Shawn Ryan

I think the reason that we study something like quantum gravity is, again, because we have this bias or we think that whatever the laws of nature are, there's a fundamental set that then leads to all these different regimes that you're studying.

If you didn't have that bias, maybe you shouldn't be doing that job.

If you have that bias, then the thing that you should be doing is trying to, again, merge various

rules into a single set of rules and so I guess the big outstanding one is this like short distance physics and long distance physics because at some point then you like we know there's quantum mechanics and we know that the GR is important so like there's some sense in which the actual observations guide you to this still open kind of problem of how what theoretical frameworks can consistently limit to both I think I mean to the extent that like why should the rules of like

tennis versus hockey have to be united, right?

Like, I think that, like, it's kind of cool that we think that the laws of nature are, like, there's something fundamental about it.

There's something highly compressible, like, about that description.

And I think that's a fun hypothesis, even, rather than just a belief to try to test it.

And you can kind of automate what you do as researchers in the future.

But yeah.

That would be, sorry, I think what I'm saying is if, so like space-time, so for me, it's like, it depends on, so sometimes you use the word space to mean space-time, but it's three plus one dimensions is our world.

And then the boundary is one dimension lower typically, and the celestial sphere is two dimensions lower because the boundary for these flat space-times is null in a way where like,

Basically, no other direction can talk to each other.

So again, the point would be, can we find an equivalent description or almost like we've seen it work in the past?

How do we apply it to this regime?

And then how do we learn something by seeing how we can't import it?

So again, physicists are constantly using mathematical frameworks that they already have.

and trying to tweak, like apply them to something different and then realize something goes wrong and then try to like learn about that framework by seeing how to modify it to make it work.

And so like in some sense, answer is yes.

But at the same time, you know, you want to try to see if I built a framework like that, would it tell me anything different about the structure at scales I can't see?