Into the Impossible With Brian Keating - Brian Keating on Planetary Radio with Host Matt Kaplan: Special Crossover Episode (#161)

Episode Date: June 25, 2021

Mat Kaplan is the host of Planetary Radio Host and Producer, The Planetary Society. Mat Kaplan loves hosting and producing Planetary Radio. He was just 17 when he got his first job in broadcasting, yet it wasn't until the 2002 premiere of The Society's popular weekly broadcast and podcast series that he combined his twin loves of space and radio. A Planetary Society staff member for more than 15 years, Mat also plans and manages technical support for our Planetfest celebrations and other major events and webcasts. Outside of The Planetary Society, he hosts a series of live events for Southern California Public Radio called NEXT: People|Science|Tomorrow, and frequently serves as moderator or speaker at space and science gatherings. His extensive background in journalism has ranged from public radio reporter covering the political conventions to movie reviewer for an international magazine. Some may remember him as a correspondent for a pioneering national TV series about personal computers. Mat also enjoyed a 30-year career in higher education that included major television awards and recognition for service to the community. The longtime Long Beach, California resident has two adult daughters raised to be citizens of the solar system. Mat is available as a moderator or host for conversations about space and science topics. He’s also a passionate speaker about the mission of The Planetary Society, the importance of space exploration and development, and the history of human fascination with Mars, including robotic exploration of the Red Planet. Follow Mat on Twitter at @planrad Planetary Radio The Planetary Society’s weekly podcast take you to the outer reaches of the solar system and beyond. Host Mat Kaplan visits with scientists, engineers, mission leaders, astronauts, advocates, and writers who provide their unique and exciting perspectives on the exploration of our universe. New episodes are published every Wednesday.Thanks to our sponsors! https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/planetary-radio-space-exploration-astronomy-and-science/id91689834 https://www.planetary.org/planetary-radio https://magbreakthrough.com/impossible http://betterhelp.com/impossible Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome to this special episode of Into the Impossible with today's special guest, Brian Keating. That's me. It's true. I was a guest on my friend Matt Kaplan's podcast, which he does for the Planetary Society, the very society founded by Carl Sagan over four decades ago. Matt hosts Planetary Radio, and he's one of the best podcasters in the business. I hope you'll subscribe to his podcast. and leave it a rating and review, along with leaving me a rating and review on the Into the Impossible podcast.

I read everyone and I enjoy them so much. I know Matt does too. So sit back and enjoy this special interview with your fearful host of the Into the Impossible podcast in a crossover episode. On Planetary Radio with Matt Kaplan. Enjoy. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Here's a story that has taken 17 months to tell. It began in January of 2020 when I drove up to the University of California, San Diego, to meet Brian Keating.

Brian is Chancellor's Distinguished Professor of Physics at the UCSD Center for Astrophysics and Space Sciences. He is also Associate Director of the Arthur C. Clark Center for Human Imagination at UCSD, where I've gathered material for several other planetary radio features. And Brian also wrote losing the Nobel Prize, a story of cosmology, ambition, and the perils of science's highest honor. The book is about all that and more, including Brian's Odyssey across several attempts

to determine one of the most basic truths about how our universe came to be. That journey has led him to leadership of the Simon's Observatory, And it was one of the reasons I joined him all those months ago in a busy, towering lab at UCSD's Center for Astrophysics and Space Sciences. Also there for a tour of what will become part of one of the most exquisitely sensitive telescopes ever built were Brian's friends, past planetary radio guest, James Benford, and Paul Davies. Yeah, three distinguished physicists and authors, and your unworthy host. The plan was to sit down with Brian soon afterward for a one-on-one interview. Then came COVID.

That conversation finally happened just a few weeks ago, but first, here's a taste of that lab tour conducted by Brian as work on the observatory's instruments continued around us. We'll take a look at the inside of the Simon's Observatory Small Aperture Telescope camera. So here you see a large circular disc. This is what holds our focal plane of over two. 10,000 dual polarization, dual frequency detectors. They must be cooled to at least 100 Millekeldin, 0.1 degree above absolute zero.

People always think of San Diego is this balmy place. Not at least. Oh, sorry, sorry. Well, we can actually cool below it, but yes, you're right. It'll operate at 100 Millekeld. And that's this device here. This is called a dilution refrigerator, which the technical way to describe it is it works sort of magically.

It works by diffusing and diluting a mixture, a mash, should we call. of helium three through some amount of helium four. And depending on the ratio of helium three to helium four and the pressure that they're at, it will effectively cool. We can actually achieve a temperature of 6 mili-calvin in this refrigerator. That'll be at the focus of three lenses,

exactly like what Galileo built in his telescope in 1610, exactly 410 years ago to the day when we're looking at this. And these detectors, if you think about it, they're cold under the, these extreme conditions, we also have to evacuate out and have this under extreme vacuum, about one 10 millionth of the pressure we feel here at sea level. And that's because if there was residual air molecules in here, it would eventually exchange heat like a leaky thermos, and you'd cool off and warm up, you'd try to cool off the outside,

and you'd never succeed in getting the outside laboratory to 100 milichelvin, and so all your detectors would be completely useless. So we have to pump out this thing with a very sophisticated pump to just a fraction of about a 10 millionth of the atmospheric pressure that we feel here. So to get signals out of this machine and to get signals into it, imagine you have a vacuum. You have to maintain almost a perfect vacuum, far better than any vacuum cleaner here on Earth. Then you have to keep everything cool to a temperature that's 30 times lower than interstellar space. So that's a challenge.

But you also have to get light or heat from the universe in and you have to get data out. So it's an incredibly complex scheme that my colleagues primarily at Princeton University and UC Berkeley have worked on to get detectors and fabricate them at the National Institute of Standards and Technology in Boulder, Colorado, take those signals and transduce them in a way that only requires that you have a very low number of electrical connections. All these cables that you see here, there's only about 10 to 14 of them. They read out all 10,000 plus detectors. It's called multiplexing, multiple signals on a single wire. And that's important because these are heat sources. These are eventually going to the outside world.

And they eventually have to connect to the 0.1 Kelvin world under vacuum. So to do that requires very sophisticated materials, superconducting materials, electrically conductive, but thermally insulating materials are very hard to find. On the other side of the telescope, which is where the light enters from the Big Bang. So we have 14 billion year old light,

and we don't have the lenses in right now. But when we do, we have to have a vacuum window on the front to keep this chamber near this incredibly low vacuum pressure. This window that we're going, that you see here is aluminum plate, we're gonna replace that with a window made of plastic, but the plastic has to be incredibly transparent to microwaves. So the microwaves that were propagating through have an average wavelength about two millimeters.

And the windows that have to withstand this enormous amount of pressure of 14 pounds per square inch across this enormous diameter is extremely challenging to engineer that. So you have to have stress relief, if you have to have vacuum seals that are very well structurally sound. Then we'll have three lenses made of ultra high purity silicon that will focus the light onto those 10,000 detectors. And we'll have a field of view that's equivalent to about 60 times the diameter of the full moon at a given time. And it'll be a roughly circular patch of the sky. And then we'll scan that patch across the sky for five years straight. And we need all those

photons and all these detectors to make a detection of these signals that are maybe a part per billion of the Earth's surface temperature, maybe even below that. You don't have to worry about bird droppings at that altitude, I suppose. No, we have a llama attacks, but no, we're pretty safe from those effects. So this is a real, all these equipment, these are all designed by students and postdocs that we have here. We have, you know, you can't go to Amazon and order one of these. It's all custom design, designed completely uniquely for the Simon's Observatory and handcrafted. This is all, these are built in Italy, these cryostats, and the amount that's being it's

an international collaboration, we have international vendors and we have 280 students, postdocs, professors, engineers around the world on all seven continents working on this project. First we've got to get it from here to Chile. Then you've got to get it to the base of the mountain, then up the mountain, all the bits. And then people on site to maneuver this, you need cranes up there. I mean, this is quite an operation. It's a huge construction project, right.

Everybody with oxygen. That's absolutely right, yeah. That's what I was going to ask about, because I've also been to the Omaha site, and I had my little can of oxygen in my hand. But even the guys who are up there with oxygen in tanks on their back, they don't let them make any major decisions. They have to clear it with the people at the low site. Is that something that is of concern?

Yeah, yeah. These are very serious, you know, have a safety accident, you know, or something like that. You know, I'm, you know, very, very concerned about that. And so we have, with our colleagues, we've been operating up there for over 20 years combined on this project, on pre-existing experiments, the Atacama Cosmology Telescope, Alma, and the Simon's Array and the polar bear experiments that I'm involved with. So we have a lot of experience, but you can never be complacent. Have you ever lost anybody up there? We, thank God, have not. We've had people get stuck in snow banks.

That's another problem. Although it's incredibly dry, allegedly the driest desert on Earth, there are phenomena such as right now in February, the sites Alma shuts down observations because of what's called the Altaplanadic winter. It used to be called the Bolivian winter, but they don't like to say that anymore. And effectively, it's a type of, you know,

because it's summer there, but they get almost like winter-like conditions in February, typically every year when you have precipitation, snow that will fall, and make the roads almost impassable. So we sometimes have to clear our own snow if the government snow plows aren't working. We have to have weather forecasting long range to know, well, we should get that diesel truck on Thursday instead of Sunday in order to make this, you know, not have to shut down. And so we have reserve tanks.

We have emergency supplies. We have food. We have shelter in case people do get stuck up at the site. Thankfully that hasn't happened. Hopefully it won't. The other thing is getting data off the mountain. So right now the way we send data is via a microwave radio transmitter line of sight to a village called Sanpager. We also bring hard drives, you know, sneaker net, they used to call it.

You have hard drives and you bring them back to North America. That won't do when we have a petabyte of data coming off the instruments. We'll have four telescopes. You see one of the four, but this is one of the three small telescopes. We have an enormous six-meter diameter telescope called the Large Aperture Telescope. That has its own building. That's 17 meters tall. That has to rotate, the entire building rotates on its axis.

It has staircases. It has all sorts of moving. and a lot of loading docks and so forth. And this is an enormous structure up at the extreme high altitude. That also has 30,000 detectors in it. So I have 60,000 total amongst the four telescopes. Each of the small with 10, three times 10, 30 plus the large is 60,000. That's going to produce a petabyte of data a year.

So we are currently planning to run a fiber optic cable from our telescope to Alma. And then Alma will allow us to connect to the Chilean internet backbone. that will then run up the West Coast, and then UCSD to Berkeley and other places throughout the country where we do data analysis is all high-speed gigabit internet. What's the bottom line cost? So we are funded completely privately from the Simons Foundation and our partner member institutions and a contribution also from the Heising Simons Foundation. The total project cost is $73 million to build the project.

Then a good rule of thumb, you know, you never think about when you hear, oh, the LHC is going to cost $20 billion to upgrade. They never tell you that it's going to cost 10% of that per year just to keep the lights on. The operating costs. Yes, you build an aircraft carrier. You have to spend $600 million a year to keep it running on a $6 billion aircraft carrier. There's always a trade-off between those two. Right, the OPEX, the operating expenses versus the capital expenses.

Exactly. And there's one other thing that's getting interesting in this field is that for the first time, we think of the CMB as this hoary old ancient light from the Big Bang, But there are actually things that we can see with hypersensitivity that we have with the large telescope in particular that we can see transient phenomena. And some people think that we can detect actual other planets in our solar system, planet 9, for example, via its microwave emission. So if you imagine the ultimate stealth bomber or whatever, you could possibly imagine, there's no way that it would be at absolute zero. There's no way the pilot would agree to get into. I'm a pilot. I would never get into a plane that was cool to absolute zero because I would die very quickly.

anything above absolute zero by virtue of Boltzmann's laws of thermodynamics will emit a tremendous amount of heat. And that heat could be detectable. And for a planet sitting in interstellar space, or interplanetary space, it's roughly the temperature of Saturn or perhaps Pluto. We believe we could detect a large enough planet with the large aperture telescope. So we're actually getting into planetary science for the first time using cosmic microwave background detection instruments. that'll be music to my bosses with the planetary society maybe i just look at too many NASA budgets but 75 million to build it and then you know a tenth of that for another each of another four years it's like a bargain for maybe discovering such basic properties of the universe yeah we think so i mean

we we we are certainly not looked at as a bargain by you know folks that are applying for nsf grants and do you know it's very hard to get public funding nowadays almost a historic low for getting national society. But private foundations have stepped up to provide funding and matching and so forth. There's a long history of that. Yeah. Yeah. There is, certainly, especially in astronomy. Yeah, it's just going to say, right, Palomar, Kek, etc. So it is, it is and it isn't. There's another experiment, which our community of cosmologists are proposing to be fully federal funded. And that's called, it has a winsome name of the CMB stage four instrument. I didn't come up with that name. But that,

that is sort of an enhancement by a factor of four or five beyond the Simon's Observatory. That has an initial price tag of about $650 million. And that's still Earth-based? I'll be ground-based. Yeah, half of it in Chile and half of it at the South Pole. You see, in contrast, you're talking about ground-based telescope. It's a bargain that's under 100 million. Space-based telescopes, like W-Firsts, is measured in billions.

It's just saying nothing of James Webb. James Webb. Let's not talk about it. Hope it works. Brian Keating, James Benford, Paul Davies, and yours truly in January of 2020. You heard mention of Alma, the otacama large millimeter array

that is not far from the Simon's observatory site in Chile's otacama. Checkplanetary.org slash radio if you'd like to hear my Alma visit of several years ago. Ryan and I made plans to get together again as soon as we had both been vaccinated and it was deemed safe to do so. The result was the extended conversation you're about to hear.

I hope you'll enjoy it as much as we did. As you'll hear, Brian was also recording it for his own Into the Impossible podcast. By the way, here are a couple of other abbreviations to watch out for. Bicep 2 is the previous microwave telescope that is at the heart of Brian's book, and that caused a stirer when its early claims of success were shown to, be dust in the wind, almost literally. It stands for background imaging of cosmic extra-galactic polarization. And the CMB is, of course, the cosmic microwave background, the echo of creation that cosmologists have been chasing since its accidental discovery

back in the mid-1960s and even before. It's peak pollination season, and my business is scaling fast. To keep the nectar flowing flowing, I need a phone plan with top priority data speed. That's why I chose GoogleFi Wireless. My connections stay strong even when the hive is buzzing. Plus, unlimited plans start at $35 a month. Now, that's a deal that doesn't stay. Explore Google Fi Wireless plans today.

Plus taxes and government fees. Google Fi Wireless is not subject to data traffic deprioritization during times of high network usage. Matt Kaplan of the Planetary Society, my good buddy from all things cosmic and the podcasting world, Matt, you are an inspiration to me. You helped me really get inspired to up my game on The Into the Impossible podcast. Thank you for coming to UC San Diego, getting vaccinated, of course. We're all safe in these cosmic conundra that we face on a daily basis. Thank you for coming all the way to campus. I love this campus.

I think I may have told you, Brian, both of my daughters are proud Triton graduate. and so I got to know the campus pretty well and paid for some portion of it. That's right. Thank you. Your money, your kids go here and we couldn't be more proud of those Triton dollars. Thank you, Matt. I'm both humbled and proud to know that what we've done with that show has provided any kind of assistance or inspiration. As you know, back on January 31st of 2020, I got to horn in on a wonderful tour that you were providing for the great, the inimitable Paul Davies, and you took us into your lab. We got to see some of the work that's underway there. I'm going to use that at the top of this planetary radio feature, at least

in the podcast version of the show, when I don't have to worry about how long it is. So I'm going to roll that now. That was a real highlight of 2020. I think of that as, you know, before Paul Davies came and then after Paul Davies came. And of course, you've been a good friend of the Arthur C. Clark Center for Human Imagination, which I am honored and privileged to co-direct along with Eric Veery. He's a good friend of yours and mine. And yeah, it was a great event and a good time. And we are getting back to that. Our plans are to resume live events soon and hopefully in the fall of 2021.

So stay tuned. That is such good news. And I'm looking forward to being able to take the trolley to campus. I cannot wait. It's going to be so much fun to take the the transportation mode of the future. You know, the trolley, monorail, monorail. Back to the future. That's right.

Everything new is old again. We will pretend that I've just shown that amazing, or played that amazing audio of that tour, and I think I have some photos as well. So I'm going to welcome you to our show, and I'll have my cheat sheet in my lap here, and we'll go into it. And I am rolling, so here it goes. Brian, we just watched that outstanding tour that you provided to me and the amazing Paul Davies back on January 31st of 2020. where were we before we were so rudely interrupted because that was supposed to be followed by the conversation that we're going to have right now? Yeah, that's right.

I mean, when we think about going back to the origins of the universe and probing its first moments using gravitational radiation, perhaps produced during the universe's earliest moments in what's known as inflation, to which the theory two of which Paul Davies contributed a not insignificant amount, you must know, this incredible theory that posits the universe sprung forth, perhaps, from nothing, a vacuum, a universe from nothing, as Lawrence Krause has once said, this phenomenon was thought to be all-consuming to cosmologists. Little did we know that something a little bit bigger than a subatomic particle, namely a virus, would take over the whole planet and upend our plans of mortal men and women

to study the earliest moments in the universe. And I always think, Matt, when I'm thinking about what we do as cosmologists, I gave a talk to some undergraduates last night, and they asked me, you know, what's the most surprising thing about being a professor? And I said, it's that I do almost nothing related to what I teach you guys as undergraduates. I never sit down and say, here's the Maxwell's equations, here's the, here are the laws of quantum mechanics of Schrodinger, or even here's the laws of cosmology in Einstein. It's how do I get, you know, this diesel fuel up to 17,000 feet?

Or how do I get this cryostat, this particular, uh, part in this cryostat to start working again and get the vacuum to very low pressure. And all those things were upended by the supply chain, by the personnel, by the, you know, the very human needs. And we had protocols in place. And UC San Diego, thanks to leadership of our dear chancellor, my boss, I'm not sucking up to him too much, although I am the chancellor's professor, but we had amazing protocols in place for testing that allowed my students and almost uniquely among the various collaborations that I'm affiliated with to basically not lose work and actually be able to go into that building across the way there that you have footage from

from last year. So we had social distancing. We had testing and tracing and setter in place, but it was incredibly disruptive for the project and we're basically had a one-year hiatus. And but thankfully, things are back to normal here in the northern hemisphere, but you may know that most of my work is either in Antarctica at the South Pole or in Chile at 17,000 feet in the Otacama Desert. They're out of phase by six months. And so when we were having a surge. They were having a lull. Now they're having a little bit more of a surge. We're obviously having a lull. Hopefully it's behind us. We've rolled out vaccines. They're a little bit slower to roll them out. So there's, you know, kind of a rolling series of challenges. And we in the

scientific and technical business, we talk about risk management. So how do you manage the probability of an event occurring? You multiply the cost and human impact, potentially. You only can estimate it. And you multiply that by the probability that it could occur. Nobody that I know had global pandemic, you know, in January of 2020, and now everybody has it at the top of all of our risk registers. And so it's part a new modality to thinking about astronomy and who would have thought it. And all of this, as you've just said, is so far from the cosmology that you want to do that really so much of your professional life has been wrapped around for so many years. We did say up front as I introduced you that you are the director of the Simon's Observatory,

which is, of course, what we're talking about. I've been wondering, ever since that conversation, I mean, you've filled in some of the hole, but what is the status of the observatory? I mean, are we headed toward first light for the amazing instruments that are going to be down there on that high plane in Chile?

Yeah, this is an amazing observatory. It's funded in large majority by the Simons Foundation in New York City and our amazing collaboration of over 40 institutions, almost 300 people, co-led by a spokesperson Suzanne Staggs at Princeton University, Mark Devlin at UPenn, Adrian Lee at UC Berkeley. And we've been stewarding this experiment since late 2015.

And now it's, you know, 2021. We are aiming for first light late this year or perhaps early 2022, which time we will start collecting our first microwaves, first photons. People talk about first light. We talk about first microwaves because what we are seeking is the afterglow of the formation of the first elements, which. persist until the origin of the first atoms, helium and hydrogen form. And we actually image the afterglow of creation via this ancient photons that come to our telescopes all the way from the beginning of these elemental formation epoch to our telescopes today.

So 13.7 billion years have elapsed. Along the way, these photons encounter all sorts of particles of dark energy, dark matter perhaps, dark energy. We don't know if it's a particle or if it's a field. The universe is evolving galaxy clusters and so forth. And what we want to know is what can these ancient relic photons teach us about the past? So I always say we're kind of like archaeologists. We as cosmologists are ancient photonic archaeologist. And we're studying the ancient universe courtesy of these artifacts.

We have four different telescopes in the Atacama Desert that will make up the Simon's Observatory. We're pouring concrete, as I said. We have to have diesel fuel trucks to bring up diesel fuel for our generators. We have a power station. We have roads. We have snow plowing equipment. It's an industrial equipment, but we also have to keep the site pristine and clean and safe. It's an unimaginable, you know, kind of logistical challenge, the likes of which astronomers aren't used to. So we have to manage it like professionals. And luckily, those individuals that I named Suzanne, Adrian and Mark, and I, along with professional project managers, are running it like a business. And it's

fitting because this is a $100 million class experiment. So these four telescopes will capture ancient images of both the cosmic microwave background's potential signature of these ancient gravitational waves if and only if gravitational waves were produced during the inflationary epoch. And it will also measure the impact of clusters of galaxies, of dark matter, of the evolution of dark energy. We know dark energy exists. We know almost nothing about it. We know dark matter exists. We don't know if it's a particle, if it's a field, if it's evolving, gravitational, if gravity itself is evolving. And recently there's been a wealth of activity in the interest of whether or not we can detect the existence of planet nine with the Simon's Observatory, which will appeal to listeners of planetary radio.

Because I always make a challenge to my friends in the extra solar planetary community and in the Kuiper Belt science that friends of planetary radio are interested in. I always say, hmm, we on the cosmic microwave background front, we, with our cosmic telescopes, can detect planet nine potentially. Can you guys detect afterglow of inflation, perhaps, with your astronomical telescope? I like to chide those guys, you know. I had on Constantine Vatigian recently on the show on my podcast, and I gave, he's a fun guy.

He's a very delightful young man. Rock and roll. He is, yes, right. I got to get him on. We've got to have a live jam session someday. I'll play my iPhone while he plays the base. You have been chasing these primordial photons for so many years. And so much of what you've just described and that chase are at the core of this terrific book,

which we talked about up front. I'll mention it again, losing the Nobel Prize. And we'll talk a little bit about the Nobel in a few minutes. Why has this held such fascination for you for so long being able to answer this maybe most basic, maybe the first question about our universe that can be answered. Yeah, I've always been asked, why am I interested in cosmology? And I think the reason is because I think it's the biggest question you can ask. It really reflects upon what a human being is capable of conceiving, our origin, whether or not there was a single origin, whether there were multiple origins of multiple universes, whether multiple universes, exists simultaneously.

what's the nature of space and time itself? Did time itself have a beginning? And what are the implications for philosophy, for theology? As you know, I wrestle with these questions. I think about them as, you know, perhaps the most important questions besides whether or not the price of Bitcoin will go, no, I don't think about that very much. But whether or not a human being can answer these questions,

these used to be only the purview of philosophers and theologians. Now we can access them using telescopes. the tools of the scientific method are now useful in what was once purely philosophical and or theological pursuits. And that means we can have a dialogue. And to me, those kinds of dialogues, I say, you know, one of the catchphrases of my show is like debate, but do it with love. In other words, we can have comity. We can have comedy, but we can have comedy. We can get along and we can discuss the most grandiose in a good way subjects that the human brain can conceive of.

So, yes, I conceived a bicep in 2001. It's the 20th anniversary, along with the late great Andrew Lang and others at Caltech, where I was a postdoc before I came here, before I had a family, before I became a professor. It's been a long time. And only in the preceding 17 years that I've been at UCSD have I grown even more enamored with this type of science. Not only in the pursuit of measuring or detecting inflation or understanding that, because I think along the way I've come to realize, that there are other prizes and there are other mysteries that the CMB can reveal. It seems to be this like jackpot paying out slot machine in Vegas that, you know, it just keeps paying out, you know, Nobel Prize medallions potentially, though not necessarily being my main motivation anymore,

although it once was, as I admit, candidly, for me, the biggest prize is that we can understand the fundamental nature of how our universe is structured. And in so doing, we get a better utility and a better, efficient use of perhaps our greatest gift, which is our mind, and to understand how the universe is organized, I think that's perhaps our greatest, our greatest capacity as human beings. Well said, why is this proving to be so very, very difficult? So many recent attempts, some of them yours, Bicep 1, Bicep 2, which you were a key player, you conceived of, a space telescope called Plank, lots of other instruments. Why are we still looking for the answers? about the CMB and what it can tell us about inflation.

Yeah, I was talking, again, with folks that are searching for Planet 9. And a lot of the problem that they have with searching for Planet 9 is this inverse square law that you are undoubtedly familiar with and listeners in planetary range. That's why I'm holding the microphone so close to your mouth. It's the inverse square law. But it's actually you get that twice with or, you know, you get that squared when you're searching for a reflected light from a planet, right? So you have the inverse square law squared, which is like the inverse fourth law.

The exact same thing happens when you search for gravitational waves from the inflationary epoch if it occurred. So A, we don't know if inflation occurred. We believe there's just a lot of circumstantial evidence that inflation occurred, but it may not have. There are other competing alternatives to the inflationary epoch of cosmogenesis that the universe emerged from this quantum state before which we do not know what the universe was like and how the universe got into that quantum state we can only speculate. But nevertheless, inflation may not have occurred A, or B, it may have occurred but at such a low energy scale that will never detect sufficient gravitational wave energy. Second of all, the gravitational waves themselves,

if you like, are located at such great distances. And because energies in the cosmic background and in any type of photon or any type of radiation, they dilute as the red shift to the fourth power. So they actually dilute as this inverse fourth power, just like the light reflected from an extra solar from a planet in the outer Khyber belt or whatever, that also goes as the inverse distance to the fourth power. Great distances in cosmology also decrease as the inverse distance, if you like, distance being measured by redshift to the fourth power. If you like the number of photons, the density of how many photons or gravitons or gravitational

waves there are, those decrease as one over the cube of the volume or the radius or the volume. And then their wavelength gets stretched out or redshifted as well by one factor of this redshift. You get redshift to the fourth power. So it's incredibly hard to do that. Now, LIGO took 40 years, and it cost a billion, $200,000. I've had on Ray Weiss and Barry Barish on my podcast. They almost gave up, you know, the NSF almost pulled the plug many times on them.

They had on many great supporters and champions. They actually had to get lobbyists in Congress, basically, to keep it floating. It took them 40 years to measure something that's only, Matt, only 1,200 million, 200 million light years away. We're trying to measure something that's 4,000 megaparsecs away from us, if you will, the beginning of time, the origin of the cosmic microwave background. And so it's that ratio to the fourth power more challenging, if you will. For those reasons, it takes a long time to do what we're trying to do. And yet we think it's possible. But again, we have no guarantees in this game because inflation may not have happened at all.

And that's what makes it exciting. Because if inflation, if we do detect it, we rule out a vast landscape of other alternative mindscape of other alternative. that say there was no inflationary epoch. That's what excites me. When I was a kid and beginning to be fascinated by this stuff, the great steady state versus Big Bang debate was still very much underway. It is one of those debates which forms a portion of the spine, the backbone of your book, because you talk about the great debates. and there's so much of the history of our understanding of our own place in the universe in this. Talk about these.

If you wouldn't mind, behind you there are some manila envelopes. I want you to take those three little mena underneath Carl Sagan, the sock puppet of Carl Sagan. So that's your progenitor, right? Yes, there is. So you can hold up Carl Sagan to the camera. Here we go. There's our little founder. There's our little founder.

And then here we go. There's our co-founders. Carl. I've talked to Andurian and Sasha Sagan. Now those little envelopes underneath there, if you'll hold those up. These are plates. These are plates taken by the late great Margaret Burbage

at Lick Observatory, the University of California. I'm showing if those of you listening, you can find these on YouTube at Dr. Brian Keating. And these are plates. And these are plates taken by Margaret Burbage, and I'll hold them up, and you can see an enlargement on the wall

behind Matt over there. These are plates of distant galaxies. And these show galaxies as they were taken and imaged by Margaret and also analyzed by her husband, Jeff Furbens. So Jeff, whose office, this used to be. So I am privileged to have Jeff's office. This was taken before I was born, July 1971.

And she was very meticulous. She's one of the greatest scientists, not only astronomers, not only women astronomers, she's one of the greatest scientists in history. And I'm so... One of those women that you feel probably should have been considered for that prize. I speak about that in the book, exactly. We'll get to that.

and having the privilege to having known her, and just how detailed, how precise, how efficient she was, as an observer, as a scientist, and meticulous in her work. So Jeff went to his grave not really believing in the so-called Big Bang model. He believed until, essentially, his dying day, that the universe underwent a slow series of cycles, not full collapses into, you know, big crunches, and not full explosions as to Big Bangs.

He believed there was still overwhelming evidence and that the universe never experienced a big bang. And in fact, I talked to one of his greatest colleagues just a few months ago, giant Narla Kar, who is a giant. He is in Puna, India. And he was Fred Hoyle's graduate student. And Fred Hoyle was a man who coined the term Big Bang as a pejorative. Now, I don't know about your audience on Planetary Radio, but mine is, you know, PG-13 and up. So it was a pejorative for something that happens when parents make a child. We can handle that on planetary radio.

An orgiastic experience. And so he coined that in derisiveness to say that this was ridiculous, that the universe could have such a beginning. And so he maintains it to this day, Giant does. And I had this discussion with him in an interview. And it was actually held by many people, that the universe having an origin was ridiculous. In fact, Hoyle said that the reason that scientists,

such as Jim Peebles, who won the Nobel Prize in 2019 and others in the 1970, 60s, 70s and 80s, who became exponents of the Big Bang model, the reason that they believed it was because they were overwhelmed by the book of Genesis. Now, to me, that's laughable because most scientists nowadays are atheism, but he felt like they were overwhelmed by these religious. But again, there's that connection between what I do as a scientist and what we get normally from theologians. I challenge you to go down the hall where the condensed matter physicists work on superfluid helium and ask them, do you think about God? You know, does that? ever come up in your journal, you know, as like a journal criticism, like, it's too much God

in your super fluid helium equate. No, it never happens, right? Well, that's kind of fun that we get to work on these existential questions, isn't it? Absolutely. There's so much great stuff in the book, and some of these great characters. You've mentioned some of the names already. We just had Jim Gunn on Planetary Radio, and he talked about his respect for Peebles, and what a great astrophysicist he was. I have a Linda Schweitzer, who Jim refers to in the book. She wrote a book, Cosmic Odyssey. I'm hoping to have her.

I blurbed that book about Mount Palomar. Cosmic Odyssey. It's a terrific book. We had her on as well. Yes. You go back at least as far as Galileo, clearly one of your heroes. You have this great quote,

which I absolutely love, because it seems to be a lot of what you're about, as an experimentalist, as opposed to a theorist. The Venn diagram there, there's a lot of overlap, right? Here's that quote, measure what is measurable and make measurable what is not so. And it's the latter part of that phrase that I find so interesting because that seems to be behind so much of

this work. Yeah. Yeah. When you think about what is the limitation of a human being, we are only limited to our senses as human beings. We have five senses. But we actually have an infinity of possible senses. You know, we can sense magnetic fields. We can sense. We can sense polarization, but only through the application of our three-pound supercomputer on top of our shoulders, our brain, and that we transmit things. So I talk about sensors and sensibility, how we can augment reality for ourselves. And that, you know, Galileo used the telescope. Telescope means distance viewer. I mean, he didn't call it that. He called it a perspective tube. But he was able to use it to make arguments and to make scientific claims and deductions

from observations. And I feel that nowadays with my, with all love and do respect to my theoretically inclined colleagues and some of my best friends are theorists. You know, I think we've gotten a little bit too much in love with theory and kind of the wonder and magic of theory, so much so that actually I've had on guests like Leonard Malad now, who you know, I'm sure up in Caltech who wrote a book about Stephen Hawking. We've talked a lot about Stephen Hawking lately on my show. I came to note that he would do things like famously concede bets. So he'd make bets with Leonard Suskind and he'd make bets with Kip Thornton.

and then he'd always concede these bets. And the question is, why did he concede these bets? And you go through and there were bets about how does a black hole swallow or destroy information or how does the universe emerge in a, you know, is it a black hole or is there singularity? And he would always concede the bets on the basis of some calculation in string theory or its successor, which is called M theory. And those are extremely theoretical, you know, speculative things that rely on calculations in large extra dimensions.

there's zero evidence for that. There's zero evidence for wormholes. There's zero evidence even for a singularity, which is talked about with almost breathless abandoned by my colleagues. And even those like Michi Okaku, who I had on, and I pushed back on these theorists for basically saying things, as Stephen Hawking once said, every equation cuts your readership in half,

but every mention of God doubles your readership. So Michio, I said, you have this God equation. It's in the title. It must quadruple the book sales. and you end the book the same way that Stephen Hawking ended a brief history of time, that if we get this theory of everything, then we will finally know the mind of God. And I think that's really overselling it because, you know, having this one-inch equation, you know, et cetera, et cetera, that will win a Nobel Prize, do what Einstein didn't do,

it's really setting up this false dichotomy, that the goal of physics is to have compression and just have these tiny little equations and that presupposes the answer is string theory. when there are a lot of people that say that string theories actually led physics astray, and that actually it's taken out a generation of our best and brightest theorist. You got into this with Michi Okaku, which is an episode of your show that I can recommend, even though I couldn't follow much of it, but it's a fascinating, respectful, I think, argument. Yeah. Well, you know, I like to do a little bit of the high-level and not just Hey Geographic or Hey, Geographic, however you say it.

portrayal of, even with my guests, you know, it's always done debating with love and respect. But on the other hand, I'm not just here to say, you know, why are you so great and awesome? And, you know, you're just so wonderful, you know, because I think, I don't think the audience wants that. I think the audience wants to hear, you know, the pushback. I had on someone who's a proponent of intelligent design. And I said, you know what they're going to say. You know what my audience is going to say that this is claptrap nonsense, young earth creationism. You know, what do you say?

Listen, I got in trouble because I had Avi Lobon not too long ago and talking about Umuamua. I push back on him. I said, Avi, I don't believe that you believe what you're saying. And he's like, what are you talking about? And he's an Israeli. And I'm friendly with many Israelis. And their nickname, and I'm Jewish, just so that, you know, nobody takes it the wrong way. But the nickname for Israelis is Sabra, which is a cactus.

Okay. So my Israeli friends who I love, you know, they know that they're prickly, right? So, and I said, if you really believed it, you wouldn't be, you know, waiting until the Vera Rubin Telescope comes online. Vera Rubin, by the way, trained in this very building with Margaret Burbage, and she learned how to do galactic rotation curves. That's Vera Rubin, now the namesake of what used to be known as the W-first, the wide-field infrared space telescope. That's a Roman telescope. Oh, I'm sorry. You're right.

I got them backwards. I've done that before. Yes. These are Titanic women. This used to be the large-scale synoptic. Exactly. Exactly. 100% correct.

So Vera Rubin learned how to do those rotation curves and galaxy, just like that image behind you. She learned it from Jeff and Margaret, and she credits them. And this is some part of history of UCSD that I wish it was more celebrated, how Vera credits them with much of the success of giving her the encouragement and support that all astronomers, not just women, but especially back then women, needed to survive and thrive and, you know, and what would have happened if they didn't. So I just, I can't thank Margaret and Jeff enough. And, you know, he had his reputation as being a Sabra himself, you know, prickly pair himself.

But nevertheless, I pushed back on Avi getting back to Vera Rubin Telescope. He said, oh, we can just wait until the Viral Rubin Telescope comes along on line. And that's my Israeli accent impersonation. And I said, no, if you believe that with all your heart and all your might, you would send the spacecraft that you're sending a CubeSat to go chase after O'Muamua right now. Because you know as well as I do that these things that you calculate to have, you know, a chance of one in a thousand. One in a thousand things sometimes occur one in a trillion times.

In other words, this might be the only chance you get. And you happen to have access to Yuri Milner, who's the breakthrough prize man, who's funding this $100 million star shot prize. Why don't you go after that with all your heart and all your resource? He said, no, we're going to detect so many of them. So I said, if I were that and I was screaming from the rooftops and nobody believed me, instead of going on Joe Rogan on 60 minutes, I would be doing that. So anyway, we a scientist, we often, it's easy in some way to produce a theory.

It's hard to produce a good theory. It's very hard to produce a good theory. And so competitors to string theory and God equations and so forth are a few and far between, there are some. But I want to push back and not just accept this orthodoxy that we should put all of our money there and all of our resource. Because there is a finite amount of time resources. And the most precious resource of all are the young people that are working in this building and others. And we have to be good stewards of their time.

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 oceanfront 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. Do you remember the Arthur Eddington quote that you put in losing the Nobel Prize? It's a great quote. Never trust. an experiment until a theory has supported. I'm going to go in a related but slightly different direction. Throughout all of this, there are telescopes at the base.

It doesn't really matter what kind of photons they're looking for, what wavelength, what frequency, they're all telescopes. And so we go back to your hero Galileo. And you say in the book that you believe that the telescope was the greatest boon to science in the history of human. kind, and certainly in the history of scientific inquiry. I'm wondering if maybe you would go beyond that and put the telescope up there with, you know, the wheel, fire, the chocolate chip cookie.

Yeah, the donut. Let's take all these circular things, you know. Let's add some topological structure to them. Yeah, and actually it goes so far, Matt, and I've said, you know, I'm a doctor, right? And I say it's a prescription that you are a negligent parent if you do not get your kid, a $50 telescope. I do believe that. I actually say, no matter where you are, and I said this, Daniel deGrasse Tyson, you know,

another name drop. He was on the show. And I said, even from Manhattan, he had a small telescope in the Bronx growing up as a kid. And it was impossible for me and him to think of his life turning out the way it did without a small telescope. Now, with that small telescope, you can still see exactly the same craters that Galileo saw over Padua and over northern Italy 411 years ago. You can say the same phases of the moon, the same phases of Venus, which started to make no

sense to people back then. Why does Venus act like it's a little tiny mini moon? You can see the ears and lobes of Saturn that Galileo encrypted because he didn't want to reveal that Saturn was threefold. And so he wrote it in an acrostic, which I pointed out to Constantine Batesgen, that professor at Caltech, and he was like, yeah, we still write our, we write our papers nowadays in anagrams. Can you imagine writing a scientific paper and encrypting it so that nobody could understand it, but then doing it so that you'd have priority in case it turned out to be true. I mean, it's just amazing how science has changed and not change in some ways in the past 400 years. But a small telescope can change a child's life and it changed my life as a 12-year-old kid.

Me too. Yeah. And it's $50. I mean, if you can't afford $50, you know, hopefully, but it can launch a lifetime interest. And from any city, wherever you're listening to this on the planet, you can understand and unlock potentially a career. and try that with a small particle accelerator. Actually, Michiokaku talks about building a small particle accelerator and basically blowing out every circuit in his parents' house.

So don't try that at home. Even with a microscope, it's kind of hard, even for me to use a microscope. I'm like, what do you look at? You see some pond scum or something. It's not as thrilling. And looking up at almost any night of the year, you'll see something. As long as it's clear, you can unlock this kind of latent passion that all human beings feel. And so, yes, I agree with you.

I should have been more bold and say it's one of the greatest inventions of all time. Not to scientific. But it is that magical moment when you're 10 or 12 or whatever, and you first see Saturn through that scope. And much closer than you've ever done before, those beautiful craters on the moon. It really is overwhelming. And then, of course, the nebula, when you get a little bit further out there, and we look at beautiful photographic images of nebula,

which are made beautiful in part, in large part, by something that also gets in the way. And so you can guess maybe where I'm going now. Have you read Philip Pullman's trilogy of novels called His Dark Materials? No, I haven't. You should. In addition to being it set in a multiverse, there is a mysterious material at the center of the story called Dust.

And so your books, you have this important, very important factor in common. And I won't go into how Pullman makes use of it or the trouble it causes. Why is it so central in not just in your book because it is throughout the book, but also in the research you've done across all these years. Yeah. So I used to read these hardcover books and I've got a copy of mine over there. First thing I would do is I was just like take off the dust jacket. And I was like, why do I need like a dust jacket?

Like how much dust is raining down on books that so much so that you need a dust jacket? And it always gets in the way and it falls off. And yeah, you can use it to mark a page, I suppose. But a bookmark does a better job. And so it always annoyed me these dust jackets. Actually, it turns out, the publisher told me that the dust jacket, if a book is missing its dust jacket, it's worth like 10% of what the original book would be worth. Now I realize that the dust jacket is kind of like the prologue, because where else do you get a copy of an actual physical specimen of the villain of a book?

the villain of losing the Nobel Prize in some sense is dust, at least so I thought, because dust is actually this vital substance. And in fact, actually, there's a book by Christian Deuve, who's a Nobel Prize winning chemist, who wrote a book called Vital Dust. And it's all about kind of this connection

between how this inanimate object, this chemical compound, this iron, these chemicals. I'm holding up for those of you who are just listening. You can see it on my YouTube channel. What have you got in these little plastic containers? meteorites. These are chunks of presumably a type 2 supernova that exploded in our galaxy, perhaps 5 billion years ago, relatively close in proximity to where our sun is now.

So is that iron nickel? This is iron and nickel. It's highly magnetized. And these fragments, much, much smaller than these, can become aligned in the magnetic field that also suffuses the Milky Way galaxy. So here are some very powerful neodymium magnets. And so this whole thing, it can actually go through plastic, it can go through anything, any dielectric medium. And they're incredibly strong, so this is yours to keep with every interview that you do for me here. Oh, seriously. Because I do have a collection, so thank you very much. This is from the Camp of DeCiello, Field of the Stars in Argentina.

And it's fitting because these items can get aligned in the Milky Way Galaxy, and they're at some temperature above absolute zero. In fact, there are tens of degrees hotter than the CMB itself, the signals that we're looking for, and anything that has a temperature above a temperature of another blackbody will emit even more. microwaves, which will then be aligned because of the magnetic field and the magnetic moment of these little tiny magnets floating around in space, courtesy of the supernova that blew up, five billion years ago that provided the source material that made up our sun and the core of the earth and the iron in the hemoglobin molecule in our blood. That's so striking to me because without it,

we wouldn't be here having this conversation. It's sort of treasure and it's sort of trash in the way. It gets in the way, but it's vital to our existence. and it kind of illuminates this phenomenon in science, which is that there is nothing that's not essential. In my office here, I've got a poster of the periodic table of the elements. Many of those that were only discovered in the last hundred years or so, and which one of those could we do without? How do we know which ones of those are inessential to our existence?

Similar when you look at the Hubble Deepfield, which one of those galaxies could we remove? I mean, friends of mine like Sean Carroll say they're totally irrelevant. We don't need them. 100 years ago, we thought, well, there was just a proton and an electron maybe and nothing more. And now we know there's so much more richness. And then going in the opposite direction. There could be strings.

There could be not strings. There could be something deeper. We don't understand. We don't know yet. And that's part of the great mystery. So the thing that really appeals to me and that I kind of have come to a greater appreciation is this great quote by your co-founder of Carl Sagan, the pale blue dot, that the earth is nothing but this giant or minuscule. mode of dust floating on a sunbeam around an average ordinary star in a galaxy that's really suffused with dust and a nebula, as you say, as well. And these are things that transfixed

my great hero Galileo and continue to entranced me to this very day. And it must have started early because I read in your book that your favorite Peanuts character was... A pig pen, that's right. The guy who carried a dust cloud with him. That's right. He's a one-man-walking nebula. And yet that dust certainly got in the way of the success of that marvelous instrument that you contributed so much to, Bicep 2. And it does seem, though, that your appreciation for it has evolved since it maybe snatched the Nobel Prize away from you and collaborators. Yeah. Yeah. I think, you know, one of the questions I got asked the most is, like, well, how are, what have you learned from that experience? Because if you don't learn, you know, I always say if you

don't learn from these experiences, then I am just a loser, right? So if I just had this experience, nothing much comes from it, then yeah, you're just a loser and you're just doomed to never really benefit from, you know, as I think it was Admiral Rickover said, you must learn from the wisdom of others, from the mistakes of others, because you won't live long enough to make them all yourself. And he was the father of the nuclear navy. And so from the perspective of what lessons do we take away, I think the most prominent one that I speak about more often now is that you have to be humble as not Gandhi, but as Gandhi said, not Galileo, you have to be humbler than the dust to seek out truth. You have to humble yourself that even though the world crushes dust under its feet,

you must feel like the dust could crush you. And I take that to mean we should measure the dust as well as we try to measure the cosmic background radiation. And in so doing, we can measure both. microwave background, the signal that represents perhaps our cosmic origins, this cosmic fluctuation from inflation, perhaps, if inflation took place or some other mode of origin of the universe, plus the dust signal. And then we measure a signal that only is sensitive to dust. And then from, we subtract the only dust signal from the cosmic signal plus the dust. And what should be left is a slightly more noisy signal that contains purely cosmic information. And isn't this exactly what you're hoping to do at the Simon's Observatory?

Exactly what we're doing at the Simon's Observatory. And my friends and former colleagues on Bicep have a new experiment called the Bicep Array. And they're doing the same thing at the South Pole, which gives me an idea for a new book, which I'm going to call, I'm no longer involved with the Bicep Team. I'm friends with them and I wish them well in the Bicep Array. And they're doing the exact same strategy and we're friendly competitors again and sort of going after it. and my next book is going to be called a farewell to arms. I don't know if it's taken.

Tell me, Matt, you're more well-read-old. Yeah, well, I'll do a Google search. Going back to the Simon's Observatory, and I am easing into talking about your critique of the Nobel Prize here, at least the Nobel Prize for Physics, in the Simon's Observatory, it is this grand collaboration, brought together by your mentor, Dr. Simon himself, right? Because he was the one who said, why don't you guys work together? Did you say that it now

involves something like 300 researchers? Yeah, we have approximately, you know, something like 250 researchers. I haven't met all of them. Some of them at the current moment are, you know, in Antarctica, although I've met those, but there are people on all seven continents, literally, that are contributing to this massive project. And of course, it'll be located in Chile and our real push is to get it deployed as soon as the country opens and recovers from COVID and our various countries recover from COVID. Each one has different policies and different vaccine rollouts, etc. It's a worldwide effort and most ambitious of its kind and it's a $100 million class experiment. It's just phenomenal. And you could learn more about it in the book and also on the

website for the Simon's Observatory and we'll provide links to all of this, of course, on this week's episode page at planetary.org slash radio. Let's say that, you are able using these instruments at the Simon's Observatory to thread your way through the dust and all the other noise out there. And what's left is this tantalizing signal that says the universe began with a bang and went through this period of beyond belief inflation. Would that not be a Nobel-worthy discovery? and who gets the prize since there are over 250 of you, but only three people get to have a prize.

Well, you know, I've been thinking about that a lot. And since the book was written, a lot has changed with the Nobel Prize. You know, before the Nobel Prize, losing the Nobel Prize was written. Only two women had won the Nobel Prize in physics, one of whom was here, Marie Gepard-Mayer and Marie-Gerrieuhrie. Maria-Gepard-Mayer was here at UC San Diego, and she won, fun fact, her son, Joseph, mayor told me of the San Diego Union Tribune or San Diego Evening Tribune wrote San Diego Housewife wins Nobel Prize. And everybody laughed when I show the picture of the Union, you know, the actual front page of the Union Tribune. I have a cover of image of that. And they say,

you know, that would never happen now. Two, three years ago, Francis Arnold, who is the widow of my late advisor, Andrew Lang, she won the Nobel Prize and her son works at JPL. And the JPL website said JPL technicians, mother wins the Nobel Prize in chemistry. This is in 2018. So little has changed. But I'm happy to say that just as last year, Andrea Gez, at UCLA, won the Nobel Prize in physics. And in 2018, Donna Strickland won the Nobel Prize as well.

So it's doubled. Since losing the Nobel Prize came out, the number of women has doubled. I've also interviewed nine Nobel Prize winners on my show. And one of them, who I've interviewed in person, actually left his Nobel Prize. I have it over there. I'll show it. don't, I don't have, but I say, you know, people say, oh, you're just a hypocrite, key thing,

you just, you know, you wouldn't turn it down. I said, well, if you want to find out if I'm hypocrite, you know, once we, if we detect what we're seeking to detect, then I will be faced, you know, with reality. If I'm a hypocrite, I won't, I'll accept the Nobel Prize. No, I, I don't think that would make you a hypocrite, frankly. I would, I would take it and bow. Yeah, I think, you know, I've come to revelation that we all have sort of things that we worship, for lack of a better word. Are things that we revere. Let me make it a little less religiously overtone, things that we really look up to and kind of uncritically accept some people that is literally religion. And I known that because I practice religion. I've practiced many religions in my life,

as you'll read from Alter Boy in the Catholic Church, which I loved, to atheists, practicing devout atheists, to being connected again with Judaism. But the point that I believe, and some people are committed to veganism or, you know, environmentalism, and that's great. But when we look to science and scientists specifically, it could be dangerous when you look to them for expertise outside of their domain of their particular domain of expertise. It's fine for them to have such domain expertise, and it's fine for them to opine on it. But we shouldn't actually put extra weight onto what they say. You know, as I pointed in the book, there are many egregious examples of people who won the Nobel Prize, shock, William Shockley was a particularly despicable human being, even though he won the Nobel Prize,

he advocated for eugenics of African Americans, despicable. I just think we put a lot of emphasis on the winners, and they'll even admit to me that the next day, they really go back and they just try to go back to work, and they can't because they get so much attention and everybody seems to care what they say so much. And I think the best ones really almost sort of shun it. And I've become more and more interested in learning. I have a new book coming out in the fall called Think Like a Nobel Prize winner, where the aim is to really distill and take you back to the moment where they did the work.

Not to what happened afterwards. It's kind of the veneration. But to like what are the commonalities? What are the mindsets? What are the tactics and the tricks and the tips that will get a person and everyday person, not just like a scientist? It's for a car salesman in Omaha. That was my avatar when I was writing.

the book. You know, what can he or she get out of the book to see things in a way of collaboration, of communication, of thought processes? These are things I think I want people to take away from that book. And I think I wouldn't have written it if I didn't feel like there was something worthy of the Nobel Prize, but also that there's, you know, that you have to kind of check the biases that we all have to venerate things a little bit too substantially. Let me stop you there. And yeah, of course, you don't call for the Nobel Prize for physics to be done away with. I don't know. You obviously have some respect for what Alfred intended for it.

In fact, you'd like to see a return to at least what he left open. You talk about the three broken lenses. What are they? Yeah. The Nobel Prize will. When I was asked to nominate the winners of what would become the 2016 Nobel Prize in physics, I went back as a scholar should, I believed, to Alfred Nobel's. last will and testament. He was a bachelor, he had no kids, no wife, and he left all of his

material remains in a, and effectively what's known as an ethical will as well as a material will. So the ethical component of the will was that the money should be used to provide monetary reward to scientists, physicists who had conferred the greatest benefit to mankind. It should go to one single person, and that should go in the preceding year to the person who had created the greatest benefit in the preceding year. And I went back and I said, how many single people have won the Nobel Prize, first of all? I couldn't think of any in the preceding couple of decades since, you know, I was asked to make the nomination. I also couldn't think of anyone who had won it for something they did last year, the previous year. In fact,

it seemed to be like five years. It was the shortest period of time that had elapsed between award and discovery. And I had never seen them cite it as a benefit to mankind. And so I went back, What was the first Nobel Prize in physics? It was for the X-ray machine by Renkin. And that was actually conferred basically the year after, you know, it was for the discovery was made. And then Alfred died the next year. And it was clear to me that's sort of what he was thinking.

Something that conferred instantaneous benefit to mankind. Now they changed the will. They actually changed his will to say that it could go to multiple people and it could be for decades old research. And they don't mention having any benefit to mankind. on a daily basis or otherwise. And I say in the book, you know, if the Higgs boson really has a daily impact on you,

you should consult a psychiatrist. I mean, it might be really cool, or you might be a particle theorist or a string theorist, you know, in which case you're probably okay. So what is it? Is it meant to reward, you know, just sheer brilliance? Is it meant to reward, like, engineering triumphs? Like, it was awarded for the construction of the lighthouse in 1912,

even though Einstein had come up with the theory of special relativity and hadn't won the award in, you know, that he had done that 1905. didn't win the award until 1921, didn't receive it until 1920, and didn't get it for relativity, right? For relativity, right. Because that was considered to be Jewish physics. That was considered to be theoretical physics. And that wasn't worthy of the prize, which typically went to Aryan science, which is experimental science.

So you want it for the photoelectric effect and Brownian motion. So for many reasons, I think that the prize is punishing collaboration. It should go all the Nobel laureates that I've interviewed on the Into the Impossible podcast. to a single man. Unfortunately, I've asked, you know, all the women who are currently alive in chemistry and physics who have won it and they've been unable or not, you know, they just don't do interviews. Anyway, they've said that that is the number one thing that they would change. That should go to groups.

That's unfair. And not that they turn it down as almost all the other prizes have had people turn it down, like the literature prize turned it down, the Peace Prize, obviously, many people have turned it down. So it's curious to me, you get to, as Barry Barish told me, and it really raised the hair on the back of my neck when he said it in a good way. You know, he said when he accepted the prize, they ask you when you go to Stockholm. You have to sign this logbook testifying that you received your medal. And when he did that, he just, you know, he's curious.

He looked back in the book. He said, I don't know, who signed this before? He saw Feynman's name and his signature and big ink. And he saw Einstein. And he was like, I don't feel worthy. Because I asked him, I was like, do you ever feel the, and he, He's like, I never felt the imposter syndrome so strongly as I did that. Because I always asked my guest, even if they won Nobel Prize, is do you feel the

imposter syndrome? He said, I still do to this day. And I was like, because I asked him, did you ever feel it like previously in your career? He's like, no, I feel it even more so now. And I'm like, I think that's good. And I talk about that and think like a Nobel Prize winner. Because if they can feel it, how about me? How about you?

How about an ordinary person? A beginning graduate student. She's starting out. They might feel like they're nobody. but Einstein wasn't always Einstein. He probably looked at Isaac Newton like that. Newton probably looked at Galileo like that. Galileo probably looked at Cabrini, you know, whatever.

We all can have that sense, but what if you stopped? Then Einstein wouldn't have been Einstein. And Barish wouldn't have been Barish. So those are the takeaways I hope people get from it. But I think there are systemic changes that need to take place. And I think it would only benefit the Nobel Prize Committee. So I'm here, guys. You know, I know I printed up the confidential letter that you asked me not to print up.

but I'm here for you, reach out. And it is done in good faith to hopefully argue for the betterment and restoration of the glory that I think it could have to benefit all mankind. There's just one more piece of the argument that you make that I want to bring up. And that is, as you talk about these shoulders of giants that all of you have stood on, generation after generation, the generations to come, the young scientists out there, your graduate students and postdocs, how the Nobel, at least in physics and maybe in other areas, may stand in the way of, as it's currently constructed, may stand in the way of giving these new young scientists as much opportunity as they might have otherwise. Yeah. So I was mentored in graduate school by a Russian scientist who himself was mentored by a great Russian scientist named Yaakov Zeldovich, who was in part mentored by Andrei Sakharov, who won the Peace Prize, great Soviet dissident, co-father of the Soviet Atomic Program, for which he suffered as well. And my friend Alex Polnerov, who's at Queen Mary College in London, he used to teach me that the word scientist, in Russian language means someone who is taught. It means a person who is educated.

To me, that comes with many meanings. It's a very rich kind of concept. We don't really have that. Scientist in English just means someone who practices science, and the word science just means knowledge, not wisdom, not like practice. It just means knowledge. But to me, to someone who was taught

and like an educated person, it connotes a lot. One thing it connotes is that you have an obligation to teach other people. And so to me, to be a professor is an awesome, awesome responsibility. it's also responsibility in another sense. You know, we have our beloved Padres here. And it used to be around this time of year, you know, we'd already be mathematically eliminated,

you know, thank God or thank Tatis, maybe. By the way, international listeners, he's talking about the San Diego Padres, our local baseball team, soon to be world champions. But, you know, we used to be mathematically eliminated around the 1st of May. But now we're, you know, we've got a chance. And by the way, I used to say the easiest job in the world, San Diego meteorologist, hardest job, San Diego Sportscaster. For those of you, we've never won an international championship.

But we do have awesome weather and awesome universities and awesome podcasts. Awesome science fiction writers as well. As well, yes. We may get back to that. Yes, I hope we will. So with that comes a responsibility. So imagine we have a AAA baseball team. The Padres have a AAA baseball team, El Paso maybe.

We have one in the Northport. Anyway, most Major League baseball teams, they have a farm team, a farm system, single A, AAA, AA, and imagine if it was like really easy to get into AAA baseball, like so easy that even me, I could get into it. That's not the case. It's very hard to play AAA baseball. You almost have to be as good. In fact, sometimes when a Major League baseball player is injured, you know, he has to go now to AAA baseball. That's how good it is.

But in academia, to be a professor, the analog of AAA baseball is what's called a post. doctoral scholar. Somebody who's doing research and proving that he or she is capable of being an independent research group leader that he or she can get research grants, can mentor students, can be on committees, can give international conference talks, write papers independently. And then once they've kind of done that, then they go on a faculty, you know, kind of tour, and then hopefully they get a faculty job. Right now, the ratio of job applicants to positions is about 400 to 1. So I'll be on job application review committees. We'll have 400 applications for one job. I've had my postdocs go on year after year. And these are some of the greatest, most brilliant

people. They'll get off, sometimes they even get offers. And then they can't, you know, because of COVID or whatever, because of cutbacks. There are more people that play in the NBA or in the major league baseball, just keep it in that analogy than do what I do. So is it fair? Is it right for me to keep encouraging, you know, these people to, you know, oh, keep following your dreams. Like, that's an awesome responsibility. I think about that a lot. And is part of it dictated by the Nobel Prize? Yeah, it sure is how it is. Because the Nobel Prize determines in large part what funding decisions are made at the highest levels. And if you go to any of the major funding agencies, the National Science Foundation, Department of Energy, NIH, you'll often see, you know,

award, CRISPR, award for LIGO, a 40-year breakthrough, award for cosmic background, whatever. We list our awards, we list our prize winners, and it is a fundamental fact that a lot of research funding, which then flows down to faculty jobs, which then has downstream effects on recruitment, and has a huge effect. So the question, you know, is it only? No, it's not only because of the Nobel Prize, but it's something that we have to take much more seriously and have an honest conversation. I think that our budget is so underfunded that physics and fundamental physics, the type that I do and the type that my colleagues do, is so

underfunded that it's almost like we're really, really like almost committing national suicide in some sense. The technology that we could have, we could be an interplanetary species. We could be doing interplanetary radio only for want of education, which could be made free. and available and technology and laboratories. And it's really only for want of spending. Like we could 10x our budget very easily and we could make use of these people. It's not for lack of silicon chips, say,

or rocket fuel that Elon Musk is not getting to Mars right now. It's for lack of people. It's for lack of engineers. It's for lack of intellectual account. He can't hire people fast enough. And why can't you hire people? They're not in the pipeline. Why aren't they in the pipeline?

because we don't have enough teachers training them. Why don't we have enough teachers training them? Partially because tuition, college is too expensive. And I'm speaking as a college teacher. So one of my projects is to figure out, how can I make myself replaceable? How can I replace Brian Keating? Would you rather learn, you know, relativity from me or from Einstein? Would you rather learn balls rolling down in climbed plains from me or Galileo?

So I've started a project to take Galileo's words in my spare time. Me and Carlo Rovelli and other physicists or have a project to take, to make the first ever audio book of Galileo's writings. So we're taking the dialogue on two world systems, a book that got Galileo into a little bit of trouble, as you may recall, with the Pope in 1632 and 1634. And we're taking that book read by two Italians and by yours truly, and we're narrating it. It's going to be an audible in all audio forms. And the three characters were having a conversation, a dialogue. And it's just amazing that this book had never been translated before. And it turns out the definitive translation is owned by the University of California Press.

So I got the rights to it. And Carlo Rovelli, one of the greatest expositors of physics, living today, happens to be Italian. We're going to get Fabiola Giannati, who's a spokesperson at CERN, and Jim Gates, who's at Brown University, my alma mater, and Frank Wilcheck. He's going to read the forward by Einstein. And Fabiola is going to read the forward by Galileo. So we're going to make this a really fun affair. We're not doing it for profit at all. we're not going to make any money, but it's going to be a lot of fun.

And then, Matt, once we have the words and the audio and we have the text, then we can put it into an artificial intelligence engine, and then you're going to be able to sit down with Galileo with this one million word document and say, Galileo, what do you think about quantum computing? And he'll say, oh, what is that, Matt? And you'll say, well, there are these things called, you know, quantum mechanical states. What's that? And then you go through and eventually we'll be able to train him and teach him the shorteninger

equation, teaching about cubits, and then we'll see, does he become aware? And then can he, can he learn and can he teach? And I'm just fascinating to see where it goes. I think AI and this kind of augmented reality education, I think that's potentially going to be in the end of in person, you know, only in person education. I think we're always going to have some in person education where, you know, a guy like me or gal like, you know, my colleagues are scratching a rock on another rock and making symbols on the wall. But, but they'll always be that. But there's going to be a lot more with our computational silicon friends, another kind of rock is going to help our education really get to help us

to the point of being interplanetary species. Talk about return on investment. If you haven't read it, and of course he's another Triton, UCSD graduate, Kim Stanley Robinson's Galileo's dream, which is a lot of fun. You're a teacher. You love it. You're going to be off in moments here, minutes, to teach a class on a cosmology course,

writer of popular books, bringing Galileo to the masses, doing a podcast into The Impossible. You care deeply about what we know as EPO, education and public outreach. Talk a little bit about why that is so important to you and also how the Clark Center, the Arthur C. Clark Center for Human Imagination

enters into all of this. Yeah, so it started, about 10 years ago, eight years ago, Eric Viery and I and others, Patrick Coleman. And we started to put in a proposal to the Clark Foundation. We got selected. And we started to bring in great thinkers, writers, scientists, science fiction authors, artists, poets, etc.

And we started to get these brilliant speakers here. And it was like a one-time thing. And I started to think, well, this isn't really fair. A, you know, we're a public-serving institution. And maybe we can record these things. and maybe we can start a podcast that kind of sounded like fun. I saw how much fun you're having. And so we started what I think is UCSD's first podcast.

It might be, I know there's one other one in the med school, but there aren't many. And I think by downloads, we might be the most popular one in the whole UC system. So I'm quite proud of that. And I said, well, let's not make it a one-time thing. Let's preserve these in digital amber and video and audio forever. And it's only grown during the pandemic. The only benefit of the pandemic is that I can get access to people I never would have had access to, like these nine Nobel laureates, Andy Weir, who I had on, and I took great inspiration

from your awesome interview with him. I revealed a spoiler, you know, right before I said, I know that you had this conversation with my Kaplan, so I'm not revealing too many spoilers, but listen, you know, Darth Vader is Luke Skywalker's father. I just have to get it out of the way. Oh, what a shape. We are so sorry, listeners. Sorry, guys. Sorry out there. But, so we had these great conversations. But my fundamental, you know, kind of mission statement is that I believe that publicly funded scientists such as myself who's been funded since I was a grad student by NASA, by National Science Foundation Fellowships, by the University of California, I believe I have a moral obligation. You know, they say that a scientist who's outgoing,

you can tell that he's outgoing because he looks at your shoes when he talks to you. And I believe that I've gotten such incredible conversations and captured moments. For example, with Andy Weir, He and I got very deep in the conversation. I now have these legacy conversations with people that changed my view on what it means to be a scientist, to be a mentor. And I think it is my moral obligation to capture those forever. You have other things going on in your life, but I bet that you share that sense of gratitude for being able to talk to the people that we get to talk to. And I'm going to include this conversation as well. Yeah, I really do appreciate it.

And for me, you know, I think about sometimes there are conversations I have to have and then there are conversations I want to have. You know, I did a special series on race and stuff last summer during the Black Lives Matter movement, you know, protests, et cetera. To have these conversations in a topical framework, you know, have honest conversations. Neil DeGrasse Tyson and I talked openly about race during our conversation. I think these are important conversations. They shouldn't be taboo. And these are conversations I want to.

have. I used to think, Matt, an astronomer, this great job. I'll be on telescopes all the time. Nope, I'm on telecons all the time. Well, that's what you get for being an experimentalist and the director of a huge new observatory, 17,000 feet up in the Atacama Desert, and so much more. I am very grateful for this conversation. Brian, it has been a delight, and I'm sorry that there was that long interlellan between the tour and this, but very thankful for sitting down with you on your couch in this room that has its own wonderful history and physics and cosmology. Yeah, you said, you said let's take a little break. It lasted over a year. So I'm glad I didn't let you take any breaks this time, Matt. Hey, I almost finished without asking you because we're not strangers to poetry on planetary radio.

You have near the end of your book, losing the Nobel Prize, your own contribution. If you would, please read it to us. This is called Conscious Star Stuff, and it's kind of in praise of the unsung hero of the cosmos, namely dust. This is so self-indulgent, man. I asked for it. All right, fine. Dust grains are mysterious things attached to your toddler. They surely bring grime and grunge and rooms unkempt signs of love.

life well spent. From a star's nursery, dust arose, only to be belched out in its death throws. Through space we sail on a cosmic moat, trying to read the first prologue ever wrote, tracked by shoes into the cellar, and riding upon winds interstellar. Dust allows a fleeting existence, but it pays to scrub it with persistence. Dust covers playgrounds filled with laughter, and accompanies the sarcophagus to the hereafter. We were warned long ago from the mount, for thine own dust thou shalt account. Supernova slag flows through our veins.

Dust causes worlds to wax and wane. Iron filings, pyroxene whiskers, silicate shavings, squelch, Nobel whispers. It can't be emphasized enough. The dust is us. Cosmic Star Stuff. Bravo. Thank you, Brian. With an homage to this man, Carl Sagan. You miss him.

Brian Keating of UC San Diego directs the Simon's Observatory, hosts Into the Impossible, and wrote Losing the Nobel Prize. Planetary Radio is produced by the Planetary Society in Pasadena, California, and is made possible by its prize-worthy members No trip to Sweden required, just go to planetary.org slash join. Mark Hilverdez, our associate producer, Josh Doyle, composed our theme, which is arranged and performed by Peter Schlosser at Astra. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguable from magic.

Thanks for listening to End of the Impossible with Professor Brian Keating. Please support the show by rating, commenting, sharing, and leaving reviews. We appreciate hearing from you, and it really helps keep our universe expand. watching our YouTube channel at Dr. Brian Keating. That's DR. Brian Keating and join our premieres Tuesdays at 8 a.m. Pacific Time. Follow Brian on Twitter and Medium and support us on Patreon at Dr. Brian Keating. For exclusive content, visit Brian Keating's website and sign up for his informative newsletter at briankeating.com. Into the Impossible is produced with the Arthur C. Clark Center for Human Imagination in the Division of Physical Sciences at the University of California, San Diego. Produced by Stuart Volko and Brian Keating.

All. 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 Yamava'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. Only at Yamava, celebrating its 40th anniversary. You win? 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.

Thank you.