Something You Should Know - How to Be a Better Risk Taker & Mysteries of Science That Affect Your Life

Episode Date: April 23, 2018

One way to blow your credibility in any conversation or in anything you write is to misuse or mispronounce words or phrases. So this episodes starts with some commonly misused words and phrases to make sure you are using them correctly. (https://www.inc.com/christina-desmarais/10-speaking-and-writing-errors-that-erode-your-credibility.html)   Taking risks can be good – or bad. It’s all in how you approach the risk and it also seems to depend on how old you are. Kayt Sukel, author of the book The Art of Risk: The New Science of Courage, Caution, and Chance (https://amzn.to/2HjkQoE) joins me to explain how important it is to take risks but also how to be a better risk taker so that you win more than you lose – and also how to learn from the risks that fail. Do you neatly fold your towel after a shower and place it on the towel rack? Or maybe you hang it on a hook? Well those are terrible things to do if you plan to use that towel again tomorrow! I’ll explain why. (https://www.goodhousekeeping.com/home/cleaning/tips/a26125/dirty-bathroom-mistakes/)  Do you like science? How can you not? Science is everywhere and governs everything you do and explains why our world works the way it does. Scientist Scott Bembenek author of the book The Cosmic Machine: The Science that Runs our Universe and the Story Behind It (https://amzn.to/2qQDIFn) joins me to explain some fascinating principles and mysteries of science. One mystery he talks about is why you will often see an egg fall to the ground and break but never see an egg jump back up on the counter and reassemble itself. But according to some equations – it should. You have to hear him explain it. So come listen! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Today on Something You Should Know, is it a moot point or a mute point? Espresso or expresso? Etc. or etc.? We'll look at some commonly misused words and phrases. Then, how risky are you? And how does your age affect how much risk you'll take? There is something about having your peers around you in the teenage years, which really downplays risk. You're much more interested in pressing your friends and trying these things than you are in thinking about the outcome. Plus, what do you do with your towel after a shower? I'll tell you why it's important.

And who doesn't love science? And this science discussion will really make you think. For example, you walk into your kitchen and you see on the floor a broken egg. How come we never see the egg actually jump back up onto the counter and reassemble itself? Because technically, when we look at our equations, the equations don't see a past and a present.

All this today on Something You Should Know. As a listener to Something You Should Know, I can only assume that you are someone who likes to learn about new and interesting things and bring more knowledge to work for you in your everyday life. I mean, that's kind of what Something You Should Know is all about. And so I want to invite you to listen to another podcast called TED Talks Daily. Now, you know about TED Talks, right? Many of the guests on Something You Should Know have done TED Talks Daily. Now, you know about TED Talks, right? Many of the guests on Something You Should Know have done TED Talks. Well, you see, TED Talks Daily is a podcast that brings you a new TED Talk

every weekday in less than 15 minutes. Join host Elise Hu. She goes beyond the headlines so you can hear about the big ideas shaping our future. Learn about things like sustainable fashion, embracing your entrepreneurial spirit, the future of robotics, and so much more. Like I said, if you like this podcast, Something You Should Know, I'm pretty sure you're going to like TED Talks Daily.

And you get TED Talks Daily wherever you get your podcasts. Something you should know. Fascinating intel. The world's top experts. And practical advice you can use in your life. Today, Something You Should Know with Mike Carruthers. As you probably know, podcasting is a very fast-growing medium. But it's still a relatively new medium. And one of the things we're not especially good at yet is figuring out who's listening.

We have a pretty good idea of how many people are listening, which helps give us some insight as to who you are and therefore provide a better podcast targeted to the audience. So to that end, I invite you to take our survey, which is located at wondery.com slash survey. We're part of the Wondery network of podcasts, so that's where the survey is. It's wondery, like the word wonder with a Y on the end, Wondery.com slash survey. Take that survey, and I appreciate it. First up today, words and phrases that get warped and misused over time. The problem is that a lot of those words and phrases become commonplace, but they're still warped and misused and consequently incorrect.

Here are some commonly misused words and phrases that you want to make sure you're not using. A mute point. The correct phrase is a moot point. Mute means silent. A moot point is something that is subject to debate or a matter of no importance. Espresso. Strong coffee in a tiny cup has no X in it, either in

writing or pronunciation. It is espresso, not expresso. Jive with the facts. This phrase is used to say that something isn't correct as, hey, that doesn't jive with the facts. But jive is defined as a colorful

form of speaking, or as referring to a colorful form of speaking or as referring to a certain kind of jazz or swing music. The correct phrase is jibe, b with a b, jibe with the facts. Jibe means to agree, etc. Pronounce etc. exactly how it is spelled. The first syllable is et, not ek. Overuse of the word literally. A lot of people throw this word around as an embellishment to intensify whatever they're trying to say. But literally means actually, or in a strict sense. So you can't say, my head literally exploded, because if it did, your head would have exploded.

80s. When people write the abbreviation for a decade, like 80s or 70s or 90s, they typically write 80 apostrophe S, but the correct way is to write it apostrophe, eight, zero, S. The apostrophe goes in front to replace the 19 of 1980. There's no apostrophe between the zero and the S because there's no reason to put an apostrophe there. And that is something you should know. One of the fascinating things that really defines who we are and where we go is our

ability and willingness to take risks. Think about it. If you never take risks, you never get anywhere. Taking risks is how we move forward in life, literally and figuratively. But taking risks can also be, well, risky. Risky in the bad sense of the term, that you're being too risky. Because taking a risk implies you could fail, and if you're too risky, you could fail a lot, and well, that's not good. So let's dive a little deeper into the topic of risk with somebody who has really studied it. Kate Sukal is a journalist and author of the book, The Art of Risk, The New Science of Courage, Caution, and Chance. Hi, Kate. Welcome.

So what's your interest in this subject of risk-taking? I mean, you write about a lot of things as a journalist, and you have another book about love and sex. So why risk-taking? My parents had always talked about me and said that I was a risk-taker. And I kind of approached 40 and it stopped. So I was kind of curious about that. If risk-taking is supposedly this innate quality, where had it gone? At the same time, you know, my son was getting older and I was watching him explore the world.

And I was also sort of curious, you know, how he was set up, how much of risk is biological, how much of it is the environment and can you learn to be a good risk taker? Well, what's interesting to me about risk is it's one of those words that, that it kind of depends on how you say it as to whether it's a good or bad thing, you know, it's, it's too risky or wow, he's so successful because he's a risk taker. And it's the same word, but it can go either way. And there's no in-betweens, right? It's either risk is the thing is going to kill you and bankrupt you, maybe in the reverse order.

It's going to ruin your life or it's the thing that's going to make you great. It's the thing that's going to make all of your dreams come true. And we don't really talk about the middle. It's either all injury, disease, and death, or all success, wealth, and happiness. And how did we get there? Why these two sides that are so, so far apart? And of course, what scientists are learning is risk-taking really is something in the middle. When we're talking about risk, as simple as it sounds, it really is making a decision of which you're uncertain of the outcome. And so it can be something as little as whether or not you should have that third cup of coffee in the morning, knowing it might give you the jitters later, or whether it is about, you know, investing all of your savings into a new

startup or moving cross-country for a new job. We talk about risk mostly about these big things. And the irony is we don't see all those little decisions, all those little risks that went into, you know, those outcomes that we usually end up talking about. Yeah, nobody ever says, you know, he's so successful because he's a really mediocre risk taker. Well, and the thing is, you know, there's a judgment value in there, right? So it's this idea that you have to gamble. And I think that's the other thing when we talk about language. You know, some people, when they talk about risk, they're talking about, you know, gambling.

They're talking about impulsive behavior. They're talking about, you know, things that often do lead to negative outcomes. But really, you know, that smart risk-taking, that calculated risk-taking, he's maybe not a mediocre risk-taker, but he's done his homework. He's, you know, done enough to know the knowns and, you know, make a good calculation on some of the unknowns. And he's learned enough from his mistakes so that he can go forward and succeed. And I think that that's really important. And there may be a fair amount of, you know, mediocrity in some of those decisions that got him there. I want to go back to something you said at the beginning that when you hit 40, it disappeared. Where'd it go? Good question. You know, I'd spent all this time in my

20s and 30s traveling all over the place, literally swimming with sharks, rock climbing. I mean, I was a bit of an adrenaline junkie. And then I sort of hit my 40s and found myself, you know, not unless there was a SVU law and order marathon on, I wasn't doing much of anything at all. And I really wondered about that switch. And of course, there is a lot of science that talks about now, as we get older, it kind of gets harder to put yourself out there. There's good reason for that. Certainly risk taking as a behavior is something that is linked to mate-seeking. It's something that's linked to success and choice. By the time we get to our 40s and 50s, we gain enough experience. The old joke is you're old enough to know better.

Well, you get to the point where you're old enough where it's not that you know better or not, you just know too much and it kind of can make you stand still. So a lot of the research really looks at, as we get older, because we've gained all this great experience, we know about all the potential bad outcomes, and a lot of times that can make us really risk-averse. And it's too bad, because in the process, we can miss out on some great opportunities. I would think, too, though, that if you're a risk taker and have been

most of your life and been successful and the risks have turned out, that it wouldn't go away, that it's worked for you up till now, why not keep going? You'd think so, and that would be a really great experiment to do. And yet there is something about getting older where all of a sudden you're like, you get more protective of what you have. It's interesting in talking to some old rock climbers. These were all very, very good rock climbers who, you know, were very skilled, very practiced. Even they sort of got more risk averse. They sort of, as they were assessing situations, tended to rate them as more dangerous or more likely to result in a fall than younger rock climbers were. So, even though they had the skills to do it, even though they had the know-how, all that experience

that their brain had taken in over time was telling them, okay, here's the 1600 ways this could go wrong. And I think at a certain point when your brain starts going down that path, you know, it's almost a sense of anxiety. There has to be a really good reason to start that climb. And the reverse is true. I mean, at least starting in the teenage years, you look at teenage behavior, often called risky teenage behavior. Teenagers seem very willing to take risks and to the point

of being foolish about it. Well, there's a biological imperative there. I mean, one, the brain, if we distill down what the brain does into simplest form, it's a prediction machine. It is there to try to figure out what the world is going to throw at you next. In order to be a good prediction machine, it has to gain lots and lots of experience. So teenagers, they're going through this last leg of brain development. They're, you know, cementing these really important connections that are going to help them be successful adults. And that means they kind of have to get out there and get into the thick of it so they do know what the consequences are. I think often it's not so much that teens, you know, think that

they're invincible. It's that they really have no idea what the outcomes might be. They don't have enough experience and it's not enough to say, oh, you know, this could hurt you or this could ruin you or what have you. They have to really sort of experience a little bit of that for themselves to understand what the stakes are. Yeah, but there are plenty of things that kids do and they know full well if you go 100 miles an hour in a drag race, there's a good chance you'll wind up crashing your car and be dead. And if you do drugs, I mean, they've been... But there's a difference between intellectually knowing and having experienced some of that stuff firsthand. And when you're in the moment, and there's actually quite a bit of research that now shows when you're talking about driving 100 miles an hour, there is something about having your peers around you in the teenage years, which really downplays risk. You're much more interested

in pressing your friends and trying these things than you are in thinking about the outcomes. It almost, you know, turns off the frontal lobes of the brain, the area of the brain that sort of acts as the executive control, the judgment center, the brakes, if you will, of bad or impulsive behavior. So part of that is being in a group and going with a crew. But another part of that really is there is a huge difference between intellectually understanding something. They get these messages all the time in school from movies,

from after-school specials, but there is something about gaining some of that experience firsthand or having a peer who does that really makes them think about it a little bit differently. And I think we probably know plenty of adults, even older teens, that maybe they're not drag racing, but they'll look down when they're driving on the freeway every now and again and go, oh, wait, I'm up near 100. I really need to slow down. I'm speaking with Kate Sukal. She is a journalist and author of the book, The Art of Risk, The New Science of Courage,

Caution and Chance. Since I host a podcast, it's pretty common for me to be asked to recommend a podcast. And I tell people, if you like something you should know, you're going to like The Jordan Harbinger Show. Every episode is a conversation with a fascinating guest. Of course, a lot of podcasts are conversations with guests, but Jordan does it better than most. Recently, he had a fascinating conversation with a British woman who was recruited and radicalized by ISIS and went to prison for three years. She now works to raise awareness on this issue. It's a great conversation.

And he spoke with Dr. Sarah Hill about how taking birth control not only prevents pregnancy, it can influence a woman's partner preferences, career choices, and overall behavior due to the hormonal changes it causes. Apple named The Jordan Harbinger Show one of the best podcasts a few years back, and in a nutshell, the show is aimed at making you a better, more informed, critical thinker. Check out The Jordan Harbinger Show.

There's so much for you in this podcast. The Jordan Harbinger Show on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hi, I'm Jennifer, a co-founder of the Go Kid Go Network. At Go Kid Go, putting kids first is at the heart of every show that we produce. That's why we're so excited to introduce a brand new show to our network called The Search for the Silver Lightning, a fantasy adventure series about a spirited young girl named Isla who time travels to the mythical land of Camelot. During her journey, Isla meets new friends, including King Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table,

and learns valuable life lessons with every quest, sword fight, and dragon ride. Positive and uplifting stories remind us all about the importance of kindness, friendship, honesty, and positivity. Join me and an all-star cast of actors, including Liam Neeson, Emily Blunt, Kristen Bell, Chris Hemsworth, among many others, in welcoming the Search for the Silver Lining podcast to the Go Kid Go network by listening today. Look for the Search for the Silver Lining on Spotify, Apple, or wherever you get your podcasts. So Kate, my guess would be that in

terms of gender, that men are generally bigger risk takers than women? That has been the story for a very long time, and there was plenty of research to support it. And the idea was there was an evolutionary biology, you know, kind of story that men, they need to be riskier so they can go out and find food and avoid predators and take things back to their family, attract mates. But newer research is actually showing not as big of a difference as we once believed between males and females. And what researchers are thinking now is it has to do with opportunity.

So many of the experiments that have been done on risk-taking behavior, both in the neuroscience and psychological realms, they look at things like finances. They look at things like extreme sports. They look at things, you know, that women just didn't have great numbers in for a very long time. And as we see, you know, more and more sponsored female athletes by companies like Patagonia and Clif Bar, as we see more women in the boardroom and in the doctor operating room or where have you, what we're seeing is men and women, there's not that much difference in the amount of risk that they take. So that whole idea that boys will be boys and women are better angels, a lot of it really depends on the context. And new research is showing that it's not as cut and dried as we once thought. So when you look at what you would maybe call successful risk takers, what do they have in common? Well, the first thing is you will talk to them, whether they are a, you know, world-renowned base jumper or a professional poker player or a famed neurosurgeon, they will all sit

there and tell you, I'm not really a risk taker. And you can kind of argue with them about that. But they all sort of, they don't think of themselves as risk takers. And I think that's because they are so well- versed in what they do. They have a lot of experience. They take the time to really know that one area. And it's usually the area that, you know, they work in, whether it is face jumping or neurosurgery, they spend a lot of time and have a lot of experience. They're always learning, and not only learning from their successes, but also learning a lot from their mistakes. And, you know, they're making sure to really pay attention

to things that might trip them up in the future. And that is something that we saw again and again, no matter what their domain was. It was a lot of preparation, a lot of homework, and a lot of an ability to take a step back and say, okay, you know, this may be a mistake, but if it is a mistake, this is how I'm going to learn from it to move forward. And what is it that people who are lousy risk takers have in common? I imagine that's harder to define, but what are they?

It is not, actually. It's impulsivity. A lousy risk taker is somebody who is flying by the seat of their pants. They're not thinking things through. They're acting in the moment. And that tends to be the kind of risk that's going to land you in jail or get you a disease or a serious injury. And it really is a serious injury. And it really is a huge difference.

We often use risk-taking and impulsivity interchangeably, but they're clearly very, very different from a cognitive standpoint. Flying by the seat of your pants, it may work for you every once in a while, but over the long term, it's dangerous. But successful calculated risk-taking really is about doing the upfront work, you know, practicing, doing your homework, and again, failing forward. But don't you think that there just are people by their nature that are more willing to take risks, and there are other people who are much more cautious and not willing to take risks, and there are other people who are much more cautious and not willing to take risks, and it's just part of who they are. It's nothing more than that.

There is some of that, and certainly there's been a lot of work looking at the genetics of risk-taking behavior. A lot of people like to talk about a gene. They call it the warrior gene. And it's a gene that makes people a little bit more out there, more likely to take risks. But, you know, the thing is, is that all of us have some natural tendencies. And it's not that we can't learn to become better risk takers, become more comfortable with novelty. It's funny that one of the greatest indicators of whether or not when a person will take a risk is how familiar they are with it. And you can think of a really silly example, which is the subway versus driving in a car. If you grew up in New York City, you know, from the time that you're a little kid, you're probably riding the subway and not thinking anything of it. And I grew up in that area. I took the subway by myself when I was 10

or 11. And now I live in Texas. And I remember telling somebody here that I did that. They were horrified. They had never been on a subway or even in a big city like that. And they thought that I basically was walking onto a train as a child with a big sign on it that says mug me. They just thought that that was the riskiest thing ever. Whereas your average person from Manhattan wouldn't think twice. But then you take that same hardcore Manhattanite, the person who's, you know, been in the city forever and has seen it all. Put them in a rental car in, you know, rural Georgia and tell them, give them directions like turn left at the blue chicken and they're going to start to freak out.

Wait, where do I go? How do I do this? So much of what we're comfortable with really comes down to familiarity. You know, what's interesting to me is that a lot of times we'll say something is risky and feel that something is risky when it really isn't. And probably the stereotypical risky thing to do would be to, you know, parachute jump. Jump out of an airplane with a parachute. That feels real risky, but statistically it's not risky.

Most people who jump out of an airplane live through it just fine. The parachute opens and they land. It's scary, but it's not risky. Well, and that's the thing. Heightened emotions can really change the way that we assess risky situations. Stress can as well. And those are important things to realize. It ties into what I said before about familiarity. I mean, you are so much more likely to die on your morning commute to work. Yet all of us, you know, get, or many of us, you know, hop in our cars every morning. And some people drive up to an hour and a half,

two hours to get to work back and forth, despite the fact that there are so many automobile accidents. And yet you hear people all the time talking about how they're so afraid to fly and outside of, you know, forgive me, because I know the Southwest incident just happened, but that's a fluke accident. And have you ever heard of anything else like that ever happening on a commercial airliner? And yet I'm sure ticket sales are going to go down because of this one thing. Our emotions really change the way that we do the calculations. They heighten factors that probably shouldn't be heightened. And they may often make us ignore things that absolutely shouldn't be ignored. So if I wanted to be a better risk taker, a smarter risk taker, what do I need to do? What are the things I need to put together here?

I think the first thing is you need to understand that there's risk involved with every decision you make each and every day. We need to stop inflating risk into something that it's not, which is all of this, you know, extreme sports, adrenaline junkie, you know, big business kind of talk that we usually use with it. But I think the second thing is, you know, once you get past that really kind of polarizing language is you sit down and you think things through. You try to get as much experience before, you know, you take a deep dive into a particular hobby or business project. You learn what you can. You take baby steps. You know, small steps can be instead of a big jump, they'll still get you to the same outcome, but probably with less chance of a broken leg, right? I think it's really about doing the work, doing the preparation, gaining the experience,

and taking the time not to make decisions in the heat of the moment or when you're overly emotional. And those are really the big keys to being a more successful and a more calculated risk taker. Which is, of course, the point, not to take a lot of risks necessarily, but to take the right risks and do it well. My guest has been Kate Sukal. Her book is The Art of Risk,

The New Science of Courage, Caution, and Chance. And there's a link to her book in the show notes. Thank you for being here, Kate. Oh, no, thank you. I really appreciate it. People who listen to Something You Should Know are curious about the world, looking to hear new ideas and perspectives. So I want to tell you about a podcast

that is full of new ideas and perspectives and one I've started listening to called Intelligence Squared. It's the podcast where great minds meet. Listen in for some great talks on science, tech, politics, creativity, wellness, and a lot more. A couple of recent examples, Mustafa Suleiman, the CEO of Microsoft AI, discussing the future of technology. That's pretty cool. And writer, podcaster, and filmmaker John Ronson, discussing the rise of conspiracies and culture wars. Intelligence Squared is the kind of podcast that gets you thinking a little more openly about the important conversations going on today. Being curious, you're probably just the type of person Intelligence Squared is meant for. Check out Intelligence Squared wherever you get your podcasts.

Hey everyone, join me, Megan Rinks. And me, Melissa Demonts, for Don't Blame Me, But Am I Wrong? Each week, we deliver four fun-filled shows. In Don't Blame Me, we tackle our Wrong? Each week, we deliver four fun-filled shows. In Don't Blame Me, we tackle our listeners' dilemmas with hilariously honest advice. Then we have But Am I Wrong?, which is for the listeners that didn't take our advice. Plus, we share our hot takes on current events. Then tune in to see you next Tuesday for our listener poll results from But Am I Wrong? And finally, wrap up your week with Fisting Friday,

where we catch up and talk all things pop culture. Listen to Don't Blame Me, But Am I Wrong on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts. New episodes every Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday. I really do love science. It fascinates me in a very layman kind of way. If you get too deep into it, you're going to lose me, but I really do enjoy hearing people who know what they're talking about talk about it,

which is why I want to introduce you to Scott Bembenek. He is a scientist who has his Ph.D. in theoretical chemical physics. I don't even know what that is. And he's the author of a book aimed at making science easier for people like me to grasp. The book is called The Cosmic Machine, the science that runs our universe and the story behind it. Hi, Scott. So let's dive in and start with something, you know, really simple like quantum mechanics. What is it, if you can explain it, and why is it important to understand? Quantum mechanics is very interesting and it really encompasses quite a bit, but

the idea is really that, you know, what we get from quantum mechanics is when you get down to the molecular scale, so when you're looking at this very small scale, and obviously we can't see this without special equipment, but molecules and atoms, that things are a little bit different than what we see in our day-to-day lives, kind of at this larger scale, or we call it a macro scale. So when we get down to the scale of atoms and molecules, things behave very, very differently. One of the fundamental ideas behind quantum mechanics is that energy, which we originally thought was kind of this smooth, continuous flowing thing, you have your cup of coffee, it's hot, and it just cools off

very gradually. What we know now is that it's not so smooth that when you get down to the way energy behaves at the quantum mechanical level with atoms and molecules, it actually comes in chunks. And so, in other words, the way atoms and molecules absorb and give off energy, it's not like that cup of coffee that just gradually, slowly, smoothly cools off. They actually absorb energy in chunks and they actually emit it in chunks. And if they don't have the right chunks of energy, they actually absorb energy in chunks and they actually emit it in chunks. And if they don't have the right chunks of energy, they don't absorb, they don't interact with it. You know, no one ever thought about this. They thought that energy is just a smooth thing. I mean, here's a great example. So imagine you're driving down the highway. Well, as you accelerate,

you're increasing your energy, specifically the kinetic energy. And as you do that, it's a smooth transition. You know, as long as you're smoothly pressing on the acceleration, it's smooth. You don't notice like this kind of a chunking or your car doesn't like stop and start, for example. Quantum mechanics is when you look at atoms and the way they absorb and emit energy, it's not like that. If they don't have the right energy, they can't actually get up to the quote unquote speed.

And if they want to get back down from that speed, that's a specific process as well. It has to be kind of in these discrete chunks. You know, it's a very weird phenomenon, and it's kind of at the heart of quantum mechanics. And why is that important to know? What does that tell us? So from this, we learned some other things. And one of the biggest things from quantum mechanics is that there's this inherent uncertainty. We call it the quantum probability or the uncertainty, and maybe people have heard of Heisenberg's uncertainty. Well, what this means and why this is important to us is because it means that apparently, and we're still trying to understand this, our world as we know it, when we look at the atomic level and we look at molecules, things are uncertain. So for example, we used to think,

and I think most of us learned this model of the atom, where it's kind of like you have an atom, you have the nucleus, and the electrons are spinning around it, kind of like the way the planets move around the sun. It's not like that at all, though, because what really happens is there's a lot of uncertainty. So you actually have an atom, you do have electrons moving around it, but their exact positions at a given moment in time and their exact energy that those electrons have, it, but their exact positions at a given moment in time and their exact energy that those electrons have, it's not well-defined. It's not well-determined. It's probabilistic.

It only becomes well-defined and it only becomes determined, if you will, when we try to look at it. So when I use my special equipment to try to observe, quote-unquote, the quantum state of that atom, then it takes on a definitive state. But up until then, everything is very fuzzy. It's very obscure. It's very uncertain. That's very, very strange because the world that you and I live in, once again, when I'm driving down the road in that,

my GPS, I can look at Google Maps, it can tell me where I am. I can tell other people where I am. I'm going down the 5, I'm passing this mile marker, what have you, I'm getting off at this exit. It's not like that at the very small scale of atoms and molecules and subatomic particles. They don't behave that way. They don't have these well-defined properties. There's always uncertainty. And so that really affects a lot of things. Inherently, that tells us something about nature, that it's almost as if nature is kind of keeping its options open, if you will. It's kind of hedging its bets. It's just inherently uncertain. Even though we can't see it, it is going on at that level. But at our level, nature seems relatively predictable. Absolutely. And this is what we can't seem to reconcile. So at our level, nature is very predictable, it seems like, right? And this is where things got very confusing.

I mean, Newton's laws of classical physics worked for a long, long time. And then we got the quantum mechanics. And people were like, no, this just can't be right. I mean, this doesn't make any sense. And we still struggle with it. I mean, this was something that Einstein, here you have Einstein for some 20 years, starting from 1905 to roughly 1925 or so, when he made his last major contribution to quantum mechanics. He was a trailblazer in quantum theory and quantum mechanics. He was out there in front. And then we got to this weird interpretation I just described, this quantum probability, this uncertainty. And he's like, whoa, no, I'm done. I mean, this is too strange. The science of time, time and space,

it fascinates me. And you talk about the arrow of time. So explain what that is. For example, you walk into a room, let's say you walk into your kitchen and you see on the floor a broken egg and you say to yourself, oh, okay, well that egg must have been sitting on the counter in the past and perhaps it must have got bumped or just rolled off and now it's on the floor and it's broken. And so we have this sense of time, but what's actually really unusual if you look at the mechanics or you look at the physics that govern that process of the egg falling off and breaking and what have you. The physics aren't really time constrained.

The equations don't see a past and a present. They see them as essentially one and the same, and we call this reversible. So the equations according to the time are reversible. Well, what does that mean physically? I mean, that's a fancy name for things. But physically, it means how come we never see the egg actually jump back up onto the counter and reassemble itself? Because technically, when we look at our equations, that's what it says. And so people are constantly struggling with, once again, it's this idea of the arrow of time. And it also involves how is the arrow of time coupled with another concept that you probably have heard of, entropy. And entropy, kind of a loose definition, which isn't my favorite, but it does give you a

sense of things. We think of entropy as increasing in disorder, things increase in disorder. So, for example, going back to the egg, it fell off the counter and it broke. It's obviously, it's broken now. It's more, it's messier. It's more disordered. And the universe as a whole, we say, favors an increase in entropy. It's actually the second law of thermodynamics. And we say, well, that's why. That's why the egg actually, when it broke, it didn't bounce back up onto the table and take on this reverse state.

Because entropy doesn't allow it. The second law doesn't allow it. It favors an increase in entropy, not actually a decrease. But see, we don't understand how these things go together because, like I said, our other equations that we have say that, well, no, these equations say it could go either way. I guess one of my fascinations about time, too, is that I remember speaking to someone who said, you know, scientifically, there is nothing significant about now, that we can't really define now and what is now. And yet we know what now is, but whoops, now it's gone.

Now it's another now. So there is no now. Yeah, I think I would agree with that. I think because we have this uncertainty. Yeah, so if I were to, so scientifically, so if I were to go back to the physics and try to pull out what does now mean? So in terms of time, you have a now or a present, if you will. You know, do my equations, you know, well describe that? I guess that would be the way I would answer this as a physicist. And I would say they don't. They,

you know, I can map it. I quote unquote map it in space-time, and we can find that position, so to speak. But the fact that I don't have this clear reconciliation between the equations that don't seem to distinguish it and the equations, like the second law of entropy, that do. No, I would say we don't have this very exceptionally clear understanding. We have a couple different theories that they work pretty well. Well, they work well. But when you try to bring them all together, this is where things always get tricky. I think that's kind of the bottom line. We have theories that work in certain arenas.

Quantum works at the very small atoms and the molecules where we can't see any of those things. But it works great. But we have to accept this weird idea of quantum probability, which Einstein himself couldn't even accept. And then at the large scale, classical mechanics and things like general relativity, things are working great there. But together, they don't play nicely. And we don't know why.

The idea that space and time are interwoven, that they're part of the same thing, that time affects space and space affects time, that all started with Einstein, right? of physics that just blew everybody's mind. And he finished up his PhD dissertation and got his PhD. Big year for him. And one of those papers was special relativity. And that was the very beginning. People had been thinking about it, but they were thinking, so that we were getting these weird experiments and people couldn't describe it. And from these experiments, the theoreticians proposed equations that started to couple time and space.

But Einstein said, well, wait, these aren't just equations. These things are really coupled physically. And people are like, well, no, wait, because that's weird. Because it means that you would have to have all kinds of weird things happen. And so he was actually one of the first people that took it seriously. He stepped outside the mathematics of it and said, this isn't just a mathematical transformation, if you will, to change between coordinate systems. That's simple. That's easy stuff to actually reconcile, at least in your mind. This is actually real physics happening. Space and time are coupled intimately. And when you affect space, it also affects time and vice versa.

And that was, that was a big deal. I mean, that took some time to really catch on. So if space and time affect each other, doesn't that sort of indicate that maybe time travel is possible? Well, I mean, nobody agrees on if time travel is possible. Well, it must be impossible, right? Because if time travel was possible, then where are all the people from the future? of these ideas. So one of the big ideas, now you got me thinking about it, so I got to throw it out there. One of the big ideas in terms of reconciling some of what you're talking about and also reconciling some of the weirdness in quantum mechanics is this idea of multiverses. So there's this idea of parallel universes is what it used to be called, but now the new name or the more cool name, if you will,

is this idea of the multiverse. So going back to this idea where we saw that, I told you that the state of the atom isn't well-determined according to quantum mechanics, that there's uncertainty of this probability. There's other people that say, well, maybe it's not really like that. Maybe it is well-determined.

It's just that all the outcomes or possibilities are happening in different parallel universes. Universes that we may not actually be able to interact with. So this is actually a very popular theory. But to the layperson, like me, that seems so non-scientific. I mean, to come up with an explanation for why things do what they do is that there are parallel universes that we cannot experience and you can't prove their existence. Well, isn't that what science is all about? That if you can't prove it, then all you have is a theory and what you need to do is prove it.

I'm with you there. I mean, I'm pretty, you know, so by training, I'm a, I'm a theoretician and I love working with the math and the physics and the chemistry and writing down the equations and, you know, you get a certain sense of beauty in this. And this is an argument that you hear often from, for example, the strength theorists. I'm not a strength theorist, but is that, you know, these equations, they can't be wrong because they're so beautiful. I mean, they're describing, you know, things that are very well connected and there's a certain inherent beauty here that this must be how the universe works. But then going back to your argument, yeah, okay, but if we can't prove these things with experiments, then this theory isn't, we got to get rid of it, or we have to revise it at least. Do you have a sense of where it came from? I mean, it can't be just like people sitting in a room and somebody says, well, hey, I've got an idea. Maybe this is all because of parallel universes because, you know, I had a dream last night. I mean, it had to come from somewhere.

It's showing up in several different ways. So you're kind of getting a self-consistency between the different approaches, if you will, the different mathematics that kind of seem to converge on, you know, depending on how you're doing it, they converge on this idea of the multiverse. But I'm with you, you know, it's, if we can't prove these things experimentally, you know, at some point, do we have to put it on the shelf? Do we have to, you know, let's not get rid of it altogether. You know, we put it on the shelf the shelf until you know maybe it's so we don't have the technology right now maybe this is a pretty naive unscientific kind of question but i i'm no scientist but when you have a theory to explain something and the theory is so hard to get your head around that you can't prove parallel universes.

I can't even really imagine what that even would look like. When you believe that, and that that's your explanation for why things are the way they are, isn't that a belief system not unlike religion? And then yet religion and science often don't mix. So how do you reconcile that? I have a lot of trouble with it myself, because in some ways it is a belief system. I mean, going back to what I said earlier, if you're sitting and you're looking at your equations and you're saying there's no way that this can't be the physical reality because this mathematical equation is so beautiful, is that not a belief system of some sort? I have no

experimental evidence to prove it, but this equation is so elegant, so beautiful, so well describing. This must be how the universe works. Yes, I would say that is a belief system, not unlike other belief systems such as religion. Well, if we talk much more, I think my head's going to start to hurt, but I love this topic. I love talking about it and learning about it, because I seem to know so little. But it really is fascinating, and you've explained it well. Scott Bambenek has been my

guest. He is a scientist. His PhD is in theoretical chemical physics. He is author of the book, The Cosmic Machine, The Science That Runs Our Universe, and the story behind it. There's a link to his book at Amazon in the show notes. And thanks for being here, Scott.

Yeah, thanks, Mike. I had a great time. I remember coming across this information a long time ago, and it stuck with me, so I figured it's certainly worth sharing here. And it's about what you do in the bathroom. You might want to change a few things about your shower ritual that will save you trouble in the future. And one of them, and the thing that I remember the most about this, is that you shouldn't fold wet towels or hang them on a hook. Folded towels look nicer, but a folded towel is going to grow bacteria and smell because when it's all folded up, it can't dry out. You'll then rub those bacteria all over yourself after tomorrow's shower.

So your towel should be spread out over the full length of the towel bar so it can dry as quickly as possible. And you should never keep your shower curtain open. If you leave the curtain open after the shower, the water in the folds of the curtain open after the shower, the water in the folds of the curtain won't dry and will start to get moldy. Always use the bathroom fan when you shower. But here's the thing, you should leave it on for 20 minutes afterwards to remove the steam and moisture from the room. If you let your tiles and ceiling remain

moist, you're creating an ideal climate for mold to start growing. To start growing. And that is something you should know. If you enjoyed this podcast, I invite you to share it with just one other person, or with your social media friends. Share links are right there on the player on the website at somethingyoushouldknow.net, and there are share links on iTunes or Apple Podcasts, as they like to be called now. If you share it, people will admire your good taste and be your friend forever, possibly shower you with gifts. I'm Mike Carruthers. Thanks for listening today to Something You Should Know. Do you love Disney? Do you love Top Ten lists?

Then you are going to love our hit podcast, Disney Countdown. I'm Megan, the Magical Millennial. And I'm the Dapper Danielle. On every episode of our fun and family-friendly show, we count down our top 10 lists of all things Disney. The parks, the movies, the music, the food, the lore. There is nothing we don't cover on our show. We are famous for rabbit holes, Disney-themed games,

and fun facts you didn't know you needed. I had Danielle and Megan record some answers to seemingly meaningless questions. I asked Danielle what insect song is typically higher pitched in hotter temperatures and lower pitched in cooler temperatures. You got this. No, I didn't. Don't believe that. About a witch coming true? Well, I didn't either. Of course, I'm just a cicada. I'm crying. I'm so sorry. You win that one. So if you're looking for a healthy dose of Disney magic,

check out Disney Countdown wherever you get your podcasts. Contained herein are the heresies of Redolph Buntwine, erstwhile monk turned travelling medical investigator. Join me as I study the secrets of the divine plagues and uncover the blasphemous truth that ours is not a loving God and we are not its favoured children. The Heresies of Redolph Buntwine,

wherever podcasts are available.