Daniel and Kelly’s Extraordinary Universe - Listener Questions 51

Episode Date: March 28, 2024

Daniel and Jorge answer questions about the speed of light, entanglement and time!See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an I-Heart podcast. Do we really need another podcast with a condescending finance brof trying to tell us how to spend our own money? No, thank you. Instead, check out Brown Ambition. Each week, I, your host, Mandy Money, gives you real talk, real advice with a heavy dose of I-feel uses, like on Fridays when I take your questions for the BAQA. Whether you're trying to invest for your future, navigate a toxic workplace, I got you. Listen to Brown Ambition. on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you get your 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 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. Of course, the great bevras you've come to expect. Listen to the new season of Gracias Come Again on the IHeartRadio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you get your podcast. It's important that we just reassure people that they're not alone, and there is help out there. The Good Stuff Podcast Season 2 takes a deep look into One Tribe Foundation, a non-profit fighting suicide in the veteran community.

September is National Suicide Prevention Month, so join host Jacob and Ashley Schick as they bring you to the front lines of One Tribe. One Tribe's mission. One Tribe save my life twice. Welcome to season two of the Good Stuff. Listen to the Good Stuff podcast on the Iheart Radio 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, denial is easier, complex problem solving, takes effort. Listen to the psychology podcast on the IHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hey, Daniel, have you been watching the latest Marvel movies and TV shows? I hope you're not going to ask me about the physics of it. I was going to ask you about time travel in Loki. But now you're not.

Well, hearing your reaction, I think I have to travel back in time now and maybe think of another question. See, that's the problem. If you had done that, we'd never be having this conversation. Oh, well, maybe it depends on which branch of the timeline we're on. No, my God, there are no branches to timelines. Oh, my gosh. Or maybe I did go back in time, and this is a better outcome than the one that I originally pitched to you. This might be the best timeline where that could be.

Then I'm disappointed in the multiverse. Maybe you just don't know how much worse it can be. If this is the best it gets, then it must get pretty bad. Sounds like you maybe need to switch to the DC universe. I'm a cartoonist and the author of Oliver's Great Big Universe. Hi, I'm Daniel. I'm a particle physicist and a professor at UC Irvine. And I can mostly read science fiction without being grumpy.

Mostly, what percentage would you say is your grumpiness level when you're reading science fiction? There is a spot on the wall across the bedroom where the books usually land when I throw them in frustration. I'll just say that. There's a dent there. More like a mark. But yeah, there's a physical impression left. Have you actually thrown a book? Oh, many, yes.

No way. Wow, that's a strong reaction. It's just so disappointing when they set you up for something, they have some interesting ideas, and then they can't even be consistent, or they just write stuff that doesn't make sense. It's just frustrating because it makes me think about what it could have been. Oh, man. But you're not angry at the physics, because I imagine the physics is all made up in science fiction to some degree. You were more frustrated with the storytelling or the logic of the story.

Well, it's all tied together, right? Of course, the physics is made up. It's science fiction, after all. They can have fictional science. But it's still science. They've got to stick to it. If they're going to tell a story, they've got to follow the rules. Otherwise, if there are no rules, it's hardly an interesting story.

Now, after you throw the book, do you go and pick it up and finish it anyways? Or do you leave it there in the pile? It depends on what's on the top of the two-read pile, I suppose. You're not like a complete as, like, some people when they start a book, they have to finish it. Oh, no. I don't finish most books. Oh, interesting. Have you ever thrown a podcast at the wall?

No, I've never thrown a podcast at the wall. I've just paused them. Although it does feel like this podcast is just us throwing things on the wall to see what sticks. No, this is us trying to explain physics to everybody out there listening. Well, anyways, welcome to our podcast, Daniel and Jorge Explain the Universe, a production of I-Hard Radio. Where we do our best not to frustrate you into throwing your phone or computer or car across the wall, whatever device you're using to listen to us. We want to take you on a tour of everything that we understand in the universe and everything that we don't.

We want to explain to you our vision of how the universe works from the tini-bitty bits all the way up to the biggest monster black holes. We think the universe does make sense, can be made sense of, and we want desperately to explain all of it to you. That's right. The universe we live in is not science fiction. It is science, period. Science reality. And so we all have questions about how it works, why we're here. And what happens when you throw a bunch of books at a wall? Science reality. I like how you just renamed the whole nonfiction genre as reality. That's a better name, though. Yeah, science reality. There you go. Well, they have like reality TV. Why not have reality science. Yeah. I don't want to be lumped in with reality TV actually. The problem with nonfiction is you're defining it by what it isn't instead of what it is, right? Oh, yeah, yeah.

Nobody wants to be a non-anything. I don't not want to be that. You don't want to be a non-conformist. Science trailblazing, that's your job, basically. How about reality trailblazing? Exploring the dense underbrush of reality, hacking our way through the jungles of truth. Yeah, that could be a nice show, like on Netflix, like big science, where you put a bunch of physicists in one house. with a large particle collider

and you see what happens. Every week they have to vote a physicist off. Or maybe they have to vote a physicist into the collider. Oh my goodness. That is both good and horrifying. Probably good TV, yeah. Yeah, yeah. It's like squid games?

Exactly. Hmm. Squit physics games. Science games. Yeah, there you go. Particle games. But science isn't just a game. It's a serious effort to understand the universe.

And that's what we try to do in our jobs. We try to do it on this podcast. And we also encourage you to do because you can also pick up a machete and help us hack through the jungles of truth to understand the universe just by thinking like a physicist, which means just being curious and not settling for not understanding. There's too many knots there. I should define it in terms of positives. Demanding sufficient explanations. And when you don't understand something about the universe, we want you to write into us. share your question because probably somebody else out there has the same thought.

I don't know if that was better. I'm a little non-plussed about it. I'm pretty plused. Well, let's plus it. Let's plus it some more. I might even be multiplied it, but I don't want to divide us over it. But yeah, science is a game and it all starts with questions. The whole journey of science starts with looking at the world around us and wondering, why is it like that? How does it work? And what would happen if I throw this at wall. So you can either throw that thing at the wall or you can just write to us with your question

and we'll do our best to answer it. We answer every question we get from listeners. Just write to us to questions at Danielanhorpe.com. And some of the questions we think other people might want to hear the answers to do. And so we select them to answer on the podcast. So today on the podcast we'll be tackling. Listener questions. Number 51. Oh boy. Listener question. is now over middle age. That's right. We're rounding up to 100 now. It's 50 plus.

We're going to get senior citizen discounts pretty soon. We're going to start eating dinner at 3 p.m. That's right. Yeah, yeah, the discounts. Oh, man. Does that mean we have to give shorter answers? I'm not going to offend our senior listeners by suggesting that they can't comprehend long, complex answers. No, I'm just saying, you know, your appetite goes down as you age.

Oh, I see, smaller meals. Yeah, I don't know what I'm saying. More tapas. Maybe more top us. Yeah, there you go. More variety. Because let's face it, time is running out for those of us over 50. Unless you live near the vicinity of a black hole, in which case, time is slowing down.

For others, but not for you. Yeah, but relatively for you. You see everybody else living really fast. Well, let's try to get through these questions as fast as we can then. And the first one is actually about time. Yeah, yeah. We have some awesome questions here today about the speed of light near a black hole. about quantum entanglement, and also about possible time travel.

Pretty awesome questions from people. Daniel, do these questions make you smile when you get them? All the questions make me smile. I love that ding when I get a question in the listener inbox. It lets me take a break from whatever else I'm doing and think about physics. But wait, you were thinking about physics before. So your break from physics is to think about physics. Mostly I was thinking about spreadsheets and email.

Every job these days is just spreadsheets and email. And grants. And grant proposals? Budgets. Oh, I see. So then you actually get to think about physics. Yeah, exactly. Yeah. What if your grad students send you a question about physics? Is that the latter or the former situation? No comment.

Depends on the student, actually. Is it involve a spreadsheet or a budget question? Depends. Maybe their question is, hey, are you funding me next quarter? Or their question is like, how do we do anomaly detection in this space of multiple tracks? You know, depends on the question they're asking. I see. And one of those is good and the other one is bad. They're different. They're different. They're different. I see. All right. All right. Well, we have some awesome questions here to the end. So let's just jump right in. Our first question comes from Nathan from Seattle.

Hey, Daniel and Jorge. My name's Nathan Ramon from Seattle, Washington, and I have a question for y'all. I was watching Ant Man last night, and it occurred to me that they are so small in that movie, right, that the speed of light might actually act a little. bit differently. They're so small at that point that if the universe is still reacting, like still has the speed of light at the same rate, which it might not necessarily, they do talk a lot about how they're outside of space and time. But if it has that same speed limit, if you're so much smaller, it would make it feel to me like light was going way, way faster. Sorry for Miranda. Let me know if you need clarification on that. And thanks for all you guys do. I love your podcast.

All right. Awesome question from Nathan. A Marvel fan, it seems. Well, he didn't say whether he liked those movies. He just says he watched them. Maybe he had a small opinion about Ant Man. Well, the cool thing is he was watching Ant Man. He was thinking about the physics of it. Like, does this make sense? How would this work? What would it actually be like to be that small? What would the experience of it be based on the physical principles of the universe? Have we done an episode on the physics of the Marvel movies? I feel like we talk about them all the time, but have we done like a whole day?

dedicated episode to it. Is there any physics of the Marvel movies, or is it all just random nonsense? It's science fiction, Daniel. It's fiction for sure. But the anime movies are pretty good. The first one was really good. The second one was maybe not as good, and the third one was not as good.

But overall, it's sort of a charming character. Yeah, and I saw the first one, and I enjoyed it. And the visit to the quantum realm, I thought was visually very creative. I thought the way they displayed it was very cool, very different from your standard depictions. So it was a lot of fun. I enjoyed it. Did I tell you, I know the guy who came up with the term, the quantum realm?

Wow. Yeah, my friend, Spiris McLaughis, he's a physicist, and he consulted for Marvel. And one day he was giving them a little spiel in the conference room, and he's like, things are very different in the quantum realm. And they're like, we like that. That's in the script. Ooh, quantum realm. Yeah.

He kind of has mixed feelings about what they've done with the term and the whole idea of quantum physics. But it's pretty cool that he had that contribution. The lesson is be careful what you. say around writers. That's right. Yes. We cannot be trusted with your innermost secrets or emotions or physics. But yeah, Nathan has an interesting question. His question is, does the speed of light seem faster if you're smaller? So if you were small, I guess at the level of Ant-Man, does it mean that you see light move faster for you? Yeah, I think this is a really interesting question because it makes us think about the speed of light and the impact on physics, sort of the big

and the small. And the way that I think about the speed of light, and I think the way most physicists do is that it's like a ratio between space and time. It's like a conversion between meters and seconds. Like meters is a measurement of distance. Seconds is a measurement of time. And the fact that the universe has this number, this maximum speed, tells you a relationship between space and time. It tells you how to convert a huge distance into a time. And we're often doing that. Like the phrase a light year tells you how far light will go in a year. It sounds kind of like a unit of time, but it's actually distance. You've taken time, you've multiplied by the speed of light, and you've gotten a distance. It's like a measurement that you get by

dividing distance divided by time, but does it really tie those two concepts together, like at a fundamental, you know, physics level? Because like, you know, you can talk about the speed of Jorge down the track that, like my speed is a speed that you can measure and compute, but it doesn't really tell you anything except how out of shape I am. Yeah, also the speed of Jorge probably changes as a function of time in the universe and how much chocolate you've had. Yeah, how many bananas have eaten. But the speed of light really does play a deep role in physics, and it really serves that

purpose of converting between space and time. You know, we often talk about like space time being a four-dimensional object with the original three dimensions of space and this fourth dimension of time. But there's a subtlety there we don't often talk about, which is that when we include time as fourth dimension, we usually multiply it by the speed of light. So the four dimensions are actually like X, Y, Z, and then C, T, not just time, because we want to convert it to effectively a distance. Right. Well, you do have to keep the units consistent.

But like, for example, if we had a different speed of light in our universe, you know, things would be different. The physics of the universe would be different, but with space itself and with time, itself be different. They would be the same, but their relationship would be different. That's what the speed of light is. It's a ratio, a relationship between these two different kinds of measurements. Yeah, fundamentally, it really is telling you how these two things relate. All right, well, to answer Nathan's questions, let's say I shrink down, let's say I'm Atman

or the WASP, and I shrink down, is the speed of light going to seem faster for me? Like, if I measure the speed of light at that scale, is it going to be? going to seem faster. Or like if I shine a flashlight will just somehow the flashlight seem quicker or brighter or something? Yeah, the speed of light is going to be the same because it's the same ratio between distances and times, right? So you measure the speed of light using a tiny little experiment or a huge experiment. You're going to get the same answer. But if you think of the speed of light as a ratio between distance and time, what it means is that everything seems faster when you're small.

Like basically, shorter distances mean shorter times. Things that are smaller can happen faster than things that are bigger. So like, for example, if you not just shrink me, but you shrink the whole earth, then for example, light can go around the earth many more times per second. Yeah, exactly. Or let's say you build a machine like a computer or even a mechanical device to do something. If it's smaller, it can finish faster than if it's huge. the bigger it is, the longer it'll take to finish because there's this maximum speed limit.

And that's why the speed of light seems really, really fast to us here on Earth is this crazy high number. It's basically irrelevant to our experience. It's because things that are almost instantaneous. But imagine if you were a brain made of like stars, you're like a galaxy size brain, it would take like 100,000 years to even have a thought. But then your thinking would be slower. So your cognition or your perception of time would be slower. So I think maybe Nathan's question, I wonder, is whether time will seem to be going faster or maybe it'll seem to be the same, right? Because if I'm the size of a galaxy, my thoughts are going to be super slow.

And so even though any effect I'm going to see is going to be super slow because of distances, my thoughts are going to be slow. And so therefore, the experience of being that person is going to be the same as our experience here on Earth. Yeah, I think there's a few things there to disentangle. but basically you're right. Number one, if you measure the speed of light, you're going to get the same number. It doesn't matter if you're a galaxy brain or an ant brain. As long as you do it correctly,

you're going to get the same number. Number two, things do seem to happen faster when you're smaller because you're just not as limited by this speed of light. Things have shorter distances to cross in order to accomplish some thinking or some task or whatever. Number three, finally, we don't really know what it would be like to experience that. Would it seem like time goes faster?

We don't understand our experience. of time or why we seem to experience it at, you know, one second per second. So I don't know what it would be like to be a galaxy brain. They might have the same kind of subjective experience we do. Yeah, or like thinking about the shrinking case. Like if I shrink down to Edmund's size, now my brain is smaller. And like the distances between my neurons are smaller. And so maybe my thinking will be sort of like hypercharge.

Yeah. Like I'll have a million thoughts in the same amount of time that it used to take me to have one thought. And so I'll be sort of super. super bored looking at the bigger world, but looking at the small world, maybe it'll just seem like the same regular because things are moving faster, but I'm also like having a bazillion more cycles in my brain than I did before. Yeah, exactly. So we don't know what the experience would be like. There's an interesting wrinkle of evolutionary biology there also, which is wondering

like, could humans be smarter? You can imagine being smarter by having like a bigger brain, more neurons, but then it's harder to get that brain through the birth canal. You could also imagine getting smarter by having more neurons by making the neurons smaller but I was reading a paper that said that if neurons got any smaller it would be noisier like more randomness and fuzz so it might not actually add computing power so we might be at like the sweet spot of like the densest neuronal systems well the other thing to consider is that neurons work by bioelectricity right biochemistry not necessarily by like transmitting electrons right it all

depends on sort of reactions, electric fields, and like molecules moving in and out of the little cell walls. Yeah, exactly. If you could actually shrink all that stuff, it would happen faster. Of course, you know, the physics wouldn't work if you shrunk all that stuff because all the numbers would change. So the fundamental physics of Ant Man is silly because, you know, if he's shrunk down to the size of an electron, then how big are his electrons, right?

Right. So basically we get into the fuzzy area of like perception and the subjective experience. But generally speaking, I think from a physics point of view, if you were down to the size of Ant Man, light would sort of seem to travel faster, right? Like it would go one body length in a much shorter amount of time than it would go at our size. Yeah, your body would be shorter, so light would go across you faster. And I think a lot of things would happen faster. I don't know how we can say what it would be like, though, to experience it. I wonder if it would be even that different.

Like, what's a different between almost instantaneous and almost all. almost instantaneous. Maybe the difference is not that great. Or maybe he's thinking about like when Ant Man goes down to like the quantum size. Yeah, but as you say, distances are already so small compared to the speed of light that in our experience is very difficult to even tell that it's not instantaneous. It took people a long time to be able to devise experiments to measure the speed of light

and to be very, very clever because it's so blazingly fast compared to the distances in which we live. If you were like galaxy brain and then you got shrunk down to Ant Man, that might be more dramatic. Yeah. Or I wonder if maybe the equivalent conversion is like, let's say you and I are living in our everyday lives here, but suddenly the speed of light goes up by a factor of 10. Let's say it was now 3 million kilometers per second. Would we even notice a difference? We wouldn't notice the difference here on Earth, but suddenly the rest of the universe would effectively be closer to us. You know, we could see things happening faster. We could get places faster. The size of a galaxy would effectively seem smaller.

Well, it will still be the same distance. we would just see it sooner. Yeah, like our information bubble would be larger. The distance over which things appear to happen instantaneously would be bigger. Right. We can maybe see further out or I guess what we see would be more up to date. Yeah, more recent, exactly. The time lag would no longer be noticeable for things that are close to us.

You have to look even further out to notice that time lag. Well, I feel like they're not even noticeable now. Like I can tell the difference between a billion-year-old star and a million-year-old star. Astronomers can. All right, well, I think that answer is a question, which is that the speed of light would not be different, but maybe your experience of it would be different.

All right, well, thanks for that question, Nathan. Let's get to our other questions. We have one here about quantum entanglement and time travel. So we'll get to those. But first, let's take a quick break. Imagine that you're on an airplane. and all of a sudden you hear this. Attention passengers.

The pilot is having an emergency and we need someone, anyone, to land this plane. Think you could do it? It turns out that nearly 50% of men think that they could land the plane with the help of air traffic control. And they're saying like, okay, pull this, do this, pull that, turn this.

It's just... I can do my eyes close. I'm Manny. I'm Noah. This is Devon. And on our new show, no such thing. We get to the bottom of question. like these. Join us as we talk to the leading expert on overconfidence. Those who lack expertise lack the expertise they need to recognize that they lack expertise. And then as we try the whole thing out for real. Wait, what? Oh, that's the

run right. I'm looking at this thing. Listen to no such thing on the Iheart radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. I had this like overwhelming sensation that I had to call it right then. And I just hit call. I said, you know, hey, I'm Jacob Schick. I'm the CEO of One Tribe Foundation and I just wanted to call on and let her know there's a lot of people battling some of the very same things you're battling. And there is help out there. The Good Stuff Podcast Season 2 takes a deep look into One Tribe Foundation, a non-profit fighting suicide in the veteran community. September is National Suicide Prevention Month, so join host Jacob and Ashley Schick as they bring you to the front lines of One Tribe's mission.

I was married to a combat army veteran. And he actually took his own life to suicide. One tribe saved my life twice. There's a lot of love that flows through this place and it's sincere. Now it's a personal mission. I don't have to go to any more funerals, you know. I got blown up on a React mission. I ended up having amputation below the knee of my right leg and a traumatic brain injury because I landed on my head.

Welcome to Season 2 of the Good Stuff. Listen to the Good Stuff podcast on the Iheart Radio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you get your podcast. 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. Hello, it's Honey German, and my podcast, Grazacus come again, is back. This season, we're going even deeper into the world of music and entertainment with raw and honest conversations

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've got some of the biggest actors, musicians,

content creators, and culture shifters sharing their real stories of failure and success. You were destined to be a start. We talk all about what's viral and trending with a little bit of chisement, a lot of laughs, and those amazing vivas you've come to expect. And of course, we'll explore deeper topics dealing with identity, struggles,

and all the issues affecting our Latin community. You feel like you get a little whitewash because you have to do the code switching? I won't say whitewash because at the end of the day, you know, I'm me. But the whole pretending and code, you know, it takes a toll on you. Listen to the new season of Grasasas Come Again as part of My Cultura Podcast Network on the IHartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast. All right, we're answering listener questions here today, and our next question is about quantum entanglement.

Howdy, Daniel? Question for you. Assume we know particle A, and particle A and Particle B are entangled. And for simplicity's sake, let's say the states are positive or negative, and there's a 50-50 chance. Now, what would happen if two independent observers, we can call them A and B for their respective particles, observed these two particles at the exact same time? and this question really breaks my brain the more I think about it the less I feel like I understand

special relativity and the less I feel like I understand quantum mechanics and adding to their question is it even possible to make two observations with two observers at the same time

I really appreciate it thanks for helping me understand all right well that's quite a mindful of a question here And Daniel, I noticed he asked the question of you, not me, so I think I can just sit this one out. Because honestly, I don't understand the question. I'm a bit entangled in the whole flurry of words. You felt like some of the other physics questions were aimed towards you?

The last one did say Daniel and Jorge. I think I was one of the targets. And sometimes they say, hey, guys, plural. So it does mean the two of us. Well, I think he's also counting in you to help me translate my understanding into something ever but they'll. can digest. No, no, no, I feel snubbed, so I'm not even going to chime in. I'm going to do my best, but I'm pretty sure you're going to have a hard time not interrupting. What are you trying to say? What are you trying to say? It's your job and you do it beautifully,

man. What are you trying to say, Daniel? Did I interrupt you? Yes, exactly. Case in point. All right, so what is the question? I know it's about quantum entanglement, but it didn't quite get the gist of it. Yeah, so the question is about quantum entanglement and special. special relativity and how these two things come together. But let's start just with a basic issue of quantum entanglement, which is weird enough, right? Quantum entanglement says what happens if you have two particles that are like the output of a single process? Something makes two particles and so their fate is connected.

Like let's say you have two electrons created and one has to be spin up and one has to be spin down because of the way they're made. The universe doesn't care which one is spin up and which one is spin down as long as they point opposite. Now, if you take those two particles and you send them different directions, they're now far apart. Quantum entanglement says that they're still somehow connected, that their fates are joined. And so if you measure one to be spin up, you now know the other one is spin down. But it's more than just like knowing that they have to be opposite. Quantum entanglement tells us that they're actually not determined, that neither one is spin up or spin down. They both have that possibility, and that as soon as you measure one, then the fate of the other one is determined.

That's the weird bit about quantum entanglement. Oh, wait. Do you want me to jump in now? Do you want me to interrupt? Yeah, so that's the basic of entanglement, right? Like, we have two quantum things, like a particle or an atom or some sort of quantum object, and it's fuzzy. You don't know what it actually is inside.

But if two of them have some sort of shared history, some sort of shared origin that ties them together, that's what quantum entanglement is. That's right. There's some correlation between them that's created locally when they're like both made and sent apart, but then the correlation persists as they get further and further apart. And again, this is not a scenario where one of them actually is spin up and the other one actually is spin down and we just don't know.

We've proven through a whole complicated series of experiments suggested by John Bell that they actually are undetermined until you measure. So the weird bit and the thing that makes it hard to reconcile with special relativity is that apparently this happens instantaneously. You have these two particles that have a shared fate, but they're both underwent. determined. Now you send them like five kilometers apart. You measure one of them, you get spin up. Instantly, the other one has to be spin down. It went from, I don't know, maybe up or down, to has to be down, instantaneously across space and time. Right, which at first glance seems to

violate the speed of light, right? Because something changed in one part of the universe and then it suddenly caused something else to change in another part, seemingly instantaneously. Exactly. What you said is important. You said it violates a speed of light. And that's correct. This is something that happens faster than the speed of light. Speed of light says there's a limit to how fast things can happen across the universe. This is instantaneous. But it doesn't actually break special relativity because you're not sending information faster than the speed of light. Like the quantum state is non-local. It stretches over space and collapses instantaneously the whole thing at the same time. But you can't actually

use that to send information. People are often writing in and say, well, can't I send information by making a measurement and the other person's going to see that theirs is now collapsed? You can't actually tell when your probabilities have collapsed. All you can do is measure or not measure. When you measure your particle, you don't know if it was already collapsed or if you're collapsing it by measuring it. Right. Also, when you collapse one of them, it's not like you're sending that information to the other person. Like let's say we entangled two particles. I have one. And when we split up, I have one, you have one.

If I open mine, I measure it, and I see it that, for example, it's up, and I know that yours is down. Like, I know something about your particle, but that doesn't mean you know that about your particle. Like to you, over there in Irvine, your particle is still this quantum object that could be 50% up or down. So like no information that actually traveled unless I sent you an email, which would then be limited by the speed of light. Exactly. And or my cell signal. Exactly. And if I still have my particle in the box, you measure.

you measure yours. I can't tell if you've measured yours. Like mine doesn't look any different if I'm not measuring it. I'm just waiting to measure it. I don't know if you've measured yours or not. I can't tell that you have measured it. So it's like information about something far away has been revealed to me instantaneously. But that doesn't mean that information actually got transmitted from one place to the other. Yeah, exactly. So then what's the actual question here? So the question is what happens? We measure them at the same time. Who collapses the wave function? So we each have a particle that's been entangled with the other, and we open it at the same time, nothing happens, right? Well, this is a really interesting question. Like, you'll find out, you'll find yours up and I'll find my down, or I'll find my up and you'll find yours down.

That's all that really happens, isn't it? Yeah, I love your answer. And you're right, from the point of view of, like, what we experience, you open your box, you measure it up or you measure it down. But I think what he's asking is, like, what's happening behind the scenes? You know, what is the wave function doing? even if we can't observe it and can't measure it and can't ever know what in theory is the explanation for how this happens.

And I think this touching on a deeper question, which is about simultaneity. We talked to the podcast how special relativity tells us that at the same time is a fuzzy concept. Two events could occur at the same time for one person, but not for somebody else. If they have a different velocity or a different location in space. And so this seems very fuzzy all of a sudden like two people measure the way of function at the same time, what happens to that wave function? And what happens according to somebody flying by in a spaceship at nearly the speed of light? So then what's the answer for our question,

asker? So the best answer to the way you just gave, which is this is not a physical problem. This is only... I answered the question, even though he didn't ask me. I'm the one who ended answering. You answered it in the classical dismissive way, which is like, it doesn't matter. It's just a philosophy question about what's happening to the wave function. It's not a physical question. I wasn't being dismissive. I mean, I was being pejorative. I mean, I was being pejorative. maybe or but it's true though it's an important distinction like we know what would happen i measure mine you measure yours done it doesn't really matter right but the question is what's happening behind the scenes which is a philosophical question about something we may never be able to know like what is

the wave function really in this whole philosophical debates about whether the wave function is just a mathematical tool we use to make these calculations or if it's a real physical thing in the universe and so this long answer is it depends on what you think the wave function and is. It depends on your philosophical interpretation of quantum mechanics. And we can walk through a few of those examples. Like, is there a wave function that physically connects my particle to your particle? Or is the wave function just some mathematical tool we use to explain things when things are not far apart? Yeah.

And then when you split them, maybe actually you get two wave functions or maybe there's no such thing as a physical common way function. Or maybe there are many wave functions or maybe the wave function never collapses. Now, in the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics, which I'll say up front is nonsense, the Copenhagen interpretation in which doesn't work and is deeply flawed, but it's still the one most people think about and is most often taught. In that interpretation, the wave function is a thing and it's real. And before you measure something, it allows for multiple possibilities, like the wave function says you might be up and you might be down.

And then when you make a measurement with a classical object, where classical object is not defined, just something big, then it collapses. chooses one of these options. And I think it's in that scenario that the question is asking, like, number one, what happens if two people make the measurement at the same time, who collapses it, and then what happens to an observer flying by the speed of light? The answer is sort of nonsense. Like number one, if two people make a measurement at the same time, well, you can't do that in Copenhagen interpretation because you can only make one measurement on a wave function at a time. It's just not allowed, because making a measurement changes the wave function. And you have to do them in

sequence. That's why it's like important whether you're measuring position or momentum first or momentum and then position because every measurement changes a wave function. There's no way to even describe making two measurements at the same time. I see. Well, if there is sort of like a physical wave function connecting my particle to your particle, then you do sort of get the sense of that there is a shared now. But even though it's quantum mechanical, unless you're going to pixelate time, time itself is infinitely divisible. So saying you're making two measurements at the same time would mean you're like exactly matching those two moments. Meaning like maybe there's no way to know who collapsed at first unless we somehow sink

clocks or something beforehand and then we compare clocks afterwards. But you'd have to sync them exactly perfectly to like an infinite number of digits, which seems impossible. Right. And it gets even weirder if you ask like what happens according to other observers. Like what if I make my measurement and then 10 seconds later you make your measurement and now in our frame of reference, I was first and you were second. But somebody

flying by at the speed of light, they could see your measurement happen first before mine. Because the order of vents is not guaranteed in special relativity. It depends on the observer. Interesting. So I think what you're saying is that in the quantum realm, Ant man would

not know what time it is. I'm saying that this picture of the wave function collapsing and happening instantly across space and time, that picture itself doesn't really work in the Copenhagen interpretation. Imagine a more complex situation, for example, like an observer flying by and then changing directions and going the other way. As they change directions, their concept of what happens first, what happens second, changes. So you could arrange a trajectory where they're seeing me make

my measurement first and then later they see you make your measurement first because their velocity is changing. And in that scenario, the wave function collapses in one way and then uncollapses and re-collapses in a different way. So, like, the whole picture becomes very confusing and it's kind of nonsensical. But it doesn't change anything physical. This is just philosophical. And there are other philosophical approaches to quantum mechanics that don't have these issues that the Copenhagen interpretation has.

And Copenhagen is already known to be nonsense because this division between, like, what is quantum and what is classical is not even defined or described. Well, it seems like kind of the main problem is that you're basically trying to put together general relativity and quantum mechanics, which as we talked about million times in this podcast, like they don't really play well with each other, right? Like quantum mechanics is kind of a local effect and general relativity, things that happen over maybe big distances or big amounts of time and involves curvature of time and space. And so we don't really know how to marry those two. Well, I'm not sure we're getting into general relativity here. Really, all these

questions are about special relativity. And we do know how to marry special relativity and quantum mechanics into a theory. We have relativistic quantum mechanics and we have quantum field theories. And those make predictions about all the measurements and those all work. The philosophical underpinnings of what happens when you try to bring these two together is more complicated and there people have a lot of disagreements. But what's going on behind the scenes? Well, I think maybe the basic conclusion is that I answered his question and even though I wasn't asked. Ten points for you. All right. Well, let's get to our last question, which is about time travel. And the question

people should think about during this break is, did we already answer this question or are we going to answer it in the future? Or have we already answered it in the future? Yeah. Or have we already asked this question about answering the question in the past? Have we already made every possible time travel joke? Let's go back in time and make some more. But first, let's take a quick break. Imagine that you're on an airplane and all of a sudden you hear this. Attention passengers. The pilot is having an emergency and we need someone, anyone to land this plane. Think you could do it?

It turns out that nearly 50% of men think that they could land the plane with the help of air traffic control. And they're saying like, okay, pull this, do this, pull that, turn this. It's just, I can do my eyes close. I'm Manny. I'm Noah. This is Devon. And on our new show. No Such Thing, we get to the bottom of questions like these.

Join us as we talk to the leading expert on overconfidence. Those who lack expertise lack the expertise they need to recognize that they lack expertise. And then as we try the whole thing out for real. Wait, what? Oh, that's the run right. I'm looking at this thing. Listen to No Such Thing on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your

podcasts. What if I could promise you you never had to listen to a condescending finance, bro, tell you how to manage your money again. Welcome to Brown Ambition. This is the hard part when you pay down those credit cards. If you haven't gotten to the bottom of why you were racking up credit or turning to credit cards, you may just recreate the same problem a year from now. When you do feel like you are bleeding from these high interest rates, I would start shopping for a debt consolidation loan, starting with your local credit union, shopping around online, looking for some online lenders, because, they tend to have fewer fees and be more affordable. Listen, I am not here to judge. It is so expensive in these streets. I 100% can see how in just a few months you can have this much credit card debt when it weighs on you. It's really easy to just like stick your head in the sand.

It's nice and dark in the sand. Even if it's scary, it's not going to go away just because you're avoiding it. And in fact, it may get even worse. For more judgment-free money advice, listen to Brown Ambition on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you get your podcast. Hello, it's Honey German. And my podcast, Grasas Come Again, is back. This season, we're going even deeper into the world of music and entertainment

with raw and honest conversations 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've got some of the biggest actors, musicians, content creators, and culture shifters sharing their real stories of failure and success. You were destined to be a start. We talked all about what's viral and trending with a little bit of chisement, a lot of laughs, and those amazing vibras you've come to expect. And of course, we'll explore deeper topics

dealing with identity, struggles, and all the issues affecting our Latin community. You feel like you get a little whitewash because you have to do the code switching? I won't say whitewash because at the end of the day, you know, I'm me. But the whole pretending and coat, you know, it takes a toll on you.

Listen to the new season of Grasasasas Come Again as part of my culture, a podcast network on the iHeart radio app apple podcast or wherever you get your podcast 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 tech 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. All right, we're answering listener questions here today. And our last question of the day is about the past, the present, the future, and whether we can move between them. Hey guys. This is Trevor. I was recently listening to an episode of the podcast in which Daniel mentions that we have never observed anything that was moving backwards in time. My question is, how would we be able to identify whether an object we're observing was moving backwards in time? What characteristics would make backwards motion in time distinguishable to us? Are we sure we would even be able to observe a reverse time object while we are moving forward in time? I love what you guys do, and I I sincerely appreciate you taking my question.

Interesting question. I feel like this question relates to the movie Tenet. Have you seen that movie? I've seen that movie, and I saw that Christopher Nolan was like, people who try to understand Tenet are not really getting what I was after. Like, the movie just doesn't make sense. He's like, why are people throwing my movie at the wall? It's science fiction, people.

It's not supposed to make sense, he says, as he presents you a mystery and asks you to solve it. Like, what? Yeah, it's all about the experience. of the mystery, right? I'm not being a physicist. I'm just like experiencing the universe, man. I'm not trying to fit it all together in my head

in a way that makes sense. Yeah, yeah. Maybe your wall would be intact if he took that attitude more. But yeah, in the movie Tannett, they sort of figure out how to make something move backwards in time. Like they can make a bullet

move backwards in time. And so even though we're moving forward in time, the bullet is moving backwards in time. And at some point, they make people move backwards in time, right? I don't know. I went back in time and erased that movie from the memory. I think that's the basic question that Trevor has here, which is like, could something move backwards in time

and would we know it's moving backwards in time? Yeah, it's a really cool question with a lot of interesting subtlety depending exactly what you mean by move backwards in time. Because there's a fundamental question we have about time, which is like, why does it flow forward? If you look at the equations of physics, they seem to work just as well forwards and backwards. You know, for most things, if you took a video of them, and then you played the video forwards and you play the video backwards, the laws of physics would work just as well for both scenarios.

Like you're playing pool and you hit a ball and they bounce off each other. You could play that whole reaction backwards and the same thing would work according to the laws of momentum and all that kind of stuff. In like a perfect world, in a perfect bouncy ball that doesn't lose energy each time it bounces. Like a bouncing ball moving forwards in time looked exactly like a bouncing ball moving backwards in time. Yeah, and we could start with the individual particles so we're not thinking about like 10 to the 29 objects and thermodynamics yet. For like the individual particles, these rules work just as well forwards and backwards in time. Meaning like if you records and particles having some interactions and you play it backwards, that's also. a perfectly feasible thing for the particles to do or what you observe I'm doing is also

perfectly feasible yes 99.99% there's a little asterisk there about how some particle interactions do prefer one direction in time but it's a really really tiny effect so then what are you saying are saying like we are technically all moving backwards and forwards in time or there's no meaning to something moving backwards in time i think that applies something really interesting interesting about the universe about causality. It implies that of course the past determines the future, right? Things flow, the laws of physics determine things, but also that the future is unique because the future is determined by the past, but you could also flip it the other way around. You could say the future determines the past, right? Like if there's only one possible future

for every past and you can go from the future and predict the past, if they're, you know, connected by the laws of physics in the same way, then like, what direction is causality anyway? And so that's what we mean when we say, like, which direction does time flow? The laws of physics don't care. There's sort of like time independence. Right. Well, you sort of get into the idea of determinism and whether things move in a predictable way. But doesn't quantum mechanics sort of do away with that? Like, you know, I can't really predict the future because what a certain particle is going to do is sort of random according to quantum physics. And if I have an outcome of a particle, I can't really trace back its history because there was a random process somewhere in the middle.

Yeah. Great question. And there's a couple directions there. Now, if you only have quantum interactions, then what you said is not technically correct because quantum information is preserved and you can go forwards and backwards. Like if there's no wave function collapse, then the future is completely predicted by the past and you can derive the past from the future. You know, quantum information just flows through time like particles interact. with each other there may be randomness but if there's no wave function collapse you don't force the universe to choose from those probability distributions then all that information is preserved so wave function collapse does break that deep rule of quantum mechanics which is another reason why wave

function collapse is kind of nonsense from philosophical and a physics point of view and not something we understand wait wait we're having a crossover here with another question with the other question all connected man in the quantum realm there is a large larger sense in which we think quantum mechanics does yield a definition of time, because the randomness of quantum mechanics does affect like multiple particles. We talked about the individual particle and what happens to it. Now imagine like 10 to the 30 particles. Instead of tracing each of them individually, you're thinking about the population of those

particles. What are they more likely to do or less likely to do? And because they're governed by randomness. Let's stick to maybe one particle. Like the classic example of a quantum particle is like if I shoot a an electron at a magnetic electric field, is it going to veer to the right or is it going to veer to the left? Now, in the past, I don't know whether it's going to be veering to the right or to the left,

but then I shoot it at the electric field and the particle goes right or left. Now I'm in the future and the particle went right. Because you collapse the wave function by insisting on measuring it with a classical object. Let's change your experiment a little bit. Let's say you shoot the electron into the magnetic field, but you don't measure which direction it went with some big classical thing, like a detector or an eyeball or a graduate student, you record whether it went left or right into some other quantum object, you know, another particle or photon or something.

But I reject your scenario, Daniel. I reject your scenario and I want to stick to my scenario. In my scenario, there's a future, which went right, that I couldn't know in the past. And if I'm in the future and I saw that the particle went right, I can still sort of figure out where the particle came from. So it just sort of seems like there is a direction to time. In the past, I couldn't tell the future, but in the future, I could tell the past.

Yes, if there's wave function collapsed. Which there was in this scenario. Which violates a basic principle of quantum mechanics, loss of information. Then yes, the future is different from the past because the collapse makes the future different. If you don't believe in collapse because it's fundamentally nonsense, then your whole premise, then the whole setup is flawed. But I have to believe in collapse because I live in a collapsed world. Like when I'm talking to you, I'm collapsing things. You don't know that, man.

Grab my steering wheels. My experience, maybe there's a multiverse where somebody else does something else. But to me, in this multiverse version, there's collapse. It's a real thing. And so is there a direction of time in my universe? Well, if there's a multiverse, then the wave function doesn't collapse. It splits into many pieces. They're all part of the same big universe wave function, but they can't interact with each

other. And that preserves the flow of quantum information. All those things do happen. They're just sort of like happening on top of each other in a way that they can't interact with each other. It's the quantum multiverse. So there is a scenario in which there is no collapse. Quantum information is not changed as time goes on. Sure. If you're like a mega entity, then you can see all the multiverse at the same time. But to me, to us right now, talking to each other, we live in a collapsed universe. This is our universe. And we don't even know if there are other universes. So does that mean that time does have a direction. Let's make it about me, Daniel. Not the watcher who's watching the

multiverse from afar. I think portions of the universe no longer have access to the full information. That doesn't mean that time couldn't flow backwards. The same physical process could still go in the other direction. Well, it could, but to us, to our understanding and our experience of the universe, this is all the information that we have. And you don't know if there's actually other information. Yeah, we don't know. That's true. So we have to assume that this is maybe all there is. This could be all that there is. We don't have to assume that. We don't have to assume it's not all there is to our experience of the universe. In this universe we live in, there is a direction of time. If you don't have the full information, you might not have enough

information to reconstruct the past, yeah. Okay, so then is that what do you think Trevor means by things moving backwards in time? Like, could there be something moving in the opposite? direction of this direction of time. I don't think that's what Trevor is asking about at all, and he's probably wondering, like, why are these guys talking about quantum mechanics? I was thinking about time. So let's get to time.

Okay, well, let's get to his question. The question is, can something move backwards in time? And would we notice? You're the one who went into quantum mechanics? I mean, are we not answering the question with quantum mechanics, or are we? No, we're not. We're not. So, okay. That was a stepping stone towards

the concept of thermodynamics, which builds up from the microscopic picture of quantum mechanics. It says, zoom out from the tiny particles. Our experience is not of tiny particles. It's of big things with 10 to the 29 or 10 to the 30 particles. And on that scale, something else emerges. And it's called entropy. You have lots of quantum particles interacting. You notice that they tend to spread out over the possibilities, which is another way basically saying entropy increases as time goes on. And that's where our experience of time comes from. What you were alluding to earlier, like a bouncy ball bouncing up and down. That's a lot of particles interacting. What happens there is that energy tends to spread

out and the ball loses some energy and it bounces lower and lower as time goes on. So that video you could definitely tell is something going forwards or backwards in time. I see. You're saying let's not think about quantum physics. Let's think about a bouncing ball. And so maybe in Trevor's question, something moving backwards in time is maybe like a ball whose entropy to us seems to be decreasing. Yes, exactly. There's a sort of a subtlety here. Like, take that ball that's bouncing and entropy is increasing. You could also say, well, how do we know that ball is not going backwards in time with decreasing entropy?

You're like, well, that's just sort of like definitional. Is it moving forwards in time with its entropy increasing or is it moving backwards in time with its entropy decreasing? It's basically the same thing. I think what he's asking about in my original comment that inspired this is that we don't see things moving forwards in time with their entropy decreasing. Like we don't see coffee cups reassembling themselves. We don't see ice freezing on a countertop.

All these things would have entropy decreasing, and that's what it would look like is to see something moving backwards in time because we'd be moving backwards in time with its entropy increasing backwards in time, which to us would look like it's moving forwards in time with its entropy decreasing. So then the answer to the question is that

if something was moving backwards in time in our world, which is moving forward, you're saying we would be able to notice that it is moving backwards in time because its entropy, would be decreasing. Yeah. And I don't remember, but that probably happened in Tenet, right?

Somebody moved backwards in time and dropped a coffee cup. And to the people moving forwards in time, it looked really weird because they saw a broken coffee cup jump up off of the floor and reassemble itself. Yeah. No, no, that's exactly. That's the trippy thing about the movies that you see things sort of moving in unnatural ways. Yes.

Which really, to our brain, is like you were seeing entropy decrease, which we're not used to, right? Yeah, exactly. that's what it would look like to see something move backwards in time. Well, I feel like we answered the question, which is like, you know, it's all about entropy. But entropy is not really kind of like a fundamental thing in the universe, right? Isn't it sort of like something that emerges from the interaction of lots of things? Like at the quantum level, do you still have entropy and does it play a role?

Like, let's say we go back to the idea of looking at an electron. Could you tell if an electron was moving backwards in time? Yeah, great question. We don't really understand how the arrow of time emerges. You're right. It's not something that's fundamental to the universe. It's emergent. But you know, we don't really understand emergence either. Like, why do laws ever emerge? Why isn't everything just controlled by the tiny little objects and chaos rules on top of that? We don't understand emergence. We don't understand how time emerges from quantum mechanics. We don't understand the importance of emergent things. There are some hints there and some clues may be in particle physics. But fundamentally, that's not an understood question. You can't even really ask, like, what is entropy in quantum mechanics? Because entropy is about different. differences in how things are arranged in the macroscopic and the microscopic. You have to, like, define two levels of information, even be talking about entropy. I wonder then the answer to Trevor's question is, like, you can't tell if something's

moving backwards in time unless it's really small or unless it's only one particle. No, for the one particle, you can't tell at all, right? There is no sense of entropy for a single particle. That's what I mean. You can't tell. Like a ball, you could tell if it was moving backwards in time, but an individual electron, you cannot. Yeah, that's exactly right.

Is that what you're saying? Unless the multiverse doesn't exist. Yeah, that's right. All right. Well, do you think we need to go back in time and re-answer this question? I think I want to go back in time and not bring up quantum mechanics. No, but it totally changes the answer, right? Like if you ignore quantum mechanics, and yes, you can tell if something's going backwards in time.

If you do think about quantum mechanics, then you can. No, I'm very glad we got into the quantum mechanics. I was just joking. I think you're always glad to get into quantum mechanics as a particle of of physics. I think the problem sometimes is gaining you off of quantum mechanics. Yeah, totally agree. It's a little interesting reversal here. It's like we went backwards in time. All right, well, thanks to all of our question askers today. Really interesting questions. And if you have questions about how the universe works, please don't be shy. Write to me to questions at danielanhorpe.com. You can

address your questions to me or to me and Jorge or to anybody you like. You'll still get an answer for me. We hope you enjoyed that. Thanks for joining us. See you next night. For more science and curiosity, come find us on social media where we answer questions and post videos. We're on Twitter, Discord, Insta, and now TikTok. Thanks for listening, and remember that Daniel and Jorge Explain the Universe is a production of IHeartRadio. For more podcasts from IHeartRadio, visit the IHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows. 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 podcast. Do we really need another podcast with a condescending finance brof trying to tell us how to spend our own money? No, thank you. Instead, check out Brown Ambition. Each week, I, your host, Mandy Money, gives you real talk, real advice with a heavy dose of I feel uses.

Like on Fridays when I take your questions for the BAQA. Whether you're trying to invest for your future, navigate a toxic workplace, I got you. Listen to Brown Ambition on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you get your podcast. It's important that we just reassure people that they're not alone, and there is help out there. The Good Stuff podcast, Season 2, takes a deep look into One Tribe Foundation, a nonprofit fighting suicide in the veteran community. September is National Suicide Prevention Month, so join host Jacob and Ashley Schick as they bring you to the front lines of One Tribe's mission. One Tribe, save my life twice. Welcome to Season 2 of the Good Stuff.

Listen to the Good Stuff podcast on the Iheart radio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you get your podcast. This is an IHeart podcast.