Daniel and Kelly’s Extraordinary Universe - Listener Questions #52

Episode Date: October 6, 2026

Daniel and Kelly answer listener questions about how AI is impacting math and physics, what we really know about the wood wide web, and what happens when matter annihilates.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an I-Heart podcast. Guaranteed Human. What up, y'all. This your main man, Memphis Bleak right here. Host of that rock solid podcast. And each week, we bring in you exclusive looks inside music. Everything happening inside the culture. Some of the best conversations were the biggest names in the game.

You had a little bit more pressure to be good. And they didn't care if you was a girl. Like, you wasn't getting no points. If you're not trash, you better be not just good. You better be great. Listen to Rock Solid on Black Effect Podcast Network, iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you streamed podcasts. I'm Kerry Champion, and in this new season of biggest rivalries of all-time podcast, we take you back to the very first rivalry of the WNBA. The Comets were to real deal.

I mean, come on. The Liberty was just tough. Oh, God. The New York Liberty versus the Houston Comets. When we hit the floor, it was hot, heated. It fights, elbows, competition, trash talking. Who's the better team? People live, but numbers don't.

Listen to biggest rivalries of all time on the IHard Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. The WNBA playoffs are here, and Good Game with Sarah Spain is the only daily podcast that'll keep you up to date on all the action. We'll make sure you're the smartest fan at the bar by bringing you interviews with some of the best minds in basketball, including your favorite coaches and players. No one cares what we did last year If anything, that's a bigger target on our back Want to know what's really going on in the WNBA? We got you. Listen to Good Game with Sarah Spain

On the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Doorbell prankster that tormented German resident apartments turns out to be a slug. Ding dog. Hi, I'm Kurt Brown-Oller. And I'm Scotty Landis. They say no news is good news.

But weird news? That's bananas. Every Tuesday on our podcast. Manas, we find the strangest true stories from around the world and try to understand what the hell is going on. Man rescued by firefighters after getting stuck in a phone booth trying to order a kebab. Man, you did it. You wowed me.

We cover important discoveries, questionable decisions, and animals behaving exactly as badly as you know you want them to. China's first corgi police dogs in trouble again. Uh-oh, what did he do this time? He stole a sausage from a child. Classic. Dog stuff. That's it. With more than 400 episodes, there's always more weird news waiting for you on bananas.

Listen to bananas on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Back to School is here and you know what that means. Dirty Rush is on. As campuses come back to life and Rush Week kicks into high gear, we're taking you inside the mysterious journey of a sorority girl from pledging to initiation and just about everything in between. Join me, Gia Judice, Daisy Kent, and Jen Fessler. Dirty Rush takes you deep inside Greek life.

Let's get dirty. Listen to Dirty Rush on the IHRRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. When AI solves math for us, it feels less fun. Is that true for physics, or is math the only one? fungi and trees form a wood-wide web through which resources flow. Or so I've heard in podcast. Psy books. But is this really so? I got nothing that can match

Wood Wide Web, Kelly. It's amazing. No, I didn't come up with that, Daniel. Yeah, no, that wasn't me. It wasn't me. When particles and their opposites meet and annihilate, can they become a Higgs or a Z boson or is a photon their only fate? Whatever questions keep you up at night, Daniel and Kelly's answers will make it right. Welcome to Daniel and Kelly's extraordinary universe of listener questions number 52.

52 is not prime and it doesn't sound like it. It's not prime and it doesn't. That's right. Do we point that out for all? No, but 51 sounds prime, but it's not. Oh, but I feel like that's a point you should have made in episode 51. This is only for the deep math nerds. Okay, they'll get it.

Okay, all right, good, good. Hello, I'm Kelly Weider-Smith. I study parasites and space, but not primes. Hi, I'm Daniel. I'm a particle physicist who likes to think about aliens, and I like primes, but not prime rib. Oh, yeah, I don't have, I'm fine with prime rib. I have to admit, uh, when,

you're figuring it out on the fly there. You're like, how do I feel about prime rib actually? Well, okay. Well, so I might, here's my somewhat embarrassing opinion about eating meat, which is like, you know, I love like chicken breast. I love kind of, I love, I love, cheeseburgers, but anytime there's something that reminds me of the fact that it came from an animal, like a rib in the middle, I have a little trouble with it, which I think speaks poorly

of me, because it suggests that I am trying to disconnect from where my food is actually coming from, which is why I try to not eat a lot of meat. And if I do eat meat, I try to eat it from one of the local farms where the animals had one bad day, as opposed to a lifetime of bad days. Yes, I think you are morally troubled by eating meat and trying to avoid facing it. I absolutely am. Yeah, yeah. No, exactly. But, you know, I think that everybody who eats meat should acknowledge, like, the source of it and should be cool with that.

Or you shouldn't eat the meat. But anyway, that's not the topic we intended to talk about today. Vegetarianism and morality. I used to be very, very strictly vegetarian and militantly so. I used to walk around with a t-shirt that said, I think, therefore I am vegetarian. Whoa, you were one of those in your face. I'm going to be kind of annoying to be around vegetarians. I definitely was.

I was a vegetarian for a long time, too. And then I was feeling sleepy a lot. And I realized that after I had a little meat, I stopped feeling sleepy, which probably meant I should have found, like, the right supplements. But I was definitely missing something. But I'm married to a man who's been a vegetarian for over a quarter of a century. And so we don't eat a lot. of meat in our family anyway. So, all right, we have gotten off topic. Well, today we're going to

throw you some red meat and talk about topics that are in the news, the hot topics in academia, in the public, all about AI and science. Is AI unraveling the scientific enterprise and ruining our lives? Oh my gosh. Zach talks to me about what's happening in the world of math and AI all the time. So let's go ahead and segue directly into our first question. And this is a question from Isaac, who is a mathematician in Irvine, California. Hi, Daniel and Kelly. My name is Isaac, and I'm a mathematician from Irvine, California. I have a question for Daniel.

You always talk about wanting to meet aliens as they might reveal the secrets of the universe to you. It doesn't sound that such a reveal might take away your pleasure as a human physicist from figuring out the mystery yourself. But in mathematics at the moment, this is precisely what is happening, except the alien is the AI.

Many old, famous conjectures and open problems are being solved by human mathematicians prompting the AI in precisely the right way. These mathematicians are being honest about this and posting papers online saying it was the AI who had the clever idea, and the human is just writing it down in a more digestible form. The rate at which this is happening is overwhelming and accelerating rapidly. Many mathematicians are lamenting the state of affairs, as it is taking the joy out of what we do, both out of intellectual curiosity and more practically for a living. it is also causing many young mathematicians, especially grad students, to rethink a career in academia. It is causing quite the existential crisis at the moment.

So my question is, if an AI were to reveal the secrets of physics to you, as it is doing in mathematics currently, would it take the joy out of knowing the answers? Would the feeling be different if it was an AI doing the revealing versus an alien? If so, why? Thanks again for everything you both do. Now, Daniel, do you know Isaac? Is he like in the math department? He is in the math department here at Irvine.

He's one of my neighbors and he's a listener to the podcast. He started listening, I think, during the pandemic when you got interested in physics and philosophy and started listening to the podcast and is now writing papers about physics and philosophy and using crazy number systems. I think it's called the hyper-reels to write physics theories in new ways. So the guy's all in and he thinks deeply about this stuff. That's amazing. Man. Yeah, it's really cool.

Okay, Isaac sounds awesome. So let's go ahead. Can we start with like what's happening in math before we get to physics? Yeah. So what's happening in math is that AI, specifically chatbots, Claude, chat GPT, etc, are becoming really, really good at proving theorems. You know, math is very logical. It's like a bunch of Lego pieces you click together and the rules are very crisp. It's very easy to check if the answer you have is correct. You know, you could just like plug in the numbers. does the equation work? And this is exactly the kind of thing that AI is good at. It's good at learning the rules and it's good at playing the game. And something that's astonishing is how quickly this has been changing.

Like a few years ago, you could put a math problem into chat GPT and it would hilariously get it wrong. But it's been rapidly getting better and everybody's sort of astonished at the pace at which it's become very, very useful. And what we've seen in the last few weeks is AI solving, massive open problems. So it used to be like, you know, solving little problems here and there confirming things. But there are these sort of open problems in mathematics, some of them with bounties on them for like a million dollars for anybody who solves the problem. They're called the millennium problems. And one of them is called the Navier-Stokes equation, which is a description of how fluids act and there are sort of mathematical questions about how it behaves and does it behave

well. And can you prove this or that about it? And it's been an open problem for decades. And lots of people spent like, you know, half of their career on it and failed. Wow. And Open AI heard that some mathematicians were making some progress on it, and they put tens of thousands of AI agents on it for just a few days, and they cracked a part of it, which is sort of astonishing. And so what we're seeing in math is that AI has astounding capabilities to do the things that only math professors used to be able to do, and now is superhuman in at least some of

those categories. This probably goes against all of the best practices that you and I talk about on our show, but I'm going to say it anyway. I saw a headline that says something to the effect of, you know, the Navier-Stokes equation has been solved, but we have learned nothing. Yeah. And I thought the, I'm guessing the point of the article. And again, this is, on the show, we're never supposed to say I read the headline and that was it. But I was assuming that the point of the article was that when you solve one of these problems, one of the points of solving the problems is that you come up with new procedures. and those new procedures can then be applied to other problems.

Is that one of the problems with the fact that this was solved and what does this do to the math community? Like, if the point isn't actually solving the problem, it's to get a new tool, have you actually done anything if you haven't come up with new tools? Yeah, I wouldn't say that the new tools are directly the target. I think it's understanding. That's the goal.

Like, what is the job of math? What are mathematicians doing? They're not fear-improving machines. They want to understand the universe. and the nature of mathematics. And, you know, what does that mean? Well, like, there are patterns in mathematics and linking those patterns together

and drawing high-level conclusions and insight about the nature of numbers and, et cetera, that's the job of mathematics. That's what they're doing. They're not just like, is this theorem true or not? And so I think an issue with these millennium problems is that traditionally the question that the millennium problem is asking

is not the interesting thing, as you were saying, which interesting is the journey, the things you learn about math on the way to it. And so these were valuable problems because people would try to solve them and fail and then they would try again and they would have to invent new tools, as you said. But those new tools often led to a new understanding of mathematics, connections. You know, and what do I mean by connections? Well, like, you know, an easy to understand one is like understanding the relationship between geometry and algebra. Like, think about how you can write down two equations on a piece of paper and you can solve it for a solution, right? Two linear equations, two equations, two unknowns, you can solve it. There's like a single solution sometimes.

Well, that turns out to be exactly the same as drawing two lines on a sheet of paper and seeing where they intersect because each equation is a line and the solution is their intersection. And maybe that's obvious to you, but it took people hundreds of years to realize that like geometry and algebra are the same thing. They're deeply connected in this way. They're different ways to express the same ideas. That's the kind of understanding we're talking. talking about, but of course, much, much more sophisticated, right? And that's what mathematics is about. It's not about, is this theorem true yes or no. They were using these theorems as motivators, as targets, as ways to inspire people to develop new ideas. But the targets themselves are not the metrics.

And I think the math community's response is essentially like, okay, you took down that target, but you didn't get any understanding. We didn't learn anything. Like the proof to this thing is like, you know, 150 pages of unintelligible stuff with no insight at all. And so it's sort of like, you know, the way Kasparov was beat by Deep Blue and he was beaten in a brute force manner. Like, very powerful computer tries lots of different options, can do so really quickly. And so it can beat Kasparov. And Kasparov was a chess champion. And this is when Deep Blue, the AI program, beat him. Thank you. Yeah. But it doesn't yield any insight into chess. Like you can't watch the machine play and be like, oh, that's interesting. Here's a lot.

a whole new strategy we hadn't considered. What you learn from that is like, oh, if you have a really fast computer, you can try all the solutions and you can come up with one that works. And so in the same way, I think the math community is a little frustrated that these problems have been taken down and people treat it as if like, oh, math is solved now. But it's not, right? They pick these destinations to make the journeys interesting. The destinations are less interesting without the journey. I talked to another math prophet Irvine. I asked him what he thought. And he said that, like, it's cool that AI can do this and it makes things faster, but that the limitation in math was never like what theorems are true. We already have more knowledge of mathematical truths than we

understand. What we lack is understanding. So, like, getting more effectively data about which theorems are true or false doesn't mean more understanding. If anything, this inspires the need for more mathematicians to understand the mathematical truths that would be pumped out, more quickly by AI. So is the task now then to like go through the 150 pages or whatever that the AI program came up with and see how it did it? And that's where the insights are going to come from. Yes.

And just because a problem comes down doesn't mean you can't try to find another way to solve it, right? Yeah, exactly. Okay. And maybe there are insights in there, but maybe there aren't, right? Maybe it's like, oh, you can brute force this problem in this really boring way that doesn't apply to anything else. Like, okay, cool.

Thank you, but it doesn't teach you anything. Or maybe there are great insights, you know, but it's still going to take some human to go through it and think about it and try to extract some understanding of it. So that's what's happening in the math community. I think that's what Isaac is reflecting. And there's also this question of like, you know, who's getting credit for it? You just like dump a problem in a chat GPT and you write a paper, you know, is that really yours? And those are sort of sociological questions about how academia works. But what we haven't seen so far is a similar thing in physics.

right? Physics has not been solved by AI yet. You're next, though, Daniel. You're next. You can't take the ecologist out of the loop, man. We've got to still go outside and catch the squirrels, but you guys are next. Yeah, well, if AI can build a large haydron collider, I think it can catch a squirrel or two. But, you know, in my field, I'm an experimental physics. And we also have targets, right? Car targets like, what is dark matter? How big is the universe? What is everything made out of? And yes, you can get insights. along the way, you know, you can develop a better process, new tools, you know, bigger accelerators, whatever, to solve them. But really, the targets, I think, are better aligned here. Like, we actually want to know those answers for themselves. We build experiments to learn those answers. Some people really like building the experiment. Some people really like developing the

methods. And that's cool. And that's all changing because that's all being rapidly transformed by AI. But the questions themselves are inherently interesting, maybe in a way that's different from in math, where they, you know, they're not that excited about this question. They just thought it was a hard one and so useful target, whereas like, I really do want to know what dark matter is. And if AI could figure it out or equivalently, if the aliens could come and tell me, like, I would want to know. If AI, like, had a box with all the answers to all of my questions on my desk, it would not sit they're closed. I would not think, let's, you know, let's not because it'd be more meaningful to figure it out ourselves. No, no, no. That box is getting insta opened, right? Even if it's some,

like, horrible Twilight Zone episode where like every time I open the box, 10 people die, like, I'm opening that box, you know? I want to know these things. I'm not surprised. You would vaporize all of humanity to understand physics better. We've established this, but okay. Exactly. I would turn them into cheeseburgers for Kelly to eat, you know, to up her iron intake or whatever. Yeah. But, you know, I'm never going to be faced with that question, so I can speculate about this totally irresponsibly. But the point is that we're deeply interested in these truths themselves. And the process along the way is fascinating, cool, and it's fun journey sometimes. But I think we're more interested in the actual targets than the mathematicians are. And maybe other people disagree. But I think in physics, we'd want to know the answers for sure. Isaac noted that AI might be impacting how many people are considering careers in mathematics.

Do you think AI could eventually impact how many people want careers in physics? Because maybe you only need five people to open the box. No. No. No. The trend is the opposite. You know, think about how many mathematicians or physicists there were before we had computers, right? There were fewer. And we had something called human computers. Like Einstein had a guy who would help do his kind of, calculations. And in physics, we had people, we called human trackers who would like look at outputs from detectors and find particle traces. And we replaced all of those with computers that were much more powerful than humans, much faster. What happened? Did we fire a bunch of physicists and mathematicians? No. We created new opportunities. And so there's so much more physics and math that

we could do. And the fields have exploded. Their fields are much larger because the tools gave us more capacity to ask and to answer questions. And that's what's happening now, is that we are changing the process, the day-to-day work of what it means to do physics and math because the tools are becoming much more powerful. But that just means we can ask more questions. We can answer more questions. And so I think the possibilities are much larger now, especially in physics. You know, I saw somebody post on Twitter that they were leaving physics thanks to AI because they came to climb a bunch of mountains and the AI has built escalators. And I was like, I thought, that's interesting. Maybe this guy came into the field because he liked climbing the mountains.

It wasn't actually interested in the view where it's like, you know, I'm a physicist. I want to know the answers. So I want to get to the top of the mountain. I'm happy to climb it. It's fun to climb it. I enjoy it. But I also will take the escalator because I want to know what's at the top. And the other thing to note about that analogy is that, like, I think the mountain is infinitely tall. So it's not like, oh, you spoiled it because now we got to the top. There's nothing else to do. Like, when we get to the current top, we're going to discover, oh, that's not the peak. There's more stuff to figure out.

There's an infinite number of questions to ask. So there's no shortage. So I'm excited about the future where AI has empowered us to more rapidly do work. But it is changing what it means to be a physicist. And I think we're seeing a separation between folks who enjoyed the process and are good at grinding. Like, let me, you know, climb really hard. And that's gone now because grinding is done much better by AI. And the people who are interested in the questions and wanting to sort of like just use the tools to ask those questions about the universe,

they are becoming more empowered. And so I think that's the transformation. But I don't think it's the first time academia has been transformed by the creation of new computation. tools. I don't think it'll be the last time. And so I think for those of us who are excited about the answers, it's thrilling to have tools that bring us closer to them. All right. Well, let's see what Isaac has to say about your answer. Thank you, Daniel and Kelly for answering my question. The thing I appreciated most about your answer, Daniel, was your tone of positivity, not just from the pleasure of finding out the answers, but also that these AI advances will actually encourage

the need for more mathematicians and physicists rather than fewer. In general, I would characterize the mood in the mathematical community as quite pessimistic or conditionally optimistic. So hearing your contrasting opinion was very uplifting for me. I also appreciated your distinction between AI's impact thus far on math versus physics, and also the distinction between potential impacts on experimental versus theoretical physics. Your discussion of OpenAI's recent solution to the Navier-Stokes equation and the ensuing lack of understanding was very insightful and accurate. My hope is that the AI companies will soon tire of using math as a marketing tool for their product, as I do have faith that, once this technology is primarily in the hands of professional mathematicians,

it will indeed prove to be a useful tool for furthering our understanding and developing our theories. Once again, I appreciate everything you both do for communicating science and encouraging curiosity. The music you love. I heart radio. Your favorite radio stations. Everywhere you go. The podcasts everyone's talking about. All in one place.

And it's free. I heart radio. Whatever you want to hear. Listen anytime. Anywhere. Music, radio. Podcasts. Unlimited audio.

It's on the free IHurt Radio app. Let's go! One app. No subscription. Always free. Grab the free app. I Heart Radio. Every.

Download the free IHard Radio app today. What would change if you stopped letting money stress run your life, sis? I'm Mandy Money, host of Brown Ambition, the podcast. And right now, I'm taking you through my six-part money reboot series. This is your chance to hit reset, break the debt cycle, get honest about where your money's going, build a savings plan that actually sticks, and start making financial choices that support the life you want, not just the bills you have. Because wealth building is not about being perfect. It's about having a plan, knowing your numbers and making your next move with confidence with a community that cares like we do on Brown Ambition. Each episode gives you practical steps, real talk, and the motivation to stop putting your financial goals on hold. So if you've been saying, I'll get serious about money next month, this is your sign. Start now. Listen to Brown Ambition. That's Brown Ambition and begin your money reboot today. Listen to Brown Ambition on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast. Hey, what's up? I'm Tony Gonzalez. And I'm October Gonzalez, but you can call me Toby.

We want you to join us on our new podcast, No Safe Words with October and Tony Gonzalez. We get real about marriage, parenthood, sex, divorce, and all the nitty-gritty stuff we all think about, but just don't say out loud. I hate that job. You're probably just going to meet with some rich guy, and he's going to whisk you away, and I'll never see you again. And, oh, this is awkward. Would you say a D-less actor? D? I don't even know there is this thing. is D. No, no, no, no. I mean, like, I can't even get on the C list. Like, I'm not even average. I'm not even passing. I'm failing. Listen to no safe

words with October and Tony Gonzalez, part of my culture podcast network. Available on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you get your podcast. You're not incurable. You're not broken. You're having a normal human experience, and we have a solution for that. And that solution is our show Free Therapy. I'm Ben. And I'm Kevin. And we think everyone could use a little bit of therapy, including us. Absolutely. That's why each week we sit down with a different therapist to talk about the things we're all dealing with. If you're trying to get rid of anxiety, you're actually fueling more anxiety. We talk to some of the leading therapists in the country about all of life's headaches, work, family dynamics, and of course, dating in relationships.

Everyone chooses a different set of problems, challenges, flaws. You have to figure out out which set of problems you're willing to work with. So listen to free therapy with Ben and Kevin on the IHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Because therapy is expensive, but our podcast is free. There are thousands of podcasts that can tell you how to better yourself. Get Worse with Kyle Pru is not one of those podcasts. So if you're interested in getting thinner, going to therapy, starting peptides,

setting boundaries, taking supplements, making your better, getting closure, then I would humbly recommend other podcasts. But if you're interested in blackmail love bombing, cloning yourself or getting revenge, then we've got a little something something for a dastardly individual like you. Take a listen to some of the incredible advice we've given so far. Fake a back injury. Get the spray tan, up your alcohol consumption. Only women should be allowed to have guns.

Kill them. Kill them. Kill them for the gun. Listen, it's already over. I'm all about lying if it's something that really happened. The next time a bear is running at you, you just calmly stop what you're doing. You look the bear in the eye and you say this isn't you. Do not preserve relationships.

You don't need them. You only need one thing, and that's the Get Worse podcast. Listen to Get Worse with Kyle Pru on the IHartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. All right, on to Wood Wide Web. And I love that you thought that I came up with that. Where does it come from? Let's give somebody some credit. Oh, it's been around since 1997 when a new one.

Nature paper commented on another nature paper. Okay. Yeah, we can get into that. Everybody who works on mushroom seems like a really fun guy. Oh, stop it. Stop it. Let's introduce David. Do you want to bring us back?

Or do you want me to? I thought we were already back. Oh, okay. We could be back. Okay. All right, now that we've, where are we? But let's hear the question from David. Thank you.

Yes. Hi, Daniel and Kelly. This is David Naylor. Hey, thank you so much for taking my question. I love your show. Just wanted to ask you about something I recently read about in the news that I thought was really cool. I saw this article that discussed mycelium networks and how both nutrients and rudimentary bits of information sharing could take place between both trees and fungi. And I wanted to get your thoughts on this subject. Thank you so much. Okay. So David had a question about how information. is shared between trees and fungi. But I want to take a step back and reconsider the initial part of his sentence, which was about nutrients being shared between trees and fungi.

Because in 2023 or around 2023, there were three review papers that came out, all of them pushing back on this popular science narrative about how trees and fungi pass resources back and forth. Oh, no. Did the Popsai articles not get the nuance right, Kelly? No, they did. No, they didn't. But it actually looks like some of us, some scientists might be playing a role in how this has been sort of perpetuated incorrectly. Fair.

Yes. So in 1997, as we alluded to a moment ago, there was this paper that came out that found that carbon can pass from one tree of one species to a different tree of another species. And it appeared to be getting from one tree to another through the fungus that connected it. So, but back up, like, trees breathe the air and photosynthesis, and they take CO2 out of the air, and they keep the carbon, and they use the carbon to basically build themselves. So trees are machines to pull carbon out of the air and assemble their cellular structures. And so now you're saying that the carbon in one tree can end up in another tree. Yes, thank you. And so the important thing is that fungus get their carbon from trees, some sorts of fungal symbionts, of symbionts just being like organisms that sort of interesting.

interact with one another. They get the carbon from the trees and then the fungus provide things like sugars to the trees. How cozy. How cozy, right? And so one of the trees was in shade, which meant it couldn't get as much light, so it couldn't make as much of its own carbon. And it appeared to be getting carbon from a tree that was not shaded. It was getting more light. It was able to make more carbon. And it looked like the fungus was connecting them and was shuttling the carbon over to the tree that needed it. Oh, wow. Cool. Like a tree intermed. it. Yes, right.

And so this paper came out in nature, and another scientist who studied something similar called this connection, the wood wide web. Nice. Love it. Yes. So this was in the 90s when the internet was becoming, like, you know, more a part of our lives. But, you know, it still stands today. And were people speculating that trees have, like, tree mail also between themselves?

Oh, no. I don't know. I don't know. Yeah. And maybe, you know, they're recording their own sodcasts. Oh. Who knows what's going on out there. Daniel, I'm cutting you off.

I'm cutting you off, man. All right. So here's the problem. Okay, so this wood wide web idea has escaped into, you know, the popular consciousness. And there's three parts to it that are worth examining. So one, the idea is that fungus are connecting multiple trees in the forest. Okay. Those connections are shuddling resources between those trees.

And then there's another idea called, like, like the mother tree. Okay. And the idea here is that mother trees are able to shuttle resources specifically to the seedlings that are their offspring. Oh, all right. Okay. And so you see these ideas in popular science a lot. And it's, you know, people talk about how it's made the forest more magical and that it's like there's this implied altruism where trees that are making extra carbon are then shuttling it over to trees that need it.

And fungus are the intermediaries making all of this like happy, huggy stuff happening. but these three papers that came out in 20203 are pushing back against it. So, all right. I know, I know. So the first claims... Science has been ruining everything since 1542 or whatever. That's right. You can get a shirt for that at SMBC-com.

So the idea here is fungus is connecting different trees. Resources are shuttling through that. So some people have gone out to try to see. Like, okay, are long strands of fungus connecting trees that are kind of far away? And you can go out into the forest and you can dig up some soil and say, okay, I found a fungus of a particular genotypes. And I also found that fungus of a particular genotype at another tree. So they're connected. But the problem is, yes, your face, you're, hmm, that was a different, hmm, than the first few.

Yeah, I didn't follow that leap. Like, just because you find a computer in my office and a computer in your office doesn't mean they're connected. Right, exactly. Yes. And so, like, when an earthworm moves through the soil, it can break a fungal connection between trees or when, like, you know, an insect moves through the soil. So just because you find the same fungal genotype at multiple trees doesn't necessarily mean they're connected. But did the original results have some sort of smoking gun where they, like, you know, labeled carbon in one tree and saw it appear in another tree or something? Yeah, so they did. They did. But here's the problem with that.

Wait, really? That's how they did it? I just totally made that up. You're very smart, Daniel. Or maybe biology is just kind of easy. Oh, my God. You know, between the puns and the biology shade, I'm almost done with you for today, Daniel. Yeah, I've done some SMBC red meat for you. Well, that's nice for Zach, for my husband, not for me. Wow.

Okay, not much solidarity over there. We're connected. All right, so tell us what we learn from the earthworms. Yeah, okay. Well, all right, so as you noted, you can track where carbon is going by radio labeling it and seeing where it ends up. But one of the problems there is that, one, you know, you often can't be 100% sure that the same fungus is connecting multiple individuals. And two, resources diffuse across soil in like a source sink dynamic sort of way. So you could have

carbon moving from, you know, an area where a tree is making a lot of it to an area where a tree is making less of it. And it doesn't necessarily need to be passing through the fungus to get from one place to another. Wait, trees take carbon from the air and then it just diffuses out of the tree. I thought it's like it's part of the wood, right? Isn't wood? basically cellulose, which is made out of carbon, why are they losing their carbon? Well, part of the deal with trees and fungi, like their symbiosis, is that the trees extract carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and then they use that carbon to build themselves, and they give some of that carbon to their fungal symbiodes.

And so I guess the idea is that some of that carbon doesn't stay with the fungus. Oh, I see. Interesting. Yeah. So one of the ways that people try to study this is that they will, like, for a quote-unquote control tree, they'll put a tree in a mesh bag. A controlled tree. I'm sorry. What?

The one tree that controls them all. That's what it may. It sounds like the controlled tree. All right. Okay, so say you were trying to do an experiment and you wanted to see if some chemical that you put in tree one made it to tree two through the fungus. Okay. You would want to have another tree in the area that didn't have a fungal connection so

that you could confirm that it didn't end up. taking up that chemical. And that would be a way of saying, oh, the fungus is important in making sure that stuff gets from tree one to tree two. Does that make sense? So you want a positive signal where you see it happening with the fungus and you want an absence of a positive signal without the fungus. Exactly. Got it. Okay. Yes. So. So biology is not that hard. Okay. You got nothing to say to that, huh? I'm just moving on because otherwise we're never going to get to the end of this. So, all right. So they put these trees in mesh bags, but the problem is these mesh bags have to have a very fine mesh so that

you can make sure that the fungus can't get in to connect with the roots of the tree to transfer the nutrients. Yeah. And if you have a mesh that is that small, that might mess up diffusion through the soil. And so like, whatever chemical you injected in the tree maybe could have made it to the other tree, even if there was no fungus there just because of the way stuff moves through the soil on its own. Does that make sense? Turns out biology is complicated, actually. Thank you. We were going to get there. We were always going to get there.

So this stuff is really hard to study in the lab, but it's also even harder to study in the field. So most of the evidence that we have is from the lab. And we do know that it is possible for fungus to connect multiple trees and transfer things between them. And part of how we know that is from orchids, which aren't trees, but like there are some kind of orchids that have lost the ability to produce their own carbon. They don't have, they don't make chlorophyll anymore. They're white or sometimes like multiple other colors that are not green. And they connect to fungus and they steal carbon from other trees through the fungus. Wow. Interesting.

So we do know that fungus can be used to sort of transport things like carbon around. But then the question is, is it like, A, preferentially going to the seedlings from a mother tree? And B, for things like big trees in a forest where there's a lot of other stuff going on, is it an important contribution to the like nutrients and stuff that they need to survive? And so for those claims, there's some evidence in the lab. Sometimes the evidence in the lab is even mixed. And in the field, there's very little evidence, in particular very little evidence for this mother tree idea. And there was a whole book called Finding the Mother Tree.

And the review papers that I read were like, no, there's really like no evidence for this. And people should understand the difference between seeing something in the law. lab and seeing something in the field. Like, there's lots of things which work in the lab because it's a really simple environment on purpose. So you can understand the simple version of it. But to be relevant to what's actually happening in the world, right, it has to work in the complicated environment of Earth.

And that sometimes, like, the answers can be very different, right, in the field and in the lab. Yeah, massively different. Because biology is really hard, actually. Thank you. And another thing to note is that all. Often when you read about this in like popular science articles or books, it has a like nice altruistic kind of feel to it. Yeah.

But it's worth noting that things like chemicals that trees produce to kill other trees that they're competing with can also pass through these like fungal networks. Oh, wow. And it's not necessarily the case that, you know, when messages are being sent that help another tree, it's not necessarily the case that one tree was trying to help another tree. So for example, sometimes if a tree gets attacked by an insect, it will release chemicals that attract parasitoids that will then go kill those insects. And there's some evidence that the chemicals that it's releasing are also initiating responses in nearby trees. And so it might be tempting to think, oh, this one tree is trying to tell the trees in the area, hey, I'm getting attacked. You might be next. You should also start responding.

But it could just be that the other trees are eavesdropping. They're like over evolutionary time, other trees have been able to queue in on a tree essentially screaming because it's being attacked and being like, oh, I'm next. I should start producing this compound so I can get a head start on things. You know, if trees screamed when we chop them down, do you think we would chop them down so much? We'd have probably a very different relationship with trees, I think. Unless they screamed all the time for no particular reason. Yeah, unless they were crying wolf all the time. This makes me think about the morale. we're constantly overlaying on these questions.

It's like all this altruism and like helpfulness and whatever. It's fascinating how we're trying to like anthropomorphize these trees, right? And think about like judgments and feeling good about the forest. You know, it just makes no sense. You know, as an example, like if a tree killed and ate another tree, it could still be a vegetarian, you know, but that wouldn't make it like good in some way, right? Anyway, my whole point is that like putting these anthropomorphic moral questions onto trees just is really distraction.

Yeah, absolutely. And one of the review papers was arguing that we need to stop, like, personifying trees and trying to, like, you know, lay our human values on top of what we're seeing happening in a forest because they mess with our ability to actually understand what's going on. Right. And, you know, these kinds of studies are important because they can inform things like forestry projects. So if it is the case that, like, a mother tree has an outsourced impact on the other trees

in the area, you might. not want to cut the mother tree down, even if that's the best tree for producing, I don't know, toilet paper or lumber or something. Like, it might change the decisions that you make if one tree is having an outsized effect on the other trees in the forest. So, you know, these kinds of things are important. But also, these papers were pointing out that we have gotten way ahead of ourselves in the narrative about what's happening in forests. Yeah. And to some extent, I think there's been this desire to not pull back because it's making people more excited about forests

and making them think that forests are more magical maybe they care more about conserving forests and so a question that I've been seeing the field grapple with is like well is it really doing any harm

and I would say yes because the truth almost always gets out eventually and if the public feels like they've been lied to I think you've done more harm than good in the long term and it's always

I think it's always in our best interest to lead with what we really know and what we don't know Everything you've been taught is a lie, man. It's a very powerful message and it works. Oh, and so your point is we need to be honest from the beginning. Yes. Yeah, yes.

Exactly. Yes, absolutely. Yeah, so these three papers have been trying to push back on like, look, this is really complicated. We don't have a lot of data in the field. We do know that some stuff can pass through fungus from one tree to another. But like, what are the implications and who's benefiting and how often that happens and how much it matters for the trees? these are all questions that we understand kind of in the lab, but we get mixed results in the lab,

and we understand the results even less in the field. Which means we don't understand them at all. Yeah, yeah. I mean, we understand them a little. You've got to start somewhere. But, like, but yes, these things are very difficult because ecology is very difficult. Designing these experiments requires a lot of cleverness.

And, you know, trying to tease apart when you're in a complicated environment, one effect out of like, you know, a sea of stuff that's happening can be really complicated. All right. Well, let's send this conversation over to David and see if we have scratched his itch. Thank you so much for that answer. I really appreciate it. It sounds like this topic has a lot more study and perhaps debate needed to get to the final answer. But it was a lot of fun hearing the both of you talk about it. That's one thing I really appreciate about the show is, quite frankly, it's your candor. I like that you seem to really want to help the greater community to understand the delicate nuances that come with the study of the natural world.

So thanks again for all you do. This record is on. Miley is having a moment. New name, new album, two exclusive shows. So IHard Radio is sending you to experience it all. Life at the Hollywood Polites. hotel, tickets, and a thousand dollars cash.

Listen to Iheart new music for 10 minutes a day on the IHart Radio app and click enter. Every day you listen is another chance to win. Stream Miley's new album, Bass Persuades, today. There are thousands of podcasts that can tell you how to better yourself. Get Worse with Kyle Pru is not one of those podcasts. So if you're interested in getting thinner, going to therapy, starting peptide, setting boundaries, taking supplements, making your better getting closure, then I would humbly recommend other podcasts.

But if you're interested in blackmail, love bombing, cloning yourself, or getting revenge, then we've got a little something, something for a dastardly individual like you. Take a listen to some of the incredible advice we've given so far. Fake a back injury. Get the spray tan, up your alcohol consumption. Only women should be allowed to have guns.

Kill them. Kill them. Listen, it's already over. I'm all about lying if it's something that really happened. The next time a bear is running at you, you just calmly stop what you're doing, you look the bear in the eye, and you say this isn't you. Do not preserve relationships. You don't need them. You only need one thing, and that's the Get Worse podcast. Listen to Get Worse with Kyle Pru on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. You're not incurable. You're not

broken. You're having a normal human experience, and we have a solution for that. And that solution is our Show free therapy. I'm Ben. And I'm Kevin. And we think everyone could use a little bit of therapy, including us. Absolutely. That's why each week we sit down with a different therapist to talk about the things we're all dealing with. If you're trying to get rid of anxiety, you're actually fueling more anxiety. We talk to some of the leading therapists in the country about all of life's headaches, work, family dynamics, and of course, dating and relationships. Everyone chooses a different set of problems, challenges, flaws. You have to figure out which set of problems you're willing to work with. So listen to Free Therapy with Ben and Kevin on the IHartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Because therapy is expensive, but our podcast is free. Hey, what's up? I'm Tony Gonzalez. And I'm October Gonzalez, but you can call me Toby. We want you to join us on our new podcast, No Safe Words with October and Tony Gonzalez. We get real about marriage, parenthood, sex, divorce, and all the nitty-gritty stuff we all think about, but just don't say out loud. I hate that job. You're probably just going to meet with some rich guy, and he's going to whisk you away, and I'll never see you again. Would you say a D-less actor?

D? I don't even know. There's such a thing as D. No, no, no. I mean, like, I can't even get on the C-list. Like, I'm not even a average. I'm not even passing. I'm failing.

Listen to No Safe Words with October and Tony Gonzalez, part of my culture, podcast, network available on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you get your podcast. What would change if you stopped letting money stress run your life, sis? I'm Mandy Money, host of Brown Ambition, The Podcast. And right now, I'm taking you through my six-part money reboot series. This is your chance to hit reset, break the debt cycle, get honest about where your money's going, build a savings plan that actually sticks, and start making financial choices that support the life you want, not just the bills you have. Because wealth building is not about

being perfect. It's about having a plan, knowing your numbers, and making your next move with confidence with a community that cares like we do on Brown Ambition. Each episode gives you practical steps, real talk, and the motivation to stop putting your financial goals on hold. So if you've been saying, I'll get serious about money next month. This is your sign. Start now. Listen to Brown Ambition. That's Brown Ambition. and begin your money reboot today. Listen to Brown Ambition on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Okay, next up, we have a question from Chris about matter and anti-matter annihilation.

Hello, Daniel and Kelly. I have a question about the result of matter, anti-matter annihilation. My understanding is that when matter and antimatter meet, the electric charge cancels out, but the mass needs to go somewhere. So it gets converted into energy and that energy gets dumped into the electromagnetic field and the result is photons. Do I have that right? If so, do we have any idea why the energy goes into the photon field and not, say, the Higgs field or the Z boson field? They're both electrically neutral, right?

Thank you so much for your answer. All right. Thank you, Chris, for asking this question. I get this kind of question a lot and it's a wonderful opportunity to clear up some misunderstandings about annihilation and matter and antimatter. All right. And let's start with what is antimatter. I know on the show we've had some really interesting conversations about like, why do we have

more matter than antimatter? What happened early in the universe to bring that about? Yeah. But let's start at the beginning. What is the anti-matter? So particle physics is about seeing patterns. You know, we're trying to understand what is the nature of the universe and the way we do it is by like looking at all the different kinds of particles out there and looking for patterns

among them, symmetries, clues as to what might be like the next layer of reality. even deeper. The way that we looked at the periodic table and we saw patterns and they give us clues about atomic structure. Now we're looking at the pattern of the fundamental particles and we're looking for clues that we hope will reveal like the squigglyons underneath or whatever it is. And so we're very sensitive to these patterns. And one of the fascinating patterns is that every particle that has a charge seems to have a partner. It's like a mirror symmetry. You can take a particle and you can say, okay, I found a particle with a negative charge. Is there the equivalent particle that's exactly the same, but with the opposite charge. And the answer seems to be so far

always yes. So this is matter and antimatter. It's a little bit confusing because we call one matter and one antimatter, but it's really more a relationship. It's not like there's anything mattery or antimattery about any of the particles. It doesn't matter if you have positive or a negative charge. You can be matter and be positive. You can be matter and be negative. The matter, anti-matter thing is a relationship. The electron and the positron, which have opposite charge. but the same mass have that relationship. They're a matter, anti-matter pair, and which when you call matter,

which when you call antimatter doesn't even matter. We call some of them matter because they're around in the universe and the anti-matter is gone. The thing to understand there is that it's a relationship and every particle we found so far as an anti-matter partner. And longtime listeners of the show will not be surprised that physicists came up with a kind of confusing name for this stuff, but Daniel is here to help lead the way.

I'm not going to defend physics against your shade throwing about naming because it's totally fair. So the second topic we're dealing with today is annihilation. This is something you hear about a lot. It's in Popsie matter and antimatter meat and they instantly annihilate and turn into pure energy, man. Wow. And that's a little bit misleading. You know, you should think about particle antiparticle annihilation just the same way we think about particles interacting. Right.

So when we have matter, antimatter annihilation, what happens is, like an electron comes in, a positron comes in, they turn into a photon. So it's not pure energy. It always turns into some other kind of particle. And so what's happening there is you have two particles coming in, electron and one particle coming out, right? So the particles that came in, they're gone. The amazing thing about particle physics is that it's not chemistry where you're rearranging the little pieces into new organizations. It's alchemy. You're changing the kind of matter, right? The electron and the positron are gone. They no longer exist. you're transforming them into a photon.

Is it a photon plus energy or just a photon? It's just a photon. The photon is just energy, though. It's energy in the electromagnetic field. Okay. And so this is the typical thing for particle physics is that the interactions turn two particles into one or one particle into two. So it's two to one or one to two.

So examples of two to one processes are like electron plus positron gives you a photon, right? But you can also turn this. around. It's like a little tinker toy you can turn around in any direction. You can also do like electron absorbs a photon, stays an electron. That's a two to one process. The photon is gone. So that would not be annihilation. That's not annihilation. That's right. Or you can have a positron, absorb a photon and stay a positron. It's fundamentally the same process just in a different order. But the one where we have matter and antimatter come in and disappear to turn into a photon, that's the one we call annihilation. It has a special name. But they're really all different manifestations

of the same fundamental thing, which is two particles interact, one particle come out. Now, the interesting thing about annihilation is that none of the original particles come out, right? Whereas in the other ones, like electron plus photon gives you electron, you start with an electron, you end with an electron. So it feels like it's the same electron. It's not really the same electron. You know, it's like you have two particles come in, one particle comes out. It doesn't have to be one of the particles. that it was originally, it can be, but it's really a fundamentally different particle now because it's like absorbed this photon. So when none of the original particles survive and you get something new, we call that annihilation. But it's, you know, it's just one example of kind

of things particles can do. When you have an electron plus a photon and you get an electron, and that electron is different, is it different in some, is it, how is it different? Yeah, well, you know, every electron is the same and, some sense, they're all identical fluctuations of the same field, but it's a different fluctuation now. It has more energy. So, you know, it's not the same electron in that sense. And this philosophical question of like, can you trace the same electron through the universe or whatever, you know, I think is putting like a classical framing on something which really is quantum, you know, because these particles can disappear, appear all the time. So tracking an individual one doesn't really make any sense.

Okay. So you could also do the opposite. it, you can go from one particle to two. Like a photon can turn into an electron and a positron. That's exactly the opposite of annihilation. We call it pair creation. Why don't you call it anti-annihilation? Because we're not as smart as biologists, Kelly. That's why. Oh, I knew that. Yeah. You can also have an electron emit a photon. So it goes from electron to electron plus photon, right? And so the ones where we have particle, antiparticle come in and turn into something else, we call it. We call it. those annihilation because it sounds cool, but it's really just an ordinary interaction where neither the initial particles survive. You can also have annihilation without particle, antiparticle.

Like you can have an electron and antineutrino come together, and they turn into a W particle. So that's not a particle and antiparticle, but both of the original ones are gone, right? So that's just another example of an interaction. Basically, the point is, anytime you have an interaction, the initial particles come in, new particles come out. Sometimes some of the new particles are the same as the old particles. Sometimes they're not. They doesn't have to be. There's all sorts of rules about it. So that's the basics of matter, antimatter, annihilation, and particle interaction. We don't think of annihilation as special as just one example of interactions that's gotten a lot of popular attention. Okay. So pure energy, that phrase is just like

a hockham. Well, you know, really what's happening here is that it doesn't have to be matter, like electrons and positrons can turn into a photon, which we don't consider matter. It's radiation. And so a photon is just made of energy. There's no mass to it. But it's not like it's energy disassociated from any sort of field. It's always energy in a field. You have the electron field, which has an electron of positron in it, has ripples. They come together. They annihilate. It dumps that energy into the electromagnetic field. Then it ripples. So yeah, pure energy is sort of misleading. It turns into a photon. And Chris's question is, does it have to? Can it turn into something else? This is an excellent question, Chris, and you're totally right that it can turn into something else. For example, the electron and

the electron can turn into a photon, and they most often do because that's the most powerful interaction they have, but they could also turn into a Z boson. There's nothing preventing that. The Z boson has net zero electric charge, so it satisfies all the accounting rules, or you have to conserve electric charge. You come in with a positive and a negative, So the total charge of the initial state is zero. So the total charge of the final state has to be zero. So you need something with zero charge. And the options are photon.

We know that happens. Z, that definitely happens. Or a Higgs. We haven't seen that happen, but we're pretty sure that it does happen. And so electron and positron can turn into anything that's neutral that satisfy all the particle physics accounting rules. So is this one of those amazing situations where the listener is 100% correct? He is. And he's even more correct than he thought because the same insight he had applies to other situations.

Like two quarks can annihilate and they can annihilate into a photon or a Z or Higgs. They can also turn into a gluon because they have that kind of interaction. So there are other things that you can turn into. So yeah, Chris, you're 100% right. And when people talk about annihilation and they say pure energy, they're really probably referring to photons. But it's more general. You can turn into a photon, a Z, a Higgs. And more broadly, you should just think about annihilation as one kind of particle interaction.

It feels important whether or not the initial particles end up in the final particles, but it's not really. And from a particle physics point of view, we sort of give up in the initial particles anytime there's an interaction. And whether the final particles share a label with the initial particles doesn't really matter. We don't think of them as the initial particles anyway. All right. Well, let's ship this answer to Chris and see what he's got to say. Hi, Daniel Kelly. Thanks for answer my question. that was very interesting.

I knew that pure energy was just a scam. I'm also very intrigued by what you said about the photon interaction being the most powerful interaction. But I suppose that's for another show. Can't wait to hear more particle goodness. Thank you very much. All right. Thank you, everybody, for asking these questions. We really do love hearing from you.

And we love that you are curious about the universe. And I'm just happy to be along for the ride. We massively appreciate that you come to us when you have a question about, you know, how accurate a topic is. You want to dig in a little bit more deeply. Thank you for trusting us with your questions. We appreciate it. Thanks, everybody for listening. Please go and do us a favor and rate the show on whatever podcast app you're using.

It really helps people find us. Daniel and Kelly's extraordinary universe is edited by the amazing Matt Kesselman. He really is a wizard. You can also find us online on Blue Sky, Instagram, and X, D&K Universe. come engage with us. You can email us at Questions at Danielandkelly.org. We really do want to hear from you. And you can find our website www.

www. danielandkelly.org, where you'll also find an invitation to join our Discord where everybody comes and talks about the amazing universe. And we also have the most amazing moderators. This is an I-Heart podcast. Thanks for joining us. I'm Kerry Champion, and in this new season of biggest rivalries

of all-time podcast, we take you back to the very first rivalry of the WNBA. The Comets were to real deal. I mean, come on. The Liberty was just tough. Oh, God. The New York Liberty versus the Houston Comets. When we hit the floor, it was hot, heated, fights, elbows, competition, trash talking. Who is the better team?

People live, but numbers don't. Listen to biggest rivalries of all time on the I-Hard Radio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you get your podcasts. The WNBA playoffs are here, and Good Game with Sarah Spain is the only daily podcast that'll keep you up to date on all the action. We'll make sure you're the smartest fan at the bar by bringing you interviews with some of the best minds in basketball, including your favorite coaches and players. No one cares what we did last year, if anything, that's a bigger target on our back. Want to know what's really going on in the WNBA? We got you. Listen to Good Game with Sarah Spain on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Doorbell prankster that tormented German resident apartments turns out to be a slug. Ding-dog. Hi, I'm Kurt Brown-Oller. And I'm Scotty Landis. They say no news is good news. But weird news? That's bananas. Every Tuesday on our podcast bananas, we find the strangest true stories from around the world and try to understand what the hell is going on.

Man rescued by firefighters after getting stuck in a phone booth trying to order a kebab. Man. You did it. You wowed me. We cover important discoveries, questionable decisions, and animals behaving exactly as badly as you know you want them to. China's first corgi police dogs in trouble again. Uh-oh, what did he do this time? He stole a sausage from a child. Classic dog stuff.

That's it. With more than 400 episodes, there's always more weird news waiting for you on bananas. Listen to bananas on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. to school is here and you know what that means. Dirty Rush is on. As campuses come back to life and Rush Week kicks into high gear, we're taking you inside the mysterious journey of a sorority girl, from pledging to initiation and just about everything in between.

Joining me, Gia Judice, Daisy Kent, and Jen Fessler. Dirty Rush takes you deep inside Greek life. Let's get dirty. Listen to Dirty Rush on the IHare radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hey everybody, it's me, Debbie Kamaabelle. This season on my podcast, Who's with me, I speak with Bruce Lee's daughter, Brandon Lee's sister, and my friend, Shannon Lee.

Back to your initial point of stewarding my father's legacy and giving my energy to that. You're lending your life to stewarding somebody else's life. Listen to Who's With Me with Debbie Kmart Bell on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. This is an IHeart podcast. Guaranteed human.