Welcome to the Jordan, be Petersen Podcast the system. Four episode- thirty six in this episode, my daddy joined by Lawrence M Kraus Lawrence Ours is a well established, theoretical, physicist and cosmology EST, whose work has been highly recognised through a number of projects, and the publication of several popular books, such as the Physics of STAR Trek and the universe from Nothing Cross has contributed a great deal to the field of research on particle physics and cosmology the crowd and dad sit down and explore a world of quantum physics with its complex nature, as well as the complexity and systems of matter time and energy. I hope you enjoy this episode and have a good week. This episode of sponsored by all form all forms. The new company launched by the people who made my lovely mattress, helix all form is creating furniture that super customizable.

it all form dot, com, Slash, Jordan. You can pick your fabric, sofa, color, color of the legs, sofa size and shape to make sure it's perfect for you and your home They have arm chairs and love seeds all the way up to an eight seats sectional. So there's something for everyone. You cannot start, smaller and by more seats later on. If you want your all forms over to grow and change with you, maybe as you get bigger their midcentury modern style furniture is very attractive. All farms, as are also directly shipped to your house with fast free shipping. My purse Sir ordered a giant l shaped sectional six sections of Brown, other with ottomans and pillows, he loves it. It looks really fancy, but it's also comfortable and totally transformed his living room into a room. He deserves. And it's getting a sofa without trying it feels iffy. You don't need to Sorry, you get one hundred days decide if you want to keep it. That's more than three months

If you dont absolutely love it, though pick it up for free and give you a full refund, the even offer a forever warranty forever. To build your custom self. I check out all form dot com, Slash, Jordan, all farmers offering twenty per cent of all. worse for our listeners at all form, DOT slashed Jordan. This So it is also brought you by green chef if you haven't already heard of it. Green chef is a meal kit subscription service that delivers sort I'd organic ingredients and step by step instructions for creating delicious clean meal. I visited them very carefully because I'm Khyber concerned about diet- I guess you could say So I wasn't going to advertise any old meal delivery cat. Every week you get choose from a wide array of chef crafted recipes that fit your life. Style whether your gluten free Kido Paleo began whatever their protein. high quality and their products is fresh. If you wanna go to healthiest route. I'd suggest there paleo option.

everything is pre measured and perhaps so you don't need to worry about anything going to waste green chef, completely eliminates the need to think about what you're next meal as and you don't have to waste time at the supermarket, They also have a sweet deal going on for listeners of the J Bp Pod hast go to green shaft, dot com, Slash J, BP, one hundred one, zero, zero and use coated J Bp, one, zero zero at check out to get one hundred dollars off, including free shipping, green chef the number one we'll get for eating. Well, make sure you go to green shaft outcomes. Last J, BP, one hundred and use code, J B people, hundred to get one hundred dollars off, including free shipping check out their paleo option

hello, everyone, I'm pleased today really quite pleased Doktor Lawrence Crow sweets me he is. Internationally known theoretical physicist. I've wanted to talk to an internationally known theoretical physicist for about thirty years, so research is focused on the interface between elementary particle physics and cosmology include the fundamental structure of matter and the elderly. Of the universe. his numerous important and in resting scientific contributions was his eighteen. Ninety five proposal that most of the energy of the universe resign in empty space during his career, professor Croesus held in doubt professorships and distinguished research.

points at major, institutions all over the world, including Harvard Yale and CERN here, the author of five hundred publications and eleven popular books, including the internet, best sellers, the Physics of STAR Trek and a universe from nothing his most recent book. The fish of climate change was released in February of this year. Twenty twenty one. You want to major award from all three of the: U S: national physics, societies as well as the two and in twelve public service. A word from the now science board for his conscience, since to the public understanding of science he's currently serves as president of the Origins Project Foundation, which sell wait: science and culture by connecting so this artists, writers and celebrities with the public through special events, online discussions and unique travel opportunities. nation, produces origins, podcast featuring guy

dogs, with some of the most interesting people in the world, discussing issues that address the global challenges of the twenty first century. Thank you very much for agreeing to talk to me today. It's great me with your virtually Jordan. Ok, so question and I'm going to jump right into it. I wrote a paper with a couple of my students. I was the final author on the paper, we were. We tried to relate the expense so the anxiety to physical property to two entropy, which I suppose might be well defined as a physical property, the idea, so you tell me what you think of this ass, a physicist if you would ok, the idea was that Human beings are always trying to calculate the path from one point to another and that the deadline The path is going to be proportionate in some sense to the energy used to undertake. The task longer the path of more energy. Now we generally taken to something that we regard as valuable and

sources of energy, for example, are extremely valuable to us, and so that might be a short cut to doing some work because that's translated into goods anyways the cost the voyages is, is an important consideration. So whenever uncertainty is added to plan the it becomes More and more difficult to formulate a map that lays out the trajectory broke broke you need a marker for that. A psychological marker we assume that as the sea, twenty of the past that you're you're going to take according to you, know, get given, Particular reward is as the uncertainty that increased you'd experience. This unease and the unease was a marker of the increased complexity so and that would be the increased entropy in some sense of either of the land keeper of your representation of the landscape, or maybe, if the disjunction between the two. So the first question I would have is is Peggy S first,

What was that a comprehensible explanation and, second of all, is that a reasonable way of construing entropy? Well, ok, the answer is not unreasonable. In a general sense, I do where I'm very wary. I remember you know when I was a kid actually. Canada- and I took a member who I was always interesting signs, but I in universe I took sociology and I'm are becoming fascinated at the time by very sociologists attempts to define concepts as if Borell from physics to define Concepts- and I thought, while this is fascinating as I As I got to know more physics, I became more wary of of that application because that certain things are well defined and appropriate and physical context become less well defined and perhaps have less utility. They sound good in in a social size paper, but whether they actually allow.

Devalue as this is the important question very well, not exactly why masking question is yes, I'm aware of that problem in that I wanted to see if there's some bedrock there. Well, you know, I think that there is, I think you ve got something in a sense that in physics actually in different contexts, there's tradeoffs between energy and entropy, indifferent an end and dumb and their well defined thermodynamic quantities that that that are are defined depending on what you hold fixed and what and what you don't and how this system evolves weathered evolve to assist this situation, least energy, or least what's called free energy, which depends of an oriental b which, which includes that entropy aspect depends upon the specific circumstances of the physical situation, but that that the complexity of a path is related to the entropy is is, is a way, is an approach that is appropriate.

Because entropy really describes- and maybe it's probably useful for your listeners, who may not be as aware of entropy as you are, that what are really described as a macroscopic system has many different internal states. It can be in, and entropy really just describes how many internal states a system has forgiven macroscopic configuration of say, temperature and overall energy. You know a single particle innocent in in a box may have an unrestricted configuration The atoms in my body in your body. Can me very many different configurations and still be the same temperature, so there's a lot of entropy associate with with with macroscopic object and the more if you wish more internal possibilities that a system has to explore within the confines of some external parameter, that's restricting it like the total energy of the system or its.

he'd content or or or some other aspect for its volume, the more internal configurations of systematic to explore the bigger its entropy so our ok. So I was thinking, for example, give you a narrative example. It's actually apropos, because my car did break down today, but When you are in your car. And you're driving along and everything is going according to your desires and expectations. Then you're generally in a low anxiety, state What then imagine that the car emit so unexpected noise and starts to buck now? One of the things I have proposed, is that at that point, you're actually no longer in a car, and that's why you get upset because the car is actually functionally described as a category The car is something that gets you from point. A to b, long as it's performing that function than that that category of very low resolution category, not categories

this is but as soon as something goes, wrong same thing happens when you're computer does something you don't want to. There are so many different states that that thing could be in that your body sick those that are emergent complexity and it signals the fact that you can no longer compute the cost of being where you are, and you know, his fantasies that are associated with that that seem like attempts to map it right. It like this be wrong? This could be wrong. I might go to a crooked mechanic. I might get ripped off. I might not be able to fix this car. Maybe I can't afford it, I won't get to work like the whole, the whole panoply of possibility, expands very, very suddenly and that produces in tens physiological response which it should do, I mean we should have physiological responses to fundamental physical realities. We should most of us, ignore them, and I think that's the point, the physiological response you're talking but is real, but in fact,

in the car is operating well, all of those possible. These also exist. You just blocked them. Out of your mind, I mean because That's but that's an interesting thing do right, because the but its appropriate, In some sense, we were trying to understand to some degree the conditions under which its appropriate to block the Monday. Out of your mind, and it's something like. As long as your predictions, but their base when your desires, but we won't get into that as long as you're predictions match the ongoing flow of events, then you can take of the presuppositions that order things for granted. I mean, I agree with you completely that all those things could be going wrong at any time that the same is true of the complexity of your body. Right at it. necessarily the case that, just because you feel good right now, you're gonna feel good the next moment, and there's an endless number of things that can go wrong, but it. But it's also not helpful to be aware of all of those possibilities if they are not likely to happen. So it isn't exactly that you ignore the myths that you

assume their functional significance is zero. As long as your plan is operative and well yeah, I think you know it goes back to me human reason being slave a passion? I think the point is a week we you're right. It's it's not worth, while assuming all the negative things that can happen. If it did, you wouldn't do anything right if you want to take any action, if you seem all the negative things that could result from it, you probably wouldn't act at all the things that I think we do and one of the problems we have society. In fact, its related to my last point is that is that we tend one of them science does, which I think is so useful. Is it quantifies uncertainty and certainties, a central part of science and too often, journalists and other people talk about uncertainty is it's a bad thing in science is actually very good thing because we can say we can define. We can quantitatively said hey how accurate result is or how how clear, unlikely, a bunch of possible. These are, I think, whose, like a logic

Lee and there, I would say, that's an anxiety reductions. Phenomena may mean when you enter into a contract, you doing that with someone to, because what you are saying is well. I could be any number of possibilities, but contractually all limit myself to this manifestation and that can make you com and it can make us able to cooperate and so I'd I'd but think that it is not only a scientific theory that provides that function. It's it's up. Science would be What a subset of practical theory and practical theories there are very useful exactly for that reason they are, but I think I perceiving more people with could be. I think it would be a better. It would help people if they accepted the existence of uncertainty. Most in a more in a more open way. I think we we people are afraid of of uncertainty and I think if we only polluting death

and the universe, and also to the other things we may talk about- and I think accepting it as a realistic likelihood is a is a healthy thing, because again, it relates to some extent to some of the social problems that are having now have kids mean coddled. If you accept that bad, Things can happen, then, when you do any ain't always part of living, then you won't be so. anxious when they do, I think I'm you won't be so fearful of of that poverty. Ok, yeah, you're, Cardinal Break But the world is an over. You know: there's a whole areas of of other activities. You can take place that will allow well to go on that, will allow you to continue function, but recognising it wreckage, rising, at some level a spectrum of possibilities in advance In my opinion, and I'm not a psychologist that my penis, certainly personally, I find it psychologically helpful. Well, you do you do is definitely the case that that's promoted among psychologist behavioral psychologist, you may imagine that

thing you want is a theoretical configure given that encapsulates uncertainty. That's a believes this let's say, and a new measure it by its functional utility. Does it allow you to do a choir? you desire when you acted out about Unita codicil along with that it is well. What do you do when your theory goes wrong and one of the answers that's been provided to that question from the behavioral perspective its coded. Narrative is well, though, is approach announced. DE voluntarily and cautiously don't avoided and that triggers another mechanism which has the capacity to explore to generate theories to select among them, especially in in what, in in collapse, nation with other people and to regenerate your pre existing models, so you The model and you need a system for updating When I see you see that expressed in her formerly in science and in a scientific technique, is a central part of side of method.

What also argue in business and many other areas of human activity that people around inside what I try and convince people have within a real, as scientist actually real liked to be wrong. release the airline, whether personally they do as a different question, but the process of science, its exciting to be wrong because it means there's more to learn. First of all, I am I new discovered something it. It means you I'm. It often means you ve discovered something and one of the things you know I was chairman of the physics departing for a long time in and then we started approach. M matches to win in physics, entrepreneurship, which the business School dean that was an oxymoron, but I don't think so, because I think scientists and business people are very similar because often what I realize we don't do well enough for children for for students or whatever is teach them how to fail effectively. We give them problem. Sets that their guaranteed that have direct answers they get the correct and we

getting phds work with are more or less guaranteed to at least come to some closure, but in the real world of research and business and many other things you may find that you have to learn how question I was asking, was really not a good question. How can I use what I've already accumulated to? Nevertheless, from me, something useful, maybe ask a different question and go awry. And so I think the training training to fail effectively, namely to find the thing you were trying to show was wrong, but nevertheless, the process by which you discover that is very useful and could be useful somewhere else is, is, is a central part, signs, but actually think it's probably very useful again in real life, and I think most business people. You know when When I learned about entrepreneurs, I asked it. I asked the physicists would become, whereas what they hadn't learned and it was just that how to fail effectively because often start ups the well known odd, whereas have three or four or five start ups and of failed before they get to where they're going, and I think, but it's the same of any researcher in Europe

search, I'm sure, as in minor there been many false starts many many roadblocks many times when you just discover hey this problem is really not minimal to being solved? But maybe I can ask aside different question, so I think being aware, being less anxious of of the fact that your planned trajectory is not going to go away, you took, it is she a wonderful part of life as a as again as a scientist, I often say when I write, you know you probably have this, To you know you're right grand proposals and you're right some fiction of what you're gonna be studying in three years and my we say that if I'm really doing what I thought I was gonna be, do you three years, it's pretty boring because what really hope will happen is. Are we looking at something completely different, because I'm new discovery will have come up either from the outside world? of experiment or from something I'm doing. What is it Is it reasonable to ask you? Can you remember times when that specifically happened in your career?

where you had to reconfigure and- and you discovered something that was, that was worthwhile as a consequence of it. Oh yeah, yeah, it's hard to imagine when it hasn't happened in some sense, I think the well. Let me give you an example. The than the one you mentioned, the discovery that there, the energy of empty space is the diamond energy, the universe. I was Look, I've studied cosmology and, and of course, an amazing they about cosmology is it's over the last thirty years turned from or forty years from an art to a science. You me, I mean people used to say cosmology. were never right, but never in doubt and awe and an end. But wonderfully what's happened, because signs is an empirical discipline. Is that all new whole new, Data sets we're coming on new machines and new telescopes, which were allowing you to make precision tests of the universe and therefore derive models that could be disproved, which is really the central part of science, and when I was twelve

I understand, and I've been working on the subjects of dark matter for many years. How detected the fact that the most of the mass Galaxy and all galaxies appears to not shine and and now recently certain is made of some elementary particles, that's different than the particles that make you and I up it's a fascinating thing, and I have spent a lot of micro thinking about it. But one of the reasons we became confident that that was the case at these particles. These. dark matter was not made of protons neutrons and the same stuff as you, and I was because we built Cosmo models, and we found that if this the matter was just snowballs or our or something that you couldn't see. Then plugging a mental models. You couldn't get a universe that looked like what we look like today, starting from a big hot, big bang. You couldn't form galaxies. There was enough time and so dark matter it turns out of dark matter, doesn't interact with light it it it. It's easier.

to collapse early on in the history of the universe, and that gives a jump start to galaxies and etc, etc, etc. So we're trying to come up with a model, really was in agreeing with observation. The problem was the observations ultimately in agreement with that model, and so the question then becomes do you know what? What do you do and I was recently convinced at the time that the that the reason that was the case in some of the observations are wrong, which is all something very right and to realise and sciences that, if their many different observations likely, some of them are wrong and again too often, journalist don't hit on that back here. They concentrate on this one observation which is likely to be wrong and when its later on Jonah be wrongly, never report on it and that's part of the problem, but so I basically was convinced that some of these key observations were wrong because a very difficult and so someone who radically I made this proposed Oh, I look look where there was a colleague of mine, a universe, issue carbon. I spent a year,

looking at at all the data and saying how could it be consistent with with with what we with dark matter and and and what would be required, and The answer was: if none of them observations are wrong, then it looks to us look to me at the time like you'd have to. Have most of the energy of the universe reside in literally nothing because it what the observations were inconsistent with with the picture otherwise- and I was convinced that the term I'm that the reason I was doing that was just so that people could focus on which are racial were wrong, and so they could see that cause the result, because a proposition was so ridiculous that empty space actually way something you get me. While the particles and radiation everything that's their and yet empty space way, something that seems so crazy. That surely it's wrong. And nobody really does not violate the very pretty the very

supposition that enables us to identify mass, I mean masked by definition, appears to be something well mass, but masses different, that energy, ok and an energy and an if you put it Jeanne empty space. It's very an Einstein realise this. If you put energy and empty space, it behaves. differently than it does. If you pay energy and matter like particles. In fact, what general relativity tells us is it Mass isn't the key part that produces gravity its energy. So there's this relationship between energy. gravity and energy in different forms produces different types of gravitational attraction and in fact, that's right of into the history of the universe early on in the history of the universe, most of the entered in the universe resided in radiation hot stuff, like particles of light moving at the speed of light, they gravitate very differently then, if that most of the Jeanne Universe resides in planets are galaxies in a matter that thing so and so the experts

instead of the universe which is gravities response to to the presence of energy is different early on in the history of the universe. One is dominated by radiation is, then, is that one of the things that contributes to the rapid inflation at the beginning? Well, in fact, is not quite you're almost their turn. Rapid inflation happens if it very early times in the history of the universe. Empty space gets energy. episode is also brought. You buy bile optimized. I cannot stress how much certain electorates matter to your health, sodium, potassium and magnesium. Bile optimized has a product called magnesium break. I like it because there no synthetic additives or preservatives it contains all seven essential forms of magnesium and it can be taken and should be taken on an empty stomach, taking it food and your stomach allows for maximum absorption. Magnesium Aden, detoxification fat metabolism, increasing energy, helping you sleep and reducing quarters all and stress

I recommend trying magnesium breakthrough by bile optimized for at least thirty days to see how it will make a difference in your mood and stress levels. Today you can get Ten percent off with a special Jordan, be Petersen, show coop on code, when you visit, mag breakthrough, dotcom, Slash, J, BP and enter coated, Jamie pretend all, their products are gluten. Free soy, free, lactose, free, Non GMO, free of chemicals fillers and made with whole real natural ingredients, and they offer a three hundred sixty five day. Money that guarantee on all their products. She don't happen. Worry about not liking it increasing a lot. lives like sodium, potassium and magnesium can also reduce hunger and make it easier to intermittent fast, mag breakthrough I am a g breakthrough, dot com, Slash, J Bp and enter coded J Bp, ten to try their magnesium empty space good stock

somehow it possesses energy, even if, in the case of inflation, eventually it's gonna release it in a hot, big bang. If that energy gets stuck in empty space, empty space carries with it this property. We call energy that energy is gravitationally, repulsive, not attractive That's the key difference between energy. When you put it matter and when you put it nothing, you ok you said, you set a couple of things that I want to follow up and an occasional, and maybe you can take us back. So you said in the last twenty five years that cause Malagigi has transformed itself from an art to science, and so maybe could tell us the science, let's go back to the beginning at fourteen billion years and walk through it and because I'm sure that what certainly don't understand the role of dark matter or anything about dark matter, and I kind of had some sense of what the current cosm illogical theories, twenty years ago, but I really don't know what they are now. So, let's go back fourteen billion years and started to beginning, if you don't mind, shovel, try and spend less than fourteen by here extravagant ok by way let before we get there

We just end the last story. By saying we made this crazy proposal because we're sure the experts are wrong, it turned out, the experiments are right and the craziness was true and no- and no one was more surprised by than me that this proposal that the energy empty space. It dominates the energy universal right, it was just incredibly surprising, was so surprised and eventually the observers who, who confirmed that fact won the Nobel. eyes tenure eleven years later on in your book. The greatest story told so far, you document a very large number of cases where theoretic. a physicist were driven deposit, something they regarded as completely absurd because it seem to fit the data assuming that something was wrong and were later shown to be right, even though they wouldn't necessarily, except that themselves, exactly factor in fact em. One of that one of the founders of of quantum and accept a direct was a very interesting man, psychologically, among other things, once said, his

Asian, was smarter than he was because he developed this equation any it predictive. This new particle nature anti matter and he didn't believe it, and he said it would be quite turned out to be true, but anyway, let's, but let's go back to the beginning and dumb and well when we go back to the beginning. This is an important difference between, in my mind, signed, and say religion. When I go back to being I go back to as far as I can extrapolate my understanding of the laws of physics back before that, almost anything goes and science we can make an part of my job is theoretical. Erratic office was make speculations, but to recognise that there were just that and look for signatures that might suggest where those speculations are right or wrong. So, for example, actually wrote a book called out It takes you back to the four an individual oxygen Adam from the beginning of the universe, to the end, one, that's in your glass of water that you're drinking right now of words during this pod cast an eye took it back to not teak was here

because literally we don't know what happened at take zero because the laws of physics, as we understand the breakdown, because the universe, extrapolated back, our universe becomes infinitely dense and that's seems crazy and the laws of gravity don't work, quantum mechanics, so we really can talk a lot about it, but we it's not more than talk in my opinion right now, but but very shortly thereafter. After that time, the there's no reason to suspect that the current laws of physics don't describe what happened in the history of the universe. Against you as soon as it comes into being, the laws come into being as well yet well, and in the universe and nothing. I suggested that certainly a possibility. Maybe they pre exist. Maybe they don't those that you does our metaphysical questions, But when I did show in that book, which is fascinating, in the fact that some thirty years we wouldn't even benevolent asked the question. Much was answer. It is that it's quite I agree that our universe could and did

spontaneously arise out of nothing, no space, no time and maybe no laws. And if you ask what would be the properties of the universe, today, fourteen billion years later that arose from nothing spy can easily without any supernatural shenanigans the properties of that universal, be precisely their property the universe we observe. Now that doesn't prove that's the case. That just makes a plausible, but to me that fascinating thing and again we never there years ago. We didn't have the tools, even in some has asked that question but very we're still estimating the birth of about fourteen billion years ago. Thirteen point eight Yathrib. Now, if you actually look at the numbers which we can measure we now, oh that number, thirteen point eight to inaccuracy of you know, plus or minus of of maybe a few hundred million years or to thirteen point. Seven five, I think, is the most recent number. Amazing the fact that you can get beyond one decimal places, because Malagigi is just remarkable and I

It really is a testament to the developments when I was even a young assistant professor at Yale. I remember talking to him. The colleague who said that nature would always conspire so that we could never measure the fundamental quantities of the universe better that within a factor of two cuz, that's always been the case up to that point, every time someone claimed to have a better measurement, you'd go out and look at astrophysical uncertainties and realize it was wrong and now we're talkin about measuring things, two hundred and forty five or six deaths, He says it's really it's it's! It's really a transformation in one were celebrating, which is what I tried to do in that book, but but they only picture that the fact that we have all from a big bang is it is not in dispute. Let me make that clear. The big bang happened just like the just. Evolution happened and the earth is round and all the other things we know it it. There is no doubt that we be that the early history, the universe, was a hot big bang. Now so in fact everything we now see, or ever Ali

let's see we now see in other particles, knows galaxies, two hundred billion stars and each galaxy. The hundred billion galaxies, all of that material, was contained in a region some smaller. Seismic single Adam and that's it- So. Let me ask you a question about that: shirt mean is it reasonable to cause actualize, something like that, as having a size because we're we're considering size within the universe, and it's almost when when you say that the universe at beginning had a size. It's like it was an object in a universe that had a size, but let these are real. the question- and I should be clear in my language- the universe could be infinite. I want to ask, as physicists and an wheeler would have liked design. Send certainty that operational questions. I do know how big the universe is, whether in not, but what I do know is how big is the visible universe. So if I ask you how big was the region which

comprises the visible universe today, at an early time that that has a good, that's that's well defined region the size of an atom could have existed in a universe with infinite, even then there could have been it could have been an infinitely dense universe that was initially big. Ok, so all we can ask- and this is really a big change. Also from when I was a student, we know because we used to When I was a kid or when I even assume we talk about you diverse and universe would mean everything a kind of ill defined quantity everything? What does that is everything now, where much more well defined? We say our universe, a good definition of our universe is that region which, with which we could have interacted. In the past and with which we will be able to interact into the future, even if the futures infinite long, and that may not be everything right that be just a small region of a much bigger thing, which we now call a multiverse. So so it's reasonable to this

I buy universes, that region into which we could about causal contact, namely, which which cause could have produced effect right and end, if has any region outside of it, which we can never effect or be affected by that's, might as well not be considered, of our universe, resistance that causal causally into equitable distance, that's defined or limited by the speed of light, the speed of light in the of the universe recover apple in the early history of the universe? That's called the horizon: analogy with the earth. When you look at the earth you can you know what a curve you can only see out to a certain distance and- and we call the causal arise in that region with which, like could have travelled, to interact with us since that begin if time and an obvious answer the universe as far as we are concerned, because nothing outside of that can effect as in any way aptly so operational, it's much better definition of the universe to be that which we can because they affected by and so an end, and because that that changes, what time? That's that

What is our observable universe, changes with time and will get to it, because things have changed a lot and in the light of that, Does that mean that there are the university causally affects us, is aware at the centre of it. Now. What well, actually, yes or no we're always at this, two of our own universe. Right I mean. Psychological actually well well, but that, because of the causes of the argument that you just laid out did seem, to imply that directly, because it certainly does in the sense that, if, if you want to think of it and that this is one of the confusions, need, confusions, which I may add to debate this block, but we'll try not to is that no one, we look out at this thing called the cosmic microwave background radiation. It's it's a residual, radiation left over from the hot big bang ended comes from a sphere. If you wish that's ok with us at the centre because in early on in his universe when it was hot and dense light into

two with matter and basically it followed in a random walk. It wasn't free to travel, because although universe was charged and light when interact and bounce off things, but at a certain point, when This is about three thousand years old matter became neutral, protons captured electrons to form hydrogen for the most part and neutral matter, doesn't interact with light as strongly as charged particles, and that meant that that, radiation, which was kind of trapped early on when the universe was a thousand years old, could suddenly travel three freely through the universe, that really interacting, and when we look out, basically, we see it as space, and we and the light you know, can travel untrammelled travel if what we're looking back further in time, when we look out We look out in that direction back to a time when the universal swim

thousand years old, which kind of so many see a wall. If you wish, because we can see before that time, cause a light you know couldn't have propagated out just like you can't propagate out through a wall only from the surface, the walk, and we see it and, of course, so when I look at the cop micro background from earth, I'm looking if you wish at the sphere, located almost thirteen well back sheets, because expansion, universe, it's more than is about twenty six billion light years- needs direction. Cassiodorus expanded during the time that the draft law has been traveling, but don't worry about that that complex we're looking sphere a located certain, let's eight twenty ten to twenty billion years, light years away from us in all directions, and we literally can. See beyond that. But the sphere we're looking depends on where we are so that if we were doing the same experiment on intelligent species in another galaxy, local, a hundred million light years away, the

literally, the Mercosur Michael background that they would see would be slightly different because they be sent it with a sphere centred on different place and that's why actually, the the predictions we can make in some sense, as because modest, are somewhat statistical, because we're talking about a thermal distribution and galaxies and lots of disorder, and so the picture and we ve taken pictures the microwave background. It's one at least two Nobel prizes for those pictures. The picture that we see has statistical properties which would be identical to those observed by another observe a hundred million light years away. But the specifics, the hot spots on the cold spots will be different because be looking at a different slice of statistical distribution. Sure, ok! So so that does correct me. If I'm wrong, that does seem to imply that so the universes a globe around US lights are visible. Universe are visible universe. Sorry, I want to be precise, with my words too, and so I move.

Half way across the universe and the globe is still there, but now it shifted that far and so then I could move another half way and it would shift again so this globe in moves with Would he observer so to speak and that only seems to imply that it extends beyond the goal that we see, because if you move it moves so an exaggerated while in the end and it wouldn't, if there were some edge but there's no evidence of any edge. Ok, I think that the point is that either before the weirdness of the of empty space and inflation. We was recognised that the part, the universe we see is unlikely to be the everything there is we're living. and what we can see because of what sable. Generally, like me runner and its limited, but because of the speed of light and and the age of the universe, but also because of the way the universe was. did inserted stages and away

we find and the weights expand that ever since. Let me throwing a wrinkle if that was We are now. Let me money money. It ok, because it used to be again sensible when I even in my earliest fears, scientists that the EP we assume the longer the older, the universe. The longer we live, the older the universe is the more we'll be able to see right because, like can travel further, the universe is expanding. But we thought it time that bad expansion slowing down and therefore the though The longer we wait, the more will see because light from further and further objects can get to us. What's really crazy. Now is because we recognise that apparently empty space. is dominating the energy uterus- that's causing the universe to expand ever faster, faster and faster and faster, and what it means is.

Their partial universe, it are literally escaping from our side. There are parts of the universe that week that we will ever be able to see- and, moreover, even Also, there are parts of our universe, We could see now that, if we civilization that develop five billion years from now and real telescopes that we couldn't see, then, because regions of the universe are eventually moving away from us faster than the speed of light and and and are now invisible so the longer we wait, the less will see because more more galaxies, we'll be literally disappear, behind the horizon the longer we wait, I wrote to me brings about that and once a scientific american article- and I think some my books, it eventually the far future the universe. I know we said we start on the path, but the far future is kind of poetic, because up till about one thousand nine hundred and twenty five, the picture of the universe was quite natural base.

The observation, one galaxy we saw one galaxy, they milky way: Galaxy, ok and on that it was assumed to be eternal, empty, dark space that just with Static and Edwin Hubble. Who was famous for I've been universe was expanding, did something before that and nineteen twenty five. He first realise there. In fact, there are other galaxies These things called Nebula in our galaxy, with the new hundred inch US government Wilson could be discerned and b C his other island universes. So already was a revolution in our picture, the universe. Suddenly our galaxy, Wasn't all there was there were other galaxies and then, of course, later on, he discovered expansion, universe. The interesting thing is that observers, who have then there's still be stars and say even up to ten trillion Europe now, though, probably still be stars in existence, and you can imagine planets around those stars and when intelligent life, evolving on those planets and astronomers. Would look out from our galaxy

At that time, it'll be a very different. Looking galaxy cause, the Andromeda Galaxy will have collided with it, and all sorts of things will happen, but they look out. If the thing is all other galaxies would have disappeared, bond arise by then so observers, ten trillion yours now, we'll think they live. The universe. We thought we lived in nineteen twenty five, a universe with one galaxy, there is no evidence of the universe is expanding, no direct evidence because the guy sees that are now markers it. We can measure their motion away from us, they'll have disappeared, and even the turns, The causing micro background will have become invisible by that time, which is another bit of evidence for the big bang. While some really smart scientists may come up with some pictures to say, will really. I can understand what we're seeing If we assume our universe began, a big bang observation we, basically all the current observational markers of expanding universal, have disappeared and politically in the far future. The think we lived in the mistaken universe. We thought we lived in energy, twenty five, because again, its kind

interesting, conventional wisdom in ninety twenty five scientifically was that the universe was static and eternal, and you may know, that it was a. It was actually a Jesuit priest who was who is also a who first really suggested the big bang and and- and when and when it was later shown to be true, for while the Catholic church got quite excited because they argued that there was observational evidence that there was a beginning to the universe. Is they ve been arguing it it doesn't provide? Would argue doesn't provide any such evidence for the universe they discuss. But it was interesting fact that science, The model was the. This is more or less static and eternal on large scale, and it was completely wrong and- might say, and this is where people often near right, music, while hot

no. Our current model is completely wrong. You know, if eight net that weeks had a big bang and the answer is then there was no data. Basically- and you know whatever one of the biggest misconceptions about science and scientific revolutions in particular. Revolutions in physics is the misconception that scientific revolutions do away with everything that went before them. Just I'm gonna be a jedi and revolutions react. In fact, I would argue that political revolutions never do away with everything that went before them, but in this case they certainly don't what survive the test of experiment before that revolution remains complete Newton's laws of gravity and motion may have been subsumed in quantum mechanics european but if I hold a ball up now, it will fall just as well as described and I can describe it can abolish even for the most part, calculate astronauts are gonna, go Norbert without needing We, the developmental mental psychologist, P, J, studied Coon scientific revolutions in his action essentially was that when a child

regos, cognitive restructuring. The new structure incorporates all of the knowledge of the old one, plus some new knowledge with Ivy revolutionary, but it still subsumed it exactly that's exactly what happens? so it's not so we have a lot of data with which we can test ideas, and I am certain that that that the ice- that's my more. We don't know about the universe than we do. What people don't realize is or don't give credit to visit their lot. We do understand and any new picture a new understanding can will not be able, I disagree with the observational evidence. Tat. The universe is expanding that there's a hot, causing likely background all the things we now have discovered that we did nobody about a nineteen twenty five, and so whatever our picture is beginning of time or the end of time. In a hundred years, maybe very different, but we know the

Well, it's not we're. Not can ever say they. The age of the universe is no longer thirteen point, seven billion years old. We know we, that's that's gonna remain true what happened at the beginning could be completely revolution early different and what happens if you want to think about before the beginning of their even makes sense to describe before, and it may not make sense, because time itself could have original? Let me ask you about that for a second, your cater. Well, I thought Lord about time a long time ago, and it struck me that time is, We mark time by change, and so then I thought well why? Why not dispense with as a concept. If we market by change time is average change. if nothing changes, there's no time. So if the nothing happening, there's no time, there's no! Before that time, it's theirs that and then, if there's no event till the next event, there's no duration,

between those two things: if there's only that of And in the next event, So I mean: is there any reason to assume that there is anything about time? That is independent of change? Well, you know, that's a obviously it's a very deep question and a lot of people spend a lot of time and I think far too much time talking about time in physics, time and space or not different they're, both if you wish parameter that simply describe when events happened and where they happen and and that's it and it turns out that that's the playing field on which. The laws of nature play out. The playing field happens to be in space time, and time is no different. Space in principle accept in fact, in practice, time seems very different than space. We can go backwards in space not clear, ignore backwards in time in that's, causing a lot of people, a lot of philosophers and then physicists alot of

problems, a lot of mental gymnastics, but even in but you could argue that time is a parameter and I could replace that parameter by some other parameter. There's is equivalent to time and and and you could say that that parameters change like the primary talk about and then, if there's no tat change, then you'd say okay. Well, that's it You could say that parameter: isn't it? You know it and changing and you and me at times changes happening all the time at the at the microscopic level. Right I mean there's an indefinite number of changes in Seoul. Statistically, you can extract out an average from that and you can and you can parents, that its duration and you can define. That is time, but there isn't anything there except one and then the next event will that's that's yet that there's no time there there's an event and then there's the next event. Well, that's a well! That's that's where I disagree

yeah, I guess I can't find it because if nothing is happening literally of nothing's happening, then Time is irrelevant concept, but also to some extent space into so some incentives, physics, because really what we're interested in is, is describing the process of events, in particular the prediction of events and in that process, foregoing bought from event to event is parameters by a useful. quantity call time, but if, if nothing's happening you're right, it's completely arbitrary, but then we won't be when we were having the we wouldn't be having this conversation, because nothing will be happening. So do you versed in which nothing is happening there be no time but there'll be no reason to talk about it, either all right. So back to the beginning, now my the standing I dont understand why there is something once something is created, because this far

I could tell him, I dont think I was disabused of this notion with with with finished reading the greatest or ever told so far this week. Why weren't there what amounts of matter anti matter produced at the beginning, so they just disappeared ever they'll just disappeared. That's a good question and we see is that have doesn't have anything to do with uncertainty with the fact that that their work their there isn't it. I'm wondering if there wasn't equal numbers produced big well, look one is that we don't have an answer to that question and by the way, I think, that's really important. As a scientist and too few people, you are, it was always want answers and people always disappointment that we don't know, but I think it's five you the most important things that we and parents and teachers should get more saying, because it means more to discover and that's wonderful. So the answer is

we really do it's one of the biggest its questions. That's really provoked not much of the field of research that I've been involved in. Since I was a student, I remember Stephen wine. Wrote about it when I was a graduate student got me interested in the whole subject, We now know that we live in, universe, it's made of matter at at week, your anti matter and there's miniscule amounts of it and we think most was caused by high energy collisions between particles and causing, as far as we can see and their real tests we can do for. While people maybe we'd met, lived in a universe, added equal amounts of modern educator and they were separated there were many matter regions and anti matter regions but turns out their tests. You can do to test that and all those tests demonstrate that, as far as we can tell that their note that the universe is made of matter not anti matter What you get is arbitrary because of course we linen universe made of anti matter. We call it matter, and you know it.

The anti lovers living Attica, sitting Anti cars, making anti love and all the rest. It wouldn't be different for the most part, but the paradox here is an early times. The universe is very, very hot and when it so hot you one of them Central parts of relativity is that energy can turn into matter and matter can turn and energy. So particles of light with enough energy can Clyde together proves particles of matter, ok but when they do not have enough energy bits and anti matter matter of exactly the same, mass particles are collide. whose equal amounts of matter and anti matter. If two photons at very high energy cook- and they d collide re- usually, but if they do not produce particles, nanoparticles, equal and equal numbers, partly because the conservation of charge right, the photon doesn't have any charge and therefore, whatever comes out of the collision, has to have no charge of it. Produces an electron. You'll have to have a positron me. You pull out

so that all those interactions, elementary particles interactions, dont really distinguish between matter and anti matter and therefore very early times. If you are a creator if you are creating a universe, and it was very hot and dense it when the most reasonable thing would be, for it have equal parts of matter and anti matter. Ok, but somehow so that's it! That's the reasonable assumption for the beginning of time that the universe at equal amounts of modern anti matter in a very hot and plasma. How do we get to a universe that just has matter? Well, that is the interesting question and it too by the way what and I know, you're interested in what you would call soviet things. You are like the art and everything else you prop and an example soldier it's in collected- I don't know if I like yeah came, but I do know active.

Under Andrei Sakharov was, I was a very famous vicious. Was actually probably the father of their hydrogen bombs, but he was also, as you know, won the Nobel Peace Prize because he became a dissident interesting enough one of his major well. In retrospect, one of his major contributions to science was he he actually asked, and neither was nineteen you seven well before they enter the physics. Actually allow many. He came up with three criteria by which our universe, it started out with it amounts of matter and anti matter could evolve into a universe which just had matter there call the Sakharov conditions and their three of them. One is that you have to depart from thermal equilibrium because we and thoroughly Gladwin, everything remains the same, so nothing's happened right. Ok, thermally glib, like that in this room who case unless a clip place, we're uncertainty seems to be relevant because if the principle of

certainly holds you wouldn't have thermal equal, have removed, have unavoidable variation well now, but you have their Melick, where you know you do have local firms in really over me in this room, there's Loca variations. The thing about thermal equilibrium is and you're right. I invite what you just said. There's like normal. We talk about thermally, glimmering being a global thing, but we can all. talk about microscopic equilibrium and and that that and there are variations, but what happens is that that in thoroughly good opium one particle another particle. You know big guy collision, but an equal number of collisions happened in the opposite direction. So so there's lots of things happening, but but they're all happening in equal opposite way, so that no global properties are changing. Ok gangs

and then suddenly the amount of matter and uses a global property, ok so thoroughly, good member, ok! The second is that you have to have some physical process, the tells the difference between particles of matter and anti matter, ok cause. If the physical processes don't tell the difference that nothing is going to start a situation that has equal numbers and change it to a situation. That is unequal numbers. Ok, but this property is called up if it happens to be a that, the laws of physics, italian matter and anti matter, the laws of it. So the same format or and antimatter matter- are related to symmetry of nature. Something called charge: conjugation variance which tells you that that that that positive and negative, no differently positive and negative, it's just an arbitrary thing and it turns out there's no different, seen left and right.

ok, if those if, if the laws of physics at a microscopic level, obey both of those properties, then the laws of physics lot, distinguishing matter an anti matter. Only if those that's violated, that's called c p charge and parity. Only if Cps violated, can you buy some microscopic physical law? Can you evolve from a system with an equal number particles, anti particles to one that hasn't and the third? Is something called what we call a barrier unnumbered on conservation, but basically matter is made of protons. Ok and you know electrons, although obviously protons electrons, wake up atoms, but electrons are very mass most of the mass in your body is protons neutrons, they're, called variants, ok and clearly

If you want to end up with a universe, fuller, protons, neutrons and more protons neutrons, if you wish than than anti protons negative trans, then asked me some process that makes protons when there were protons to begin with, so those required. So that's thermal equilibrium, cp and violate survive, violation of thermal equilibrium, violation of sepia variants, process that violates bit what are called Baron number that that ok and he wrote those down and it what's amazing, as at the time he wrote down the laws of physics, obeyed thermal equilibrium, they hit universe, obeyed C B, and obey, bear a number. So there is no evidence that you could ever do that and what's been remarkable. is that over the last fifty years or so is as we ve studied, the microscopic laws of physics we discovered both that c p, is violated by microscopic laws and we ve we discovered

Processes that could have happened in the early universe that would violate that thorough equilibria that nice general. We call idiomatic expansion of the universe. There could have been abrupt processes during which the universe departed from thermal equilibrium by By natural processes that we could describe that, we know there are some of them. We know if you read my book. We now for example, now that the two four, nature, electromagnetism and the weak interaction that now appear very different. Early on in the history of the universe actually represented to different sides of the same coin. They were really part of us, a more unified force. Ok and the point with you. Where's cool down enough, so that suddenly electromagnetism began to behave differently than the weak interaction as universe.

down and think suddenly be hit the enemy of differently? That's what we call a phase transition and face transitions are places where you can depart from their equilibrium right. If I I think I do if I use the example of the book, but it and I'll- and I grew up in Canada, so the example beer. But if I, if you, if you have a party, a beer party- and you forget to put beer in the refrigerator, you put it in the freezer and and and and then you forget, that you put in the Fraser and the next day, take it out of the freezer and its frozen solid. I mean it's not frozen solid. It still is to liquidate your you click the you take off the top and suddenly freezes instantaneously and the bottle breaks. That's a face. Trends because when the when the beer was being held under high pressure, it wasn't in at a low temperature, really and thermal equilibrium. When you open it up, then it could suddenly going Thermal equilibrium in the preferred state to be in the thermal

Lebanon was ice and subtly boom and break it. So thermal equal it. So so phase transitions are points where you can violate. You can depart from thermal equilibrium momentarily before the transition completes animal feed. There's a theoretical explanation for how the anti matter matter. Whether the point is there's no one theoretical inflation, but we now know all the parts. The Sakharov ok only exists, but we don't very good model that puts them altogether what we did in the nineteen eighties. When I was when I was at Harvard thought we. We we thought there were even before that we welcome if data mighty, we thought that there's a model called gratification, it all look like was falling together. we thought we had the answer to everything and it turned out. The experts have told us that those pictures are not quite right. There is a host of possum ways of starting out with the universe that that is, that has, equal amounts of matter and anti matter and ending up with the universe. It has an equal amount, but we don't know if any

The proposals that we now made are correct and if the reason guide my feeling always is most like the most likely. Answer is one we don't you have. I mean I've written papers, lots of models that can make that happen but nature probably is smart enough to use any of the models that I've written down and I suspect it, but so their lots of ways, but but what we need is that experiments have shown and that's what's important. It's not just theoretical mumbling of a physicist who like to have nothing better to do experiments have shown all the components of the Sakharov Prize requirements for generating matter a universe, it would have an asymmetry, are possible in nature and an an hour did. I should be a little more careful. We know phase transition as happened in the early universe, we know see is violated. Beria number we do not to be violated, but all

of our models that extend what's called the standard model. A particle physics naturally produce very early times, models were bare number is violated, so so it's not implausible, it's certainly not implausible, and so all those things exist and an end and our current picturesque quite having said all of that, that's complicated the current picture, that that is a little simple and it's really remarkable. It says, What happened is there were equal amounts of modern anti matter, and a physical process happened some time between the Big bang and the time when the universe was about a million of a second old that caused a very slight access, one part in a billion more particles of matter than anti Matter- and that's all you need- you might say, wives- that the case because we now live in a universe. That's just matter! Well, if one extra, let's say, there's a billion particles of matter and a billion,

articles of anti matter. What will happen as universe evolves the pie, because a matter will annihilate with the particles of anti matter producing radiation, but they'll be one left over particles. It couldn't find a particle of matter or nearly so. What you'd expect is roughly a bill. particles of radiation in the universe for every particle of matter, and we look out that's exactly what we see the causing likely background contains roughly a billion one, two billion to ten billion photons throb, going throughout all of space for every proton, universe. So, in fact, while we think we really live in a universe, if of matter what we live as a universe. That's me firstly, radiation polluted by a little teeny tiny bit of matter one part at a billion, but that tiny bit of matters enough to make all of the gas stars and galaxies in you, and I so like one of the things that I'd like to think of it as exists. It makes us more and more insignificant as human beings. Cosmic sense, we realise we used to

We the scent of the universe with Senator the son. You know the someone run us. It's been a series of these kind of copernican revolutions worthy earth. Isn't the centre of the of our solar system, but the sun isn't the centre of our galaxy, but our galaxy is at the centre of a cluster of galaxies and our cluster galaxies is at the centre it and now we find that most of the particles in the universe aren't even made of the same as we are, so it pushes us more and more to feeling marginal, and I find that and a lot of people say well. That should make us feel sad. But to me it makes me feel more pain. rather than one's prices, since, like obviously we're getting the Roma psychology, but my psychological responses, hey the fact that the universe is accidental, as far as I can see and was created without any supernatural shenanigans. The fact that we cosmical irrelevant the fact that the Euro is going to go on without us? All that doesn't make me feel sad. It makes me feel I should enjoy my brief,

when the sun I should enjoy my brief. You know four score and ten or hopefully more and in years and and and and it makes this accident of life on on earth- remarkable that we that evolution in doubt us with consciousness, so you and I can have these discussions, so I don't find a pointless since of the universe to be depressing. I find it rather The opposite- and I often- and this may be an area we disagree, and I don't know but but one of the bits of semantics that I've I've tried to fight. Is this notion of loss of save like losing your faith, is a loss, but to me losing my faith in in those two does fairytales at least where the or those incorrect explanations is not a lawsuits. Name it. So it's a we in using that terminology makes it seem like people all these write to me. I know

recognize you know that I believe that the Bible stories, but what am I to do, I mean how can I deal with this loss and and and I think their condition to feel like they, they have a loss. I dont think I think you can. At least you can psychologically Create a picture where you don't feel that's a loss, you feel in fact you ve gained something and actually it's the way. I feel many things in life when I'm being well adjusted, which is a small percentage of the time to be clear when I have a loss I often reflected and afterwards and realise that, in fact I have gained that what seem to be a traumatic experience or in the end produce something which is much more valuable and, of course, its rationalization probably but allows me to deal with those things anyway. Anyway, that's my lament psychology. little bit of pop psychology for discussion, I'm tempted to take it in that direction, but I think I'm going to continue to torture you about the structure of our universe. I would I can do that because one of the things that I hope, you're listeners,

was it. You and I are gonna, have a podcast on my podcast. I can't wait to have you might ask, maybe we'll be in touch. in the same room and then I will do. I will torture, you, ok, That sounds like it. I'm looking forward to that lot. Ok, so so so matter pops into being. Essentially after things come down to some degree and the there there are different there aren't exactly current laws governing the universe before that, but the what? What would you say? The the allowances that the current laws may cover a remarkably powerful effect before that yeah yeah obsolete with the form that the laws I mean, the laws of it. do evolve and energy scales and at an which laws are important and different. Energy scales are different, so certain laws of physics, even if the even if their don't change it, certain certain things are more important early on and then other laws become a more

report later on, like now, obviously electromagnetism on small scale, is incredibly important, governs all the biology of chemistry. Oliver thing we see in and around in the world around us at early times. It was nuclear physics in particle physics that the laws of the strong and weak interaction that we're determining what was going on, but you're right eventually, and it took a while. It took a long time before the universe became domain by matter, even when they This is one second old and a temperature of, but ten billion degrees there weren't even elements all of the that's the other thing, that's remarkable that until the universe was even protons, just until the universe was about a somewhere about a billionth of a billionth of a second old, but elements didn't exist

all of the light elements, hydrogen helium and lithium- where, if you wish created by nuclear reactions in the first five minutes of the universe, which is why Stephen Weinberg book called the first remit, talks about that soap and those were the only elements created at the beginning of time, hydrogen their created from the latest upward Vienna. That's basically the way that things go across the young area, because you don't want no tolerance and an effect and it's kind of it protons neutrons but neutrons or action stable, so that it can to programmes its very fortunate. It turns out, if you want to believe in coincidence, discreetly quite amazing, it's very fortunate that it works out The neutrons live about ten minutes. If I hadn't drawn here and let and held in my hand in ten minutes on average decay will you have more neutrons in our body than protons. How can that be the case? We ve been talking for a lot more than ten minutes. I'm sure you're listeners were great aware of that, but

The reasons if you put a neutron in a nucleus, it can become stable, ok and it's really quite fort- that, all that neutrons that are more or less many of the new existing years got trapped in this form of helium and lithium because protein. New hydrogen is: has a proton, an electron. Ok, there's a heavy hydrogen which is deuterium, which is approach a neutron electron some of that was created in the universe to but helium has two protons a two neutrons, and so by those neutrons being by helium forming by a series. Remark mark when the unit if you wish stored the neutrons and otherwise would have decayed away into protons newbie no neutrons left in these, so they ve been stored ever since that time. For the most part yeah they haven't exactly and so those new the neutral and and of course, other new tonnes have been created in the in the fiery, start so what happens is in and I talked about it.

in the need and nothing in intellectual. I gave him that was the formation of that book and I M not the first person to say that I know Carl Sagan talk in different ways, but it is really true. What's important further psychology that you study is carbon nitrogen oxygen phosphorus iron. All of those things. None of those elements we created the big bang. All of those elements were created much less. literally billions of years later or hundreds of millions of injured later in the fiery course stars were new corrections happen, and that means something that is really truly them poetic thing. I do know about nature that every hour in your body in the first two first rocks, which all the carbon all the oxygen was create with creating a sort of a star, and that means an organ at your side of a star and not just for urgent started to store. But in order to get in your body that started to explode, so

the in your body and in fact probably they ve been in many stars, because you ve done many generated. They have experienced the most catastrophic explosion in in nature, a supernova every atom in your body is experienced that at least once, if not many times as you are a stardust, it's I mean you know it's it. It sounds You know so remarkable that it sounds cliched yet yeah exactly it, but it's when I really like that discussion of love. Yeah exactly is the case what you know. What makes a lesson talk about for me. Is it and now Jacob is Debbie. Adams, in your left hand, could have come from a different store than yams. In your right hand, I just find that amazing anyway, doesn't matter whatever turns you turns you on What do you think? Ok, so now we are at the point in the story where atoms are big. to form in their starting with their simple forms and that's it within the first three minutes. Yeah for five minutes handle first five minutes and so and then It's it's it's hard to do first and then its helium. Then it's a let let me even court you again because it's our correct me, the nuclear

I of atoms, but in fact there no Adams. Until you too, three hundred thousand years old, because it was so that when Adams exist, when protons neutrons capture electrons right, then you get Madame, but in their early history, the universe was so that when Electron got captured, it got knocked out again so they're only these nuclei, which were charged a protons electrons and everything, and it was a plasma these things only when the universe cool down to about about a thousand degrees are so maybe ten thousand degrees somewhere in that region was the universe, now that protons could capture, electrons and neutral hydrogen would form, and those were the first Adams literally neutral atoms that existed in the universe and that's when, if you wish to causing microwave way background separated from matter because then once matter became neutral instead of being a bunch of charge up then light and matters kind of

coupled and that was a momentous period- and that was the first moment that Neutral Adams began when you Social, that's about three hundred thousand years, yet another my job and I mean, and then you know from three hundred thousand years. What happened is universe, cooled and cold and cooled and really it was. It was in the dark. ages. If you wish, because it you know, there are no stars, it was just matter and radiation, but they re disparity uniformly distributed in landing and cooling unbelievably uniformly distribute. This was one of the Big surprises Einstein in they make a model of the universe. Your models are So you ain't Einstein and others would make models in which universe was uniform, because only then could you do the calculations, but when we look out, we discovered empirically this remarkable

which for a long time, was quite surprising, and now we have this idea of inflation. That in principle explains it, but it is at the universe, is uniform across regions could never have been caused contact before today. That's reborn the region way over. There could not communicating known each other before today, but then the same temperature to one part and a hundred thousand its remarkable universes you. Unbelievable and that's the cosmic background, my grave radiation yet on, but with the same in every direction and wasn't even every their actual romances matter, couple. The radiation, the more or less distribution of matters is, is uniform at the universe. But now it's not cause you an iron, you no differently. dozens of destitution of battle. It sounds like it's another one of those situations where small discontinuity at the beginning were enough to produce very large differences across time, exactly because gravities attractive. That's the key point. So, if you have, more lumps anywhere a little small access here would begin to grow

and then snowballs. So I speak and an that's exactly that gets there were small this is another amazing fact, which is is not appreciated enough. The small fluctuations unlikely back and we think we're due to quantum mechanics yeah. That's what I was thinking about the quantum uncertainty has or has not been earlier. We are literally quantum lumps if you wish in order to in order to get those leading there's quantum disconnecting just continuity run on microscopic grey area that causes clamping wealth, eventually allows plumping to occur yeah. The point is that we don't see quantum fluctuations on our scales, but remember entire observable universe was once inside a region It's a sign of an atom and those scales. Quantum fluctuations are very important and, what's amazing, is those want to fluctuations got frozen in into the into the microwave background characteristics in ways that we can predict and describe and those quantum fluctuations later formed all the stars and gas.

These and other areas because they were lumps. So we really are met macroscopic manifestations of quantum mechanics if you want to think of it. So let me ask you a question about that. Quantum fluctuation there is certainty of location and possess location and speed. Yes, I've got it outright well look, maybe one, but not the other, guys. Others uncertainty in the combination, but locate Barnett Certainty is real enough, so that in that region ITALY uniform background. There were actual, let's say: fluctuations. There were disk continuity of position that we're sufficient to cause the not only were traditionally inevitable the required way that gets I'm. But that's right. That's it it's a real! Let us act phenomenon. Oh it's even more of its more Molly, more real and more, but it's also more wild than you just said. Then. What you just said may not surprise me, but but even we order is when you go to the smallest scales for various there's, another uncertainty principle economy.

And accepts there's a position and momentum, uncertainty, but there's a energy and time uncertainty and that certainly If you can measure a system for only a short time, then your ability to measure its energy is very uncertain. So if measure for longer time, you're in certain energy goes away. If you measure for a small time, your uncertainty in energy gets very large okay and that means for very short x. Empty space can burp out particles. and piety particles. You set will that violates the conservation of energy. Was nothing there to begin with and need up. When I put pump out a bird bottom, Electra Unopposed runs. Their particles is that how black holes evaporate, that is it is by which black holes can be thought of as a happy. If you want to get their way right because they play particles pop You can only obviously some of them fall into the black hole. That's one way of describing hawking radiation it. So it's not a bad analogy. It's not a banking got problems, but it's not a bad analogy.

let it be glad I'm not completely off the wall here? Oh no! No! No! No! Your dear you're dabbling round now a year or so far you haven't except your questions about time. You're right, encore, you're right on track anyway, so this says that particles can suddenly spontaneous. He burst out of nothing Because, as long as they disappear again in a time shore, so short, can measure their existence. They violate anything their only violate energy conservation of wicked measure them. Now that sums crazy and it sounds like. There is also something else. Something like potential. Wealthier bore me to be. Well, that's right. They have potential, do things but to be less generous. They sound like talking how many angels can dance on the head of a pin had see them, we can see them, then what the hell does it matter? The point is we can't you, but they have indirect effects,

That's what's remarkable, so we know that process is happening not just because this is like me say it's happening, but because, if you take a hydrogen Adam, you gotta proton an electron laws of quantum mechanics that direct developed. Allow you to calculate The energy levels at that electron can have around a proton and that determines the colors of light that submitted by hydrogen right. Ok, we can compare those predictions with observations and, and that's one of the bases of knowing the quantum mechanics works. This discreet set of light that's emitted by hydrogen. Well, it works, but it doesn't really work because it turns out at a gross level it works. But when you try and measure things at the level of one party

thousand, or so it doesnt work. It turns out the energy levels aren't exactly what you think they were wise than that. That is because the proton they hide unanimous in just two proton electron. It's a proton electron, but in the autumn, virtual particles are popping in and out of existence and say an electron positron peer pops. In into just as well in the autumn, in the Arab, within the confines of the electoral yeah yeah automatically in that region and what's happening everywhere in space, but it's also happy, madam, but in that region, during that before that electron positron pair disappears the electron in that pair will want to hang around close to the proton, because negative charges are tracked. Deposit charges, where's, apposite drawn, will be kind of repelled and that'll changed the child, distribution inside the atom, in a way that we can calculate. In a way that make every atom somewhat unique? Well it! No! Yes,

No, every item is experiencing the same thing, because it's happening is the particles I mean: what's happened again, statistically, is it? Is it those all. Those virtual particles and anti particles are changing the spectrum of hydrogen. hydrogen atoms? the same amount cause are helping so fast or changing that that that spectrum, in a way that we can calculate- and it is one of the triumphs of theoretical physics that using a theory called Quantum electron, Amex developed by fine men and others in the event. Building on what directed we can calculate to fourteen decimal places, fourteen docile places from first principles, what the spectrum of of of hydrogen should be and how those virtual particles can change that spectrum, and when we compare with observation it, it's bang on there's no other place in science that we can make a theoretical protection from first principles and compared to fourteen decimal places with observation and get their answer. So that tells us

that those virtual particles it we can't see, are really there and not me Empty space is much more complicated. Then We assume before which, the heart of what lead you to the hypothesis that empty space was it was it was ok. So that's all part of the background for the empty space is a seething pool of of virtual pet. Because we're going in and out of existence desire instantly Does sound a lot like potential like a gap? That means not only as a potential, but it cannot but those, but that effect can cause empty space to have energy. In fact, generically you would expect empty space to have energy, so you might say, what's so surprising, so It's not surprising that empty space as energy, what surprising in assent is an empty space has so little energy. You might why does it have energy if this, if the particles, sir two over a short time. Well, that's a really good! That's a really good point and the the.

The answer is a little more complicated and it is that. Let me give you an example from quantum mechanics. So if I have up what the famous quantum gave a mechanical example of a potential well, I have a little. You shaped well right and if I, up a ball on that. Well, you know it'll rolled on the barber fruit with the well, but frictional eventually cause it to rest at the bottom, at the lowest energy state aid and lose energy by friction, long moves and it turns out a quantum mechanics, because energy states are Kwan ties in such a potential. Well,. the lowest energy state is not at the bottom of the potential. Well, it's a little bit above the bottom. The and saw the ground state the law. Send you that an electron can have trapped in a well is not at the bottom of a well it's. Actually, it's actually is alive. but more energy than the bottom, because the energy states quantifies classically

Let us not, because you can't get two zero it take it desirable, that's a generic property of an electron and a potential. Well, it's an amazing fact so. That's called the ground state energy in quantum mechanics. Is there a way to that? I mean you said it's because its quantities to why presumed that's an explanation, but not an explanation. I understand I know you'd love. Ok, give! Let me give you a holistic exclamation that you might get better. Ok, you might like it. It's much, but it's one. It's one that I used in my mind, so maybe it'll help. Remember we tell us in in quantum mechanics particles are also waves right, so the electron has a wavelength. Ok, I know if you play music do play music, it so badly me to very badly, but I'd like to play okay. So when I, when I, when I am when I hit a piano key, I hear a no

Why? Because that string as a certain length and the only and their vibrations that can be on that string, but the only vibrations of persists are ones that have a very specific relationship with their wave linked to the length of that string. That's called residence so and that's why? Because they go away, goes along a string. It comes back then about his back and comes along and reinforces, but only when the wavelength in that case is exactly equal to the length of the string. Will you have residence with a string be able to persist? Ok, now electron has a wavelength and the way to think about a stationary statement, drawn, is like it's like a resident, no enemies, glens room, so I M attach a well and the electron can only exist in adopting distances where it where its wavelength is an exact relationship to the to the width of the potential. Well, So is it reasonable to say that that mean.

Electron can't exist and have zero energy. That's not possible. Let me let me think, that's a good good if it were the only way I could is with its wavelength, we're infinitely big, because it turns out the wavelength of an electron is related to its total energy inversely related. So if you want to think about this electron, that's rest. If you want to think about, it would have a wavelength that what's called at the Bali wavelength, which is infinitely big in size. So if the universe, so only in an infinitely big universe, kind, electron really have a ground state energy. That's exactly zero! All right! Now that I'm gonna! one more question about this in a bid to shut up about this is that also

Uncertainty issue is began its if it's a zero, you can specify exactly so then it has to have an infinitely large wavelength. That's the reason that basically, the answers are more or less yeah it's its position. If you do, if you more or less, if arrest its momentum is ignored please zero writing about exactly specified unaware. Its position is and therefore cannot. Its position is equally likely anywhere in the universe, ok I know it's crazy. It's crazy! What these are more like! Descriptor like there are like concurrent in. comprehensible descriptions rather than explanation well. Well, we accept the fairy so what are you looking for? They are obviously and it works but bribing, but but there's something you ve read on, which is really important: a lot of people, hung up on the interpretation of quantum mechanics. Any people write books about it, many worlds, Did you lately to somebody, wrote a book and tried to subjects, but the point is that it's nice to

our capital that bears really relevant because, as actually a brilliant, I first realized it do a colleague of mine, a Harvard it was really the smartest person there in the physics Department is now dead. Sidney comment. He said the proper thing to talk about is not the interpretation of quantum mechanics, its interpretation of classical mechanics, because the real world is quantum mechanical and any classical picture we impose on is gonna be crazy. And at but you're up the victim, those real they're, all just different approximations to array the and underlying reality, which can be described by a clear, any classical picture so that, while these classical picture seen crazy because that none of them is complete, well, you know, if you look at all. If you look at this, psychologically I refer to page egg, let me pay, as you pointed out, that we draw our concepts from our practical, our practical manipulations of things. So, for example, you know you might ask why what? Why is this one thing: you know I could only while its five thing. Yet, while the question is what

it's a thing. You look, it moves as a unit. Therefore, it's a thing. So that's one. Why could be five if I broke the part now it's too, but it's the concept itself is predicated on our interactions at this scale, and so we're gonna drive our sense of reality from our practical interactions at this scale in Europe. Claims we met the quantum mechanics in general is that that doesn't apply if the micro scale is our intuitions Argo and because our intuitions are predicated on our embodiment at this level of analysis. Absolutely, in fact, the purpose of the greatest story told so far that particular book is to say something remarkable. The world of our experience.

Is an illusion I'd. I know I hate to say it because it breeds all sorts of mumbo jumbo unpeopled start to, but it will add a fundamental scale at the small scales everything that this that defines our universe, including matter and and and Mass really at the things that make the universe the universe we experience are really accidents of our circumstances rather than fundamental properties of the universe. So are you know, however, that something that's something I would like when we can do, again when we talk again, because I am I always curious about that leap into purposeless, and one of the things I would like to ask you just briefly on that subject is: the universe cools. We do see a gradual increase in at least one sort of important complexity right and that's the building

let's say the berry building of the periodic table, so Adams become more and more complex and sophisticated as universe cools. That seems like a kind direction. Anybody that's built into the structure itself, and it isn't I mean, do you think that's discount? is that necessarily disk, continuous with the radical increasing complexity that you start to see three point five billion years ago when life emerges or is that the same process of complex suffocation? Well, you know. Ok, it's a good question and the answer is it's all momentary. It's it's a momentary accident, it is true the stars as a as start individual stars of all. They build up a heavier and every elements they do it at the expense of their surroundings. By increasing the disorder. and their surroundings right. There are meeting in writing right, right so heavily penalised in the ok. There's localised increasing unpleasant, like us yeah, but it's all momentary you fall long enough, they heavy elements.

Going to disappear matters, disappear and the long term the universe will look, will just be fewer radiation again we're. So this build up of complexity, which are absolute. You're is It is not a direction of the universe. It's a momentary but fortunate imbalance, will exist for a while until the universe catches up with it. May I will that's That's a real problem in discussing concepts! Isn't it because you can take? I'm scale and change the timescale and all of a sudden the phenomena changes completely. That's what people do to themselves often when they think about the meaninglessness of their life. It's like well wait a second. I could I guess, I've made this with my clients. Approximately is if you're thinking the time Scott scale that makes your I've irrelevant that's The ring timescale for the problem, that's the indyk. The hopelessness is an indication that you're using the wrong frame and and

say what what's the proof of that and I would say whether hopelessness is the proof of that. Now. You might not regard that as proof, but it's a point that at least worth considering you know, because you could say well what good is a Beethoven symphony. across the span of a trillion years, it's like, while none but yeah, why? What good is posing that question? Exactly like? I couldn't agree with you more. The fact that we have there's no other purpose universe, the fact that we and everything we ve created along Begone, that my back into press you, but the that the opposite side of the coin. It seems to me if I were a clinician that I've tried argued my conscience at it. Every moment of that accident of your own existence special and every instant More special because its finite, because because it's it's so unique and therefore you are right, there may be no cosmic purpose to your existence. You create your own purpose. I know you write about mean urinal, but by meaning, but but I would

there is no objective, meaning to the universe we make our own meaning and, to the extent, make our own meaning our law. Are more or less valuable to us and there's around us, and so I would see I would I would quibble with that- and maybe it's not just to quibble, because I dont think meaning is something we create. I think it's something that manifests itself to us now look, I know I know it's not that simple, because we do make decisions, but its very freedom we the case, and you know that you know this is a scientist. For example, you may have an moment of insight into some phenomena. So that's deeply meaningful, but I so much that that is something you create, although you can seek it out, it's more like that, something that bursts on you yeah, yeah, ok! Well. I m interesting question to see if we're debate

semantics here or not yeah yeah, right, tat, right right and I'm all I mean not reason guys. I just like. I guess I guess at a fundamental scale, and maybe we can follow up in our in when we talk of four in my progress, but I I tend not to think that. There's a lay objective, meaning two universes exists now I did maybe that objective and meaning aren't well suited for one another, because you could also make the case that the objective viewpoint precludes meaning as part of its operation, and I think it I mean you know by make a strong case, that the scientific method is designed to exclude subjective, meaning, that's Actually, that's actually one of its remarkable strengths, but it has a cost. The cost is well. What do you do with Phenomena, meaning, why doesn't it this scientifically? Well, that is something You talk about for a long time to hear that a pull us into a that. The question of whether what's constituted.

Conceptualize. This objective reality is a sufficiently sophisticated conception of reality itself and it isn't we use to me that it is because it does have this tendency to include to exclude this objective by us by its method. Ok, that's a good idea. I would say that for me it's perfectly fine. The fact that excludes is reactive is its strength, nodded, weakness they might easily. It is one of its strengths. There's no doubt about that, because the subject, because by excluding this objective. You can discover what's try personally universal, but but that also may mean that there are things you exclude that are real, that that are necessary for you I'll take it too. You know I used to read. Well, there's like Oliver Sack so hastily read a lot and one of his last books were very died, was on hallucinations and one of the things that really at the beginning of his book that really hit me

and it was relevant to something I was working on at the time and I honestly forget it, but is his point that two people who are experiencing hallucinations nations their real an area. Will that's the thing about real, real real. There is objectively real. Let's make a mistake that an objectively real is powerful, but it isn't to me that objective and real are synonymous with income. So when it comes to our own, our own psyche I couldn't if you more, which is why I tell people by the way when I was a kid, I to be what I would have, if might might neither I parents with versus I didn't know the term neuroscience. I won't be a brain surgeon, My mother wanted me to be a doctor, a nice jewish boy and and- and I wanted to Be- what interests to be most was the brain and I thought well. Neurosurgery must be the way to do it. I didn't realize it wasn't, but but the reason why the reasons I do physics

is it so much damn easier? It just so much easier psychology neurosciences, because because of these complexities of of psyche in and so I do go back, To this reason is a slave of passion. I mean the fact that we that are, that are our whole under standing around existence is not really based on reason. I try the side. Wanted was certainly not based on our capacity to to what would you say to cast shall I subjective reality that isn't how people think, cradle or learning like that for five hundred years, yeah that Europe can really powerful but yeah, but it's not the way we naturally. That's also cite the universality and serious to me. Well, you know, but it's that's what so wonderful about size to me. Is it just a recognition that scientists are people which is a secret, that most people don't realize and and therefore their subject. There are subject to all of the the whim in an slings and arrows of fortune and and so the scientific method is developed,

realize that scientists are bound to make mistakes and be human, and the scientific method is to catch those mistakes. I argued recently in fact at Oxford Union and they didn't get the point because they are all woke, but the key students, but but there were, No, there was a didn't. Honourable that's a terrible thing. I know that's the case. It's assailed here, you'll be surprised. There was a debate on this question as we are all religious, and I asked to speak on the pro side. My colleagues, my age, colleagues who people you know we're on these. They were shocked that I want to pick up process and my argument was quite simple: if word all religious. We wouldn't need sites if did not want to believe right. That's it. That's exactly right, man exactly right, so we agree Emma. They didn't get the point, and I were I will. That was part of what I was trying to point out to SAM Harris is then- and this is something I learned at least in part for reading young and his claim was that alchemy, the the

is it alchemy, grew out of a religious foundation in science emerged out of Al Qaeda. It's like its nested sciences, nested inside and L chemical fantasy, that's nested inside a religious fantasy? Well, it also nested. which grew out of it like I, I I born from my mother and father who'd. You know, and I like to think that I grew that a lot of what why I'm is bad, but I go out right. Here's why I think It has to be nested still now, and this is something we can talk about a lot. The off objects that draw a scientists attention determined by scientific processes. You're here fantasy, receive what I mean is that well like do you get interested in some things and you pursue those now, that's informed by your scientific knowledge, but it's it's so use point, for example, was that. Science was up materialist, redemptive myth. It grew up.

as a counter position to this spiritualist redemptive myth right. So imagine there is an idea, which was that we could deem are adequacy through spiritual discipline, ok We tried that for a law, time, it wasn't enough. People were still suffering from leprosy. Ok, so the fantasy emerges over thousands of years. Maybe we should investigate the transformations of matter. There's redemptive information residing in the transformations of matter. We can invest eight that and that would make life better and so the more racial goal behind science is the expansion of human competence and that's not a scientific goal. That's not a motivational goal, be I agree with you about where I guess we disagree, and we could have this discussion is that I think you're right and that's what I said before. Scientists are people, so there They did by also motivated by greed by fame by jealousy as well as by

fat I ah by on wonder, I mean I would feel only on that point. I mean we're all you know, that's why, besides I'm don't you about on under and fascination, but but am also the questions I ask her to they determined by the time in which I live so, but I want to be postmodern because the point is that what's great, so that's all true from a psychological perspective, so, you may say that the motivations of science are our kind of a personal fantasy, but with great is the signs overcomes out so that you're right there are. In fact, if you in my book in the in the book, you read that the greatest overtones of I make it point to sing scientists for all moving in this direction, and it was no longer Edison weight but that airlines from the Sucker Henry motivation it doesnt overcome. The motivation know that candidate the can. It comes contamination of the theory by the motivational imports motivation changes, because the visit, because the results force it upon you, scientists, are forced, kicking and screaming to change their minds they don't want to, but that motivation

Korea questions you ask com, big and that's the greatness of science, because its empirical cause us not based on just what I want. But what nature tells me is the case, and so eventually all scientists who want the centre and no doubt were driven in that direction. They wanted to find out that that What is wrong and they have to go over here and that's the beauty science. Its nature determines what beautiful. Ultimately, you know there was a while when string theory is talked about the elegant universe, another elegant and beer. don't matter what nature determines it, not scientists and eventual We get drawn until we eventually come to a picture or we think it's beautiful, but it was nature. You know something that was incredibly. We in the beginning that we thought was ugly ends up being beautiful, because we force our picture to understand that's the way really is, and then we we developed understanding of it, but so that's the beauty. It said I guess I I dont think of it as a fantasy. In that sense, maybe the motivation is phantom fantastical Annie,

the process of some, let others may prompt, there's a proposition right which, which I think maybe look, let me go. Let me give Another example of this- and you tell me what you think: ok, ok, so try to formulate this property, although I may not be able to do. We have a hypothesis that it's a fantasy. I would say that the increase of knowledge through technical means will be of benefit to us as individuals and as a species that is, that is a fantasy. Now it may be accurate. It's the fantasy that we ve staked ourselves but there's it's not provable and we're actually ambivalent about it, because we generate apocalyptic nightmares all the time and we Oh did our technological progress has a Frankenstein element, so it's not like we're. A hundred

I convinced that this non stop onslaught of knowledge generation is necessarily in our best interests, and you could also make a case an evolutionary case that most species are stunningly conservative. If something works man, they do not deviate from your, whereas, where just transforming like mad, We do have this fantasy, which is weakened. Escape, are static, death. indeed, by the acquisition of noise by going out into the unknown. That's STAR Trek, write books on the physics of start trends go boldly where no one has gone beyond before, and that that will be of no benefit to us and that's the fantasy which, within which this, nested, I dont think that does change, You know I mean I understand your point, the within that transformations constantly? I think, but I think it wouldn't well look. I agree with you to the most part and in fact, regarding the apocalyptic things you must one of things

did mention is that I was chairman of the board of sponsors of the bulletin, Utomic scientist four dozen years, that sets the doomsday clock so every year I'd have to stare apocalypse right in the in the face, but I think the reason that fantasy has persisted. I would argue: is it like many fantasy is it as an evolutionary success and the reason I agree, the reason that it persists as that we have found that yeah when we divide antibiotics. We can live longer, I mean so there's a hope and you're right and an comes back to what I said before reason is a slave of passion. I recognise that when I think I'm being arming driven, I prefer rationality. I have to recognise that there's that this passion handed me and Well, that's it. This is the sole cape and I think part of that again. This is something I tried to draw my conversations with with heresies. Well,

are evolved, biological creatures, we're motivation, we driven like we and we have a pattern. We are not rational, that's wrong. Now we can learn to be rational with great difficulty, but fundamentally and maybe that's a tool, but there is underneath this. You said it was an inch in instincts. can take that apart a little bit so the prefrontal cortex grew out of the motor cortex the cortex enables you to engage in voluntary activity, the prefrontal tax, enables you to abstractly present motor activity play it out in an avatar like universe and kill off stupid ideas before they kill you. So we we ve evolved to produce hypotheses test them through through dialectic on and dispense with those that don't work, and so we ve weave staked ourselves

on that attempt and we ve evolved to be able to do that in science. I believe, as it is the extension of that the practical extension of that the most. So that's all essential. We are yes, it's so successful so far right and so far we have the timeframe problem. Pierre is allowed under the apocalyptic, and let me ask you what you think of this, so we have a particular view of I judge now now it's very reductionist, stick right and you can see the power of that because we understand hydrogen atoms. Well enough to make them to turn the bombs yeah, but you I like you could also argue that it's because of that it of the limitations of that form of knowledge that we were inclined to turn them into bombs, that we suffer the hydrogen Adam from its context, its broad broad, broad context and enabled us to Munich later tiny fragment of reality to exclude rest of reality. From that consideration that bestowed upon us a tremendous power, but look what it produced produced

urgent bomb, and you know that could be evident that. The theory, however, practically useful for pretty sing deadly machinery was not useful at all at out. Larger scale Nell says you, and that's that that's the paradox I guess of well. I need action is to approve the. I think it very well. You know it's kind of like a minds me of the of the sorcerer's apprentice, a movie with Mc Mickey Mouse or whatever it was her Mickey mouse. Yeah and m is. Sensible its. It is a remarkable allow more. Maybe maybe I should do Spiderman with great power comes great responsibility, but but which Mehevi summary of your book, but anyway the we have this weird I cannot agree with you more. We have this you're dichotomy we ve discovered science. Will that is decided method was a discovery. It took a lot to do everyone, the Greeks, didn't abbot, they did a lot, but if they,

enabled to know about empirical evidence. That would have a lot more and so is a discovery and it's a discovery that was incredibly powerful than works. But we humans, you know, I didn't evolve. Indian, evolve to discover the scientific method. I mean we had the capability and therefore we have all sorts of evolutionary baggage. that makes us human and so well, on the one hand, have this incredible power by using the scientific method. But on the other hand, have the fact that we are human and we have all the Slings and arrows that came with being human, all of evolutionary evolutionary, positive and negative features of having enveloped the psyche. As you too bribed it one with it. You know I had a up the podcast with Joseph. Nor do I don't love. You know him anyway, talked a great deal about fear and they Magdalena and and how those things play out. But so we have we have this.

We have the people that are manipulating the scientific method who are who are subject to all of concerns that, may you know the jealousies that the insecurities and the wonder of Gaul combined? and somehow we have to combine those to keep us safe and and and secure and to make in principle. her again just saying we want a better future for our children, you're right, that's a fantasy to that's that's up, that's a claim. It doesn't have to Why do we want to do that? Well, for some reason, we think it's a good idea, manage for some reason. We believe that there is such a thing is better yeah. Yeah and we and we quantify it, and we and again I would argue see to me: I'm a bottom up, solid empiricist. If there is not an empirical way of this, of defined why it's better than its an irrelevant concept and that's. Why have I'm this? Just I'm a very pedestrian kind of guy at measure? It don't talk of honey. Some extent right right and dumb, and- and so, but I can't

you can't define it and then it's hard to tell what the hell you're talking yet than others and having semantic Senate bans are being pure. Intellectual masturbation, you know, is a lotta and you can shift concept around at your convenience is not helpful, which it and that's. What sort of I would argue much postmodernism is all about as it is. It is lost, track of what is real and any just sort of intellectuals, right so I'll be right. There's other questions physics. I would like to ask you, but I'm not going to because we're running out of time unfortunate, but I will ask you something inside: ask you something. Instead, that comes out of what we just discussing, so you just went on this panel at all. For you said was orchard, was ill luck for union debate, yeah, yeah, So when I know you're also interested in social transformations in what's happening in the universities need described the crowded Oxford as woke. So I'm going to ask you, I'm going to tell you something I've been thinking about, you to tell me what you think about. Oh sure, so you know

thinking for a long time about the advantages of of our democratic monarchy ruling, Britain, okay, so imagine imagine instead of executive, legislative and judicial there's four branches of government legislative, judicial, executive and symbolic, ok, and so you need it will they have the queen, because then the president isn't the queen yeah you're. The president, greening about a constitutional monarchy where you and I both lived in Canada and the United States. So that's I grew so you can part so so you might say that in a place where there is no fourth branch of government, the president, the executive to and to take on the symbolic weight of the king yeah. Ok, we got On that that's possible anyways apples, which I think is one of the problems of a mere mercuric baltics. Yeah. Ok, now I would say that's also related to the problem of the separation of church and state and one of the things. West seems to have got right is the eye. that we should render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and render unto God what is God.

Well it's an analogous idea. That's ok! You don't I'll just continue! Anyone I knew I'd be described more, but ok, yeah, yeah yeah. We act well! Imagine there's a practical necessity for the separation of the religious impulse from the political impulse but romance that there's a psychological necessity for that too, and that is if there aren't domain specified out for the different domains of of of practical thought. political, economic, religious, there They contaminate each other and happens. Is you don't get rid of the rid of them listen you contaminate the politics with it broke, and so, I know I've been watching- what's been happening to Richard Dawkins, for example. Right now Writ Richards idea and and and I'm an admirer of Dawkins. Maybe he can think you know, I mean his brilliant and I've read, books? I understand what he's doing and why and I at his argument. I think it's incomplete for reasons we could get into and probably will, but I think

something missing there and then is playing out. Is that when you, when you remove the religious sphere and an u confused with superstition, or you failed to discriminate between the valid elements of it and the superstitious elements you dont get rid of the religious impulse it goes somewhere out of you and I think we're. You're saying is owing is a secular religiosity. Now I well, what do you think? I agree? I mean what does it look like to? You know that I said that I've written a peep I've written on- and I would add that was my argument is that is that we are seeing many of the US so religion being manifest in in second arguments s and point out the only difference being in many, unlike at least the christian religion. There's no possibility of absolution

which yet that's not funny, I would emphasise areas will not for me. I know I know I agree with you. I know it serious, not funny. Believe me, I know it very well. I know you do I know, but but that also points out what a remarkable achievement. The idea of absolutely is because it's like the presumption of innocence. Those two things are: those are miraculous yeah. Well, I right, Greece, on acts of flat constructs. In fact, I agree, and I I you know, I'm glad revenue system not one of them. When you, when you talked about the symbolic I one of the problems I sometimes have with with you from having read you in the past and we'll talk about it, is, as you say, things, and I don't really understand what I mean. I mean there simply that I find the vague enough that are or that that I really want them no how you're defining things I've really enjoyed rate is the fact that you ve been defining things, and I think that the the the would agree with you completely. We have to realise and I've had this discuss

as you probably know Richard I have had discussions about a lot there's a movie about us call them believers and we we spent a lot of time together and I think our views have have come together in different ways. I would argue that religion on the whole has not been a good thing for people, because first argument, but in order to, but we shouldn't realize we have to realize that in order that it does serve an evolutionary purpose, if you want to call the purpose its there, because it it it has, it is sir it is survived to all societies because it does it meets Human needs in one week another and therefore we have to ask what needs. Does it say why and realise what they are, and how can we prevent? How can we provide them without the fairytales? So I We definitely do have to ask that question at an extraordinarily sir. You know one of the things that we would might want to do. If we can figure out how to do, it is also

have a discussion with Roland Griffith. Ok,. you no longer if its work out not as well as you. Obviously, ok, while he's been investigating second Alex and suddenly I would still assignment yeah. A very solid science tat when people talk about Sophia. Yeah, yeah. Well, there's there's, there's a mystery there, that's virtually unfathomable and and and and This is a very, very solid scientist and in that's another place that would make an eternal deep but its relevant to this point. Yes, because there are, I think, the reason there has to be a religious domain is because religious questions will never go away. What so either If you get rid of the answers, you can't get rid of the questions I want, but the universe want to get rid of the questions. I would argue that is with central. That's my big argued not everything is that we have to encourage questioning. In fact, that's what education should be based on. It should be based on answers. It should be based on questions, so I dont.

Wanting to? I have no desire to get religious questions like why if you want to call Why are we here Y yeah? I would argue the why questions ultimately, however, the Difference- maybe Rhino Richard! It has gotten involved this too, because road, the forward for one of my books, but though the why, questions are really all how questions they only remain workers into view, believe there's some fundamental purpose and if you, and since there is no and so that, ultimately, we ask. Why are we here really means how're we here when you ask, why does your heart pump? Blotted doesn't mean that there's some someone made up her? It means how does it? What are the biochemical processes? which you know your heart. Allied he's got his own case. Oh all right! So let let me respond to that a bit and stand your point and then take it very seriously, and so, but what I've been look yet because I do look at this biologically to begin with, because I I try to look at things scientifically, in so far as the science allows those things to be viewed, UK one soul can fix. It

that I can look at religious matters from a biological perspective. I do that, could it simpler, ok, soda. I believe that the religious instinct manifests itself in a variety of fundamental motivations, but there they ve their acts rack, motivations to some degree. So the experience of law, that's a major one, the the experience of beauty, that's another one, the experience of admiration and the dust to imitate those are knows are crucial, and so also one of the things that I would point out even tell me what you think about this and I've been trying to formalised this idea, and I dont know its extent. So I look at Christianity. in particular, although not uniquely Christianity, what Christianity, in particular as a thought, tens of years investigation into the structure of the abstracted

ideal to imitate so imagine we imitate those we admire. Ok, but we're abstract creatures. So we want to know what's the essence of what should be imitated itself now we investigate that not all explicit. We have two represented in music. We have two represented an arc. We have two represented an architecture because we're we're we're heading out from multiple different domains. And that is a reduction, is Dick argument right. It has nothing to do about divinity itself sure its purely Its purely psychological biological argument, well, where I did look, I where I would disagree with you and I the wave described in many ways, but where I disagree with you, I guess would be the word investigation. My problem with Christianity and I've said,

Are? You know I've I've debated once at Yale many years ago. The fear you know theology and- and I have argued that and I've never five argue with theologians. I've said, give me an example in the last four hundred years of a contribution of theology to knowledge, and you know it they all say. What do you mean by knowledge now, and I might say what do you mean I feel well? Ok, maybe, but but but I would argue, designing the communists in nature, young and young young yeah, yeah, ok, but I would say you argued asked a psychologist or a chemist robust what contributions and also list these things. But the point is that, yes, the my problem with Christianity is its stop asking questions. It started investigation and it was- and it was a dictum here- is the answer yeah don't ask any more questions, and that is the antithesis of of what am I exist for so I think that's what look look factor, analytic studies of religion, something like two factors- there's a magic element, and theirs is

virtual element and if you, if you do large scale surveys of people now you see that their faith in automatic element has declined substantially better their spiritual you have not, but then again I'd ask you. I don't know what, when we ever, someone uses the word spiritual for me, my mind kind of glazes over because I have no idea what you're talking about a no. I think it's on the investigative side that that's. Why brought that up, because I think what you are objecting to me again if I'm wrong, but it's the same thing that you objective as a scientist. You object to dogma as as a de facto dogma, Absolutely everything is up. Subject: question. Nothing is sacred right right right, so the continued invent the of the creative minds so now, but but you know there, that's not! That can't be quite right either, though, be when you move forward, you always move forward on the basis of dogma. But you question it like you do, but at the same time, which is what you said we should be doing at the beginning, because

do assume the validity of your knowledge to move forward until you had an impediment and then you question it, you have to make sure you have to look. We have to make assumptions to move forward, you just the difference. We science and religion. Is you can recognize though assumptions are wrong and that's the beauty want to me this century insides. Imagine we all make assumptions. In fact, I'd love to the term. I've often quoted from the X files, where Fox Mulder I want to believe we all want to believe. As a scientist, I want to believe that's why we're all religious I argued in in that sense. We, want to believe the differences. Science eventually hasn't technique allows us yeah, but that belief was wrong and and and and that's the beauty, that's work, that's why I like science, it works, I sense, but we all have to make some hypothesis, but the willingness to dispense with it

but of its central to our being, and that's what I say to everyone that if an education for everyone should exist should be if if it's at its best should comprise one thing at some point you find that something is central to your being something. You feel that central to your existence, you find out to be wrong because that is the liberation that education should provide and now we have a problem with humility. Isn't it yeah? That's part of in autumn, with a the getting back dogmas that people are allowed to ask questions because right too big and that's That'S- that's the antithesis of knowledge anyway, show is that did end. Is that the indifference as well as of the true religious impulse? It is question and search because you don't look is Israel means those who struggle with God right doesn't mean those who have got God right, where you are not

what the reasons are you know, but it's again I recognise that part of the reason I feel this way because I was brought up. I was brought up in a religious family, but I was brought up in a jewish family, so its natural say: hey, there's nice things about the jewish religion and one of the things that like about jewish religion. Is here you can question you can question God and and and and all of that, but but that doesn't make me think that, but at the same time, it's all still based on a ridiculous fallacy that, and make it any more legitimate that culturally, I I like that, the cultural it's like genes. Ok, I like I like the expression, the cultural expression, but the underlying basis of Judaism is justice, ridiculous, in fact, just as ridiculous as eve as vicious as as as Christianity and and and Islam and in most other religions. So I guess I I I like that the cultural manifestation, so yeah there's lots of cultural Jews, but I don't even say that I don't find myself as people say. Why don't you define yourself as you wish it out

because well you know it doesn't mean anything. To me, I mean, maybe from a from the fact that I was brought up in a certain way, but I I try not to I find myself by you know whether I'm canadian or american, those things aren't are as important to me is what I'm thinking and so so yeah. I don't go straight. It does strike me that you are, though, someone who's, whose of Israel in terms of struggle, oh sure, yeah, yeah beaming. It blew me away when I really when I knew when I found out that that was what that word meant. It yeah shock me to the bitter gap yeah. Well, it does the prizes isolating struggling yeah, but I don't think you should over. Sometimes I think you tender it's a nice, it's a nice this every but don't read into more than it is I mean you know, after all the year. Where was a word that you were allowed to say I mean it's bury its based at the same time as being based on question is also based on apps. lose that you're not allowed to disobey and therefore it

evil in the sense that every other religion is evil because they shouldn't be, they shouldn't be questions. You can't ask they shouldn't be words. You can't use whether Jha Orgy sure if by well. Look. We should probably leave the rest at this. I ask because we had a good discussion and I heard a good place to end. It is a good thing that we began and I look forward to following this. It's really been a true pleasure Real really- and I I think I hold me as Well- will have found some- in our two hours of discussion, if it's a signs, are always just to see that there's a lot more left to discuss- and I look forward not just to my part- guess what you know having more chance, maybe discuss publicly to it's been, It's been a real pleasure at a great rate. I really enjoyment and thank you very much. Thank you very much. I have many more questions for you, but I dare say: wait yeah, alright, great, I'm looking forward to when we meet again good well, I think I want it would be bad of into hours. We we got through everything,

cs. I would be so good all right. All right. Ok,