Into the Impossible With Brian Keating - What Really Happened In Antarctica? Julian Dorey x Brian Keating

Episode Date: December 3, 2025

Please join my mailing list here 👉 https://briankeating.com/yt to win a meteorite 💥 In this special crossover episode, Brian Keating joins Julian Dorey to celebrate Julian's impressive milestone of reaching 1 million subscribers. Together, they take a deep dive into the latest theories shaking up our understanding of the universe—from fresh debates surrounding the Big Bang, new discoveries about dark matter and dark energy, to the powerful technology transforming how we explore the cosmos. Key Takeaways: 00:00 "NASA's Impact Despite Small Budget" 09:03 Discovery of Cosmic Microwave Background 15:03 "Big Bang Evidence in Tap Water" 17:21 Meteorite Discovery Challenges Dark Energy 22:21 "Understanding Spiral Galaxies Dynamics" 31:37 Celebrating Science and Serendipity 36:56 Debating the Universe's Origins 40:49 Hubble Constant Discrepancy Foun 47:31 "Conversation on Space and Starlink" 52:31 Consciousness Expansion or Earth Protection? 56:09 Ocean Colonization and Future Challenges 01:02:44 Cosmic Birefringence Exploration 01:07:12 Nobel-Worthy Discovery's Iron 01:12:42 "Fermi Paradox and Civilization Longevity" 01:16:23 Cosmic Coincidences and Probability 01:20:21 Podcast Crossover & Elon Interview ----- Join this channel to get access to perks like monthly Office Hours: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCmXH_moPhfkqCk6S3b9RWuw/join 📚 Get a copy of my books: Think Like a Nobel Prize Winner, with life changing interviews with 9 Nobel Prizewinners: https://a.co/d/03ezQFu My tell-all cosmic memoir Losing the Nobel Prize: http://amzn.to/2sa5UpA The first-ever audiobook from Galileo: Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems: Ptolemaic and Copernican https://a.co/d/iZPi9Un 📺 Watch my most popular videos:📺 Neil Turok https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt5cFLN65fI Frank Wilczek https://youtu.be/3z8RqKMQHe0?sub_confirmation=1 Eric Weinstein vs. Stephen Wolfram https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OI0AZ4Y4Ip4?sub_confirmation=1 Sir Roger Penrose: https://youtu.be/AMuqyAvX7Wo Sabine Hossenfelder: https://youtu.be/g00ilS6tBvs Avi Loeb: https://youtu.be/N9lUceHsLRw Follow me to ask questions of my guests: ‍♂️ Twitter: https://twitter.com/DrBrianKeating 🔔 Subscribe https://www.youtube.com/DrBrianKeating?sub_confirmation=1 📝 Join my mailing list; just click here http://briankeating.com/list ✍️ Detailed Blog posts here: https://briankeating.com/blog 🎙️ Listen on audio-only platforms: https://briankeating.com/podcast #universe #podcast #briankeating #intotheimpossible #science #astronomy #cosmology #cosmicmicrowavebackground #intotheimpossible #briankeating Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

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

GoogleFi Wireless is not subject to data traffic deprioritization during times of high network usage. 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 this day.

Welcome back to The Into the Impossible podcast featuring me, Brian Keating on Julian Dorey's podcast. It was amazing to be there when he got to his 1 million subscriber milestone. I'd like to think I played a small part in that. Now, today's episode is going to take us deep into new theories about how the Big Bang may have started and how the universe may be evolving. We'll also talk about the potential future of cosmology and even consciousness as we dive deep into what's possible to be known in life.

We'll discuss Elon Musk, Alien Life, my late great mentor, Jim Simons, and so much more. So join us for this special episode of Into the Impossible. Let's go. We're back. Real quick, though, because you keep mentioning it as well. What are people arguing about the Big Bang these days? Because they're trying to say, like, maybe that's not what caused the universe?

Like, what are your thoughts there? Yeah. So there's a whole kind of, again, anti-authoritarian standpoint. which is to question all narratives, which is that the Big Bang never happened. So that's the cosmological equivalent of flat earth, of moon landing denial, et cetera, is that actually, you know, NASA or Big Space,

there's this podcast, sorry, there's this channel called the Thunderbolts channel, this guy, Will Thornhill or Thornbird or something like that. And they make all these videos about the, it's called the Electric Universe. And there's this guy not far from here in Philadelphia called Eric Lerner, who's been writing for 37 years now that the Big Bang never happened. And his evidence always is whatever the latest new telescope discovery or project is in cosmology,

in astronomy, that that evidence is actually counter evidence to the Big Bang narrative. And that NASA or the big, you know, big cosmology, again, there's there are more people that play professional sports, or more people that play, you know, in the NBA than there are professional cosmologists. In fact, one NBA team, one, let me just go to your beloved Phillies, okay. Your beloved Phillies. Well, that's the MLB. That's right. Okay. We're going to go, I know, we're going to go there. We're going to go there. Major League, okay, here we go. Major League Big Bang, in terms of how many professional experimental cosmologists like me are there is fewer than on the Phillies. Just one team, okay, that are professors, that build instrumentation. That looks. So to think

that we're some massive cabal that's conspiracy. In fact, it's, it's almost like the people that think Jews are running the world. Like, Jews are 0.2% of the world's population and something like 20% of the Nobel prizes have been won by Jews. And I'm not saying there's any correlation, but I'm got to do better at gatekeeping

in this room, my brother. We got a little flea in here. Whenever I said, you know, something bad about the Phillies, you know. You got the second best cheese steak in the world. That was a Nazi fly. It wasn't too happy. Is that you, Candace? Kansas flyins. So when you look at the ability of a small group to influence, like NASA's small group of individuals, you know, that have this outsized impact, there's always going to be this tendency for people to look for ulterior waves that they could have done stuff illegitimately, either conspiracy or, you know, Rothschilds or, you know, like I said, you know, NASA controls or big cosmology. There's nothing of the sort. In fact, it's a testimony to how.

how amazing that group of individuals like NASA was. A tiny fraction of the budget, you know, the humans, sorry, the U.S. population of women spend, and maybe some men, but spend more on lipstick every year than NASA's budget. By far, okay? They spend NASA's budget under $20 billion. That's like pennies. It's nothing out of, you know, just in the military, which actually benefited a lot from GPS, laser ranging, what's called adaptive optics.

So we have sniper scopes, okay, that the SEAL teams use. You know, I have relatives that are in the teams. And they use sniper scopes that use what's called adaptive optics. Adaptive optics. Yeah, adaptive optics is the reconciliation that astronomers realize they needed to do because of the following nursery rhyme, twinkle, twinkle little star. Stars don't twinkle naturally, okay? They don't twinkle of their own accord, losing or gaining energy,

despite what some fools claim on the internet. They're actually twinkling because the atmosphere contains cells of different density, pressure, et cetera, and different composition of gases and different amounts of water vapor. Those gases over different regions of time will act like lenses that refract and bend and change the trajectory of light such that different pathways of the light will be affected, like little lenses going in front of the camera. If you kept putting lenses randomly in at different sizes in front of your camera, the same exact thing would happen.

the image that you see would twinkle. So an astronomers realize this sucks, and we've got to get rid of it, but we can't afford a space telescope. You know, there's only been two optical, you know, even near-infrared space telescopes that astronomers have ever used. One of them was Hubble, and now we have James Webb telescope. James Webb is not even an optical telescope. It's an infrared telescope.

So it's really only been one major, you know, pretty picture-producing optical telescope in space in human history, okay? And it's not like other countries are making great space telescopes the way the U.S. has. Again, another tremendous accomplishment by NASA wouldn't have been possible if not for the fact that we went to the moon. But besides all that, the fact that the atmosphere causes things to twinkle is because there's atmosphere between us and the objects in space. We don't like that because it blurs out the image. It makes it much less easy to see the resolution of it. And it distorts and changes the properties of what you're looking at because you're looking to this dirty window.

Imagine you're trying to look at your neighbor through a spyglass here. Well, that's exactly what a sniper is trying to do, right? A sniper is trying to do, right? A sniper's trying to look through a mile, you know, one of my relatives, I won't say who, has a confirmed kill at over three miles, okay? Imagine three miles away, three miles away. And it's not Andrew Boostamatha. I wish he was in my family, but he's not. Andrew's probably been able to reach out pretty large distances.

I mean, snipers are amazing, right? But they have to deal with- Andrews is a sniper. I don't know if he's done that in the past. He's done a lot of shit. I don't know if he's been sniping. I don't want to get him more free clout, you know? He's got enough free clout.

He's got a great little industry going on there. Every day, everyday sniper. Yes, every day is sponsored by CIA. That's right. So the same thing happens if you're on Earth. If you're trying to hit a target three miles away, that's a lot of atmosphere between you and that target. You ever seen like you're driving in the West and you see like a mirage on the road

or you see this like the warping of like the image on the road? I've only ever been to Vegas in Milwaukee. Well, Vegas will be a place where you can see just this exact phenomenon. Yeah, but I was on the strip. Okay, you weren't out driving in the desert. Next time we'll come out. We have my cousin owns a shooting range out there. No cocaine in the desert.

No, okay. No, no, I'm like that. No drop-offs. Like, oh, shit. No hangover. No hangover five. We'll stop at four. Anyway, the atmosphere has turbulence,

and that makes it hard to hit a target at more than a few months. So now what the astronomers built to look at images of galaxies and stars millions of light years away, now a sniper on Earth can look at millions of thousands of meters away, okay? So they can correct

for the atmospheric distortion using the technology that was invented for astronomy. So these are all just benefits that accrue, okay? So I forgot exactly how we got on the subject, but I know we were talking about developments in astronomy. Well, it was the Big Bang and how people had been saying that's- That's right.

So people have been saying this for a long time. Every time that something new comes out and dated and the most recent example is a James Webb Space Telescope, according to these proponents of the No Big Bang hypothesis, okay, they don't believe in the Big Bang at all. They believe something completely nonsensical called Tired Light, which we can talk about. It's basically a static universe. The universe has been here forever. Unlike the fact that we know for, you know, as near as we can know for

certainty and scientific facts, about 13 miles from here is Holmdel, New Jersey. There used to be a laboratory there called Bell Labs. And they invented a lot of the technology, like the transistor, the laser, the radio, telecommunications, cell phone devices. What they were trying to do is build the first communications. So there used to be only one cell phone carrier. And basically one telephone company in the whole world. It was AT&T. It was Bell. And Bell Labs was here in Holmell, about, what, 12 miles away from here or something like that. Well, that's where they shoot severance now. Yeah, is that really? Oh, okay, cool. I think so. Yeah, that makes sense. It's kind of that dystopian vibe to it. So Bell Labs was tasked with the following thing. Radio waves were

being sent and bounced off of the early satellites that were launched in the early 1960s from California from near Pasadena where I used to work at Caltech, bouncing up to a satellite and then echoing that exact signal back down to Earth back to New Jersey. So it was the first transcontinental communication using bouncing of radio waves

off of a satellite, which is the only thing high enough in space to get... When scientists here, named Penzius and Wilson, they were looking and they saw the signal, but it was really noisy. It would be like as if you were paying to, you know, film this in 4K and you were getting like 144P. It was horrible. static noise, images are awful.

I'm like, what the hell? I'm paying millions of dollars, billions of dollars. And I'm getting this crappy image. What is causing that? Well, behind the satellite that they were looking at is the cosmos. Is all this heat left over from the Big Bang? And that was called the Cosmic Microwy Background Radiation, the CMB, which is this 3 Kelvin signal, that these two astronomers that were working for our technology company

trying to improve their telecommunications communication ability. They weren't trying to detect the Big Bang, in other words. They had no ulterior motives. They just want to understand it. And then my grandfather, PhD grandfather, David Wilkinson and his colleagues at Princeton University, realized that the static that they were seeing behind the satellite was actually coming from the Big Bang itself or the cosmos itself. That was the discovery of the C&B in 1965. It's the 60th anniversary of it, actually last month was.

And this was... So they could see it? Say it again. They could see it as static as radio waves. So it was a radio telescope, just like... Some that happened billions of years ago. They can see it as a radio wave. It's happening right now.

The universe is redshifting. It's getting bigger. And so the light's getting colder and colder farther and farther away. But it's still moving towards us. As the universe expands, it goes from high wavelength, short wavelengths to long wavelengths. So you can trace those wavelengths to an initial, I'm going to use a fake term, but an initial wave I'm going to call it. That is the big bang itself. Everything that's above absolute zero in temperature emits radiation.

You're emitting radiation now. We're about 300 Kelvin, what's called Kelvin's, or it's 90 degrees, 98 degrees Fahrenheit. convert it to Kelvin and maybe it's 310 Kelvin. A Kelvin's the absolute temperature scale. If you cool something down to zero Kelvin, all of its motion stops. Heat is just a random, what we call the random motion of molecules. You can stop it, you can slow it down, but you can only do that with an infinite amount of energy cooling it down to absolute zero.

So everything in the universe, you've ever seen anything in space is above zero Kelvin. That means it's emitting waves of radios or microwaves, depending on how much its temperature is. The sun is 5,000 Kelvin. and that's why it admits light. We're emitting heat. You could detect your girlfriend or whatever, right? You could come up really close to her, not touch her,

then you can feel the infrared heat coming up. That's 300 Kelvin radiation. That's in the infrared. That's the heat. In the universe has been cooling off so much that's gone from visible light or x-rays and gamma rays, the highest form of energetic light there is, from the initial heat that was left over

from the fusion of the first elements after the Big Bang. That heat was all pervasive, exists in all directions at all times, time. And as the universe has been expanding, when you expand an oven, you cool it down. You ever spray off one of those cleaners of your computer, the frion cans or whatever, that clean off your computer, dusters, right? What happens to the can? It gets colder. Yes. Because you're expanding the gas, it cools it. So the universe expands the heat in the universe is cooling down. So went from 3,000 Kelvin, which is where hydrogen forms, to 3 Kelvin over the course of 13.8 billion years.

Yeah, they get crazy fucking cold, too. Exactly. Yeah, you can do it. I actually had this, like, little cyst frozen on my forehead there with some of this gas last week. Oh, okay. Yeah, I actually took it off. I wouldn't have known until you showed me. Now I'm going to look at it the whole time. I'm a cosmetologist, you know, I've got to show you the hair, what goes on behind the makeup. Just make sure we get that in 4K. That's right.

Don't get that 144P. So the point being, they found this radiation source, heat radiation, that had cooled off from 3,000 Kelvin to 3 Kelvin, meaning the universe is expanded by a factor of 1,000, which means the universe has gone a thousand times bigger since that very

first light. You talk about this with, put the timestamp in there, Joe, at two hours and something minutes in the Claudia Derrama episode, you talk about last scattering surface. My God. Come on, man. You got to give me you. Got to give me something here. I'm a long-time listener, second-time guest. So the point is we know for sure what temperature this occurred at. We know how long the universe is expanding for. We know all these different properties of the universe. But in order to explain those phenomena, again, people are going to use properties of science that sound plausible to the uneducated. So instead of that, he and other people say, no, the universe isn't expanding. It's static. It's been here forever.

It's eternal. It's never changed in size, which goes against everything that we know from the measurements of galaxies by Hubble to the measurements of the cosmic microwave background, to the abundance of the elements in this glass of water. You know, this water contains elements that aren't just hydrogen oxide. And they contain isotopes of things. I'm not talking about the hard water of New Jersey, which is a problem. I know you went down to the metal lands and scoops them up. That's right. So elements, all elements have, we got to bury you. Have things called isotopes, right? So isotope is the same number of protons in the atomic nucleus, but different numbers of neutrons. So it has different atomic weight. Hydrogen has three different

isotopes. Ordinary hydrogen is just a single proton, surrounded by a single electron. There's another form of hydrogen called Deuterium. Deuterium has a proton, and a neutron and one electron. The electron is negatively charged, a proton is positively charged, and the neutron is neutrally charged. Then there's another one called tritium. Tridium. Have you ever heard of trijicon sites or something on a fancy watch? There's another word I'm thinking of that someone said in here, but it's different. Yeah, so tritium has two neutrons of one proton and one electron. The electron is responsible for the chemistry of the atom, and the number of neutrons is properly other nuclear properties

for fusion and fission and all sorts of other things. It still comes out to zero, obviously. comes out to zero total charge or also be electrically charged, which some people violate and there's thornbirds or whatever they're called thunderbolts. They talk about the universe has this net electric charge, which is completely false. And I have a video coming out about that. On my second channel, because I do take advice from you, I have a smaller channel. Professor Keating experiments. We'll have both linked down below. Yes, that's right. So in this glass of water is evidence that the Big Bang occurred because the amount of the ratio of the amount of the second

isotope of hydrogen, which is called Deuterium, to the third isotope called tritium, and the first isotope called proteum or just normal hydrogen, those agree exactly with the properties of a universe that was once incredibly hot, incredibly dense, and had a certain temperature. So the temperature, density, and pressure of the universe, as predicted by theory, is exactly borne out by water you got from the tap here in New Jersey. Okay, so this is proof. These are fossils. Remember, all we can do in science as cosmologists, rather, we're looking through time machines, right? A telescope is a time. I don't see you as you are right now. You're about three feet away. Light takes one foot, one nanosecond to go each foot. So I see you three nanoseconds ago. The sun's eight minutes away by light travel time, right? That means if seven minutes ago the sun disappeared, we wouldn't know it for another minute, right? We wouldn't feel anything. Everything would go on, right? How would we know it? There's no force, nothing goes fast in the speed of light, including gravity. So, and according to Claudia, it goes slower than gravity. Gravity can actually travel slower than light. And that's a different podcast that you already did. So we have fossils. We have fossil

photons that come from the heat of the Big Bang. We have fossil protons and neutrons that come from the Big Bang and only from the model of the Big Bang. There's no way to explain the abundance of the ratio of Deuterium, Tridium, and Proteum inside this glass of water, except for the fact that there was a big bag. Because stars don't make hydrogen. Stars don't make isotopes of hydrogen. Deuterium's very fragile. It breaks apart very easily. The only way that it occurs is if the universe was born with it. Now, these meteorites, these come from stars that exploded. So when a star, which is primarily made of hydrogen and helium, once it tries to make things in its core, like iron, which is why this meteorite is so heavy and magnetic, if you have a magnet here, we can play around

that. This is actually Joe's, so I'm going to give it to it. I don't want to damage it, but this did fall from Earth into, you know, fall from space into Earth. And this, this meteorite is made of, has isotopes that are some of which are radioactive, which tell us its age as well. And its age is younger than the age of the universe, but older than the age of the earth. So this is actually older than the age of the earth by isotopic abundance ratios. We know that very accurately.

It's composition, which you get when you go to my website. You get a copy of its composition. It's fingerprint. It's chemistry. All points to a hot thermal origin of this meteorite that's extremely different from the way that's a hydrogen formed in that. There's no hydrogen in this meteorite.

When a supernova blows up, which is what produced this, it doesn't make any hydrogen. In fact, you can tell the absence of hydrogen that certain supernova occurred, which is now giving us energy, giving us evidence that dark energy may not be constant. So the last three months have been as revolutionary for cosmology. Yeah, everyone's talking about this. As any period in my history since I was a graduate student in the late 90s when the first announcements that there was such a thing as dark energy and something called a cosmological constant may be present. And in the last few months, I've had on my podcast three or four different episodes about dark energy and dark matter and how they might not be what cosmologists thought they were for the last two generations of cosmologists. And what's the new evidence here that's driving at this?

Yeah. So the new evidence that we're seeing comes from two different types of instruments. One is the newly commissioned Vera Rubin Observatory in Chile, not far from where. are Simon's Observatory Telescope is. Yeah, where's Simons, by the way? Simon's Observatory is north of Santiago, Chile, in the Atacama Desert.

So it's called the Dryas Desert on Earth. It's at 17,000 feet above sea levels, so you need oxygen. When you go up there, you need ultraviolet protection. It's like being on the surface of the planet Mars. See how blue the sky is? So if you go out here in New Jersey on a sunny day, if that ever happens,

you look out. It's sunny out of here, Brian. It was sunny. It was sunny. Yeah, it was way too sunny yesterday. Don't be taking so run out on me. Okay? So now look at the, look above the horizon.

You see how it gets like blue pretty quick. As you look along exactly at the horizon, it's kind of whitish, and that's a proof of that we live on a round planet, because it's atmospheric column density is much thicker on the horizontal direction. And it goes down exponential, or, you know, it goes down as one over the secant of the angle. But you see how blue it gets? Yes. If you were out here, and look at this image of the, you happen to have this nice, beautiful image of the New York's skyline here. See how much wider it is at the same degree of altitude above the horizon here? Yes. That's because there's much more water vapor and particles and smog and stuff in the, in the,

in the, uh, in the, uh, along the atmosphere here in the city than there is 17,000 feet above our current elevation. Why you can't see a lot of stars here, but you can see them all there in part. Yeah. We're not looking for stars, but exactly. So you see how, so right above us, if you were to look straight up here, it would be blue, but it would be about as blue as it is here at only a few degrees above the horizon. That's why we go to the Chile. It's extremely clear skies, low amounts of water in the atmosphere, and extremely dark. And it's completely different, you know, we see different constellations, which is another proof that we live on a round planet because you don't wouldn't have that phenomenon if we lived in a flat planet. We have a website. Go to simonsobservatory.

org, Joe, and you'll see our brand new website. Looks really cool. And we got some drones flying over there. So that's what it looks. See how blue skies? Like the motion graphics. Yeah, isn't that cool? We're doing it for the clicks. Now, so there's three telescopes that we've built over the last, this is eight years in the making. So this, if you were coming from the Big Bang, if you were a photon coming from the Big Bang, this is about what you'd see about a microsecond, nanosecond,

before you ended your 14 billion year-long journey. Now, the telescope that I'm going to talk about next, there's two telescopes. One is in the northern hemisphere. It's called DESE, Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument. And then the other one is called... Dark energy spectroscopic. instrument. Yes. Desi is this acronym. And the other one is called the Vera Rubin Observatory. Now,

Vera Rubin was one of the first people, along with my late colleague Margaret Burbage, to detect the presence of dark matter in galaxies. She observed that galaxies are rotating way too fast. So imagine like here, people are coming in and out because it's a really important center of gravity for entertainment, for finance, or everything. So imagine you're just looking at the people that are here. And you said, well, let me compare that to Topeka, Kansas. just picking some random city. Why aren't there the same number of people coming in and out? Well, there's not as much gravitational pull in terms of finance, commerce, entertainment,

media, all these other things in Topeka than there is in New York. But blindly, if an alien were looking, why are there more people in, why are there more people coming in and out of New York or Hoboken than out of Topeka? Well, they'd have to go through this analysis. But she noticed that there's way more people, if you like, in the outskirts, in the boondocks of our galaxy and other galaxies, in that there's much more mass out there and it's causing the stars to rotate far faster and the galaxy itself to rotate much faster than it would if all the mass that we had in a galaxy was giving off light the way

that even this meteorite gives off heat. Can you explain that some more? You lost me a little bit. Okay, so if you have a galaxy is a giant collection of stars, gas, dust, and now we know dark matter as well. And what happens is a spiral galaxy, there's a couple different types of galaxies, but the one that the Milky Way is, and Drameter Galaxy is, and many others are spirals. Over billions of years, the stars have been accelerated

into this constant, stable, whirlpool, vortex-looking pattern that we call a spiral galaxy. If you measure the individual velocity of the stars as a function of their distance from the black hole at the center of those galaxies, you see how fast they rise. If it were like the solar system,

the planets in our solar system orbit around the central mass and the solar system, which is the sun. The sun contains 99.8% of the mass of our solar system. The planets rotate with a 99.9. I didn't notice that. Yeah, it's almost 100%. Yeah, Jupiter's on 0.1%. Saturn's about 0.007, and then Earth is almost nothing. Yep, that's right. And then there's, you know,

so if you look at their plot, you know, Johannes Kepler demonstrated the 1600s, if you plot their velocities, the planet's velocities go down as one divided by the square root of the distance from the center, which is the sun. Okay, so the Pluto and Neptune go around much slower. If they're four times as far away, they go down as one over the square root of four or two times, one over square root of two times, the rate that the earth goes, okay? So things that are farther away, Jupiter takes 12 years to go around the sun, Earth takes one year to go around the sun. Mars takes about two years to go around the sun. It's about square root of two times farther away. So that's called Kepler's law. Kepler's, one of Kepler's laws is that

the period that it takes a planet to go around it is proportional to the velocity that a planet goes around the star is proportional to one over the square root of the distance, okay? That's just a law, and it comes from Newton's Law is Gravity. He didn't know that, but that's where it comes from. Thanks, Isaac. If stars were like little, sorry, if stars orbiting around the galaxy were just like planets orbiting around a star, then their velocity should also go down as one over the square root of the distance.

It's just Kepler's law. There's no reason why a star would behave different than a galaxy. or a planet. What Vera Rubin and Margaret Burbage and others discovered was that wasn't the case. Fritz's wiki is another guy. They actually found that instead of going down, the velocity stops going down

and maintains its velocity way beyond the point where you can see the spiral. And there's some, implying that there's some mass way beyond the light radius of the galaxy, it means that there's some mass that's causing their velocity to remain high as if the sun were much more massive,

but it's only much more massive for the ones that are farther away. So it's very bizarre. And Rubin and Burbage and Zwicki, they all discovered this phenomenon, that there seems to be what's considered to be dark matter. In other words, matter that doesn't give off light. There's no source of light that's caused by these. Now, it could be black holes. It could be anything that's massive could cause this.

Is that just so hard for me to conceptualize this whenever we talk about it? Think about you versus like a toddler. You're swinging? You ever put like a ball on a rope and you're swinging around your head? Who can swing the ball faster? You are a toddler. I can. Or you are your girlfriend or whatever.

You're more massive. So the more massive you are, the faster you can swing something around you before you start to get perturbed. Like, eventually you can do it, right? So that's exactly what's happening. So the more massive the galaxy is, the more velocity can be at the outskirts of that galaxy, of the stars the outskirts of the galaxy. And these, but the thing is these stars in the galaxy are moving as if there's like,

you know, Ronnie Coleman or, you know, some huge. huge guy at the center swinging around, but all we see is this little tiny, you know, you know, whatever, some person, your girlfriend or whatever, at the center. And so it seems inconceivable that all the mass of that galaxy or the object swinging around is due to the, this, you know, person that you can see. It must mean there's some other force. Now, if you're underneath her or you're wearing her clothes or something, you're there, then, yes, you could explain it. So there's a missing mass, some missing strength that's causing things to rotate faster than observed.

Now, we haven't seen that. That's the whole controversy. We can't see these particles. We should be able to see them, detect them, if they're like particles of mass. And that's part of one of the goals of the Simon's Observatory and other projects. To detect that. But the very first kind of, you know, a new telescope dedicated to Vera Rubin just came online. And so there's this telescope in the Southern Hemisphere.

It's over eight meters across, bigger than the Hubble telescope, bigger than the James Webb telescope. And its whole job is to scan the sky. every single day and make instead of taking a still picture like that it takes makes movies of the universe it's a first motion picture camera in ultra high res so the cameras that you're using 4k right so that's that's like 2200 by 1800 or something well these are these are still but I'll stay with it okay so stay with so this camera that's in the Vera Rubin telescope is a 3.2 gigapix billion pixel camera it would be something like a thousand or 200 of billion pixels

We have that? Well, they built it, especially. The U.S. government and the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, other places, Department of Energy, all these places. Billion pixels. Three billion pixels. So it's like 100 or 1,000 of the... And these things have to be cooled.

Unlike the cameras that you guys are using or your iPhone, they have to be cooled down to be as sensitive as possible to these different wavelength bands that they're seeing. So this is a cooled camera inside of a chamber that is a vacuum chamber, too, because you can't cool something out if you don't put it in a vacuum. So it's this massive camera. If you look up the camera, Joe, look up VRO, camera, Shelley. And these sensors were also partially invented at Bell Land. So they're doing this but moving.

Yep. And they're making a movie and they're looking for things that are transients, things that are moving that shouldn't be moving. They're able to take the deepest images ever made. You can actually just go to my YouTube channel. How about that? And I'll show you some of the videos. Yeah, we'll free plug while we're out.

Yeah, exactly. That's right. That's what we're here for, right. All I'm paying for. That's what I use my platform for. Free plugs. Not for these cranks. Like, you know.

I'm even just blown away by that picture there. I love looking and stuff like that. So what video are you looking for, Brian? It's in the playlist. Go to videos, Joe, and then click on the second one. Ruben's first data. There is. All right, hold on.

Let me turn this volume on so we can hear it. Oh, you're not subscribed. Oh, there you go. That's not my account. That's his account. Yeah, just want to be clear that. Give it a thumbs up. There you go, thumbs up.

Do you hear that from your speaker, Joe? Is that what we're doing? Let me just make sure I got it here. Let it rip. What you're about to see is an exclusive interview with the leaders of one of the most exciting observatories ever built, the Vera Rubin Observatory. In just 10 hours, you captured over 2,000 asteroids,

which is something like 100 times faster than the discovery rate around the whole planet. Some of these asteroids could be Earth killers, and that same technology is set to revolutionize our understanding of dark matter, peering into the massive Virgo cluster with unprecedented. When you finally...

So what I show, I go back to where I said the Virgo cluster. Go forward a little bit. Which is something like 100 times faster than the discovery. We'll talk about the asteroid discovery. Some of these asteroids could be Earth killers. And that same technology is set to revolutionize or understanding of dark matter, peering into the massive Virgo cluster.

Pause. Right there. Okay. So this is the first cluster that they looked at. What you're seeing here, the things that have like crosses on them, those are stars in our galaxy. Everything else that doesn't have a cross on it is a galaxy in another part of the universe. Some of these are like 50 million light years away from the area.

50 million light years away and we can see it. And we can see them. And we can see if they're moving. And we can zoom in on them, which you can do it. There's a tool in the video description called Sky View app or whatever. And you can zoom it. This image is just like the first image that you can zoom. you get, and it's like a telephoto lens. This image, he showed me when we did the interview

with Mario Yurich, you can zoom in on a galaxy and basically do it like a 200-powered telescope, but you can do whatever you want with it. All this data is free. It's available to the public when they're not hiding it. They're not saying, oh, there's some classified information there. And some of the information that I can detect, the thing I let off with is that in 10 hours discovered 2,000 asteroids. Now, why is that important? Well, a lot of these were discovered. They were never known. And some of these could eventually be. something that could threaten the Earth. So they have tracked and he goes on to talk about in the interview. He's one of the leaders of the time domain, which looks for things that are basically

making a movie of the universe. So it's the first time we've had a dynamic telescope. Literally, it's the first time we had a video camera on the universe with this sized type of telescope, with this resolution. So it can do anything. And the coolest thing about it is that anybody has access to it. It's like you have your own eight meter diameter, eight meter diameter telescope. It's bigger than this building. When I hear something, though, like what did you say is 50 billion light years away. Is that right? Million. 50 million. Either way.

Yeah. That's right. Like it's, that doesn't even process for me, like how we have created something on this earth where we can actually see that. That's right. That's one of the beautiful things about science, which is why I'm such a huge promoter and cheerleader of it and unabashedly so. And I believe it should be protected and kept, these were not built by people who were like, had to, in order to have like some wild-eyed idea. Like, there's no person, Einstein, a thousand Einstein's working in isolation, as smart as he was, could not have done this.

It took the cumulative efforts of thousands of people, billions of dollars. It's not quite a billion-dollar experiment, but it's millions of dollars, and it's built up over time in order to focus, no pun intended, on serendipity. So serendipity is the one tool we have in science to guard against confirmation bias.

Imagine you're not looking for something, but you find it, versus if you're looking for it and you find it. So that's what happened with the CMB, the cosmic ray background, which is my area of expertise, it was found by accident. Remember, I said they were looking for a communication satellite

with excess noise. It has nothing to do with the Big Bang. They didn't even think it had, they didn't know what they had discovered. They had to ask scientists, theorists, and others to collaborate with them. And they were trying to win their own Nobel Prize, these other guys,

including my PhD grandfather, my academic grandfather. And so the point is, when you do these measurements, you don't know what you're going to look for if you do a measurement and you're not trying to find something. That, in some sense,

is the purest thing you could possibly discover. like penicillin was discovered by accident. A guy left out some cheese or some mold and he discovered actually the bacteria won't be capable of digesting and it acts as a toxin to them and that was then developed into penicillin. It wasn't saying like, hmm, let me invent this thing

that will then be used to cure, you know, as an antibiotic. The x-ray. X-ray was invented basically accidentally. This guy, William Rengen. Really? Yeah, he was experimenting with just like electrons in a tube and then he noticed that he had a piece of film

in the other room and the film kept getting exposed and it had this pattern of the case that it was in. Then he took his wife and he said, honey, put your hand here and then he fired the electrons in this tube at her hand and she saw her bones. The first X-ray in history, if you look up Rentkin X-ray, I think her name was Martha. I always wonder what it would be to be like a fly on the wall in a room like this. Like, holy shit, don't move. Don't fucking move. We are never having to pay our mortgage late again. There it is. Wow. So serendipitous. original one right there? That's the first x-ray of a human body. God, that even looks like pretty good today.

That was the first Nobel Prize, too, in physics. And that was part of the Nobel Prize desire was to create things that would have a beneficiary effect on human flourishing. In fact, it has. I mean, anyone who's out of tooth pulled, you know, knows how important is to have an x-rays. So if that's Vera Rubin, it's going to revolutionize our, find things serendipitously. It'll find things intentionally like it's looking for asteroids. But what if one of those asteroids on a collision course to prevent the earth and getting destroyed. You know,

we got to call Bruce Willis and get them out there, right? So this is, you know, part of the... Don't forget Ben Affleck. That's right. So we get all these serendipitous benefits from all these types of tools and technology.

Now, dark energy, which you should pivot to, is a completely different thing. So dark energy is, is an invisible energy. And so in that sense, it's invisible. So it has that similarity to dark matter, but it acts completely differently.

Matter tends to, to only gravitationally attract. That's what's weird about gravity versus the other forces. Electricity, positive negative charges. Magnetism, north and south magnetic poles. They can attract or they can repel. But gravity only attracts.

It's weird. But there's something effectively called anti-gravity, which is real, but it's incredibly weak and dilute, and that's what dark energy is. Dark energy is like a repulsive form of gravity that causes the universe to expand, to inflate, to get bigger every day

and to get bigger at a faster rate. as time goes on. Why is that, why is that anti-gravity for it to expand the universe? So in the, in Einstein's theory of relativity, when you add in energy

into empty space, the empty space effectively is causing repulsion, gravitational repulsion. It almost acts as if you have two like charges together. Remember I said, gravity only,

gravity acts as if it's only, it's always has two different charges, but there's only one type of charge. That's just this mass, right? There's no like anti-mass and mass, but all mass attracts, is if one was positive and one was negative, but that's just because gravity itself

is universally attractive. But if you have pure energy that suffuses space itself, the space can get bigger without the matter within it getting bigger. So it acts as if it's like blowing up air pressure inside of a balloon or tension and stretching out a rubber band

or something like that. It acts as if it's repulsive gravity and it has appeared as since the time of Einstein. So in 1917, 1915, when Einstein came up with his law of general relativity, 10 years after the speed of light,

special relativity, he came up with a law that described how the universe as a whole could be expanding or contracting, but he observed at the time they didn't know of anything that was expanding or contracting.

They thought the universe was static at that time. So in 1915, the model of the universe was that the universe was eternal. And so nobody believed that the universe was, and actually that's all the evidence

showed. When you look at a star, the only things that move in space are the planets that we can see, planets and asteroids. We couldn't see, You can't see the galaxies moving unless you had a very powerful spectrum.

So why did they say the universe was internal well? Was eternal? Yeah. Because if it's not changing, the notion is that it has always been there that way it didn't need to have a creation, didn't need a creator, it didn't. There were a lot of biases against the kind of Big Bang narrative at the time. But actually, the Big Bang model was proposed by LaMetro, this guy, who was a Belgian Catholic priest in the late 1920s, that actually, no, the universe should be expanding.

Einstein didn't believe it, and he put into his laws of physics, he put, in this fudge factor called the cosmological constant, which was, in order for the universe to remain stable and static, he had to prevent the gravitational collapse of the matter that he could see with his eyes, stars, planets, et cetera. He knew there was matter, so there had to be something keeping it from collapsing or else he wouldn't be there asking the question of why the universe wasn't collapsing. So he put in this thing. He later called it his biggest blunder. It's called the cosmological constant. And what has been known since 1998 was that he was actually right that there should be a cosmological constant, but it doesn't keep the universe static

and it doesn't make the universe contract, it makes the universe expand. So that was the possibility he did not consider it. He thought it's not contracting as it would if there's only matter, so there should be some buoyant force that keeps the universe from contracting that he called the cosmological constant of a vacuum energy. Now we know there is some form of vacuum energy what was discovered in March and February this year by the DESE dark energy spectroscopic instrument was that there seems to be evidence that the dark energy component is not a constant.

That it's varying with time and that, in fact, it's getting weaker over time and that the universe, even though it's expanding now and the expansion rate is accelerating, eventually that expansion rate will stop accelerating, come to neutral, and then it will start decelerating and the universe could, in fact, collapse. Like a sucking sound kind of thing.

Yeah, it could be a giant sucking sound. Or it could taper off asymptotically, and just expand and dilute over an infinite period of time. So there's possibilities that expands forever, rips apart, all the matter, all the energy in the universe effectively rips apart after a finite time. That's called the big rip. Yeah, but does a big rip happen like in a snap of a finger kind of deal?

Yeah, at the end of time, it does, yeah. At the end of time when the vacuum itself is decaying and ripping apart, yeah, every atom and right now the universe is expanding. But we are not expanding. I mean, you know, Brooklyn's not expanding as Al. said. Well, that's a win for everyone. That's right. Our waistlines might expand in my case. But the key discovered by DESE is that that constant, which we thought would lead to the eventual heat, what's called the heat death of the universe, where the universe continues to expand slowly,

cooling over time, such that there's only photons left at the very end of time, but that takes an infinite or very long period of time, maybe tens of billions of years or so, tends to 100 times longer than the observable age of the universe today. What Desi has found is that that may happen much faster. Again, keep paying your taxes out there. I'm talking to you. Because the universe will not be changing on any rapid time scale. But it is kind of this paradigm that we now know that there is dark energy, but that it's not a constant amount of dark energy. The amount of dark energy seems to be decreasing. It's not a slam dunk yet. And there are other observatories, hopefully like Simon's Observatory and maybe even Rubin Observatory, that will provide evidence. But the,

But the evidence that the universe is simple and explained by just dark matter alone plus a cosmological constant, that seems to be in a lot of trouble. And in fact, there are people that say that even the measurements of certain parameters, the most important one is called the Hubble parameter. The Hubble parameter tells you as you go out in distance, how fast is a given galaxy moving away from every other galaxy. That constant is the most important number in cosmology. It's related to how old the universe is.

right now there are two different measurements and just yesterday the team at the south pole that operates a parallel telescope to the ones that i was involved with called bicep their telescope is called the south pole telescope they announced that there is a discrepancy in the hubble constant that's at something like almost a one in a hundred million chance of being a fluke like some really tiny number that they made a mistake that they make measurements of the cosmos in the early state when it was young, when the CMB was first formed. And then observation using supernova and more local instrumentation, like that was the recipient of the Nobel Prize in 2011, that instrument is showing a much larger value for the Hubble constant.

And they don't agree. And the chance of them being fluke disagreement, each one says they know the result to better than 1% precision. and they disagree at six, six times the individual uncertainty of each one. So there's basically one, it would have to be a fluke that they're both accurate and it's just a fluke. We happen to measure, you know, one of them at the low end of one of them at the ion. That measurement is now, was released yesterday by the South Pole Telescope. And it's the largest, you know, it exceeds the threshold of scientific credibility.

Like, it's now at such a level that you almost can't consider the measurements to ever be. consistent again. So we have to explain how do the universe expand differently at early times versus now. It could be because the cosmological constant is different at early times or late times, or, and we have evidence for that at something like 1 in 30,000 percent chance of being wrong by fluke. But these two different measurements are really exciting. See, that's another difference between a scientist and a fraud. A scientist is excited when there's a discrepancy. We don't say like, oh, we, you know, keeping prove that actually there's, there's lunar laser ranging modules that have been proven. So actually, like, I should be excited because now it means that we're closer to truth.

Like we have a better example. Or you're finding something entirely new. Right. Yeah. Maybe there's actually, okay, maybe that proves their aliens that are there that took them the lunar module there. And so that would be more. I mean, I'm just making that up. But the point is a scientist should be the most excited to be proven wrong.

Because that's how science progresses, right? If we thought Newton was the final word, we'd think that the speed of light is infinite, gravity is infinite, it's always one over R, that there's no subatomic particle. I mean, think about all the things that, if you stop science at any point in time, you ruin progress in humanity. Yes. Even though each individual scientist is wrong. I'm wrong.

I'm wrong. And if I say the Earth is a sphere, I'm wrong too. I mean, we had this debate last time. You made it into a viral clip, and I clipped it from your classroom. I remember that. You know, it's not a perfect sphere, but it's much more of a sphere than it's fun. I thought you're all flat earth on me when you said. that was like, oh, shit, here we go.

Well, now you brought that in, so we got our little display over there. Yeah, keep that back there as a reminder. But if you look at the universe, the universe is actually smoother than that globe. So that globe is not a relief cloud, doesn't have mountains on or anything like that. But even if it did, the size of the mountains relative to the size of the radius of the Earth is larger than how rough the universe is. In other words, the universe is more smooth, isotropic, and homogeneous on its largest scales than the globe is on its largest skills. or the actual Earth is on its largest skills. Meaning like, hold on, let me back that up.

So the mountains within a globe relative to the radius. Radius. The radius of the earth are larger than what it would be on the hypothetical, air quotes, there are mountains that exist in the universe in relation to the earth. That's right. The universal fluctuations and density and pressure at the early times. So the challenge is that you don't have kids yet that you know about, right? Not that I know.

Not that you know about. Okay, so I have kids. So when your kids turn two, please, may you have, we need more people. You know, Elon's all concerned about my kids. I'm looking forward to the kids. I'll definitely have several. Best thing in life. Yeah.

No, bar now. But having with the person that you love the most, that's best. That's the key, Brian. You've got to find the right one. I have the algorithm. I told it to Lex. He never didn't listen to me either. All these guys, think of how many unmarried podcasters that are that I love.

Andrew Heberman, dear friend, unmarried. I mean, Andrew Huberman knows how to juggle on my dog. Shout out to the focus on that guy. Some of that's made up. Some of that's made up. I'll bet some of us made up, but shout out to the focus. Let's go through these guys, okay? Because you're in a rarefied air.

I want to convince at least one of you I've met. Okay, so I've talked to Theo Vaughn. I haven't been on a show, but I've talked to him. He's Unmarried Male Podcast, no Kids. Andrew Huberman, Unmarried Mail Podcasts are no kids. Lexiardt, Lex Friedman, Unmarried Bogas. Stephen Bartlett. You seen a pattern here?

There are way too many of you guys. Maybe I got to do better. I'll fix it. Don't worry. I mean, I'm working on. Hopefully you will, because the world needs more. Yes. Little, uh, little, uh, little Julian's out there and Julian.

Yeah, I don't think, I don't think life would be fulfilling without that. If you didn't find, I mean, obviously like you have, but if you didn't find like your counterpart or someone, you know, the woman that can, that can keep you honest and also support you and everything you do and then also like have your kids and raise them and, you know, continue the evolutionary cycle. I don't see the, personally, I don't. really see the point to life if you don't have that. Yeah, I mean, people worry about, oh, the, you know, legacy, and even people like Elon, who's got a lot of kids. I mean, you have to understand,

he has so many kids. He doesn't know how many kids he has. I mean, they're coming out of the woodwork left and right. But look at it. I think he's got to be careful. Yeah, he definitely needs to be careful. He's definitely got this kind of Messiah complex. I talked to him for a few minutes on my podcast last year, and I tried to kind of convey to him that, uh, that the Mars reality, is not as important as basically fundamental physics and astronomy and how do you feel about that uh well i kind of wasn't as good as maybe you would have been about it i i made it more personal i said look elin you want to go to mars and he's like yeah and i said well um which one of your kids are you going to leave behind and he was on his son was on the podcast it was on x it was a twitter space or x spaces and his mom and his son

you know his son was there and his mom was there and um and i could hear him playing in the background I'm like, you and I are both fathers. You've had the tragic, unfortunate occurrence of losing a child in your life. You know, hopefully that won't ever happen again or anybody that we love. But you know how painful it is to say goodbye to a kid. And yet you know you can't bring X to Mars with you. It's not safe. It's not prudent.

And plus, it's not within his free will domain of expression. Like, he might not want to go to Mars just because you want to go to Mars. So you'd be dooming him if you took him. So I don't think you'd take him, right? He said, yeah. And I said, so who are you going to leave behind? And how is that going to go? And then his mom jumped in.

He said, well, we don't want to talk about anything unpleasant here. And she cut it off. So I talked him for 10 minutes. I did get in a couple of questions about cosmology, and he's very interested in space and physics. And hopefully he'll take care of because the Starlink satellites actually contaminate some of the radio waves that we're looking for from the same evening. They contaminate?

How do they contaminate it? They broadcast in the exact frequency range that we're looking for. So you shoot it down? I don't think you can take it on the most. No, that'll be. be dangerous. You're not out there with the fucking

collection of Come on. Get the Bruce Willis and Ben Affleck up there with the jackhammers. So anyway, no,

life makes sense only when you have something beyond yourself to think about. And I think with these guys, and I've told me every single one, it's not like talking out of school,

but you know, you look at that and you say, well, I'm waiting for the right person or waiting for, okay, so I have a simple algorithm for men to find the right person.

So it's obviously important to man to want to have an attractive partner, a woman, let's just take heterosexual. That's not I'm familiar with

right now, but I'm sure it applies equally for non-heterosexual. But heterosexual men want to find a beautiful girl at some level, woman at some level.

I don't think that's too sexist. It's an imperative. Even men who are gay want to find a beautiful man, right? I mean, it's not like a mystery. Humans, the males are very visually stimulated, etc.

It's part of our propagation mechanism. But I said, look, you don't necessarily want to find like the hottest woman in the world necessarily because it might be something that's difficult for you. But then you can always ask why. Like keep and keep pursuing that. Why is it important to maintain human consciousness? Why is that important? Because it's the greatest gift that we know of in our world that we can conceive. The idea that we can have a civilization that communicates with each other at a way higher level than other species on this planet do. And that

the chances of that even happening were so slim and yet here we are. Okay. So you just made, you just finalized the argument to have kids, by the way. Absolutely. Everything you said translates 100% to why you and other men, Andrew and Chris, and all these guys should have kids, right? Yes. Right? Because the same principles should apply.

But again, you have to keep saying, well then if that's true, then you're saying that a future life, a future consciousness, is actually worth some fraction of a present amount of money and time, and consciousness and sort of forfeiting the intention. So there has to be some tradeoff between how much you apply there, right? So here's a crass example. He's going to abandon one of his current kids, or 13 of his, maybe all 14 or 15 or however many kids. He's got a lot more than that. He's going to abandon them. Abandon them. So he's not going to be the consciousness, loving ideological, father, biological father, biological father. He's already abandoned. He's already basically disavowed

one of them, right, the one that is a trans, right? He doesn't, she doesn't talk to him. He, he, she, whatever. I don't want to get into trans stuff. But they don't talk to each other, right? And they hate each other. And so because of that, he's alienated. So how much is a current child worth compared to a future possible child may not even exist, by the way? So these are these big questions, which I don't think he's fully grasped. I don't think he's a very deep, like he, I don't think he ruminates about things like this. I think actually sometimes it's important to have a philosophical, maybe even a religious perspective on things like this, to get perspective, to get some wisdom in there. Again, science doesn't mean wisdom. It means knowledge. Science is a problem.

by which we collect facts, we vet them, we test them, we stress test them, and then we get a consensus on what is limited to not be falsifiable. And that is the process of science. So I don't think purely thinking engineering wise or his greatest engineer maybe in history, certainly is an incredibly accomplished person. He's like three months older than me. Amazing, amazing person. Would I trade my life with his? Not in a billion years, not in a nanosecond. His life, according to even himself, his torture. is pure torture. Inside of Elon's mind is a torture chamber that I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy. The distractions, the compulsions, the OCD, the Asperger, whatever he's dealing with, the suffering,

the demons that drive him to sleep almost not at all, according to the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal to use other substances, to not have contact with one of my children, if I were him, it's unthinkable. So you have to wonder, you know, like, is the ultimate purpose that? And if so, if it's future consciousness, which is easier? It's like the U.S. thing. Like, which is more plausible? The UFOs have visited Earth, rectally probed our friends and neighbors, you know, made crop circles and built the pyramids and Stonehenge, or that there's, you know, cultural socioeconomic, socioeconomic explanations, psychological explanations, people were drugged or teased by their friends, haze by the U.S. government, which we know exist. I mean,

totally gas-lit people for decades. They weren't doing this. I said, in a long time, this is probably what they're doing. Or testing technology out, like radar reflecting spheres and cubes and whatever, all that stuff. Is that more plausible? Is it more easy to extend consciousness to other planets or to extend consciousness to this planet on Earth? Imagine if he dumped a trillion dollars into saving the Earth, whatever that means, preventing nuclear war, getting rid of, you know, engineered viruses for, you know, enhanced

purposes, asteroid deflection, and simultaneously put, you know, 0.1% of that trillion dollars into fundamental physics research, math research. computer science research. Look, last time I was here was 2023, end of 2023. November. November. And that was just when ChatGPT3 came out. It was right around then.

It was a watershed moment, just like, I think it'll be a watershed moment. We look back in the cosmological constant, not being constant. Since then, everything's different, right? So many things have changed in my teaching and my life and my kids' life. I taught my daughter how to make a song and it actually taught her how to prompt properly because she tried to make it sound like she'd probably. prompted it like I like Duolipa. I wanted to sound like do a Lipa. And the prompt came back from Sara, so on a, you can't do that. You can't use that's a forbidden word. You can't use any

hardest names because it's a violation or copyright, even if you're doing it in the style of it. So she learned how to prompt from that. Like she learned, okay, this is acceptable. So the machines are training us now. Are they going to train us in physics? I don't know. I don't know if Grock is capable of constructing a curved space time from a Rumanian manifold, the way that Einstein did, just sitting and thinking about falling in an elevator who's cable broke, okay? Can a computer do that? Can a computer mimic and modulate

just by sure GPU and LLM power married together? I don't know. I don't know if that's how the brain works. Just because neural networks worked that way, that doesn't mean that's the magic in the machine. What if there was 0.01% of the trillion dollars is going to cost to get some robots to Mars? And by the way, we send people there, we're gone on expeditions there,

but we don't try to set up a human, a planet living there. I mean, the surface is poisonous. You've got a crawl walk even before you run if that were even possible. But it's different. It's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, uh, it's, uh, Zach Wienersmith and his wife, uh, wrote a book called, uh, city on Mars, an incredibly skeptical take on all the conditions, both economic, physiological, uh, physical, you know, chemical, um, atmospheric, um, pressure, um, all these different things. One of the things, you know, they say is the, the, the surface, just to get there is a hazardous, is a hazardous, radiation exposure dose. You know, the same people who think we never went to the moon because

the Van Allen belt surrounding the earth would poison or radiate the human body beyond recognition. Not only believe that it's possible for Elon to go to Mars, but that you're going to take babies and zygotes and embryos and people that didn't choose to be born on the surface of Mars. Criminals are going to be born on the surface of Mars. Criminals? I mean, think about how many, 0.1% of the U.S. population are felons, right? So we have I thought you were saying we were taking like criminals there to fuck or something. So every time you go and see your Phillies play, there's like 10 murderers or 10 felons,

and there's 20 alcoholics, there's convicted rapists and Philly. Yeah, that's true. In San Diego, and on our beautiful America's finest city. But here's the point. If you go and you say that this is your priority, you're tacitly saying that I don't have other priorities,

including currently inhabited Earth. Earth is the only place we know where this consciousness flickers as a flame. Why not see what the, undersea water has, I told you, the Antarctic was only explored 112 years ago. Yeah. First, for the first time, there's parts there we don't even know about. The pyramid's not being part of them, okay, the period of pyramid under the ice.

Okay, we'll get to that next time. That's number three. Don't shut that down. Podcast number three, I got to go. But eventually, we could look at colonizing underneath the ocean. There's tons more resources right here in, you know, in the Atlantic Ocean than there are. And what about conserving the resources that are in, you know, species that are dying, et cetera, and in modulating some of the effects from the climate,

not saying all of its man-made, but how can we modulate those effects? How could we make human life flourish here? So consciousness, the life of a human being now being weighted far more than a potential future human being who may not have a job, thanks to AI, may have to rely on universal basic income, may not be sitting around writing the poetry

that the socialist paradise dreams of. So there's a lot of problems with living in the future, and that's the whole effective altruism kind of nonsensical, you know, scam that Sam Bankman freed and others were big proponents of. But, yeah, like, how do you wait what a future human life is worth based on your conventional social mores today? Who gets to say what it's worth? I mean, I don't think so. No, no one gets to say what it's worth. I mean, would you, by the way, if he said to you, Julian, hey, the starships leaving tomorrow, do you want to come? You want to be the second man on Mars? Oh, by the way.

Right. And you're probably like a huge supporter and fan of Elon. I mean, I'm a fan. I'm a lot of I'm not a fan boy. Right. And there are, there are, I do have to say this. There are just some patterns with him that he's exhibited that I've just noticed more over the last couple years that I'd be lying if I told you that's in line with what good people do. And I think one of those things is like some of his, I don't know, personal insemination of women and all that.

And it's like, I get it. You're trying to populate the planet. That's awesome. but I think the way that he treats some of it is wrong, objectively. No, I agree. But, you know, he's got 200-something million followers. I bet one. So go fuck his job.

He's just got 200, 200 Julian Dore's podcast. But no, I mean, I would bet on 1% of them, let's say 0.1% wants to go to Mars with thousands of people, right? It's to me to think about, you know, kind of if you, I just don't think it's been thought through fully. Whereas we know the basic research, basic scientific research that these things pan out in ways that you can't predict. In other words, he's trying to take a, he's an engineer. He's trying to take a certain track, which is apply money, apply certain, you know, benzene and chemical rocket things together. And the rocket go fast.

And it will reach, you know, Mars and a certain. Yeah, what's his estimated time to reach Mars? Do we know that? Well, the soonest Mars can be reached is something like, nice. months. That's the fastest you can get there. Longest than it's on the other side of the solar system is something like 21 months or something like that. But obviously you time it to be like that. But in terms of the total amount of mass, it has to be reached there. And then you have to geiform. I mean, no one's going to want to live in a bubble dome. Like he thinks it will

take something like a thousand starship launches to build basically a bubble dome type city there. Okay. But to-thousand starship launches? Yeah, in terms of total metric tons to orbit. It's trillions of dollars. Oh, yeah. That's right. Well, you know, he's on track to be, you know, he is the richest person in the world, and he's probably going to donate all. He ain't got that.

No, but governments do. And I think if he has the ear of people like President Trump still after calling him a Epstein. After accusing him of being on the Epstein foreign. Yeah, that went away real fast, didn't it? That was pretty amazing. I regret some of the things I said. Yeah, I mean, I wonder if I could take that back. That doesn't work with my wife, you know.

Yeah, no. I regret some of the things we said, honey, when I threw that at you and she threw it at me. All right. Well, I got to head up town. I'm going to head out tonight to an event where I'm going to be talking about these meteorites. Again, you can get them on my website. But next time I talk, I want to talk to you about something really cool. Because my next book is going to be about this magical person who brought me to New York City this time, Jim Simons.

So Jim Simons was kind of like my scientific godfather mentor. He happened to be one of the richest guys in the world. But he was also one of the most curious people in the world. He invented things in mathematics that have applicability, everything from genetics to quantum computers to cosmology to string theory and beyond. And he was up until his dying day. He basically was commanding me, issuing me challenges to go out and discover this phenomenon, which is related to this magic crystal. So I kept teasing the magic crystal. So you have huge retention.

This video is going to have like a flat retention curve 99%. What are you, you little YouTuber? Come on, you know I got to YouTube it up. So take a look at this thing here. Here's my card. This is you get when you get it onto my mailing list there. So take this. This is like a Costco Lifetime membership card right here.

Yeah, that's pretty nice. So now put this magic crystal, which is mostly clear, right? You'd say it's got some little cracks in it, but take a look and tell me, describe for the audience listening, perhaps, when you put it over some text. What happens to the text? Gets a little foggy. Okay, so put it down flat. Put the card and the crystal down flat. This is called Icelandic spar or...

Now it doubles it. It doubles it. Perfect. This crystal is called bi-refringence. Buy, like bisexual. Yeah. Bicycle. Birefringent.

It has two refractive indices, two different directions for light to propagate in. Your glasses have one. If you had glasses made of this stuff, you go nuts. Now, this is a polarizer. What I have here is called an optical polarizer. What it's going to do is kill off one of those two polarization states that have different indices of refraction. Tell me what happened.

Put the card. You guys fidget too much. Put it flat. Put it flat. Put both of them flat. And now put that on top of it. Separately? We're on top of it.

Well, you put it separately first just to show that it doesn't do anything. It just makes it darker, right? It just makes it darker. So on your cameras right now, you don't have any ND filter. Shame on you, Joe. Shame on it.

What's an ND filter? That'd be my fault, not Joe's. What's that? Yeah. That's a neutral density filter. So it allows the aperture to remain open more, so you get a lot more motion blur. It cuts down on the intensity.

by a certain power. I hope you know what he's talking about. Yeah, good. There are other ones called circular polarized filters and then there are ultraviolet light filters. It's a good tip out there for expensive lens, you know, kind of horrors like me. There's a beautiful camera shop around the corn. It's amazing. You should go take a look at it.

Well, we got BNH on 34th over here. It's over here too? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Check them out. I'm gonna go check on. So when you look at that through the polarizer, it just dims everything. That's all it does. Killing off the light.

Now, if you put it on top and now you might have to rotate the, the, the, circle, the polarizer. No, it's all single. Now it's making it single. So it's killed off one of the two images that was distorting the view that you have of the card. In the cosmos, there are in claims that the universe does the same thing as that crystal. In other words, it appears as if the universe, according to researchers using data from the Planck experiment, that there's a delay or there's a slower propagation of light.

Like Claudia thinks for gravity, but this is for light. light may slow down slightly based on its polarization. That is an idea that is related to what Jim Simons invented called the Churn Simons, a topological invariant. What we're looking for at the Simon's Observatory is to determine whether or not we can see this, it's called cosmic birefringence. Birefringence is the double refraction.

Why you saw two images, the polarizer kills one of them, allows you see clearly in one light only. Now, one last experiment you could do there, and this is actually what we're doing to Simon's Observatory. So put the crystal, the birefringent calcium crystal, put that on top of the text,

put the polarizer on, it kills it off. Now rotate the polarizer about its center and tell me what happens to the letters that you see. Just keep the crystal in the card fixed. So just rotate it like this. Just spin it, yep. What do you see happening? They get darker.

It gets darker, and then it gets lighter, and you can see it again. Yes. That's called modulation. What you're doing is you're changing... Oh, and they change it. Change positions.

Change positions, right. So you're basically killing on a, is that cool? Oh, my ADD is going to go nuts with a deciliter. This is incredible stuff. This is fundamental physics. To determine if on cosmic scales, if the universe behaves as if it's filled with this crystalline refractive index material,

is one of my top goals, because it turns out to be related to properties of dark matter. It could be that the dark, what we call dark matter, is just what's called a heavy photon, a photon that actually has mass, but we've never seen it because we've never seen far enough back that the effects, this is a huge, This is a huge effect here.

I mean, you can see it with your eye, basically. But imagine if the effect is like parts per trillion, and we've never been able to look far enough into space until now at the Simon's Observatory. So one of the goals of the Simons, the one I'm most interested in because it was the one that Jim Simons thought, this is a guy who had a mega yacht, had a G650. He was a hedge fund, right?

He started a hedge fund, and he had run it most successful. Then he pivoted. So this is his career. He's a mathematician. He's the first chairman of this SUNY-Stony Brook math department, which is where he hired my father. and so they were colleagues, and that's how I got to know him. He hired my father.

My father was a professor at Cornell. He moved down to work with shit. Stony Brook. Yeah, he died last year. He died a year ago. And that's why tomorrow is a memorial kind of tribute to him. We're going to have some of the greatest physicist Nobel Prize winners. Just ripping bodes till the end.

God bless him. He actually was a, yeah, he smoked merit, filterless, usually for 65 years. He died May 10th, yeah. So tomorrow we're going on. We're having an event for him. We're honoring his life, his legacy, a scientific contribution. but one of the ones that he always kind of wanted. He had the 650.

He had the limo. He had the Gulfs, you know, he had the mega yacht. But he won a Nobel Prize. That's really funny. The man who had everything. I got him an asteroid. I have this asteroid named Jim Simons after him. Oh, that's right.

Wikipedia. You'll probably find it there too. 6618, Jim Simon. I didn't know until Eric went on with Rogan back in February, 2003 in that episode where he's like, Bichukaku. Michukaku's out of control. control but like he talked about this guy and I really never knew about this guy before

then he is a fascinating yeah Eric you know projects a lot of stuff onto him like maybe he was involved in gravity research and then and funding like super secret technical organization near brook haven national labs and Stony Brook and and the hedge funds a cover a CIA cover I don't agree with him I mean he told me and actually on my podcast with him last month he said that you know Jim told him that it was actually much more boring than he suspected and I knew that because he had told me that the secret that they had to tell him to if I was working for CIA. Yeah, but it's hard, again, it's hard to have a conspiracy of cover up, whether it's about

assassinations, whether it's about UFOs or whether it's about CIA, you know, involvement in the math department. You know, it's, it's, maybe you can control it over one or two guys or gals, but then their spouses, their kids, they want to put something in their will, they want to do, and they have to be verified. Right. So that's what they say. They say, two people can keep with conspiracy if one of them's dead.

That's a famous, famous, famous thing, right? So, anyway, the next time I come back. I hope that will have information that either refutes the claim made by, quite frankly, they're kind of competitor. I mean, I've been looking for the signal. They claimed they detected it using this billion dollar satellite called Plank data, and they're great scientists. And I'm kind of trying to see if they're right or wrong.

And I've been working on this for a long time. But no matter who's right, we want to know the answer. And so I'm comfortable being wrong. But if it does turn out to be there, it would be incredibly ironic because it would mean that Jim Simons, beyond the grave, is now experiencing, this Nobel Prize-worthy discovery that only he was legitimately responsible for, both in terms of funding the observatory, funding the team, funding the basic scientific research, and providing the inspiration to millions of people to be fascinated with stuff in the cosmos for

the betterment of mankind. Really, he's like a modern-day Alfred Nobel. I was. Can you get a Nobel prize posthumously? No, that's one of the problems that I wrote about in my book, the first book, losing Nobel Prize. It's about how it's cruel, unfair, and in accurate description of how scientific method works. It doesn't work that way. Science is not about like, oh, you happen to be alive when this thing came. No, what matters is like we still use Newton's laws over certain ranges. And then someone comes along and shows that Newton's wrong named Albert Einstein. And then someone will come along later on and prove that Einstein's wrong. And actually, you know, Claudia or, you know, somebody else. That's how it works. And my job as the

experimentalist is provided data that then discovers or refutes what they claims are being made. and hopefully gets us on a pathway that's closer to the truth. As we see farther away, last question, for you, as we see farther away, though, we're talking about distances today that just blow my mind. And obviously the exploration aspect of science is moving up at a fast rate. As we look farther away, though, and begin to actually conceptualize just how many galaxies there are or that we didn't know about before or how much matter or lack thereof might be in some of these, mathematically speaking, doesn't it start to make the possibility that the probability

that there is intelligent life out there, meaning like an alien, as we would consider it here, doesn't that make it damn near 100% as we get farther and farther here? I don't think so. I mean, I've had this debate. Again, I'm going back to Antarctica. So when I was on Antarctica, I think at one point in time, I was probably the most overweight person on the entire continent. you know, 25% body-5%? Well, no, that's the point. It's this huge amount of space, though,

which is basically the argument you're making. Space is proportional to content, right? So, like, just because you have a lot of space, like, there's an awful lot of, you know, of hard-disc space in the cloud, so to speak, right? Does that mean it's all filled up? There's a lot of content on there, too, but it's a fraction of what there could be. On Antarctica, right now, in the middle of their winter, it's actually going to be the coldest night. It's going to be about 100 below zero Fahrenheit. So on July 4th every year, they do, what's called the 300 degree club. They go outside.

They go into a sauna. There's a sauna at the South Pole. It goes to 200 degrees Fahrenheit. Then they go outside for the ultimate cold plunge, except they don't lie down. They run around. You can only wear your shoes or else your clothes will freeze to your body

and freeze off your junk. So they go out from 200 degrees positive to negative 100 degrees and run around the South Pole, which is just like a flagpole, basically. And then they come in, that's called the 300 degree club. Experiencing a delta temperature

of 300 degrees Fahrenheit. Insane. You can't imagine it. If you spit, your spit freezing in mid air, your eyeballs could freeze in mid air. But anyway, that's a tradition down there. Who the hell wants to do that? So, in Antarctica, there's right now 40 people there. So it's a continent.

It could support billions of, literally every single person on Earth could fit in a one cubic mile cube. Did you know that? If you took everybody in Earth, put them in a blender. They fit in one mile. A cube from here to a minute. Well, or so don't put them in a blender. They fit in a two cubic mile.

I mean, how big do you think you are in a blender versus, you know, fully extended? maybe two miles. Does that make it any less tiny compared to the size of the earth? There's almost nobody on Earth compared to the size of what the Earth could support. So you telling me the universe

has a radius, which we know to be true of 45 billion light years. We know that to be true? Yeah, that's how far away the CNB is. That's where the CNB last scattering surface that you talked about in timestamp two hours and 14 minutes

with Claudia Durham comes from. Don't you remember? Do I know your time stands better than you? Do you do? On this count, you do. That's a first in the history of our show. Nice job. So when you look at the universe, you see how what we're observing, again, could not be there.

Like these things could have disappeared. So I like to let me even just spot you all that. Let me just say in our galaxy. Let's just focus on things that plausibly could have come to Earth in the 30,000 years since human beings in modern form came about in the Mesopotamian region of the Middle East. Right. 30,000 light years away. And traveling at the speed of light. And they got it.

That's a volume about the size of our galaxy, okay? are an area the size of our galaxy in radius. In that regime, we have zero evidence, even though there's literally 100 billion stars in our galaxy. Each one has maybe 10,000 planets, just like ours does, right? Minor planets, big planets. All it takes is one, though, Brian. All it takes is one planet that has intelligent life.

But there's also zero evidence for any of them to be there. So if you have something that says you can have this, again, perpetual motion machine, or you have some symmetry principle that says, that there's no possibility whatsoever of getting some angular rotation that doesn't produce what's called angular momentum. Like there are things in physics called conservation of energy, right? So all it takes is one.

Well, all it takes is one violation of conservation of energy. Yeah, but we've never seen that. We have no evidence for that. We have principles of physics that are based downstream on that, of not occurring. And here's the other thing. You say it all takes is one. But I can come up right now with a probabilistic estimate, the Fermi paradox solution, the Drake equation. And it has all these terms in it, but there's one term that we have no

idea about, which is how long does a civilization last for? So let me stipulate that there's there's been millions of civilizations, but our galaxy is billions of years old. So that means if each one doesn't last for more than a thousand years, which, I mean, do you, what would you put the odds of humanity existing right now in 2025 for another thousand to 10,000 years? The odds? Yeah. At a thousand, I'd say the odds are excellent at 10,000 it gets dicey. I think Musk would say the odds of 10 years from now is pretty low. Or else why would he put all this money into it?

If you told Elon. Well, why is he building rockets on a time scale to get to Mars in 2035? I know, but that seems a little dumer. 10 years is crazy. You're talking about civilization collapse? He obviously thinks that there is some urgent reason to go to Mars now. Look, if you try to invent the iPod in 1985, you probably could have. I mean, there were hard disks back then.

There were certainly Walkman. I had a Walkman probably before you were born. And so you could have put one together. It would have cost a trillion dollars, right? But if you waited until, okay, now they shrank down to one inch diameter disk drive that could fit a thousand MP3 files and you waited for the MP3 compression algorithm to be invented, now is much easier for you to invent the iPod, right? So you don't want to do things now.

In fact, Steve Jobs famously said, like, I don't give away money now because if I give away a dollar now, that's $100 I don't give away when I die. And he gave away all his money when he died. And some people think that's a legitimate. And some say it's not a good way to give charity. I'm not going to comment on that. But the point is it's always easier, it gets faster. Moore's Law.

Just think about Moore's Law. If you try to invent an iPhone today, you could not do it. I mean, an iPhone 100 years ago, you couldn't do it. But if you wait 200 years, it'll be like, we literally do things in our lab classes that won Nobel Prize is 50 years ago. In other words, technology, instrumentation, analysis, compression, algorithms, computing, all these things are going to make things exponentially easier. So why not just wait?

The answer is he doesn't think we're going to last that long. He legitimately thinks we need to get to Mars and back up that hard drive of consciousness in the next decade or two decades. Now, you can argue with that, but it's certainly not, you couldn't convince me that he thinks it's a thousand years from now, meaning that he doesn't think consciousness to flicker will be not extinguished a thousand years from now. You seem to be more optimistic.

I'm not going to argue which way or another, but the point being, you have to make this estimate. But the fact that you and I can't really agree on it, he maybe disagrees with all both of us. The fact is that that just points to the fact that even if there was a technological civilization with opposable thumbs that can make an iPhone that can make a that we don't know how long they could last for. They could last for a thousand years.

But they probably don't last for millions of years. So they're either there, they were there and they're dead, right? Or they're coming in the future, right, after a million years more of evolution and maybe they're watching us or doing something else. But just the mere fact that space is big as, no bearing on the probability of life existing elsewhere, let alone technological. I would say if that's the only variable you're looking at it through, that would be correct. However, when you start to look at the existence of these other stars, and then you consider

what we don't even know about our own planets in this little solar system right here, and now extrapolate that across, I'll just say thousands, but it's probably more, you know, thousands of other solar systems that could exist. again, that's where it starts to get to. I've heard this argument many times, but it's kind of like a gambler's foul. Like, okay, so it's only worked here, but it's got to work somewhere else

because the problem, there's so much time is elapsed and the universe is so big. But all those things, if I told you this, we wouldn't be here if Jupiter wasn't about the size that it is right now. We wouldn't be here if the moon

wasn't exactly where it is with the exact same size that it is. Forget about us going to the moon, okay? So, and now you ask the probability, how many different things are responsible for our existence, going back, just in our social, solar system. So like the position of the moon, the size of the moon relative to the Earth,

the size of Jupiter and the other outer planets, that there aren't other ones. You know, most stars in the galaxy are double stars. We don't have a double star. That makes things easier for stable orbits to develop. And so on. And we also were hit by a massive asteroid called Thea, back about four and a half billion years before. That's where this asteroid fragment, the meteorite comes from, comes from that huge collision in the pre-existing solar system. if that occurred after, say, the moon had formed, we wouldn't be here, the moon wouldn't have formed, and probably would have been obliterated the Earth-Moon double planet system. If the comet that hit the Yucatan Peninsula killing off the dinosaurs, if that occurred before

the asteroid that hit the Earth or pre-Earth that formed the moon, if that happened before and didn't kill off the dinosaurs, we wouldn't be here, right? Because dinosaurs would have out-competed us and we couldn't survive. So all these different collisions. And lastly, there are things called the comets that see probably the water on Earth's oceans. If those came before Thea or after the dinosaurs, you know, a wiping asteroid, we also wouldn't be here. So there's three different types of collisions. They had to happen in exact right order.

They had to occur in the exact environment of our solar system when afterwards there were, you know, before which there were oxygenation of microbes. And afterwards, there were prokaryotic or eukaryotic cells that had cellular membranes. all these things, any of them change in order, that wouldn't have, now this could be a used and distort in his argument for God or design. I don't think that's relevant. We're just talking about life, intelligent life, all these variables. Just take 10 of them and say each one has a part in a thousand of a current, which I think is very low.

I mean, the odds of the asteroid hitting the Earth, pro-to-earth, and forming the moon coming before the asteroid that killed the dinosaur, that's like a trillion to one odds, but let's just call it 1,000 to 1. Make it as favorable as possible for you. Now take 10 different things, size of Jupiter, distance of the moon, formation of the moon, before the formation of the dinosaur killing us. Get 10 of those things, each one is a part in 1,000.

You get 10 to the 1 over 10 power. So you take 1 over 10 to the 30th power. One in 10 to the 30th. There's only 1 times 10 to the 24th stars in the entire observable universe. In our galaxy, there's 10 to the 20th, 12th or at most, stars in our galaxy, maybe 10 to the 11th. So now you take those, that means it's one in a trillion odds that we're here.

Okay. So I, I, that we're not, that we are not alone. So these are just, I mean, astronomical numbers. It's very hard to multiply large numbers by almost infinitesimal numbers. You can get any answer you want. And so because of that, I don't like the argument that, oh, space is very big and therefore there has to be life. There's no evidence for that.

It sounds good, feels good, doesn't pay the bills. there's a lot to dig into there but I know you got to leave Dr. Keating. Chapter 3. We will definitely do that in chapter 3. Yeah. I like the way he's thinking. I like the way he's thinking. But listen, I love talking with you, Brian.

That's fun. It's a lot of fun. And you got a lot on the bone there that you're always looking at. You're also one of the most connected guys within the physics space have ever talked with. So I know you're talking to a lot of different perspectives. So thank you as always for stopping by. Thank you for most of me. All right.

And we'll have the links down to your YouTube channels below. And then we should put your website down there too. Yeah, Brian Keating.com. You got it. All right, everybody else, you know what it is? Give it a thought. Get back to me. Peace.

Thanks again for watching the special two-part crossover episode of Brian Keating on Julian DeRae's podcast. I hope you enjoyed it. I hope you'll subscribe to Julian's podcast as well as to Into the Impossible. Now, if you can't get enough of the stuff that we talked about, I know you'll enjoy my brief but fascinating interview with Elon Musk. Click here for that. And don't forget to subscribe. Ambition comes in all shapes and sizes. At First Citizens Bank, we roll with your goals because we're built for what you're building.

Fit for your ambition for Citizens Bank. Enjoy more ways to save at Ralph's, like low prices in every aisle. And when you download the Ralph's app, you can clip and save more with digital coupons every week. Plus, you can earn fuel points to save up to $1 per gallon at the pump. At Ralph's, you can enjoy more ways to save and more rewards. every time you shop. So it's always easy to save big every day with savings and rewards. Ralph's SoCal for over 150 years. Savings may vary by state. Fuel restrictions apply. C-Syp for details.