Q: Give us some background on how you got interested in physics and some experiences in youth/school that were formative.

RR: I don’t really have “interest” in physics.  I mean, there’s gravity and stuff, but I don’t know about them.  I mean, not like physicists would know and stuff like that.  But in high school, a really formative moment for me was when Slayer released Reign in Blood.  That was a really good album.  I remember head-banging to it with my cousin Todd and I got really bad neck pain so my mom took me to a chiropractor and the chiropractor said, “No more head-banging.”  And I said, “Yeah, right” and I kept doing it and then I ended up in a neck brace, so I’d just sit there in my brace and still listen to the album.  I’d listen to “Angel of Death” and be perfectly still, but it’s not the same when you’re like that.  But I remember that.

Q: Tell us a bit about what readers will find in your new book “What is Real?”

RR: Um, I published a bunch of stuff this year, but nothing titled “What is Real?” 

Q: What was the inspiration and goal for writing “What is Real?”

RR: I never wrote “What is Damn Real.”  I never wrote it.  Do you understand?  I did not write it.  If I did, I must’ve been really freakin’ high, because I do not remember it.  So maybe I was being ironic, knowing I was high as hell writing something I know I’d never remember writing.  But seriously, I have no idea what you’re talking about.

Q: In “What is Real?”, how do you balance the technicality of physics with the required accessibility for the general public.

RR: I think I’m going to gouge my eyes out.  Like in King Lear.  I’m not joking.  If you ask me one more question about “What is Real?”, I’m about to really gouge my eyes out and feed them to the moon or something, because I never wrote the book or article or whatever the hell it is!  So there is no balance of technicality because there’s no balance and no technicality.  Because there’s no “What is Real?”  And now I’m going to place my fingertips very near to my eyeballs and prepare for the next question and please let’s not have any violence in the next minute, OK?  Just ask a normal question.  Please.

Q: Should schools be trying to teach every kid physics or should they instead divert resources into the few things that might have the potential to contribute?

RR: Um, OK, I’m putting my hands down now.  Thank you.  OK, weird question, but OK.  So, umm, when I was in high school, I couldn’t even spell physics, so I think for me if they were going to divert any money to me, it’d been teaching me how to spell the word physics because that is one messed up word.  That word is like a massacre of the English language.  Maybe they should divert some money into changing the spelling of that word.  Like changing it to fish sticks.  It’d be a lot easier if it was just called fish sticks.  “What is it you’re studying?”  “Oh, me?  I’m studying astro-fish sticks.”  That makes a lot more sense to me, if someone said that.  Because ph is pretty useless.  When you can simply use an f instead.  I do know this though: if I ever studied physics, I’m pretty sure that my final grade would be a Ph.

Q: What’s your opinion of still using ‘Apparent Magnitude’ in astronomy?

RR: I didn’t know we ever used it.

Q: What is considered an inertial frame in astronomy/cosmology and can you point one out?

RR: An inertial frame in astronomy/cosmology, I’m guessing, would be the first time you use a frame.  That’s make it the inertial frame.  Since it’s the first one.  By the way, I used to carve my inertials into a tree in the back of my house until I did it so many times that the tree died.  And my dad said to me, “How’d you like it if I carved my inertials into you so many times that you died?”  So after that, I’ve pretty much left trees alone.  I still feel bad about that.

Q: Is there anything you found particularly interesting about the evolution of the structure of the universe while working on your thesis? What about your thesis’ topic did you find particularly challenging?

RR: Anything interesting about the structure of the universe?  Hmmmm.  Well, it’s big.  I mean like freaking huge!  You know.  Like how Trump says huuge.  You know how Trump will say huuuuuge where he stretches out the u and he puts his mouth in that position where it looks like he’s kissing the air.  My girlfriend says whenever she sees his lips like that, she wants to puke.  So, yeah, I think I pretty much fully answered your question.  Next.

Q: As a science historian, can you—

RR: Let me stop you right there.  I’m not exactly a science historian.  I’m more like a science janitor.  Or a science homeless person.  Or a science son-who-still-lives-in-his-parents-basement-at-40.  But go on.

Q: As a science historian, can you generalize your insights about the lines of inquiry that have enjoyed traditional success in approaching big questions tackled by astrophysicists, and how these compare or may apply to big questions surrounding dark matter and dark energy?

RR: No.

Q: Do you think a consistent Bohmian formulation of QFT is possible?

RR: Anything’s possible.  Even a boating formulation on QVC, like you said.  But I don’t really watch that show though.  But anyway . . .

Q: Concerning the different interpretations of quantum mechanics . . . could one determine if one interpretation is more fundamental or more encompassing than another? An experiment test? A successful quantum theory of gravity or unified fields?

RR: Excuse me, but that wasn’t a fart.  I just moved my chair.

Q: Do you have a view on the ‘reality’ of the wave function?

RR: I think it’s great for sporting events.  It gets you out of your seat for a few seconds and it makes you feel like you’re part of something big.  I went to a Cubs game years ago and we must’ve done that wave like eight times and by the end I was sick of it, but the first couple times you kinda feel like, “Hey, I’m part of something.”  And then you realize you’re just part of a bunch of idiots just standing up and sitting back down and it makes you kinda angry because you have a hot dog and a drink that you have to make sure you don’t knock over, but, yeah, for the most part I’m pro-wave rather than anti-wave.  Or I’m more neutral wave.  Put me down for neutral wave.

Q: Say we have a piece of matter with some temperature T, regarding it for now as a classical system. If we view it as a quantum system, does it still have a temperature?

RR: Sure.  The statistical mechanics definition of temperature still applies perfectly well to composite quantum systems . . . Excuse me, that time it wasn’t the chair.  Thank you for the interview.  It was real.  Real annoying.  But seriously, I hope you consider that insight about fish sticks.  It just makes more sense.