Λlobatniɔ, 24 April 2019.

Q & A. Lisa Randall. [interview]

DOI :

Q & A. Lisa Randall. [interview]

Lisa Randall 1)
1)
Harvard University-Department of Physics, 17 Oxford Street, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA

Adib Rifqi Setiawan 2)(*)

2)
Λlobatniɔ Research Society (ΛRS), Pandak 001/003, Colo, Kudus, 59353, Indonesia
(*)
Email: alobatnic@gmail.com

ABSTRACT
Lisa Randall is a theoretical physicist working in particle physics and cosmology. She was born in
Queens, New York City, on June 18, 1962. Lisa Randall is an alumna of Hampshire College
Summer Studies in Mathematics; and she graduated from Stuyvesant High School in 1980. She
won first place in the 1980 Westinghouse Science Talent Search at the age of 18; and at Harvard
University, Lisa Randall earned both a BA in physics (1983) and a PhD in theoretical particle
physics (1987) under advisor Howard Mason Georgi III, a theoretical physicist. She is currently
Frank B. Baird, Jr. Professor of Science on the physics faculty of Harvard University, where he has
been for the past a decade. Her works concerns elementary particles and fundamental forces, and
has involved the study of a wide variety of models, the most recent involving dimensions. She has
also worked on supersymmetry, Standard Model observables, cosmological inflation, baryogenesis,
grand unified theories, and general relativity. Consequently, her studies have made her among the
most cited and influential theoretical physicists and she has received numerous awards and honors
for her scientific endeavors. Since December 27, 2010 at 00:42 (GMT+7), Lisa Randall is Twitter’s
user with account @lirarandall. “Thanks to new followers. Interesting how different it feels
broadcasting on line vs.via book or article. Explanations? Pithiness? Rapidity?” is her first tweet.

Keywords: Cosmology; Interview; Particle Physics; Lisa Randall; Theoretical Physicist;

Who are you?

Lisa Randall. Professor of Physics at Harvard University. And I'm also the author of Warped
Passages: Unraveling the Mysteries of the Universe's Hidden Dimensions. That's always a
complicated question. The first part's easy. I'm from Fresh Meadows, New York. It's a part of
Queens, sort of on the outer edge of Queens towards Long Island. And how does it influence
who I am today? Well I think growing up in New York can't help but influence who you are.
Even though I was in Queens, I went to high school in Manhattan. But also I was subject to
the ____________ of being in New York. I was joking with a friend recently. I think my first
day of school didn't exist because it was at the time of the teacher's strike. So I think that was
characteristic of sort of a sense of uncertainty that existed around that time. So I think the fact
that it was a bit of a bizarre educational system in the beginning probably influenced me; but
also the fact that it's an intense community where there's lots of bright people around. For me,
I think going to Stuyvesant was just nice to get away from the more insular area of Queens
that I was in. And I think basically having ... And we did have some good teachers. And not
everyone, but some of them were good. And I think it definitely just influenced how seriously

-1-
Λlobatniɔ, 24 April 2019.
Q & A. Lisa Randall. [interview]
DOI :

I took academics. You know I just always liked school, so I looked reading. I liked math. It
wasn't as much science. I think I liked math. I remember liking math more than ... The
science we learned was a little bit diluted. In third grade we dug up an ant hill and just looked
at it. You know that was ... that was counted as science. So it wasn't really all that technical.
But I think I liked just ... I liked math. I liked the fact that it had answers. You know you
didn't necessarily need a great teacher. You could still learn the math, which was nice. But I
... but I was a big reader too, so I just liked all that when I was a kid. Well you know it
doesn't happen at once I think. You sort of go ... I mean it's funny. You're going into science
thinking that you'll have some impact that's sort of more permanent maybe, that you'll find
some truth. And then you realize that truths get overturned, and it's not so easy. And it's not
so obvious what will be there. But I think the fact that you can work things out, that you can
test them, there's something very reassuring about that. It's not ... it isn't just opinion at the
end of the day. For a while it is opinion until it's tested. But at the end of the day it's ... it's ...
it's not opinion; or at least we'd like to believe that. And I think it's true, and I think it's been
well-tested in many aspects of what it's predicted. So there is still that ... Even though what ...
what doing science is about is sort of answering questions you don't know the answer to, at
the end of the day you sort of have this overriding belief that some things will be known.
Well I mean in a broad sense we're trying to understand ... I do theoretical particle physics,
first of all. And so we're trying to understand the substructure of matter. That is to say we're
trying to understand what are matter's most basic elements. How do they interact? We're also
... The kind of work I do also interfaces with cosmology at times, understanding what's in the
universe; how it's involved; how do you explain the properties of what we've observed there
as well. So a lot of what we're doing is trying to extend beyond what we know. There's
something called the standard model particle physics, and it tells us about particles called
"quirks", like those inside the proton neutron; particles called "leptons", which are like an
electron; and it tells us the four forces that we know about. And we're trying to get beyond
that. We're trying to understand questions like, “What are masses? Why are they what they
are? How are those masses related? Why are they related in the way they are? Are the forces
related in some way? Where are they unified?”

What impact does your work have on the world?

I don't know. You know for one thing it turns out which ideas turn out to be right. I think that,
you know, at this point though, one impact is just it makes people think about broader
questions. I mean it's ... I mean one of the nice things, it expands your horizons. That wasn't
meant literally, but in the sense that it's nice to think ... I don't know. I mean some ... I guess
people are different. Some people like to think they know everything, and some ... For some
people, I think it's nice to think there's all these questions that we don't know the answer to. I
mean there could be extra dimensions in space that we just don't know about. And certainly
in the history of physics there have been many things that have been discovered that no one
would have anticipated. No one anticipated quantum mechanics, but it was discovered and
people put it together. And so I think just the idea ... It's a little bit humbling, but in an
interesting way, to think about the number of questions we know the answer to; but look at
the number of things we don't know the answers to. And so I think just being able to think
about these in an intelligent way, to ask these questions, and to, you know, hopefully to think
more scientifically about them; not just to think in a sort of "new agey" kind of way, but to
really think about what these things could mean.

-2-
Λlobatniɔ, 24 April 2019.
Q & A. Lisa Randall. [interview]
DOI :

Do you have a crative process (on scientific work)?

You know it's pretty random. A lot of the time you just hear about an idea and you're mulling
it over and you think oh, you know, I could do this a better way. Or this could have this
implication. It's not just one thing. A lot of it is ... I think ... I think one thing that it's ... I think
a lot of creative people ... But different creative people work in different ways, but I think
some just have a lot of ideas in their heads sort of buried. So when something comes up, you
can sort of automatically make connections. And so sometimes it's sort of piecing things
together. And of course that always turns into something else. But realizing oh, for example,
if there are extra dimensions, maybe it can have implications for particle physics to solve this
problem that I've been worried about for years. So to be able to make connections and to sort
of recognize good ideas, I think that's another thing, to really listen. Sometimes it's really
easy to dismiss an idea, and sometimes they should be dismissed. But to really listen and be
aware of sort of the full range of implications of some thoughts ... of some particular ideas.
So I think that's important too.

What the risks of scientific innovation?

I'm a little bit hesitant to overstate the risk because some science is risk and some science is
not. I do think that probably biological advances will entail ethical consider ... issues. And I
don't mean that we shouldn't be doing certain types of research. But in the end we should be
able to evaluate. For example if we do understand genes, how much do we want to be able to
engineer? I mean those ... I don't know that that's a risk, but I think it's important to be able ...
that there's a systematic way of asking these questions and that they're on the table. There
probably are risks to the environment. There probably are risks to our food supply. And it's
not necessarily from science, but sort of how science is applied in sort of more agricultural
and industrial sort of contexts. There probably are risks associated with antibiotic resistant
bacteria. There are risks of that sort. But a lot of the risks, I think, have to do with how things
are applied in general. And I think that has ... I mean it's not just that science research could
be controlled, but perhaps industries using scientific analysis should be better controlled. For
example, you know, bio engineered food, it's not that it's necessarily bad, but there should be
some way of regulating it to see if it is bad or not. And right now it's not ... I mean so I think
the risks are sort of that things are changing so fast that sort of regulation doesn't necessarily
keep up with it. So that's probably more of the risks at this point.

What is human nature?

You know I think we're inclined to sort of generalize from ourselves because we know
ourselves the best. But then people go out and do mysterious things and you think, "Oh wait.
That's a bad person. I don't know where that bad person came from." So I think ... You know
I think we have good impulses and bad ones. I mean I think given all things being equal, we'd
wanna be generous and do good things, and make things better. But I mean ultimately we're
selfish and greedy, and a lot ... and not always bright. Some people are small and some
people aren't. And I think ... And some people wanna know the answers, and some people
just want the simplest thing. I mean some people are lazy and some people are energetic. I
don't think there is any single way that human beings are. There's really a bunch of different
ways.

-3-
Λlobatniɔ, 24 April 2019.
Q & A. Lisa Randall. [interview]
DOI :

What makes a science-literate citizen?

Well the first thing, this is one thing I always say when I'm asked this question, is it would be
nice if people understood numbers at a very basic, elementary level so that when any issue,
not just a scientific, but especially a scientific issue, is presented, we don't have to say, “Some
people think this and some people think that.” We can say, “Seventy eight percent of the
people think this, or this is known at 90 percent confidence level.” And for people to have
some idea of what that means so that we can describe ... I mean there's always this hesitation
when something isn't 100 percent known. And nothing is ever 100 percent known, and we
can test it to some degree of precision. And it would be nice to be able to speak in those terms
so that rather than say, “Some people think this or some people think that,” or, “Maybe it's
true or maybe it's not,” that we can really put ... attach numbers to that. And I think it would
give rise to much more intelligent debates on many subjects. Because the way everything is
presented today is sort of in black and white terms. And it would be nice to be able to
evaluate. And it's an interesting thing. I mean I had a friend who used to do that to me. You
know he would ask a question and he would say ... and I'd say, “Well I don't know the answer
to that.” I'd say, “I don't know whether that's true or not.” And he'd say, “Well, you know ...”
but he sort of was a gambler. So he'd sort of say, you know, “What kind of odds would you
put on it?” And it's interesting because you almost always do have in the back of your mind
some sort of probability. And so rather than just say, “I don't know,” sometimes just say well,
you know, “Maybe 70 percent chance that this is right.” You know and it sort of makes you
think a little bit more deeply about these things rather than this very surfaced level which can
be dismissive. So I think that's really important, for people to just have a basic understanding
of numbers and what ... so they can understand scientific evidence better, what it has shown.
But also, I mean, there's obviously just some concepts that I think it's important to know,
particularly about issues that are relevant to our society. I don't think that people necessarily
have to know about theoretical particle physics. I do, however, think that people who want to
know about theoretical particle (26:30) physics should have the opportunity to do so. I mean
that was one of the reasons I wrote a book, because it's such difficult material that unless you
can really give a lot of the background, explain quantum mechanics, explain general
relativity, he particle physics, I can talk about extra dimensions in the way we're doing now,
but it's nice to have this deeper understanding that comes with really understanding the
development of physics; and understanding what are the questions we're trying to answer at a
deeper level; and why would we think this might be the right answer. But I don't think
everyone has to want to know that; but I do think that people who want to should be able to.
And these experiments are expensive, and they involve lots of people. And so if we're asking
for the government to support it, it's only fair that we should tell people why they should be
excited. It's not just discovering Higgs particles. It's discovering new forces, new elements of
nature and what that can mean, what the implications are. Maybe it's telling us about space
time even. I mean it could be really just interesting and deep, even if it's not changing our
daily lives. But there are issues that do change our ... that are important for our lives where
the science can be really complex too, such as climate change, which is an important issue.
And it's important for people to be able to sort of evaluate what's ... At this point, almost all
of the scientific evidence is given in a sort of “he said, she said” kind of way. And it would be
nice to be able to go a little bit more deep into it. A lot of medical advances, it would be nice
for people to, again ... to be able to really evaluate what the evidence is and how many ... just
what the significance is for various studies.

-4-
Λlobatniɔ, 24 April 2019.
Q & A. Lisa Randall. [interview]
DOI :

What is String Theory?

Well okay, so first of all what problem is string theory trying to solve? String theory is trying
to reconcile quantum mechanics and gravity. And let's take a step back and see what we mean
by that, because in fact we do understand gravity. Einstein's theory of general relativity
describes gravity, and it's been tested. We've seen evidence of general relativity. Quantum
mechanics we know very well has been tested on atomic skills. The point is that there exists
scales that we can't test. They're much too small for experiments to be done -- in distance, or
much too high energy -- where we wouldn't know how to make predictions. It would look
inconsistent. In other words, in the regime of large things where cosmology or general
relativity applies, we do fine. It's just quantum mechanics is negligible on those scales. On
small scales, atomic scales we can ignore gravity because gravity is so weak. But there exists
tiny distances or very high energies where both forces (22:24) would, in principle, be
important. Those aren't ones where we can experimentally test; but even theoretically we
believe we should have a theory which could work at all distance scales. It's just the fact that
we haven't been able to make experiments to test those yet doesn't mean there shouldn't be a
theory that describes it. So people have been looking for a candidate theory of what's called
“quantum gravity” for some time. So string theory is a theory of quantum gravity. Or it's a
candidate theory of quantum gravity. And it's based on the idea that fundamentally we don't
have elementary particles, but we have fundamental oscillating strings. And particles are the
oscillation of those strings. And if you ... You can say how could we not notice those strings
in the particles. But if you think about it, if the strings are really tiny, they look like particles.
We can't see it. To see that it's actually a string, you'd have to see the additional oscillations
that a strong can have. And to do that you'd have to be able to test the energies that it would
take to make a string oscillate. And it turns out we need to start having __________ approach
anywhere near those energies at this point.So essentially what we're doing is we're taking ...
It's sort of an interaction in the sense that we take some ideas from string theory, such as extra
dimensions and branes, and see what could be the implications for particle physics. And if,
for example, it was found that we were right, string theorists would have to find ways to
predict the kind of geometry we propose. And if that ... After we did our work ... At first
when we did it, everyone said, “Oh this never happens in string theory.” But after we did it,
people found ways that this could happen in string theory. But also some of the more
theoretical work such as the infinite work dimension of space, maybe that goes back to string
theory. There are possibilities that people haven't thought about yet. So ... and it goes back
and forth.

Where does the idea of multiple dimensions come from?

So you’re jumping to multiple dimensions, which is also something I work on. And I kind of
work on it in connection with trying to answer some of those questions that we just
mentioned. But the idea of multiple dimensions has been around for ages in terms of just
mathematical concepts. But in terms of physics it was more recent after Einstein developed
his theory of general relativity. And it was observed that his theory works for any number of
dimensions. It doesnt have to be three. But people also think about extra dimensions because
of string theory, which is a candidate theory for unifying quantum mechanics and gravity,
which seems to require extra dimensions of space. But the other reason we think about extra
dimensions is because they might actually have implications for our world and explain

-5-
Λlobatniɔ, 24 April 2019.
Q & A. Lisa Randall. [interview]
DOI :

properties of matter that weve observed, and how they ... why masses are what they are for
example. Well theres a number of ways to think about what dimensions are. I hope we all
know where three dimensions are, which you can say are left, right; forward, backward; up,
down. And if you think about it, three ... we say there are three dimensions of space. And
sometimes we need three coordinates to locate some objects in space. So you can say
longitude, latitude and altitude. So if there were more dimensions, you would need more
coordinates. Now of course for whatever reason we are not physiologically designed to
observe those dimensions, but that doesnt mean they dont exist. One way of thinking about it
is ... Maybe the best way of thinking about it is the way that someone named ____________
did it in the late 19th century in a book called . And he said suppose there were two
dimensional creatures living in a two dimensional universe? They would have the same
trouble conceptualizing three dimensions that we have when we try to conceptualize more
than three, such as four. And so he asked questions like,"What would observers in this two
dimensional universe see, say, if a three dimensional object like a sphere passed through the
universe? And what this flatland universe would see would be a series of disks that grow in
size and then decreased in size. In the same way that we can certainly think about a two
dimensional world inside a three dimensional world, it could be that we observe three
dimensions but really there are more. And if a hyper sphere say a four dimensional sphere
passed through our universe, we would see a series of spheres that grew in size and then
decreased in size. The fact that we dont observe those extra dimensions doesnt mean they
dont exist. And they are hard to conceptualize. They certainly are hard to visualize. But we
can think about them mathematically and conceptually without too much trouble. You want
evidence, do you? Well we dont know if theres evidence yet. So one reason we think about it
is to decide what would be the evidence. So how do we know if these dimensions exist? And
of course you cant answer that question until youve really thought it through and thought how
are they hidden; what would be the implications? And we havent seen them yet. I mean the
reasons that we think about it, like I said, are string theory and the fact that they might have
implications for our universe. But how can we test whether it has these implications? Well
what were going to do ... not me but ________ will do is look for evidence of particles
associated with travel in the extra dimensions. That is to say if particles traveled in the extra
dimensions, there would be partner particles called “Kaluza-Kline particles” that are like the
particles we know about. They have properties that interact similarly, but they have mass.
And their mass reflects the extra dimensional geometry. Thats because they have momentum
in those extra dimensions. And so what well do is look for evidence of these extra Kaluza-
Kline particles. And if we see them, and if they have the properties that we predict, it would
be evidence for extra dimensions.

What was the greatest “Eureka!” moment in your career?

I mean, for any problem you work on there's some moment where there's sort of maybe it's a
moment where no one else cares about, where it all fits together and I found some simple way
of doing something. There are also the models that people have heard about such as the
models about extra dimensions, something else that we did having to do with a different way
of communicating supersymmetry breaking. There were a lot of eureka moments in that and
making it work out and the fact that we could all tie it together. So, it's hard for me to pull
those out because a lot of the time when you're working on something there's that one thing
that you get excited about.

-6-
Λlobatniɔ, 24 April 2019.
Q & A. Lisa Randall. [interview]
DOI :

Have you ever been surprised by the result of an experiment?

I think one thing that surprised us, Braman and I, when we were working together was this
existence, or the possibility of the existence, of an infinite extra dimension. People had
actually thought there were theorems that you couldn't have an infinite extra dimension, that
gravity would just look wrong, that there was no consistent way to do it. And it was really
interesting because we came across this by really following the consequence of our equations
to the end and there was just no mistaking that it was allowing the possibility of an infinite
extra dimension. And it was interesting to go back and see what assumptions have been made
that made us think, or made other people think that it was impossible, and just to see how the
theory was almost smarter than we were and worked it out. That was kind of fun.

Do you believe in absolute truth?

Do I believe in absolute truth? I believe in effective theories, so let me tell you what an
effective theory is. An effective theory says basically that I can ... If I can't measure
something, I don't have to worry about it in the sense that, for example ... Let's take Newton's
laws. Newton's laws work just fine. But we know that eventually we have to take into
account relativity, if things were going really fast where we have to take into account
quantum mechanics when we're looking at really tiny scales. But for the scales we observe,
you don't have to worry about the fact that a ball is made up of atoms. It's perfectly fine to
think of it as a ball with some mass because you would never be able to measure the effects
of the atoms on the ball when you're just throwing the ball. So I guess I believe that we ...
There's a truth that we know because it applies to the world as we've seen it, as we've
measured it. That's not to say that there can't be other underlying truths you could see if you
could understand ... if you could really see things better; if you could test them better; if you
could measure them better. So I think anything we know could be upset if you look at
regimes outside the regime of which we studied them. So ... But that's not to say the truth isn't
absolute. It's absolute in the scales that we've seen it; but it's just not absolute in the sense of
applying the most fundamental skills.

-7-