0:01

The PC gave us computing power at

0:03

home, the internet connected us, and mobile

0:05

let us do it pretty much anywhere.

0:08

Now generative AI lets us communicate with

0:10

technology in our own language using our

0:12

own senses, but figuring it all out

0:14

when you're living through it is a

0:16

totally different story. Welcome to leading the

0:18

shift, a new podcast for Microsoft Azure.

0:21

I'm your host, Susanet Linger. In each

0:23

episode, leaders will share what they're learning

0:25

to help you navigate all this change

0:27

with confidence. Please join and subscribe wherever

0:29

you get your podcastsasts Keating.

0:34

Hey Brian, how's it going? It's great

0:36

to be with you, Fraser, how are you?

0:38

Good, good. It's been a couple of years

0:41

since we talked last. Have you won any

0:43

Nobel Prizes in that intervening time. I did

0:45

not, which is a good thing for

0:47

sales of my book, you know, if

0:49

I win the Nobel Prize I have

0:51

to put out a retraction to the

0:53

book, which is quite awkward if anybody

0:55

has ever tried to retract a

0:58

book. It's pretty damn hard. Yeah,

1:00

nobody wants to do that. So

1:02

that's probably best that you don't

1:04

win a Nobel Prize. I did

1:06

win Best Father. I did win

1:08

Best Father this past June. Yeah.

1:10

Are you sure? Did the Plunk

1:12

satellite satellite? perhaps provide some kind

1:14

of counter evidence? That's right. They found,

1:17

you know, there was Space Schmut's dust.

1:19

Oh, by the way, Fraser, so for

1:21

your audience, in the US only, I

1:24

want to do a special giveaway because

1:26

you have the best, second best audience

1:28

in the universe. Come on, I got

1:30

a good credit to my... But for

1:33

your members in the US, I'm doing

1:35

a giveaway to the first 100 people

1:37

that signed up to my mailing list.

1:39

Brian keating.com/list. I'm going to send them

1:42

the villain of my last book, which

1:44

is a piece of space dust, a

1:46

tiny little meteorite. That's awesome. It'd be

1:48

said to anyone, but not in

1:50

dangerous Canada. My shipping department does

1:52

not allow me to send an

1:54

export to the Great White North.

1:56

But if you're in the US,

1:58

you can enter, Briananke. may win

2:00

one of these 100 meteorites. Fantastic.

2:02

I've got a, I don't know

2:04

if you can see it behind

2:06

me, right over there, I've got

2:08

a one pound iron meteorite. I'll

2:10

grab it. Oh, well your boca,

2:12

your boca is so luxurious. Yeah,

2:14

I know, hold on one second

2:16

now. Very hard to. A little

2:18

weather. That is, okay, people out

2:20

there, that is substantially larger than

2:22

what you will receive. You will

2:25

receive the logarithm of that if

2:27

you win a little pieces. But

2:29

it's the same one. Yeah, it's

2:31

from Argentina. It's Campodice, yellow, probably.

2:33

Yeah, it's Campodiceolo. Yeah. Yeah, those

2:35

are wonderful and they're highly magnetic

2:37

susceptibility and you could play around

2:39

the magnet and you'll get some

2:41

goodies and learn about meteorites. Yeah,

2:43

I love having. meteorites, metal meteorites,

2:45

it really feels like a chunk

2:47

of space metal. Now I, yeah,

2:49

I give them away to people

2:51

too and I tell them that

2:53

it gives them a superpower, like

2:55

it's not a really. powerful superpower

2:57

but something that is you know

2:59

a mild superpower like maybe it

3:01

won't rain when you go on

3:03

mountain bike rides that kind of

3:05

thing so that's right you will

3:07

you will avoid a derailer accident

3:09

yeah you know your next downhill

3:11

trip yeah I mean if nothing

3:13

else you can you know impress

3:15

people at cocktail parties when they

3:17

start resuming again after the pandemic

3:19

all right so for people who

3:21

don't know who you are like

3:23

the problem with us having talked

3:25

many times as we know each

3:27

other is, but people might not

3:29

know who you are. So who

3:31

are you and what do you

3:33

do? Yeah, so I am an

3:35

experimental cosmologist. So I work on

3:37

hair and nails. I treated Fraser,

3:39

you know, I made his haircut

3:41

what it is today. Why is

3:43

so famous? His beard is the

3:45

next or his goat beard is

3:47

on my list. No, so I'm

3:49

not a cosmetologist, although the prefix

3:51

is the same. And of course,

3:53

it means beauty in Greek as

3:55

as many of you know, but

3:57

I am not an experimentalist in

3:59

the... classical sense like my biology

4:01

friends are experimental biologists. They can

4:03

go down to the lab and

4:05

take a frog and do some,

4:07

you know, experiment on it and see if

4:10

it doesn't happen or does happen to

4:12

a control frog. I don't know what

4:14

they're doing over there in the biology

4:16

department. I'm actually, the dean's got to

4:19

take a look at those guys. But

4:21

what we do is we build telescopes,

4:23

we build telescopes and technology and detectors

4:26

and deploy them all over the world

4:28

to sites. never before really utilized for

4:30

capacity at this level, including the South

4:33

Pole Antarctica, including Chile and the Atacama

4:35

Desert. We are operating with my colleagues

4:37

and friends in the Simons Observatory,

4:40

not only the world's highest

4:42

observatory, but the highest construction project.

4:44

We have to build these

4:46

telescopes. thousands and thousands of tons

4:48

of material and earth that have to

4:50

be moved around. We have to build

4:52

it, we have to move it, we

4:54

have to design it, power it. Imagine

4:57

getting all the diesel fuel up to

4:59

17,200 feet. And then we have to

5:01

get the data and analyze massive data

5:03

set all in the service of trying

5:05

to understand. empirically observation. That's what science

5:07

is, right? And you've had on many

5:09

lovely theoreticians, you know, some of my

5:11

best friends are theorists. I don't know

5:13

if I'd let my my daughters marry

5:15

one, but but they're they're really good

5:17

friends of mine, Brian Green, Michio Kaku.

5:19

Yep. I was just talking to Sir

5:22

Roger Penrose on my podcast, which is

5:24

my night job, I guess. I don't

5:26

know. I'm a podcast or YouTuber, try

5:28

to, you know, kind of learn as

5:30

much as I can from Fraser and

5:32

all the awesome work you do. You

5:34

guys do it. Universe today. You guys

5:36

really do a wonderful service to the

5:39

community. And I felt as a paid

5:41

scientist, paid by the community of taxpayers

5:43

at least here in the US and

5:45

supported at a public university here in

5:47

California. I'm a state employee. people that

5:49

pay my salary and one of those

5:51

ways is to do outreach in the

5:53

spirit of a of a Fraser Cane.

5:55

So I think part of that gives

5:58

me the joy that I don't I

6:00

don't always get to receive when

6:02

I'm talking to a contractor about

6:04

why the diesel delivery, you know,

6:06

was late and this concrete didn't

6:08

cure. Those are conversations I have

6:10

to have, but conversations I want

6:12

to have are like these and

6:14

with my guess and. Really, many

6:16

of them are theorists, you know,

6:18

theorists get a lot of attention.

6:20

They get a lot of notoriety,

6:22

that there's, you know, new theories,

6:25

worm holes, black holes, other kinds

6:27

of holes, and, and maybe there's

6:29

parallel universes, multiverses, we'll talk about

6:31

some of that. And maybe there's

6:33

new particles and superstrings, and I've

6:35

had on all those folks, I've

6:37

talked to 14 Nobel Prize winners.

6:39

And most of them were theorists,

6:41

but not all. And to me,

6:43

I wanted to get out there

6:45

to a young Brian Keating or,

6:47

you know, Brianna Keating. that you

6:50

can build stuff that takes the

6:52

data that allows these geniuses to

6:54

do the theoretical investigation to not

6:56

prove their theory right i think

6:58

that's a huge misconception i'm not

7:00

in the job of proving your

7:02

theory my theory or anything right

7:04

i'm in the business of proving

7:06

everything else wrong and that can

7:08

only be done by having data

7:10

and the data only come from

7:12

telescopes of the kind that my

7:14

colleagues can build and i think

7:17

you know the experimenters are the

7:19

unsung heroes of the science world.

7:21

I mean really the the theorists

7:23

and the experimenters work hand in

7:25

hand but but people don't know

7:27

what the experimenters are doing and

7:29

yet the day in day out

7:31

the hard fought hard won victories

7:33

in science often come by the

7:35

results that come from the experimenters.

7:37

Yeah, I mean one of the

7:39

most successful ways you can approach

7:42

science as a practicing scientist is

7:44

look for inconsistencies in what's already

7:46

known For example the inconsistencies of

7:48

the orbit of mercury led Einstein

7:50

to think about the theoretical implications

7:52

of general relativity But he wouldn't

7:54

have had you know that those

7:56

data to even stoke his imagination

7:58

had there not been very air-

8:00

accurate telescopes and data built by

8:02

very, very deep thinkers and constructors

8:04

and project managers and leaders. It's

8:06

just a different type of physics.

8:09

It's as different, I think, as,

8:11

you know, say a theoretical physics

8:13

might be from a biologist or

8:15

something. It's almost a different occupation.

8:17

And it's just we put the

8:19

adjective experimentalist or theorist in front.

8:21

But it is true that theorists

8:23

kind of get all this glory

8:25

and I think of it kind

8:27

of as, you know, I tease

8:29

my friends who work on software,

8:31

you know, I can program basic or,

8:34

you know, I can, you know, do

8:36

those Swift Studios to make an app

8:38

or something maybe. But I'm like, you

8:41

know, theories kind of like software, like

8:43

it's very easy to make a ton

8:45

of software. I mean, you can just

8:48

make an infinite loop to make a

8:50

stupid example. But generate a bunch of

8:52

data, yeah. Yeah, but to build an

8:55

experiment, even like a simple one. I'm

8:57

not making value judgments at all, but

8:59

I want to give people a glimpse

9:01

into the daily life of it. That

9:03

was my first book, Losing the Nobel

9:06

Prizes. What does it feel like, a

9:08

memoir to approach the greatest questions in

9:10

science? Did the universe have a singular

9:12

origin? Are there multiple universes? What is

9:14

the nature of the types of alternative

9:16

models from the microscopic to the macroscopic?

9:18

And that gave me great joy, but

9:21

you know, it's also kind of this

9:23

niche that I don't think many people

9:25

talk about. So a lot of what

9:27

I'm doing on my YouTube channel, Dr

9:29

Brian Keating, is to go through the latest

9:31

and greatest experiments, not done by me. I

9:34

mean, sometimes I'll bring in some footage from

9:36

me in the lab or my students in

9:38

the lab, but oftentimes it's something wholly different,

9:40

the lifetime of the neutron. to better than

9:43

a few seconds. And we usually think about

9:45

the Higgs boson, which could last for, you

9:47

know, a trillionth of a second. We didn't

9:49

know the age that the neutron gets to

9:52

in ripe old retirement before it dies to

9:54

better than a second, you know, a part

9:56

in a thousand or worse. So I did

9:58

a video about that. experiment on an

10:01

island and other places. And it's

10:03

just really fascinating to explicate it

10:05

in a way that a young

10:07

person can appreciate or even experts

10:09

in the field. And so that's

10:11

kind of what I do as

10:14

an overall worldview. All right, well,

10:16

enough log rolling. I'm going to

10:18

put you to work now. So

10:20

yeah. You know, in terms of

10:22

experimenters, astronomers have gotten one of

10:24

the most powerful experimenting tools, instruments

10:27

in their hands in the form

10:29

of the James Webb Space Telescope.

10:31

And we've gotten a couple of

10:33

months of experience working with James

10:35

Webb so far. from an astronomers

10:37

point of view, and especially someone

10:40

who really studies the early universe,

10:42

I mean your focus is the

10:44

cosmic microwave, the evidence for cosmic

10:46

inflation, that's a little earlier than

10:48

James Webb, but I'm sure there

10:50

are implications. So what has been

10:53

your experience with James Webb so

10:55

far, just in terms of, you

10:57

know, in the science that you're

10:59

seeing coming out of it so

11:01

far? Yeah, I mean, actually, not

11:03

very much of what it's done

11:06

has had, you know, direct implication

11:08

for the exact type of science

11:10

that I do. Just taking a

11:12

very big step back, we think

11:14

the universe began. and an incredibly

11:16

hot dense phase. We don't know

11:19

if that was a singular one-time

11:21

event. We don't know if that

11:23

was a singularity, a quantum divide

11:25

by zero error, where there's an

11:27

infinite amount of energy density or

11:29

matter density. We don't know. Those

11:32

are open questions of the type

11:34

that the cosmic microwave background can

11:36

explore. But Webb can't really say

11:38

that much about that phase in

11:40

the universe. What it was designed

11:42

to do is kind of be

11:45

a Hubble space telescope. with redder

11:47

filters on it with higher resolution,

11:49

more massive telescope. But as you

11:51

build a telescope, you have to

11:53

be cognizant of the size of

11:55

the objects you're looking for, how

11:58

far away they might be, how

12:00

near. they might be, but also

12:02

what the expansion of the universe

12:04

will do to those objects. So

12:07

while it's true that

12:09

Hubble's early observations of

12:11

the galaxies and their

12:13

recessional properties of Esto

12:15

Slifer and others, those

12:17

did have an implication. for

12:19

an origin story, a cosmic big bang

12:21

later to be called. But it didn't

12:23

necessarily have, you know, and

12:25

it's make anything quantitative about how the

12:28

universe actually... I never thought I'd say

12:30

this. I gave up my morning coffee,

12:32

not just temporarily, but because I found

12:34

something that makes me feel so much

12:36

better. It's called Peeks Nandaka. And this

12:39

is not just another coffee alternative. It's

12:41

the upgrade your body needs. I used

12:43

to depend on the morning coffee as

12:45

soon as I woke up. But after

12:47

the buzz wore off, I felt jittery,

12:50

anxious, and dream by the afternoon. That's

12:52

when I started using Nendaka and everything

12:54

changed for me. That's when I

12:56

started using Nendaka and everything changed

12:58

for me. Instead of a quick

13:00

caffeine hit, I get steady, sustained

13:02

energy. And my digestion from this

13:04

is much better than with coffee.

13:06

I don't get bloating or stomach

13:08

pains, my mood is more stable.

13:10

And most importantly, my metabolism seems

13:12

to be working better too. Now,

13:14

I'm a doctor, I'm not that

13:16

kind of a doctor, but I

13:18

know that I'm not craving sugar

13:20

or snacks anymore, and I've even

13:22

dropped a few pounds, and not

13:24

just a few pounds from my chin

13:27

to my chin to my stomach. Unlike

13:29

other mushroom coffees that I've tried, those

13:31

that basically use my sellium, which

13:33

is basically grain powder, so delicious, fermented...

13:36

probiotic teas and adaptogenic herbs to fuel

13:38

my body and mind and it will

13:40

do the same for you. Every ingredient

13:43

is sourced for maximum purity and

13:45

with slow release caffeine that provides clear

13:47

focus without burnout. The functional mushrooms like

13:49

racy and cortiseps promote clarity and cognitive

13:52

performance really boost my mood and focus.

13:54

And last but not least because it

13:56

has no fillers, no preservatives and no

13:58

junk, I find it really improves. supports

14:00

my digestion. The polyphenols from poo

14:02

air tea and cacao help with

14:05

my gut health and reducing all

14:07

my sugar cravings. Right now Peek

14:09

is offering 20% off for life

14:11

and a free starter kit with

14:13

your purchase. That's a rechargeable frother.

14:15

It's so cool and fun to

14:17

use. A glass beaker so you

14:20

can feel like a real scientist

14:22

like me and together you'll make

14:24

the perfect cup every time. Just

14:26

go to peeklife.com, your gut and

14:28

your future salts will thank you.

14:30

actually began. So to separate what

14:33

web does and when I do,

14:35

web is looking for, you know,

14:37

actual objects. What I'm looking for

14:39

are not objects, but they're more

14:41

properly called structures. They're loosely bound

14:43

conglomerations of ordinary matter, dark matter,

14:46

light, neutrinos, and other types of

14:48

properties that because it's the oldest

14:50

light that we could ever hope

14:52

to see. It originates from 370,000

14:54

years after the fusion of the

14:56

elements, which some people incorrectly, you

14:59

know, conflate with the origin of

15:01

time or the big bang itself.

15:03

Really what astronomers and cosmology mean

15:05

is one of the elements form,

15:07

because that's the literal. first time

15:09

we had fossils we had hard

15:12

evidence we had chunks of matter

15:14

if you will to actually look

15:16

at and compare with what we

15:18

see today we could we could

15:20

actually do that in a quantitative

15:22

fashion. After that comes the cosmic

15:25

microwave background which is followed by

15:27

an epoch of extreme boredom and

15:29

darkness a plasma of unimaginable you

15:31

know lack of vicinity and lack

15:33

of of interesting objects kind of

15:35

like Well, I was going to

15:37

say, you know, some parts of

15:40

Northern Saskatchewan, but I'll say some

15:42

parts of the Mojave Desert down

15:44

here in California, it's just flat,

15:46

barren, there's a little ripples in

15:48

it, but other than that, not

15:50

very interesting. And then the universe

15:53

lit up. Then it began producing

15:55

stars and galaxies and then it

15:57

began producing stars and galaxies. comes

15:59

in, not in the podcast side,

16:01

but we'll probably get to other

16:03

aspects. But really this bound structures,

16:06

and including what's the most interesting

16:08

thing that I'm hoping for from

16:10

web, since I don't use it,

16:12

I can say what I want

16:14

to see from it, is evidence

16:16

for life in the universe, because

16:19

I'm actually very pessimistic that there's

16:21

life, let alone intelligent life in

16:23

the universe. We can get into

16:25

that later. But I'd be very

16:27

open to it. you know in terms

16:29

of what it can say about

16:32

my day job it can't really

16:34

it's not really a threat to

16:36

my employment but aren't there implications

16:38

like you say you're looking for

16:41

structures these large-scale structures in the

16:43

universe that are demonstrated by the

16:45

fluctuations the density fluctuations temperature fluctuations

16:48

in the cosmic microwave background radiation

16:50

don't those you know, evolve over

16:52

time to the larger scale

16:54

structures that we know and

16:56

enjoy today? And won't Webb

16:59

be able to try to

17:01

fill in the missing pieces

17:03

from there to now? It

17:05

will fill in some of the

17:07

missing pieces, but mostly what it's

17:09

doing is an astrophysics experiment. It's

17:12

exploring how did the gas that

17:14

was left over when the universe,

17:16

you know, finished making the plasma

17:18

and the hydrogen and the helium

17:21

and the cosmic microwave background plasma

17:23

that cooled and condensed until it

17:25

became ionized. So really nothing much

17:27

happened for millions of years, hundreds

17:29

of millions of years, but... But

17:31

the actual import of it, it's

17:34

kind of like looking at a

17:36

frog. Let's go back to my

17:38

biology friend. So you got a

17:40

frog, that's a biological structure. If

17:42

you studied it and say you

17:44

even understand how it evolved, it

17:47

comes from a tadpole, the tadpole

17:49

comes from a sperm and an

17:51

egg cell. I don't know how

17:53

PG13 we can keep it here.

17:55

But anyway, it comes from a

17:57

mommy frog and daddy frog, right.

18:00

But you couldn't necessarily say by

18:02

watching the evolution let's say web

18:04

pushes us from the you know

18:06

mature frog of Hubble to the

18:08

tadpole phase. It really wouldn't tell

18:10

you much about the origin of

18:12

life in the universe or even

18:14

of the theory of evolution or

18:16

even of DNA right I mean

18:18

we had frogs for thousands of

18:20

years that people didn't uncover DNA.

18:22

So. We have to make a

18:24

distinction. One is a predicate on

18:26

the other. I don't need what

18:28

Webb's doing to do what I'm

18:30

doing, but it can be looked

18:32

for for consistency checks on certain

18:34

things. But here's another example. And

18:36

of course, hopefully we'll get to

18:39

this. There's a huge manufactured kind

18:41

of clickbake controversy going on, courtesy

18:43

of just one team or type

18:45

of player who's been doing this

18:47

since the time of the Hubble

18:49

Deepfield in the 1990s. Yeah. the

18:51

Big Bang never happened in 1991

18:53

before the Hubble Deepfield. So we'll

18:55

get into that because he has

18:57

a new video out today where

18:59

he's attacking me on his channel.

19:01

I like that term, the manufactured

19:03

click bait. It's funny. Well, so

19:05

let's let's get into that right

19:07

now then. You know, the, the

19:09

discovery that is being made in

19:11

the images that are coming out

19:13

from web that it is seeing

19:15

galaxies that are coming out from

19:18

web that it is seeing galaxies

19:20

that are better. fully evolved, more

19:22

modern looking than the kinds of

19:24

galaxies that astronomers were hoping to

19:26

see. So is that true? Well,

19:28

I wouldn't say hoping. I would

19:30

say maybe expecting things on previous

19:32

data, right, which came from Hubble,

19:34

right? So the first question I

19:36

asked when I saw this paper

19:38

and actually on my video, I

19:40

did a one solo video about

19:42

the paper when it just came

19:44

out or the article in this

19:46

I AII newsletter or the website.

19:48

And then I did another one

19:50

with Professor Garrett Lewis down in

19:52

New South Wales in Australia or

19:55

Sydney rather. And we're good friends.

19:57

And we went through it. And

19:59

then on that video, the lead

20:01

author of. of the paper, Leonardo,

20:03

of the paper that said panic

20:05

at the disks, which is obviously

20:07

like a joke. He is like

20:09

commenting on why it's irrelevant, what

20:11

his team showed. I mean, you

20:13

think a scientist would be really

20:15

cheerful to know, look, I've overthrown

20:17

this notion, the Big Bang has

20:19

these problems in it, and I'm

20:21

the first author on this first

20:23

paper to really, no, nothing of

20:25

the sort is really true. Because

20:27

a lot of the data that

20:29

is seen there is 100% consistent

20:31

with what Hubble saw. In other

20:34

words, Hubble saw formed galaxies at

20:36

high red shift. It couldn't go

20:38

as high a red shift because

20:40

it didn't have the infrared filters

20:42

that James Webb has. But no

20:44

one was taking seriously. In other

20:46

words, this paper that are this

20:48

article that claimed the Big Bang

20:50

never happened could have been written,

20:52

you know, 10 years ago. Every

20:54

10 years, it sort of comes

20:56

out. Why does it keep doing

20:58

that? Because... we keep getting better

21:00

and better more and more accurate

21:02

data. And to quote, I think

21:04

it was John Maynard Keynes, you

21:06

know, when the facts change or

21:08

when the evidence changes, I change

21:11

my mind, what do you do,

21:13

sir? Meaning that like, he's, he's

21:15

basically ascribing to the Big Bang

21:17

features that have no pertinence to

21:19

it on a professional astronomical scenario.

21:21

And worse yet, the most fundamental

21:23

observable in cosmology. Since the beginning

21:25

of cosmology as a quantitative science,

21:27

thanks to Hubble, is redshift. And

21:29

there is only one thing that

21:31

the models that are being proposed

21:33

that so-called prove the Big Bang

21:35

never happened. The one thing they

21:37

cannot account for is redshift. In

21:39

other words, the most crucial observable

21:41

is being completely ignored or not

21:43

understood. And the very highly accurate

21:45

study data by professional astronomers is

21:47

being laughed at and called into

21:50

question as if it disproves the

21:52

Big Bang itself. So again, getting

21:54

back to the analogy of these

21:56

frogs, it's like now we see

21:58

a tadpole and it's the. claim

22:00

is being made that DNA doesn't

22:02

have a double helix structure and

22:04

that Darwin is incorrect, there's no

22:06

evolution. When it may be true

22:08

that DNA is wrong or that the

22:10

evolution is wrong, but these data say

22:13

nothing about it. Because merely what's happened,

22:15

and I say merely, but it's a

22:17

tremendous amount of work. Web can see

22:19

back, say, twice as far in time.

22:21

So when these galaxies were hundreds of

22:24

millions of years old, 200 to 300

22:26

millions of years old, and Hubble saw

22:28

when they were five to 600 million

22:30

years old, if that constitutes a crisis,

22:32

I think, you know, it might be

22:35

good for certain people to see a

22:37

therapist about this, because it's really not

22:39

a crisis whatsoever. But I mean,

22:41

you as a scientist, you're delighted

22:44

when the, when you discover that

22:46

you're wrong. Because now you're closer

22:48

to being right. That's right. And

22:50

I made the analogy in a couple

22:52

of conversations I've done so far. It's kind

22:54

of like the flat earth, right? If

22:57

you think the earth is flat, you're

22:59

wrong. If you think the earth is

23:01

a perfect sphere. you're also wrong because

23:03

it's not a perfect sphere. It bulges

23:05

at the equator, it has a little

23:07

bit pair-shaped nirple on the top, I don't

23:09

know, but it's not a perfect sphere

23:11

either. But you're less wrong, as Asimov

23:13

used to say, you're less wrong if

23:15

you think it's a sphere than if

23:17

you think it's flat. And putting all

23:19

these things on top, as I said, a

23:21

good thing to do is to look for inconsistencies.

23:23

So there truly would be no one

23:25

more excited than a professional cosmologist to

23:27

learn that the Big Bang is missing

23:30

and we know it's missing thing. No

23:32

theory is complete. But when you point

23:34

to inconsistency, so here's a good example

23:36

that I think we might have even

23:39

talked about a couple years ago when

23:41

I was last honored to be on

23:43

and that's the Hubble tension. And I've

23:45

had on Adam Reese many times and

23:48

Brian Schmidt. And that's on my

23:50

podcast. We talk about it. What's

23:52

the crisis? The crisis there is

23:54

that the cosmic microwave background measurements

23:57

done by Plank and W. Map

23:59

reveal of value for the Hubble

24:01

constant that is about 68 in

24:03

these weird units of kilometers per

24:05

second per mega-parcic. The measurements done

24:07

by Adam Reese and his team

24:09

using the Hubble telescope and Cephiad

24:11

variables and Wendy Friedman's group and

24:13

Tipper, the Red Giant Branch, they

24:15

are advocate for a slightly bigger

24:17

of value of the Hubble constant.

24:19

Now why is the Hubble constant

24:22

important? Well, it's really how you

24:24

get the red shift, which I

24:26

said earlier is most important number

24:28

in cosmology, observable and cosmology. So

24:30

you want to construct a red

24:32

shift distance relationship and the proportionality

24:34

constant is Hubble's constant. It also

24:36

gives you a handle on the

24:38

age of the universe. The reciprocal

24:40

of the Hubble constant has units

24:42

of time, kilometers divided by mega

24:44

par sex is dimensionless, and then

24:46

you've got these seconds per second.

24:48

So it ends up telling you

24:50

the age of the universe. Now

24:52

these two experiments are off. One

24:54

says 68, one says 72. They're

24:57

off by a factor of four

24:59

in these units. It turns out

25:01

to be about 9% discrepancy. That

25:03

is incredible that you can make

25:05

a prediction based on what the

25:07

universe was like when it was

25:09

380,000 years, propagate that forward 13.8

25:11

billion years, and you agree to

25:13

within 9% and none of them

25:15

are saying that the Hubble constant

25:17

is effectively zero because that would

25:19

be a static universe, and none

25:21

of them are saying it's infinite.

25:23

who even exquisitely calibrated and knowledge

25:25

about accurate knowledge about how fast

25:27

the universe is expanding and two

25:29

different methods disagree and that that

25:32

is a reason but what was

25:34

that a reason for it's a

25:36

reason for it's a reason for

25:38

excitement yeah it's a reason to

25:40

go deeper as you say to

25:42

learn more about why this is

25:44

happening it's fascinating time to be

25:46

alive and it'll turn out one

25:48

of them is right one of

25:50

them is wrong or it'll turn

25:52

out there's some new physics that

25:54

we didn't understand and that's the

25:56

exciting one Like I think of

25:58

all the choices like the one

26:00

you're like we don't understand what

26:02

the universe was doing at different

26:04

ages or we don't understand all

26:07

of the factors and variables that

26:09

are feeding into the expansion of

26:11

the universe, that is exciting. And

26:13

it's weird to me, like for

26:15

you as a cosmologist, to receive

26:17

messages from people who tell you

26:19

that you're being close-minded, because you

26:21

won't accept... change and new theories

26:23

and so on has got to

26:25

be exhausting because you can't wait

26:27

to change. This episode is brought

26:29

to you by Progressive Well,

26:39

with the name of your price

26:41

tool from Progressive, you can find

26:43

options that fit your budget and

26:45

potentially lower your bills. Try it

26:47

at progressive.com. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company

26:49

and affiliates. Price and coverage match

26:51

limited by state law. Not available.

27:15

That's right. And in fact, in

27:17

this case, it gets worse because

27:19

Mr. Lerner, it was just a

27:22

private, you know, individual, he does

27:24

operate a fusion research company, which

27:27

is always mentioned for donations, and

27:29

yet his. is kind of his

27:31

audience will always condemn scientists like

27:34

me for taking grants from you

27:36

know private and public funding agencies

27:38

that are based on peer reviewed

27:41

submissions in the you know kind

27:43

of eternal tradition of science which

27:45

is to have advocacy but also

27:48

have some bit of of contentiousness

27:50

but doing it respectfully and instead

27:52

I used to be before I

27:55

met this Mr. Lerner virtually used

27:57

to tell my students if you

28:00

ever find the words coming out

28:02

of your mouth that this referee

28:04

report is treating me. the same

28:06

way as Giadarno Bruno, you know,

28:08

then just shut up because it's

28:10

laughable to be that that level

28:12

of grandiosity takes a level, as

28:15

we say, in Yiddish of chutzpah,

28:17

that is not appropriate when doing

28:19

science to compare yourself to Bruno.

28:21

So this gentleman, Mr. Lerner, compares

28:23

himself to Kepler and and he

28:26

compares others of us to Ptolemy,

28:28

which is really quite rich because

28:30

a As I said, he is

28:32

advocating, and has a pitch for

28:34

money at the end of all

28:36

of his, and there's no oversight

28:39

over that. I mean, I thought

28:41

I'd heard that he had raised

28:43

millions of dollars at one point

28:45

for this fusion research, but again,

28:47

he's advocating for a model of

28:49

the universe. That's not new, Fraser.

28:51

It's incredibly ancient. It's a static,

28:54

it's an unchanging universe, which then

28:56

has to grapple with the plethora

28:58

of literally billions of observations that

29:00

are not being static. but being

29:02

completely dynamic, evolving, changing, rich, full

29:04

of interesting features and things to

29:07

study. So he literally cannot explain

29:09

billions of observables. He admits that.

29:11

He says, I have no explanation

29:14

for redshift, but I'm confident that like,

29:16

you know, in 200 years from now,

29:18

that like they laughed at, they use

29:20

Ptolemaic epicycles, you guys are professional cosmologists

29:23

are using expansion hypothesis. So, so it's

29:25

kind of fun to debate him virtually

29:27

online. But there's a limit to how

29:29

seriously you can take something that's 2,000

29:32

years old plus. Yeah, and it would

29:34

be nice if it could be kept

29:36

civil and it's sad to me that

29:38

it's not. It's sad to me, it's

29:41

weird to me that... You know like everybody loves

29:43

space everybody's enthusiastic for space I keep noting

29:45

this that it's just like you never run

29:47

into a person isn't into space I know

29:49

I would say I love a strong because

29:51

it's not political like there's no Republican asteroid

29:54

Yeah, yeah, I don't know what you have

29:56

liberals up there or whatever. Yeah, there's no

29:58

liberal comet or you know, it's A political,

30:00

it's a safe space for intellectual

30:02

growth, right? Yeah, and yet people

30:04

do bring kind of, I don't

30:06

know, they get wedged in their

30:08

worldview and lash out, which is,

30:11

which is weird to me. So,

30:13

so you as a practicing cosmologist,

30:15

you are steeped in the latest

30:17

findings, the latest information. What are

30:19

the... challenges that cosmologists are wrestling

30:21

with right now in the earliest

30:23

moments of the universe that maybe

30:25

the public audience isn't sort of

30:27

up to date with and familiar

30:30

with. What are the really interesting

30:32

things that are happening right now

30:34

in the field? Yeah, and I

30:36

should say, you know, as it

30:38

often is overlooked. that there are,

30:40

you know, kind of lacunae or

30:42

gaps in our understanding, things that

30:44

we lack an understanding of, things

30:46

like dark matter and dark energy.

30:49

This is frequently trotted out by

30:51

the Big Bang deniers saying, oh,

30:53

well, you guys make up this

30:55

fantasy substance called dark matter and

30:57

dark energy. And I've always retorted

30:59

to them in a couple ways.

31:01

One is to say, yes, it's

31:03

true, we don't, we haven't directly

31:05

detected. all the dark matter that

31:08

we know exists based on multiplicative

31:10

multiple forms of evidence, but we

31:12

have evidence for dark matter we've

31:14

made exquisite detections of of its

31:16

gravitational influence and we actually know

31:18

of one form of dark matter

31:20

that we've detected here in the

31:22

laboratory on earth is called a

31:25

neutrino. It's a weakly interacting map

31:27

of particles so we know that

31:29

that's a form of dark matter

31:31

happens not to be sufficient to

31:33

close the universe and to make

31:35

it flat rather but in this

31:37

case they would have said you

31:39

know, 20 years ago, 30 years

31:41

before we had evidence for neutrinos

31:44

being massive. There was, oh, that's

31:46

just, you know, another polemic epicycle

31:48

you're putting on your theory. So

31:50

just because you don't know something

31:52

now, I think it's entirely anti-scientific,

31:54

not just bad. It's anti-scientific to

31:56

say that you don't know something

31:58

now, so you'll never know it.

32:00

And on the most... important things

32:03

that we are looking for in

32:05

my field is really to understand

32:07

the earliest we could possibly understand.

32:09

I always joke my job is

32:11

to find out. What happened on

32:13

the Thursday before the Big Bang?

32:15

Because that question is either poorly

32:17

defined or undefined, as Stephen Hawking

32:19

used to say, it's like asking

32:22

what's north of the North Pole.

32:24

But scientists discovered what's north of

32:26

the North Pole, Fraser, as you

32:28

know, closer to the North Pole,

32:30

there's Santa Claus, right? So we

32:32

know there's an... So Stephen was

32:34

wrong. I'm gonna... Just sign on

32:36

to that theory, but I'll yeah,

32:38

okay. All right fine, but don't

32:41

send it to me for peer

32:43

review That's all I'm saying Yeah,

32:45

but there are very well motivated

32:47

theories that posit an existing universe

32:49

prior to our universe either in

32:51

space or in time, like a

32:53

previous universe that collapses in a

32:55

big crunch, or a universe that

32:57

is parallel to ours in space

33:00

and time and what's called a

33:02

multiverse. And these things are testable

33:04

using the tools of cosmic microwave

33:06

background and polarization for the very

33:08

first time in scientific history. And

33:10

I find that incredibly exciting. So

33:12

the most, you know, kind of

33:14

exciting thing to me is also

33:17

kind of not really appreciated by

33:19

the lay people that might be

33:21

in your audience or my audience

33:23

and that's that's that there is

33:25

a controversy on whether or not

33:27

there was actually a universe that

33:29

pre-existed our universe and it is

33:31

come a long way there's a

33:33

lot more research into what's called

33:36

the inflationary universe that we spoke

33:38

about and that's the big part

33:40

of the subject of my first

33:42

book losing the Nobel Prize that

33:44

book was about this experiment here

33:46

at the South Pole if you're

33:48

watching. and University of Minnesota in

33:50

Stanford. And that project initially announced

33:52

evidence for inflation. What is inflation?

33:55

Inflation posits a quantum field that's

33:57

sort of eternal, like just forever,

33:59

in a vast space time and

34:01

all of space time. And that

34:03

universe had a fluctuation in the

34:05

inflatent that caused it to inflate

34:07

and expand at superluminal velocities. And

34:09

now that event could leave an

34:11

imprint on what's called the polarization

34:14

of the microwave background. And that

34:16

polarization is exactly what we study.

34:18

So for those of your viewers

34:20

who might not be familiar, I

34:22

said, I love to do experiments,

34:24

Fraser. So a polarimeter is very

34:26

simple. It's a telescope. In our

34:28

case with Bicep, it was a

34:30

refracting telescope. And it has some

34:33

kind of what's called polarizing filter.

34:35

It has something that solicits only

34:37

one polarization, allows only one polarization

34:39

to propagate at a time. And

34:41

if you have an identical one,

34:43

you'll see as I rotate them

34:45

90 degrees and then 180 degrees,

34:47

the light that gets transmitted if

34:49

you're watching on YouTube, you'll see

34:52

it go through a complete darkness.

34:54

Now it's completely, it's getting more

34:56

and more transparent. Then it gets

34:58

completely dark. for every physical rotation

35:00

of the instrument, you get a

35:02

measure of its polarization. So you

35:04

attach one of these to one

35:06

of these, the telescope, and then

35:09

you rotate the telescope and to

35:11

whatever extent you see the pattern

35:13

of light's intensity increasing and decreasing

35:15

twice for every physical rotation of

35:17

the instrument, you get a measure

35:19

of its polarization. And so your

35:21

telescope is actually rotating. Basically rotating

35:23

as is it is it like

35:25

making an observation and then it's

35:28

rotating making another observation Yeah 100%

35:30

that's really cool. Yeah, and we

35:32

have we have multiple we also

35:34

have something that we got from

35:36

From a very expensive source of

35:38

rotation and that's god or mother

35:40

nature if you will so in

35:42

the earth rotates imagine the full

35:44

moon or sorry imagine that the

35:47

first quarter moon is rising. Okay.

35:49

So it's rising. So half of

35:51

it's illuminated and there's the lunar

35:53

terminator right. above the horizon. Throughout

35:55

the night that terminator rotates around

35:57

like this. So the rotation of

35:59

the earth and causes the modulation

36:01

of the angle of the terminator.

36:03

The same thing happens with the

36:06

polarization of the microwave background. So

36:08

we have gods or Mother Nature's

36:10

own polarization rotation mechanism. And then

36:12

furthermore, we can also employ certain

36:14

types of crystals that you get

36:16

from your astrologer friends. And these

36:18

crystals also rotate. the plane of

36:20

polarization. They're much smaller. You can put

36:23

them right at the focus, if you

36:25

like, of the telescope or about there

36:27

and rotate them extremely fast because they're

36:29

very small. So you can see and

36:32

disentangle the effects of true honest to

36:34

goodness cosmic polarization from instrumental

36:36

effects or other sources of spurious

36:38

polarization. And in so doing, we

36:40

hope to make a map. You've

36:42

undoubtedly seen the colorful maps of

36:45

the CMB's temperature. We want to

36:47

make a map of its polarization.

36:49

with enough sophistication to see whether

36:51

or not there are waves of

36:53

gravity, not just waves of light, not

36:55

just waves of matter or density, perturbations

36:57

in matter, but if there are waves

36:59

of gravity like LIGO detected,

37:02

that caused the shearing and squishing

37:04

and squashing technical terms of space

37:06

and time itself. That will only

37:08

happen if and only if inflation

37:10

took place. There's no other mechanism

37:13

to generate these waves of gravity.

37:15

Therefore... it provides a very

37:17

crisp test. For those that do

37:19

not believe that inflation took place,

37:21

even they, like Paul Steinhardt, who's the

37:23

Einstein professor at Princeton, Anna Aegis,

37:26

who's a renowned postdoc at NYU,

37:28

and many others around the world

37:30

have looked for Roger Penrose, Nobel

37:33

Laureate, they have alternative cosmologies, and

37:35

they all admit, if we see this type

37:37

of polarization called B-mode polarization, it

37:40

will kill their theories dead in

37:42

the water. Now you so so

37:44

you actually have a preference in

37:47

this I mean obviously as a

37:49

scientist you you know you're gonna

37:52

let the evidence take you

37:54

wherever it goes but you

37:56

your hunch is that you won't

37:58

be able to find this this

38:00

polarization? Am I right? I don't,

38:02

I don't, no, I don't think

38:04

I've said that. I said I

38:06

don't think we'll find life in

38:09

the universe or no, no, no,

38:11

no, no, no, no, but like,

38:13

you know, as you said, like,

38:15

you're, you're more on board with

38:17

the Penrose idea of a cyclical

38:19

universe than, than other, than other

38:21

origin. I wouldn't say that. So

38:23

what it comes down to is

38:25

the excess of evidence that we

38:27

have currently suggests very highly suggest

38:29

that inflation took place. But it's

38:32

kind of like circumstantial evidence like

38:34

you come to a crime scene,

38:36

you see a dead body, there's

38:38

a gun, the gun is warm,

38:40

but you know, there's also a

38:42

knife in the room. versus coming

38:44

into the room and you see

38:46

like the person the criminal and

38:48

the gun is smoking in their

38:50

hand. So these waves of gravity

38:52

are incredibly precise and very crisp

38:55

in the Occam's razor sense discriminators

38:57

of whether or not the universe

38:59

began with a singular and so

39:01

inflation is almost synonymous or could

39:03

commentant with. the Big Bang and

39:05

the singularity, it's very very closely

39:07

attached to that. Whereas these other

39:09

forms of the universe, origin, cosmogenesis,

39:11

they don't have really required any

39:13

singularity in space time itself. So

39:16

it's fascinating to me. I'm actually,

39:18

you know, for the first time

39:20

in my life, I am agnostic.

39:22

It is true that before when

39:24

I was, you know, a young

39:26

scientist as I recount in this

39:28

book, I really wanted to win

39:30

a Nobel Prize. I wanted that

39:32

at all costs. I had a

39:34

very tumultuous relationship with my father,

39:36

who was a great mathematician and

39:39

he had done some theoretical physics,

39:41

won incredible prizes and was the

39:43

youngest full professor at Cornell at

39:45

age 27. And we always had

39:47

this rivalry, but the one thing

39:49

you never won was the Nobel

39:51

Prize. And since I came up

39:53

with this idea to test the

39:55

gravitational wave origin in an inflationary

39:57

process thanks to... my colleagues in

39:59

theory and other places, then I

40:02

thought this was my sure ticket

40:04

to win a Nobel Prize. So

40:06

yes, in that sense. that I

40:08

was very much kind of motivated

40:10

by non-scientific reasons. I'm not especially

40:12

proud of that, but as a

40:14

truth. I was, you know, it's

40:16

the highest award, not only that

40:18

you can win, you know, I

40:20

think in science, but I think

40:22

in society as well. I mean,

40:25

every four years, they're in America,

40:27

at least we get, you know,

40:29

70 Nobel Prize winners tell you

40:31

to vote Democrat, you know, or

40:33

the Iran deal is a good

40:35

thing. And Nobel Prize winner here.

40:37

And so it's, you don't see

40:39

that in like, Olympic hurtlers who

40:41

have won gold medals all say

40:43

to support the Iran deal. No,

40:45

you don't see that. So it's

40:48

much more kind of disproportionate. And

40:50

that was part of the unscientific

40:52

reason I had. As I count,

40:54

you know, this book is mostly

40:56

a memoir of what it feels

40:58

like to be a young physicist

41:00

trying to make a name for

41:02

him or herself and building things

41:04

as opposed to theorizing things. Right,

41:06

but I guess, I mean, the

41:08

imperson that I got is that

41:11

you... You have a a you

41:13

you say that you're agnostic today

41:15

when we talked a couple years

41:17

ago and when I read the

41:19

book I got the impression that

41:21

you had a preference just in

41:23

the you know a preference for

41:25

in like coffee versus tea preference

41:27

level preference a preference for a

41:29

non-inflationary universe and yes by by

41:32

proving inflation correct, you would win

41:34

by getting a Nobel Prize and

41:36

making an incredible contribution to science.

41:38

And by failing to prove inflation

41:40

correct, you would also win by

41:42

essentially your preference continuing to hold

41:44

and there being a glimmer as

41:46

that being a possible source for

41:48

the universe. Yeah. I mean, some

41:50

of that needs to be unpacked.

41:52

I think that the primary reason

41:55

why I'd like to see something

41:57

is because the alternative is that

41:59

you see nothing. And, you know,

42:01

when you see something, like imagine

42:03

you just never detected the Higgs

42:05

boson because you could never build

42:07

something as powerful as a large

42:09

hadron collider. That doesn't mean that

42:11

the Higgs boson doesn't exist. It

42:13

just means that you couldn't build

42:15

it or that the energy scale

42:18

which is produced. is far in

42:20

excess of what could be measured

42:22

with human technology. Would I be

42:24

disappointed if I built the large

42:26

hadron collider and I didn't see

42:28

anything? Yeah, because you always want

42:30

to see something. A null result,

42:32

which is what it would be

42:34

if we don't see anything and

42:36

what the bicep result turned out

42:38

to be. So we actually saw

42:41

this play out where we made

42:43

a detection, claimed it was real,

42:45

was whispered about for winning the

42:47

Nobel Prize. And I should also

42:49

say that concomitantant with the inflationary

42:51

paradigm is the multiverse. There's basically

42:53

no way to suppress the formation

42:55

of other universes in the vast

42:57

space time that we used to

42:59

call the universe but is now

43:01

called the multiverse. There's no way

43:04

to shut that off in the

43:06

inflationary paradigm and therefore... you have

43:08

what's called eternal inflation where inflation

43:10

is occurring in these various pocket

43:12

universes throughout the cosmos. So the

43:14

stakes couldn't be higher if you

43:16

were to detect it. That is

43:18

true. On the other hand, it

43:20

brings up a lot of problems

43:22

too because at least in our

43:25

universe, it would mean that time

43:27

began, which is a weird thing

43:29

to think about right? We think

43:31

about time and entropy as the

43:33

change in measurable quantities and something.

43:35

You think about it as Einstein

43:37

used to say, you know, very

43:39

helpfully, time is what a clock

43:41

measures. But you need change. Well,

43:43

how do you get change if

43:45

literally in the before time there

43:48

was no time? In other words,

43:50

it's like time emerges into reality

43:52

as a new property that we

43:54

take for granted now. But doesn't

43:56

the cyclical universe just push the

43:58

problem back one iteration? a cassicle

44:00

universe? Like if there was a

44:02

universe before this universe, don't you then

44:04

have to ask yourself where that universe came

44:07

from? And then the universe before that came

44:09

from? Like at a certain point, aren't you

44:11

still, don't you still end up with the

44:13

same problem, which is how do you go

44:15

from nothing to something? Yeah, unless you

44:18

know that there's either a single

44:20

origin of the universe as a

44:22

naive interpretation of the Big Bang

44:25

would posit, or that there was

44:27

only one cycle of the universe

44:29

before our universe began, then you

44:31

would be right. And in fact,

44:33

in most theories, it's not

44:36

necessary to support that there's an

44:38

infinite number of them, but in

44:40

Sir Rogers theory there are, he

44:42

calls them aions and Paul and

44:45

Anna's theories. it's not specified what

44:47

they are merely the properties they

44:49

didn't have to have. So yes,

44:52

in the sense it does, it's

44:54

kind of like the question of,

44:56

you know, who made God and,

44:59

you know, and kind of

45:01

philosophy or theology. Yeah. So

45:03

I guess, like, why is that comforting?

45:06

Like, like, because for me,

45:08

they are, they are exactly

45:10

equivalent. Like, like, if you

45:12

say, okay, the universe had

45:14

a beginning. That's weird

45:16

and unsettling. And so a less

45:19

weird and unsettling idea is that

45:21

there was that there was a

45:23

universe before this universe and that

45:26

one died and this one formed

45:28

and after this one dies a new

45:30

one will form. That still doesn't

45:32

resolve the issue for me. Yeah.

45:34

So from an emotional standpoint,

45:36

right? Right. Right. But there's

45:39

another issue, which is the

45:41

multiverse. And then there's an

45:43

allied. concept, sorry, concept in

45:45

string theory called the string

45:47

landscape. And these are really

45:49

kind of mind expanding concepts.

45:51

In one, the supposition is

45:53

that the universe has an

45:55

infinite number of parallel or

45:57

effectively infinite number of parallel

45:59

cop. each potentially with different laws

46:01

of physics. In the string landscape, it

46:03

suggests that there are regions of space

46:06

time that have different vacuum states and

46:08

different values for the constants of nature,

46:10

etc., etc. And I think what the

46:13

opponents of the inflation and therefore the

46:15

multiverse paradigm suggests is that if you

46:17

have an infinite possibility, you know, if

46:20

I'm hosting universe today, and you're honored

46:22

and blessed to host into the impossible,

46:24

then anything goes. I mean, literally, anything

46:27

goes. Any combination of events can happen.

46:29

any combination of constants of nature. I've

46:31

often speculated, you know, if the laws

46:34

of physics and even the constants of

46:36

nature can change, and even the number

46:38

of forces can change, what prevents there

46:41

from being changes in the laws of

46:43

predicate calculus or logic? Or, you know,

46:45

does, you know, if A, then B,

46:48

and an A, not imply B, you

46:50

know, in modus tallens in another universe.

46:52

It seems to be nothing that would

46:55

stop it if you can create new

46:57

laws of physics which are which are

46:59

physical manifestations of mathematical concepts. Surely you

47:02

could create new mathematical structures as Max

47:04

Teghmark suggests all mathematical structures exist in

47:06

his level four multiverse. So there are

47:09

people like Paul who find that this

47:11

tasteful because then it is really possible.

47:13

to lose predictive power of a theory.

47:16

If anything can happen in the overarching

47:18

theory of the multiverse, then our measuring

47:20

one aspect of it would be no

47:23

more satisfactory than say the anthropic. I

47:25

don't know about you, but... I don't

47:27

really care for like enthropic reasoning very

47:30

much is certainly in the in the

47:32

weak form of the entropic principle. And

47:34

so I think it's, it's, wait, so

47:37

you, hold on, you don't care for

47:39

the weak form of the enthropic principle?

47:41

Well, to say that, you know, it's

47:44

always seemed very tautological is all. Like

47:46

we wouldn't be here, like, like if

47:48

the university didn't support human life, we

47:51

wouldn't be here to observe to observe

47:53

it. true, but does it give you

47:55

anything to predict? Can it tell me

47:57

something about the mass of a particle

48:00

or the location of a galaxy? No,

48:02

it really can. And what we would

48:04

like in all physicists, I think it

48:07

meant this, we don't know why the

48:09

electron has a mass of 511 kilo

48:11

electron volt. We don't know why. It

48:14

would be great to have a theory

48:16

that predicts that, right? And if you

48:18

were to say. there's a theory called

48:21

the standard model and let's say it

48:23

could someday predict it right let's say

48:25

it comes up but then you say

48:28

that theory of the standard model is

48:30

just a fluke of our particular instantiation

48:32

of the laws of physics in our

48:34

bubble universe that then just that in your language

48:37

pushes the problem back and so there are people

48:39

and it's so fascinating for us because a lot

48:41

of the initial resistance and the current resistance of

48:43

these Big Bang never happen people is that they

48:45

claim it kind of smacks of theology, you know,

48:48

that the Big Bang is like, and that's what

48:50

Hoyle was a huge atheist, and he came up

48:52

with the name, the Big Bang is a pejorative

48:54

insult. But that's not scientific, right? He didn't believe

48:56

that it sounded like Genesis 1, 1, 1, and therefore it

48:58

had to be wrong, because there's no God. That's not

49:01

very scientific. But it doesn't mean he's wrong, it just

49:03

means that it's not scientific. It just means that it's

49:05

not scientific. It just means that it's not scientific. It

49:07

just means that it's not scientific. It's not scientific. It's

49:10

not scientific. It just means that it's not scientific. It's

49:12

not scientific. It's not scientific. It's not scientific. for

49:14

those that advocate towards the predictive

49:16

power being the judge of a

49:18

scientific theory, and in so doing,

49:21

claim, I think, you know, a

49:23

little bit too often that a

49:25

theory has to be falsifiable. So

49:27

you really can't falsify inflation. That's

49:29

a problem. Whereas, as I said,

49:32

you can falsify Roger's theory. or

49:34

the bouncing model, because you observe

49:36

B modes in the early universe,

49:38

you kill those theories. It doesn't

49:40

prove inflation. Again, it's the smoking

49:43

gun, it's circumstantial evidence. But at

49:45

a certain point, there's no way

49:47

to falsify, there's no way to

49:49

falsify inflation, like there couldn't, no, like

49:51

there's, huh. Because if we saw, if

49:53

we, if we don't, let's say inflation

49:55

took place, but it takes place, what's

49:57

called a very low quantum field energy.

50:00

It will produce gravitational waves, but

50:02

they'll be too small to measure.

50:04

We'll never, and any conceivable technology

50:06

due to what's called cosmic variance,

50:08

where there's just too much random

50:10

fluctuation in the different regions of

50:12

the sky. We never know if

50:14

it took place, even though it

50:16

took place. So you can't prove

50:18

it. And then if it took

50:20

place, there's literally 500 different forms

50:22

of inflation. And you wonder, well,

50:24

which one is it? Yes, it

50:26

took place, but it's not as

50:28

easy as an inverse mapping in

50:30

mathematics from a value to a

50:32

uniform definition, you know, linear function.

50:34

So I think there are reasons

50:37

to think that from a Paparian

50:39

perspective, where falsification is the synoquon

50:41

of good science, that you couldn't.

50:43

really rule out inflation, but you

50:45

could rule out these other ones,

50:47

which would give it some some

50:49

advanced, you know, kind of precedent

50:51

over the over the inflationary model.

50:53

And as Stephen Weinberg said, you

50:55

know, even after the discovery of

50:57

the CMB in 65, he wrote

50:59

1978 in the first three minutes,

51:01

his Apollo book on the early

51:03

universe, still a great, a great

51:05

book, and I recommend it to

51:07

all my students even. He wrote

51:09

that this, that the static or

51:12

steady state universe is preferable, A,

51:14

because it looks the least like

51:16

Genesis, and he was a big

51:18

atheist, as you know, but also

51:20

B, because it could be ruled

51:22

out. Whereas even he thought the

51:24

Big Bang could never be ruled

51:26

in, proven, as we keep, you

51:28

know, debating about, right? We don't

51:30

debate if I drop this crystal

51:32

ball if it, you know, if

51:34

it's gonna fall. Like I always

51:36

say, I don't believe in gravity.

51:38

Right. I have evidence for gravity.

51:40

So that's what we want. Right.

51:42

But I guess, like, aren't there,

51:44

I mean, you say Roger Penrose,

51:46

there are other physicists working on

51:49

this that there are alternative ideas

51:51

for. for the formation of the

51:53

universe that are different than the

51:55

big bang. They solve the issues

51:57

with the big bang, the lack

51:59

of monopoles, the fact that temperatures

52:01

are the same, etc. right that

52:03

you know that's what inflation was

52:05

designed to do was to was

52:07

to fill in the missing pieces

52:09

of the big bang and I'm

52:11

you know and these other theories

52:13

do the same thing shouldn't they

52:15

leave some kind of trace in

52:17

the universe that that there could

52:19

be evidence built that those things

52:21

are the case wouldn't that by

52:24

having more evidence lead to the

52:26

theory. You're not disproving inflation, but

52:28

you can never disprove a theory

52:30

anyway. You are, the evidence is

52:32

starting to build into some alternative

52:34

hypothesis. Yeah, so a lot of

52:36

the work that's being done in

52:38

bouncing or cyclic models is revolving

52:40

around a more, I think, well,

52:42

I don't know if it's more

52:44

important, but it's a more technical

52:46

question of whether or not you

52:48

can have a universe that doesn't

52:50

have a quantum singularity in it.

52:52

because the you know the Penrod

52:54

talking singularity theorem suggests that in

52:56

any expanding space time you reach

52:58

a point of where you do

53:01

obtain a singularity, but the caveat

53:03

is often neglected that that's only

53:05

in classical GR and it's only

53:07

on scales that you know we

53:09

would consider macroscopic. So from that

53:11

perspective it isn't guaranteed that there

53:13

can't be a non quantum or

53:15

non singular origin of the universe.

53:17

So all these reasons are of

53:19

course fascinating. The more things your

53:21

theory predicts, the better because it

53:23

gives you more things to hang

53:25

your theory on, you know, more

53:27

hang, hang men's nooses that it

53:29

has to evade. And the more

53:31

that it passes, like GR has

53:33

passed, you know, numerous hurdles, even

53:36

hurdles that Einstein didn't think it

53:38

would pass like gravitational lensing, gravitational

53:40

waves, expanding universe, which by the

53:42

way, you have to deny that

53:44

the universe is subject to general

53:46

relativity. In other words, we know

53:48

that if you believe the Big

53:50

Bang never happened, because the big,

53:52

the universe can either be either

53:54

static, in which case it's stabilized

53:56

by a cosmological constant as Einstein

53:58

blundered, right? Or it will have

54:00

to contract or expand. depending on

54:02

what the matter energy density is

54:04

relative to the critical density. We

54:06

know there's matter in the universe,

54:08

we exist, therefore the universe should

54:10

be collapsing unless there were some

54:13

expanding force, like dark energy to

54:15

keep. So these people have to

54:17

instantiate a. level of either lack

54:19

of belief in general reality, which

54:21

has passed innumerable hurdles. I mean,

54:23

it passes it every day in

54:26

your cell phone GPS, right, a

54:28

billion times a second. So I

54:30

think it's kind of, it's extremely

54:32

far-fetched, these notions that you have

54:35

to give up so much to believe that

54:37

now. It is true. We don't know, you

54:39

know, we don't understand what's happening

54:41

in the earliest moments and what quantum

54:43

gravity would even look like. But there's

54:46

no guarantee that it didn't emerge

54:48

from a classical collapse or classical bounce.

54:50

And that's what these alternatives are

54:52

working on. And Roger doesn't have anything

54:55

like that whatsoever. But they also, the

54:57

weak spot, at least in my

54:59

mind, I would love a theory that's

55:01

an alternative that makes all the

55:03

predictions or lack of predictions. In

55:05

other words, doesn't predict waves of

55:07

gravity that I could possibly detect

55:09

with my colleagues. But doesn't feature

55:12

either unknown forms of matter or

55:14

energy like the inflatan field. So

55:16

the bouncing models posit a scalar

55:18

field a quantum scalar field and

55:20

that. help that regular rises and

55:22

controls the expansion and collapse of

55:25

the universe. And in Roger's theory,

55:27

he has these things called Arabons,

55:29

which are like dark matter, dark

55:31

energy, you know, who really knows,

55:33

he has these magnetic fields, these

55:35

hawking points. So there's all sorts

55:37

of like new stuff, it doesn't

55:40

mean it's wrong, but I would like

55:42

something, no quantum field, no Arabons, you

55:44

know, just protons, neutrons, my favorite particle,

55:46

the crouton, which I'm going to grab

55:48

soon, which I'm going to grab soon,

55:51

which I'm going to grab soon, look

55:53

as different from inflation as is

55:55

possible to imagine. But so far I

55:57

think that shows that my theoretical understand

56:00

should be, you know, left to trying

56:02

to predict, you know, horoscopes and stuff,

56:04

and I should just stick to being

56:06

an experimentalist. Yeah, yeah. I, from my

56:08

perspective, I think you've softened. That's my

56:10

impression. Talking to you a couple of

56:12

years ago, I think you were less

56:14

ambivalent. If that's a thing that's possible,

56:16

I guess you had more of a

56:19

position that you held. And the impression

56:21

that I get now is that you've

56:23

become a little more ambivalent. I think

56:25

it's I agree with you Fraser I

56:27

think but I think I think it's

56:29

more of a condemnation of I know

56:31

it's great to be like this is

56:33

definitely true and you're an idiot if

56:35

you don't believe I mean I know

56:38

that but I think a scientist you

56:40

know at his best or her best

56:42

should be kind of ambivalent I mean

56:44

you know there's so many ways. Yeah.

56:46

Confirmation by a snuck. So I guess

56:48

it's a condemnation of my previous self,

56:50

you know, which is fine because I've

56:52

grown, I like to think I've grown

56:54

in more ways and just physically gotten

56:57

bigger during the pandemic, but to think

56:59

that, but to appreciate it more. And

57:01

I think partially, you know, people like

57:03

you and people like you have really

57:05

inspired me that there is so much

57:07

kind of, I want to say like

57:09

nonsense, there's so much non scientific stuff

57:11

that's out there. And I always feel

57:14

like we scientists are given this script.

57:16

All we have to do is read

57:18

it and we'll win an academy award.

57:20

Like we have this wonderful, and so

57:22

few of my colleagues do anything like

57:24

what you do or what I'm attempting

57:26

to do or you know my friend

57:28

Sabina Hausenfeld or Arvin Ash, all these

57:30

guys and gals are doing. And it's

57:33

so important to do it. And I

57:35

feel like in no other form of

57:37

society, would you have it be acceptable?

57:39

If they, yeah, I quit my job,

57:41

you know, one of my students, former

57:43

grad students, she works, she works for

57:45

Amazon. She works for Amazon. You can't

57:47

understand what I'm doing. I'm very specialized.

57:49

I'm very sophisticated I'm doing things that

57:52

are so beyond your comprehension By the

57:54

way, I expect my paycheck on Friday

57:56

like in a second. And yeah, we

57:58

kind of do that. We kind of

58:00

say things. Like I always talk about

58:02

Feynman, you know, there's this one quote

58:04

where he says, you know, he says,

58:06

if you can't explain it to your

58:08

grandmother, then you don't understand it. Yeah.

58:11

And then when he won the Nobel

58:13

Prize, a reporter asked him, what did

58:15

you win it for? He goes, if

58:17

I could explain it to you, it

58:19

wouldn't be worth a Nobel Prize. So

58:21

like, like, which is it Richard, Richard,

58:23

but he did say, you know, you

58:25

know, you know, and the second principle

58:28

is you're the easiest person to fool.

58:30

I think I was a fool. I

58:32

was a fool. I was a fool

58:34

in the sense of fine and like

58:36

I wanted to win an Nobel Prize.

58:38

I wanted this is my quickest maybe

58:40

only shot at winning it. And now

58:42

like it's so interesting because I started

58:44

my podcast, you know, probably since we

58:47

really talked in earnest, I've talked to

58:49

14 Nobel Prize winners. And it's not

58:51

like, you know, it's this whole, um,

58:53

You know combination of things like you

58:55

really don't want to trade your life

58:57

with anyone for easier like you want

58:59

to say I wish I was Mr.

59:01

Beast of science or Joe Rogan or

59:03

like no are you going to take

59:06

everything that they're dealing with are you

59:08

going to like suffer through all the

59:10

things that they have suffered for and

59:12

like deal with it and no you

59:14

don't want their problems you want anything

59:16

but your own but I think so

59:18

I think the key is is that

59:20

As a scientist, your job is to

59:22

search and you're on these journeys of

59:25

investigation. As a journalist, which is what

59:27

you are as well, your job is

59:29

to listen and to, he says after

59:31

interrupting you, but your job is to

59:33

listen, your job is to let the

59:35

person talk and you're not there to

59:37

debate them. And you're looking for clarification.

59:39

can't help but that influence the way

59:42

you think then about the work that

59:44

you do. And so you sit there,

59:46

as you say, you interview all of

59:48

these Nobel Prize winners. I mean, you

59:50

talk to John Mather, or, you know,

59:52

they're all just amazing, right? And then

59:54

you walk away kind of going, huh,

59:56

I wonder what impact that has on

59:58

my work. And. And it's got to

1:00:01

have just, I wouldn't be, wouldn't be

1:00:03

surprised it from the ground up. It

1:00:05

has, it's actually changed the way

1:00:07

you look at your work. You're basically,

1:00:09

you know, pitching my second book, which

1:00:12

is called Into the Impossible. So these

1:00:14

are interviews with the first of the

1:00:16

nine Nobel Prize winners that I interviewed

1:00:19

on my Into the Impossible podcast, including

1:00:21

Barry Barish, who kindly wrote the forward

1:00:23

to this book. And I realized this

1:00:26

is a self-help book for you. It's

1:00:28

not a science book. There's no, I

1:00:30

couldn't resist putting in, you know, a

1:00:32

type 1A supernova, you know, when I

1:00:35

talk about Adam. And there are like

1:00:37

amazing illustrations that I had a

1:00:39

professional illustrator, you know, concoct. And

1:00:41

I'm really proud of it. But

1:00:43

what did I do in this book?

1:00:45

I tried to distill. I tried to

1:00:48

ask the basic question. Can you

1:00:50

acquire enough knowledge to become wise?

1:00:52

In other words, science, scientia, and

1:00:54

Latin means knowledge. Doesn't mean wisdom.

1:00:57

Sapienza, which is like Homo sapient,

1:00:59

means wise, or now knows that

1:01:01

he knows or she knows. I

1:01:03

want to know, if you got

1:01:06

to be so smart, you know,

1:01:08

could you actually have wisdom?

1:01:10

Or could you be like Fritz

1:01:12

Haber? the inventor of ammonia and

1:01:14

the Fritz Haber and the Haber

1:01:17

Bosch process, etc. etc. who then

1:01:19

went on to use his chemical

1:01:21

engineering skills after winning the Nobel

1:01:23

Prize in 1917 or so to

1:01:26

witness and personally observe the death

1:01:28

by chlorine gas that his factories

1:01:30

produced and then later the members

1:01:33

of his family get annihilated by

1:01:35

Zycon B which his factory produced

1:01:37

as well and he was a

1:01:39

huge nationalist and belly Coasta.

1:01:41

Like he won the Nobel Prize, like do

1:01:44

I have stuff to emulate from him? But

1:01:46

I sort of think like what would a

1:01:48

graduate student or even like a car salesman

1:01:50

in in Vancouver, you know, what could he

1:01:53

or she learn from a Nobel Laureate? And

1:01:55

so it has nothing to do with their

1:01:57

science. It has to do with competition, collaboration.

1:02:00

And especially the imposter syndrome, which I

1:02:02

feel all the time. I feel it.

1:02:04

Totally. I feel it. You too. Yeah.

1:02:06

You've grown so much. Yeah. Your channel.

1:02:08

I mean, you've like triple double. Like

1:02:10

that's kind of like an aspiration. I

1:02:12

don't trust anybody who doesn't have imposter

1:02:14

syndrome. And then on the

1:02:17

other hand, Fraser, of course, what's the opposite of the

1:02:19

imposter? It's the Dunning -Kruger effect. Yeah. Where you think like

1:02:21

you learn a little bit and you think you're a

1:02:23

genius. I always joke

1:02:25

I'm the big world's biggest expert in

1:02:27

the Dunning -Kruger effect. But I was shocked

1:02:29

when I talked to Barry and the

1:02:31

reason that he wrote the forward aside

1:02:33

from him being such a gracious and

1:02:35

wonderful individual co -leader of the LIGO

1:02:37

experiment, he told me when he won

1:02:39

his Nobel Prize and you go to

1:02:41

Sweden and you accept it and you

1:02:43

meet the King and you have some

1:02:45

reindeer buffet and whatever. But you also

1:02:47

have to sign this book that legally

1:02:49

testifies that you got your golden medal

1:02:51

and that you got your share. In

1:02:53

his case, he got like $300 ,000 US

1:02:55

of the Nobel Prize, $1 million purse

1:02:57

or $1 .5 million purse. And he

1:02:59

said, when you sign this log book,

1:03:01

it's impossible as a curious person not

1:03:03

to look back who signed it last

1:03:05

year, who signed it 10 years ago.

1:03:07

So he saw Feynman. He saw Marie

1:03:09

Curie. And then he saw this guy.

1:03:11

He saw this guy over here, Einstein.

1:03:13

Yeah, was in there. Yeah. Einstein figure

1:03:15

book. And he said, I'm not worthy

1:03:17

of being in the same universe, let

1:03:19

alone the same book. And so this

1:03:21

is during my interview with him. And

1:03:23

I said, because I asked every one

1:03:25

of my guests and someday you'll come

1:03:27

on and I'll ask you this question.

1:03:29

I said, what advice would you give

1:03:31

to your former self to go into

1:03:33

the impossible as the only way of

1:03:35

determining the limits of what's possible? Advice

1:03:37

to your former self. And he said,

1:03:39

to not have the imposter syndrome. I

1:03:41

said, you have the imposter syndrome? And

1:03:43

he's like, yeah, I have worse than

1:03:45

ever. Thanks to Einstein. I said, guess

1:03:47

what, Barry? Einstein had the imposter syndrome.

1:03:49

He's like, what are you talking about?

1:03:51

I said, he believed that Isaac Newton

1:03:53

contributed more to math and physics, but

1:03:55

not only in math and physics, to

1:03:57

Western civilization in his words. He

1:04:00

or anyone since. And I said,

1:04:02

that's not all. Guess what? Sir

1:04:04

Isaac had the imposter syndrome. He's

1:04:06

like, what? I said, yes. He

1:04:08

lived in awe of a

1:04:10

non-scientist, maybe, but a man

1:04:12

by the name of Jesus Christ. He

1:04:15

felt he was totally inadequate,

1:04:17

complete imposter compared to,

1:04:19

so, and I'm sure Jesus felt

1:04:21

that way about Mosa, you know,

1:04:24

you could just keep going down

1:04:26

the line, right? Yeah, yeah, totally. collaborating

1:04:28

with people who are your competitors. That's

1:04:30

a huge thing in this book. How

1:04:32

do you listen to things to know

1:04:34

you're wrong? Have rubrics to make decisions.

1:04:37

So that's what that book is. I

1:04:39

mean, I feel like that's the gift

1:04:41

that I get as a as a

1:04:43

person who gets to interview people is

1:04:45

that you just get to listen, that it's

1:04:47

your job to listen and to and to

1:04:49

think about ways to get even more

1:04:51

interesting information out of the person that you're

1:04:53

talking to. You just can't help, but.

1:04:56

it sort of percolating in. So we're almost

1:04:58

at the time. Yeah, go ahead. Can

1:05:00

I stop? Just one question. I've always wondered

1:05:02

from your perspective, you do so many

1:05:04

interviews and I try to ape you

1:05:06

and emulate you in a lot of ways.

1:05:08

But in real time, it would be

1:05:10

really helpful to know if I'm doing a

1:05:13

good interview. Like it's very hard to

1:05:15

know until you see you like, well, like,

1:05:17

no, no, no, if like as as

1:05:19

the interviewer, as the podcaster, or host, how

1:05:21

do you know when you're doing a job in

1:05:23

real job in real time, if any, if any?

1:05:26

You don't? Yeah, like I think

1:05:28

the most important thing

1:05:30

for me is is just being

1:05:33

curious and letting your curiosity lead

1:05:35

you and trying to think of

1:05:37

the questions that are that would

1:05:39

be popping into the minds of

1:05:41

the people who are listening trying

1:05:43

to figure out ways to clarify

1:05:46

like like my job is to

1:05:48

clarify is to get people to

1:05:50

clarify and to explain you know

1:05:52

their hero's journey as best as

1:05:54

they as they can and if

1:05:56

I think they're being inconsistent as

1:05:58

I might have during this interview I

1:06:01

will hold their feet to the fire

1:06:03

for a little bit, but I think

1:06:05

it's just it's just important to just

1:06:07

listen and be curious and just let

1:06:09

the story go and take you where

1:06:11

it goes. And I think that that

1:06:13

people who are being interviewed don't necessarily

1:06:15

know what is interesting because they're too

1:06:17

deep in it and so they just

1:06:19

don't have any perspective. And yet as

1:06:21

a naturally curious person, I find wonder

1:06:23

in almost everything that I see. And

1:06:25

so I let that be the guide

1:06:27

but I don't know man it's just

1:06:29

like it's just like practice you know

1:06:31

what you know what we need to

1:06:33

do is you it's only fair now

1:06:35

you need to have me on your

1:06:37

show yeah and then we can go

1:06:39

into this this side of it more

1:06:41

in more depth so yeah I would

1:06:43

love that yeah let's let's set it

1:06:45

up I'll send you a county link

1:06:47

this time. I'm on board. Let's do

1:06:49

it. So for people who want to

1:06:51

find more information and dig into that

1:06:53

rich Backlog of amazing interviews and seriously

1:06:55

like like the guest that Brian has

1:06:57

on his podcast are astounding Way more

1:06:59

noble prizes than I've reviewed and Because

1:07:01

you're a cosmologist you're going toe to

1:07:03

toe with these people and you're able

1:07:05

to speak their language and it's been

1:07:07

an absolute pleasure in in watching what

1:07:09

you do But where can people follow

1:07:11

your work? What's the best way to

1:07:13

do that? Yeah Yeah, the two main

1:07:15

ways are to, you know, my YouTube

1:07:17

channel, Dr. Brian Keating, and last year

1:07:19

I started doing a short 10-minute thesis,

1:07:21

I call it, where I go through

1:07:23

experiments, I do experiments in the lab,

1:07:25

I got a video coming out, called

1:07:27

The Most Expensive Water in the Universe,

1:07:29

where I sample different types of water,

1:07:31

including some that is made of deuterium

1:07:33

and some that is coming from a

1:07:35

$50 bottle on Amazon, from the Great

1:07:37

White North of Deuterium. I drank some

1:07:39

deteriorated water. That's awesome. Eterium oxide. I

1:07:41

drank some berg water from your neck

1:07:43

of the woods up in the glacier

1:07:45

somewhere up north and then I drank

1:07:47

some ounce. But I drank some water

1:07:49

that there's nobody out there listening that

1:07:51

could ever get their hands on to

1:07:53

very approximation. I'll explain that in the

1:07:55

video. So yeah, I do a lot

1:07:57

of short videos, Dark Matter, but it's

1:08:00

from an experimentalist point of view. Podcast

1:08:02

Into The Impossible is on Apple Podcast,

1:08:04

Spotify, wherever you get your podcast. And

1:08:06

then my mailing list, as I said,

1:08:08

for those of you, I can only

1:08:10

ship to people in the US, but

1:08:12

I will send a meteorite, an honest

1:08:14

and goodness chunk of space to us.

1:08:16

You know, I gotta get your camera,

1:08:18

man. You gotta put your, yeah, you

1:08:20

gotta, there you go. But the problem

1:08:22

is that it's trying to focus on

1:08:24

your eyes. So as long as you

1:08:26

cover your eyes, then the camera will,

1:08:28

there you go. It will focus on

1:08:30

the, yeah. You block your eyes so

1:08:32

that the camera doesn't try to try

1:08:34

to try to focus on focus on

1:08:36

focus on them, try to focus on

1:08:38

them, try to focus on them, try

1:08:40

to focus on them, try to focus

1:08:42

on them, So if you go to

1:08:44

Brian keating.com/list, you'll be entered to win

1:08:46

one on 100 of these in the

1:08:48

US only that I can ship to

1:08:50

you guys. So please do that. And

1:08:52

anyone who signs up with the dot

1:08:54

EDU address automatically wins. So I like

1:08:56

to get to students. All right. Well,

1:08:58

thanks Brian. Great to talk to you

1:09:00

again and good luck with all of

1:09:02

your research and your work and your

1:09:04

writing and your podcasting and all of

1:09:06

that. I'm exhausted.