Into the Impossible With Brian Keating - Thomas Hertog: What Came Before The Big Bang?

Episode Date: September 6, 2025

Please join my mailing list here 👉 https://briankeating.com/list to win a meteorite 💥 In a sweeping conversation drawn from his collaboration with Stephen Hawking, Thomas Hertog explores the radical “no-boundary” theory—a vision of the cosmos with no singular beginning, evolving laws of physics, and a past that isn’t fixed until observed. Rejecting the untestable multiverse, Hertog and Hawking built a fully quantum cosmology that embeds the observer within the equations, predicting inflation and replacing anthropic guesswork with a falsifiable framework. Hertog explains how time could emerge from something deeper than the Big Bang, why constants of nature may be dynamic, and how holography hints the laws of physics themselves might fade away at the origin. He then turns to the experiments—from next-generation CMB polarization to gravitational wave backgrounds—that could confirm or refute this bold vision, challenging us to see the universe as a living, evolving system whose history we help to shape. — Key Takeaways:  00:00 Intro  01:03 Thomas’s first reaction to Hawking’s theory  03:38 Hawking’s model of the Big Bang 07:20 The no-boundary proposal  22:18 The role of conscious observers in cosmology 24:34 The wick rotation and its implications 29:29 The future of physics and experimental tests 37:57 The experimental minimum 40:04 The holographic principle  43:57 Work Thomas would like to share with Hawking  49:11 Outro — Additional resources:  📚 On the Origin of Time by Thomas Hertog: https://a.co/d/ftze4JC — ➡️ Follow me on your fav platforms: ✖️ Twitter:⁠ ⁠⁠https://twitter.com/DrBrianKeating⁠  🔔 YouTube:⁠ https://www.youtube.com/DrBrianKeating?sub_confirmation=1⁠  📝 Join my mailing list:⁠ ⁠⁠https://briankeating.com/list⁠  ✍️ Check out my blog:⁠ ⁠⁠https://briankeating.com/cosmic-musings/⁠  🎙️ Follow my podcast:⁠ ⁠⁠https://briankeating.com/podcast⁠  — Into the Impossible with Brian Keating is a podcast dedicated to all those who want to explore the universe within and beyond the known. Make sure to follow/subscribe so you never miss an episode! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The central quantity behind quantum cosmology, after all, the feel of quantum cosmology is the attempt to think about the universe as a whole from a proper quantum mechanical perspective. Picture this, Cambridge, 1998. A young postdoc sits across from the world's most famous living physicist, Stephen Hawking. The great physicist delivers words that would shape both of their careers for the rest of their lives. Thomas, said Stephen, the universe doesn't have a unique history. What followed was a complete paradigm shift, from thinking about cosmic history as a fixed timeline to understanding it as something that crystallizes only when we observe it. As Thomas puts it, the past is a wave function until you're asking a question, in which case the wave

function crystallizes through history. That statement was revolutionary. It implied that conscious observers might retroactively select which cosmic histories become real. This isn't science fiction. it's Stephen Hawking's final theory. Developed with his closest collaborator, Thomas Hurt. Thomas, take me back to that very first conversation with Stephen Hawking about the universe, possibly not having a unique beginning or history. What was your honest, emotional, and intellectual reaction to that bold claim? First of all, I was just a beginning PhD student,

so I was flabbergasted to finally meet Hawking and discuss with it. And it was the first time I met a scientist, a cosmologist, who I felt was very much driven by the great old philosophical questions and trying to mold these into modern cosmology, try to elaborate on these using modern scientific methods. And to me, this felt a little bit like a homecoming. I had always sort of searched for a very fundamental field in physics, and here was Stephen just doing what I had dream of doing.

Now, the context of what was on its mind in the late 90s was very much, I think, this multiverse ideas. They were very popular at a time amongst cosmologists as an explanation, as a new sort of possible explanation for why the universe is fit for life. Maybe there's not just one universe, maybe there are many and we find ourselves obviously in one that harbors life. I think Stephen was one of the first cosmologists who deeply felt that. that multiverse cosmology was going nowhere, that it wasn't quite scientific. It wasn't quite verifiable, falsifiable. But of course, he also didn't have an answer. And I think he must have felt that the answer had to be sought at least in a deeper theory of cosmology.

And quantum cosmology, a proper, fully quantum approach to cosmological thinking was the rule that he proposed. But our paradigm shift at which we much later arrived came forth from the puzzles and the paradoxes associated with the multiverse. Multiverse cosmology does not tell us in which one of these universes we should find ourselves and therefore what your Simon's observatory should observe. And to Stephen, this was a catastrophe. this was telling us that we were on the wrong track. Stephen was so quotable and so bold and characteristically just he killed. It's peak pollination season and my business is scaling fast. To keep the nectar flowing, I need a phone plan with top priority data speed.

That's why I chose GoogleFi wireless. My connections stay strong even when the hive was buzzing. Plus, unlimited plans started $35 a month. Now that's a deal that doesn't stay. Explore GoogleFi wireless plans today. Plus taxes and government fees. GoogleFi wireless is not subject to data traffic deprioritization during times of high network usage. Really captured the human soul and the spirit of what he did.

As I used to wander, the halls of Bridge Hall during my many years as a postdoc, and he would stay where Einstein stayed near. We'd see him at the Atheneum, the famous Atheneum at Caltech, where Einstein and many other luminaries were. And like Einstein, I felt he was always willing to concede when he was wrong. So there were these signed documents, these bets by Stephen when he would concede. And one of the bets that I always felt, you know, he should have made or I would have liked to make with him was when he said, asking what happened before the Big Bang is like asking what is south of the South Pole. Now, you may not know, but I've been to the South Pole twice for the Bicep experiment, which was the last major experiment that Stephen really engaged with and seemed to be so delighted with. I have a picture of him on stage at Cambridge, I believe, speaking.

and his wheelchair in 2014 with the bicep results behind him. It's one of my favorite iconic images that connects me to him. Thomas, was he right? Is it really as nonsensical to ask what happened before the Big Bang? It's a feature, it's a property of his particular model of the Big Bang. It's a rather metaphorical way of describing the crooks of his particular model, which is known as Stephen's No Boundary Wave Function. And the crux of his model of the Big Bang is that if you go back in time,

all the way to the earliest stages of the universe, then quantum uncertainty messes up the clear difference between time and space that we experience today. In fact, time and space, Stephen boldly claimed, themselves become a little fuzzy. And we can model this, he claimed, by turning the time dimension into a space dimension. The intuition behind it is that if time becomes fuzzy,

any clear notion of dynamics and causality will eventually fade away. And so the heart of the matter of Stevens thinking about the Big Bang was that geometries with all space dimensions and no time dimensions can capture some of the quantum properties of this that describe the origin of the universe. This did not come out of nowhere. This was this idea was grounded in the observation, in the observation, in the universe. 70s that those Euclidean geometries, those geometries with space dimensions capture quantum properties of black holes. If that's the case, maybe they also capture quantum properties

of the Big Bang. So Stephen turned time into space at the Big Bang, and of course when you do so, you can sort of round over the past, much like you round over sphere, much like an orange, much like the South Pole. In that sense, if time disappears, when we go back to the Big Bang, there's no point, there's no notion of what came before the Big Bang. That's why he said so.

It's a feature of his model. And the key question is, how do you test this model? What do you do with it? Hey, everybody. I'm usually the one that asked my guest to judge their book. Yamava Resort and Casino at San Manuel is California's number one entertainment destination

for today's superstars. Catch the Jonas Brothers return to the Yamava Theater stage on April 30th, the powerful vocals of Demi Lovato on May 17th, and the signature Southern Country Rock of Eric Church on July 19th. Tickets on sale now at Yamavah Theater.com, only at Yamava Resort and Casino, celebrating its 40th anniversary. You win? Must be 21 to enter. Books by their covers, but today I'm asking myself to judge my own book by its cover.

My newest book, Focus Like a Nobel Prize winner, is chartful of advice, Life tips and focus and productivity tips from nine of the world's greatest minds. Nobel laureates ranging from economics to peace to physics, of course. It launches September 9th, which is also my birthday. I'll be checking out, and my publisher's got an Amazon to run a special, just for listeners on The Into the Impossible podcast. You can get the Kindle edition for only 99 cents.

That's less than a new pocket protector. So go to Amazon and get the Kindle copy today. because this special only lasts for the first week after launch. What is the kind of intellectual confidence that you have in it? There's a claim that I think is made by you in the book, or at least maybe after the book, that there's really not a viable alternative as appealing as the no-boundary proposal.

Now, that's a very strong claim. So what gives you that confidence? You kind of took over, as I see it from Penrose and Hardle, and you were doing the day-to-day kind of dirty work in the trenches with him. But what gives you the confidence to say it's basically, you know, Tina, there is no alternative? Okay, it remains a hypothesis, right? But the two or three aspects to me that smell right. One I must say is the close connection with inflation.

Inflation remains to be firmly tested or verified, as you know. But it seems to me, based on the CMB fluctuations, based on the spectrum of primordial fluctuations, it seems to me on the right track. The second point I want to make is that in all those years, we really have not had a proper resolution of this famous multiverse paradox, known as the measured problem in cosmology, the simple problem that the theory does not seem to predict in which one of these universes we are.

Quantum cosmology, a wave function, amplitudes for different possible universe, it's all in there. Quantum cosmology provides, us with a measure, provides us with a tool to get a grips on the paradoxes associated with the multiverse. And then the third point is somewhat connected. I've always felt a lot of sympathy for the sort of more philosophical point, underlying cosmological. You said this place was steps from the water. We just haven't found the steps yet. How much did we save? Enough. Enough to get lost. or you could book a stay with Hilton.

Welcome to your ocean front room. Just steps from the water. The Hilton sale is on now. Book on Hilton.com or the Hilton app and save up to 20% to get the stay you expected. When you want savings, not surprises. It matters where you stay. Hilton for the stay.

The theory, which is the fact that we are within the universe and not outside. And so we're probing even the base function of the universe from within. And once you start to implement that, that observer's perspective from within, you find that in fact the predictions of the new boundary wave function turn out really in the right ballmark. But anyway, the boldest claim which you repeated at the start of our conversation, which is that it also seems to say that we should think of the Big Bang as some sort of epistemic horizon where even the laws of physics evaporate and disappear, that of course remains to be tested.

Indeed. And I think we'll hear shortly what your colleague, Neil Turrock, has claimed as the reason to abandon and approve of a different approach, the mirror cosmological model. We talk with Latham Boyle, as you may know. But again, these stakes, this is such a fascinating book. It's really unique in that it's extremely technically deep for people like me that want the details. It covers everything from the tree of life, evolution, Darwinian principles in the universe,

interpretations of quantum mechanics, and it does so with rigor and the no boundary proposal. I think we need to talk about that in some detail because to the extent that people have heard about this theory, which was presented in a brief history of time, what does it mean to have the wave function of the universe? Where does that live? Who could observe that? And what are the interpretations of there being a wave function? What is a wave function of a universe?

A wave function of the universe, just like a wave function that describes the state of a particle, that wave function of a particle will describe its many possible trajectories, it's many possible histories, it's many possible excitations, and so forth. Similarly, a wave function of the universe, arguably the most profound or deepest physical quantity, we've come up with in the 20th century. Probably the central quantity behind quantum cosmology,

after all, the field of quantum cosmology is the attempt to think about the universe as a whole from a proper quantum mechanical perspective. If you try to do this, the universe better has a state. That state is a wave function of the universe. But just like a wave function of a particle... Ambition comes in all shapes and sizes. At First Citizens Bank, we roll with your goals.

because we're built for what you're building. Fit for your ambition for citizens' back. It will not describe a single history, a single expansion history of the universe. Just like a particle can have many possible positions, a wave function of the universe will describe an ensemble of many possible universes, many possible histories of the universe. So it's some sort of quantum version of this classical, giant, mosaic bubble universe, which we had before.

Now, technically, you're asked, well, where does this wave function live? I'm not so sure it lives in space. There's nothing really. The wave function of the universe, every quality you would assign to it would be qualities of a particular subset of histories, would be intrinsic qualities. I'm not sure that Hilbert's thinking about Hilbert space is the right setting here. When we talk about the smoothness, what does that mean? We can mean two things.

We can mean our universe appears to be smooth on the larger scales. But that's not quite a statement about the wave function. Wave function being smooth or being spread out means that the wave function will assign a certain amplitude, a certain rate, a certain probability, if you wish, for a particular set of universes. And so as we discussed before, the boundary wave function, has the property that it assigns that it sort of peaks it sort of assigns a lot of weight to universes with an early phase of inflation that's a key feature of that way function and you see i mean i'm not sure how technical your audience very technical yeah but so you might say why is this right that's sort of

the key property of the of stevens no boundary way function why is this well you see inflation in the early universe is a phase of accelerated expansion and that accelerated expansion is driven by the simple fact that the universe is dominated by a source of potential energy, somewhat like dark energy. Now, that feature of inflation is precisely what you need when you go back in time all the way to the beginning to sort of smoothly cap off the past, to sort of have regularity, have a regular, smooth, singularity-free euclidean nugget at the bottom. So, in potential energy in the Laurentian, it means smoothness in the Euclidean, a smooth geometry in the Euclidean, and that smoothness was the defining feature of the no boundary way function.

Why? Because, of course, Stephen wanted quantum cosmology to get rid of the singularity. So that's how these two things, inflation and the no boundary way function go together. Now, the singularity, as you said, is, you know, sort of concomitant with the inflationary universe, in a sense, but could there not be some semi-classical or even classical, I'm thinking like a bouncing model, which also avoids the singularity, obviously, as Anaegis and some extent Neil Turrock and Paul Steinron have worked on, is there flaws in that that, you know, that doesn't require a no boundary proposal? In other words, it doesn't come with the kind of ontological, quantum mechanical overlay that we're going to get into. But was he, you know, was that undefiorexious?

pleasing to him in some sense, or to you. We don't have to only talk about Stephen, by the way. I mean, I'm very interested in the novelties that you've employed in the last, you know, seven years since he passed away, but also long before that. So what is impalatable about the semi-classical or classical scenarios that also don't have singularities? Why do you reject them, perhaps? I personally have not been convinced that in these bouncing cosmologies, which, as you say, if that's true, everything would remain classical or semi-classical all the way back. I haven't quite been convinced that the fluctuations generated through these bounces, big crunch, big bang transitions come out right and come out in line with our

cosmological observations, our CMB observations. But the second point I wanted to make is that you're suggesting that this is a lot of baggage, this no boundary, quantum kind of thing. But as usual with quantum theory, you give up on something, but you gain also something else. In contrast to these bouncing cosmologies, the no boundary way function, quantum cosmology in general has the possibility, has the potential to give us a grips on this rich universe and why, to provide a measure, to provide access to a deeper question, which in the case of bouncing cosmologies,

you cannot even ask. So yeah, so take us through how it does that. The book has a lot of kind of an overlay of anthropic reasoning and counter-anthropic reasoning. It's obvious that you and Stephen both felt that was sort of, that was distasteful, maybe, if not the bouncing model, being distaste. What's the problem with Anthropic? I mean, again, he ends his famous book, his most famous book, with, you know, knowing the mind of God.

Now, maybe he put that into some more books. Who knows? all these anthropic arguments and the counters to them as laid out in the book in your wonderful book on the origin of time. They also sort of have a very prominent role for conscious observers, which to me also kind of, you know, smells like if not is identifiable with a teleological purpose. How do you react to that? What was what is so distasteful about the measure problem, not having an answer to it or anthropic? What don't you like about anthropic reasoning? And then how do you respond to critics who?

say, well, there's a role for the human or the conscious observer in this. I object to anthropic reasoning, not because I don't sympathize there's a role for our observer's perspective, be it conscious or not. I, in fact, I very much sympathize with the profound and at the same time evident observation that we're within the universe looking up and looking out and not somehow outside, which I think has dominated a lot of earlier work on cosmology. So, but I object to the way that an anthropic reasoning is brought into cosmology usually as some sort of principle that is exterior to the mathematics. That is sort of, yeah, a non-scientific principle and philosophers, frankly, have taught it

true by now and have quite clearly come to the conclusion that, yeah, This adds a layer into cosmology which is simply not falsifiable. Your anthropic principle may be different from mine, and there will be no rational way for us to agree on what's typical, what's entropic, what's non-entropic and so forth. So in a sense, we tried to get the observer's perspective or the observer into cosmology, in cosmological theory, without compromising the scientific method.

That was the core of our program, to get us into the equations in a way that upholds verifiability, falsifiability, and so forth. And there Stephen made a mistake in his book in Brief History of Time. So you're saying, and thus we will know the mind of God, he writes. Steele was thinking in the 80s, he was looking at his wave function, as if you look at the wave function of a particle. Like you're outside and you look at it from a distance and you see, well, cheap. what's the most probable position of the particle?

What's the most probable universe? He was playing God with his wave function. And it took many years for him to realize, and the paradoxes of the multiverse, of course, were a stimulus in this, to realize, gee, we should really learn to think that we are to probe this wave function of the universe from the inside.

Quantum cosmology provides, in my view, a framework in which we can get the observance, in our equations without compromising proper theory. Explain what is the relationship between top down and bottom up, and is it a mathematical, technical outgrowth or is it a philosophical outgrowth? It started out more, as I would say, a change of viewpoint, a more or some sort of, yeah, paradigm shift in terms of what, in terms of really, what should we think of this no boundary wave function?

What is this theory trying to tell us? What is our position? how do we test it, how do we use it, what does it really mean? Stephen was looking at this wave function just as if it was outside this wave function. And the problem is, if you do that, the dominant histories will be empty universes, empty universes without galaxies, without observers, whatever. Is the theory wrong or are we taking the wrong viewpoint? That's a very tricky question in cosmology, where you're clearly taking the wrong viewpoint

by putting yourself out. We started to bring in our observational situation, and we realized that if you take our observer's perspective into account, in fact, the theory predicts that our past has a significant burst of inflation, a long period of inflation in line with our observations. But later, I'm not sure we have to talk a lot about this, but later this change of a viewpoint, which in the early days was very controversial, of course,

because people like David Gross or like Neil Thuruk were saying you're putting in the answer here. Whereas Stephen was claiming, no, we're getting something more out. We're getting a prediction of a long period of inflation and the corresponding CMB fluctuations out. But later, this sort of top-down perspective. Oh, yeah, okay, so that's what you were asking. Bottom up means you put yourself out of the wave function and you think about the history of the universe from a Big Bang forward in time. Top down means, wait a minute, the universe's history isn't quite fixed. It's contingent on the kind of questions we're asking of the way function,

on the kind of observation situation we are interested in, on the kind of correlations, if you wish, between this and that, two features of the universe that we want to probe. And that it's only when you specify the question, the correlation, the observation situation, that the past history, the dominant past history, emerges from the ensemble of possible history. So the past is a wave function until you're asking a question,

in which case the wave function crystallizes to a history. How do you react to that? It is the realistic situation. We are within this universe. I think it's the last great unification between the observer and the observed, between us and the universe. I think this whole unification between quantum theory and gravity is underrated.

If we pursue that unification in a cosmological context, it also includes this observer's perspective. And this last bit may indeed be much more radical than we had anticipated. Does that mean that the universe didn't exist because no one was there to observe it until 200,000 years ago when Neanderthals came out of Canes? and what does it actually mean for the role that human beings as the only conscious entities that we know for sure that can do experiments in quantum mechanics? What does that mean for our importance? Are we more important than people have given us credit for in the past? That's a bit of a misunderstanding, and it has its roots in a typical Hawkingian exaggeration.

So at some point, and I quote Stephen on this in my book, at some point, Hawking tells me, all right, with this top-down cosmology, we've put you. back in the center of cosmology. Of course, this isn't quite only meant. The way that we incorporate, include, take into account the observational situation, has nothing to do with consciousness. It could be conscious observers, and of course, we make observations, but in our framework, this could equally well be the photons of the CMB,

or a single particle, or in the early universe when we are talking about these, phase transitions, having various outcomes, some sort of branching, possible branchings of possible histories, it's the early universe itself and the interactions between the fields that are around here that constantly classicalize, that constantly perform acts of observation in the quantum theory. Of course, eventually these observations trickle down to our conscious observations, but we, as you point out, we are very late in the chain. And so that's not what we meant. And I want to take back because, you know, I am a experimental physicist, but I'm, you know,

quite conversant with some of the, at least the technical, mathematical aspects, not as technical or mathematical as you are. But I remember reading it. First of all, I bought it back in, you know, whenever it came out, I was in high school. I didn't read it for 20 years probably. And I remember at the Royal Society meeting where I met Stephen, someone asked him, why did you write this book that allegedly no one can really comprehend and has finished? And he said, I needed to pay for my daughter's college tuition.

And, you know, he was hilarious. You know that better than anybody. But I remember, you know, people kind of maybe pushing back or saying, you know, that there were some devices or concessions that he used. And I didn't appreciate that until after I took quantum field theory as a grad student. In the middle, you know, portion where he's talking about the flowing of time, he says the following. He says, in any case, as far as everyday quantum mechanics is concerned, we may regard our use as imaginary time and Euclidean space as merely a mathematical device or trick.

He's talking about WIC rotations, right? What is a WIC rotation, first of all? So technically, a WIC rotation is earning mathematically time into space. Why would you do this? It turns out that in quantum field theory, in particle physics, say, a weak rotation is a handy way of describing a typical thermal state of your fields, of your system. In that context, it's a trick, as you say. It's a handy way of describing a thermal state,

and then you get on with your calculations in that terminal state, and you calculate whatever you want. It's a trick in that case, because of course these fields, that system, those particles, they live in a background, they live in a universe, and that universe has a certain flow of time. When you do the big rotation, when you turn time into space for the universe, universe itself, it's no longer a trick. It's a very bold and controversial statement. You're saying that, okay, we can do a similar procedure. We can turn time into space at the level of the universe

itself. So there is no background notion of time left. You've just turned the geometry of the universe from a Laurentian expanding space time into a Euclidean spherical space. So then you can no longer say it's a trick. Somehow, and that's the boldness of Stephen's theory of the Big Bang, when it comes to the origin of the universe, the trick we are familiar with from particle physics somehow becomes real and gives us the tools to describe the initial condition, the initial state, the birth of the universe. Normally, normal S-U-2-S-O-3 rotations, you know, they turn X into Y. They don't turn X into time. So how is it possible by applying a simple amount?

It just changes the coordinate T to IT, right? So that changes the Lorentz metric from minus plus plus to plus plus plus plus that allows you to simplify things, I suppose. But how come it doesn't change space into time? The space, yeah, because the space directions are left untouched. Is it a true rotation or is it a shift or some kind of mirror, you know, a conjugate symmetry like a paragraph? reversal where it only affects one of the four components of the metric. Yeah, that's what it is. More fundamentally, I would say, you make a sharp distinction between the Laurentian

expanding space time of Einstein's relativity theory and then the Euclidean, all space-like nugget, so to speak. Stephen and I did not make so much of a distinction of that. One goes smoothly over into the other. It's not that it's sort of cut space time. and now we're going to turn time. No, in fact, we think of the expanding space time. When you go back to the Big Bang,

it sort of smoothly deforms into a purely spatial nugget. And the whole thing is one geometrical saddle point approximation to Stephen's wave function. And the key question is, what is a transition between the quantum purely spatial nugget, which is really like a law of an initial state, to the Laurentian expanding space down. And there there is a key point. The transition between the quantum regime and the classical expanding regime always goes through a brief burst of inflation.

That is a key single element that I would say is a universal prediction. In layman's term, you could call Stephen's model a model for the origin of inflation. that would be the sort of bottom-lowest level at which you can describe. In the top-down versus bottom-up predictions, I just wrote down a few of them as I was listening to the book. And one of them that struck my mind in the very truest sense that is falsifiable potentially is that the bottom-up model and all of physics, as most people interpret physics,

that their constants of nature, the speed of light, the strength of gravity, those are constant, whereas in top-down, your approach, these constants might be variables. Is that correct? Am I correct there? Yeah, yeah. So at the very basic level, we would say that these constants are asymptotic values of stuff that evolved, at least in the early universe, and maybe there are traces of such evolution right now. So we've heard claims in the past of, say, the fine structure constant evolving, and we can test things like that on Earth. So before we get to tests of cosmic significance that are related to what I'm involved with the Simon's Observatory and other projects, what other types of tests would provide perhaps falsification, as you point out, that is the mark of a good theory, is that it can be falsified, not proven.

So what could we do in the laboratory, for example, to test whether or not there's increased credulity in top-down cosmology approach? Well, I only know of a very sort of futuristic lab experiment, but when it comes to testing or hypothesis, I mostly think about advanced cosmological observations. The equation of state of dark energy is this still evolving. I think that would be a hint that there's something dynamic about the laws. Gravity wave contributions to C&B fluctuations. I think a strengthening of the inflationary paradigm would be a step in the, you know, in that direction, more further unification, I think, between, yeah, or more insight into how dark matter fits in the picture, because that's presumably also a bunch of forces with their own frozen accidents and their own role in the emergence of life. And so those are the kind of things I'm thinking of. In terms of experiment, if you really want to hear it, you see, there's

an advanced version of top-down cosmology, which is based on that recent theory-driven revolution to do with holography. To be very brief, holography is the way we think ultimately gravity and quantum theory can talk to one another, work together. It's not relevant in most of cosmology, but it becomes very important near Black holes

and near the Big Bang. And to be very brief, holographic models of cosmology build in a top-down perspective, building that retrospective element that you mentioned. There is a far sort of futuristic dream amongst theories these days that we might be able to construct certain holographic toy models in the lab and in that way begin to probe, test certain properties of quantum gravity theories.

So that would, I think, be another very different avenue. It would be sort of quantum cosmology in the lab. I think this will take a few decades. Yeah, well, I'll work on that after the Simon's Observatory, you know, Nobel Prize. I want to ask you next about, well, a way we could test it in the lab, so to speak, which is I've had on Sean Carroll, you know, is probably one of the most prominent supporters of the Ever Ready and many worlds interpretation. What if he's right? And I've asked him, what are the experimental tests that could be used to prove that the branching rate of quantum, you know, decisions and choices? And he said that's on the cusp of being testable at the 10 to the minus 28th of a second level.

What if it's proven that the many worlds interpretation is right and Copenhagen is wrong, would you abandon this theory? Is that a way to falsify your theory? No, on the contrary, it would support the theory. Okay, explain how? The Copenhagen interpretation is just not adequate for cosmology. It would be too limited. If the Copenhagen interpretation were right, which are strongly doubted,

quantum mechanics essentially would be confined to a theory useful in the lab. And it would not really make sense to apply it in a cosmological context. You really need some sort of, as you were saying earlier, you need some sort of holistic way function kind of view, which you're probing from within and which has all these histories floating around. I really don't see how you could do quantum cosmology without at least buying into most of the Everachian view, except perhaps proper integration of that observer's retrospective element,

but in fact, this is pretty much in line with Evert. So that's something I hadn't thought about. The Everachian view of interpretation of quantum mechanics is somehow being experimentally differentiated from Copenhagen. That would, in my view, be a hint that, It's not crazy to apply quantum mechanics to cosmology, to the universe. What about these tests, people like Latham and others have looked at or thought about, forgetting some of the other supporters of it, but what if we did see evidence of the multiverse?

Let's say we see some patterns in the microwave sky that are anomalous relating to intersecting lycones between different universes within the multiverse. Would that prove or falsify the top-down hawking model? That's a very good question. I'd be surprised to see these things. But that's certainly not something we would predict in any sort of normal top-down reasoning, right? It would accept, I guess, in certain models, it would be unexpected. Yeah, it would put, I think, the measure problem in multiverse cosmology, once again, center stage in this whole.

One thing I find very fascinating about this, and I'm a very close friend with Paul Steinhard and Neil Turok and Anna Aegis and many others. I've interviewed Andre Linday on the other side, but there's so much controversy around the multiverse, and it obviously was troubling to Stephen as well as you. But it's very curious to me that, you know, there's an old, probably Italian saying that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. And yet, when I interview Neil or Latham or Paul, Neil is called imaginary time beautiful, but not necessarily. and possibly misleading. And that's a friend and a collaborator of yours and basically claiming, you know, you both agree that inflation, you know, there are certain troubling aspects about the current instantiation of inflation.

He doesn't believe in inflation at all, obviously. But how do you respond to Neil in particular with his notion of the mirror universe that that kind of eliminates, has a smooth transition, and eliminates the need for WIC rotations and imaginary time? How do you react to his criticism? But also his model. I'm curious to think, what do you think of his models? What Neil means, I believe, is that he has more confidence that bitter right ingredients and fields he can get the primordial CMB fluctuations to come out naturally and right in these bouncing

models. If he can show this, then I think this would be a true alternative to inflation and probably eventually observational distinguishable. What I guess I'm a bit surprised about is that he's certainly very open and very keen on asking these deeper questions that Stephen was driving

at which universe and why and how do we fit into this game. And I don't see much of that coming to the fore in these bouncing models. Maybe that reflects their state, of development. I mean, after all, inflation has been around for so many decades. And so we've had plenty of opportunity to sort of think this all through. Now I'm really talking about a matter of taste, almost. We do agree, if you say, that inflation, without completion or an attorney,

inflation as it stands, has serious paradoxes and should be completed into a property. We certainly both agree with that. We've just taken different routes. Stephen's long time, you know, kind of the foil, Lenny Suskin, was on the podcast not too long ago. And we talked for a long time about the Black Hole War. We haven't really talked much about the Black Hole War or the implications for Black Hole, although you do discuss that in your book. But more before I get to that, I do want to ask you the question I asked Lenny, which was he's written books like the theoretical minimum. Now, you're a theorist. And I want to know what is the experimental minimum?

What should a bright young theoretical PhD student in your group know about experimental physics, cosmology, astrophysics? What do you teach him or her to be conversant at the level that they need to be a success in theoretical physics as you have become? It's very different from when you started out or when I started out. These peaks in the CMB were still being searched for, right? During my PhD, the acceleration was discovered. So we knew so little. We knew so. It's truly amazing.

I think every theorist these days should have a profound appreciation of this precision era in cosmology, which is truly very special. We know this history and its composition so well, so precise, and then there's this wealth of information in the CMB. And I go even a little further. I now teach my master's students here also about gravitational wave observations, their future. Because in 10, 15 years, we now have the Hubble tension, the discrepancy between the rate of expansion measured from early universe data.

And now, in 10, 15 years, gravitational waves will provide, whips, a third way of doing this completely independently. So we're living through some sort of Galileo moment, the birth of a new kind of astronomy. And of course, it's not so clear what it's going to bring, but it is a Galileo moment. I think it's extremely important for tourists and observers alike to at least appreciate this. I do want to talk about black holes in the context of the holographic principle, which obviously you discuss in the book. What is the status of it? I remember that, you know, Maldesana moment in 1997, you know, in grad school, everyone was so excited about ADS, CFT. and you probably do the best job of explaining what ADS CFT is,

although the audiobook reader pronounces the ADS as ads every time. And it was a little bit jarring to me, but that's the only error in the whole book. But, you know, we don't live in anti-desciter space. We don't even live in desider space. But these correspondencies, the holography, they are criticized often as a string theory, you know, for predicting things that are potentially unobservable, extra dimensions, which we don't have evidence for. Yes, they could be there, but so could a purple unicorn on Neptune's South Pole.

But answer to this, Thomas, what is the status of it? You know, it's a remarkably beautiful piece of mathematics as is string theory, but some have called it like Roger Penrose, fantasy, and even fantasy squared in that, you know, it involves string theory and then superposing string theory on top of inflation, which he also doesn't believe in. So how do you react to those criticism? Is the holographic principle, is it merely magnificent mathematics, but may not have an instantiation in reality that my colleagues and I can test with telescopes.

It's certainly magnificent mathematics, but I think you're right that testing it observationally with telescopes or in the lab is a long way away. But is this the only way of testing things? There exists, at some point I think we should admit that there exists something like theoretical data. Theoretical consistency, mathematical consistency is also a certain driver, a certain guideline, a certain type of knowledge which is there, which can't be ignored. That's how I feel holography, we should see holography by now.

It's such an elaborate and well-theoretically tested edifice that, to me, there's got to be some truth in it. What exactly it means for our real world and our expanding universe is profoundly unclear, to give you an example in ADS-CFT, so in this mathematical toy model universe of string of string theorists, it's clearly the holography, it's a duality, a connection between gravity theory and quantum theory in which the gravity theory lives in one dimension more, hence the name holography. One of the dimensions in our familiar world is a holographic projection. Now, in ADS-CFT, this is a space dimension. To me, it's extremely unclear that in, in,

when we apply holography to our universe, it's going to be the space dimension that's the holographic projected one. I think it's going to be the time dimension. So this just to illustrate you that their profound uncertainties in how holography applies to our real world, because as you can imagine,

if it's the time dimension that holographically pops out, the predictions of the T are going to be, yeah, the whole framework is going to be very different from ADSCFT. That said, since 90 years, 95 years, it's the time dimension which is the problematic one in cosmology. The Big Bang is the origin of time. Black holes are the end of time. At a very, very intuitive level, you would think that if you're going to truly understand

black holes in the Big Bang, you're going to need to develop some sort of physics in which time is a truly emergent quality of the universe so that it can disappear and not an a prior thing. Well, holography does seem to deliver exactly that. How precisely how and how he will test it is completely unclear. But once again, to me, it smells right. Thomas, it's been seven years since the passing of Stephen Hawking. You had 30 seconds, you know, to visit him in heaven or wherever he is right now.

What would you want to talk to him about? What questions would you want to raise with him and what new about your new discoveries with your research team completely independent of Stephen, would you most like to tell him about and be proud about an accomplishing since his passing? Yeah, so since Stephen passed away, I've been developing holographic models of top-down cosmology, of the theory we developed together.

And in those holographic models, this retrospective element, which you mentioned of top-down cosmology, is sort of building from the start. And you go back in time by taking sort of a fuzzier and fuzzier look at those, holograms. And eventually, when you go all the way back to the Big Bang, you sort of run out of bits. It's as if the laws themselves don't go further back. And so the Big Bang really turns into

a limit of science without breaking down. And this I would like to have his opinion on. It seems to me that a proper implementation of our top-down ideas seems naturally, to lead to the stunning conclusion that even the laws of physics sort of evaporate away, fade away into the Big Bang. These transcendental, platonic, mind-of-god kinds of truth, which he told in the 80s. And I think he was very close to this, to thinking, to this change of paradigm. But it was sort of when he died, it was still sort of left up. up in the air because we didn't have enough tools to sort of really hammer this down.

Now, you've written that cosmology in a sense could or maybe should be like evolutionary biology, Darwinian, and in retrospect, you know, kind of reconstructing the past from the present. And that's a hallmark of your, as I see it, it feels very much like your unique contributions, not something that Stephen maybe could have been capable of doing. So how did you come to this kind of paradigm or analogy? And what does it mean that cosmology could be an aspect of Darwinian evolution, that Darwin or Hawking or nobody could have anticipated? How did this come to you?

And what does it mean? It came to me through building these holographic models and realizing, but gee, these laws disappear. It's not that we sort of hit some sort of. sort of eternal mathematical foundation. And then of course, I began to think, okay, vice versa, how do these laws emerge? It's much like a tree of physical laws.

The tree of physical laws could have emerged differently. And there you are with your Darwinian viewpoint. But of course, it's a bit of an analogy in the sense that selection or headatories, this is normal. The branching of the tree of physical laws in the early universe is very much like a quantum phenomenon, right? There's variation and selection, but these are not the kinds of birds that we typically use. Since 2018, we've had literally hundreds of LIGO detections.

We've had the Event Horizon Telescope images. We've had the James Webb Deepfield observations. We've had even more knowledge from the barren acoustic oscillations of the DESE instrument, which have revealed tensions, perhaps, between the late and early time measurement, So here's a question for you. How have the observations that my colleagues and I have made since 2018, how have they shaped and maybe influenced you and maybe given you courage to see things that Stephen and maybe anyone else is unable to see?

What are the future observations that you're most excited about for testing, challenging, and improving your theoretical models and predictions? I'm very excited, of course, about the next generation of CMB experiments. I'm truly impressed how far down you guys can get into measuring that gravitational wave contributions to the CMB analysis. I'm very intrigued by the first hints of a possibly evolving dark energy density. And I guess the future gravitational wave observations and the cosmological gravitational wave backgrounds would be.

So these are really just like we are now familiar with our C. and B background, we also have gravitational wave backgrounds and sort of beginning to probe those, I think will sort of truly open up this, unlock this earliest stages of the universe in a very tangible way. So frankly, I'm excited about all these observations. And there's not a single one I think that sort of, I think it's really the collection, the different angles that are bringing the richness to the field or the universe cosmology. Thomas, this has been great. You aren't my first guest from Belgium.

I had Francis Halzenom. He actually knew Lemaître, who you talk about a great deal in the book and took a course with him, I think. That's incredible. I want to wish you the best of luck and the greatest of thanks and happy 50th birthday, right? You just had your 50th birthday. You're a half-century old. Yeah, yeah.

Almost as old as me. Wow, amazing. Yeah, here's the three more. You've got to wish someone a little bit more than what they anticipate. Thomas is doing phenomenal. I've enjoyed it very much, and I do hope that we'll get to meet in person someday and discuss these great ideas and maybe make some bets one another, as Stephen was wont to do. So thank you so much, John.

Sounds good. Thank you. Thank you for having me. Time, causality, the laws of physics themselves. Thomas Hurtag and Stephen Hawking's final theory challenges our deepest assumptions about reality. Whether conscious observers truly shaped cosmic history or this represents the most beautiful failure in physics, let me know in the comments below. And if you found this exploration of Time's true nature fascinating, check out my most recent episode with Neil Turok. Click

here and don't forget to comment, like, and subscribe.