Sean Carroll's Mindscape: Science, Society, Philosophy, Culture, Arts, and Ideas - 2 | Carlo Rovelli on Quantum Mechanics, Spacetime, and Reality

Episode Date: July 10, 2018

Quantum mechanics and general relativity are the two great triumphs of twentieth-century theoretical physics. Unfortunately, they don't play well together -- despite years of effort, we currently lack a completely successful quantum theory of gravity, although there are some promising ideas out there. Carlo Rovelli is a pioneer of one of those ideas, loop quantum gravity, as well as the bestselling author of such books as Seven Brief Lessons on Physics and the recent The Order of Time. We talk about how to make progress on this knotty problem, including whether string theory will play a role (Carlo thinks not). [smart_track_player url="http://traffic.libsyn.com/seancarroll/rovelli.mp3" social_email="true" hashtag="mindscapepodcast" ] Carlo Rovelli is a professor of theoretical physics at the Centre de Physique Théorique de Luminy of Aix-Marseille University in France. In 1988, he and Abhay Ashtekar and Lee Smolin introduced the idea of loop quantum gravity. He is also the author of the "relational" interpretation of quantum mechanics. Home page Wikipedia page Google Scholar publications Amazon.com author page Talk on The Physics and Philosophy of Time Twitter Download Episode

This June, the world comes to Los Angeles. Kick off FIFA World Cup 2026 at the FIFA Fan Festival at the iconic Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum. Watch matches live on Giant Scream. Feel every goal with thousands of fans. And celebrate with music, culture, and flavors from around the world. Join us June 11th through 14th opening weekend as the tournament kicks off in Los Angeles. Tickets are just $10 and kids under 12 were free. Get yours now at Los Angeles, FWC26.com.

Exema's unrelenting, itch and rash. If you know the feeling, you should know the facts. The eczema medication you're taking may not be right for you. Visit MyRawtruth.com and talk to your dermatologist about your symptoms and treatment options. Hello, everybody, and welcome to the Mindscape podcast. I'm your host, Sean Carroll. A few years ago, I was being interviewed on camera for a TV show, a documentary about physics, and we were talking about black holes

and crazy things about quantum mechanics and some speculative ideas. And during a break, the director said to me, I love doing shows on this kind of topic, but my brain always hurts. It's just so hard to think about this stuff. And I said immediately, now you know how I feel every day.

That's what I do for a living when I'm not podcasting. I'm thinking about theoretical physics and crazy ideas. And physics works at the boundaries of what we know. Physics is driven by puzzles and mysteries, by things that we don't yet understand. If we're lucky, those puzzles come from experiments. We get some data that we can't fit together that doesn't quite make sense in our current conception, so we try to improve our theories. But sometimes we have two theories that individually make perfect sense but don't fit together.

That is the case with perhaps the single biggest looming question in modern theoretical physics, how we reconcile quantum mechanics, our best, theory of how the world works at a fundamental level, especially at the level of tiny particles in the subatomic realm, and gravity, the theory that is explained by Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity, the idea that space and time are curved. What we want is to fit them together, to have a theory of quantum gravity that somehow the world is fundamentally quantum mechanical, and it gives rise to curved space time that we notice as gravity. The problem is, You try to do that using the techniques that work for other theories of physics.

You quantize general relativity, and it doesn't seem to work. So for decades now, physicists have been trying to ask, how do we find a quantum theory of gravity? One of the world's biggest experts in this field is today's guest, Carlo Revelli. Dr. Revelli is a professor at, if I can say this correctly, the Centre de Physique Thééric de Lumini of Ex-Marcée University in France, although he's originally Italian, as he will explain. Carlo is a bit of a rabble-rouser as a youth.

He has that fiery Italian temperament, but these days he works on reconciling Albert Einstein's general relativity with the principles of quantum mechanics. Along the way, Dr. Rovelli has written several books. His 2014 book, Seven Brief Lessons in Physics, was a runaway New York Times bestseller. He just has a book that came out

called The Order of Time on the nature of time, and therefore, of course, space time, which is important for understanding quantum gravity. The latest news I heard was that the audiobook version of the Order of Time is going to be read by the actor Benedict Cumberbatch. As a fellow book author who has to read his own books, this makes me very jealous.

But what we'll talk about with Dr. Revelli is the subject of quantum gravity. As I alluded to, given some thing that we think we understand, electromagnetism or the nuclear forces, There's a cookbook procedure for taking that classical theory and quantizing it. It breaks down when you try to do this for gravity. So what do you do? This is a big topic in theoretical physics today. The most popular answer, as you may have heard, is something called string theory.

It grew directly out of particle physics, just by saying that we should replace the idea of little point particles being the most fundamental ingredients of nature with little pieces of vibrating string. That sounds like a crazy speculative idea, but it leads you directly to predict the existence of gravity. So who knows? It seems to be very promising, but it hasn't exactly, let us say, to be very modest about it, explained all the things we want to explain about the universe. So Dr. Rovelli is a champion of a different perspective called loop quantum gravity. He was one of the originators of this idea. It's relatively straightforward in its approach.

It says, take general relativity. We know what that is. Einstein gave it to. to us. And maybe the reason why it fails when we try to straightforwardly quantize it is just that we're not quite clever enough. Maybe there is a not quite straightforward way of taking general relativity and plugging it into the rules of quantum mechanics. So loop quantum gravity right now is sort of a plucky minority point of view. It's not nearly as popular as string theory is. But to be very fair, we don't know what is right. It's certainly a respectable thing. And given that we don't know the answer, it's important that we pursue lots of of different possibilities.

Maybe it's going to be the case that some hybrid version of both string theory and loop quantum gravity will eventually turn out to be right. Maybe the techniques from one will be very useful in the other one. I asked Carlo about this in the podcast interview, and he immediately slapped me down. He was not in favor of the idea that string theory and loop quantum gravity will be someday reconciled, but he's also a fair guy. He knows that we have to keep an open mind about these things. Since we don't know how to quantize gravity, perhaps it comes down to taste in the sense of

there's different important principles of quantum mechanics of gravity that somehow have to be reconciled. Some of them are going to go. Some of them are going to be preserved. Which ones are most important? That's why it's important that we have different people working on different approaches because we don't yet know which one is going to be correct. So solving the biggest outstanding puzzle in theoretical physics today,

That's our podcast topic. Let's go. Do you ever feel like you're drinking from a firehouse? Paycor's intelligent HR solution empowers leaders to turn down the pressure. Their unified platform includes payroll, talent management, compliance software, and a lot more, connecting you to the people, data, and expertise you need to drive long-term business results. Visit paycourt.com slash leaders and go from work flood to workflow. That's paycourt.com slash leasps. leaders. This is Sophia Bush from Work in Progress with Sophia Bush. And now a break from our sponsor,

Miracle Grow. Let's be real. We're all feeling a little digitally distracted and time starved lately. We're craving real connections and ways to unplug. And honestly, gardening is the ultimate way to do this. It isn't just about plants. It's about trading the digital noise for a quiet win. As you pour your energy into helping something grow, you're pouring a sense of of calm and connection back into yourself too. If you're in an apartment or you've never even touched a shovel, don't let self-doubt stop you. With 75 years of expertise,

Miracle Grow takes the stress out of the process and makes it pure joy. And let me tell you what, I can confirm this from the garden I love spending time in outdoors in Los Angeles to my little potted plants where I grow herbs indoors in New York. I love working with plants and I love Miracle Grow because whether I'm doing something in the soil or potting something in the apartment, Miracle Grow takes the best care of my plants. So my plants can help take care of me.

And here's the big secret. Most people think water and sunlight are enough. But no, no. Your plants actually need more to truly thrive. Whether it's starting with the right soil foundation or giving plants the boosts that. They need to stay vibrant with plant food. Our friends at Miracle Grow have all the essentials to make growing simple and stress-free. Head to MiracleGrow.com to check out all of their easy-to-use products and start your growth journey today.

Carlo Revelli, welcome to the Mindscape podcast. Thank you, Sean. It's very good. Yeah, very great to have you here. We're both at a conference on the nature of time and the observers. I'm taking the opportunity to sit down with one of the world's experts in quantum gravity and have a chat. Fantastic. So why don't we start just with you explaining to the audience, because it's hopefully a broad audience and they might not be physics aficionados, just who you are, how you got to be where you are, what your interests are, very briefly.

I am Italian. I started my life and career in Italy in physics, sort of late, because I was not a nerd at school focused on science. I was interested in everything. I moved to United States. It was a faculty in America for about 10 years, and I moved back to France. I'm now living in France, and quantum gravity has been my interest, my focus, my passion, and my obsession all through my life. All through your life, all through your life at some.

From the moment I got interested in this. Was there a thing that got you interested? Yes. I first, first of the first. I sort of got in love with quantum mechanics and generativity when I studied these things. I said, wow, this is incredible. The world is different than what we think and is marvelous. And then I was a student and I stumbled upon a review paper by Chris Aisham,

London physicist. At the time, there were very few people who were interested in quantum gravity. So what year are we talking? 76, 78, something like that. And Chris Ayshe was a little bit of the guru of quantum gravity at the time. And he had this fantastic review paper which he was explaining the problem. And I read it, I didn't understand much, of course. But it said space and time are not what you think they are,

even after Einstein, even after quantum mechanics. And more than that, it said space and time, we don't yet know what they are. We're not sure what they are. And here is a fantastic open problem with the core of modern physics. We don't understand the basic grammar of the universe. And I said, wow, this is what I want to do the rest of my life. And actually, I did. Very good.

I mean, I think that we can all agree the reconciliation of quantum mechanics and gravity is one of the great challenges of modern physics right now. It has been for quite a while. Let's get there sort of by starting with explaining quantum mechanics and explaining gravity. Maybe gravity is easier to do first. So what would be...

Yes, because quantum mechanics is hard. We'll have a discussion about quantum mechanics. We'll agree on gravity. Gravity is sort of easier. Gravity is... What you understand about gravity is a stroke of genius by Einstein. that he got between

1910 and 1915 and what happened is this that Newton had introduced this idea of a space in which we leave and an absolute time which passes independently

of everything which was a Newtonian idea is not an older idea because before him a space was just sort of how things are ordered, who is next to whom. And time was just sort of counting things that happen.

A label, yeah. Right. So day, night, day, night, and you count there one, two, three, and that's time, which means that if nothing happens, there's no time, right? But Newton introduced this idea that time is time by itself, and space is spaced by itself. Is there even there's nothing else?

And Einstein at 10 years earlier had figured out with special relativity that space and time you can view them pretty much in a single thing that today we call Minkowski Space Time, which is a sort of background of the world on which things have all things happen. And Einstein was fascinated by Maxwell theory, by electromagnetism, which was not very old at his time, because it was, what, 30, 40 years old, something like,

that. So much less old than what generativity and quantum mechanics are for today. So Maxwell put together electricity and magnetism into electromagnetism roughly 1860s. 1860s, right. And so Einstein is thinking turn of the century. Right, and turn of the century, 40 years later. And however, the success of macro theory was immense, right, because immediately it was used for technology. They were electric engine. In fact, the father of Einstein was building electric plants and north in Italy. He was working with the Maxwell equation. Well, there wouldn't be no podcasts

without electromagnetism. There would be no podcast without electromagnetism. Right. Without understanding Electromagnetism. And the idea of Maxwell and Faraday was that there is this field. So, electromagnetic is a field. So it's something that is all over. It can move, according

to the equation that Maxwell wrote. And Faraday was visualizing the field as a sort of web of lines going all over, very, very fine, infinitely fine sort of and we're immersed in this field and Einstein

realized that gravity also should be described by a field should gravitation of field somehow and he asked himself how to describe this field and then he got the stroke of genius and the stroke of genius is that Einstein is that Newton's space time

and the gravitational field are actually the same thing that's a stroke that's generativity as I understand it And in fact, generally, it is presented in book by saying, well, gravitational field is nothing else in space time. But I like better to think it the other way around. Space time, nothing else, a gravitational field. It's the same thing, right? When you understand that two things are the same, you can say it two different ways.

So Einstein is saying that gravity is not a thing that lives in space time. It's a manifestation of the nature of space time itself. Exactly. It's not what additional thing I live in space time. manifestation of Newtonian space in time. So this clear background that Newton told us is there, is actually there, but is the gravitational field. It is the same thing as a gravitational field, which means it can move, it can stretch,

can bend, and I said wrote the equation for that, and this is the gravitational wave, the black hole, so this thing. So that's one ingredient. Yeah, I'm on board. I'm with the vert. So that's the easy part, right? That's the easy part. We give this great credit to Einstein in around 1915.

so he finally put the finishing touches on general relativity, one of the great intellectual accomplishments of history. And part of that is that it was almost a singular genius, right? Like Einstein didn't have a lot of competition while he was doing it. But at the same time, as Richard Feynman famously said, you know, the day after he did it, lots of people understood what he had done. Like it was a clear thing. In some sense, even though it's a different notion of space time, general relativity is still within the classical Newtonian paradigm of physics. There's something, space time. It has properties.

It has curvature, and you can measure it as precisely as you want. And then we come to quantum mechanics, which is a wholly different thing. And why don't you tell us what quantum mechanics is? Quantum mechanics is a thing that Simon said nobody understands it. That was the follow up to that quote, right? Right. Right. Which means that everybody in the sense,

it's by everybody in a different manner, so to say. Quantum mechanics, which also owns a lot to Einstein, Issa first who really understood that it was needed and made the first steps. In my understanding, quantum mechanics, it tells us three things about the world, which we didn't know before. And it's sort of the mathematical,

representation of these three things. The first thing, in my opinion, I'm not sure I'm in the full majority from this perspective, but I think it's crucial, is that a lot of things are discrete. It's quantum, the quantum. So the first thing that is telling us, for instance, is this electromagnetic field that Maxwell and Faradai

described so well, and that makes the engine tour and that makes a radio work. It's actually, in some sense, made by little packet, which are the photons. And I said the first one who introduced the notion of photons. And now we know that when lights falls on me, it actually falls not as a continuous things, but like a little rain. There is a granular, tick, tick, tick, tick, many little photons. So, by the way, already I disagree.

I know. What you're saying? I think this is great, though. I mean, certainly it was one of the things that inspired people to get quantum mechanics, the word quantum, right? The fact that classically you have an electromagnetic wave coming from a light bulb and you see that as light. But experimentally, if you just look at it carefully enough, really, really dim light, it comes in packets. You see these little blobs.

You don't see something smooth. And then the interpretive question is, which is real, right? is it the wave or the particle, and then how should we think about that? But let's not get blogged on that quite yet. Right, right. Yes, in fact, I started by saying this is, in my opinion, a central aspect of quantum mechanics, but I'm not sure I'm in the majority here. You thought a soft mattress meant comfort, but every morning your back tells a different story.

This is the sound of support, the sound of air weave. Born from Japanese innovation, our air fiber technology, provides the firm, even support your body has been craving. It's not about sinking in. It's about rising up. The aha moment your back has been waiting for. Manufactured in Japan, AirWeave is truly supportive sleep. Discover more at AirWeave.com.

This is Sophia Bush from Work in Progress with Sophia Bush. And now a break from our sponsor, Miracle Grow. Let's be real. We're all feeling a little digitally distracted and time-starved lately. We're craving real connections. and ways to unplug, and honestly, gardening is the ultimate way to do this. It isn't just about plants. It's about trading the digital noise for a quiet win. As you pour your energy into helping something grow, you're pouring a sense of calm and connection back into yourself, too. If you're in an apartment

or you've never even touched a shovel, don't let self-doubt stop you. With 75 years of expertise, Miracle Grow takes the stress out of the process and makes it pure joy. And let me tell you what, I can confirm this from the garden I love spending time in outdoors in Los Angeles to my little potted plants where I grow herbs indoors in New York. I love working with plants. And I love Miracle Grow because whether I'm doing something in the soil or potting something in the apartment, Miracle Grow takes the best. best care of my plants, so my plants can help take care of me. And here's the big secret.

Most people think water and sunlight are enough, but no, no, your plants actually need more to truly thrive, whether it's starting with the right soil foundation or giving plants the boost they need to stay vibrant with plant food. Our friends at Miracle Grow have all the essentials to make growing simple and stress-free. Head to MiracleGrow.com to check out all of their easy-to-use products and start your growth journey today. Another way of saying this is that in up to quantum mechanics, we thought that we could describe systems arbitrarily well, the state of the system with arbitrary precision.

We can measure position and velocity of a particle or measure anything arbitrarily well. And the possible state of the system, the possible outcome of the measurement, I would describe it is something which is called the phase space, which is a space of all possible results. And face space, the dimension of the face space is action,

and the core of quantum mechanics is a constant, which is a plan constant, which has a dimension of an action, which is a little volume in phase space. If I have one degree of freedom, the space of possible state, I can think after quantum mechanics that there is a sort of minimal volume into it.

So it forbids us to say things more precisely about the state of something. And this is compatible, this is of a sense with your idea that the essence of quantum mechanics is this chunkiness, this discreetness. So the H-bar, the constant of Planck, which is a constant that characterize the quantum phenomena tell us when we're in a quantum regime when we're away, it's a measure of the chunkiness of reality in some sense. So the reality transforms from the smooth fields of Faraday to a pixelated kind of view of things.

If it was only that, it would be comprehensible, but it's not only that. So there are two more steps. And the second step also is comprehensible. And Sean, I believe you might disagree with this as well. I'm ready. I'm ready to disagree. All right. So the second step, let me say in a way that you probably don't disagree,

is that we cannot make predictions about the future quite fundamentally. Right. Not just because we haven't measured precisely enough, not because we don't know calculations, but if we make everything we can on a physical system and we control it perfectly, and we know its physics as best as we, We can today, nevertheless, what we're going to see tomorrow has a margin of indeterminacy.

We can make predictions, but they're at best approximate. They can make predictions. In fact, we do make predictions. Quantum mechanics allow us to make prediction. It's not that there is no prediction possible the other way around. But there is always some uncertainty that remains, which we can make small but not zero. So this is the famous non-determinism of quantum mechanics, and that's a second discovery of the world, I would say.

And I think I've phrased it in a way that you may agree. I think if you phrase it in terms of predictions, everyone better at it. Exactly. And then again, what's going on underneath is a different story, right? And the third, and here we come to the hardest, because so far, all right, So a world pixeled and unpredictable is still a comprehensible world which wouldn't shock us too much. But the third is the most shocking one. And in my opinion, the third discovery of quantum mechanics is that it describes how

properties, our system have properties, but these properties, in the last, in the line, The language of the textbook for quantum mechanics, these properties become actual, become real, when you measure them. Now, measuring is a nonsense world, right? Because what does nature know about me measuring something? Certainly doesn't sound like some concept you want as part of your fundamental description of the world. So measuring there is.

And in my opinion, what the theory is telling us is that property become concrete when two systems interact. And this so far so good. So you're replacing measurement with interaction. You replace measurement and interacted. But to make the machine work, you have to assume that when two systems interact, the property of one system becomes actual with respect to the other system and not with respect to everything else. And that's, at that point, is really shocking. That's right.

At that point is really shocking. Now, I think if one accept this idea, which is my way of view of quantum mechanics, which I know is not the universal way, it's not yours in particular, then that's it. That's what quantum mechanics is telling us. But it's not so far from mine in that part in the sense that I am an Everettian, a believer in the many worlds interpretation, at least, you know, I think that's my favorite. I'm happy to change my mind someday down the road. But Everett himself, when he invented it the 1950s, when he published his paper,

he called it the relative state interpretation. And the point that he was trying to emphasize was that what you see is only relative to the thing seeing it. This interaction creates an impression of the measurement outcome that is intrinsically part of the relationship between the thing that is doing the measuring and the thing that is being observed. So I think that there's some similarity of words there.

I shouldn't talk for you, but let me try to talk. Sure. For one second. I think what you would add to what I say is that you want to take a realist position where beyond that, there is nevertheless a deterministic, non-relational, overall quantum state of the system that we may take as the proper description of reality. I would like to say that. Would that be so? I would. I'm a realist. I can't even imagine what it would be like to be a scientist and not be a realist about reality. And yet, I know.

Right. So I would like to be a realist, but less radically so. I mean, there are, let me say two things. There are a lot of quantities in physics which are relational. We know that they are. The velocity of an object is not a property of the object. There's no sense in which the velocity of the object. Depends on who is measuring.

Right. And in fact, this is a good example because here we use measuring, but of course nothing to do measuring, right? It's a velocity of object, is a property of an object respect to another object. So I can say that the earth has a set of velocity with respect to the sun, but the sun is not measuring, not going out with it. meters and chronometers. So we use this language measuring

and we interpret this language to say that some properties are relational. I want to be realist about relational properties. And I want to think of reality in a realistic way perhaps a little bit closer than

you to our direct experience of reality. I see the photons coming in. I see the table being the table. I see our direct experience of reality is tremendously overrated, frankly. And so I find that if we want to be realistic about the way function, we have... Actually, let me step back one moment.

I think given the strangeness of quantum mechanics, any way we think it is comes with a price. So we have options. We have a number of options. And we have been talking about two options, okay? the sort of manual interpretation in which you have this way function of everything, which come with a price, or the sort of strictly relational view which I described,

which I also come with a price. And there are others, and they have their own price. Right, that's right. And many discussions about quantum mechanics are, well, which price are ready to pay. And the price of the relational interpretation I described is this weakening of realism. So to say, what the state of the state of the... this system, well, I don't know, it doesn't matter, it doesn't have a state, it only has a state with respect to A, that is the same respect to B, it is the same respect to C. And there

is no solid objective overall picture. The price of the many-world interpretation is that I have to accept, in some sense, there's all this many worlds. Yes, absolutely. It's an enormous anthology, a very heavy ontology. And I, which price do we want to pay? In one way of the other, it contradicts our previous way of thinking for that. Absolutely. And I couldn't agree more about the idea that there is a price to be paid. I could disagree a little bit about the heaviness of the ontology that is associated with many worlds.

But I think that this is a good lesson because all we need for today's conversation is the clear fact that we have at the same time a way to do quantum mechanics. We use quantum mechanics as physicists every day. It's been spectacularly verified experimentally. We know how to use it. We have a recipe. We have a black box. And it works. It works fantasticly well.

And we don't have anything close to an agreement on what it is, what the fundamentals of it really say. So there will be a wonderful thing to figure out once and for all. But maybe we don't need to do that for the question of quantizing gravity. So just to put the puzzle, the task in perspective, since we grew up, we human beings, as classical people, classical mechanics was invented first that is very intuitive to us. Even if pendulums and inclined planes tortured us as undergraduates, we kind of get it in a fundamental, visceral way. So we always start by thinking about systems from this classical point of view, and then we quantize. them. We elevate the classical description to some quantum mechanical theory. Now, presumably

nature or God doesn't work that way, right? Nature just is quantum and we can look for classical limits, but nevertheless, we poor benighted human beings, given the classical system, we want to quantize it. And we have ways of doing that. There are, again, cookbooks, recipes that work. And then you apply this way to this wonderful thing called General Relativity, Einstein's Theory of gravity and we hit roadblocks. So this is why quantum gravity is hard. And I guess roughly around the 1950s would be when people first started seriously thinking about it and not till decades later was any kind of progress really made. Would you agree with that? Yes, that's when people started thinking. The first who realized there was a problem, not surprisingly, is Albert Einstein himself,

who in 1915 wrote what we call today the basic equation of generativity. And one year later, in 1916, he wrote a paper saying, well, of course, this is an approximation because gravity should have quantum properties. It's quite remarkable because quantum mechanics within textbook that came out 10 years later. But he had invented photons. He had already invented photons. There was already the idea. that things were quanta, the small scale in some sense.

And it's a beautiful page by Einstein, in which he says it's an incredible clarity that in the future his own theory has to be corrected to take into account of quantum mechanics. And here we are. 100 years. And here we are. 100 years later.

But you're right. This remains an isolated thing. There is some people think about that in the 30s. both in Russian and in the West, Rosen had a paper which started studying it, but especially Bronstein, Matvey, Bronstein. In Russia, yes. Russian, yes, was a friend of Landau.

And he's the first one who figured out that quantum gravity, namely finding the quantum property of the gravitational field, had to imply some radical revision of space and time. And he said it openly. It's a nice story because it comes from a mistake by Landau. So for the listeners, Lev Landau, a Russian physicist,

one of the great minds of 20th century physics and didn't make a lot of mistakes. No. So a mistake by Landau is a big deal. Right, it's a big deal, in fact, in fact. But, you know, good physicists do make mistakes. Einstein made all sorts of mistakes. He was the best, yeah.

Right. He was best in doing mistakes and getting results. Maybe the things go together. When quantum mechanics started to be understood, the formalism, the mathematics, Landao assumed that because of quantum mechanics, it should have been impossible to measure the value of a field, the electric field, in a point.

and Boer, who was a big father of quantum mechanics, immediately understood that this was wrong. There was a long discussion, and Borne and Rosamphilly wrote a paper showing that Landau was wrong, and Landau recognized that. But Bronstin, who was a friend of Landau, immediately said, well, let's do the same for gravity, and there Landau is right.

there is a sense in which you cannot make the measure the gravitational field in a point because points lose their meaning in quantum gravity and why points lose their meaning in quantum gravity because the gravitational field is also space the gravitational field don't live in space but is space itself so in the moment in which you you look at the quantum properties of the gravitational field, you're also looking at the quantum property of space time, of space. And one modern way of viewing what he was doing is the following. If you try to pinpoint the position of a particle, arbitrarily small decision, you can,

but because of quantum mechanics, the velocity of the particle becomes very, indeterminate. But the velocity is also the momentum. The momentum is also the energy. So you have a very large energy, so to say. And a very large energy, because of gravity, energy is also mass. E is MC square. So it's like having a large mass.

And if you have a large mass in a small area, you create a black hole. So when you try to zoom in in a point very too small, automatically you create a little black hole. And if you work out the numbers, you look at the scale. And that's a minimal scale you can look at. America's first pledge was freedom. Jeep still carries that fighting spirit. With the Jeep Declaration of Deals,

we're pledging our allegiance to the American people with great deals on the luxurious Grand Cherokee, with available three-row seating, premium craftsmanship and tech that turns every drive into an adventure. Or Jeep Rangler with legendary 4x4 capability and open-air freedom. Because freedom deserves the vehicle built to carry it. Jeep, there's only one. Hurry into your local dealer for the Jeep Declaration of Deals.

Jeep has won more awards over its lifetime than any other SUV brands. Chief of the Jeep in the Jeep Grill or registered trademarks of FCAUS LLC. This is Sophia Bush from Work in Progress with Sophia Bush. And now a break from our sponsor, Miracle Grow. Let's be real, we're all feeling a little digitally distracted and time starved lately. We're craving real connections and ways to unplug. And honestly, gardening is the ultimate way to do this. It isn't just about plants. It's about trading the digital noise for a quiet win. As you pour your energy into helping something grow, you're pouring a sense of calm and connection back into yourself too. If you're in an apartment or you've never even touched a shovel, don't let self-doubt

stop you. With 75 years of expertise, Miracle Grow takes the stress out of the process and makes it pure joy. And let me tell you what, I can confirm this from the garden I love spending time in outdoors in Los Angeles to my little potted plants where I grow herbs indoors in New York. York, I love working with plants. And I love Miracle Grow because whether I'm doing something in the soil or potting something in the apartment, Miracle Grow takes the best care of my plants. So my plants can help take care of me. And here's the big secret. Most people think water and sunlight are enough. But no, no. Your plants actually need more to truly thrive, whether it's starting with the right soil foundation or giving plants the boost they need to stay vibrant with plant food.

Our friends at Miracle Grow have all the essentials to make growing simple and stress-free. Head to MiracleGrow.com to check out all of their easy-to-use products and start your growth journey today. Yeah, so quantum gravity sort of asserts itself when you try to localize things too carefully in space time. You know, the idea of having a location seems something that is so important. intrinsic to how the world works, that I would say, and probably you'll agree, that even today, modern researchers who talk about quantum gravity very often secretly have in mind some

spacetime manifold that has much more reality than it should, according to the rules of quantum gravity. I agree, and I would say that, how would I put this way, a lot of my career has been fighting against this temptation. Although, to be fair, Einstein was on the other side, right? I'm trying himself was heartbroken at the prospect that if there were quantum theory of gravity, space time would lose its primacy, right? He really felt, and he had a right, you know, because he was the boss of spacetime, to think that without a notion of where you were in space, if that were not fundamental, he couldn't quite see how even to do physics.

But certainly at the intuitive level, it seems that that is how quantum gravity should work. Right. Right. So do you think you know how to quantize gravity? Do you think I know how to quantize gravity? So let me put it this way. Me and my friends, a good group of friends, in a few decades, we have put together a tentative set of equations that can be written on a single piece of paper,

which are a tentative solution. of the problem. Now, do I hope this to be a quantum theory of gravity? Yes, I definitely do. Do I think it might be quantum theory of gravity? Yes, I do. Am I sure this is a good quantum theory of gravity? No, not at all.

Don't be coy. You should say what the name of you, theory is. It's loop quantum gravity. It's loop quantum gravity, right? So loop quantum gravity has been born from the early attempt in the 50s, in the 60s that you mentioned for the work of Willard de Witt and many other people, but then has evolved into a more precise mathematical structure to describe the quanta of gravity, this granular structure of space time, because in the,

so what the photons are for the electromagnetic field, with think there should be analogous quanta for the gravitational field, but that's a specific characteristic of loop quantum gravity. Since the gravitational field does not live in space time, is not something, it's not a field in space time, but it's space time itself. The quanta do not live in space or in space time. They are themselves space time. So they should not be confused with the gravitons, which are sort of a first approximation to quantum gravity, which are little particles like photons that move in space, the very, very, very much brothers of photons.

The quanta of gravity in loop quantum gravity are the grains out of which space, or the gravitational field, is built. And they are discrete, so they cannot be farther cut in smaller pieces. that pixel granular structure is right there. The pixel granule structure is right there at the beginning. And we have a state where Hilbert space, I mean, the mathematics of quantum mechanics that describe this pixel space. And the space of our experience is like the many pixels seeing from a large distance

when you don't see any more the discreteness. Like a good high-resolution TV screen. Like a high revolution theory screen, which is nice and smooth and continuous. But if you go very, very close, you see the individual pixels. And is there a way to concisely explain the word loop in the phrase looping gravity? Yes. Yes. First of all, it has to remain a little bit historically.

Now it's less loopy than the beginning. In some sense, yes. In some sense, right? Or it's more loopy, I don't know. The loop comes from this. The pixels themselves. are, how would I say, they know who is next to who? They know who is next to who.

So one can represent that with little links from loop to loop. So you have all this dot linked to one another that forms a net. In fact, we call them network or more precisely spin network. Spin because there is something of the mathematics of the spin in describing it. So imagine this network. And if you start from one of the pixel and go around, link, link, link, link and loop back, you make a loop. So these are the loops on loop quantum gravity.

And historically, the first mathematical description of these things that were found were only single sort of pixels along a loop, individual loops. This is when Ted Jacobson and Liz Molying stumbled upon a solution of what was considered at the time, the main equation of quantum gravity. which is called the wheel of the reid equation. And these solutions depended on loops. And so we started wondering what are these loops. And slowly we realized that these are the quanta,

this can be thought as the individual quanta of space. And in fact, they don't just loop or not so link, but they can cross. So it's better to think as a network than a set of loop. And I know that at least at some point in the development, of the theory, there's an image of almost like chain mail, in the sense that there were little loops that sort of tied around each other and that gave space its effective geometry and reality. Is that still how things are thought of now? Or is that kind of a bit? Yes. Yes. Yes. It's a little

less chain mail as, as before. Because at the beginning, we were working really with little loops. And we were thinking of loops sort of linked it to one another. So I remember at some point I was in Verona and I decided to buy a large number of key rings. Okay. And attached one to the other to make a sort of three-dimensional chain mail. This is what I'm remembering. Good. Yeah, that's right. And then I was going around.

I gave a talk in Princeton with going with my chain mail and John Wheeler, who was a big grandfather. of thinking about. When he saw it, it was very excited because he said, yes, yes, that's how I think about space

at a very, very small. And he ran away and came with a copy of his book. I didn't know that. But in his book, there's a picture

that he drew decades before, which is a sort of chain mill. Ah, all right. I mean, so it's inevitable to mention that

once you have these little one-dimensional loops, it almost begins to sound like string theory. It begins a string theory, right?

Because these loops are made by lines and it's like strings. The first difference with respect to, at least to old string theory, to how people started thinking of string

theory at the beginning, is that a string is a closed string is a little loop, but it's a little loop that moves in space. That's right. While these do not move in space. They make space themselves. So that's exactly right.

That's a core difference, the original difference. You see, string theory did not grew as a attempt to solve quantum gravity. It came from another way. It sort of stumbled on the possible solution of quantum gravity, which is a reason for taking it seriously, right, is the fact that it. But it originated from the effort of, making a unified theory of the different forces and the different pieces of the standard model and gravity. So people who work in string theory, especially at the beginning,

we're not, how would I say, we're mostly thinking in a sort of pre-generativistic way. This is space time, and over space time there are things that move in them. while loop quantum gravity emerged more from the core generativistic world where there is no fixed space time on which things happen. Space time itself is something that we're describing. So let me sort of give my version, because I think it's interesting to explore this rivalry, as it were. Loop quantum gravity and string theory, it's safe to say are the two leading candidates just in terms of voting by people doing research on them in terms of quantum gravity.

number of people. And like you say, loop quantum gravity arose out of a fairly direct approach to the question of how to reconcile gravity in quantum mechanics. We knew gravity. Einstein had this theory of general relativity. We have rules for quantizing things. They don't instantly work when you apply those rules to general relativity, but then you be clever.

And people like Lee Smolin and Ted Jacobson and Abe Ashtikar, gets lots of credit, and yourself as well. And you sift through the science. subtleties here, and you find ways to get a quantum mechanical theory that really respects the quantum nature of space-time itself, and this is the goal. And you're not trying to do a theory of everything. You're not trying to also explain quarks and leptons, right? You're not even trying to explain the possibility of extra dimensions. You think, look, I see the three dimensions of space and the one of time, let's work there. And that was the attitude that was taken. Whereas string theory, as you said, started in the 60s and 70s with this idea that was originally based on data,

right? Data from the strong interactions of particle physics, the interactions that keep the quarks inside protons and neutrons. And they saw that certain particles, certain collections of quarks, as we now know them, had a relationship between how fast they were spinning and how heavy they were. And someone said, Venetiano, and then Suskind later, would say, you know, this looks like a relationship that you would get if they were little pieces of string that were spinning. And so they developed this idea called string theory, and they were frustrated because it kept predicting gravity. They didn't want gravity, right?

That wasn't their goal. And it was people like John Schwartz, my colleague at Caltech, who eventually said, you know, well, gravity exists. Maybe if we get a theory of gravity, that's a good thing. Everyone left. You know, no one was really convinced by this. And it wasn't until the 1980s when Schwartz and Michael Green showed that string theory was actually a mathematically consistent theory

that they started saying, oh, okay, maybe this is real, and not only potentially a theory of quantum gravity, but also a theory of everything at the same time. Many, despite the fact that string theory is by votes, the leading theory of quantum gravity right now, there are many obvious problems with it. One is, as I think I'm completely on board with what you say,

it's not really taking the quantum nature of space time itself seriously. It starts with a string moving through space time, right? The space time is there already. And you can try to fix that in post-production, as it were. In post-production. But that's a challenge, just as every theory is going to have its challenges. So that's one challenge. Another challenge is that when you ask, okay, what does it say about space time

that a quantum mechanical string is vibrating in it? You find out that one thing it says is that space-time 10-dimensional. That is not a feature of the real world. So you say, well, okay, that's a known problem that we've had in other theories. We can hide these extra dimensions. We can curl them up so they're invisible. But guess what? There's more than one way to do that. There's probably an infinite number of ways to do that. At least numbers are thrown around like 10 to the 500 different ways of doing that. So your aspiration of getting a theory that was not only gravity but all the other forces of nature gets mired in this ambiguity, this fact that we don't know how to go from

the ore theory in 10 dimensions down to the four-dimensional real world. So a string theorist would say, look, we have this wonderful thing. We have a model where we've been struggling to quantize gravity, and here gravity is forced upon us from the rules of quantum mechanics itself. We should take advantage of that. Of course, there's these issues with 10 dimensions and so forth, but hopefully those will be resolved. Whereas someone in loop quantum gravity says, look, I have space time, I have general relativity, I should just take that seriously at face value, try to quantize it. And there are other problems that come up, and you can probably speak to them as well as I can, but then

you would also say, and hopefully those problems will someday be resolved. And in a field where there's not a lot of direct, helpful experimental data, because gravity is a weak force and the world looks pretty classical to us, It's hard to know which approach is better a priori, and we have to invest a little bit of judgment and taste to see which we like better. Yes, we have to use intuition, judgment, as you say, and bet. But I think things are moving. Things are moving especially with respect to the last thing you said. I agree with everything you said, by the way.

There is perhaps today less a sense that we are moving in a realm, completely detached from measurement and from experiments. Not that there are clear-cut quantum gravity experiments that choose between theories, certainly not. Not yet. Not yet. But I would say it's not so far, and there's a number of things that have happened. recently. First of all, remember that we have experiments that have ruled out SU5, which are at a scale, which is not very different from the quantum gravity scale, maybe two or three orders

of magnitude. That's right. So SU5 was this idea from the 1970s, before we were worrying about quantum gravity, it was a particular take on how to unify all of the other forces of nature. Unification without gravity. Without gravity. So they called it grand unification. It wasn't that grand. Also, didn't work. Like you said, the good news was it made explicit experimental predictions. The bad news is we did the experiment. The proton should decay into lighter particles, positrons and neutrinos and so forth. And it hasn't. We've been looking for that for a long time. It hasn't. And that's an example in which there was a measurement at a scale not so far from the scale of quantum gravity. But more recently, there have been a number of empirical results

which tell us something about quantum gravity, I believe, one which have not touched directly, I would say, neither string theory no loop quantum gravity, but has touched pretty strongly a number of other attempts, which that predicted the violations of Lawrence invariants. So explain what the Renson invariances. No, you explain it with Lawrence. I can explain with the Rensinvariants.

You know, again, Einstein, what he was inventing, special relativity. So he was before putting gravity into the mix, he was just trying to explain the symmetries of Maxwell's very successful electromagnetism. And he realized that what you called space, what you called time, was in some sense a choice of an observer to split four-dimensional space time into the three of space and the one of time. And it didn't matter.

If you were traveling near the speed of light, your clock moves differently with respect to the clock you left behind on Earth. But either choice was fine. There's nothing that you would be able to know. If you were in a sealed room, you don't know some sort of absolute velocity that you have with respect to the universe. It's only with respect to some other part of the universe. So that's Lorentzian variance. Lawrence invariance is different things moving at different velocities.

Don't have any way of telling how fast they're moving in any absolute sense. only with respect to other things. Yes, which is what we're saying at the beginning about velocity being a relational notion. And the fact that it was relational notion was true even before Lorentz invariants. There's Galilean invariance, which is still true for Newtonian physics. Einstein adds this ingredient that the way that you divide up space and time does depend on your motion through the universe.

And you can test this idea. You can test it experimentally, right? Right, right. And so far it seems to be true. Yes, that seems quite spectacularly correct this invariance. Well, just to show how spectacularly correct, you know, one of the predictions of Lorentz invariance is that if something is moving close to the speed of light, as we said, its internal clock seems to move at a different rate than a clock that is stationary with

respect to us. So we see, you know, here on Earth, raining down from the sky, these elementary particles called muons. Yeah. These are part of the standard model of particle physics. A muon is basically a heavier version of an electron. And you look at how fast it's moving coming down. These are not created out there in the sky because they decay.

Muons are not forever. They decay really quickly. And in fact, they don't have enough time by hour clock to go from the top of the atmosphere where they're created in some cosmic ray collision to reach us down here. They should have decayed away. How is it possible that they don't? And the answer is they're moving so close to the speed of light that they're clock is ticking at a different rate. And this is kind of a crude but vivid demonstration.

These days with high precision atomic clocks and other kinds of things, we can test this idea of Lorentz invariance and variance. And so far, it's one of the best symmetries that we've experimentally probed. Right. Exactly. Thank you. And some attempts to write a quantum theory of gravity, others than strings and loops, are constructed some tentative theory of gravity where Lawrence invariance is broken, is violated. And there was a moment in which they received a lot of attention, these other attempts. One was called Oshava gravity, for instance. So the people were excited, or maybe we know how to do quantum gravity,

and we can even test it by looking that Lawrence's invariance is violated. Sorry, it's an important point to emphasize that scientists get thrilled when they can say that in some subtle way, everything we knew before was wrong, right? Yes, very good, very good. I think they get too thrilled. That's what I think. And in fact, this is what happened in that case, right?

Because a lot of people worked on this idea, and a lot of experimenters and astronomers started to look at indications and a program of observations of astronomers. the physical phenomena that would violate Lawrence invariance was launched. And this was about 10 years ago. And I think that now we have quite strong evidence that Lawrence invariance is not violated at the scale required by those theories. Not where you might expect it to be.

So a number of attempts to do quantum gravity has, I wouldn't say ruled out, because ruled out is always a little bit too strong. but made less convincing, less credible by the fact that what predicted was not there. So that's one example in which a measurement told something relevant to quantum gravity. A second example, I have three. A second example, it's very recent and is with gravitational waves. And in particular, the last observation, which is two neutron star falling into one hour, spiraling, into one hour and merging, that was a few months ago, and 17, if you remember correctly,

because that was particular, because that was seen by the gravitational wave detectors, but also by telescopes, radio telescopes, all sort of gamma-ratered. So, light waves as well as gravitation-way. So everybody saw these things, which makes observation credible, first of all. You see a wide variety of instrument it has to be there. But the fantastic thing is that this is a merger of two neutal stars that happened very far away. So the light and the gravitational wave have traveled from there to now for a very long time, and they arrived at the same moment within a very small...

As far as we can tell. As far as we can tell. So because of that, we have learned... that gravitational waves and electromagnetic waves travel at the same speed. And in fact, if you put the numbers, they travel the same speed in one part in 10 to the 14 or 15. So a very great precision. Before that, so one year ago, the experimental information, the observational and empirical information on the ratio of the speed of light

and speed of gravitational wave was one part in 10. So in one single stroke, we ameliorated our knowledge of fundamental parameter of nature by 100 billion times. Now, why this is great. So this problem. So why this is great? Because, again, a lot of people were studying modifications of generativity that predicted that gravitational waves go at different speed than electromagnetic waves.

So a lot of work of theoreticians like you and me have been thrown in the wastebasket, just in one stroke. Or again, maybe made less credible, somehow less interesting. And the third one, and I'm here perhaps touching a more controversial thing here, is the non-discovery of supersymmetry at LHC, which was a non-news, because there was a non-news, was a known discovery, but I think was the great news at LHC, as important as the discovery of the Higgs that made the title, the front page of all newspapers. So when the LHC, the big machine, the accelerator particle turn on, quite quickly saw the Higgs. Fantastic. It was predicted by standard model. But there was a very large part of the community.

of theoretical physicist that expected very strongly, was almost convinced that supersymmetric particle had to come out and be seen. Supersymmetry being this hypothetical symmetry that says that particles of different spin should have friendly partner particles with different spin but the same exact properties. So there should be, if there's an electron,

which we know and love, there's a supersymmetric partner of that called the selectron. If there's a quark, there are squarks, if there's neutrinos, there's snutrinos, et cetera. You should double the number of particles if supersymmetry is right. And like you say, many people thought

that it was right around the corner. We would turn on this machine and squarks and gluinos would come popping out at us, and we haven't seen anything yet. We have not seen anything yet. And string theory requires supersymmetry, to work, and many people expected that this subsimity had to be visible at the energy of LHC. Now, when it was not seeing, definitely this does not rule out string theory at all,

because string theory could be, the subsymmetry could be still there, but somehow at a higher energy where we haven't seen it. But nevertheless, a lot of the subsymmetry, of people were expecting it. And I think if it had been observed, I, who I'm not a string guy, would have thought to, well, these people had the right intuition about nature after all. So maybe these people have a point for them. It wouldn't prove the string theory right, but it would be a plus in that direction. I think that's very fair. It's not, there was no absolute rock hard prediction either way. But had you seen, supersymmetry, your credence and string theory would have crept up a little bit.

Exactly. The fact that you didn't see it, therefore means it better go down a little bit. Exactly. Exactly. I think this is a point about how to think about science, right? We often say that we propose theory and then they are falsified by an experiment, and so if a theory is not falsified, it may still be right. But I think things are a little bit more complicated, because we put credibility in theory.

and the more sort of good indirect things happen, the more our credibility goes up, and the more sort of things don't work, the credibility goes down. Or it should. Yes, exactly. So science also worked this way, through hints, through indirect thing.

And so what I'm saying is that violation of law and symmetry is one, the speed of the gravitational electromagnetic waves is another one, supersymmet is another one, we're learning. We're learning things which are all relevant toward quantum gravity. And there's also a lot of attention now

in doing toward doing experiments toward quantum gravity. There is one experiment which has been proposed, which I find very, exciting, which would not distinguish between quantum gravity theories, but would prove that space is quantized. So that gravity is quantized, which has been proposed by two independent groups last year, or two years ago. And I'm very excited about it. So I hope people would do that soon.

And so let me explain it because you take one particle. and sort of nanoparticle as more things that people now know how to work with and you quantum split you put it in a superposition or two positions

and you take another particle and you also quantum split and these two particles both split are next to another so now there is the gravitational interaction between the two

so each one is in the Newtonian field of the other So when we say nanoparticles, this is not an elementary particle like an electron, but it's like a little moat of dust. It's a small dust. It's a small grain of dust, right? And these, we, we, not we, them. The people in the laboratories are able to put in the quantum superposition of two different positions. So you have two particles, both of them in a superposition next to one another. So each one of them feels, the gravitational force of the two branches in which the other one is. And because of that, the state of the two particles gets entangled.

And now there are very clean ways to see if two things are entangled. Yes. And if we find that they're entangled... And this is true quantum entanglement. It's quantum entanglement. This is not just they're related, but they're connected. quantum mechanical level. If this happened, it means that the gravitational field itself was in a superposition of two different, was on two branches, so to say. And since the gravitational field we know is space time,

it means that space time can be put in a superposition. And this is a proposed experiment. This is a proposed experiment, but if you work out the numbers, the people who manipulate it. these small particles, they say that they think they should be able to do it in a few years. And I think it would be wonderful because there are still people around, even if a minority, who says, I don't believe that space time has a quantum properties. I've met them, yes. Because come on, space time is space time. It's a heavy thing.

And this experiment, if it can be done, would be splash a clear indication that you can and put that there is this indetermination, this profound quantum nature also of space itself. So I'm about halfway through the number of things I wanted to talk about, but we need to go and be good conference participants. But let me close. I have two questions that I would like to at least throw out there. And the first one, there'll be a temptation to talk about it for half an hour, but let's not.

There's loop quantum gravity. There's string theory. There are other approaches, causal set theory and Euclidean quantum gravity and so forth. Quantum gravity, we don't have a consensus. We're trying different things. But nevertheless, we live in a world where there are finite resources to do science, academic positions, grant money, prizes, and so forth. Glory. There's a feeling that's certainly been put forward that there's been unfairness in how the representation of the

these different approaches to quantum gravity has been distributed throughout academia. In particular, that the string theorists have kind of a dominant position that maybe they don't deserve, given that string theory hasn't really predicted anything definite that we've tested. It's mathematically very beautiful, but there's obstacles to it like there are to other theories. I personally think that string theory has a good reason to be the leading candidate, but I also think that it would be very healthy for the field to be doing various other things. So what are your feelings about the fair? Is the free market of ideas working well here, or is there, are we not being quite fair enough to this diversity of different approaches?

Yes, you invite me to. Noces, yes. I think that if I look back a couple of decades, the distribution of resources has not been fair. with, let me say it clearly, with all respect and appreciation for string theory, this is not, far from me for saying that string theory should not be founded, should be thrown out of university or anything like that. It's a wonderful research direction, but it's a research direction. It's not a established result that we can take for granted. And And as a research direction, it might be right, it might be wrong, it may be partially right, partially wrong, and so on.

And I think that other approaches in Lubbock, in particular, has suffered because of a dominance of string theory. There is a non-linearity, there is a bandwagon effect. I mean, powerful people are in power of positions and do one thing, and it would not be the first time in the history of science in which a group of people, a large group of people, dominate and push the field in a direction which is not useful. It could be. So I think a little bit more fairness and being more free market. Right. So to be fair, I think maybe we alluded to this but didn't become clear, any approach to quantum gravity or any other unsolved puzzle in physics has this element of taste around it in the sense that you will be making some sacrifices, right?

Like some things in a certain approach work and are very nice and natural and other things seem problematic. And different people have different judgments as to say, well, this is a problem, but surely we will overcome that with a few more years of work. And so string theory clearly has a problem connecting from this purported 10-dimensional reality down to our four-dimensional reality. Do you want to mention some of the problems that loop quantum gravity has? Well, yes, I think that in the version in which we are working today,

you work in the covariant version of quantum gravity, at least there is, and this is a plus, a well-defined set of equations. Okay, so we can write down and say this is the theory. Now, we don't know really if this is consistent in the sense in the precise sense. We can use it sort of order by order to compute. But we don't know if this converges in any sense. So even in the weakest possible sense,

we don't know if going to next order, the theory doesn't go fully elsewhere. So this is one of those famous things in quantum theories where you might calculate a good approximation, but then you try to make your approximation better and everything blows up and everything blows up right right so since this is not being proved this is not being checked that there aren't even sort of good indications for believing so this is definitely a weakness of the theory the theory could blow up still and be meaningless

however I think that the what we need is not more mathematics we need to apply this theory to reality I'm working on the application to black holes I'm trying a lot of people like me is trying to connect quantum gravity to astrophysic, cosmology, see if you can say something for, I don't know, dark matter, fast radio burst, gamma-ray signals, signatures in the cosmic background, radiation. Because at the end of the day, what will convince us that one through is good or not is not, is not, in my opinion, the mathematical cleanness. No.

We don't get it. At some day, that day may be a while before it comes, but you have to explain the data. You have to explain the data. So in the moment in which you say, look, I have a prediction or explanation of the data and it works well, then the attention of community will focus on that. Let me say about the string theory that things have changed with respect to some time ago. I mean, I think there is much more reciprocal respect than 10 years ago. I think

there was a moment in which string theory had very high hopes and was sort of saying we have it it has backtracked a little bit from that The hopes were always high there were hopes for a quick resolution

Right I would say There was a moment in which people thought Okay now we're going to compute all the parameters of the standard model Now we're going to do this and this and that we're going to see supersymmetry and we're going to understand dark matter because dark matter

is just a neutrality or whatever all things come together and things are more difficult. Nature is subtle and occasionally malicious. Nature is subtle. So the idea of, oh, we are there, it's a bit more far away, people step back, which means also there is more respect. I talk to string theory more than before and there is exchange. Obviously we can learn from one another, right? Because that's the way it's physics work. Well, and maybe this feeds into the answer to my final question, which is predict the future.

What do you see coming in the next 10 or 20 years, and among those things, do you see convergence between different attempts to think about quantum gravity, or do you see more diversity with more things coming, or do you think that someone's just going to get the right answer and everyone will agree? I don't know. Making prediction is always difficult, especially about the future.

I don't know. I think that it would be great to think that there's convergence. But in the history of science, there have been huge debates, huge disagreements. It's not, we're not in a particular special situation, right? If you look back at the history of

science, always being very opposite theory is phlogisto and so on, so, there's many of that, it's Copernicus, or the atom, yes. Right, exactly. And usually, one of the two sites would not be right, that does not be wrong.

And often, it took long. It took long to get clarity. What I hope, and I would like to see that this is going to happen, is that I don't know, we can compute a black hole tunnel into white hole and recognize that some signals are exactly that. And then we have a clear gasp on something which is happening.

And so we will see that this is the right direction to go. Gravity is out there in the universe. Quantum mechanics is out there in the universe. It's not completely unrealistic to imagine that somehow it will show up. Yes, I do expect it will show up. Somehow, it seems much closer today than it seemed 20 years ago. All right. That's a great place to stop. Carlo, thank you so much for coming by. Thank you, Sean. Thanks a lot. What if you could have even more and more and more help to pursue your goals? At LPL Financial, we offer more ways for advisors and their clients to thrive. So what if you could?

Paid advertisement. Investing involves risk, including potential asset principal, LPL Financial LLC member FINRA, SIPC.