Into the Impossible With Brian Keating - Brian Keating Discusses the Ultimate Issues of Life With Dennis Prager

Episode Date: May 9, 2024

Join my mailing list https://briankeating.com/list to win a real 4 billion year old meteorite! All .edu emails in the USA 🇺🇸 will WIN! How are cosmology and cosmetology linked? Has the Big Bang happened an infinite number of times? And why has no one ever seen a perfect triangle?  I recently had the opportunity to discuss these and other exciting topics with Dennis Prager! Dennis is the host of the nationally syndicated radio talk show The Dennis Prager Show, which can be heard nationwide on nearly 400 stations! He is also the founder of Prager University (PragerU), the world's most-watched conservative video website with a billion views a year, more than half of them by people under 35.  Enjoy our insightful conversation!  Key Takeaways: 00:00:00 Intro 00:00:55 Cosmology and cosmetology  00:04:58 The origin of the universe  00:09:01 The perfect triangle  00:13:01 The first scientific crack in cosmology and Olber’s paradox 00:18:26 Do most physicists believe in the Big Bang?  00:22:59 My predictions about the past 00:27:50 Outro  — Additional resources: 📝 Get one month of Snipd Premium for free with this link: https://get.snipd.com/Cx7S/brianSnipd Snipd lets you take Smart Notes 🧠 with AI 💡 — it’s my favorite podcast player 😀 ! ➡️ Connect with Dennis Prager: 💻 Website: https://dennisprager.com/  ✖️ Twitter: https://twitter.com/DennisPrager/ ➡️ Follow me on your fav platforms: ✖️ Twitter: https://twitter.com/DrBrianKeating  🔔 YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/DrBrianKeating?sub_confirmation=1  📝 Join my mailing list: https://briankeating.com/list  ✍️ Check out my blog: https://briankeating.com/cosmic-musings/  🎙️ Follow my podcast: https://briankeating.com/podcast Into the Impossible with Brian Keating is a podcast dedicated to all those who want to explore the universe within and beyond the known. Make sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Everybody agrees on what happened 13.8 billion years ago, which is that the lightest elements on the periodic table, the hydrogen and helium, were formed at extremely high temperatures. The problem is what happens when you go back three minutes earlier than that, or as I say in my book, I have always wanted to know what happened on the Tuesday before the Big Ben. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Open the pod bay doors, Professor Keating, yours is probably the first book on physics that I have read since college. I just have to say that with embarrassment, but I just wanted you to know that. I know. I talked to your high school and college physics professors about that gaping lacuna in your education.

I do have GLs. It's one of the, one of the bigger GLs. That is correct. I want you to understand folks. This is, this is really, it's a phenomenon, this man in my life, because I didn't understand a lot of the book. I fully acknowledge it, and yet he kept my interest. It's an astonishing thing, this achievement. And he writes that clearly.

And what he did, you, really, I didn't tell you this. You wedded my appetite to understand concepts that you raised that I didn't understand. So with that, I wish I, you know, I wish I had read something like you many, many years ago. Anyway, I want to, I have so many questions. I want to talk to you about cosmology, which is the creation of the universe. By the way, you note the relationship between cosmology and cosmetology. Why don't you tell people what that is? Yeah, it's too bad your listeners can't see me right now because anyone who's seen my beautiful face will recognize my interest in cosmotology.

Usually I get mistaken for cosmetology or astrology. And I don't know which is more fun, Dennis, working on people's hair as an amateur cosmetologist or telling them incorrect fortunes for their horoscope. But I digress. So yes, cosmology and cosmetology share the prefects cosmos, which is Greek for beautiful or appearance. And it's very interesting that they share that because the universe presents only one appearance to us.

And it's very difficult to do the astronomy. that I talk about in my cosmic memoir, but you're absolutely right. They are sharing this prefix, and there's a reason behind it. Well, I'm not right. I got it from you. It was one of my GLs.

It was a gaping lacuna, not to realize the relationship between cosmetology and cosmology. Anyway, I want you to know, though, there was a frustrating aspect to reading your book, which I loved and profoundly recommend, and that is I was waiting,

and maybe I was, wrong, but I was waiting to find out how the big bang dilemma or puzzle or challenge resolved itself. But you left me hanging. Yeah, so it's sort of meant to be representative. You know, every good author wants to have a cliffhanger, both on every page, every chapter, and maybe in the entire book. But the story is not really settled. And that's what makes what I do so exciting.

You know, I always say on my YouTube channel, I talk about how astronomy is nice because no one ever wakes up and says, I hate that democratic constellation over there or that Republican asteroid sucks. Instead, it's something of almost universal passion and that people are excited about. And I want to continue to fan the flames of that Incipient curiosity through this humble memoir. But the story is far from finished. And I always ask people, I'll ask you, what is the most important date on the calendar to Denver? Prager. I never thought of that question. I don't have an immediate thought of the most important. I will say that, I'm sorry, oh, oh, my birthday? Oh, you think anybody's birthday? I was going to say American's birthday, July 4th, 1776, but it's still a birthday. Okay, so you're, you'll pass this

professor's first quiz question. Yeah, that's right. Most people say their birthday, their anniversary, et cetera, and why is that? Because we're fascinated with origins. And what's the most intriguing and sort of fascinating origin of them all, well, it's perhaps the origin of everything. And I think that's why people have been fascinated with cosmology since we first emerged from caves. And it's, in fact, the reason the Bible, the Bible could have started with the laws of cash root, of kosher,

or if it only pertained to this nomadic tribe of Semites, it could have started with some laws, as many people have remarked. Instead, it starts with the creation of the entire universe. There's a reason for that. Creations and beginnings speak to our interming. nature to want to know what came before us, if anything. It's peak pollination season, and my business is scaling fast. To keep the nectar flowing, I need a phone plan with top priority data speeds.

That's why I chose Google Fi Wireless. My connections stay strong even when the hive is buzzing. Plus, unlimited plans started $35 a month. Now that's a deal that doesn't stay. Explore GoogleFi Wireless plans today. Plus taxes and government fees. Google FiWireless is not subject to data traffic. deprioritization during times of high network usage.

I'm going to say this to my listeners. So much of this discussion of the ultimate issues hour is going to be about that. What do what, where is science right now, not theology, where is science on the issue of how the universe began? Tell me if I'm right for most of the history or let's see, 10th century, for most of the 20th century physicists or a cosmologist, or I doubt if there were a cosmologists in 1900. I don't think they had the term then. But if I would say to most scientists, well, when did the world begin? I assume most would have said it didn't begin. It was always around.

Is that correct? Yes, they would have said it was eternal. In fact, the great Albert Einstein thought it was eternal, even after seeing some preliminary evidence that it was in contrast observationally to that opinion. So even Great Einstein was wrong. It's too bad because he could have had a good career. Did scientists believe that there was no beginning, it always was, even though there was no human mind that can grasp that concept. It is not possible. So, nevertheless, did they believe that for science reasons or, I'll put it easily, other reasons?

I should say that there were other conjectures. There's basically 13 or 14 different versions of cosmogenesis. meaning the origin of the universe, not the evolution of the universe. And I'm documenting those in an upcoming book I'm doing with a friend named James Altiture. And those myths could be things like cyclical universes, they could be eternal universes, they could be a cosmic egg. There are all sorts of, you know, kind of conclusions. And what's so delicious and delightful to me now is that some of these ancient notions

going back to the Greeks and before in South America, Incas, and so forth, Some of these are coming back again, but dressed up in the guise of modern cosmological and astrophysical parlance. And so these things have always, I wouldn't say that it was that most scientists or most creation myths, so to speak, had an eternal cosmology, but the most prevalent, the most predominant ones did have an eternal universe long after there was evidence that that couldn't really be the case. So that's my question. Why did they do it? Was it an anti-the-possibility of a creator vision or all science-driven? In part, a little of both. There are certainly scientists who found the Genesis 1-1 description anathema,

but there's also a problem because formally speaking, the Big Bang predicts a singularity, a point of infinite temperature, infinite density, completely unlike human experience that we can really wrap our minds around even today. And because of that, And because the Big Bang demands such a singularity of infinite temperature, I'll ask you, you know, have you ever seen an actual triangle, Dennis? Not the instrument that you conduct, but a triangle, a perfect mathematical triangle. I would assume I did in my geometry texts.

No, because everything you would draw on a piece of paper or pencil has actually three dimensions. And to make a triangle, you need three zero-dimensional points without length, width, or breadth. Hello, students of the impossible. it's Professor Brian Keating here with just a tiny little homework assignment to interrupt your podcast. And that's to make sure that you're subscribed to the podcast or following us on your podcast app of choice. Get some research and actually only about 50% of you are actually following or subscribing to the Into the Impossible podcast. And really mean a lot if you could subscribe and keep up to date with me with all the greatest content. I'm putting out tremendous amounts.

Podcast has grown in popularity. But, again, can be better and bigger with your help. Do that. Please do it now. Don't wait. You'll forget. If you're looking to really boost your position on the grade curve for some extra credit, make sure to leave a rating or review of the podcast.

It really helps. Thanks a lot. Now back to the show. I don't want to get away from the cosmology part, but since you raised it, you asked me if I've ever seen a perfect triangle, which is obviously 60 degrees, right? Each arm or whatever. It's called each side. Do you acknowledge that I have seen it none three-dimensionally, that I've seen, you know, it drawn on paper?

No, that is exactly what I mean by three-dimensional. In other words, the only way to see a perfect triangle is through the human mind. No computer can visualize it, no other way of visualizing it then through this computer we call the human brain. In other words, it's an idealization. No more than you could visualize or actually see something that had zero dimensions. In other words, no extent, not even in atoms with. So infinitesimal doesn't even account for it. It truly has no size.

And that's what a triangle actually is. The fact that the human brain can conceive of such a thing that doesn't exist in nature is a triumph that separates us from any animal species or any other sentient life, which may exist in the universe, which we have no evidence for currently. So the concept of an infinite density, an infinite temperature, in other words, all the matter in the universe, all the protons, all the neutrons, all the croutons that I love so much, compressed to a single infinitesimal-sized point with no extent. It was basically impossible. And that's why Einstein, when confronted with the first conjecture by a Belgian Catholic priest named Lemaetra,

he said your mathematics is good, but your physics is atrocious, meaning that it didn't make any sense to start with something called a singularity to Einstein's view. But like many things, Einstein was wrong. Like all scientists are human beings and some have greater kinds of difficulties overcoming what we call confirmation bias. And I'm not immune from that either. The overwhelming majority of scientists believing in the eternality of the universe that there was no beginning, did the fact that everything they know has a beginning not disturb them? No. In fact, there's this year's Nobel Prize in physics was awarded to a good friend of mine, Sir Roger Penrose, and he's been on my show, Dr. Brian Keating on YouTube. He's been on it multiple times, and he has a cosmology that still

exhibits an unending cycle of what he calls eons, existing far into the infinite past, continuing to the infinite future. And he believes he has a mathematical, consistent way of showing that. And again, this is someone who has achieved the highest level of eminence. The Nobel Prize is the highest accolade. I claim, in all of that. society, not just in science. And he maintains the universe is essentially undergoing an infinite number of cycles, which doesn't change your point that it has to exist forever. It's just it may come into big bangs and crunches from time to time, where those time periods are far exceeding the average 30-year mortgage. Right. I understand. By the way, I would like to tell people about

your podcast. How do they get to it? So it's on YouTube, Dr. Brian Keating, D.R. Brian Keating, or it's on iTunes into The Impossible with Brian Keating. And I get to interview people ranging from your good friend, Noam Chomsky, to his anti-matter particle, Ben Shapiro, and Gadsad and others, and also eminent scientists like Nobel Prize winners. I've had seven Nobel Prize winners, and I've got four more to go of just this year. So I like to have very high-level deep. I never dumb down the science because I don't want to patronize my audience.

This is really high-level, but it's exactly like you talk about. Dennis. You inspired me to create this podcast because so often we think about the quotidian and not the ultimate. And I want to spend my life, my precious capital of time and attention, studying the things that matter most, which is in science at least, outside of my family and friends, is to study how did everything begin and where might it go from here. What was the first scientific crack in the universe's eternal belief? Yeah, it was sort of a serendipitous discovery, although there was a discovery by none other than Edgar Allan Poe, the famous poet, who observed that the universe can't be both infinitely old, infinitely big, and have an infinite number of stars in it. It would be

like you're inside of a forest. Imagine you're inside of an infinite forest, Dennis. And everywhere you look, your eye would end up looking at the trunk of a tree in every direction, horizontal direction, correct? No matter where you looked, if the forest is infinite, even if the trees are 100 feet apart from each other, if the forest is infinite, if the forest is infinite, if the forest is you'll eventually still have your eye land on a tree. Do you agree with that? Right. So now imagine an infinite universe filled with constant density of stars,

so many stars per cubic parsec or light year. In such a universe, that universe would glow everywhere you look with the intensity of our sun, the surface of our sun. And in that case, he could rule out the fact that the universe was either infinitely old or infinitely large or filled with an infinite number of stars. And that was kind of the first crack in the universe being infinitely old, because one of the ways that you can evade that paradox called Old Burrs paradox, O-L-B-E-R-S, is to posit a finite age of the universe, and simply the light has not had enough time to reach your eyes. And in fact, that's what we believe to be correct today if the Big Bang model is correct. But again, there's multiple scenarios posited by the most eminent cosmologist living that say the universe could have varying degrees of cyclicality.

In other words, coming into and out of existence. Nobody maintains the universe is static, as Einstein thought it was. Nobody maintains the universe is what's called a steady state. But it's no longer true that there's only one model for how the universe is in. All right, we'll find out more. Hey there, fellow Voyagers into the Impossible Tiz. your fearful host, Professor Brian Keating here with a tiny little homework assignment before we get back to the episode. And that's to make sure that you're subscribed to the podcast, either following it or subscribing to it, depending on your podcast, catcher of choice.

I did some research of my own and found out that only about half of you are actually following or subscribing to the podcast. So please do that. And for some extra credit, if you're looking to boost your position on the grading curve, please leave a rating or review. It really helps us out tremendously. Do it. Do it now. Before you forget, let's go back to the episode. If anybody can help me, it's you. So as I understand it, with regard to how the universe began, there were the following options. It always was. It began with a singularity, as I think you put it.

Or there are a series of endless Big Bangs, which is, I guess, related to the eternality of the universe. A, did I get that right? And B, is there even the possibility? I can't imagine what a fourth possibility would be. Well, there's sort of a hybrid. Yes, you got that absolutely correct. There is a hybrid solution, which is that you are embedding this notion of a beginning and sort of an explosion, if I'm predicting correctly.

You're sort of viewing it. But it could be that there's nothing to explode into. Let me blow your mind one more time. And that is to say, how does time move when time itself comes into existence? This is a problem in the Genesis 1-1 narrative. In other words, how do you have progression in time? How do you have a change, displacement in time, before time itself is created? Now, you might say, well, a creator could be outside of time, but let's ignore that.

Let's just think purely scientifically. The problem of generating motion in time, just as we generate motion in space, is very difficult to conceive of when time itself has an origin. And so there are theories that are hybrids between the Eternal and the Big Bang in that time comes into existence, but space always exists. And again, this is not what our brains are really used to being required to think about. But it's amazing to think about things, as I said, a singularity of infinite temperature. How does something go from infinite temperature, Dennis, to a final temperature,

temperature. Assuming the big thing is correct. I don't understand what is infinite temperature. It doesn't make sense to me. That's what a singularity is. That's what, you know, the creation event would be like. A singularity means all the matter and energy in the universe compressed to infinite infinitesimal volume. In other words, one divided by infinity, no spatial extent. The temperature is infinite in such a situation. And we, and And now if you imagine it, you've seen things that are very hot cool off, but you've never seen something that's infinite go to finite temperature. In fact, physicists have no evidence for anything that has a physical value, a dimension value,

temperature, weight, density, whatever, that is infinite. There's no such example, which is why the Big Bang has so many serious problems, even according to Einstein. Now, there are many physicists who think this... You said this place was steps from the water. We just haven't found the steps yet. How much did we save? Enough.

Enough to get lost. Or you could book a stay with Hilton. Welcome to your ocean front room. Just steps from the water. The Hilton sale is on now. Book on Hilton.com or the Hilton app and save up to 20% to get the stay you expected. When you want savings, not surprises.

It matters where you stay. Hilton, for the stay. Wait, wait, wait, wait, why do you say even according to Einstein? Einstein didn't believe in a big bag. No, what I'm saying is even according to Einstein, in that he had, that was his deepest problem with it, to have a singularity, to have a universe that's smoothly transitioning from infinite temperature, pressure, density to finite temperature, pressure, and density, as we observe it today, very temperate in our universe. He viewed that as sort of basically completely implausible. So there are hybrid notions that avoid the notion of a eternal time, but, keep and preserve the notion of eternal space. Imagine dimension comes into existence. And I'll just give you an example if we have a second, Dennis, to give a quantum gravitational example. Do we have time for that? Yep. So imagine we're ants and we live on a two-dimensional plane. And then at some point,

and we're bound gravitationally to the surface of this infinite chessboard. Imagine then somebody says, wait a second, I'll provide you with this elevation mechanism in the form of a blast of air. and that will transport you to the third dimension. To you, it would be as if a third dimension had been cleaved out of nowhere. And physicists talk about time as being equal in stature in many ways to the dimensions of space, length, lift, and breadth. We call it, in fact, space time. The marriage of spatial and temporal motion plays out in a tapestry that we call space time.

If I were to say most physicists believe there was a big bang, Would that be inaccurate? It sounds like it would be inaccurate. No, no, no, that's true. But, you know, science is not done by popularity. So even though that's correct. So fill in the sentence. Most physicists believe...

It's important to make a distinction. Everybody agrees on what happened 13.8 billion years ago, which is that the lightest elements on the periodic table, the hydrogen and helium, were formed at extremely high temperatures. even those that maintain the universe's undergoing cycles. The problem is what happens when you go back three minutes earlier than that, or as I say in my book, I have always wanted to know what happened on the Tuesday before the Big Bang. So we know that these, with extremely high precision, Dennis, it's not like reading tea leaves

or even the way it was when I was a graduate student 25 years ago. We now understand with absolute precision the composition of the universe to exquisite accuracy. The problem is we don't have an, we don't have. have really a great deal of confidence in what actually caused the universe to begin its expansion at this moment, three minutes before this period I just referred to. Is expansion the same as inflation? I have that wrong. Inflation is a type of expansion. So inflation is an accelerated expansion, but it's not the only kind of expansion. You can have constant expansion. So it's in a state of flux cosmology.

Yes, all sciences. All science is provisional. All sciences can be. Well, I mean, well, forgive me. I know I'm interrupting only because of the time. I know you know this from your own podcast. But, but I just, I know that that's a common statement, all science is in flux. But, I mean, that helium, excuse me, that hydrogen and oxygen form water is not in flux. I mean, certain things are not in flux in science. So it's. Yeah. We do know with great precision, as I said, the composition of the universe, the, expansion rate of the university, age of the universe, up until an uncertainty of about three minutes, which is kind of incredible if you think about it. Even when I went to graduate school 25 years ago, we didn't know if the universe was 10 billion years old or 20 billion years old, and that's the difference between being older than your father or not, if you think about it. And so for us, it was incredible. We've made incredible progress over the decades with better telescopes, new theories. However, you have to kind of divorce the concept of cosmogenesis, what's called cosmogony. The formation of the universe and its subsequent evolution are two different things, right?

If you go to your pediatrician, it's a very different person than an obstetrician. And so we don't know, just as we don't know how life originated, but we know with great accuracy how life has evolved, natural selection, evolution, et cetera. We don't have a great concept for the exact moment of origin if indeed there was one. it's not correct to say cosmology is in flux. It is correct to say cosmogony or the formation of the universe is in flux. And if you have to bet your wonderful house, what would you bet happen? I feel like these things, as Yogi Berra said, it's very difficult to make predictions, especially about the future. I feel like it's very difficult to make predictions about the past. In other words, we are learning so much more with the types of telescopes that we're building. I will say, though, that as I present in my book and

losing the Nobel Prize, I present a test that I used as a practicing Jewish person of faith that I could use to falsify religion in the sense if I were to discover with my team of hundreds of the best and brightest scientists on Earth, if we were to discover evidence that the universe was cyclical or if it had an eternal characteristic to it, which is for the first time subject to quantitative testing, then it would cause me to reevaluate in some sense this narrative. However, I feel personally, if I had to bet, that will be sort of forever ignorant about the exact moment of creation. That's it. Well, to...

But that never stops me from looking, Dennis, because... Right, so talking about looking, how far back can the most powerful telescope now view? It's really independent. Your eyeballs are two telescopes, and you can look back theoretically to the moment in which light first began if that light were in the visible range, your eye is sensitive to. So telescopes don't depend on magnification to look farther back in time. All telescopes are time machines. Even as we're talking now, these signals are traveling at the speed of light about 100 miles from San Diego to Los Angeles. And it takes a certain amount of time to do that.

And you can't break that law first kind of really... Well, you said in your book, just out of curiosity, that something, I think you said something they posit did travel faster than light? Yeah. So my book is a story of the Bicep experiment, which I helped to create, not far from you, at CalP. tech, a little technical college nearby. And that instrument was meant to make a discovery of the first moments of cosmic history. However, we discovered we made a mistake and instead saw something that masqueraded as the signals. We were seeking, and that's important. We were seeking to detect something, in my case, possibly so I could win a Nobel Prize. And there was another

experiment just a couple of years earlier that actually made a blunder. We didn't make a blunder. We didn't leave the lens cap on or put my thumb in front of the lens as I do when they take pictures of my kids. Instead, we attributed an explanation for the data that we saw that was later proven to be completely incorrect. And in fact, what we saw was the humblest substance in the universe, dust, cosmic dust, and not the origin, the imprimatur of the Big Bang. Right. So, okay, so I still have the question. How far can you see back to the beginning, to three minutes at least? Can you see that far back? Beyond that. Yes, we theoretically, if in, yes, if inflation took place, using waves of gravity but not waves of light.

So these waves can't see it. Oh, okay, so you don't see the light from there. We don't have a lot of time, and I'm very curious. This comes from left field, as they say. How important is it to you now versus 20 years ago to win a Nobel Prize? Completely unimportant. And I say they can prove this if they want to see if I'm a hypocrite. The Nobel Committee can offer me the Nobel Prize,

and if I don't decline it, I am a hypocrite. No, Dennis, in the course of the book, I discovered that scientists, and this is obvious to you maybe, but I discovered that scientists, even if they're atheists, worship religion. Yeah, I had a very complicated history. I was born to biologically Jewish parents. I became later an altar boy in the Catholic Church. I then went through an atheist phase as de rigour in college. And then I came back to the religion of my birth. And so I've gotten quite a good deal of exposure to different ecumenically exposed ideas. And I realized that science, in a way, has its version of a religion. And in fact, the Nobel Prize has all the features of a religion.

It has a patron saint, Alfred Nobel. It has a founding date. It has a catechism. It has a ceremony, an award season. a holiday season, and even a feast that commemorates not Alfred Nobel's birthday, but his death day, eschatologically. So, and like many religions, if you've ever been approached by someone asking you to consider changing your religion, it's not something you do on a lark.

In fact, most people refuse to do it. And so I found many of my colleagues refused to give up this notion that the Nobel Prize is effectively a secular religion. but it's sort of kosher because it's viewed as saluting society's best and brightest. And I don't have any problem with any of my friends or colleagues who have won it. I think they are not allowed to select themselves. As I found out, when I was asked to nominate the winners of the 2016 Nobel Prize, the Nobel Prize I was sort of ultimately destined to lose is the subject of my memoir, losing the Nobel Prize.

Basically, the famous line, when people stop believing in God, they don't, what is it, they stop believing God, they don't believe in nothing, they believe in anything. Yeah, and you see, it's a lot with scientists, too. I mean, as I said, I'm doing the book club with Michael Knowles for prayer you coming up, and that's about Galileo. And I make the point in that video with Michael that we never trust scientists. If you meet a scientist who says, I trust scientist, meaning he obeys or she obeys scientists, They're not really legitimately scientific, in my opinion. In other words, scientists should be the most curious, the most skeptical. If we lose that, I think that, you know, basically all is law.

Science is a magical form of understanding this wonderful universe that we live in, or if you choose, God created. And so that's the subject of my prayer you video in the upcoming book club. Have you chosen that God created? Have I chosen it? I say, Dennis, I'm still wrestling with the question of whether I believe in God. I want to know does he believe in me, and I want to know that I do believe in religion. So I bless you.

Thank you. Fascinating. Brian Keating. Pay off your home. Travel for life. Drive a Ferrari. In celebration of the world premiere of the Monopoly Big Board Buckslot Machine by Aristocrat Gaming, Yamava Resort and Casino at San Manuel is giving one person a $1.6 million dream package.

The biggest prize in Yamaba's history. Club Serrano members can earn daily instant prizes and secure a spot in the finale May 29th. Don't pass go and own it all. Yamava celebrating its 40th anniversary. UN. Details at Yamava.com must be 21-20. Please gamble responsibly. Monopoly is a trademark of Hasbro. Hasbro is not a sponsor of this promotion.