From cafe and the vocs media podcast network welcome to stay to humphrey bernard. Every possible measurement outcome have then, but in a separate copy of the universe, the equations that were invented decades before to understand how Adams behave and how electrons move around these equations clearly predict. That it just took thirty years for physicist to admit that may be Should listen to what the equations are trying to tell us that sean carol he's a theory. nickel physicist and a homeward professor of natural philosophy and johns hopkins universe, colonel his long sought to preserve the complicated world of physics in unapproachable manner. He does just that in its popular books, including his lead the biggest ideas in the universe. Space time in motion

carol also talks with other physicist philosophers and thought leaders on his mind. Scape podcast harold joins me to talk about the relationship between science and philosophy, how to comprehend quantum mechanics whether there are billions of similar universes operating alongside around that's coming up, stay tuned. Support for this shall comes from chapter vi, shall buzz. I is a global commerce platform that'll, be there every step of the way from launching your online shop to establishing an emperors and store to finding herself saying

did we just had a million orders shop, a viable grow with your business sign up for a one dollar per month trial period, I shall provide dot com, slash box business, all lowercase go to shop. If I dot com, slash box business now to grow your business, no matter what stage red shall provide outcome, flash vocs business support for the show comes from last year. At last, the software like Compliments and trailer help power, global collaboration for all things, so they can accomplish everything, that's impossible alone, because individually were great but together we're so much better, no matter if your team, up to two hundred or two million at last year, offer keeps everyone connected and moving together as one towards shared company goals, Learn how to unleash the potential of your team at it last and dot com. That's a eighty l, a s s! I a n dot com at last season.

The now, let's get you questions. this question comes at an email from cat who asks you make of David wisest testimony in front of the house judiciary committee this week, will remind everyone. David Weiss is sitting you his attorney from the district of delaware, whose hold over from the trump administration and has been the cheaper scooter responsible for overseeing the investigation and pay the closure of the sitting, president son hunter button, and has been some Send turns along the way, but you'll also recall that, not too long ago, David wise was elevated, finally being used to turn into being the special council overseeing the investigation of hunter Biden Republican, supporters of donald trump have raised questions about his independence and about whether or not he was blocked from doing the kind things that he wanted to do david was made clear during his testimony. According to reports, did he was the ultimate decision maker in the bag and case and was at no time black from doing what he wanted. He also

invented on the extraordinary nature of his giving testimony. At this time he said quote to my knowledge, I am the first special counsel to testify, before the submission of special council report. I have done so out of respect for the committee's oversight responsibilities and to respond to questions raised about the scope of my authority quote so it's sort of an astounding thing, given all these questions and speculation this independence and about his role and about what other people may have said and done that he pretty much, I think, has set the record straight. Here's my observation about the whole scenario. The critics here are not arguing about process. It seems to me there are arguing about fairness with their seat. seeing is a particular outcome and nothing short of a series of capital levels. Offences levelled against hunter Biden would satisfy them, but it's not clear what they want in terms of process. In fact, I'm hard pressed to understand what could have been a fair process or processed

more divorced from politics then have the hunter bide. Investigation has unfolded first, as already mentioned. David Weiss is a trumpet pointy, not a buying appointee number two. He has made clear repeatedly and most recently in the testimony he gave this week, that he was the ultimate decision maker with respect to all matters relating to hunter Biden. Merrick garland has confirmed his independence on multiple occasions as well and then took the extraordinary step of further moving david weiss and making him more independent. By elevating him to the status of special so and then the department of justice, let David wise, testify in extraordinary manner that I just mentioned and that he suggested as well so sure what else the behind administration could have done? That would say: this fight the critics here? seems to me that the only way to satisfy them would have been if Biden, appointed, roger stone, strong trump ally to oversee the prosecution and investigation of wonder by So, at the end of the day, reasonable people in good faith,

greer disagree with charting decisions in with the fiasco. What happened at the initial plea proceeding with hunter Biden, and they can say that the urges that are ultimately brought are too strong. Are too soft are too numerous and numerous enough but it is not based on the process, is not based on politics at the David his testimony made that clear, the criticism here is largely political this question comes at an email from rachel rights. I saw you tweeted. article from the washington post about trump and some others plodding revenge on anyone. One was criticized him if he wins the twenty twenty four election. How bad is this? Can you discuss As I said in uncharacteristic, tweet about the article this is scary next level shit, the article in the reporting of true doesn't even need to be commented on very much. Just listen to the title of the article trump allies, plot revenge, justice, department control in the second term,.

Let me read you just a couple of passages from the washington post, article quote in private. Try has told advisers and friends in recent months that he wants the justice department to investigate one time, officials and allies who have become critical of his time in office. This is quite a list, including his formerly, the staff, John F kelly and former attorney general, William p bar as well as his ex attorney tie cobb informer joint chiefs of staff. If chairman gen mark a milley according to people who have talked to him, who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe private conversations. Trump has also talked to prosecuting officials of the f b I and justice department. A person familiar with the matter said and quote Here's another pass it from the article quote to facilitate trumps ability to direct justice department actions. His associates have been drafting plans to dispense with fifty years of policy and practice intended to shield criminal prosecutions from political considerations. Critics have called such ideas, dangerous

an unconstitutional and quote this even a name apparently for this enterprise. It's called project, twenty twenty five, also from the article quote. Much of the planning for a second term has been unofficially outsourced to a partnership of right wing. Think tanks in washington dubbed project twenty twenty five. The group is developing a plan to include draft executive orders that would for the military domestically under the insurrection act according to a person involved in those conversations and internal communication, reviewed by the washington post, end, quote What else I have to say the fact that down trump is fairly openly plodding revenge that some of the people are helping to plot revenge. Our folks at the centre of the big lie, also, according to the article Jeffrey work is leading the work on the insurrection act under project twenty, twenty five, if even fraction of the plans described here are true and are able to come to fruition. I think

is not an overstatement to say it will change america deeply and profoundly and for the worse, So what is surprising to me about this article? It is not getting more. Attention is not getting more play in its not being emphasised enough One can also note the deep irony this article coming out at the same time, the down from keep saying in braying fashion, in the case against him, brought by Latisha James in new york, state court that the case is a sham. The trial is a sham as evidence of a banana republic. No, that's evans, rule of law and equal status before the law were, Donald trump is plotting for this washington post article. That would cause us to descend into a banana republic and often when that phrase is used. It's hyperbole, it's exaggeration. In this case it wouldn't be some people will say, there's still judges cases still have to be decided by juries: their appeals courts. There are good people there, still opponents in the senate and the house that on

be true, but I'm really really worried that what happens to our system of justice tore democracy, not just based on this article but basin. Everything else were saying: if our trump becomes vengeance, president twenty twenty five I'll be right back. My conversation was shown carol. Support for the show comes from last year. At last, he and software, like jura, complements and trillo help power, the collaboration for teams to accomplish what would otherwise be impossible alone, because individually were great but together were so much better. That's when millions of teens around the world, including seventy five percent of the fortune. Five hundred, Lastly, in software, for everything from space exploring

green energy to delivering pizzas import gas, whether your team of two two hundred or two million, or whether your team is around the corner around another continent altogether Lastly, in software is built to help, keep you all on the same page from start to finish, that way, every one of your teams from engineering and eighty the marketing hr legal can stay connected in moving together. Is on towards shared company wide goals, learn how to unleash the potential of your team and, lastly, and dot com. That's aid, De L s s eye and dark camp at last year support for this episode comes from factor.

This holiday season. You might be on the run more than usual, without as much time to cook, but if you're looking for something the tastes, good like ready to eat, nutritious chef, prepared meals that you don't have to think about factor has got you covered with over thirty five flavour pact, weekly meals, to choose from all delivered straight to your door. You can skip the extra trip to the grocery store factors fresh. Never frozen meals are ready in just two minutes, so all you have to do is heat and enjoy then get back to your life plus You're tired of spending extra money for lunch, while you're out factor also provides effortless, wholesome ready to eat meals, a grain bowls and salad, toppers, no microwave needed. I tried the garlic mushroom chicken thighs, the chicken was flavorful, creamy cauliflower rice was wishes and the green beans rounded out this healthy infilling meal quite nicely. The food came to my front door

thrilled by the quality and ease of the whole process had to factor meals, dot, com, slash tuned, fifty and use code tuned. Fifty to get fifty percent off that's code tuned, fifty at factor, meals, dot com, slash tune, fifty to get fifty percent off John carol, as to make the tangled world of physics makes sense to people like you and me, let's see if he has any success. Professor Sean kara, welcome to the show thanks very much fanny me. So it's auspicious occasion. I'll start with that, until four who are listening that you and I are having this conversation on tuesday october thirty first in the afternoon, a date which is also known as halloween decision have anything to say about hollowing nothingness,

That great you know, I'm a sucker alwyn. I love halloween and after having moved to baltimore a year ago in just a house. I get to actually hand how will we candy tonight for the first time since I was in high school myself, so mixed really excited in physics has nothing to do with it. I was just saying no, I dressed up as a witch, and he looked at me those which, if you looked away, could I actually be scarecrow or something else. No, no physics is very much about them. The world is crazy possibilities, but at the end of the day, we're about the real world. So I would say, I undertake this interview with it with a good bit if he really, this is My wheel house, the kind of issues that you write in and speak about and teach. Let me give it a shot, but can we start with what drew to astronomy, physic science in the first place, because I think you've said in things you ve written? There was a sort of unlikely course for you

sure. I will first mention that I have my own podcast minds gaping. I know exactly the feeling that you're going through, because when I talked to economists or biologists, I feel very, very much out of my depth, but I started. When I was very young in physics, I just got into it when I was maybe ten years old, and I honestly can't tell you why it's just that I started. Reading books about planets and stars, and even more particles in gravity and general activity in the big bang it. I guess, don t idea that I wanted to do this for a living without it time having any idea what it meant to do that for a living and I've never been surrounded by people who really give me good advice about these things, like I kind stumbled my way and discovered it on your own yeah, and I honestly, it's only in this last year that I have a job doing it firstly, what it is I wanted to do so would take me quite awhile way

you mean by only in the last year. Haven't you been doing what you wanted to do before, including writing books. we're doing many things that are a lot of fun and things I'm do I've been doing are very much things. I wanted to do by the specific thing that I kind of took years to figure out that I want to do is just think about well try to better understand the fundamental nature of reality. From a perspective that is somewhere, in between physics and philosophy. Thinking about them natural world right thinking about it on the basis of data and theories in and matching them thinking about it in the kind of super. specially careful way that philosophers do and that's just not, job that exists so I've I've been employed is a physicist for a long time, but both my pop the writing, and my philosophically nations have been more tolerated that encouraged until now, when there actually part of my portfolio It's something interesting about yourself. I think- and it was something like

as you are growing up and becoming actually curious, you're, always drawn to the big questions. You never cared to figure out how a phone works did you would? I was struck by that? Wouldn't you by the way. I think that there's a million different routes to get into science, Lee or just you know, academia broadly or even just being curious. Broadly, some people like to take things apart, figure out how they work la put it this way, because I was roughly scientifically inclined a natural present to get on birthdays in christmas was a chemistry set and I dont think I ever once did the experiments were outlined in the instruction booklet that would come with the chemistry set? I would take them alcohol and laid it on fire. I would randomly mix things together and see, would colors were created and so forth, but experiment and you know, building

Things with my hands was just never. I liked it was fun, but has never my thing, but thinking about the fundamental the nature of stuff. That was what kept me up at night. You mentioned philosophy in your title, johnson, cons university is homeward. Professor of natural philosophy. Now ordinary lay people myself included to think of philosophy and physics as two distinct disciplines, because the question is what is the relationship between those two but the overlapping to the intersect? Do they proceed in parallel? Are they the same set of questions? How do you explain that

Yeah, you know you're everyday person, point of view here is also the same as the everyday physicist point of view here. That philosophy is a very different kind of thing. The title that I have, I would venture natural philosophy. I love the fact that I got to choose it. The homeward professors dont really belong to specific departments, so I could have just called myself, professor of physics and philosophy, but I was harking back to the day so isaac, newton and galileo, when science at what we now call science was a subset of philosophy as far as they can considered it so easy. and master work was the mathematical principles of, Natural philosophy, for example, and it was only in the nineteenth century that he really had a distinct notion of science as apart from philosophy and what that's meant, because academia is the is that, once you splinter into different departments, you stop talking to each other. In fact, you erect barriers to prevent people from talking to each other

and one now is left with the impression that these are two very different things. But there are deep questions about the nature of the world that are clearly both addressed by physics and by philosophy. What then that the origin of the universe? Why is there something, rather than nothing, even very basic physics, questions like what does quantum annex really tell us these are questions. That philosophy cares about just as much as physics does, and so I'm sitting at the point where it's a very natural place to be intellectually, where I think about questions that are both philosophical end scientific but does not, noticeable academic home for those kinds of things, so actually, my colleagues and I are johns hopkins- are trying to create one we're trying to make natural philosophy happen once again is the trend in the sciences and even in the humanities, towards over specialization and focusing

and the study of narrow questions, as opposed to taking the steps back and if so, is it bad. yeah. That's a complicated one downgrade that we have five hours here to discuss the steadily into all the details. short answer is yes, there absolutely is a trend towards hyper specialization. I mean it's completely. You can't dispute it right. There are more departments Specialities more background knowledge that any one has to have in some very narrow area in order to get a phd in become a researcher. the second hand, it's actually been held, well in many ways, you know there's only so much capacity any one individual human being can have. So you can't know everything like. Maybe known everything that was all the cutting edge research in all the different disciplines. A couple hundred years ago, but that's absolutely impractical today, so progress is made by

narrowing your focus a little bit. On the third hand, though, something is lost in that way the minute, how many, how many hands do we have. We had as many We need to make the point so that this point is just gonna. Be three hands? Don't worry so this is this is not the physics part of the philosopher part yeah. This is the thought experiment part here yeah, even though has been very. Very productive within academe within science to specialise, you do look Who's that sort of synthetic general list connection making point of view. So the way that I try I too advocate, for it is most scientists, should be pretty harrow. They should specialised. They should be the world's experts in their fields. But We also need some people who are general as some people who were able to see connections between different fields where you might not noticed them. If you are just a specialist and academia completely fail

calls at its task of nurturing and rewarding those people. Are you a humanist thinker, and if so, what does that mean. in some very general sense. Yes, you know there's a historical notion of humanism, which was. Is actually hard to pin down it's not the same as something like eighty ism it was, it was more or less. from the renaissance onward pudding beings at the centre of study of a philosophy and so forth, trying to figure out what human beings are. Even if the answer was organised was made in god's image right today. Humanism is more associated with free thinking, with naturalism, with atheists em with move away from religion, organised or disorganized, but I dont think has a once and for all fixed definitions, but happily under almost any other.

double definitions. I would count as one yes. So that raises the question that you have addressed on a number of occasions about what you say is and compatibility between science and religion that they are not compatible with each other. So lots below disagree with you. I imagine that there are people who are both. accomplish physicists or other kinds of scientists who are religious and believe in religion could. Could you explain why you have the view you do you're a hundred per cent one of be very clear about the compatibility question between science and religion. I would argue that in principle, science and religion are perfectly compatible because they're trying to do different things. Religion, sadly, is hard to define so unified offered of definition can be some people who disagree with it. But let us imagine that we know what it is. Science he's trying to understand how the world works. So there's no,

necessary reason why the practice of religion and the practice of science have to come into conflict. But there is a conflict because, as it turns out, the world that has revealed to us by science is different than the world. That is generally vision by religion, not always because again, religion covers lot of bases and there are naturalistic religions. You know, religions that are ways of thinking what it means to be a person without making any claims about the fundamental nature of reality, but most religions, especially in the western world, are saying something about reality. There saying that there is a superpower sure rome, but god created the world that there have to be principles underlying why the wolves here, rather than not here and now, that is backed up by scientific investigations of the world? So, yes, their absence,

our colleagues of mine, very close friends of mine students of mine for that matter who are deeply religious and we have no trouble talking in and having useful conversations. I think that they're making a mistake, They think that I'm making a mistake to so that's how it are you talking about you're, the purpose of religion. And how many religions, as you said a second ago identify some supernatural power: are you talking about nor is it some religions, tell so, for example, the idea that the It is only six thousand years old or both of those things will. I would say goes way beyond the earth being six thousand years old. As I keep saying when over again sorry to be redundant about this, but there variety of kinds of religious belief, even within christianity, some people believe the world six thousand years old. Some people think it believe, began with the big bang shores, le matra, the first, real theoretical pioneer of the big bang? Was a belgian priest who consulted with the pope, so there's no again necessary,

in compatibility there, but all of them the questions that I know think that god heads thing to do with the creation of the world. So it's that kind of story that is told by religion that I think the science does not. back up, and I actually would go further than that. I think that, ever since nature, everson friedrich nature. We have no more or less that there is a way of understanding the world provided to us by religion that hasn't really worked out, and that gives us incredible. Chow hinges. We have to replace a lot of what was getting us through the day. Science is about what the world does, but religion is about much more than that is about how we live and how we live in community with each other and what it means to be a good person and we the drama

Thirdly, updated our picture of what the world does and is without doing the deep thinking about those other questions, though this may be apocryphal or may have this wrong I thought I read once that albert Einstein once said. Something like a may was a different scientist that the more he learned about physics, the more religious he became familiar with that, or do you understand that phenomenon at all? He did say things like, is that albert einstein, who was absolutely one of the best physicists around and someone who I admire greatly, one of his many many talents was being super duper quotable. He could really he could coin arrays, even if a phrase that he coined at one point was completely contradictory to erase hitler going to some other point so he like saying these poetic things you light kind of being provocative. He also very, very clear that he did not believe in the traditional judeo christian notion of a deity

I even said pretty some some pretty insulting things about people who do he was culturally. Very jewish and his jewish identity was very important to him and so there could be a sense of being religious once again, which is baby different than this swear. You have a feeling that supernatural entities play an important, explanatory role in our best theory of the universe. I take a shot at trying to characterize what he was trying to capture without quotable quote, but it seems to be part of the point: is that people who believe in religion or believe in god or believe in some deity are in part also just in wonder, and engaging in wonderment at how the universe exists and the plenum fullness of life on this planet possibility lives and other planets, and just the unbelievable the difficulty in appreciating understanding nature, which is a little bit, I think what

einstein, others maybe have been trying to get at when they say that the more they studied nature how the world works and how the universe works. The more they had a sense of wonderment doesn't make any sense. It does because it is kind of amazing to we human beings both that the world kind of his intelligible in other, we can make sense of it. This is to meet the great lesson of the history of science. That has many mysteries as there are the thing to be impressed about is not our shortcomings had understanding the world, but the enormous progress that we have made in understanding the bits of the world. that we have and then secondly, the specific way that the world behaves is kind of order, Lee and law abiding, but very different from our sort of simple intuitive notion of how it should be. So I get the wonder

fact: I'm a hundred per cent on board with that. I just don't think it leads us to the supernatural what science had to say about free will oh, my goodness, that's another five hours hey. I know that this and the five hours is not going to be enough. This is the problem. If you, if you were a guy who was more focused on how a phone works to do that, when men exactly, I felt really a threat. You know it's funny, I'm literally talking about this question of free will in the classes that I'm teaching right now, science doesn't have that much say, or rather what science has to say about free will is pretty simple in you. Don't it's more of a twenty minute discussion than the five hour discussion because, as we study the brain in the mind and how they work sciences. hunky dory science is making progress. There's plenty we don't understand, but which to understanding more more, were pushing back the frontiers of our knowledge. There's no road block we see,

to having a perfect understanding some day, many many years in the future of how the brain in the mind work? On the other hand, that there is a question of does it count as free will right? If I have behaviour that is a manifestation of the collect behaviour of eighty five billion neurons in my brain hooked up in some enormously complicated network of connections. At what point to those mechanistic doings of the chemistry and electricity in my brain become label, bull as a person with thoughts and feelings in morals and values and that's a whole wicket of very difficult questions that philosophers have fun with the most popular answer. Among philosophers is also the one that I subscribe to called compatible ism, which is basically the idea that yeah we're made us

We'll be the laws of physics there's a way of talking about human beings, which is just as collection of atoms, obeying the laws of physics in that way of talks there's no notion of free will playing any role, but there is another way of talking about human beings as people as entities with agency, with volition, with the ability to think and make decisions. That's a perfectly valid way. You're talking about human beings also, and at that level, free wills and indispensable cancer. I'll tell you another one of these big questions. What is time while the good thing about I'm is there's more than one thing that it is this out. Of more than one definition and is very often happens right when you have a word like time time by the way is the most used noun in the english language is, it is added

It turns out to be true in almost all languages that whatever the noun meaning time is. That word is used at more than any other now in those with that. I have never heard that I'm gonna have to I'm gonna, have to look that up and make sure that you're correct. Happily, for you, I have written a book called from eternity to here, which is exactly about this question of what time is and how it works, and that's that's where I found all these funds exploits in doing research for the book. So when we have a word like that, that is useful to us everyday lives. Then we tried to financing. Typically, we realise that there are different notions scientifically that more or less line up in our everyday experience, but are actually different. So I newton would have said. Time is just one thing: there is an absolute time throughout the universe. We use it, for example, to locate ourselves in the universe who knew- and I say, will do a podcast interview at three p m. We know what that means ray. We

were able to process that and put it to work. It's a label on events in the universe. But then there is also the personal time that we experience the time that takes off on our wristwatches and that is the great inside of albert einstein, one of the many of them when he invented a spell. Theory of relativity that that personal time, you feel along your wrist watch, the duration. You experience need not be the same. as this universal time that we use to label the universe. That's why someone who zooms out at the speed of light or goes to a black oh and hangs out for wild and comes back. Those people will have experienced less time personally than someone who just stay behind and then is a whole other question about the flow of time. Why time seems to have a direction wide moves from past? If you sure that would require a wild happy to go into that for the rest of the pod gas. But that's all that's really there

rich class and want to do a little bit of it, because it's mine, standing. That, maybe you or others have said- There's. No. No law of physics were in science that rules out the possibility of time running backwards, and yet we ve never experience that is that correct it's a little tricky. I would not put it that way, but I think I know what you are getting. How would you put it there's a couple of things to get on the table. One is, you know if you were Aristotle ok. So if you are a very, very smart but pre, modern science thinker time would just be a thing. That kind of propelled you forward right. There's the universe

and the universe keeps changing, and time is that process of change in some sense and the fact that the past and the future are different from each other right. We have memories of the past, we have records, we have photographs or or drawings or footprints, whereas we have predictions about the future. There's a big imbalance between how we treat them. That was never an issue. That's never a question. Of course. They are. from there just different those just a factor of the world, and once we started to understand physics, we realise that our, asked ideas of the fundamental laws of physics. Actually do not have that direction amity built into them whether from isaac, newton, albert einstein or anybody else, so suddenly in the eighteen hundreds. We have a new challenge. Why

his time seemed to have a direction, even though the laws of physics dont have such a direction built into them, and that's the subject of the arrow of time, and it involves the increase of entropy the disorder Linas. The message the randomness of the universe. Now what you're asking about, I think, is whether not as possible to travel back to our past to do basically a time machine kind of thing backward and you say, is not. I say that it's probably not value hedging now approve it disregards allows. No. This is a true and interesting. I've written papers about it and others have also once einstein invents his new and improved theory of relativity, the first airy relativity. The special theory came in nineteen o five in nineteen fifteen. Ten years later, he gives us the general theory of relativity

where space and time are curved, and so you can imagine space time curving in in itself, so dramatically that I could hop out in a rocket ship and rather than ending for light years away. I can end for years in the past, because time is literally curving back on itself now As far as we know right now, this is only exercise of imagination. Things like this do not happen in the actual world. We are safe from being invaded by people from the future this part of the issue that I think you ve suggested. One your books, that travel the past produces crazy paradoxes. We ve seen them in movies in science fiction stores in Paradise. Just don't really happen. Yeah sorry, there These two issues, which I have nicely dovetail with each other one is it would be very weird if travelled to the past or possible, wait a minute, the standard of it would be very weird. Yeah is met in

all sorts of other areas of quantum mechanics. X, which would I too in a moment, so I dont know how that has precluded effect. That's all I'm saying that the deal These two aspects are dovetails nicely, because this is a case. Where would be weird, it wouldn't necessarily be illogical. I'm working on a co authored peace with my wife jennifer will let right now where we take twenty movies dealing with time travel and we rate them both on how good they are as a movie and how realistic the time travel is and, as you might expect possibilities are being covered in in this sad because Can easily imagine going back to the past and if you're there you mess it up, change something you kill baby hitler or you prevent J, o k from being assassinate or whatever it is. So that would be weird if it happens and emphasis. And philosophers argue about you. Could there be a rule that says you can go back, but you

can't change it somehow, or do you create a new universe when you go back, but the other facts to keep in mind as a as a indicated is that we dont know how to actually do that, we can speculate about it, but it seems that the universe just doesn't let us so this kind of weirdness is one The universe is saving us from confronting. As an aside are, you afraid, Over did you read Douglas Adams, hijackers guide? The galaxy Neither books in that serious. I did way back when yeah way back when my won't take away from the book with a series of books was that you don't want time I will because it makes the problem of tents. Usage. Difficult is already difficult enough. It's a pretty difficult enough. but there is of maybe we'll relating to this. There is a form of time travel. Other direction that does exist and that, experience it in a modest way. So if, if if you and I got into a rocket ship- and we traveled very, very fast, approaching

the speed of later at the speed of light for a few minutes then came back, to where we were well time be on earth. The people on earth would have experts against more time than we would have rights with an effective its effectively you can go forward in time, as you experienced time simply by travelling fast That's done and that's unknown physical fact right. Absolutely one hundred percent cent mean not the other way. Of course we can all go forward in time since we started this conversation. I have personally gone forward in time by about half an hour and a just took me half an hour to do it. What Weinstein lets you do is basically go to the future faster. What doesn't seem to lead you do is to ever go backward into the past I'll be right. Back was shown

after this uncertainty is the driving force behind science, but it can also be weapon ized. There are as many viable on the opposite side of all. These knows they prediction. Oil companies have consciously used uncertainty to create doubt around climate. Alternative fuels don't provide a simple answer and they ve done this in the face of clear mounting evidence, there is not a crisis. This was all part of the plan which oil companies explicitly laid out in a memo it has since been called

victory my mom because it lays out what victory would mean for this coalition of industry is you're saying there is actually a memo almost like a literal smoking gun that says what victory means for us is to confuse the public and make them think that climate change is a real gas beds. That's not this week on unexplainable a decades long campaign to use the power of science against itself follow unexplainable for new episodes. Every wednesday. The. I know one of the things you do and it just occurred to me you're talking about travel backwards and forwards in time. If you consult the scientist movies the fact, and I, just thinking. I saw, I think it's its original superman, and lois lane dies or she's she's dying, or she I think she dies and

superman clark. Kent superman is very very much grieving. And upset and remember what he does. I do we're very well. He flies he flies. He flies so fast around the world that he reverses the rotation of the earth. Yet any reverses the rotation of the earth going back like one or more days and ngos And rescues and saves his love lois lane a scale of one to ten, assuming hypothetically vehicle first rotation of the earth without take us in time, sir, so that movie is now going to do well on our ranking of scientifically respectable time, travel movie is on the list yeah. Well, I think it's on the list I haven't haven't done my part of the writing at spoke, so I found a speaker to turn, but I'm hoping it is now that is completely nonsensical both for science reason. moving very quickly around the earth does not send time backward, but also for logic, storytelling reasons like once figure out you can do that and use it save your girl friend and you

never use it again to say it say it any other terrible calamity from happening. That's you the little selfish to me will also dismisses outside of maybe your sphere and mine. As a matter of tectonic plates, other things, but what happens to the earth? It suddenly stopped turning in one direction and rotates backward in the other direction. He know my whole thing being a science consulted for movies is tell a good story Usually these movies are not going to try to stick close to the laws of physics, as we know them back to the future. As a great story is a great time travel movie, it makes absolutely no sense as time travel. I'm sorry to report one of my very few but very proud contributions to popular culture is that I was a consultant on adventures endgame. the marble movie, where they use time travel and there's a scene where they're talking about how.

Less to get, is and paul rudd playing aunt man goes, so you telling me the back to that, sure is just bullshit gather. It came from me in and talking to the writers of the movie when I was trying to explain to them. Why, back to the future, is not a good paradigm. That sort of thing about time, travel and went against the questions about. I guess what people call multiverse or the many worlds theory? But by thing before we do that, can guess another big definitional question and the question is what is quantum eggs, and before you answer the question, I will say that I feel much better about myself after reading in europe, because I've never understood quantum mechanics has been explained to me many times yet, both in school and then readings and have done an you right. I think I can say say that nobody really understands quantum mechanics, and then you also say what surprises the physicists seem to be okay with they're? Not understanding the most important theory they have. So what hope does like me, have of understanding this is the physical

still really understand it. All there is you're standing in this understanding, physicists are really good at using quantum mechanics, that is to say they can set up a physical, situation. They can solve some equations, make a prediction and they can test those predictions against experimental outcomes, and it's incredibly extraordinarily successful at that where they get into trouble is, if you say, okay, explain to me exactly what is happening in the process that calculation you just did what is the physical reality? You are describing that's where quantum mechanics gets into trouble, so it's best explained by comparing it with its predecessor. Classical mechanics came from Isaac newton. You know you have

jack's that have mass and they have velocity and all the stuff you did in high school or college physics, balls rolling down incline planes, but one of the features of that picture was there is no issue with looking at the system, you have a ball rolling down the inclined plane or the earth orbiting the sun. You just have it. There as I can measure it to whatever powers and I would like quantum mechanics comes along and says that the way the we describe physical system when we We are not looking at. It is very different from we see when we do look at it. If you take an electron little subatomic particles, the way that we describe it well we're not looking at it is as a wave as something we literally.

all the wave function, which is incredibly boring name for a very profound idea, but it spread out, did has no point like location in the space. It has a profile that that has a different values are different. It's in space? But when you look at it, when you say I'm than a measured the position it doesnt have a fishing before you measure it, but never you can measure its position and you can get an answer, and that is well. That's why you lose me because makes no sense, and if you ask physical, what's going on del kind of Heaven or so the erika goes as this more foundational question. Why is it important to understand? I think two reasons. One is because, of course, it's important understand it s. What we do our job, you know, the kind of

I, and I do then, a philosophy I do it cetera. It doesn't have an immediate use, full role in the world. Like I dont cure diseases, I dont saw poverty or anything like that. All that I do his help as as the human race, better understand our universe. That's the entire point of what I do. So I think that understanding quantum mechanics is part of that one of the biggest parts, but the other thing is. We do have questions in physics that are considered very important, very pressing questions, I did the masses of certain particles act, the way they do. Why is space time doing certain things and we're stuck? We don't know the answer to these questions, even though we think that fundamentally, quantum mechanics is at the heart of the matter. So I strongly think-

It's the least possible. That may be the reason we don't answer these questions effective these because we don't understand quantum mechanics better. So I think it's important both in principle and to help us do other questions and visit What does the science of quantum mechanics tell us or suggest about the the existence of other universes parallel to ours and how many there might be. You know people disagree about that. The straightforward answer from my perspective Is quantum mechanics seemed to suggest that there are many many many universes much like ours, but not exactly the same? They differ because the outcomes of different quantum measurements were different in these universes, when I say that an election

on, has a wave like character and is all spread out and when you look at it, there are many different answers you could get, but in practice you only get one the most straightforward interpretation of the equations of quantum mechanics, which was put forward by hugh ever it back. The nineteen fifties says the reason why you only see one outcome is because actually every possible measurement outcome happens, but in a separate copy of the universe. and the thing to emphasise here is he didn't just invent that too? He didn't just think it sounded cool and was kind of you know mystified by the equations. There weren't two decades before to understand how Adams behind and how electrons move around these equations clearly predict that it just took

thirty years for physicist to admit that, maybe we should listen to what the equations are trying to tell us. So does that mean this is a very mundane eggs? people that there is an argument there's another universe. It exists in which you and I are having this exact same conversation. With one were different, not one word in this exact same conversation with two words different and so on and so forth. The answer is yes, the only amendment I would have, as those people are not us, they bear a very similar relationship to you and I that an identical twin would bear to you there. Moment in time, and we were the same person. But now we go our separate ways, but infinitely at every moment the goes forward. You know We that's another one like a time. Travel question where physics doesn't quite know the answer, the nuts other universes. If this whole picture is true, which were not completely sure of it, certainly very, very, very, very large weather

is literally infinite, or just really big is something that modern science hasn't quite yet pin down is the rivers that we experienced right now with all the gap. taxis and systems in black. And everything else is an infinite very, very large, but do not know We don't know that one either in fact there the limitations are quite severe, because when we look at the universe, we look at it using light typically right and whether it's x rays or visible light or radio waves, it all travels at the speed of light, which is fast but still finite. So when you look at distant objects, you're looking at them some time ago, if it's a four light, you're away object, you're looking at, would it look like four years ago because there was a big bang about fourteen billion years ago. There's a to how far we can see out in the universe- and everything looks perfectly normal up to that. Point we can. We can tell you that, on the basis of what we see that how far

if at all is stretches beyond that. We don't know. So what are the implicate since four philosophy for our understanding of reality in our understanding of meaning. If it is true, there are infinite variations of you and me and everyone else. The good news is there almost no philosophical implications of that there aren't, I well in a down to earth sense, what is the alternative? You know, quantum mechanics works, so we're not comparing the many worlds. Version of quantum mechanics which had just been discussing to some classical, All physics version, classical physics is out the window. So the alternative is that when you look at that elect John, and you measure it. There is some error do supple, random element in what happens right. You can't predict exactly what the outcome will be, but you can predict the probability that is going to have different thing.

So if your interested in things like what is the best action for me to take, interested in in moral or ethical questions. One picture says: while there is a certain probability, something's going to happen is a certain probability. Something else is going to happen. The other picture says both things will happen with certainty, indifferent, universes, but the universes are not sort of counted equally one counts, more than the other, for a strict mathematical reasons and at the end of the day, what you end up with is all of your rules about how to behave and how to be and how to care and value the universe end up being the same in both pictures. I wonder if you know we have come a long way since the pernicious came on the scene and corrected the view that the earth revolves around the sun is opposed to the sun and everyone else revolving around us, and it seems to me that that's good right, But I wonder if there remains a lingering. Tendency of people

to imbue themselves with more importance in the universe than they actually have. You're setting me up. You give me a softball here this one. I like this because our eye to me one of the reasons why people resist this many worlds version of quantum. Again, is that they literally are annoyed by the bats all these universes, they can't see, you know, I found myself being a little annoyed myself. You know, and as a when being I respect in advance it your annoyance there, but as a scientist and philosopher, if that's it, equation, say the equations of our best theory that is invented to fit the data that we do see then- my principal devices to suck it up and accept that until you come up with a better theory, your blog is called what the blog is just called: preposterous universe, preposterous

for his dot com, slash blog, but I I am not a very good blogger these days. Now that I have the podcast a podcast where I was going to ask, but the more there was a roundabout way of trying to ask you why preposterous? Well, that's a very good question. It comes back to the amazing discovery in ninety ninety eight and I was not part of but will add a front row seat for it, which is that our universe, is accelerating what am I, by that is. If you look at distant galaxies in our union they're all moving away from us, and you can actually use laws of physics to predict what the velocities should be as a function of how far away they are and that rate of expense of the universe changes over time, but you would naturally expect is as gravity pulls everything together. Galaxies move apart, but they move apart more more slowly right there beings low down by their mutual gravitational attraction? When we actually went out

air to measure it. We found the opposite. Something is pushing galaxies upon. the good news is that we already knew the right theory to explain this because guess who invented it albert einstein back in nineteen seventeen, he noted that if empty space itself had energy the activity, the consequence of that energy would be to push space apart actually this way, so we suddenly have a theory that was very surprising in beautiful, but it fit the data gray. The only problem is, it seems wildly unnatural to us. We can talk about what we now call dark energy, the amount of energy and empty space. We can measure it. We can talk about its properties, we can verify predictions at all holds up very very nicely, but the fact that it has just the amount it does is a complete surprise to us so

started talking about the preposterous universe that we live in, but it's a joke because of course, at a universe is not preposterous. Has only preposterous relative to our expectation, so as a reminder that it's the universe, It is the final arbiter here, not our expectations. Now I must Ask you about this other concept that is controversial, that some people talk about from time to time, and that is the possibility. this is even more preposterous to allay persons ears than what you did talking about what is it possibility speaking as a scientist that we are in a simulation whatever. That means you know, it's a possibility. I'm not nothing to stop you from believing one percent and five percent. Like you know, look it's very hard to put a probability on it. If I were, I think I think I should put a problematic beyond it and I think would be very small- will be less than one percent in my mind

and the reason why is the following? If you want to contemplate different theories of the fundamental nature of reality, then you should sit back and ask yourself if that theory were true. What would I expect the universe to look like there? Is there any consequences or any prediction even it's kind of just a vague tendency, and the truth is that our universe shows no evidence whatsoever a being anybody's simulation it. It acts precisely like a universe it is just perfectly natural and then the top level existence the top level reality then why tailed it just be the genius of assimilation. It could be the last Our job- you, not you, don't ask me, is it possible cause? You did ass, he was thus was it yes, but now you know of its probable. there I have to say well? Is there any reason? Is there any exe, planetary value that I get from giving that

probability. Is there any feature of the universe that I can't otherwise account for, and I think the opera, I mean not only can I do I not especially account for features of the universe by imagining it's a simulation. If I did imagined was a simulation didn't know what the universe looked like. I wouldn't imagined that would look like this, so Until someone gives me some reason to think about this I'm gonna go along thinking that I am at the top level of reality this the controversial one which has grown up some people? If you answer the were expect, is there any possibility of life after death any possibility to doing it. I can do the same for a lawyer as what is the likelihood of life after death. A very, very, very tiny in your mind, is it basically impossible yeah it's! It is possible because things are possible. I always tell my podcast listeners. If any physics question ever begins with, is it possible

at the answer is always yes, but that's not what we care about like how is it worth taking seriously? I don't think that the possibility of life after death is worth taking seriously, because again the progress of scientific understanding of what a person is of what it means to think and feel at etc. Has. situated ourselves in this physical universe, where we have a pretty good understanding of the fundamental laws that govern adams and particles the molecules of which you and I are made when have a memory that member He is a certain feature of the neurons in your brain of the way there wire, together, the way the day fire there is no place for that to go her when you die in terms of the currently known laws of physics and there's no evidence that there's anything other the currently known laws of physics at work when you die so the choices.

Are you there is no life after death, which is, I think we can talk about that too. But I think those offered me that's fine. Actually, we should face up to it as a society. We are bad at facing up to it in there. The problem, but then the other possibility is, you have to dramatically violate the laws of physics. in some way for which we have no evidence, you and you have to Do it in such a way that your actual physical This here on earth is kind of it useless after thought, right like they have all of my thoughts and feelings don't depend on my body in my brain, then what am I doing life? Why am I exercising to feel better and the one possibility morning yeah. Well, I want to come back to that point in the moment, but the one possibility is for life after death. If we aren't a simulation sure there are you I'll take but is not likely to incredibly improbable ideas and glued together so as well.

as for someone who thinks about, I think you think about meaning. Given what you just said, how we spoke, who is, are supposed to think a better life on earth by the way. These are also questions that the baron religion or their religion tries to address, and that's why you're various pollutants talk about souls and life after after death and in some regions, hardware, reincarnation and different modes of continuing to exist. In some form after death, because the idea of it being otherwise causes people to kind of throw up their hands? How do you? How do you think about that? He knows just at a workshop at the santa FE institute, where I had a part time position. Santa FE institute is the world's leading research institute devoted to the study of complex systems It goes from all the way to hurricanes up to human societies, and the workshop was devoted to the question of immortality what it would mean to be immortal and some clever person actually took up all of the people in the room

who knows were all there for a workshop on immortality and the question was, would you like to have a life span greater than ten thousand years and most people in the room said? No, I said yes and lay. I could keep myself amused for ten thousand years like I still haven't even learnt by a piano, and I might take me ten thousand years to do that. So I think that people, when it comes to this desire to live a long time or to live even after your death, haven't really thought it through. I dont know that their pudding enough emphasis put giving enough credit to the reality of the experiences we have during our lifetimes. In one of my books, I point out that the average human lifespan lasts, three billion part beats it's just an average. You dont like get more lifespan by not exercising or anything like that, but three billion

interesting number, because it's big, but it's not crazy. Big, like you, can hear him, take love one once per second, your heart goes away to me: that's what meaningful this comes from the idea that we don't have. You know hundred years here on earth and then infinity extra years after that? That would seem to incredibly cheapen our time here on earth If the time we have here on earth is precious, is finite and is all we get? That's where meaningful miss comes from be good is it is what we do here on earth? That is the only thing that can possibly matter, but I like that answer, on the question of whether or not I would want to live to be ten thousand. I would need to know the answer. The question of what level of back pain would I be experiencing will give you health won't. We were thought experimenting here which will give you probably did he give you have whatever was peak preach whenever

in your life. Your incomplete physical form, both as a scientist and as a philosopher. What's yours take on a high and whether or not it's an existential threat. I dont know if it's an exit, she'll threat or not. I am very, very, very sceptical that it is but again there's up there is a possibility of it might take. Is that there is a whole bunch of really obvious threat that are not existential but very near term, in very looming from a I. This also huge benefits. You know it's a very typical mixed thing, just like fire has advantages and disadvantages so slowly. I rainwater exactly on two things were, but so, and I think that if we actually put an effort into thinking carefully through and guarding against the obvious

near term worries that we have about AI that will have a downstream effect of helping us prevent the bigger existential threats, whereas if we spend a lot of time talking about the essential threats, these near term threats are gonna knock down before we ever get around to it. What I like about you, work is at its accessible to lay people in your right for lay people. You do a blog, as you have mentioned he also very open about a professional expiring, you had some years ago, where you were denied tenure, I think was at the university of Chicago yet indeed you play some of the blame for that on fellow academics, responses to the fact that you're writing a popular blog. Can you explain that in what you think happened actually to clarify that one? I do not think it was the blog. I did have a

at the time. Okay, in fact, I I literally wrote a blog post afterward with the title: it's not the blog yeah okay, my my my bed and I I don't think it helped. I think, hurt a little bed, but it wasn't a major thing. I'll tell you hurt more is that I wrote a textbook on general relativity for graduate students and that I mean they explicitly told me why that hurt it is my understanding such as it is light I didn't get about. I wasn't there. That's all kind of second hand right, but when you hire a faculty member at an elite research institution you do so. As a you know, department, you hire with hope right. You like this person, could be great, so, let's like give them a chance, but when it comes to keeping them six or seven years, later you fire on the basis of fear. You are right, really really frozen, with fear at the prospect that you will give this person tenure and then they will be your calling for

ex forty years and they will stop doing work. That's what you're really desperately. rate of and as a result, the sea The thing that is in people's minds is we don't want to give tenure to people who indicate that they are interest and doing things other than research, and that include in writing textbooks. It also includes writing blogs, but the only then think that most my colleagues knew that I had a blog at the time, but the fact that I would take almost be of my life to write a textbook. When I could have been doing research was a gigantic strike against me. Well, that's you know. I find that quite terrible because what happened to the principal a pang it forward and seating the ground and cultivate in future. Minds who might be raised just themselves in their own right. Coming up the right who is supposed to do the teaching them yeah, I mean it's hilariously, incoherent, because many of my colleagues

including ones who voted against me, had written textbooks themselves. They just were smart enough to do it after they got ten So even if you're going to write a textbook, you can't let people know that you're the kind of person who would write a textbook, but you know look. I am completely in favour of departments in universities having the right to not give people tenure if they don't want them around if they think they can do better with somebody else. My complaint there with that particular arrangement was just they never gave me any hint that anything was going to happen. They everyone who talked to me said: oh yeah you'll, get tenure no problem, and that was a life changing kind of blow when it did happen, yeah, well, that's where he began to learn all a bit more about probabilities today, but I ask you something: That's what one of the reasons I am very sorry to have you on Generally? We have people who are lawyers or policymakers of a certain stripe on the

so is it. My youngest son, is thinking about an choosing between major he's, a freshman college majoring in engineering or physics or some other discipline, its related to those things. You have a view you ve written about the fact that you got both your underground three and your grander degree in astronomy, versus some other related discipline, like physics which had been talking. But what does it matter? it doesn't matter. You know, as I indicated at the beginning of a conversation, I have made things harder than they needed to be for myself off at every step, along the way- and you can become a physicist. getting in astronomy degree or vice versa. For that matter, I have friends who were professors of philosophy who got a degree in physics and not in philosophy like many things are possible in this issue. Also, but very hard to pursue a career in academia and get a job.

Beyond the number of people who want to get these jobs. I tell my students in the graduate programme, the ones we're gonna get a phd. The rule some is maybe twenty five percent of you will actually get a faculty job as you're long term employment. So you are absolutely playing a game of probability here and by being quirky by writing books by majoring in the wrong thing, etc, etc. You don't make it impossible for yourself, but you're, not making it easier on yourself either. So, One final they do want to get across is that I love encouraging people to become professional, physicists philosophers whatever. But it's not my primary thing. I want everyone to lie of this stuff feel my most recent book is trying to explain physics to a broad audience, but with all the math, so I teach you the man

and then I try to get you excited about looking at equations for the first time a new- and I don't know if it's, whether its working or not- but that's really what I am about. I want all human beings to have passion. It appears. And about contentious issues in modern physics, as opposed to learning how their phone works, either The great too I shall do everything works you really babies are guilty now, no alone, I don't any. I don't know professor, Sean Carroll latest book biggest ideas in the universe, space time in motion thanks so much for your time. Thanks very much rather me greatly. My conversation was shown. Carol continues for members of the cafe insider community in the bonus for insiders. Caroline, I talk more about depictions of time travel in hollywood, films keeping all those laws fitting

into your fictional world helps the story. Have some verisimilitude, even if it's on a plane in the galaxy a long long time ago, and far far away to try out there, bullshit for just one dollar for a month had a cafe dot com. Slash insider again, that's cathy dot com, slash insider! I wanted to show this week by celebrating one of the big apples most enduring. exhilarating yearly rituals, the new york city marathon last Sunday november, fifth, Some fifty one thousand four hundred runners completed the twenty six point, two mile course, which starts near the fire the various unabridged staten island and finishes after winding through brooklyn, queens, the bronx and upper manhattan in central park. It's hard. Frankly, I get tired. If I drive, six point. Two miles then you're a city marathon has been around since nineteen seventy and has put on

local running group, the new york road runners literally millions of new yorkers line up to watch the runners go by many, the participants to raise money for a variety of worthy causes behind each of these finishers is a unique story running a marathon even for the most fit athlete in the world? Is it true undertake? new yorkers or on each year by the grit and resilience of these marathon hers. This year is no different than I thought. I'd highlight some. The new york times cover the oldest entrance, garth barford the eighty seven year old barford lives in return, community in the outskirts of auckland new zealand he's run dozens of marathons, but he never taken on new york city until this year the self effacing bar well, it was had three hip replacement in recent years, told the times quote: I'm getting decrepid by the hour, so I got a sort of hurry up and do this race before it's too late and other runner was ukrainian, veteran roman caution,

who lost his leg after stepping on a landmine while serving in the ukrainian army in two thousand and nineteen, he was fitted with a prosthesis and has since trained soldiers and help to defend his nation against russia a week before the new york marathon cash for also We did the marine corps marathon in Washington dc that its commitment and there was resign thomas. He was sentenced to fifty five to life in prison. For second degree murder as young man comes, became an acclaimed writer and podcast host, while serving at san quentin even receiving the pulitzer prize nomination for his ear, so podcast, which chronicle daily life behind bars Thomas also began running the san quentin marathon. a yearly one hundred five lap loop of the prison yard. He also made a pact with a journalism teacher the prison in cleared albert that the two would run a marathon together if he ever left prison. Can for new governor, gave a newsome commuter thomas, a sentence in twenty twenty two, following on

twenty. Three years behind bars, true to their promise Amazon gilbert ran in new york marathon together on sunday there The story is a profound resilience, even among us seasoned of marathoners, the women's winner on sunday cannon no beery was on a road to redemption. She was disappointed by our sixth place, finish in last year's newark marathon first and saw this year as a golden opportunity. Sure enough she livered a staggering four minute, fifty one second, last mile to pull away from the competition in just the final four hundred metres. We a cafe, also have a personal linked to the marathon this year, our very own, at a total producer, Noah ally ran the race to know a fundraiser for the new europe based nonprofit sanctuary for families which supports victims of domestic violence. Sex trafficking and related gender vi and from all of us, a cafe. Congratulations to noah the world, a scary in so many ways right now, in the long run, We're a big city might seem a little.

silly, but the marathon can also serve as a reminder that people of all backgrounds, skill levels in ideologies can still come together to honour their mutual achievements and passions, and I think that something to really value have a great week will that's it for this purpose, stay tuned thanks again to my guest sean carol. If you like what we do rate review, the show an apple pie casts or wherever you listen, every person review helps new listeners find the show semi questions about news, politics and justice treat them to me. A free perreira with the hashtag asked creek. you can also now reach me on threads. Are you

call and led me a message at six: nine to four seven, seven, three, three, eight, that six nine to four preet or you can send an email to letters. A cafe, dotcom stay tuned, presented by cafe and the vocs media part gas network? The executive producer is tomorrow separate, yet it well, the producers are david, kerr, lander and now as ally. The technical director is David sure the audio producer is net wiener and the cafe team is matthew, billy, Jake, kaplan, number to shop and claudio Hernandez. I'm your host preet bharara, stay tuned.