one of my favorite philosophy quotes something like, "when we try to pick one thing out by itself, we find it attached to everything else".

When she has made her point she stops talking. That is so refreshing.

What a precise and brilliant speaker Prof Adlam is - she concisely says what she wants, with zero waffling or hand waving.  Then she stops.   Thanks !

Curt mate, you've become a force in this arena. Always sneaking in at least one question which triggers genuine novelty and contemplation, and doing it with countless geniuses in somewhat disparate fields.  You're rich inspiration for the enquiring polymath. Love you man.

She should become a regular on the channel. She is so quick to put any answer in understandable terms, it is really impressive.

Never heard someone answer questions so fast, in one go and so lucidly and then immediately stop when all the information is communicated. Amazing!!

She's just remarkably fast and clear to express views and reasonings about things. I think we can expect so much from her in the future explorations in physics!

Wow, she's brilliant AF. You haven't had many guests that can quickly consider questions like these, and answer them so thoughtfully, succinctly, and seemingly genuinely. Not couching her words.

There was no condescension either, which can be quite painful for this audience 😂.

She knows her stuff, and can actually articulate opposing theories, which is a depressing rarity.

What it feels like is that she has the right basic intuition. How wonderful that she has the sort of precise mind that will enable her to flesh it out, for all of our benefit.

It’s wild that I was able to listen to this whole thing, not understanding so much of it. I feel like the cadence of curious, rational intelligence can be informative regardless of understanding.

This idea was legit my first and last mushroom trip’s conclusion. I was blowm away by the notion and have never heard someone approach it until now.

She is the Hemingway of science. Short and precise without unnecessary words.

Curt! You're doing such a great service to the humanity, thanks. Onwards and upwards!

The attitude of this woman is a sign of hope, not only for the advancement of physics but also for human beings in general. She has a flexibility and clarity of mind that is a sign of someone not identified with the results of her work. I would say she has a kind of openness and inner confidence plus humility that allows her to be intelligent about when to let go of an old previously held idea and allow it to "die" if need be by accepting a deeper and more encompassing view. Sometimes accepting a new idea can unconsciously seem like we are having to give up or let die a part of our self.  Emily Adlam is readily able and not unduly  uncomfortable about questioning her own ideas and the view underlying her ideas. She is a kind of shining example in this sense. This is much needed when we consider that Max Planck is reported to have said, "Science advances one funeral at a time." He was referring to something like the often unrecognized tendency of the human mind to identify with some aspects of what it knows or what it thinks it knows. This results in the fact that the more deeply we are identified with an idea or an interpretation of experiments, the more we unnecessarily hold on to the idea and try to find some way of interpretation that allows us to hold on to this somewhat unconsciously held sense of belief. One quite subtle example is Einstein's balking at the implications of entanglement and calling it "spooky action at a distance". This probably was related to his deep inner sense that caused him to say such things as "God does not play dice" and "Subtle is the Lord but malicious he is not". While questionable, Einstein is often quoted as saying something like: "The most important decision you will make is whether you believe you live in a friendly or a hostile universe.' What I am trying to point out and emphasize is that our deeper and mainly hidden beliefs and inner perspectives have the power to shape our experience and therefore influence our judgment as well. I would suggest that Emily as well as some other scientists have the ability to be more free of this kind of bias than does the average scientist. Equally well I would suggest that this attitude is catching and somehow or other all scientists should be given a healthy exposure to this kind of mindset. The scientific method grew out of a wish and an attitude to be free of bias yet science in general has not yet seen the need to ask the question: What are all the ways in which a person can be freed of subtle or as of yet mainly unconscious bias? And how can these ways be included in the education of scientists such that the mental qualities that are mainly free of bias can shine through. To use a common phrase: Emily has these qualities "in spades". Thanks be.

I lost track of where, but when Emily mentioned it would be nice to try to think of QM in terms of global or atemporal structure (which was a nerdy way of saying the 4D Block Universe) it reminded me of Landau & Lifshitz. They noted ,"... quantum mechanics occupies a very unusual place among physical theories: it contains classical mechanics as a limiting case, yet at the same time it requires this limiting case for its own formulation. "  I think this was not a trivial note. We physicists have to build QM as a theory from our classical perspective, we have no other choice. But there is a chance this recapitulates metaphysics. Globally entanglement structure become "washed out" and so the whole of spacetime is not necessarily ever in any effective superposition.  I do believe this is how one handles "quantum gravity", at least for cosmology. You do not sum over spacetimes, since the whole of spacetime is not entangled with anything. It only contains internal things which can be entangled, and even then, only pairwise among the submicroscale scale qubits.

Not a judge of physics, but she seems absolutely brilliant.

Extremely well spoken and concise -- she doesn't waste a word in explanations, gives the complete story, and -- hard stop.

Very impressive.

Thanks for the brilliant discussion Curt. I couldn't help but be amazed by the brilliance of Ms Adlam. Above all I was impressed by how well she answered each question

Enjoyed this guest so much. It's an uphill battle to question time; yet, causality has confounded thinkers since the Sumerians. Then the  Persians. Then the Greeks. Then the Romans. Then the Ottomans. Finally the Europeans, quantum mechanics, etc. I think that nobody has cracked this yet. Emily Adlam acknowledges this and, I feel, gets real and sets us up for possible progress.

I listen to Emily Adlam, and all I can think is "What a beautiful mind." .

Curt's question on integration by parts is amazing.  Looking at the action and then assuming the boundary conditions are 0 in the variation is ignoring the core issues.