Daniel and Kelly’s Extraordinary Universe - Listener Questions 37: quantum cats, heat death and dark multiverses!

Episode Date: March 23, 2023

Daniel and Jorge answer questions about quantum mechanics, the end of the Universe, and the multiverse. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an I-Heart podcast. Hi, it's Honey German, and I'm back with season two of my podcast. Grazias, come again. We got you when it comes to the latest in music and entertainment with interviews with some of your favorite Latin artists and celebrities. You didn't have to audition? No, I didn't audition. I haven't audition in, like, over 25 years.

Oh, wow. That's a real G-talk right there. Oh, yeah. We'll talk about all that's viral and trending, with a little bit of cheesement and a whole lot of laughs. And of course, the great bevras you've come to expect. Listen to the new season of Dacias Come Again on the IHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast. I'm Dr. Scott Barry Kaufman, host of the psychology podcast.

Here's a clip from an upcoming conversation about how to be a better you. When you think about emotion regulation, you're not going to choose an adaptive strategy which is more effortful to use unless you think there's a good outcome. avoidance is easier ignoring is easier denials easier complex problem solving takes effort listen to the psychology podcast on the iheart radio app apple podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts every case that is a cold case that has DNA right now in a backlog will be identified in our lifetime on the new podcast america's crime lab every case has a story to tell and the DNA holds the truth he never thought he was going to get caught and i just looked at my computer screen. I was just like, ah, gotcha. This technology's already solving so many cases. Listen to America's Crime Lab on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Get fired up, y'all. Season two of Good Game with Sarah Spain is underway. We just welcomed one of my favorite people, an incomparable soccer icon, Megan Rapino, to the show,

and we had a blast. Take a listen. Sue and I were like riding the lime bikes the other day. And we're like, wee! People write bikes because it's fun. We got more incredible guests like Megan in store, plus news of the day and more. So make sure you listen to Good Game with Sarah Spain on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Brought to you by Novartis, founding partner of IHeart Women's Sports Network. Hey, Daniel, you own a cat, a cat, right? You know, we used to have a cat, but no longer. Oh no, what happened? Local pack of coyotes,

I'm afraid. Whoa, where do you live? And the wild? We have colonized the wild and turned it into suburbs. Yeah, it is a concrete jungle out there, but I wonder, is that really the whole story or is there more to it? What do you mean? What are you accusing me of? I don't know. I think cats and physicists it never seems to go well. Did you do some kind of crazy experiment on the cat? I did have a cat, and I did have a box, whether or not I did that experiment, I'd rather not say. Maybe you did and maybe you didn't. Both at the same time. Now I'm feeling boxed in. But you know, if we live in a multiverse, technically there are probably cat physicists out there, maybe.

Experimenting on human pets. Or what if the aliens that come to visit Earth are cats? What are you going to do? Maybe the coyotes will protect us. Sounds like the idea for an animated movie. Cats versus coyotes versus physicists. Hi, I'm Jorge M a cartoonist and the creator of PhD comics. Hi, I'm Daniel.

I'm a particle physicist and a professor at UC Irvine, and I really do miss my cats. Aw, you had multiple cats? This is starting to feel like a trend here, like a string of clues. Not just one cat in multiple superpositions, but. two cats at the same time, which we lost both the same summer. Oh, no. Two coyotes, both of them? I'm afraid so. We had indoor, outdoor cats in Chicago where it's pretty safe, very few coyotes. But when we moved to Irvine, they didn't really last very long. We tried to keep them inside for a while, but it just wasn't possible. You need to get coyotes for pets. You know, just move up the food chain.

Coyotes and raccoons. Yeah, those are great ideas. Yeah, why not? I mean, that's kind of what dogs are, sort of. What's the difference between a coyote and a dog? I think several thousands of years of breeding. That can come in handy. But anyways, welcome to our podcast, Daniel and Jorge, Explain the Universe, a production of IHeard Radio. In which we do our best to tame the wild universe out there with all of its crazy feral physics. Everything that's happening out there in the universe, the crazy quantum frothing foam, all the way up to the huge black holes, sucking up enormous amounts of gas and dust. We want to tame all of that and try to bring it under human

understanding. We want to build an explanation of it that makes sense to our human minds and that lets us think about what else we could do in this universe. That's right. The universe is a gigantic jungle of amazing information and facts of incredible things that are happening out there in the cosmos between the galaxies and the super cluster of galaxies and also here on earth inside of our molecules. Scientists are there to explore and to map out everything and us in it. That's right. We are hacking our way through the jungle of the universe trying to figure out where everything is. What is the landscape look like underneath? How has everything worked together? Though our goal, of course, is not to pave over it with suburbs, but just to understand it, to describe it, to appreciate

its magnificence and beauty. We're here to pave it over with knowledge, I guess, right? And curiosity. I don't want to pave over anything, really. I mean, I don't want to to come to some alien planet and just like cover it in concrete and Starbucks. Unless it's pretty inhospitable in the first place. But isn't concrete and Starbucks better than like the serves of Venus right now? I suppose, but you know, let Venus be Venus. Maybe there's some kind of life form that loves sulfuric acid clouds and super high pressures and temperatures and would be pretty offended or even exterminated by the presence of concrete and Starbucks.

Or maybe it's just because they haven't discovered a nice spice latte, you know? And I'd be like, oh, thank you so much for opening my eyes to the true wonders of the universe. Maybe it wasn't phosphine in their atmosphere. It was pumpkin spice after all. There you go. The beginning of a downfall of any civilization. We've discovered Starbucks on Venus. But it is a pretty wild universe out there full of undiscovered things that we can discover and learn about and ponder about to get a better perspective of how the universe works. And the way to get these answers is to explore, to go out there and try to find things that don't make sense to us, things that are new, things that our brains can't quite yet grapple with,

that our mathematical stories do not yet include. Or sometimes we try to take those mathematical stories and apply them to things we thought we understood. But the common thread there is asking questions. In the end, it all comes down to people being curious and wanting to understand how the universe works, applying our understanding to it, and asking questions when it doesn't quite work out in their minds. That's right. We are all explorers in this jungle of a universe. And I guess they are our main tool for hacking our way through all of this mystery are questions, right? Questions are kind of the machete of physicists. Yeah, some people might say the experiments are the machete, but questions are the first step, right?

That's how you decide what you're going to look for. That's how you decide what experiments you're going to do. That's how you frame the possible answers you might get to your crazy scientific questions. So in the end, it's questions and curiosity that is driving all of human science and maybe alien science and coyote science. I guess you just have to make sure that your questions are sharp, right? Like if you had dull questions, that wouldn't get you very far. Yeah, you wouldn't slice through very much science jungle with a dull question. But questions people ask and questions scientists ask and questions we ask here in the podcast

and sometimes we even answer them for listeners. That's right. We want you to be an active participant in this podcast, not just sitting back and listening to me and Jorge joke about bananas and talk about science, but to engage your brain. Because our goal is not just to entertain you, but to really, bring a level of understanding into your mind. We want to put these pieces into your brain and teach you how to manipulate them so you can use them to answer new questions, your own questions. And so we love when listeners do that and then they come back to us with things that

didn't quite make sense to them that let us unravel a little bit of misunderstanding or help them get a clear picture for how things work. So today on the podcast, we'll be tackling listening listener questions number 37 this is our 37th listener question episode absolutely and if you have a question that you have been wondering about please don't be shy write to us to questions at daniel and horhe dot com we really do write back emails to all our listener questions and some of them get put here on the podcast for us to talk about just don't ask about Daniel's cats and ask too many questions about that because this whole coyote theory is a little suspicious you know there's only so many answers the universe can provide there's a quantum

uncertainty to everything sounds like a great criminal defense there it sounds like even practicing that's right on advice of counsel i would like to invoke the Heisenberg uncertainty principle oh that would be a funny courtroom scene and then the lawyer the opposing lawyer goes oh drat they got us he got us i can't do anything against the Heisenberg defense well you have the bone me and attack, right? That got a little too deep for me. But yeah, you like to answer listener questions here on the podcast that people send in and people still send you questions, right, Daniel? Oh, absolutely. I get dozens of questions every day and I enjoy reading all of them because they show me what people understand and what people don't

understand. You know, as a teacher and educator, the actual material that I'm teaching isn't always terribly exciting to me because I've been doing it for decades and decades. What's always a really fun puzzle is what confuses people. What got people to some point in their understanding that they ask a certain question. The question always reveals how they got there and the misstep they took. So for me, it's a fun puzzle to go from the question to understanding where they went wrong and then helping them find a path to clarity. You enjoy seeing their confusion, huh? Sort of like a cat plays with its prey. Well, that's very confrontational approach. But yeah, I do enjoy seeing where people got confused. It helps me sharpen my explanations. Yeah, cool. Well,

today we have three awesome questions from listeners. One of them is about Schrodinger's cat. Another one is about the heat death of the universe. And the last one is about parallel universes and dark matter. And are those two things tied together? So we'll jump right into our first question. And this one comes from Niels, who's 14 years old and comes from Sweden. Hi, my name is Nils Pansel. I'm a Swedish 14 year old, very interested in both physics and philosophy. My name's Jacob and I'm Neil's dad. I'm an ICU nurse currently working on my PhD in clinical neuroscience and I share my son's passion for physics and philosophy. The other day we had a discussion about Schrodinger's cat and we would absolutely love it if you guys shed some

light on this. Shreddinger's cat is well a cat and therefore a quite intelligent and curious creature. Couldn't this cat itself be considered to be an observer inside the box? And if there is an observer inside the box, wouldn't that collapse the quantum uncertainty immediately upon being observed by this cat? We will love to hear your thoughts outside as well as inside the box on this. And thank you for a great podcast. All right. That's an awesome question. I would say that's a pretty awesome question categorically speaking.

It is awesome and especially awesome to hear parents and kids talking about science and philosophy together. That's wonderful. So thank you very much to all the parents out there. encouraging your kids to think about science. Yeah, we get a lot of kids asking questions with their parents sometimes. Yeah, we hear from people who listen to the podcast with their kids and talk about it. And wow, that's a dream come true for me. Awesome.

Well, the question is an interesting one. They're asking us to basically sort of explain what Schrodinger's cat is. Yeah, and Schrodinger's cat is a really fun thought experiment that puts its finger, or I guess its paw or its claw on a big problem in quantum mechanics and at the intersection of physics and philosophy. Yeah. And the question then gets very specific about the nature of an observer in a quantum experiment and what that means. And whether cats are smart. I guess that's part of the question. That might take up the whole episode, though. Are cats as smart as people? And does that solve the quantum mechanics measurement problem in the end? You're going to have to continue this with Katie to talk about cats. But yeah, step us through, Daniel. What is Schrodinger's cat? Schrodinger's cat is a thought experiment that tries to expose a conflict in quantum theory, right? So for hundreds of years, we had a classical theory of the universe, one that said that, you know, objects have locations and that they have velocities, that there is a reality out there that has infinite information and can be knowable and that an object is in one place and in no other place. But then we developed quantum theory when we discover that tiny little objects like photons and electrons don't follow those same rules.

They don't have trajectories where they have a specific location and velocity at every point in time. Instead, they can have multiple possibilities. The electron could be here and it could also be there at the same time. So we call this a superposition of possibilities. So we had new quantum rules for quantum stuff and we had classical rules for classical stuff because like me and you and baseballs and cats don't seem to be able to do that thing that quantum objects can do. have a possibility of being in multiple places at once. So there's this weird conflict between the classical rules and the quantum rules and where

they overlap. So Schrodinger's cat is a thought experiment that tries to put its finger on this conflict and raise difficult questions. Okay. So then the basic conflict here between quantum mechanics and classical physics is kind of this idea of certainty, right? Like in classical, there's nothing uncertain about a baseball flying through the air. You sort of know where it's going to land.

and when you're holding in your hand, it's like, it's there. There's no question that it's there. But in quantum mechanics, there's no such thing kind of as certainty, right? Like you can't hold a photon or a electron in your hand. You can only sort of know where it could be. There's a lot of uncertainty about where it actually is. That's right. And in the classical case, we can't have uncertainty about where the baseball is,

but that uncertainty is just our lack of knowing. The information does exist. The baseball is in one particular location. and has one particular velocity, we just might not know it. In the quantum case, we think that information doesn't actually exist. Like when the particle is going through the double slit experiment, it really has the possibility to go through both slits at the same time. Or the electron really could be here and it really also could be there.

It's not just that we don't know the answer, but that it really isn't determined. And then the conflict is what happens when classical stuff and quantum stuff interact, right? When you as a classical object look for an electron and say, hey, I want to know which slit the electron went through. What happens? Right? And so at that interface is the really awkward part because classical objects can't be in two different states, but quantum objects kind of can.

Well, I guess first of all, thanks for calling me classy. Not a lot of people do that. So then you were saying that Schrodinger's cat is sort of an example or like a thought experiment that doesn't, it's not there to explain what happens between quantum and classical physics. It's more, it's more there to like kind of like a point of finger to. it or illustrate this conflict. Yeah, there are a lot of these great thought experiments in quantum mechanics that say,

hey, look, what you're saying about reality is kind of ridiculous. Here's a ridiculous outcome if what you're saying is true. And Schrodinger's cat is a great example of it. And it tries to put its finger on this question of like, what happens when something classical touches something quantum? If you're observing a quantum particle, you don't observe it to be in two places at once. Somehow it collapses into just one choice. If the electron could be spin up or could be spin down, when you observe it, you just

get one or the other. How does that work? What is the distinction between a quantum object and a classical object? When does the classical object know to collapse? So Schrodinger thought this was fairly ridiculous. So he came up with this example where you have a box and inside the box is some quantum process like an atom that decays radioactively. And so it might decay sooner or might decay later based on quantum mechanics. But now that's linked to something classical like a cat. So when the atom decays, for example, it's linked to some mechanism that releases a poison gas and kills the cat. So if the atom has decayed, the cat is dead. If the atom has not decayed, then the cat is alive. And this is a fascinating thought experiment because before you look in the box, you can say

that the atom is in a superposition of having decayed and not having decayed. It's not one or the other has a probability of both, which means that the cat in that same sense has a probability of being alive and the probability of being dead at the same time. I see. So then the cat is inside And it could be alive or it could be dead, depending on the outcome of some quantum process. But I guess the main question that Niels and Jacob were asking is that, you know, the cat is alive and dead only to us from the outside of the box, right? Yeah, that's exactly right. And what they're asking is why doesn't the cat collapse the uncertainty, right? If the cat is a big, curious creature and a classical object, it can't be in multiple states.

It can't be dead and alive at the same time. then why doesn't it collapse the possibilities and force this atom to either decay or not decay? That's essentially their question. Right, because to us, technically the cat is alive and dead, according to quantum mechanics. But to the cat, the cat knows if it's alive or dead. I think that's what they're kind of asking, right? Like the cat is a somewhat conscious creature and it knows whether it's sort of, it's observing things, right? It's looking at things inside and it knows if it's breathing or not.

So does that mean that the cat definitely is alive or dead for the cat, but it's alive and dead for us outside of the box? So the answer depends on which interpretation of quantum mechanics you prefer, right? Because we can't know without opening the box. So you can't make a definite statement about what really happens when you don't open the box. All we can do is say what we think might happen and what it means. So we're in the era of philosophy because we don't have experiments we can do to distinguish between these various ideas. And one of the key problems is that we don't have a good distinction between what counts as quantum, what is allowed to be described by quantum rules can have uncertainty and what counts as classical, right?

And the Copenhagen interpretation is sort of standard interpretation of quantum mechanics that's taught to physics majors doesn't define these things. It leaves it uncertain. And so there's no clear distinction like when does a wave function collapse and when does it not? It's not defined. Or maybe it's only defined with respect to an observer, right? What counts as a classical observer that has classical interactions, and what counts as a quantum observer that can have quantum interactions without collapsing the wave function, that's not defined. I guess what I mean? It feels like, you know, it definitely collapsed for the cat, but for us outside of the box where we have like zero information exchange, the cat is still alive and dead to us. So that's a specific interpretation of quantum mechanics.

Carlo Rovelli would totally agree with you because he's a proponent of relational quantum mechanics, which says that the collapse is relative. It depends on who's doing the observing. Carlo would say that the cat collapses the wave function, but for us outside the box, it's not yet collapsed. That this question of whether or not you are collapsed is a thing relative between an observer and the observed. And not everybody has to agree on it. The same way we don't have to agree about velocity

because you can have different velocities for different objects. He thinks and relational quantum mechanics suggests that collapse is not a universal thing. You don't have to collapse for everybody. you can only collapse for some observers and not yet for others. I see what seems. So like philosophy option one is that it's collapse to the cat. The cat knows it's alive or dead, but for us it's alive and dead.

That's philosophy option one. Philosophy option B or two is that nobody knows, right? It's like it's alive and dead for everybody, even for the dead cat. That's right. So relational quantum mechanics would say the cat has collapsed the wave function, but we have not. Copenhagen, sort of orthodox quantum mechanics, doesn't even really haven't agreed upon answer. Essentially, how you define the difference between what collapses and what doesn't is something people agree on for every experiment. It's like, let's call this the

observer and let's not call that the observer. It's even fuzzier than like not defined. It's like, you know, let's just have a consensus for everything and define where this cut is between quantum and classical. And so even people who believe in Copenhagen might disagree about how to interpret this experiment. Some might say, look, the cat is a classical object. It collapses the way of function. there's no question. And other people might say, I just view the whole box is a quantum object and the cat is just like a big quantum object and it's not yet collapsed until we open it. So even people who believe in Copenhagen interpretation, I think would disagree about what's happening in this experiment. Well, I feel like maybe there's an option C for philosophy,

the philosophy here, which is kind of this idea of the quantum multiverse, right? Like maybe nothing ever collapses at all. Like maybe there's no such thing as collapse and things just kind of stay uncertain for everyone forever and you get all these different multiple universes, right? Like maybe the cat is alive and dead inside the box and we, us, outside of the box, there are two universes. One in which if I open the box, it's going to be alive and one in which if I open the box is going to be dead. And so we are also kind of in a state of superposition. Yeah, absolutely. And that's the many world's interpretation of quantum mechanics.

So Sean Carroll would probably agree with you. The question there is when does the universe split? Does it split when the cat is looking at the atom with a hairy eyeball wondering if it's about to kill it or when you open the box and observe it? But you're right. In this many world view, there is no collapse. It says collapse is nonsense. It's not consistent with the Schrodinger equation.

It's not consistent with everything we know about quantum mechanics that information is preserved because it's collapse like violates the conservation of quantum information. It makes no sense mathematically. And so they say, let's just have the shurning equation dictate everything. And what happens when you observe something is the wave function gets two branches, one for each slice of the multiverse, and now you're in one of them. So you only see one and not the other. I've always found that a little bit unsatisfying because it doesn't really answer the question of why you're in one of those branches and not the other branches. You're supposed to believe those other branches are at the same philosophical level as yours, even though you're in this one.

But mathematically, it's a very pretty view. All right. Then what's the answer for Niels and Jacob then? is that there's a superposition of answers here and they're all true and false at the same time. Yeah, absolutely. And there's even philosophy option D, which is that there is no randomness, right? Bohmian mechanics believes the quantum mechanics isn't even random at all. It's deterministic.

And either the cat is dead or it is alive and it was determined before anything happened that went into the box, maybe even by the Big Bang. So the answer for Niels and Jacob is that this is not something we're going to answer today on the podcast. Nobody knows what really happens. none of our views of quantum mechanics really answer this question satisfactorily. No, no, no, Daniel. Let's just collapse the question itself. And let's just pick an answer and that's the universe that we live in.

And a quarter of the time, we'll be right. Well, then I want the cat to be alive so that it can survive and then later get eaten by coyotes. Oh, man. I don't know what's worse. To die in a physics experiment or to be eaten by coyotes. Well, you know, my cats had the option to be stuck in the box of my home or to live outside and enjoy the outdoor. life of a cat and that's what they chose and they paid the price. Wow. Now we're getting to free will and feline free will. We're going to need the not just Katie some kind of philosopher in

here too. And for those of you worried about outdoor birds, we also worried about them and we put very loud bells on the cats, though that might not have been helpful when it came to the coyotes. All right. Well, I think that's the a astronaut for Neos and Jacob, which is that it kind of depends in the very nature, the philosophical nature of the universe. It could be that they're right that the cat collapses inside of the box and we just have to open it to find out what happened. It could be that the cat is alive and dead inside of the box and we just don't know it. And it could be that we're on some kind of multiverse where every decision gets played out in a whole different plane of existence. That's right. If you want to go further down the philosophical rabbit hole, I recommend

you read about Vignor's Friends experiment where you have people inside the box and then the whole experiment inside another box and then that whole experiment inside another box, et cetera, et cetera. Oh man. Now you're going to experiment with rabbits and humans. Let's not open that box. All right. Well, thank you, Niels and Jacob for this question. Let's get to some of our other questions about the heat death of the universe and also dark matter and parallel universes. But first, let's take a quick break. A foot washed up a shoe with some bones in it. They had no idea who it was. Most everything was burned up pretty good from the fire. that not a whole lot was salvageable. These are the coldest of cold cases, but everything is about to change. Every case that is a cold case that has DNA.

Right now in a backlog will be identified in our lifetime. A small lab in Texas is cracking the code on DNA. Using new scientific tools, they're finding clues in evidence so tiny you might just miss it. He never thought he was going to get caught. And I just looked at my computer screen. And I was just like, ah, gotcha. On America's Crime Lab, we'll learn about victims and survivors.

And you'll meet the team behind the scenes at Othrum, the Houston Lab that takes on the most hopeless cases to finally solve the unsolvable. Listen to America's Crime Lab on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Dr. Joy Harden-Brandford. And in session 421 of Therapy for Black Girls, I sit down with Dr. Othia and Billy Schia to explore how our hair connects to our identity, mental health, and the ways we heal. Because I think hair is a complex language system, right, in terms of it can tell how old you are, your marital status, where you're from, you're a spiritual belief.

But I think with social media, there's like a hyper fixation and observation of our hair, right? That this is sometimes the first thing someone sees when we make a post or a reel is how our hair is styled. We talk about the important role hairstylists play in our community, the pressure to always look put together, and how breaking up with perfection can actually free us. Plus, if you're someone who gets anxious about flying, don't miss session 418 with Dr. Angela Neil Barnett,

where we dive into managing flight anxiety. Listen to therapy for black girls on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast. I'm Dr. Scott Barry Kaufman, host of the psychology podcast. Here's a clip from an upcoming conversation about exploring human potential. I was going to schools to try to teach kids these skills, and I get eye rolling from teachers or I get students who would be like,

it's easier to punch someone in the face. When you think about emotion regulation, like you're not going to choose an adaptive strategy, which is more effortful to use unless you think there's a good outcome as a result of it, if it's going to be beneficial to you. Because it's easy to say, like, go blank yourself, right? It's easy. It's easy to just drink the extra beer. It's easy to ignore, to suppress, seeing a colleague who's bothering you and just, like, walk the other way. Avoidance is easier. Ignoring is easier. Denials is easier. Drinking is easier. Yelling, screaming is easy.

Complex problem solving, meditating, you know, takes effort. Listen to the psychology podcast on the IHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. And here's Heather with the weather. Well, it's beautiful out there, sunny and 75, almost a little chilly in the shade. Now, let's get a read on the inside of your car. It is hot. You've only been parked a short time, and it's already 99 degrees in there. Let's not leave children in the back seat while running errands.

It only takes a few minutes for their body temperatures to rise, and that could be fatal. Cars get hot, fast, and can be deadly. Never leave a child in a car. A message from Nits and the ad council. All right, we are answering listener questions here today from curious listeners who have amazing questions. One question we didn't quite answer in the last segment, Daniel, was about Schrodinger's cat, which is, what's the origin of Schrodinger's cat?

The Trottinger really have a cat? Schrodinger is actually quite a colorful figure. And now a controversial one, it's not really that nice a dude, it turns out. of things he got into is not the kind of things we should dig into on a family-friendly podcast. So I don't know what that says about the likelihood that he was nice to his cat. But I guess what I'm asking is like, did he come up with this example of Schrodinger's cat may be based on a cat he may or may not have had? Or did somebody else come up with a cat in a box idea and just assigned it to Schrodinger? Oh no, it's very much Schrodinger's example.

Yes. It is his idea of the cat in the box. Interesting. And he named it my cat basically. He said, here's an example. experiment. It's called my cat. I don't know. Maybe he hated cats. And that's why he put a cat in the box and trying to protect theoretical rabbits and theoretical dogs. I don't know. Oh, man. This is this. All right. Let's get to our second question here. And this one comes from Matais. Hello, Daniel and Jorge. I have a question for the podcast. If all energy and movement stops at the heat of the universe, would things still be moving at the quantum level? Thanks for answering. All right. Nice and brief. I like that. He's like, here's my question. Bam.

He's got that very efficient Dutch attitude. He probably recorded this while he was on his bicycle. Writing past some windmills probably. Next to some tulips, eating Adam cheese. I've seen the Dutch folks do things on bikes I've never imagined. Like they bike away from the train station with a rolling suitcase next to them on the bicycle. It's amazing. Nice.

Well, Mati's question here is about the heat death of the universe. And I guess what it really means in whether or not quantum things still apply at the end of the universe if it dies by heat death. Yeah, this is a great question and one that I'm very happy to talk about on the podcast today because there's a common misconception about what the heat death of the universe is. The heat death of the universe does not mean when everything is zero temperature and totally frozen at absolute zero. The heat death of the universe instead means when all the heat is smoothed out, when everything

is the same temperature, when there's no more energy flow in the universe, basically when everything is in perfect thermodynamic equilibrium. Let's take a step back here and maybe talk about what is the heat death of the universe. It's kind of an idea about how the universe might end, right? And it comes from this idea that if the universe keeps expanding and expanding and further and further, eventually it's going to get to a point, which some people might call it the end of the universe, some people might just call it like the universe getting stuck, but they call it the heat death of the universe, even though it has nothing to do with heat.

Well, it won't be very hot, but it does have something to do with heat because it is a thermodynamic analysis. And it's basically just trying to predict the future of the universe. You're right, because something we notice in the universe is that energy likes to even itself out. You have a hot spot on your counter. That energy is going to bleed out to the rest of your counter. It's going to even out. You put an ice cube in a hot cup of coffee. You come back five minutes later. You don't still have an ice cube. You don't have half the coffee being hot and half of it being cold. You have it all about the same temperature. And so what we notice in the universe is that things tend to basically smooth themselves out in terms of temperature and in terms of energy.

And so if you extrapolate that really far in the future, then you end up with the universe that's sort of smooth that way. There's no hot spots and no cold spots. And that would be a bummer because we kind of rely on energy flow to do most of the things we do like living. I see. So it's kind of the idea that if you just leave the universe out on your coffee table, eventually it's right now it has a lot of hot spots and cold spots, right?

There's the sun that's really hot. There's the center of the galaxy that's really hot and some pot spots that are really cold. Like if you leave your universe out in the table for, you know, a few trillions of years, eventually it's all going to smooth out and just be like a room temperature universe. Yeah, exactly. It's sort of like the battery runs out on the universe. You know, batteries and any other sort of technique we have to extract energy from the universe relies on energy flowing, right?

Maybe water is flowing downhill or steam is rising to turn a turbine or something. that relies on energy flows. And so if the energy is not flowing anymore, you can't extract any more energy from the universe. So it's sort of like if you put ice in your drink and you come back later, it's all the same temperature. You can't do anything with that because there's no energy moving around.

Even if there still is energy inside that drink, there's no useful energy. So there's a distinction there between useful energy and actual energy temperature in the universe. You can get to a place where the universe is totally smooth. Everything's the same temperature. same temperature. So you can't do anything without that temperature actually being zero. Right. And maybe just for our listeners, maybe paint a picture of how that happens.

Like right now we have hotspots. Like for example, the sun or like the core of the earth, it's pretty hot. But I guess if you just like run the clock forward, what happens? I guess eventually the sun will go out. They'll run out of fuel and then it'll be sit there hot. And then, but then eventually all that heat will sort of radiate out into the universe, right? And it will just get cold. That's right. There's a lot of energy stored in the sun, but that energy is not going to be stored there forever. It's getting released. That's what the sun is doing. It's blasting its energy out into the rest of the universe. But the sun will not last forever. And so that energy will fly out in terms of photons and get absorbed by other stuff.

But energy likes to move around. If those photons heat something up, then that thing will also emit photons on its own. It will emit black body radiation to sort of heat up the stuff around it. So the energy in the whole universe just sort of spreads out. And this is a basic rule of thermodynamics. It's because entropy has to increase in the universe. And the way to increase entropy is to spread the energy out because increases like the number of possible microstates you can have going on inside the thing.

Like for example, the Earth, like the Earth is pretty warm at the center now, but eventually over time it's just going to turn into a cold rock. And all of that energy is going to go out into space and maybe hit other things, but eventually those things, everything's going to kind of reach room temperature. Yeah, not quite room temperature. temperature, like comfortable temperature for us, but sort of like universe room temperature, which is going to be like a couple degrees above absolute zero.

And you might wonder, like, how is the Earth going to lose that energy? It's not glowing like the sun, but actually it is, right? Everything is glowing. The Earth actually is glowing just not in the visible light. If you looked at the Earth with an infrared camera, you would see it glowing just in a spectrum that's too long wavelength for our eyeballs to see. So we can see other planets out there glowing with a James Webb. infrared telescope. That's one way that it can discover exoplanets, for example. So everything out

there in the universe is shedding its energy. And as time goes on, that energy tends to smooth out more and more and more. And the heat death is just extrapolate that really, really far out in the future where all the energy has managed to leak out and spread around. Yeah. So then now you kind of have to imagine the future of the universe where, you know, the earth is cold, the sun has gone out and It's cold. Everything's cold. All the stars in the entire universe are cold and now maybe even like pulverized and it's all sort of this kind of basically super cold place. There's no energy stored in any one place for there to spark a new sun, for example, right? That's right. But even a cold earth does have some energy stored inside of it. So you got to go even deeper into the future when everything falls into the super massive black holes at the hearts of galaxies and then is radiated back out by hawking radiation.

So now everything has basically been converted to whatever is inside a black hole and then radiated back out, sort of like fed through these cosmic shredder. Now the whole universe is just sort of bathed in hawking radiation. So there's no like hard lumps of cold earth or anything. I see eventually even the cold earth and the cold sun will collapse right because orbits don't last forever. Eventually everything is going to collapse. The galaxy of cold stars and planets is all going to collapse into a black hole. But then you're saying the black hole evaporates at some point, even if it's super gigantic, massive, it's going to evaporate eventually, right? Into what light? Well, Hawking radiation can be

light, but it can also be other particles. It's really fascinating because it's sort of democratic, meaning it can create any kind of particle that's out there, which is a really awesome kind of tool because you want to study like what particles are out there in the universe. You can just go like observe the edge of a black hole and it'll basically show you all of nature's menu, which is amazing, though that's technically quite difficult to do. And we've never actually observed talking radiation. But in theory, all black holes, even the really, really big ones do emit hawking radiation because they have an entropy. They have a temperature and everything in the universe with a temperature does emit some kind of radiation. And so then if you keep fast forwarding,

these black holes will evaporate out. And so now the universe is what, just filled with flying photons and tiny matter particles? And the idea is that everything is perfectly spread out. So there's no like hot clumps of matter. There's no over densities. There's no under densities. This is sort of like the very deep future. And we're not talking about like 2050 or 5,000 years from now or 10 million years from now or 10 trillion years from now. We're talking so far deep in the future, it's hard to even really wrap your mind around the time we're talking about. It's like 10 to the 100 years in the future. But I guess maybe a question is if black holes do evaporate into matter particles wouldn't these matter particles flying around eventually like stick together or be

attracted to each other by gravity and then then you get more stuff and then suddenly you have like new planets and new stars so this is really the heart i think of matias's question right it's like what's going on with that stuff do you still have quantum frothingness or not and you still do have particles and they are still flying around and photons will still interact with electrons right just like when your drink cools down to an even temperature because you put ice in it you still have particles in that drink that are moving around there's still motion there's still interactions that are happening it's not like everything is stuck and frozen it's just that everything is smooth and even so nothing can get started like gravity in order to get started requires

some over density if you had a perfectly smooth universe gravity couldn't do anything gravity can accentuate lumps but it can't start lumps right well you're assuming you start with like a universe where every particle is standing still and it's a perfectly you know equal distance from all other particles. But that's not kind of like it, it seems very unlikely that we'll get to that point. You know what I mean? Like if there are black holes evaporating, wouldn't they have, you know, wouldn't the particles have some velocity coming out of the black hole and then wouldn't those mix with other things? And, you know, wouldn't gravity eventually take hold somewhere? Like, what's the scenario in which we suddenly, everything suddenly freezes and is at the same

distance from each other everywhere? Right. That's not the picture that we're painting. We are painting the picture where things are still flying around and still frothing. And so what thermodynamics says is that the most likely outcome is that things stay smooth. But this is just statistics. It just says it's the most likely. There's, of course, quantum randomness. Things can fluctuate. It's quantum mechanics.

And so things can, like, accidentally bump into each other and start to form a hot spot, a denser spot that then collects stuff, right? We actually talked about the probability of this kind of thing happening in our Boltzbin brain episode. Like, if you had a perfectly smooth universe, what's the possibility fluctuating an atom or a star or a brain out of that sort of quantum frothing, Now, in our universe, we got a head start because we had inflation. We had tiny little quantum fluctuations that got blown up to much bigger fluctuations that

then gravity could grab a hold of. But yes, absolutely, even in this heat death scenario, you could have random quantum fluctuations that lead to over densities and then do lead to the formation of structure. Thermodynamics doesn't say it's impossible. It just says it's unlikely because that would effectively be decreasing entropy. Well, I wonder if in a way gravity is kind of like the anti-enticity. entropy, you know, like I understand this theory of entropy and that if you had a perfectly, you know, smooth liquid, it wouldn't start collapsing. But I feel like maybe gravity is there to counteract that, right? Like, first of all, you need an infinitely sized universe for that to work. Otherwise, gravity would bring everything together. But I feel like, yeah, I feel like gravity somehow counteracts this idea that entropy always wins. Well, gravity definitely obeys the same laws of thermodynamics. I mean, gravity also wants things.

to like roll downhill. It doesn't like things having a lot of potential energy, for example. It likes to balance things. So I think it follows the same rules. Black holes, for example, which are gravitationally very dense objects, do contain an enormous amount of entropy. Entropy is not just like order versus disorder, right? It's about how many ways you can arrange the microphysical states and represent the same macroscopic object. Yeah, I guess it does get a little bit philosophical. But just to answer Matais's question, I guess the answer is what saying is that yes, even in a heat death of the universe, things are going to be moving at the quantum level, which maybe will end up kind of breaking the heat death of the universe.

Exactly. There will always be quantum dancing. These quantum fields can never go down to zero energy. There will always be some energy. And so some fluctuations. And so it's possible for the universe to get totally smooth in 10 to the 100 years and then fluctuates some new spot around which structure forms again. And some people even think maybe that's the story of our universe. Yeah, well, I think you're saying two things. One is that maybe things fluctuate and maybe they'll start clumping again together. But you're also saying maybe they'll fluctuate so crazily, like suddenly the universe will just kind of flip over and start over again randomly.

Exactly. But we all have to wait 10 to the 100 years to find out. I think I'll just watch the recap episode for that. Who has time to binge that? Make sure you're not watching it while you're on your bicycle. All right. Let's get to our last question here about dark matter and parallel universes. But first, let's take a quick break.

A foot washed up a shoe with some bones in it. They had no idea who it was. Most everything was burned up pretty good from the fire that not a whole lot was salvageable. These are the coldest of cold cases, but everything is about to change. Every case that is a cold case that has DNA. Right now in a backlog will be identified in our lifetime. A small lab in Texas is cracking the code on DNA. Using new scientific tools, they're finding clues in evidence so tiny you might just miss it.

He never thought he was going to get caught, and I just looked at my computer screen. I was just like, ah, gotcha. On America's Crime Lab, we'll learn about victims and survivors, and you'll meet the team behind the scenes at Othrum, the Houston Lab that takes on the most hopeless cases, to finally solve the unsolvable. Listen to America's Crime Lab on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Dr. Joy Harden-Bradford, and in session 421 of therapy for black girls, I sit down with Dr. Athea and Billy Shaka to explore how our hair connects to our identity, mental health, and the ways we heal. Because I think hair is a complex language system, right, in terms of it can tell how old you are, your marital status, where you're from, you're a spiritual belief.

But I think with social media, there's like a hyper fixation and observation of our hair, right? That this is sometimes the first thing someone sees when we make a post or a reel is how our hair is styled. You talk about the important role hairstylists play in our community, the pressure to always look put together, and how breaking up with perfection can actually free us. Plus, if you're someone who gets anxious about flying, don't miss session 418 with Dr. Angela Neil Barnett, where we dive into managing flight anxiety. Listen to therapy for black girls on the IHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast.

I'm Dr. Scott Barry Kaufman, host of the Psychology Podcast. Here's a clip from an upcoming conversation about exploring human potential. I was going to schools to try to teach kids these skills, and I get eye rolling from teachers or I get students who would be like, it's easier to punch someone in the face. When you think about emotion regulation, like you're not going to choose an adapted strategy which is more effortful to use unless you think there's a good outcome as a result of it if it's going to be beneficial to you because it's easy

to say like like go you go blank yourself right it's easy it's easy to just drink the extra beer it's easy to ignore to suppress seeing a colleague who's bothering you and just like walk the other way avoidance is easier ignoring is easier denial is easier drinking is easier yelling, screaming is easy, complex problem solving, meditating, you know, takes effort. Listen to the psychology podcast on the IHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Don't let biased algorithms or degree screens or exclusive professional networks or stereotypes. Don't let anything keep you from discovering the half of the workforce who are stars. Worker skilled through alternative routes rather than a bachelor's degree.

It's time to tear the paper ceiling and see the stars beyond it. Find out how you can make stars part of your talent strategy at tear the paper sealing.org. Brought to you by opportunity at work in the ad council. All right, we're answering listener questions about all kinds of things in the universe, including cats, rabbits, and ethically questionable. physicists, at least in thought experiments. And our last question here comes from Craig, who hails from Ontario. Hi, Daniel and Jorge. This is Craig from Ontario, Canada. Thanks for such an awesome pod. I was wondering about dark matter. Is there any chance that what we

experience as dark matter in our universe could actually be stuffed with mass in an adjacent universe lending its gravity to us? Thank you guys for the pod, and I wish you both all the best. Whoa. Mind blown. Craig just blew my mind. Also, I think I heard a cat in the background of Craig's recording. Did you really? I did. I think there was a meow there. Or maybe you're just hearing it in your head, Daniel. Maybe your cats are haunting you.

I'm just saying I'm looking for new subjects for thought experiments. And Craig, maybe you want to volunteer. Thought experiment or psychological experiments? Can't it be both? I guess all psychological experiments are thought experiments. That's right. And I'm going to push back and defend physics. a little bit there. We do have a lot of crazy thought experiments like a person in a box

out in deep space. And you've got to wonder, did this person sign a consent form? Is somebody going to rescue them? Do they have a bathroom and water and this kind of stuff? But that's why these are just thought experiments and not experiments anybody's ever actually going to do. Right, right. Like you would never like build a giant ring, Geneva, and, you know, shooting things and incredible energy and then put people on top of it or put it next to the city or anything like that, Right? That would be totally ethically irresponsible. Well, for example, we would never accelerate cats near the speed of light and collide them. Absolutely not.

But protons don't have the same rights. You're categorically against them. But anyways, Craig, whether or not you have a cat, you have an interesting question here about dark matter adjacent universes, which is an interesting phrase. And so I think his question, and I have to say, I think I told you this theory a long time ago. I remember we were driving somewhere for our book tour and I was like, hey, Daniel, I have a theory about dark matter and I think it was exactly this theory which means um Craig is a genius or it means Craig should be a cartoonist maybe maybe you'll find more success in that like I did but yeah it's kind of an interesting question like because we don't know there's dark matter in this

universe we notice it's there but we don't know what it is and so his idea or I guess I should say our idea the Craig Cam theory about dark matter is that maybe what we've feel as dark matter is actually like mass in a parallel universe that's somehow leaking over that somehow we can see through gravity. Yeah. And I love this idea. It's really clever. But let's take a step back because you said there is dark matter in our universe.

But I think Craig's question is asking us to reconsider that. Because really, what do we observe? We observe gravity. We see something is contributing gravity to how galaxies spin and how the large scale structure. sure the universe formed and how the ripples in the early universe plasma were created and propagated. What we see is gravity that we cannot explain. We attribute that to dark matter. We say there must be some missing mass in our universe we never observed before.

It's basically what we say dark matter is. But what we actually observe is the gravity. So I think Craig's question is like, how do we know that's mass in our universe and not just gravity leaking in from some other universe where that mass is, right? Right. Although you're kind of parsing hairs here because like if there is another universe and it's leaking into ours, then there's like overlap, right? I mean, that universe is partly in our universe, right? And so it's technically kind of in our universe too. Exactly. And that is the hair I think we are splitting here today, which is what does it mean to be in an adjacent universe, right?

If this mass is in another universe and we don't interact with it except through gravity, is it really in another universe? If we can interact with it, is it in another universe? I mean, I'm interacting with my chair and my desk right now. So we say that they're part of the universe. Could you say they're in another universe, but we can still somehow interact with them? I don't know. I would say that things in another universe are things you cannot interact with. And so if we're interacting with this stuff, if we're feeling it's gravity, then it's in our universe.

And that's not like a physics argument or philosophy argument. It's really just sort of like semantics. It's like, what do you call a universe? Yeah. And we never argue semantics here on this podcast. Well, I think there's kind of two interesting ideas here in Craig's question, right? Like one, like maybe in our universe, there's a whole other universe on top of us of particles that our particles don't interact with.

There's like planets and suns and stars and photons and things like that that just don't like interact with us, our kind of particles. So that's why we don't see it. But they're there. They're like, it's like a ghost universe on top of ours. But somehow like the gravity, we do kind of feel its presence, it's gravity. and that's what maybe we see as dark matter. Then there's the other idea that maybe it is another universe,

like maybe it's the multiverse or the quantum multiverse or these quantum foam bubble universes. It would be considered by some as a totally different universe that somehow leaks into ours. And so those are kind of two different ideas, right? It's like maybe we share the same space or maybe we don't share the same space. Yeah, those are two different ideas and they're really fun.

The first one I think is beautiful because it's sort of our current conception of the universe. suggesting that there is all this matter out there that we can't interact with except through gravity. Gravity is like the great unifier because it interacts with everything. Anything that has mass or energy, regardless of any other quantum properties it has, gravity will talk to it. So there's anything else out there in the universe, even if we can't interact with it, even if it has like weird particles and weird forces that are not overlapping at all with ours, we would know it because of its gravity. And you can sort of think of that as like another universe as you say

like a ghost universe. You can imagine all these particles out there with new dark forces and dark charges and dark physics and doing their dark stuff, maybe making dark planets or completely different emergent dark phenomena that we can't even imagine because fundamentally they're very different physics at their core and how that bubbles up to, you know, creating ice cream or not depends on that fundamental physics. So even that is fascinating. To me, that's sort of like being another universe on top of ours because it says that we are only experiencing a slice of this universe and we already know that's true we already know there's lots of stuff out there we can't see neutrinos and stuff though we can detect them through some quantum interactions but gravity is this

awesome way to say if there's something else anything else in our space then we will see it and so the other idea which you bring up is like maybe there's another universe that gravity can somehow interact with like maybe there is other matter and if it were in our space we would interact with it and we would see it right it is sort of normalish matter it's just like in some other space, but yet gravity is connecting our space and their space, sort of like the other idea you proposed. And that's a little bit theoretically problematic because remember, gravity is about space. Gravity says when you have mass in space, it bends. And so if this mass is bending our space, then it's sort of in our space. There's no other way for that mass to bend our space

without being in our space. You're saying like if there is another universe out there that's separate from ours and I like that this thing you made like if it were in our universe we would interact with it but it is in a different kind of space or phase or whatever and so therefore it's another universe but you're saying like if we do feel it somehow then there is a connection which means you should lump both of our universe together into one word called the universe yeah exactly if it's bending our space then it's in our space by definition it can't both be bending our space and not be in our space right like if i think a ton of for my house to your house, suddenly it's my house too, what you're saying.

It's our house, I guess. Let's parse the legalism of that one. Depends on who put all the work into the tunnel. I suppose so. There are other interesting wrinkles here, though, because, for example, it's possible that gravity acts in ways different from all the other interactions. Like, it might be that the universe has multiple dimensions, right? The ways that we can move X, Y, and Z, there might be more of those.

And one theory is that gravity can operate in those other dimensions and the other forces cannot. So it's possible there are other quantum objects and quantum forces that can operate in those other dimensions that we can't operate in, but gravity would be sort of unifying. It would still be in our universe, right? But we wouldn't be able to see them or interact with them, but they'd be moving through sort of like other dimensions instead of the three that we have. So I guess maybe it all depends on how you define the universe, right? I mean, physicists came up with the concept, the word multiverse for kind of a reason, right, to describe kind of like a collection of mini universes. And there's a whole set of different multiverses as like a multi-multiverse, but in all of them,

there's no way to interact. Like there's the quantum multiverse that we just talked about in terms of the Schrodinger's cat, where there's two different branches of the universe reflecting different possibilities, but the branches can never interact with each other. Gravity in one doesn't leak into the other. There's the bubble multiverse that suggests the bubble. bubbles of normal space were popped out of inflationary matter, but these would be separated by inflating matter so there'd be so far away we can never interact with them. And all these different

multiverse theories, you cannot interact with the other universes in the multiverse. That's only something in the Marvel Cinematic Universe that is possible. And now all that stuff is real too. Anyways, right? Well, it's making real money. That's for sure. Well, I think maybe the answer for Craig here to his question of whether dark matter is just stuff that we feel from another universe. I feel like the answer is, yes, it's possible. It could be the case. But then a physicist like you, Daniel, will come in and say, well, technically, if we're

feeling it, then it's part of our universe and sort of try to cancel out the question. I would say if we're feeling it, it's in our universe. Yeah, absolutely. But I guess the main idea is that it could be that dark matter is just kind of part of this whole set of things that exist out there that we just. don't mostly notice. And I think the spirit of Craig's question is that there's the possibility of a much wider and broader kind of reality than the one we experience and that we think about.

And that's the cool thing about dark matter and about gravity is that it lets us explore. It gives us a portal to everything that's out there in every part of our universe because gravity is universal. And so that's the really exciting thing about it to me is not only the universe could be very different from the universe we experience and we've imagined, but that the universe, we have a way to discover it and explore it. So gravity is really this wonderful handle on everything that's out there. Interesting. Yeah, it's sort of like a universal currency for the multiverse.

Exactly. It's pretty hard to exist without any gravity. All right. Well, I think that answers correct questions and all of our questions today. Those were really great questions. Thank you for sending them in. Yes, thank you everybody who's thinking about the universe and being curious. And if you have questions and have been too shy to send them in, please don't hold back. a right to us to questions at Danielanhorpe.com. The only thing we ask is that you are ethical in your thought experiments. Or at least do them in another universe.

Then you can do whatever you want, right? No, man. Other universes have feelings too, though I guess if we're feeling them, then they're in our universe, by my rule. Yeah, there you go. You just canceled your own question. I guess it did. All right, well, we hope you enjoyed that.

Thanks for joining us. See you next time. Thanks for listening and remember that Daniel and Jorge Explain the Universe is a production of IHeart Radio. For more podcasts from IHeart Radio, visit the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows. Grazias, come again. We got you when it comes to the latest in music and entertainment with interviews with some of your favorite Latin artists and celebrities. You didn't have to audition?

No, I didn't audition. I haven't auditioned in like over 25 years. Oh, wow. That's a real G-talk right there. Oh, yeah. We'll talk about all that's viral and trending with a little bit of cheesement and a whole lot of laughs. And of course, the great bevras you've come to expect.

Listen to the new season of Gratias Come Again on the IHeartRadio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you get, Podcasts. Every case that is a cold case that has DNA. Right now in a backlog will be identified in our lifetime. On the new podcast, America's Crime Lab, every case has a story to tell. And the DNA holds the truth. He never thought he was going to get caught.

And I just looked at my computer screen. I was just like, ah, gotcha. This technology is already solving so many cases. Listen to America's Crime Lab on the IHeart Radio app. Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Dr. Scott Barry Kaufman, host of the Psychology Podcast. Here's a clip from an upcoming conversation about how to be a better you. When you think about emotion regulation,

you're not going to choose an adaptive strategy which is more effortful to use unless you think there's a good outcome. Avoidance is easier. Ignoring is easier. Denials easier. Complex problem solving. Takes effort. Listen to the psychology podcast on the iHeartRadio.

app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. This is an IHeart podcast.