Ask A Genius 1391: Can AI Revolutionize Physics and Rewrite the Big Bang Theory?
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/28
Rick Rosner is an accomplished television writer with credits on shows like Jimmy Kimmel Live!, Crank Yankers, and The Man Show. Over his career, he has earned multiple Writers Guild Award nominations—winning one—and an Emmy nomination. Rosner holds a broad academic background, graduating with the equivalent of eight majors. Based in Los Angeles, he continues to write and develop ideas while spending time with his wife, daughter, and two dogs.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen is the publisher of In-Sight Publishing (ISBN: 978-1-0692343) and Editor-in-Chief of In-Sight: Interviews (ISSN: 2369-6885). He writes for The Good Men Project, International Policy Digest (ISSN: 2332–9416), The Humanist (Print: ISSN 0018-7399; Online: ISSN 2163-3576), Basic Income Earth Network (UK Registered Charity 1177066), A Further Inquiry, and other media. He is a member in good standing of numerous media organizations.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner discuss the future of physics in the age of artificial intelligence. They explore how AI might challenge the Big Bang theory, synthesize new models of the universe, and employ both brute-force and poetic reasoning to redefine cosmology in ways beyond current human capacity.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Do you want to talk about something physics-related or news-related?
Rosner: Sure. Physics is fine. Here is something physics-related: I do not believe the Big Bang theory as it currently stands.
Jacobsen: That is not exactly new. People have long questioned the Big Bang model.
Rosner: True, but what will not survive is AI getting good at physics. Once that happens, the current form of the Big Bang theory may not hold up. We have already proposed several compelling reasons why it needs to be revised. I suspect that a sufficiently advanced AI will come to some of the same conclusions—and perhaps propose entirely new ones.
Jacobsen: That raises an interesting question: Is the universe sufficiently uncomplicated that, once AI becomes truly advanced, it might be able to solve the whole thing?
Rosner: My money is on, maybe. We already have a solid understanding of some of the key pillars of modern physics. We know that the structure of the universe has something to do with information. We often say it is built from information—but since we do not fully understand what information is or the contexts in which it operates, that claim might still need refinement.
Quantum mechanics is a theory of information. Then, we have general and special relativity. Those are powerful tools—both for theoretical modelling and for observing the universe across vast distances. Add AI’s analytical power, and maybe not now, but shortly, it could contribute to the next breakthrough in cosmology.
Jacobsen: It might be capable of developing a new unified theory—something that synthesizes and transcends what we currently have.
However, for that to happen, AI would need to be more than just a machine with big data and good algorithms. It would have to be adaptive—capable of this strange, dynamic form of inference and cross-referencing. It would need to compare everything we currently know—things that no single human could ever hold in mind simultaneously—and extrapolate from there.
Essentially, it would need to do what your smartphone camera does when it focuses on a subject: foreground some elements and background others. That kind of intelligent prioritization is what we need in a system capable of making real progress in theoretical physics.
That kind of AI would operate probabilistically—like how Jeopardy! ‘s Watson functioned. It would foreground specific answers based on probability, ranking them according to the best available knowledge.
Rosner: That synthetic ability to highlight likely candidates could be crucial. Moreover, beyond that, AI could brute-force the process—testing thousands, even tens of thousands, of theoretical models or fragments of theories. It would then analyze the results and refine the surviving ideas into more viable combinations.
It is analogous to how pharmaceutical testing has changed. In the past, you would begin with a hypothesis: “This compound might work.” You may have discovered a new plant and tried different extracts in test tubes based on some guiding logic.
But now, with automation, we can brute-force it. You test everything for everything—thousands of compounds against thousands of biological targets—without a specific hypothesis for each. The overarching idea is: “If we test all of it, some of it might do something useful.”
Jacobsen: And AI could approach physics similarly—mass-testing hypotheses without human bias or constraints. However, it could also do physics poetically—which is how I sometimes feel I approach it.
Rosner: What do you mean by “poetically”?
Jacobsen: Without punctuated concision.
Rosner: Punctuated concision?
Jacobsen: So, what would it mean to do physics as a joke? What is the most ironic or absurd way physics might turn out ten or twenty years from now? That is very Isaac Asimov. He said something like great science starts with, “That is funny…” So imagine AI trying the hundred silliest extrapolations from current theories—to see if any work. That is brute-force creativity.
Rosner: Here is an addendum. In this book I am supposedly writing, the main character develops a theory similar to mine—but ultimately does not care all that much. In a world overwhelmed by distraction, even solving physics might not matter. If AI cracks the fundamental theory of the universe, will anyone care?
Jacobsen: Do people care about physics now?
Rosner: I have not surveyed the world, but I suspect not. When my mother-in-law was declining from Alzheimer’s, she would excuse her confusion by saying, “A lot is going on right now.” It was a sad refrain—but also true. A lot is going on. This world is so overwhelmed and hyper-stimulated that science often gets pushed to the margins.
Rosner: There is also the possibility that AI will begin delivering practical advances—so prolifically—in medicine and who knows what else, that basic science once again gets short shrift, especially in terms of public attention.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
In-Sight Publishing 