Physics at the limits of reality | Sabine Hossenfelder in conversation with Hilary Lawson | In full

more particles of things like this and I think that's the wrong place to look. And I've been trying to get labs and other physicists to investigate this question: Can we find out if there is a more fundamental theory underlying quantum mechanics that would end up all this measurement problem? Where do you think we should be? I am looking to find evidence to resolve the question you just outlined, so one interesting thing that is happening, as you surely know, is that there is a lot of research and also technological development in Quantum Computing, Quantum Technologies in general, Quantum Metrology, Quantum Sensing. all that kind of stuff and they're collecting a lot of data whether they want to or not, just building these things, so I think right now the task is for the theorists to try to find a way to analyze. all of this data to determine if there's more going on than we think and so it's really on the theory development side that things are lagging behind right now, but that's not what some of the people You are critical of Multiverse theorists who want to propose a theory that they believe somehow organizes the complexity of the data.

Presenting a theory that organizes the complexity of data is exactly what science should do, so I hope. I haven't criticized any of that, so when you talk about multiverses, first of all, there are several different types of multiverses, but what I have a problem with is if they make assumptions that are actually unnecessary to make sense of this complexity, like when you're Speaking for example, let's take the many word interpretation of quantum mechanics, this is all very well and you can use it to describe a lot of data, but that doesn't mean that those other universes actually exist, so this is the point. where I got off the bus, basically your point was that you think there needs to be more theoretical research to provide a framework that allows us to understand the data well, it's not so much about understanding it, it's you. you're trying to solve a problem which in this case is the measurement problem and then that theory would make predictions about what should be found in the data, yes, yes, but this is like normal science, so the point is that I don't need those other universes to make sense of the data we have in our own universe, that's exactly the problem I have, which is why they make those unnecessary assumptions.

I hope I'm not making any unnecessary assumptions, so if I do, I hope someone points it out. for me, but maybe let me tell you that it's not just about making sense of the data, but you're actually trying to make new predictions for things that couldn't be predicted before, that's your real criticism that some of these proposals they have no value in terms of their protective power and that when you encourage us to do more theory, because sometimes it seems like you are encouraging greater attention to experimental evidence, but you would be making the point, no, no, no. we have to focus on, so to speak, getting the theory right.

I'm just looking at what the relationship is between the data and the theory and there's not always going to be something that's not supported in the theory because you're saying look, look, look at the data this way and they'll be able to be predictive, well there's a difference. between a theory that has something that is not yet supported by the data but could someday be supported and a theory that has ingredients that can never be supported. by data because they are fundamentally unverifiable and the existence of unobservable universes is one of those. I actually find it a little strange why they believe in the existence of something that can't be measured, but that's how they believe it comes. outside of mathematics and it's a long story, but I think they're really really lost in the mouth, which is why this was the title of my book, um, but yeah, I think in the fundamentals of quantum mechanics I have this big problem that We are trying to solve it and I hope we can solve it, maybe I'm wrong, but at least that's what I'm working on.

I don't know anything that simple theories really solve, so thanks. Thank you very much, SP. It's been fascinating to hear your opinions, thank you, thank you.