it means to be random because random is not arbitrary right we're not saying look whatever happens just happens by hap the universe is lawless right we still have laws of physics quantum mechanics is actually deterministic and that's a very confusing thing to say but hold on for a moment is deterministic in a different way than classical physics classical physics says you hit the cue ball the same way you're always going to get the same outcome you flip the coin the same way, you're always going to get the same outcome. Quantum mechanics says you run the same experiment twice, you don't get the same outcome, but you get exactly the same probability of outcomes. So physics doesn't give up. It just retreats one step. It says, I can't tell you exactly

what's going to happen for any individual experiment, but I do absolutely determine the probabilities of various things happening. So some thing's impossible to happen, zero probability they will never happen. Other things very likely. Some things very improbable. So for example, when we smash particles together at the Large Hadron Collider, we don't know and we can't know what's going to happen for any individual collision, but we can and we do calculate the probabilities of X happening or Y happening or Z happening. And then we go off and we measure the rates of which those things happen and we compare them to our calculations and they agree. So quantum mechanics is not arbitrary. It's just deterministic in a different way. It's like generalizing

determinism, not at the individual experiment level, but at the possibilities of the outcomes. Okay. All right. I totally followed that. And so if you want to get true random numbers, do you have to be doing quantum mechanics? Or are there other ways to get random numbers? Quantum mechanics is, as far as I know, the only source of true randomness in the universe, all classical physics is deterministic, right? Every classical theory depends on the initial conditions. outcomes are totally determined by those initial conditions. And so classical physics, yeah, totally deterministic. And philosophically, this was like mind-blowing for people once they understood it. Before we had quantum mechanics, they were like, oh, my gosh, wow, it seems like the

universe is deterministic. We are all effectively philosophical clocks, right? We're robots determined by the early universe. And, you know, us being on this podcast was set in stone once we had the universe at a certain stage billions of years ago. Thank goodness. then quantum mechanics says actually, no, there's an important layer at which the universe is not deterministic. There's a probabilistic nature there. There's some randomness there. So the world is lucky that we ended up doing this podcast. Well, it opened up a whole rabbit's hole of philosophical questions like, does that actually allow for free will?

And, you know, my answer is I'm not sure it does because the universe is not arbitrary. It doesn't open the door for like mind-body duality where you can have like, some non-physical mind now affecting the physical universe, it just says that there's some randomness, right? And free will is not randomness, right? When you go to choose ice cream at the store, you're making a choice for chunky monkey, right? It's not randomly decided.

And so, anyway, that's a whole philosophical rabbit hole. We're not going to go down today. The chunky monkey rabbit hole. It's an important rabbit hole. It's a pretty chunky rabbit hole, yes, for sure. But let's take one more step towards entanglement. So, so far we've talked about randomness and what that means. And so let's imagine, for example, a classical coin, right?

You flip it, it's hard to predict, but it is determined. Imagine now you had some quantum version, a coin which you could flip and was really random, right? It was not determined by the initial conditions. The other amazing thing about this quantum coin is that it preserves both possibilities until you look. So the classical coin, you flip it, it lands in your hand, you cover it up, but under your hand, it is heads or it is tails, right? You just don't know it yet.

The quantum coin, you flip it, it's under your hand until you look, it has the superposition of all the possibilities. Maybe it's heads, maybe it's tails, right? So not only is quantum mechanics random, but it's also undetermined until it's measured, which is gonna be an important factor in our later conversations.

So that quantum coin is undetermined. And that's weird, and you can ask the same question you asked a minute ago, like, well, how different is it? Because you look, it's got an answer. How do you really know it's undetermined? How do you really know it's random? And how do you really know that it's undetermined until you look?

Yeah, right. And this is where I help the whole field of physics by letting you all know you've just got to be wrong about that. That doesn't feel like it makes any sense to me. And so go back to the drawing table and try again, guys. And gals. All right. So we are about 5% of the way through our outline. in about a third of the way through our episode.

I got really excited about randomness and chaos. Let's take a break, get ourselves back on track. And when we come back, Daniel will convince me that I'm wrong about all of physics. Wait, so your homework is check Daniel C.V. My homework is convince Kelly that all of physics is correct. Wow, this doesn't feel like an equitable distribution of tasks. Well, you know, if physics got things right in the first place, you wouldn't have to worry about that. this. This is why you've got to be in biology. You know, we got it all figured out. It depends.

Nothing's right or wrong anyway. Yeah, there you go. There you go. All right. Let's take that break. What do you get when you mix 1950s Hollywood, a Cuban musician with a dream, and one of the most iconic sitcoms of all time? You get Desi Arnest. A trailblaze. A trailblazing, a businessman, a husband, and maybe, most importantly, the first Latino to break prime time wide open. I'm Wilmer Valderrama, and yes, I grew up watching him, probably just like you and millions of others. But for me, I saw myself in his story.

From plening canary cages to this night here in New York, it's a long ways. On the podcast starring Desi Arnaz and Wilmer Valderama, I'll take you in a journey to Desi's life. The moments it has overlapped with mine, how he redefined American television, and what that meant for all of us watching. from the sidelines, waiting for a face like hours on screen. This is the story of how one-man's spotlight lit the path for so many others and how we carry

his legacy today. Listen to starring Desi Arnaz and Wilmer Valderrama. As part of the MyCultura podcast network available on the IHard Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast. The Big Take podcast from Bloomberg News dives deep into one big global business story every weekday. A shutdown means we don't get the data, but it doesn't. also means for President Trump that there's no chance of bad news on the labor market. What does a bacon, egg, and cheese sandwich, reveal about the economy? Our breakfast foods are consistent consumer staples, and so they sort of become

outsize indicators of inflation. What's behind Elon Musk's trillion dollar payout? There's a sort of concerted effort to message that Musk is coming back. He's putting politics aside. He's left the White House. And what can the PCE tell you that the CPA? can't. CPI tries to measure out-of-pocket costs that consumers are paying for things, whereas the PCE index that the Fed targets is a little bit broader of a measure.

Listen to the big take from Bloomberg News every weekday afternoon on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. On the podcast Health Stuff, we are tackling all the health questions that keep you up at night. Yes, I'm Dr. Priyank-Walli, a double board certifications. physician. And I'm Hurricane Dibolu, a comedian and someone who once Googled, do I have scurvy at 3 a.m. On health stuff, we're talking about health in a different way. It's not only about what we can do to improve our health, but also what our health says about us and the way we're living. Like our episode where we look at diabetes. In the United States,

I mean, 50% of Americans are pre-diabetic. How preventable is type 2? Extremely. Or our in-depth analysis of how incredible mangoes are. Oh, it's hard to explain to the rest of the world that, like, your mangoes are fine because mangoes are incredible, but, like, you don't even know. You don't know. You don't know. It's going to be a fun ride.

So tune in. Listen to health stuff on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. And she said, Johnny, the kids didn't come home last night. Along the central Texas plains, teens are dying, suicides that don't make sense, strange accidents, and brutal murders. In what seems to be, a plot ripped straight out of Breaking Bad. Drugs, alcohol, trafficking of people.

There are people out there that absolutely know what happened. Listen to paper ghosts, the Texas teen murders on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Okay, so at the end of our last session, I dropped the bombshell that all of physics is wrong. And Daniel is going to let me know why he thinks I'm wrong. So, all right, Daniel, quantum entanglement. How can that coin that you flipped and it's in your hand, but you've covered it? How can it be both heads and tails superimposed at the same? same time, but doesn't actually end up as one until you move your hand away. Yeah, it's bizarre. And to

really probe this, we're going to have to make this set up one step more complicated and even more counterintuitive. And so to explain this, we're going to have to make this set up a little bit more complicated. We're going to need two objects, and we're going to need them to be connected in an important way. We're going to need their fates to be connected. And so instead of having a coin, let's imagine that we have two bags, one has a red ball in it, and one has a blue ball in it. Okay, and these are just classical normal balls. It's no big deal. And I have one and Kelly has the other. And we pick bags and we go back to our homes. I'm in California and you're in Virginia. And I look at my bag and I see that I have the blue ball in my bag. Now, I instantly know that you have the red ball, right? Because we

knew there was one blue and one red. And I know you have the red ball because I'm applying this constraint, this condition, this requirement that there was only one blue and one red. And therefore, Or if I have the blue, you have to have the red. No magic at all, right? And also, no instantaneous communication of information, right? Like, I know instantly that you have the red ball. You don't know that, right? I know that.

I know something about a ball that's really far away. And I know that instantly. But again, there's been no instantaneous communication of information, right? I mean, I'll be honest, Daniel. I probably peaked. You are a cheater, aren't you? I knew that about you. Okay, but I totally understand the scenario you've laid out.

All right. Now, let's imagine the quantum version. And the quantum version things are different. Okay, so number one, it's not determined who has the blue and the red. Like in the classical version, I had the blue one the whole time. I just didn't know it, right? In the quantum version, it's not determined. I could have the blue or the red.

And so the ball is in this undetermined state. It has a probability of being red and a probability of being red. of being blue. And your ball is also has a probability of being red and a probability of being blue. But because we know there's only one blue ball, if I look inside my bag and I see the blue ball, now I know you have a red ball, right? And so then something amazing happens. My ball goes from both possibilities to being blue. And at the same time, your ball goes from both possibilities to only one possibility of being red. Okay. So is the ball both blue, and red, or it's just neither until you look, what is the right way to be thinking about this?

Yeah, so people like to say that. It's both things at the same time. Electrons can be in multiple places at the same time. I think that's confusing in a way that doesn't educate and isn't accurate because it's not true that it's in both locations at the same time or that it has both colors. It just has the probability to have both colors and it's not yet determined. Right. So it doesn't make any sense to say the ball is blue and it's red or it has both colors. It's just that it has both possibilities and we don't know yet. And the universe has not yet decided, right? And the weird thing about this is like, how can you tell, right? All I'm doing is I'm picking a bag. I'm going to California, opening up, I'm seeing it's blue. How do I know the universe didn't actually just decide

when I picked the ball which one I had and which one you had? How can I tell that it was really uncertain and there really is random. And that's the crux of the question. That's what we want to know, like, what's really going on inside these bags? And of course, when we do these experiments, there are no quantum versions of balls and bags. And so we do it with particles. And we do with particles that are constrained by laws of physics to have some opposite characteristic. So, for example, you create two electrons in such a way that one has to be spin up and the other one has to be spin down to conserve angular momentum. And so when you measure one, you learn that it's spin up, you know the other one has to be spin down. And that's just because we need a

quantum property of a quantum object. And we've been talking about bags and balls, but there aren't actually quantum bags and balls. And so in the real world, we do this with spin and with particles. So I think when we were talking about quantum internet, you explained some of this there. And I asked how this differs than the Schrodinger's cat example. Is like, is the cat both alive and dead? And I think you told me that that's not even almost about what we're talking about. But I've forgotten because my memory is great. So how does this, is this the same thing? This is the same concept, yes. Okay. The Schrodinger's cat experiment says you have a cat in a box and it's going to be killed based on some quantum process, which is unpredictable, right?

It's truly random. And it does this thing where it tries to connect that quantum process to something classical and intuitive, which is a cat. And so, you know, before you open the box, the cat has a probability being alive and a probability of being dead. And people like to say, it's both dead and alive, which I don't think makes any sense. I think it has a probability of being dead and a probability of being alive. And the quantum version of the story is that before you open the box,

It has both probabilities and the universe has not yet decided. And the classical view of that, it says, no, no, no, it's determined. You just don't know until you open the box. And the question, the deep question is, can we tell the difference? Can we really know if the universe is playing this undetermined random game, which would be really, really strange? Or is there some way in which the universe decides all this stuff in advance and it's all predetermined? We just don't know how it does it. It's just some hidden detail that we're missing that tells one particle to go up and when particles go down.

And so those are the two questions. Is it actually random and quantum mechanical and undetermined? Or is there some hidden variable, some detail which is controlling this that we just are missing or not understanding. All right. So how could you possibly tell the difference? What experiments do we need to do? Well, the best thing to do is the most obvious is like, well, just repeat the experiment multiple times. started exactly the same way, set it up exactly the same way of the balls or the electrons

or whatever, and see, do you get different outcomes? Because if you do it the same way, starting with exactly the same initial conditions multiple times, and you always get the same outcome, then you know it's determined. And if you use the same initial conditions and you get different outcomes, then you know that it's not. That sounds great, right? What a clean experiment. Just test it. The problem is, how do you do the same experiment exactly the same way twice, right? Right? Like, you know, you can never step in the same river twice. If you repeat an experiment the next day, the Earth is in a different place around the sun and the temperature is slightly different. And you had a different breakfast. And there's like a zillion things that you could never control for. And the quantum philosophy nerds are like really nerdy about all these loopholes. And so that's just impossible. Even at the particle accelerator, like we smash protons together millions of times a second. But it's never exactly the same collision. The angles are slightly different. The energies are slightly. different. And so that's essentially impossible. So we need something more clever. You can't just run the same experiment twice, which is a bummer because, man, that would be awesome. That would be

awesome. Okay, but I'm hoping physicists haven't just thrown in the towel. But maybe you all did because you were like, oh, shoot, we're probably wrong. No. No, we did not throw in the towel. There was a very clever guy named John Bell who came up with an experiment that could tell us the difference between these two hypotheses. One, that the universe has somehow figured this out, advance and we just are missing the information. And two, that no, it's actually random and undetermined until you look, that these particles, even when they're separated by great distance, somehow decide together at the same moment which one is up and which one is down. And it sounds like impossible to tell the difference, but he came up with this really clever way. And

unfortunately, there's no like smoking gun individual experiment where you can say, I'm looking at the outcome and it proves A versus B, right? This is, not like, do unicorns exist? Oh, I found one. Therefore, we know there are unicorns. The results are a subtle statistical correlation across many experiments. So is it a quantum result? There's a constant probability that you're wrong. Briefly, you take measurements of these two distant entangled particles, and you look at how often you get the same result. And if there are hidden variables, you can't get the same result more than two-thirds of the time, but quantum mechanics allows you to get the same result on these two particles more than two-thirds of the time.

It breaks that restriction by not determining the result in advance. But it's a correlation, right? It's not like any individual experiment proves it. It's like a pattern among many, many, many runs of the experiment. So it's a little frustratingly indirect, but it's also mathematically very crisp. And I'm going to try to walk you through as you can get an intuition for what's going on here. Okay, so how does this Bell's experiment work and why is two-thirds an important threshold? So imagine I have an electron here in California and there's an electron in Virginia.

And we've entangled them so we know if one is up, the other one is down. So what are the possibilities? If I measure up, then Virginia is down. If California measures down, Virginia is up, okay? So we get opposite spins 100% of the time. So far, this is not evidence of anything. This just says our particles are constrained. They're entangled, right?

And it's important for people to understand really what this means because a lot of people don't get the simplicity of what entanglement means, the entanglement just removes some possible outcomes. Like, without entanglement, I could get up and you could get up. I could get down, and you could get down. Entanglement just says, no, those possibilities are zero. So entanglement just removes possibilities and only leaves the ones that satisfy, in this case like angular momentum.

All right, so we know that they have to be opposite. So far, we haven't learned anything. But remember that also, I don't have to measure spin in the same direction. as you do, we have three dimensions of space, X, Y, and Z, right? And I could measure spin along like a Z axis, and you can measure it along a Y axis that's perpendicular. Or, for example, I can measure it in one direction and you could flip your machine upside down. What happens if you flip your machine upside down? Then we expect that we always get the same answer. If I read up, then you're also going to read up. I would have read down on your particle, but your machine

is upside down. So I get up, you get up. If I get down, you get down. So in that scenario, we get the same results 100% of the time, right, where our machines are flipped, but also the particles are entangled so they have opposite spins. Yep. Right? Are you with me still? Uh-huh. Okay.

Bell's experiment says, let's get even weirder, folks. Let's pick three axes in advance. So, like, I'm going to pick three directions in space, maybe up and then left, and then also some weird angle in between. Okay. So we pick that in advance. We have our electrons, one in California. and one in Virginia.

Now, I randomly choose which of those three axes I'm going to measure my electron on. Is it the Z? Is it the Y? Is it the in-between? You're also going to do that. You're going to randomly choose an axis, okay? How do I randomly choose an axis if I, if randomness is so hard to, I can't use the random number generator on my computer, you've told me.

That's chaotic. No, you're being personally about it, but in a really actually fascinating way that quantum theorists get really nerdy about me. We're going to talk about that later on. People use like lava lamps and cosmic rays to try to be like really, truly random to make sure they're not being like weirdly influenced by something because that randomness is absolutely essential for this whole argument. So we're going to come back to that point.

Okay. And it's going to involve like scripts of Gilligan's Island. It's really weird. That's great. I was hoping that's where this episode would end up. All right. So we each have an electron and we each have three axes and we randomly pick which axis we're going to measure this electron on, right? So imagine that these things actually are determined,

that some hidden variable on this electron makes mine be up and yours be down along some axis, right? It's not random, it's not quantum mechanical. Let's imagine that hidden variables are really at work here. Well, then what would happen? Well, it's all determined in advance, right? I have my three axes, I have my particle, you have your particle, but my particle is actually pointing in some direction. Your particle is pointing in some direction. And so it's all determined in advance. and you can actually enumerate all the possibilities, right? And we have three axes. And so one third of the time, we're going to be choosing the same axis, right?

Like, if I choose Z, you're going to choose Z. Because we have three axes and we're both choosing randomly. So a third of the time we choose the same axis, which means that we'll get the opposite results. Like, we'll choose the same axis, I'll get up and you'll get down, right? So at least a third of the time, we get the opposite results. which means that we get the same result less than two-thirds at the time, right? Okay, so that's what we expect for hidden variables. And that just comes out of having three axes and choosing them randomly.

Okay, so what if there aren't hidden variables? What if there's quantum mechanics going on? Gasp! Okay. So what happens if there's quantum mechanics going on? So if there's no hidden variables, if quantum mechanics is at play, then there's something sneaky going on here, which is that then the Heisenberg uncertainty principle sneaks in the door. Heisenberg says that there's some things you can't know simultaneously about the universe,

like you can't know the speed and the location of a particle at the same time, right? Well, it also applies to spins of a particle in different directions. So, for example, if I measure the spin of a particle in one axis, I can't know it in the other ones. Or if I measure it in some axis, I can't know it on my first one. So there is no like true spin direction of these particles in the quantum mechanical view, right? It's not like there is a true spin and we're measuring along some axis so we get up or down. It's like scrambled in this weird way. And in the quantum mechanical view, you represent the probability of these particles being spin up or spin down using these complex numbers. It comes out of the Schrodinger equation and it's all determined by these complex

amplitudes. And like in many quantum effects, these complex amplitudes can interfere with each other. And so quantum mechanics allows these particles to interfere with each other. It's not like all set up in advance. They dynamically respond to the situation. And quantum mechanics predicts that you should get the same spin around three-fourths of the time. Now remember, the hidden variables prediction says you cannot get the same spin more than two-thirds at the time. Absolutely not totally impossible, that would break logic. Quantum mechanics says, no, no, at these weird angles, then three-fourths of the time, you can get the same spin. If you arrange things right, depending on the angles between your axes, you can get the same spin more than two-thirds

of the time, up to three-fourths of the time. Okay, so I was totally following you, but adding the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle feels like cheating, because I don't really understand why that works, and it's like, okay, but also now we're playing by a totally different set of rules that you don't understand, and it makes sense. So could we take a quick break and talk about Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle just for a second? Yeah, sure. So, you know, Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is just a way of thinking about the spread of possible outcomes and what's allowed and the fact that measurements are connected, that you can't measure one thing independently, put that in a box, know it, and then move on to measure something else. It's just a way of thinking

about how, like, the truth isn't totally determined. And so, and that way it's kind of a shorthand. We can actually do without introducing the Heisenberg uncertainty principle entirely if we could just think about the nature of quantum measurements. And so really all you need to know is that the quantum mechanical prediction for whether my California particle is spin up or spin down along some axis is probabilistic, right? That's the quantum mechanical nature of it. It predicts some probability of this and some probability of that. And yours, it predicts the opposite.

And that's very simple. But if you rotate your axis, so you're not measuring along the same axis as I am, there's relationship between those probabilities, but that relationship is different in the quantum version than in the hidden variables version because we have these amplitudes, because we have these complex numbers that are interfering with each other. And Bell realized that as that rotates, the number changes differently for the quantum version than it does for the true everything is determined hidden variables version. And it's because of those complex amplitudes and the way that calculation happens. And it's really fascinating because normally

these complex amplitudes aren't things that you can see. But when there's interference, then those results are apparent. It's sort of like in the double slit experiment. You can't see the probabilities, but you can see them interfering with each other. And so that's roughly what's happening here, is that the probability of measuring along one axis is interfering with the probability of measuring along a different axis in a way that gives us a different dependence as the angle changes. And so that comes up with a different prediction. And that's why it's not an individual experiment where you're like, I ran it, I got up and down, and therefore chronic mechanics is correct and hidden variables is wrong. It's like I ran it a thousand times

and I got the same direction for both particles 72% of the time, which is impossible in the hidden variables theory. So it's an average over many experiments. Okay. So at the end of this experiment, we can say that what's happening is definitely random, not chaotic. Yeah. And so there are no hidden variables. That's right. And it's incredibly powerful and broad result. It's saying it cannot be a hidden variable, right? You don't even have to know what a hidden variable is. You can imagine some like additional dimension of space and these particles have some features in that space and that's what's determining it. No, we don't even have to discover those dimensions. This proves that that cannot be happening. No hidden variable theory satisfies these

experiments. It's really incredible. The consequences are huge. But there's a very important caveat, Right? We've been talking about hidden variables. And Bell's experiment actually only rules out local hidden variables. Information that's like connected to the particle that like a little detail that like the electron has tucked it to its pocket that's determining whether it's going to be plus or minus, right? Local hidden variables. And this was actually misunderstood for decades. And when we get back from the break, we'll find out why the answer was obscured for so long. What do you get when you mix 1950s Hollywood, a Cuban musician with a dream, and one of the most iconic sitcoms of all time? You get Desi Arness, a trailblazer, a businessman, a husband, and maybe, most importantly, the first Latino to break prime time wide open.

I'm Wilmer Valderrama, and yes, I grew up watching him, probably just like you and millions of others. But for me, I saw myself in his story. From plening canary cages to this night here in New York, it's a long ways. On the podcast starring Desi Arnaz and Wilmer Valderama, I'll take you in a journey to Desi's life, the moments it has overlapped with mine, how he redefined American television,

and what that meant for all of us watching from the sidelines, waiting for a face like hours on screen. This is the story of how one man's spotlight lit the path for so many others and how we carry his legacy today. Listen to starring Desi Arnaz and Wilmer Valdera As part of the MyCultura podcast network available on the IHard Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast. The Big Take podcast from Bloomberg News dives deep into one big global business story every weekday.

A shutdown means we don't get the data, but it also means for President Trump that there's no chance of bad news on the labor market. What does a bacon, egg, and cheese sandwich reveal about the economy? Our breakfast foods are consistent consumer staples, and so they sort of become out. outsize indicators of inflation. What's behind Elon Musk's trillion-dollar payout? There's a sort of concerted effort to message that Musk is coming back. He's putting politics aside. He's left the White House.

And what can the PCE tell you that the CPI can't? CPI tries to measure out-of-pocket costs that consumers are paying for things, whereas the PCE index that the Fed targets is a little bit broader of a measure. Listen to the big take. from Bloomberg News every weekday afternoon on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. On the podcast, health stuff,

we are tackling all the health questions that keep you up at night. Yes, I'm Dr. Priyanka Wally, a double board certified physician. And I'm Hurricane Dabolu, a comedian and someone who once Googled, Do I have scurvy at 3 a.m? On Health Stuff, we're talking about health

in a different way. It's not only about what we can do to improve our health, but also what our health says about us and the way we're living. Like our episode where we look at diabetes. In the United States, I mean, 50% of Americans are pre-diabetic. How preventable is type 2? Extremely.

Or our in-depth analysis of how incredible mangoes are. Oh, it's hard to explain to the rest of the world. Like, your mangoes are fine because mangoes are incredible, but like you don't even know. You don't know. You don't know. It's going to be a fun ride. So tune in. Listen to Health Stuff on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

And she said, Johnny, the kids didn't come home last night. Along the central Texas plains, teens are dying. Suicides that don't make sense. Strange accidents and brutal murders. In what seems to be, a plot ripped straight out of Breaking Bad. drugs, alcohol, trafficking of people. There are people out there that absolutely know what happened. Listen to Paper Ghosts, the Texas Teen Murders, on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

All right, we're back, and Bell's experiments were misunderstood for decades. Gates, and Daniel's going to explain to us why. So this very smart guy, John von Neumann, he's, like, widely considered one of the smartest dudes in history, and he's the guy who showed that Heisenberg's matrix quantum mechanics was the same thing mathematically as Schrodinger's wave quantum mechanics, even though those two guys hated each other, really like a towering figure. And he did this proof, this conceptual proof before Bell's experiments that showed that quantum mechanics couldn't have any hidden variables at all. But it turns out there was a

mistake in it. And people actually argue about like, was it von Neumann's mistake or did people misinterpret what von Neumann was saying? And he really understood it. They don't like pointing out mistakes in genius's work. But for a long time, the lore was that quantum mechanics was inconsistent with any kind of hidden variable. And it was Bell, who came up with these experiments that showed actually what they do is they show no local hidden variables. His experiments can't disprove a different kind of hidden variables, non-local, right? Like global hidden variables. And as a result, they're like interpretations of quantum mechanics like

BOMian mechanics that have these like global guiding functions, this pilot wave that tells this particle to go positive and that particle to go negative. So they are deterministic, but they require this like weird non-local coordination between all the particles in the universe in a strange way that's very counterintuitive. But the big picture result for Bell's experiment is not that it shows no hidden variables, but no local hidden variables, which means that quantum mechanics is weirdly non-local, right? Like what's happening here is my particle is collapsing and your particle is collapsing at the same time. It's instantaneous across time and space. Quantum mechanics is non-local.

Okay, so Bell proved that there was no local hidden variable. Yeah. But did we ever convince ourselves that there's no BOMian global guiding function, or could there's still, that's still an open question? That's still an open question. Now, these BELS experiments can't tell us whether BOMian mechanics is correct and there are hidden variables, but they're global, or there are no hidden variables at all, right? So people often interpret Bell's experiments too broadly.

They say, well, there's no hidden variables, but actually they just show no local hidden variables. So if your theory has like weird global hidden variables, yeah, that's still cool. And that's what Bowman Mechanics is. And Bell actually was a strong proponent of hidden variables, right? He thought that global hidden variables were the way the universe worked. So it's sort of weird because he's like famous for devolishing hidden variables, but he actually believed in them, but he believed in the global version of it. And people have actually done these experiments. These are not just thought experiments. The first ones were done in the 70s. And then they do them in fancier and fancier ways, and they keep the particles further and further apart to test this question

of like, is this really happening instantaneously across time and space? And the way they do this is they entangle the particles and they really do separate them in vast macroscopic distances and then make their measurements at the same time. So there's not enough time for light to go from like California to Virginia to inform my California particle what happened to your Virginia particle. So we know this really does have to happen at the same time. Well, wouldn't that have to mean that the information is traveling faster than light? Yeah, and so this was a question from a listener who wrote in and asked something similar. Here's Muhammad asking his question.

Hi, Kelly and Daniel. I would like to understand that if information travels at the speed of light, then how do we know that quantum entanglement is instantaneous? How do we know that the particles ensigns each the faster than the speed of light when the measurement itself is capped at the speed of light. How can we measure them precisely at the same time? When the particles have moved far apart after they are entangled, they are subjected to change in gravitational field.

And that seems to me like it is enough to throw everything out of whack. So what kind of which craft allows us to technology are? All right. And so, yeah, Muhammad is asking, how do we know is faster than light? And Kelly is asking, doesn't that violate everything I thought I know about physics? I've been listening. And so to answer Muhammad's question, what they do is they bring these things really far apart and they make the measurement as simultaneously as they can.

So if they know that they make the measurement within a microsecond, then as long as they're further apart than a light microsecond, further apart than light can go in a microsecond, then they know that the collapse is faster than light. You can't prove it's literally instantaneous, but you can prove that it's faster than light because the particles are separated by more distance. then light could go in the intervening time. And so how does that not violate relativity? Well, relativity tells us no information can be transmitted

from California to Virginia faster than light. But no information is being transmitted. Like, if I measure my particle and it goes from undetermined to up, then Kelly's particle goes from undetermined to down, but she doesn't know that. There's no information she's gathered there. She just has her particle.

She hasn't measured it yet. When she goes to measure it, she sees, oh, it's down. She doesn't know whether it's, it was collapsed or not. People often write in, they're like, what if Daniel collapses his particle, then Kelly can see that it's collapsed, and that's a way to communicate information fast in light. But Kelly has no way to know whether her particle is collapsed or not. All she can do is measure it and say, oh, I got a minus. She doesn't know if she's collapsing it to get that minus, or if it was already collapsed. So yes, the quantum wave function is non-local. It extends from California to

Virginia and collapses simultaneously across space, which is really weird, but you can't use it to transmit any information from California to Virginia faster than light. And so it doesn't break special relativity, which feels like a really lawyerly loophole, but it's true. All right, all right. Let's clear up Kelly's misconception here. So my first thought was, well, the information between those two electrons has already been transmitted when they were entangled. And so no information is being transmitted when one is actually observed because they already were tied, but they don't know if they're up or down yet until they're observed. And so there is, okay, I get it.

That's really insightful. Yeah. So what's happening when you're entangling them is you're removing some possibilities, right? You're removing the up, up, and the down-down possibilities. You're only leaving the up-down and the down-up. However, we're leaving those possibilities undetermined. And so when I make my measurement, it crosses one more off your list, leaving you with only one possibility. So that is happening across space and time.

But you're right. The entanglement itself is local, and it was made when the particles were created in these initial states. Hey, Daniel and Kelly. This is Matt. You may remember me from editing audio on your show. I was in the middle of editing this episode when some of the stuff that Daniel is, Neil is saying, started to hurt my brain much in the way, seemingly that it hurt Kelly's brain. And I have a question for you.

One thing in particular that I'm having an especially hard time understanding is the observational element of quantum physics. How and why does it matter if the state of a particle is or isn't being observed? Do quantum particles have awareness? Are they shy? What is it about observation that determines or sets a quantum object in place, so to speak? Doesn't this mean that consciousness is somehow related to the state of things, that consciousness somehow dictates or influences reality? And if so, doesn't this indirectly mean that before consciousness evolved in the universe,

the universe didn't fully exist? If you could shed some light on this matter, I'd really appreciate it. But I'm fully prepared to be confused about this for the rest of my life. Thanks. All right. Great question, Matt. So first, remember that observation is not passive. It's active. It requires some kind of interaction with the thing you're studying. You want to see a particle. You have to bounce a photon, a probe off of it in order to see where it is. You want to measure the spin of your electron. You have to put it through a magnetic field that acts like a probe and interacts with it. So observation requires interaction. Now, if that interaction yields information, that means that your probe is now entangled with the system. That's

because if the way your probe particle behaves afterwards depends on the electron spin, then your probe is entangled with the quantum system because the spin of the electron determines what the probe does. So now your probe is part of the system. But if, for example, your probe was badly designed so it doesn't depend on the electron spin, it doesn't extract information, then it's decoupled and it's not entangled. So it's not about consciousness or shyness. It's about interacting in a way that yields information about the state of the system. Now, whether there's like wave function collapse or not is another question of philosophy. Copenhagen interpretation says interaction collapses the wave function if one of the objects

involved is classical, like if the probe is classical. But it also doesn't definitely. define what classical means and why quantum objects when they come together somehow become classical? The major alternative, many-world hypothesis, says the interaction entangles you and you become part of the system. So now you only see one outcome. There's no collapse. You're just along one of the branches. But philosophically, the whole thing is kind of a mess. All right, great question. But, Kelly, let's go back to your other fun loophole, which is this experiment requires people to choose axes at random and then measure how often something happens over a bunch of random trials. How do we know that those are random? We're testing randomness. It relies on randomness.

Is there some circularity there? Are we on firm ground? And there's a really fun, kind of paranoid theory of quantum mechanics called super determinism. And it says, look, the outcome of these experiments relies on those things being random, but what if they weren't? What if Kelly and Dana were manipulated somehow into choosing axes that give this result, right? Because if they're not random, then the result can't be relied on. And, you know, what if it all is actually determined by something that happened a billion years ago and set this series in motion? And so to try to get around this loophole, they've done really hilarious things like they've made the choice super duper chaotic. Like they randomly sample scripts from television shows. And, you know, like if the letter is

greater than K, then they choose this axis, and if it's less than G, you know, on the third line of page two, this kind of stuff, and they combine it with lava lamps and cosmic rays to try to get like as random as possible. But in the end, superdeterminism is something you can never really totally knock down because there's always some crazy paranoid theory you could have that these things are just being like orchestrated by folks in the simulation or super intelligent aliens or something. All right. So all of our best efforts at getting random numbers say the same thing.

That Bell's experiment works. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. And so broadly, the consensus in the community is, yes, the universe really is random at the microscopic level and really is undetermined. And these extraordinarily subtle but very clever experiments reveal that that's how the universe works at the lowest level.

And it relies not just on the universe being random. and the results being undetermined, but having these tests with particles that are distant from each other, yet quantum mechanically having their fates connected to each other. Okay, and so now nobody should ever be confused again about entangled particles. This stuff entangles your brain for sure.

Yeah, yeah, it does. Follow-up questions, welcome. But it's a moment where you should be skeptical, where you should ask, hmm, how do we know that's really true? I hear this all the time. People are telling me quantum mechanics is random. what experiment really proves it?

And you should demand an answer and you should demand an intuitive explanation that satisfies you because this is something that's true about the whole universe and the philosophical implications are huge and far-reaching. And so before you, like, update your priors

and change the way you look at the universe, like make sure it makes sense to you. I think my new favorite conspiracy theory is super determinism. Because it includes all the other conspiracy theories. That's right. That's right. All right, well, thanks very much, everyone who wrote in asking for an explanation of quantum entanglement. I hope that helped.

It sure helped me. Have a good day, everyone. Daniel and Kelly's Extraordinary Universe is produced by IHeart Radio. We would love to hear from you. We really would. We want to know what questions you have about this extraordinary universe. We want to know your thoughts on recent shows. suggestions for future shows. If you contact us, we will get back to you. We really mean it. We answer

every message. Email us at Questions at Danielandkelly.org. Or you can find us on social media. We have accounts on X, Instagram, Blue Sky, and on all of those platforms, you can find us at D and K Universe. Don't be shy. Write to us. What do you get when you mix 1950s Hollywood, a Cuban musician with a dream and one of the most iconic sitcoms of all time. You get Desi Arness. On the podcast starring Desi Arnaz and Wilmer Valderrama, I'll take you in a journey

to Desi's life, how he redefined American television and what that meant for all of us watching from the sidelines waiting for a face like hours on screen. Listen to starring Desi Arnaz and Wilmer Valderrama on the IHard Radio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you

get your podcast. On an all new episode of IHard Radio's Las Culturistas, Jennifer Lawrence is dishing. for long from her hilariously awkward run-ins with A-listers. I don't know what I was expecting, but he was just like, nice to meet you. To her unfiltered take on beauty treatments. I'm so upset I think of the Botox before that. And a jaw-dropping reveal you won't see coming.

I don't know if I can announce this, but I'm just going to. Open your free IHeard radio app. Search Las Culturista and listen to the full podcast now. Hi, Kyle. Could you draw up a quick document with the basic business plan? Just one page as a Google Doc. and send me the link. Thanks. Hey, just finished drawing up that quick one-page business plan for you.

Here's the link. But there was no link. There was no business plan. I hadn't programmed Kyle to be able to do that yet. I'm Evan Ratliff here with a story of entrepreneurship in the AI age. Listen as I attempt to build a real startup run by fake people. Check out the second season of my podcast, Shell Game, on the IHeart Radio app or wherever you get your podcasts. What up y'all?

It's your boy, Kevin on stage. I want to tell you about my new podcast called Not My Best Moment, where I talk to artists, athletes, entertainers, creators, friends, people I admire who had massive success about their massive failures. What did they mess up on? What is their heartbreak? And what did they learn from it? I got judged horribly.

The judges were like, you're trash. I don't know how you got on the show. Check out Not My Best Moment with me kept on stage on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcast, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcast. This is an IHeart podcast.