As it happens, thinking as Rovelli does is not ususual. The colourful visual theatre is nice and fun, but less important, at the end. Rovelli is a little worried about Martin Heidegger and his followers for the central nature of time in their metaphysics [pp.60-61]. Blurring due to GR related time delays near massive objects. But the improbability is overwhelming. Understanding the “flowing” of time is therefore something that may pertain to neuroscience more than to fundamental physics. Could there be folds in the fabric of time that wrap around and touch one another, causing imprints and echoes? The theoretical physicist and bestselling author answers questions from famous fans and Observer readers, Sun 31 Mar 2019 09.00 BST The answer to the first question is: certainly yes, it is just a question of money. Any time the future is definitely distinguishable from the past, there is something like heat involved. It’s a rationalist view: one that holds that by better understanding the universe, by discarding false beliefs and superstition, one might be able to enjoy a kind of serenity. Materalism takes a hit from quantum mechanics in two ways. The problem of understanding time is the problem of disentangling this complex tangle of structures and effects. The popular books, too, have come relatively late, after his academic study of quantum gravity, published in 2004. But this is where ignoring entropy serves Rovelli's purpose. We just want to know if physical space is itself Euclidean; and, as I have already noted, Rovelli seems to have missed the development in cosmology that the large scale structure of space in the universe actually does seem to be Euclidean. I think so. Lucretius correctly hypothesised the existence of atoms, a theory that would remain unproven until Einstein demonstrated it in 1905, and even as late as the 1890s was being written off as absurd. Scientist best known for proposing the Gaia hypothesis. Is there a layman’s way of explaining how gravity alters time, please? What's the deal with Bilbo being some kind of "burglar"? – Carlo Rovelli. Rovelli is oblivious to this. So we probably cannot blame Rovelli personally for getting this wrong. The "First Lesson, The Most Beautiful of Theories" (note that we are getting "lessons," lezioni) gets off to a good enough start, dealing with Einstein's General Relativity. And any tips for removing stubborn stains from pans? He went to London, because he was interested in the work of Chris Isham, and then to the US, to be near physicists such as Abhay Ashtekar and Lee Smolin. Consultants’ change fetish is clichéd and confused, How our cities changed when the tourists stopped coming, Lionel Barber’s diaries — encounters with Merkel, Fuld and a piano-playing Putin, Wish I were there: the glory of California’s redwoods. So Rovelli probably ends on the right note, with a long quotation from the atoms-and-the-void Epicureanism of Lucretius, who, at least according to some, ended his happy life with suicide.