Lisa Randall

Einstein was not a top-down person in the beginning. Special relativity was very much him thinking about, you know, they were thought experiments, but he was very much, you know, the original theory about relativity is something like on the nature of electromagnetism.

Einstein was not a top-down person in the beginning. Special relativity was very much him thinking about, you know, they were thought experiments, but he was very much, you know, the original theory about relativity is something like on the nature of electromagnetism.

Einstein was not a top-down person in the beginning. Special relativity was very much him thinking about, you know, they were thought experiments, but he was very much, you know, the original theory about relativity is something like on the nature of electromagnetism.

He was trying to understand how Maxwell's laws could make sense when they seemed to have different symmetries than what we had thought they were. So he was very much a bottom-up person. And in fact, he resisted top-down for a long time.

He was trying to understand how Maxwell's laws could make sense when they seemed to have different symmetries than what we had thought they were. So he was very much a bottom-up person. And in fact, he resisted top-down for a long time.

He was trying to understand how Maxwell's laws could make sense when they seemed to have different symmetries than what we had thought they were. So he was very much a bottom-up person. And in fact, he resisted top-down for a long time.

Then when he tried to do the theory of general relativity, or the general theory of relativity, whichever you want to call it, incorporating gravity into the system where you need some feedback, Then he was helped by a mathematician who had developed some differential geometry and helped him figure out how to write down that.

Then when he tried to do the theory of general relativity, or the general theory of relativity, whichever you want to call it, incorporating gravity into the system where you need some feedback, Then he was helped by a mathematician who had developed some differential geometry and helped him figure out how to write down that.

Then when he tried to do the theory of general relativity, or the general theory of relativity, whichever you want to call it, incorporating gravity into the system where you need some feedback, Then he was helped by a mathematician who had developed some differential geometry and helped him figure out how to write down that.

And after that, he thought top-down was the way to go, but he actually didn't make that much progress. So I think it's naive to think it was just one or the other. In fact, a lot of people who made real progress were rooted in actual measurements.

And after that, he thought top-down was the way to go, but he actually didn't make that much progress. So I think it's naive to think it was just one or the other. In fact, a lot of people who made real progress were rooted in actual measurements.

And after that, he thought top-down was the way to go, but he actually didn't make that much progress. So I think it's naive to think it was just one or the other. In fact, a lot of people who made real progress were rooted in actual measurements.

Well, to be frank, there's a lot more overlap in physics and math, I think, than has been. I mean, well, maybe not more, but there's certainly a lot. But I think, again, the kinds of questions you're asking are usually different. Mathematicians like the structure itself. Physicists are trying to concentrate on, to some extent, on the consequences for the world. But there is a lot of overlap.

Well, to be frank, there's a lot more overlap in physics and math, I think, than has been. I mean, well, maybe not more, but there's certainly a lot. But I think, again, the kinds of questions you're asking are usually different. Mathematicians like the structure itself. Physicists are trying to concentrate on, to some extent, on the consequences for the world. But there is a lot of overlap.

Well, to be frank, there's a lot more overlap in physics and math, I think, than has been. I mean, well, maybe not more, but there's certainly a lot. But I think, again, the kinds of questions you're asking are usually different. Mathematicians like the structure itself. Physicists are trying to concentrate on, to some extent, on the consequences for the world. But there is a lot of overlap.

There's also some really cool ideas that you get in particle physics where you can describe what's going on and connect it to other ideas. That's also really beautiful. I think basically insights can be beautiful. They might seem simple, and sometimes they genuinely are, and sometimes they're built on a whole system that you have to understand before.

There's also some really cool ideas that you get in particle physics where you can describe what's going on and connect it to other ideas. That's also really beautiful. I think basically insights can be beautiful. They might seem simple, and sometimes they genuinely are, and sometimes they're built on a whole system that you have to understand before.

There's also some really cool ideas that you get in particle physics where you can describe what's going on and connect it to other ideas. That's also really beautiful. I think basically insights can be beautiful. They might seem simple, and sometimes they genuinely are, and sometimes they're built on a whole system that you have to understand before.

If you actually saw Einstein's equations written out in components, you wouldn't think it's so beautiful. You write it in a compact way. It looks nice.

If you actually saw Einstein's equations written out in components, you wouldn't think it's so beautiful. You write it in a compact way. It looks nice.