Into the Impossible With Brian Keating - Dr. Brian Keating On UFOs | Drinkin' Bros Podcast

Episode Date: February 28, 2025

Dr. Brian Keating joins the Drinkin' Bros Podcast with hosts Ross Patterson and Dan Hollaway for an engaging discussion on the cosmos! The trio explores whether a Big Bang truly started the universe, revealing insights into the latest advancements from the James Webb telescope. The conversation takes a curious turn into the recent UFO/UAP phenomena with Dr. Keating sharing his thoughts on the skepticism surrounding UFO sightings and the possibility of alien visits. Join Dr. Brian Keating as he unravels the cosmos with wit and wisdom! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This episode is brought to you by Netflix. Most valuable promotions in Netflix are hosting a blockbuster triple headliner Saturday, May 16th. Rhonda Rousey returns to face fellow woman's MMA pioneer Gina Carano in the main event. Plus co-main's Nate Diaz versus Mike Perry. And the best heavyweight in the world, Francis Ngano versus Felipe Lenz. Watch Rhonda Rousey versus Gina Carrano, live only on Netflix. Saturday, May 16th at 9 p.m. Eastern Center time, 6 p.m. Pacific time. Welcome to Drinking Bros.

Presented by Ghostbent.com. Yeah, welcome to Drinking Bros. Kids. Got an oldie but a goodie on the show. One of our faves. A real fucking smarty pants is on the show today. Brian Keating's here. Brian, how are you, Brian? Good to be back with the brothers.

Look at you, the brothers. You even said it like New Jack City, dude. well he's got street accent coming through do you have street cred or is it what is it in space what do you call that is it space cred multi-verse cred yeah

we look at that yeah you know to be the to be the you know most most street cred legit professor is not the big biggest flex in the world no I don't know man I think it might be that might be that dude from

Columbia that was like yeah I just kind of casually do heroin from time to time oh yeah sorry sorry what yeah that guy rocked What did you say? Brian, you doing heroin from time to time just to keep the senses alert? No, well, no needle drugs. You know, I got to keep it clean.

You know, my boss, good old Gavin is going to check on me. Yeah, no needles. I like that policy. Gavin with that haircut, he's definitely on the booger sugar, though. Oh, yeah. Oh, Newsom? Never stopped it. Yeah, hasn't ever.

Is Newsome your boss, really? Well, he's a public employee. He's governor, yeah. He's the ultimate boss of the university. of California system where I work. Wow, that's not good. Shit. What are you working on these days?

Well, you know, we're working on understanding the age of the universe, whether there was a big bang, whether the universe will last forever, and also whether or not we're alone in the universe. These are the, you know, really biggest topics you could ever study, and we're not that much closer, but every day we make a little bit of progress. So we built the telescope in the last four years, an observatory called. the Simon's Observatory in Chile at about 17,000 feet, got about $200 million invested in that, and that just turned on, you know, in the last few weeks.

So we're hoping to get some data in this coming year in 2025. And that data will hopefully really change the way we look at whether there was an origin of our universe, whether the universe has always been here, and whether the universe is going to come to an end and, you know, when we can stop paying taxes. Now, when you say come to an end, there's big crunch and big freeze. Are we still doing that? Or is there some other theory? Yeah, there's a couple different scenarios for the end of the universe.

So, you know, there's a couple scenarios for the beginning of the universe, too. The challenges with these things are they hidden? Are they permissible to be known by the laws of physics, by the laws of observation? You know, I can't see you guys, even if I had a super powerful telescope here because the horizon, you know, fades away, curves away, despite what the flare-fers might believe, there is a curved horizon. But I can infer that you're here. There are many ways I could gather information about you.

But there are certain things called event horizons that may preclude us from ever knowing what the truth is about the actual origin point of the universe itself. And for that reason, it's both shrouded in mystery and shrouded sometimes in a lot of bullshit because it's very easy to make a prediction

about something that can't be observed. right? Because you can't be proven wrong. And so I think that's the challenge of being a scientist nowadays is kind of avoiding hype and really looking at the legit things that we can say. And when we can't know something, say we don't know or we can't know. And don't be afraid to do that. And I think a lot of my colleagues, unfortunately, are not used to admitting that they don't know something. And so it puts us in this position of a lot of proliferation of hype, so to speak.

We had Mitch Yokaku on the show, a big fan of him, obviously. Yeah, speaking of hypes. And he's older. He's an older gentleman. And, you know, he's interested in the same theories and answers and questions that you have. Does it worry you at all that you'll never, ever get the answers you're actually seeking and that you'll die before you'll get the answers that you've been working every single minute of your life on? Well, shit.

It didn't until now. Yeah. should. It should. It freaks me the fuck out, man. It does. My gluck. Yeah. Where's my Glock? Exactly. That better be Gen four if you're in California. Gen 5 is illegal now. But no, in all seriousness, like, does that ever keep you up at night where you're like, man, I'm doing all this work. And it's day after day after day, but I might never know this answer. And then I just will die. It doesn't because it's not as cut and dry as that. And for good reason, science isn't, really only about like, oh, you made this huge breakthrough,

you discovered the origin of the universe. I mean, how many times can that actually happen, right? But there's a lot of incremental breakthroughs that occur on a daily basis. And I'm speaking not just, you know, to be glib, but not just about like, well, we teach and, you know, and we educate every day and we make, you know, progress on an experiment or a line of code. No, no, I mean, we're actually learning a tremendous amount about how the universe is structured. And we know a lot more than we did say when I was, you know, starting off my graduate career, you know, 25, 30 years ago.

And so I say that in the context of, you know, the progress that we've made can be, can be really, you know, measured exquisitely accurately. For example, when I started graduate school in 1993, you know, fresh face, didn't know exactly what I wanted to do. And I started to think about cosmology. I thought these guys were total idiots, you know, because they couldn't tell you if the universe was 10 billion. years old or 20 billion years old. So that'll be like you have a father and you don't know if he's older than you or not. Like, I mean, maybe that could be the case for certain people, you know, the brand new stepmom or something like that. But really, we had 100% uncertainty on the age of the universe. Now, we know the age of the universe as precisely as I can look at you guys and tell you

what half, you know, whether you were born in the morning or the day or the nighttime. In other within a few hours of precision out of 40, 50 years, however old you guys are. So no. 90s baby. 90s baby. Yeah. Continue. Okay.

No, I'm kidding. Totally kidding. In sync and you got the in sync lunchbox, did you? Yeah, all of it. Yeah. So, no, the progress is tangible. We didn't know what the masses. We didn't know how many quarks there were.

We didn't know anything about the Higgs boson. This is like in 30 years. Now, 30 years is a long time to a person. but over the span of human civilization, just look at, you know, how much technology has advanced. And a lot of the byproducts of what we do in, you know, cutting-edge physics don't immediately throw off scientific, you know, technological benefits. But in my case, it does. I mean, the internet was in part invented by physicists working in a large Hadron Collider and went to share data. And you look for the extremes. Where do you find the most extreme, the most amount of data,

the most amount of energy, the most amount of matter. Well, it's going to be in fundamental sciences, the kind of stuff that I do. So stuff that Kaku does, on the other hand, is both, you know, secluded from criticism. Because what he's predicting is stuff that, yeah, you can't do in a lifetime, you can't do in this century. Maybe it doesn't even exist. But maybe if it does exist, you won't be able to know about it until 2020, you know, until the year, you know, 2,500. right so those guys have kind of ultimate job security and and and the job of people like me who build experiments is kind of be like doge and and like get rid of these you know people that are

basically just you know kind of trumpeting the same predictions for last 30 40 years and bring to it observation say look you predicted this we didn't see this you can't keep saying the same thing and expecting different results right so no in an experiment it's very different i don't know how my colleagues in the theoretical like kaku does it for example I mean, he's not a practicing scientist anymore. I mean, you know, for, you know, God love him. He's 80 years old or whatever, but, you know, he's old enough. He should be relaxing and being president or something like that.

So, yeah, I don't know how the theoretical physicists deal with it when they can't even prove themselves wrong. At least I can do an experiment to prove something wrong or prove something actually occurred. And so that, no, I don't have that existential unwee about my profession, you know, for that reason. And there's always more stuff to learn. I mean, just in the last few years, I mean, this whole explosion of AI has really transformed the way I do research and the way I think about what it is that a scientist should be doing. Yeah. So speaking of proven things wrong, since Friedman in the early 1920s, we thought the Big Bang was kind of the standard. But because we saw – and it led to a whole host of other problems, too, but we saw that the universe was expanded, expanded.

expanding because of Hubble. And then we're like, well, if it's expanding, it must have at some point all been in one spot. That makes sense, right, intellectually. And then we go back and back and back and back. And we're like, well, it expanded too much in the early period. So we have to deal with inflation, as it's called. And now there's a lot of, I wouldn't say,

I don't know if doubt is even the right word, but a lot of criticism of the theory as a whole. Can you go into that? What did we discover that's new that makes us think maybe the Big Bang wasn't the origin? or if there is an origin at all. Yeah. So these are the oldest, you know, questions, you know,

that humanity has really asked since we, you know, kind of crawled out of caves and, you know, 250,000 years ago. You know, it's a natural question. Where did it come from? How did we get here? And that still continues. And the challenge with science is, like, we don't actually prove stuff. Like, I can't prove to you the Earth is round.

And, in fact, it's not perfectly round. You know, it has these characteristics of what's called them. an oblate, spheroid. It's a little bit like a football, not quite. Shout out to the Super Bowl. But the point being that it bulges a little bit because it's rotating about the equator. So like many of us, it bulges around the equator, right? And so the statement that the earth is round is not true, but it's more true than the statement the earth is flat. So to say that the universe had a big bang is a statement which you would like to be able to prove, but in fact, we can't actually have direct evidence from that time period because it obviously happened over 13 billion years ago.

So what we do is we look for indirect evidence. We look for the conditions, the fossils, kind of like we want to learn about what was the, you know, the Paleolithic time period like or the Jurassic time period like. We look for fossils. We look for things that have traveled through time that bear the imprint of the physical conditions in which they were made. So in the case of the Big Bang, the stuff that's made are the elements in the periodic table, for example, or are, in the case of what I studied, waves of gravity called gravitational radiation. And so if you see those things, they are harbingers of the early universe's conditions. And so you use those as thermometers or as scales to measure the mass or the content of the universe.

So right now, what I always say to my students is when you discover a flaw, it might lead to a new law. In other words, you might learn something new. So when we had the Big Bang, that overthrew the previous paradigm, which is that the universe is static, eternal, steady state and existed forever. Now, that doesn't mean that every single person on earth believes that. In fact, there are colleagues today who don't believe that, who believe the universe didn't have a big bang. They're in the minority, and science is not necessarily done by majority opinion or authority opinion, but it goes by preponderance of evidence, and there is a level of which consensus does make a difference. And it's different than saying, oh, well, like,

you scientists all believed in the COVID vaccine, so, you know, or you believe in global warming, So why should I trust you? It's very different, right, guys? I mean, if you think about, like, the stakes for you to inject some, you know, messenger RNA into your kid's body is a lot different than the stakes of believing whether or not neutrons were created in the first, you know, 280 seconds or 270 seconds, right? The different stakes, right? So in a sense, there's less to be, to be. And that's why I think there are so much, you know, misguided, in some cases, passion around, say, the whole UAP, UFO question. question, right? Because people do believe that the UFOs and UIPs will have an effect on their daily lives.

I think that's personally nonsense, but we can talk about that later. But the point about cosmology is when the stakes are lower, like believing in the Big Bang, quote unquote, or not believing in it, that doesn't impact your daily life, right? It's not going to change lower egg prices. It's not going to, you know, change, you know, how many followers you have on Instagram. But it will change religion, not to interrupt you. It will change people's religion and then the way they view the world, though. And that's also a big problem. Yeah, because there's going to be people that wake up with this idea

that they've been taught for ever in generations and generations and then hey, it's not true. So what do we even after? But even the biggest it's really funny. It's always sunny does a great bit on this. Even science is wrong sometimes and he says he makes everybody look like a bitch. The whole scene is

really funny. But the biggest scientific breakthroughs of all time, almost all of them have been not necessarily disproven, but been proven only somewhat correct or only correct under these conditions or something like that, right? Provisional. Yeah, provisionally correct or only correct under these circumstances, right? So general relativity, for example, the miracle year of 1905 is probably the biggest year in science, at least so far as I know in history.

And it turns out it doesn't talk about the small part of the world, the quantum world at all, right? And Einstein knew that later in life. and that's he died, that kind of morose, soliloically you went on earlier about him regretting his entire life. Einstein literally died in a hospital bed trying to figure out the theory of everything as they called. And that's why I asked you, because the other thing, too, is like with the Big Bang theory in particular,

this is a huge one for, you know, religious zealots and all that other stuff, and everybody will die on this hill about what actually happened. And what if you proved it? I think if you are... What if you proved it one way or the other? I think if your faith hangs in the balance over what mechanisms brought all this into existence, like physical mechanisms brought into existence, then you're not really a terribly faithful person probably, right?

Not to say that you should believe one thing as literal truth versus something else because of that, but like the Christendom doesn't hinge on whether or not God used the process of evolution to create things. Choice hotels get you more of what you value. Here's a little tune to help you remember. Same drive, different day. Don't you wish you were getting away? Pack your bags and come on through. Texas, Ohio, Alaska, we're up there too.

Comfort Inn. It's calling your name. Save on the stay. Oh, and free waffles are yours to claim. Well, I hope you like my little song. Book Direct at sourcehiltails.com. Or just like sand. You know what I mean?

It doesn't make any fucking sense to even think about that, my opinion. Well, look, I agree with you, but we always keep an open mind because, you know, after all these years of nine years of doing this on the show and having guys like you on, science is always changing and it should be. Because hopefully technology improves, like you said earlier, AI improves and all that other stuff. And we're able to look back and change science and understand what happened, what could happen in the future and everything else. but there's just people who aren't willing to believe that. With the Big Bang in particular, with what you're working on, there's a lot of people who freak out about shit like that. And I wonder if they ever hit you up and say, hey, why are you looking into this?

Why do you even believe it's something other than what we've been taught? Oh, yeah, yeah. And I mean, just historical point of fact, the Big Bang model, you know, yes, Friedman and Alexander Freeman and others contributed to the mathematical understanding of it. but it was really this Catholic priest named George Lemaître, who had this idea. And as soon as he came up with this idea, first of all, Einstein thought he was in that case. But this priest to give him his credit, he was like, I don't want this used by the Pope, which it immediately was, to justify, you know, the description of Genesis, you know, 1-1. So it's very dangerous to do that, by the way.

Not necessarily for, you know, the scientists who say, oh, well, you know, I think scientists, might have more of, you know, a feeling of anathema towards religion than the converse. In other words, someone who's religious can always say, as everyone from Galileo, you know, Descartes, everyone has done throughout the ages, was to say, and Isaac Newton especially, I mean, he was deeply religious, you know, his biggest accomplishment, he said he died a virgin like his hero, Jesus Christ. So he wrote way more about, you know, religion than he did about science, and then he was probably arguably the greatest scientist to ever live.

So the statement that, you know, people will have their opinions upheld, I actually don't are upended. I actually think that's true. In a lot of cases, I think people will just, you know, reverse engineer their narrative to then comport the scientific data. And that happened during the Big Bang and happened after the Big Bang. I mean, don't forget for, you know, 2,000 years after Jesus, I mean, really the Big Bang model came about in the late 1920s.

So there was no evidence for it. There was no even theory for it. And people thought it was all steady state. So what did the religious people do with that brutal fact, according to science, that the universe was eternal? Well, it didn't affect their faith, right? I mean, arguably, faith was a lot stronger back then. And I think the same thing will happen with everything from aliens to, you know, if we discover if inflation took place. I remember we did claim inflation took place in 2014, my experiment at South Pole that I invented

and co-led it. You know, at one time, you know, we announced we detected inflation. And on the front page of the New York Times, where people saying this proves there's no God and then religious journals, it proves that God did it all. So, well, let's go into it, though. Why, what could a, do we have any idea what might have caused what we're perceiving as inflation? Because, like, just a quick description,

there is the speed of light because atoms have mass and mass gets heavier as it moves fast. right? It's rudimentary, reductive, but that's basically what it is. But this stuff moved, I think it's like one 32,000th of a second. It got as big as a basketball or something like that, and it expanded rapidly after that again. I don't remember the exact numbers, but inflation moved the early universe faster than we can calculate it, essentially, right? Or faster than our logic. For the audience at home, we're not talking about financial inflation. No, no, although that's coming down. Well, I bet everybody's talking about that now, just to clarify. Do you continue? Yeah. But do we have any idea of what might have caused that? Because to me, it always sounded like, I don't know, I feel like, I like simple explanations to things. And all of our, like the big crunch makes a lot of sense to me where all of our, all the matter in the universe eventually gets sucked into one giant black hole. And why wouldn't that pour out into somewhere else or pour right out of that black hole or something? You know what I mean?

All right. So here's what I want you guys to do. We're going to do an experiment. First time ever, take some hard-off self-selt-old. I'll grab that out of the fridge. How many cans? How many cans do I grab? I want one for each of you guys. Okay. I'm going to do a randomized controlled trial. So inflation is a lot like...

I'll get an old one, actually. Purpies, you forced me to drink, Brian. Yeah, no. I never do it. I never do it, especially on Fridays. Dear God. Sorry to, you know. Sorry to break your streak.

Keep it open or close? So one of you guys shake yours up, and the other one, keep it still. okay. He's going to shake his up. And he's going to shake his up. Biggerest, vigorous. Get that going. There you go. All right. Now, one of you guys, both of you guys to open on the count of three.

You ready? And hold it up to the camera. I can't see yours, Dan. Okay. There we go. Okay. One, two, three. There we go. Yeah. Okay. So. So Dan's poured out all over the floor. Mine did not. For the audio listeners. That's right. That's right. I just want to see you guys mess up your studio. Yeah. No, no.

So. A huge prank. What inflation? really pretty. And if you had taken, you ever, when your kid put one of those in the, in the freezer? You ever froze a beer or something, guys? Yes. We do it all the time here because people are gunning through them. So we'll put them in the freezer. Forget over the weekend. They come in. They're all exploded. Yes. That's right. So if you're super cool alcohol, it won't actually get like super hard, right? It can still stay

liquid form. But then as soon as you open it, it'll be even worse than what happened when Dan's, right? It would just go, it goes everywhere. It freaking explodes, right? And actually the same thing can happen if you heat up water. If you ever take water, in a perfectly pristine cup and you put it into the microwave, you can nuke it for like six minutes. It won't actually boil, but if you take it out, it'll explode. And it's actually extremely dangerous to do that, so I'm not advocating to do that.

That happened to me. You're right, and I couldn't figure out why that happened. Yeah, so what happens is that you have this, what's called either super saturated or you're basically causing what's called a phase transition. So when you shook up the beer, or you shook up the seltzer, rather, you're actually taking the carbon dioxide that's in there, and it has nowhere to go because you didn't open the can up. Now when you open the can, the phase changes from liquid to gas,

and it does so really, really quickly if you've shaken it up because there's more gas trying to dissolve in a finite, still the same amount-sized can, right? So, still 12-ounce can. So when you do that in the universe, the theory behind inflation is that inflation was a field like the, like the Seltzer, except it's filling all of space and time. It was impregnated, filled with carbon dioxide, but instead of carbon dioxide,

they call them quantum fluctuations. And when you open it, when you release it, when the phase transition takes place, expansion is unavoidable. And actually the expansion can take place faster than the speed of light. And when that happens faster than the speed of light, things that are farther away than the age of the universe

times the speed of light are now in a sense closer to you and they can actually impact you. And what would happen in the universe is that there'd be a local region of space that had a certain value of this quantum field called the inflation field or inflatant. And then it would merge with another bubble. And then those bubbles would grow.

And regions that had the kind of right properties to eventually create matter, energy, and so forth, later on down the line, those merge together. And then there are very many tiny bubbles that you guys never saw in the seltzer can. Same exact thing happens. Those are too small to merge. So some of those basically get blown away

by the expanding liquid. And yes, you can't make a perfect. perfect analogy, but that is sort of the, now, what did it, how to exist, right? You guys had to already have the seltzer on hand. So where was the inflation before the Big Bang, before the spark that ignited it? Well, that has to be postulated that it always existed. So in that sense, the steady state does kind of play a role, except it's not called the steady state. It's called the multiverse. The multiverse is the giant can of seltzer that exist everywhere in all of space and all of time for all time.

And that's the precondition that has to exist. And then once you stipulate that occurs, then everything else that you described in can happen. By the way, the same thing will happen if you put hot like fill up your thermos with hot water super hot water, cover it, and then shake

it up. It activates and it'll start producing steam and when you take it off. You'll hear that pop or whatever. Yeah. The same thing. Do we know what quantum fluctuations are what is actually causing that yet? Like it's part of, my, my, the the only time I've ever heard that phrase is from Heisenberg's uncertainty principles. Is that right?

Yeah. I mean, those are very allied concepts. So what we think about as fundamental, we're used to thinking of like particles as, you know, atoms and stuff like that. That's not really true, right? So at the base level of the way that physics and quantum mechanics explains things, what we perceive as particles are what are called excitations. And they're excitations in what's called the quantum field. And so light particles, photons that we see each other with, those are excitations in

the photon field. Those are instantiations, particles of photons, packets of energy, if you will. And then there's packets of electrons. Electrons have a field as well, a quantum field. They can be created, they can be destroyed. There are certain conditions that need to occur. You can't arbitrarily create a very extreme large amounts of energy in an arbitrarily small amount of time, for example. That's a Heisenberg uncertainty relation. You can't create them with arbitrary velocity and know exactly where they are, that's an uncertainty. So, yes, they're coming into and out of existence, and the Higgs boson is also a field called the Higgs field.

And so the fundamental things, according to physicists, are fields. And so the inflation field has existed for all time, just like the photon field exists right now in your room. There's some probability right in front of you for two photons to come together, annihilate each other, and create a pair of electron and a positron, which is its antimatter cousin. And so as long as you conserve certain quantities, like energy is conserved, matter is not conserved, right?

I just gave you an example where something with no mass, photons, create something with actual mass, like an electron. But energy is always conserved, momentum is always conserved. Other things called spin and things like that are conserved. And so as long as you don't violate those conditions, yes, you can create essentially anything. And then if the universe had these conditions that it was filled with this field at early times, you could create a universe and basically a spontaneous, according to, to some colleagues, you basically create an anti-universe that travels back in time, and those are really mind-boggling possibilities. But everyone agrees on this fact that the universe was much hotter and much denser when it was

much, much younger. There's no evidence that refutes that. Now, we can argue about how much denser, how much hotter, and when does that law of physics break down. But the laws of physics hold, as Dan, it's not one over a 32nd, 100th of a second. it's 10 to the minus 32 seconds. In other words, a decimal point, 32, 0s, and then a 1. So this is an incredible accomplishment.

And so that's another reason. I don't feel depressed at all. I mean, that's an amazing thing to say that physicists can predict what were the physical conditions like as early as a trillionth of a trillionth of a second after the origin of the universe. Yes, I can't tell you exactly what happened at the origin of the universe any more than I can say, well, what did you look like before your parents met each other? But maybe with, I mean, I'm not ruling that out, right? I mean, can you imagine a day when you could actually predict what did somebody look like before their parents even met each other? I mean, it's not outside the laws of physics. So in principle, it could be possible.

Yeah, you had CRISPR babies, dude. Well, yeah, but I mean, like the, like, certainly gene editing is a thing now. Yeah. I think there's better ways to do with it CRISPR now, actually. But what you're describing, I think, is quantum field theory, right, which is kind of the new hotness. It used to be kind of the Big Bang theory, generally. Relativity and then string theory, M theory was the hot thing for a while. And now quantum field theory seems to be some attempt at unification, right?

I mean, quantum field theory has always been around. I think what maybe you're talking about, yeah, string theory. So quantum field theory is not a theory of everything that you mentioned before. Like Einstein died. You know, it's too bad because he could have been famous, right? You know, if he had just done that, he could have been a famous guy. Fucking loser. Yeah, loser.

God damn it. That's the same way I look at Tim Cook and those guys. what a fucking loser man cousin cousin cousin marrying losers yeah Steve Jobs loser well no he's Einstein gave his wife his Noel prize money

so she would take the kids and leave so he could marry his first cousin really yeah she hotter no she looked like my grandma when she was like 40 actually the one that I'll never be able to get over is hawking to leaving his wife in that wheelchair all fucked up and he was just like nope I've got to have the nurse And you're just like, Jesus Christ, man.

And you know, it's crazy about that story. Just that aside. So he couldn't talk, right? And you were making the voice. So the voice was from his computer programmer who designed the voice synthesizer so he could actually communicate with the world. Was the ex-husband of the nurse that he married. No fucking way. This guy is the ultimate cook.

Yeah, yeah. So he got his wife to. The ultimate cock, dude. So, yeah. But, yeah, no, quantum field theory is a well understood. It's been, you know, the basis for the last, you know, 50, 60 years of quantum field theory. Richard Feynman played a huge role, Dirac. It's basically just a different description of looking at the interactions between light and matter.

So when quantum mechanics came about, it was really, at first, it was just a description of how an atom, say, behaves in a classical universe. Like, if you have an atom, and then originally people like Neal's Bohr and everything, they, They actually model the atom as a little, like, planetary system, right, with a nucleus instead of the sun and then an electron going around. Now, we know that's totally wrong, but at least it gave very accurate answers for things like, you know, the wavelength of light emitted by a hydrogen atom, the spectrum of light. But then later it was realized, well, if you're going to talk about, say, how light behaves, you also have to treat the quantum mechanics of light and not just the quantum mechanics of hydrogen. And so that was the merger of that. that's what quantum field theory really became. Isn't there something about electromagnetism that Faraday used to talk about?

Like, I think it was kind of a breakthrough in the middle part of the 19th century where he described, like instead of what we call action at a distance, which became spooky action at a distance with entanglement. But it was like, instead of one thing bumping into another thing, there is some direct line between these two things and they're being affected at the same time, but not in the way that we perceive it, right? That's what the original idea of a field came from that, if I'm not mistaken. Faraday was the one that's right. Faraday came up with the idea, the concept of a field.

And he was very interesting because he really wasn't mathematically trained at all, but he had incredible physical intuition. I actually spoke at his institution, the Royal Institution in the summer of 2023, and I got to, like, play with his actual experiments where he takes these magnets and then he has these iron filings, these little grains of us. iron and he would sprinkle him down and then glue down a piece of wax paper and you could see these magnetic lines of force that he called them. So yeah, you're right. He did come up with that. And a little bit different than the spooky accident at distance has to do quantum entanglement.

But this is actually classical. It's a classical field theory. But Faraday and then Maxwell later was responsible for the first attempts at unification. So unification is a very strong principle in science which says that we perceive these laws of nature being very different. Like at first glance, you don't really think of a magnet as having anything to do with, say, a battery, right? I mean, they're not, they don't seem to be really related. But Maxwell and Faraday also showed experimentally, Maxwell theoretically and Faraday experimentally, that actually you can perceive them as different manifestations, depending on, of all things, the motion of an observer, right?

So imagine you have a wire and it's carrying a current through it. It's just a straight piece of wire. You attach it to a battery on one side, ground on the other side. and you have a current flowing through it. Those are charges going through it, electrons in the case of what we normally think about is electricity. And that current is provided. Now, imagine you're moving alongside that wire exactly the same speed

as the electrons are flowing. Well, they don't produce a current, right? They're stationary. So you see a bunch of static charges, right? But to someone that's sitting at rest with respect to the wire, they see a current, and every current produces a magnetic field via what's called Faraday's right-hand rule. So that means that there's a transformation between,

electric field and electric and electromagnetic field, magnetic field and electric field that is dependent on the velocity of the observer. And that made Maxwell uncomfortable. And so he came up with this idea of the ether. He said, well, actually, the only way to get waves and stuff to travel through it is to have some medium like water. We don't see just waves without water or waves without sound, air with sound without air. So how do you instantiate that? Well, he said you have to have this medium called the ether. And later on, we got rid of that. Thanks to experiments done at my alma mater in Cleveland called Case Western and other places that that really were the foundation for why Einstein said, no, actually the one speed of light that everyone,

the only one speed that everyone agrees upon is the speed of light on that they can't disagree. And then that led to the unification of electricity and magnetism as one force. And then physicists are greedy. And they said, well, if we can do that for these two seemingly disparate forces like electricity and magnetism, let's do it for all the freaking forces. Let's do it for the nuclear force. let's do it for gravity. And it actually worked for the nuclear forces,

but it doesn't work for gravity. And that's kind of the theory of everything, that people really want to see a unification to say that actually, guys, there's only one law of nature. It's not gravity, electricity, magnetism, nuclear force, and the two types of nuclear force. No, it's just one master force called the theory of everything.

And so far, no one's been able to demonstrate a consistent way how that can occur. Is there any reason to believe that should be a thing, to be honest? I mean, why? I mean, certainly, certainly, who knows? But, like, is gravity, like, the four forces of strong, weak nuclear electromagnetism and gravity? Is there any reason to believe that gravity is going to have some relationship to electromagnetism, for example? It's actually worse than that.

No, it's very precise. I often point that out when I'm talking to, you know, very Eminem and I've talked to 21 Nobel Prize winners on my podcast. And, yeah, I always say that there's no letter from God that says it has to be unified, right? No, but John Mayer did write the same. song about it. So, gravity. Like, and that's, I think, had a lot to do with how did it go again? Gravity.

Yeah. It's better the second time. Yeah, and you got to really do the face there. And then he was, John Mayer was able to help with that. So. He's got a piece out too. Who lied to dispute, you know, a Nobel laureate like well, what's new in the science world right now? I know

James Webb's up there snapping pictures. We're getting, yeah, they're snapping dick picks. of the dickpicks of the universe. Yes. What I like to see are the old Hubble photographs of the deep field versus the new James Webb.

It's just like getting a new iPhone or some shit. Well, it's like going from iPhone 4 to the current one, I guess. It's all the same. Dude, fuck Steve Jobs. We're all like this is bullshit. No, it's an 8K camera now. No, you want to do some real study, dude? I'll pay you to do an experiment.

Tell me why every time a new goddamn iPhone comes out, the last model completely shits the bed, dude, and then I've got to buy the new one. I know. That's what I want. want to know, dude. But, you know, it's for your kids.

Well, my kids, at least, they just love it. You know, it's like, oh, you don't want the iPhone 13, 14, dad, you know. That's for me. It's the same. It's the same goddamn thing from 10 years ago. No, but it's not for him. He doesn't even have one. No, and I get it.

But to Dan's point, the pictures we're getting right now out of, out of, uh, James Webb, are just mind altering. And like, you can take mushrooms and just stare at these all night. I know some people have argued back and forth on the internet of, Well, hey, they're coloring these to make them show up more and everything else. Well, what are these colored, right? I mean, everything is, that's fine. I mean, in every image that you see, and I'm sure your producers, you know, know, that's better than, you know, even I can explain it.

But the point is you've got transistors, they can only be on or off, right? So what we have in our screens is we have, we put, you know, three transistors in each pixel, and then we put a color filter over each one, red, green, and blue, and then they can just amp up the amount of each one that goes into a 10-bit color. You can have 10 different color, two to the 10th, 1,000, 24 different levels of color. No, so that's all, that's totally kosher. There's nothing, you know, they're not like playing games or like, oh, actually they're hiding. No, every image, your cameras right now, your monitor, they all do that because, as I said, the transistors can only be on or off.

That's how a camera works. No, totally. And look, the images are beautiful. And I think what I love about what we're seeing and the colorization and everything else is very similar to what you're doing in your space right now, where you're making it. easy for everybody else to understand. Therefore, we're not just looking at these images that look like fucking braille in the distance that we've got to run our hands over and trying to figure out what planets those are.

You're coloring them. You're making them easier for everybody else. Same with you and your podcast. Like, you're able to at least dumb it down for the idiots like me and not the smarties, like this bag next to me. But that's the thing is like you make it accessible for everybody else. And that's what I love about the images we're seeing that are coming in. I think like, you know, when people don't do that, I say you're basically immoral.

Like a scientist, every scientist is paid by the public. And, you know, I'm not going to go off on, you know, some Obama tangent or you didn't build that. But the point is like, I teach at a public university. I went to public high schools and elementary school. You know, I could not be assigned. Nobody could be a scientist without actually having public support. And then when it's like, you know, if you were to ask me something and I said to you, oh, you can't understand that without the training that I have and blah, blah, blah, it'll be like you go to your boss if you work at a,

you know, you work in an office and you're just like, your boss says, well, what are you up to this week? What did you do this week? And you're like, oh, you can't understand it. Like you'd be shit can immediately. And I think scientists tend to do that because we have this exalted opinion of how important what we do is, even though we can't actually put our name, our, you know, our finger on it. Like you said earlier, I can't, you know, to say that like every day I have to justify my existence or I'll have an existential crisis. I don't have that problem. But a lot of what science. scientists do is very incremental. Therefore, it's not that significant. It's important, but it's not

that significant, right? No scientist is curing cancer every day, right? And we have a billion cures for cancer. We don't have that. It's incremental. And so sometimes we have to justify what we do and say, well, you can't understand it's very sophisticated. I had to go to graduate school and undergrad for 10 years to get to where I'm at. So how can I possibly explain it to you? And I actually get mad at my colleagues who do that. And that's part of the reason I started my YouTube channel to explain things in a fun way that I enjoy it. I kind of really have a, you know, a challenge to explain it to people. The other day, I did a video. I didn't get, like, I went on Andrew Huberman's podcast. You may have heard of him. He's another podcaster. He's like, lesser known than us.

Lesser known than us, yes. He's the West Coast version of the drinking bro. Sure, but lesser known. Lessor known, absolutely. That guy was like an anti-drinking bro. That guy will not drink alcohol, man. I'm sorry. I tried to get him to partake when I was up with him. But, you know, we did this whole thing, and it was about the human eye and perception. You know, he's a PhD researcher. He's an expert in the human eye in physiology and getting sunlight, exposure. And so afterwards, he made like a little mistake in some of the reasoning that he had for something called the green flash. I don't know if you guys ever been out on a boat or out in the ocean.

You see the sunset and you see there's something called the green flash. The sun turns briefly green. and he suspected, well, it must be like a physiological effect. And I said, no, it's actually an atmospheric optical effect. And, you know, so I made this video. And I was pretty happy about it. I had a lot of, you know, green screen. And I had all these animations and graphics.

And like, it got like two or three thousand views. It wasn't like that great. And I put a lot of energy into it. And I was like, shit, this sucks. You know, like I put all its time into it. I even have a guest appearance from Andrew Huberman. You know, what the hell? Yeah.

And then, like, a couple days later, I come downstairs, and one of my kids is watching YouTube, and I'm like, oh, what's he watching? And he's watching, like, my video. And I'm like, wow, that's pretty good. Like, he's like, wow, that was a really good video, dad. And he was like 10, 11 year old kid. And I just thought, wow, like, you know, it's fun to explain stuff to a way that, like, an 11-year-old could understand. I'd never talk to him about it. And I'm like, the scientists that don't do that, that feel like they're above it, to me, they're missing out on, you know, one of the responsibilities of a,

the moral obligations of what it means to be a scientist. I mean, I don't pay you guys, right? Like, I might buy your salter or whatever, but I don't pay you, but like you pay your taxes, I assume. And that pays part of my salary. Try not to. Yeah, we try hard. Yeah, we try not to in Texas. Sorry.

If all of my tax is a brutal here, man. If all of my tax dollars went to scientific discovery, then I would pay them. Yeah, and my sign. And I'm not saying I don't. My science, exactly. I'm saying our CPAs figure out a way. Not to, but it's doing a lot of work, Dan. But if I was funding things, I would fund, you know, why Florida men are addicted to meth.

Like, things like that. Like, what's that magnetism there? About a bag of meth and a Florida man. How do they come together? That's what I would fund scientific. Einstein said, if you can't explain something simply, you don't understand it enough, I think. And to me, it's always like, the stuff that I'm expert at, it's always been, we call it, in the military, we call it train the trainer, right?

Like, part of it is the efficiency of sending one senior level or mid-level person to go learn a skill and then come back and teach it to everybody else. But I think the bigger use of that is that the trainer person becomes an absolute expert in it by hearing from people that know more about it than them and then telling people who know less about it, right? There's something about that process that makes you quite a bit better at understanding what you're doing. And I think that's why I was talking to one of my Navy SEAL friends about this yesterday,

actually, it's really important that you have a mentor and it's really important that you at the point that you feel confident, find somebody to mentor as well in your life. Regardless of what, if you're in production in Hollywood, or you're a fucking baseball player, whatever it is, it doesn't matter.

Like, whatever you're in, you need to have that process. I think it's super important. I do too. And to that point, I want you to explain, because I know you're busy and you've got to teach

and do all the scientists' bullshit. You know, Mr. Vansy-D. Yeah, are you funded by USAID, Brian? Yeah, because if it is, that funding is going to be cut, bro, probably by the end of this show. But can you, for the dummies out there like myself, can you explain what we're seeing UAP-wise, as far as UFOs and drones and all the other stuff? We got a DM from a listener. I think we read it the other day live on air about drones in Ohio that nobody's reporting on. He sent us images and videos and then the drones in New Jersey and all this other stuff. What are we actually seeing and what's going on out there and why isn't the government saying anything? Trump said he would. before he got in an office. Now he's in office. He already did. He did. What did he say?

Pam Bondi said that they were government drones. They were. Yeah. So like I told you the whole time. I understand that. But can you confirm that? Because you're the scientist. Pam Bondi's not. She's just kind of hot. I mean, I'm not only a, yeah, right. I'm not only a scientist, but, but I'm also pilot. And so some of them are just obvious. I mean, they have like the recognition lights or the red on the right wing, et cetera, the green. And then when you look at it from a distance in the dark, it looks like five different craft like, no, draw, no, no, no, no. Those are lights.

Have you ever seen a fucking airplane before? But I've never seen an alien, dude. Yeah, but an airplane, if you look at the front face of an airplane, it's coming right for you, but it's nighttime. And all you can see are four or five red lights on the bottom. It's going to look like four different headlights. Yeah. Oh, I get it.

But, I mean, why not tell everybody this? Because Biden was asleep. I understand that, but then you have these Senate hearings where, you know, they're talking about liquid fucking animals or aliens that they've scooped up in other countries. We've got multiple crashes here. We've got the equipment somewhere. What do we believe and what do you know? I mean, you notice like one thing, again, I don't have any special knowledge about the drone

situation, but I do remember one thing, which is that there wasn't one single flight into, say, Newark, New Jersey, where most of the activity was. There wasn't one single fight that was canceled. Or delayed. Well, or delayed. Yeah. Not because of that anyways. Right, exactly.

So there's the only way that can happen is if the FAA knows about it. There are things called temporary flight restrictions, and they can. put, you know, basically they can lock down any airspace that they want, and they can actually push these things off the coast and move them away. And most of the, you know, the confirmed or the, the claim to be confirmed, you know, sightings of UAPs, tick tax or whatever, I talked to this guy, Ryan Graves, a year or so ago, with one of his... Yeah, I know Ryan Graves. Yeah. Yeah. So I actually had on his, you know, one of the, one of his buddies from the same squadron, who's a friend of mine who lives here in San Diego, Ariel Kleinerman, who is also, you know, has a, you know, has a

undergraduate degree in physics from Princeton. This episode is brought to you by Redfin. You're listening to a podcast, which means you're probably multitasking, maybe even scrolling home listings on Redfin, saving homes without expecting to get them. But Redfin isn't just built for endless browsing. It's built to help you find and own a home. With agents who close twice as many deals,

when you find the one, you've got a real shot at getting it. Get started at Redfin.com. Own the Dream. We're talking about, you know, how these things, they only, they only seem to occur in what are called military restricted zones, warning zones. So you see those on aeronautical charts. You can buy these charts from a pilot store for, you know, five bucks. It'll show you exactly where these things are all spotted. Now, that doesn't prove or disprove anything.

But the fact that, you know, these things didn't seem to impact commercial aviation. They're spotted primarily around military installations. I believe that there's probably tons of shit. Like, Dan, they probably, like, I mean, my brother-in-law is a recon, you know, a recon marine. He told me he was waterboarded something like 17 times. And he said, like, and he's a big, freaking tough guy. You guys would get along. Great.

Shout out to Jim. But the point is, like, he didn't, like, he would say things like, they do stuff to us all the time. And the stuff that they do to us, we don't tell you civilians about because you're going to start complaining because you act as a way that you would act. Brian Keating as a cushy professor. at a university and you'd say well I wouldn't want to be waterboarded so I don't want my brother-in-law to be water but like he freaking you know he was like I don't get

off on it but he was like this is part of like what defines my identity and like no I wouldn't I didn't consider a torture I don't know how you feel Dan but but the point is they do shit to you guys they test stuff all the time they do stuff to test how loyal you are Dan all the time and I wouldn't put

any of the shit past the government so the first explanation shouldn't be the least probable one which is that interdimensional beings who happen to be about the same size as us, have traveled across the greatest expanse in the human imagination, bringing new laws of physics, and then magically gets cited by, you know, Uncle Tony with his, with his, you know, DGI drone. And we're supposed to all of a sudden say, we demand, you know, that Trump released the alien files. This is what I said for years, that any civilization capable of making it here in the first place would without any doubt be capable of

being here without us knowing it. Or they wouldn't have bodies. Or they wouldn't have bodies. Even to get a drone here, even to get a drone here, the technology would have to be so advanced that something like stealth wouldn't even be a problem. Right. And it isn't. And according to the testimony on the Hill a couple months ago, which I'm sure you saw,

we all saw, they're saying they're going past what, Mach 10, Mach 14. Yeah, well, beyond. I think they were up in the 2200 G. range for some of these. Now, some of this stuff. Liquid that's able to shape shifts. Yeah. Some of the- Some of the speeds they were calculating were due to parallaxis and stuff like that. It wasn't real, right?

So they think, like, it, parallaxes is, if my camera's moving this way and the object is moving this way, there's an exponential effect on my ability to measure its speed. It's not real, right? Most of those UFO videos, it's parallaxes. All of them, actually. The ones that are moving super fast, it's always paralyzed. Well, why were they saying on the hill, Brian, that these were definitely UAPs? we know the government has the wreckage and you know

it doesn't mean alien well what is who is we by the way I mean you got talking about like Lou Elizando or guys like David Rush I mean these guys I mean in terms of like credibility you know they're not like necessarily free I mean I love this fact Dan

that people always say things like the government lies to us all the time so let's listen to the guys that are paid for by the government like I mean you were a government employee just as much as I was at that time and say like oh these people have no other incentive I mean, excuse me, Lou Elizondo has been on, you know, my wife asked me about him. I'm like, she doesn't know anything about this stuff.

She's like, oh, he was on Smartless podcast. I'm like, these guys, there's a huge incentive, right? And another one is, you know, these guys have been like probed and these guys saw alien biological, you know, samples. And they never say exactly what it is. But my favorite is when they actually say that this thing is defying the laws of physics. And they have, you know, probably not as good a comprehension of physics as Dan does, you know, let alone as I do. And so why are we listening to them about physics? Like, I don't listen to me about being a military F-18 pilot because I'm not, right? I believe you should listen to people like that.

But that doesn't mean that they're never wrong. And it doesn't mean that we should listen to them about the effects of physics. That's called authority bias. And that's called like the halo effect. Just because Dan was, you know, in the military doesn't mean he knows everything about every branch of the military has ever done in its entire history. And so I would say there's a huge incentive for people to have their own narratives. And none of the people I've talked to, A, seem to be as credible. I've read Lou's book. They sent it to me. He was supposed to come on my podcast. Never did. I don't know why. So is Lou full as shit? There's some glaring errors in his book. There's a lot of inaccuracies. There's testimonial

things that he said that he was ahead of this thing and that thing. There's a guy, Stephen Green Street on Twitter is really good at kind of debunking a lot of the claims that Lou has made. and there's, as I said, there's errors in his book, just basic physics errors that I would love to talk to him. And I would give him a fair hearing. I'm not going to, like, throw him under the bus. But for some reason, his people or him decided not to come on after agreeing to send me the material and come on. And then last thing I'll say is I've had on people from the government, Stephen Kirkpatrick, and people from NASA that led these programs to actually come to an example, to come to a conclusion. because, guys, don't you think that me or Michi Okaku or, you know,

we'd be the most interested to know about this physics and technology that must have existed, you know, in a couple centuries ago in these alien civilizations for them to get here now? That means we could shortcut 500 years of progress on the human species. We want this to be true more than anybody, but that's why you have to be very skeptical as well. Okay, because Michael Schellenberger also posted 214 pages of testimony as well. in that subcommittee hearing.

Shellenberger is a pretty sensible dude. I think he was just reporting on what he saw. He was. Yeah, he's a sensible dude. And there's, we have that we have a UAP recovery team that is part of our government, right? I know that for a fact. That's a thing.

The way we found it out was through injury reports, people filing workers' compensation claims and disability claims listing their position as UAP recovery. So that's a thing. It doesn't mean it's alien though, right? So like if we're testing out some new propulsion tech that's maybe radiological or something, and then you go fucking, you're part of that recovery team and you touch exposed radiological material, well, guess what, bud, you're going to fucking die.

That's how it works. You know what I mean? It's a dangerous job. It doesn't mean that it's alien necessarily. Now maybe we find some alien shit at some point, but the burden of proof is going to be on the people making that claim, not everybody else, which is how they like to frame the argument. It's like, well, what do you mean? How do you explain this?

Like, I don't know. But you're making, you're coming to an explanation that solved, does not solve the problem at all. There's no data for your, for your conclusion. Right. I mean, I had a podcast, this woman, Amber Rose, is a black lady who's like, I think she dated Kanye. Sure did. Yeah, I know who Amber Rose is.

Kay? Yeah, so she, she had me on and she was saying, oh, I had that on this Air Force guy. And he claims, you know, 100% he was like, you know, rectally probed and did this and that. I'm like, well, okay, let's just say that's one possibility. But another possibility is like this guy was an ex-alcoholic or whatever, and maybe his buddies were pranking him, and maybe his buddies are into some strange crap. And they did it, right? I was like, which is more likely?

Interimensional beings, you know, need some sample from some guy in the 1970s and then did this to him. And he just remembered it now in 2024 or five. or his buddies got him totally plastered and did some stuff. I'm not even saying that happened. To his rectal. To his butthole. When Amber Rose was on, did she list her position as reverse cowgirl?

Like, what was her position? Because let's face it, she's a fucking only fans model. So what are we doing here as far as like, oh, I'm going to listen to her on her thoughts on fucking space and aliens. I just, yeah, I was on her show.

She wrote me and then she was like, oh, I just had a Neil Gress. Tyson. So I let Neil do the vetting for me. I get it, Brian. Are you single? You're married? I'm married. I'm married. Oh, boy. I know. But when you're on a show like that and you look at those naturals, you're like, ah, damn. Those are, those are natural in the same way that I'm black. Have you seen her nude? Bob pulled some news. Not one part of her body is natural. Those are the UAPs. We really should be invested. I know. Because by the way, if the aliens did land and they all look like Amber Rose, my God. We'd be in trouble. Bravo. Bravo. Yeah, she got the bone head. I would, yes.

Come on in the house. Come on in the house. I wouldn't let the dirty Guacamolem allens in, but I let the Amber Roses from outer space in. What? Brian, it's immigration. Okay, we're doing stuff about it. We're going to fix it.

I know you've got to go do important stuff around the world. Tell everybody your podcast and where they can find you. We always love having you on the show. And your show is awesome. Like I mentioned earlier, I love the way you explain everything at a normal level for everybody. So you don't have to be. be into physics or be, you know, some guy whose IQ is off the charts.

You can watch your show and enjoy it and kind of get the gist of everything that's going on in the world. Yeah, I love that. I love talking about science and sharing the love of it. As I said, I think it's my moral obligation as a citizen and whatever to do that for people out there. So, yeah, Brian Keating.com is my website. I send out meteorites to lucky people once about. Dan, did you get my meteorite? I did, yes.

Thank you. I got two, actually. Oh, did you? Yeah. Cool. Where's mine, Brian? I didn't get a meteorite. It's coming. Just look up tonight. Look up tonight. You'll see it. It's coming right for you. Okay, cool. You're going to drop that down out of the sky for it. You sent him to and I got nothing. Mach 12 coming towards you. God damn it, Brian. You're lucky today that I didn't go harder on that immigration joke.

Look, in all sincerity, I love you. We had you on quite a number of years ago. Yeah. To see your success and everything that's happened and on Rogan and everything else in your YouTube channel, man. It's been awesome to watch. You're one of the true good guys who deserves all this shit. So thank you for being here. We greatly appreciate it. Hopefully we didn't fuck up your day, okay? No, no.

I was looking forward to it all day. Have a great weekend. I hope you enjoy the Super Bowl. And, yeah, just have a blast, guys. I love following your stuff, too. It's really fun to watch you on all the Instagrams and all the intertubes. Thanks, buddy. We appreciate it.

Take care, buddy.