Shawn Ryan

And so you can study like different, like strongly coupled limits by having this other approximation or other approximation that's valid.

But both of these things to me are just saying, okay, you have...

Again, there's a reason to think that maybe one tenet of quantum gravity is this holographic nature, and then we're trying to apply it to these asymptotically flat spacetimes, which are, again, the flat Earth or analog of cosmology.

But maybe I shouldn't say that.

See, that's the thing is I would say in some sense, yeah, by definition, but like how physical is it?

Like, I think what I'm saying is that, and maybe this is a problem with someone who ends up spending too much time just in equations and not in like real world.

Like if...

you can describe things the same way.

You might as well use whatever definition is useful for some things.

So I think I don't always take it too literally in the sense of we are in this celestial sphere.

It's more like, can I convert everything to variables on that celestial sphere?

And does that help me organize some scattering computations in a way that would just get computationally complicated to compute all these five-minute diagrams or something like that?

That's the kind of goal.

I think I view it as it's another math framework that ideally, if we do it right, is equivalent.

And then don't over-interpret the physicality of that per se, but it probably is my own problem for not trying to take things more literally because we are studying physics after all.

I think that I'm trying to build a version of a holographic framework that works for space times that are not anti-de Sitter.

So like space times that are more relevant for like scattering.

How does gravity want to be described?

Quantum gravity want to be described by a boundary system.

So we're trying to build that out.