Somewhere in the Skies - Deep Prasad: QUANTUM CRASH COURSE, ALIEN TECH, and UFOs

Episode Date: July 22, 2019

On episode 118 of SOMEWHERE IN THE SKIES, Ryan welcomes first-time guest, Deep Prasad, to the show. Prasad is an engineer working in the burgeoning field of quantum computing. He is also the CEO of the multi-million dollar start-up company, ReactiveQ, working directly with engineers from TESLA, Lockheed Martin, Volkswagen, and NASA. When he isn't working with quantum computers, he's heavily researching the UFO phenomenon both from scientific and philosophical approaches. This is a comprehensive crash course in quantum computing and its benefits for the world moving forward. Then, Prasad and Ryan dive deep into the current work of To the Stars Academy, concerning meta-materials proposed to be of extraterrestrial origin. What are Prasad's thoughts on the highly controversial claims by Bob Lazar and his work at Area 51? Prasad then answers a slew of diverse listener questions. It's a fascinating journey through the heart and mind of one of today's brightest scientists whose not only changing the world but reaching for the stars, in hopes of finding those elusive answers somewhere in our skies. Watch the Bismuth Magnesium video by CLICKING HERE Read Prasad's Medium article by CLICKING HERE Guest Bio: Deep Prasad is working with the world’s first quantum computers in order to help build the infrastructure that will support the next decades worth of quantum technologies. He is the CEO of ReactiveQ, whose goal is to save humanity hundreds of billions of research hours in developing the next generation of photovoltaics, superconductors, and metamaterials. In his spare time, he advises several blockchain startups focussed on healthcare applications. Deep was named one of Toronto’s Top 20 under 20 in 2015. He has given several talks on the intersection of AI, Blockchain, and Healthcare including at the Blockchain Futurist Conference 2018. Follow him on Twitter @Deepneuron Patreon: www.patreon.com/somewhereskies To watch ROSWELL: MYSTERIES DECODED for free, CLICK HERE  Website: www.somewhereintheskies.com YouTube Channel: CLICK HERE Official Store: CLICK HERE Order Ryan's Book by CLICKING HERE Twitter: @SomewhereSkies Instagram: @SomewhereSkiesPod Opening Theme Song, "Ephemeral Reign" by Per Kiilstofte SOMEWHERE IN THE SKIES is part of the eOne podcast network. To learn more, CLICK HERE SOMEWHERE IN THE SKIES is sponsored by HelloFresh. To receive 50% off your first order, use promo code: SOMEWHERE50 at checkout by visiting Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/somewhere-in-the-skies. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This episode is brought to you by Netflix. Most valuable promotions in Netflix are hosting a blockbuster triple headliner Saturday, May 16th. Rhonda Rousey returns to face fellow woman's MMA pioneer Gina Carano in the main event. Plus co-main's Nate Diaz versus Mike Perry. And the best heavyweight in the world, Frances Ngano versus Felipe Lenz. Watch Rhonda Rousey versus Gina Carrano, live only on Netflix. Saturday, May 16th at 9 p.m. Eastern Center time, 6 p.m. Pacific Time. On this episode of Someone in the Skies, quantum computing specialist, electrical engineer, CEO, and UFO enthusiast, Deep Persad.

I know a lot of people say that this is black projects. It's our tech. Nothing annoys me more than that. Because as somebody who's deep at the gunning edge of mainstream science, I'd like to believe that I have a decent understanding of what my friends are doing around the world and stuff like that. And we are nowhere close to developing these kinds of technologies, period. This is Somewhere in the Skies with Ryan Sprague. Welcome to Somewhere in the Skies. I'm Ryan Sprague. About a month ago, I was interviewed by MJ Benayas for an article for motherboard Vice. Another individual interviewed was Deep Prasad. I started looking up Deep's work after that, and I was completely blown away.

and I knew I had to have him on the show. Deepersad is working with the world's first quantum computers in order to help build the infrastructure that will support the next decade's worth of quantum technologies. He's the CEO of reactive Q, whose goal is to save humanity hundreds of billions of research hours in developing the next generation

of photovoltaics, superconductors, and metamaterials. In his spare time, he advises several blockchain startups focused on healthcare applications. Deep was also named one of Toronto's top 20 under 20 in 2015. He's given several talks on the intersection of AI, blockchain, and healthcare, including at the Blockchain Futurist Conference in 2018. Today we talk all about his work, his theories, and just exactly what he believes is going on in the UFO world concerning to the Stars Academy and the Adam Project, Metamaterials, possible extraterrestrial technology, the controversial Bob Lazar and Area 51 story, and then we dive deep into listener questions.

I hope you enjoy. Deep, thank you so much for joining me today on Somewhere in the Skies. Thank you, Ryan. I have been waiting for this for a while, man. I crowdsourced for questions. It's hard, dude. It's hard when you know you're going to be talking to someone of your level of intellect. So first of all, I'm super honored to have you on and little, uh, little intimidated, but we'll get through this together. I'm intimidated as well. Don't worry. Before we sort of get to, uh, the meat of this interview, I always have to ask people, what is your origin story? You know, we have Peter Parker getting bit by the spider, becomes Spider-Man. When it comes to UFOs, what got you interested in this topic? So there, it's kind of like a two-part story. It's kind of like a two-part

story. First of all, it kind of technically starts way back when I was roughly around grade six. And my teacher suggested that I do a project on crop circles. Out of all things, it was the only paranormal topic that we put a project on. It was very, so I got really obsessed with the paranormal, specifically aliens and the idea that they might be visiting and, you know, kind of departing these cryptic, mathematical-looking symbols on us. So I tried to do, I literally read so many books on the subject back then for a period of about two years. I was like a heavy believer in all of this stuff. And I guess like something switched and I started reading more of like what skeptics were saying.

And because I never had my own encounter or experience, I realized that this might, there really might just be nothing to this. And it was all in my head. And so for the next decade, I kind of spent it just. disregarding anything to do with the subject. But then stuff started happening specifically with the news, right? So you had the Pentagon releasing those three videos. And that was extremely intriguing because it like it peaked my, you know, my inner child, right? I realized, holy cow, this this headline really says you have foe.

Like, why is nobody freaking out about this? Right. So, so I, the problem was that I was deep into my engineering and I was always running a startup on the side, and so I didn't really have too much time, you can say, to look into it. But I was following it. You know, it was very intriguing. And so events happened and over like the last sort of two, well, I would say a year, really, not two years, but really over the last year, stuff has picked up a lot. And one day I'll definitely go into my own experiences, but I feel that I've had some quite up close and personal experiences.

Of course, nobody knows what they are, right? This is just anomalous. But yeah, so I have enough, I think, like, ammo in the tank to keep me going. Like, I know that there is substance to this. This is not a giant mass hallucination, whatever this phenomenon is. Right, yeah. Whatever Carl Jung said, we can't really follow that to, you know, by, we can't follow that as Bible. So I agree with you, Deep.

I think, you know, there's a. core phenomenon happening. People are finally acknowledging it within the government and the military. And that's exciting for people like you and I who, I was the same as you. I was really interested when I was younger. I did have a personal UFO setting, which I've talked about way too much on the show. People are sick of it. And it kind of dissipated from there, man. You know, life gets in the way, work gets in the way. When it's not in the forefront like that, you start to get a little tired. And I think that's what the UFO field was for a really long time. And like you said, just a couple years ago, they injected this new blood into it. And it's reinvigorated everyone.

That can be good and bad. There's a lot of divisiveness going on right now in the UFO field as well. But that being said, like we're talking, we're debating, we're arguing, we're passionate again. And like I said, dude, that hasn't happened for a while. That's awesome. Yeah. Well, you did mention, uh, your startup i'd love if you could maybe give us a little bit of info on what that is um as the CEO of a burgeoning company in quantum computing can you tell us a little about what you do sure so um before i go into it i'll just quickly explain to you what quantum computers are yes please okay awesome uh yeah that way what i'm saying it isn't totally random right so just to give you some quick context. When you look at every single classical computer that exists is based on what's

called logical gates, specifically the logical and and logical not gates. And now you can create any set of classical gates based on these two sort of basic units of logic, right? And the key thing to understand here is that think about this. Like the video that we're streaming right now, all the sounds that are being recorded and everything, it's being recorded and computed. with a series of these gates. So these gates, however, take input in the form of what's called Boolean logic. Like, that's what's going on on these gates. And more or less, what we found out was that there's a way to generalize that logic.

There's a more general, a more richer form of computation, you can say, where you have gates that are more meta, let's say that they can contain an arbitrary amount of computation within one gate. Or, sorry, within one series of gates. So what that means like physically or in real life is this. Like a lot of people will quote Feynman. And I do too. I think he's a great person who described quantum computing really well. In fact, he's probably the father of it.

I would consider him the father of quantum computing. And so what he pointed out was that nature is quantum mechanical. So if we want to simulate nature, we need a quantum mechanical machine, a machine that can process quantum information. The problem is that quantum information. does not follow these logical and gates that I just described. It requires much more powerful gates, something called the universal gate model. And now the universal gate model is like the sort of granddaddy of computation. It's like the most robust and strongest form of computation that we currently know of.

And what you can look at it is this. You can see the classic compute that we're seeing right now, these classical gates, as a subset of what quantum gates can do. And the power of being able to simulate nature is huge. It's infinite because the reason is this. I like to go with the caffeine molecule example because everybody loves coffee so they can relate to this. Drinking mine right now. Perfect.

So the caffeine molecule has roughly like 97 electrons in its full form. and to simulate and calculate how a 97 electron fully entangled system would behave, you would need what's called a number of classical bits, right? And classical bits represents your compute power. So you would need at least two to the 97 classical bits to represent a fully entangled system of 97 electrons, or let's just say 97 qubits for now. Now, the weird thing or the crazy thing here is this, Ryan, is that if I were to turn all of Earth into a massive computer, if I took every single atom and each atom represented a bit, there's only two to the 55 atoms that make a planet Earth. And however, there's two to the 97 classical bits that we need to represent caffeine.

So even if you, yeah, so even if you turned all of Earth into a computer, it wouldn't be able to. to model and calculate exactly how caffeine will behave. And now caffeine is a fairly small molecule. Imagine if you could simulate something like a battery. Say you could simulate an entire car engine or a new drug design. You could predict exactly what that drug is going to do to the human body. You could tailor the perfect drug with no side effects. You could create, and this is what my big vision is,

is to create technology indistinguishable from nature. So imagine you're walking down the street. You have these trees that look like normal trees, but they double back as cell towers and power generation lines as well. Or you could easily just grow a limb out of nowhere. The possibilities are just limitless. In top of that, it would be really great for the environment if we could just seamlessly merge our tech into it. The only way to get there, though, is to understand how to build biological transistors rather than circuit-based normal transistors. and a whole suite of hybrid technologies that we haven't developed yet

between the merging of life and technology, I guess. And the only way to get there I see is, at least in part, is dominating our understanding of nature and the ability to simulate it to the point where we can algorithmically create absolutely anything we desire. So that was kind of like the motivation for starting this company, and that's what we do. Now, the problem is, and this is why I brought up quantum computers

as a definition. Youth sports, families and fans huddle up. Wherever life takes you, Game Changer keeps you connected. Stream games live and full HD when you can't be there. Get play-by-play updates right on your phone and share game highlights with everyone. Full bragging rights included. Live the game like never before with Game Changer.

Create your free account today at gc.com. Quantum computers are in its infancy. So if you want an analogy as to where we are, I like to equate it as when, imagine if the right wing brothers just took off like their first plane. And it's been like maybe three or four years since it's happening. So that was like, the interesting thing is when that plane first took off, it was leveraging a third dimension, right? And even though it was leveraging that extra dimension that nobody else was leveraging back then, it was still slower than horses. People would say, why do I need this when my horse is much faster.

But now we know who won, right? A horse against a plane. A really good point. Thank you. And it's simply because it's leveraging that extra quote dimension, the third is going up rather than just forward and back. So analogously speaking, that's exactly what's going on here. Now, I can't commercialize a right-wing brother plane. I can commercialize a Cessna, which is maybe, you know, like 20 years out or however, what have you.

So for anybody working with quantum computers, they're here for the long. run. We are constantly developing prototype algorithms that work on what's called NISC, noisy, intermediate-scale quantum computers. And what that means is that we have these quantum computers. They're clearly, they're metaphorically small. They're obviously physically huge, but they're metaphorically small quantum computers. They're noisy, but we know that they're doing something interesting. We know that they're truly able to perform quantum computations of some kind. So that's where our starting point is. We only have up to 100 error-coracted qubits, if I'm being nice. So it's not really a lot. It's not really a lot to do anything. For context, you know,

this computer could easily be representing trillions of bits right now. So we're a very long way away from reaching trillions of qubits. And with all that in mind, what my company does is twofold. The first step is to stay alive. Like, objectively, we need to make revenue, and we still want to make an impact on the world immediately. We don't want to wait for quantum computers to develop and mature before we make that impact. And the second thing we do is we're constantly still developing these quantum algorithms in the meantime. Both we're projecting the gate model algorithms. We believe that they'll win. And yeah, we also just test our current algorithms on current quantum computers and we sell that or we offer that as a package. If companies can afford to

buy quantum IP and they want to head start in that space, they can absolutely purchase it. But it's not necessarily right now our main product, which mostly interfaces with classical supercomputers. And what we're doing is since we can't simulate nature as it is currently, what we're trying to do is speed up all the simulations that already occur. So you have these engineering simulations. that are being done, computational fluid dynamic simulations, electrochemical simulations, or what have you. And so these are all simulations that, you know, a guy at Tesla or a guy at Boeing or Lockheed has to do before they design your next engine or a new airplane wing design.

The problem, though, is that these simulations take from six hours to six weeks to one. And you don't want to be the guy who let your simulation run for six weeks straight, and it was wrong. Right, right. So it's, but the crazy thing is that this is just how engineering and science advances right now. Same with drug discovery. We are so much bound to the physical world. And so we resort to simulations as much as we can and when possible, even though they take so ridiculously long. So what we're doing for now is offering major speedups.

We have found some novel computational methods to speed up simulations by over a factor of 100, starting with computational fluid dynamics. So what that looks like to a day-to-day life for an engineer is that say they would have had a CFD simulation that they need to run, and normally it would have taken 24 hours, they can now run it in less than 15 minutes. So the advantage is huge, right? It changes the workflow process. And so we're just trying to bring that to the world. And we know that while this might not have the impact that quantum computers and its fluency will have,

is still something that the world needs. So yeah, hopefully that answers your question. It's an ambitious goal, but without those people like you and the many others out there doing this, like we may never get there. And like you said, even if it takes, like you said, it could take six hours or six weeks, the fact that these things will eventually begin to self-correct themselves and save us years and years and years of human error, as it were, that's extremely exciting to know that one day we may get there where we can merge the biological with the technological

and let it benefit humanity rather than hurt it or harm it. Absolutely. Imagine before civilization really took off, we had a very beautiful relationship with nature. I want to get back to that while keeping all the cool tech. I love it. Perfect marriage. I love it. Well, sort of moving to, you mentioned all this secret Pentagon stuff program deep

that has come about. And that came through to the Stars Academy, which our listeners know very well at this point. And one of the big hot topics with what's going on over there is this subsection of to the Stars Academy, the Adam Project. Now, very little has sort of been revealed so far about what they're working on or the materials that they propose are in their possession. But there's a really interesting one that you came across that I heard you talking about through the work of Linda Moulton Howe. And this one, you know, we've sort of known about this for a while, but we never really knew any super specifics about it. So could you maybe tell us a little about it, the tests that have been done with it and what you make of this material? Sure. So I just want to clear one thing

up. I myself haven't done any of the tests. Right. So take that with, take what I say with a grain of salt. And one of the things I'll mention, yeah, I can definitely get into it. Because one of the interesting things that I learned at the SEU conference was that it's something that Lou told me, and he told a couple other people, so I know that he's, and he didn't say that we can't say it to anybody, so I know that he's comfortable with me speaking about this, is that I learned a new effect that one of the materials that they are looking at does, and I believe, to my understanding, it was a Bismuth magnesium material. I could be wrong, but that is what I remember. It might be a different amount of material. They have several.

That's perfect with extraordinary capabilities. This one specifically, this new effect. So I've talked about how this specific bismith magnesium metamaterial can perform something called electrolysis before, and I'll definitely get into that in a second. Yes, but I'll start with the first effect. And this is the thing that Lou told me. When he told me, I initially had so much disbelief,

but not because I didn't believe him, but because it just, I was like, how did somebody figure this out? Like that is just genius. I have no idea how it's working, but that's brilliant. So here's what he described to me. He said that when this metamaterials in its activated form, what happens is they fire a electron towards it,

and the electron speeds up and gets to the destination faster if it's in the vicinity of this metamaterial, or it gets to the actual metamaterial faster. Now, that's very, very, very. intriguing to me because let's take a step back. First of all, electrons make up every single atom. So if you're talking about speeding up electrons, we may, and I'm not making this claim, we may be looking at a potential way of traveling faster than speed of light. Maybe. That is just a hypothesis on my end. That being said, though, the actual process of speeding up electrons is

normally done through physical medium alterations. It's a lot like imagine. Imagine a hose pipe where you have water coming out of your hose pipe and it's really, really gunky. It's super, super clogged up and so you have a little bit of water coming out, right? That's what you can expect, like, current to behave as. So this is where conductors come in. So the cleaner your conductor is, which means the less atoms there are in the way or the less gunk there is in the way, the current will flow smoother. You'll have current flowing with less resistance. when it comes to speeding up electrons, if I were to tell you that if you had a really clogged

hose pipe and I could speed up the water anyways, that would be quite intriguing to you, wouldn't it? Because there's only two ways that can happen. I'm either altering the gunkiness somehow, but that's not happening. That's basically the gunk is still there, yet the water is still going through the hose pipe faster. That makes no sense whatsoever. It technically shouldn't happen. And so the only way that I see that happening is that I guess space time itself is somehow being contracted.

That's what my best guess would be. There might be something more prosaic if there is. I don't believe we have that explanation out there yet. No scientist has put one out. And I do want to see more of these results and experiments. talked about. But yeah, the way that, but like, what's important though is that the context that Lou bought this up in, because we were specifically talking about warping space time. So he's not, like, leaving anything to guess, right? That was very intriguing. So, so that's one very interesting

property that these metamaterials do. Another one is, and this is the one, another one that I really like, besides the electrolysis, is that this specific metamaterial, when you irradiated, And this is the thing that Tom tries to describe all the time. And when you irradiate it with half-terahorse frequency signal, and you put it on top of a insulated field. So you're insulating yourself from an electric field. And the static electric field in this case can be anywhere from 500,000 volts to 1 million volts. Now, 500,000 volts is a lot of energy.

And same with creating a half-terahhertz or even one-terahhertz frequency. Like they would have needed to build their own one-tah-hers frequency generator to test this stuff. But essentially what happens is that one of the intriguing things is that at one point, and this is what I'm commenting on is available in a video, I can send it to later on that Travis Taylor did or he switched in. So Dr. Travis Taylor uses the metamaterial and he uses an aluminum. metamaterial as a control element. So what he does is in this experiment, he puts both of these on top of the plastic cap one at a time. And when you put the aluminum alloy, and so he used the

aluminum alloy as a control because the aluminum alloy represented in terms of the metapopopoparties, it was roughly similar to the metaproperties of the Bismuth-Magnosium zinc alloy in the sense that the aluminum alloy is conductive. It's very, very conductive. It is metal. So by definition, it won't, and by definition of being conductive, it won't build up charge around itself. Only insulators do that. So we know for a fact that when we put this aluminum alloy on top of the plastic cap and we turn on the terrahertz frequency generator and we turn on our static electric field, absolutely nothing should happen because there's no charge for it to repel against that no charge buildup. and the from the electric field right so it's not it'll ever move based on the electric field and it doesn't

it doesn't do anything at all even when i turn on this radio it doesn't do anything because why should it right like when was the last time you pointed your tv remote a lightweight object and it moved good point so so going back to this meta material and again this is on video so this thing um it actually starts moving. It starts vibrating very violently. At first, you can discount that as just some sort of, like, jankiness from the electric feel, like a lot of energy. Maybe a field generator was vibrating. But then why wasn't the aluminum alloy moving at all? Okay. So this thing at first, what caught my eyes, the first, second or two, starts vibrating very, very violently. And then it starts moving, left, right, like up down and then it just lifts off the cap that blew my mind like that's a tiny thing to

someone who might not care but holy cow where did it get that energy to repel itself and so when we try to figure out where it got that energy i two things come to mind the first thing i considered is electrostatic repulsion from the electrostatic field that we've generated but like i said because there are no charges being built up that doesn't make sense there shouldn't be uh it's Conductive. There shouldn't be anything for it to repel against. The charges should just move around perfectly fine. So what that implies is that if it lifted itself off the ground based on electrostatic repulsion, if that is true, then what that implies is that, to put it very simply, what it implies is that there's something called a topological insulator. It is able to behave as an insulator in an activated state. I don't want to get too much into the dynamics of, topological insulators, all you need to know is that they're extremely special. Anytime somebody

discovers one, you'll probably win a Nobel Prize. Anybody figures out how to create one easily, they'll definitely win a Nobel Prize. And one of the reasons why topological insulators are so important is because in theory we can use them to create very, very clean quantum computers. And like I mentioned before, quantum computers are a long way away. But if this does end up being a topological insulator, that could be huge for that field. But now let's say that it isn't that. Let's say we find out that it's not actually doing anything like that. Then frankly, it would have to be doing something more exotic.

It would have to be somehow capturing energy from the environment. I don't know how. Maybe it's using some sort of crazy resonance frequency. I know that how Pudov talks about how there's a wave guide inside of it. Maybe that resonates it at a certain level that it vibrates and it vibrates in a way that it lifts itself off. But the energy calculations doesn't necessarily add up with that, in my opinion. But again, because I've never had physical experience with it yet, I can't say for sure what's going on. So with that in mind, you can start to see how just this one metamaterial is interesting, right?

Yeah. TTSCA has more than one, and they're not all related. So the third thing that the same minute material I described does is electrolysis. Now, electrolysis is the process of separating hydrogen from water using electricity. And the reason why we would be interested in separating hydrogen from water is because hydrogen is the most energy-dense fuel source we know of. It's the most energy-dense element. So if we could get a reliable way of accessing hydrogen, we would be able to move away from fossil fuels and from oil overnight. We would easily be able to use it to replace our current fuel sources.

This is why, however, Elon Musk has had so many sort of criticisms against hydro cells for such a long time, because he's very gung-ho that hydrogen fuel cells will never take off. And part of it is because of the simple inefficiency of extracting hydrogen. So if you look at how much energy I get from the hydrogen that I extracted from the process of electrolysis, it isn't nearly as much energy at industrial scales as I put into it. So it was a total waste of time, right? Currently. But if we could find an efficient way of doing that industrial scales, boom.

game is on again. They're like that hydrogen fuel cell, um, critique goes out the window. That being said, however, Elon is right. He's, he should be absolutely skeptical. There is no reason to believe that there's easily efficient way of separating hydrogen for now. But then it's for this metamaterial. When you drop this, and again, this is, uh, in the same video that I'll send to you, when you drop this metamaterial into a beaker of water, what was observed, um, is a steady stream of hydrogen being released from the water and due to the metamaterial. Now, that's insane because there was no extra energy that was input into the metamaterial for it to do that.

It just naturally does it. Second you drop in water, boom, it's doing it. There are no products or reactants left. That's so weird. So it's somehow doing it very cleanly. It's literally, if we could just crack that, it would just open up such a different lifestyle. Like forget the whole possibility of gravity nullification and whatnot. This in itself, revolutionary if we figure out how it's doing that.

But what I understand, though, is I heard that there was a saying in the black project, I mean, sort of a sap world, something like how ET Tech works by freaking magic and weird science. That's basically what I see here. Yeah, yeah. So hopefully that shines a line. I believe that TGSA is working on proving that the isotopic ratios, that's always step one, proving that the isotopic ratios are not from here. Right. But step two is proving, and we can get into that later, is proving where these isotopic ratios did come from, because that in itself opens of a whole new kind of warms.

But so what I understand is that they're kind of playing the route of doing these experiments. These experiments are out there. So the fact that they're being quiet tells me that they have something. very interesting at their sleeve. Now, I'm not going to talk about what. I can't pretend to know I know exactly what. I think I have a decent idea. But, yeah, that's that.

That's the thing that I keep trying to tell people, too, is when it comes to this atom project, everyone's like, well, what are they fine? We want to know now. We want to know now. But good science takes time, and they have to get everything peer reviewed. I mean, that's the point of doing this.

You got it. Yeah. Well, I know you've spoken in the past to, about these different approaches that many different scientists may take when it comes to studying materials like this. And you compared it to a flashy route and a conservative route. I love this comparison because you brought up one of my favorite people, Jacques Valet. So would you maybe walk us through a little bit deep of the different approaches that can be taken when studying these meta materials? The simplest way to look at it is that Jacques Valet starts

at isotopic ratios. TTSA starts at isotopic ratios. Jacques Lace stops at isotopic ratios. TTSA continues. Talking about it, doing more analysis on all the other weird properties. Like for example, Jacques, from my research at least, he might have spoken about metamaterial extraordinary properties before, but I've never seen it. I've mostly heard him talk about the isotopic ratios. He just goes on and on. For good reason, I'll get into that. But that is the conservator. route. That's a route where like if you get that stuff peer reviewed, scientists will start listening. It might take years, right? I have no idea how long away they are from telling the world

what they're up to, but it would be a little bit more definitive, especially if it was confirmed and reproduced by other labs and they gave out their samples to like guys at MIT or, you know, Caltech or something. So that's the conservative route that I see going. And that's still powerful in and of itself. But if you want people right now to be paying attention, the layman couldn't care less about these scientific reports. You already

bought it up. They want to know what is Adam doing? What are they doing? So people are impatient. There is no getting around that fact, especially in TTSA's position where they've already taken sort of what I call the flashy route. They kind of have to keep going down

that path because they have much bigger expectations. People are expecting way more of them than they would have say Jacques Valet. And I don't mean that in any disrespectful way whatsoever. Yeah. And I think it's really, it's a struggle because like you said, taking this flashy route, that's the Tom DeLong coming out in all this. That's the, you know, the entertainment part of it is we want it now, no, no. You know, I remember working on projects in the entertainment field where it took me six years to get it off the ground. And the minute it came out, someone would say, oh, when's the next one coming out? It's like,

I do you chill out. I just took six years for this. But that's a really good point, Deep, is with the Adam Project, this could be like the most time consuming thing to all of what they're doing. Time and money. Absolutely. Time and money. That's a really good point, too. I do

touching on that a little bit, I do want to ask your opinion on this, do you think, because a lot of the criticism when it comes to the stars are the scientists working on this? People like Hal Putoff, who you know, their records are a little spotty. Let's be completely honest when it comes to...

I hesitate to use the term pseudoscience, but he's worked on some pretty freaking weird stuff. Let's just put it at that. Do you think to the stars is going to be responsible enough to get everything they're studying peer-reviewed? I mean, they would have to, right? Yeah, that's a great question. And I know for a fact that Hal has been pushing to get his stuff peer-reviewed,

There's no, they're absolutely trying to get papers published. There's no question about it. But like I said, that takes a long time. It might take longer than what they have for the general public. So, yeah, I don't know if that answers your question. But I do want to address that one thing. And this is, I'm glad that you brought this up, like their whole history. Because the way that I saw it, it was one of the reasons why I went and attended the SEU was I wanted to understand

who these guys are and what they're about and whether you know they really have the goods and whether they really know what they're talking about right like i'll be honest i came with my bs detector on high like full good good because you got it right and so the brilliant thing is that how passed my bs detector with flying colors he is no doubt a good scientist he knows what he's talking about i'll give you an uh anecdotal evidence for what it's worth so the first day of the conference i coached him. And one of the things I asked him about, aside from like the modality of remote viewing, sort of like the physics and math that he might think goes behind it, is that I had brought up the Wigner's experiment. And he had brought it up, like he was fully aware of the fact that an

experiment had been done on the Wigner's friend paradox. And it had been released just three days ago. Now, this is, this was like cutting edge quantum mechanics experiment that even most of my friends in the quantum physics community did not know of. Frankly, I don't even think they care because it won't directly affect their career, but it's something that to somebody who cares about the field from a big high-level perspective, it said a lot about the nature of reality. So people who would care about it would have to be a very unique position of being both a physicist and a philosopher. So it absolutely impressed me. I love that how I was fully informed on news like that when like you can imagine he must be so busy. Like he would have had no reason to be reading the news lately or what's going on in the science world.

But he's clearly up to date. He clearly understands it perfectly. I realize I'm like, holy cow, like this guy, I don't know whether what they have is legit or not right now. But he's like just as intelligent as I am, if not more or whatever. Like he's not dumb. He's not like just making stuff up. Like he does know what he's talking about. That's really good to hear because I know there's been so much.

criticism when it comes to put off being like sort of the head of this part of this with his earth tech company merging into the stars but um the fact that he's you know he's not one of these scientists stuck in a certain static nature of a certain like quantum physics let's say like he's not stuck in this one side of it he's looking at what is coming out right now the progression of the field and i think that's really important especially with what they're trying to do absolutely Yeah. Well, Luis Eliza is on to an A-Tip. You said you went to this conference. You heard some really good stuff there, Deep. But when it comes to what A-TIP did, this five observables, that's a really fascinating thing. When they described this in their television show and in the A-Tip reports, I found it really fascinating, the five observables to put up against UFO reports. So which of these did you find most compelling? And do you think this is sort of a good set of standards when studying UFOs? I think it's as good.

That's a great question. I think it's as good as it gets from what I understand that probably those five observables are like the amalgation of what they must have figured out over years. Like this is just these are just the most common things. I could totally see how they are common traits amongst most UAP. That being said, there's probably certain traits that we haven't determined traits that might just not be accessible to our human eyes and in our current sensory modalities, we might just not know that there's a sixth observable that we can't observe. And that might itself be an

observable. But that being said, though, the one observable that really stands out to me is the anti-gravity one. By far, that's the most interesting one. Because right of way, that's a tale-tale sign that we're not dealing with our tech. I know, and like, I know a lot of people, a lot, a lot, say that this is black projects. It's our tech. And like nothing annoys me more than that. Because as somebody who's like deep at the gunning edge of mainstream science, I'd like to believe that I have a decent understanding of what my friends are doing around the world and stuff like that. And we are nowhere close to developing these kinds of technologies, period. So sure, somebody might have had a breakthrough in the black world and whatnot. But that's kind of like why I wrote that one article, that if that is the case, where is it? Why don't we all have flibbin Star Trek technologies? Like, why do we, why are we stuck to planet Earth? In terms of that tech deep, they talk a lot, DeLong and Elizondo talk about the capability to replicate this ET tech. And we could build some extraordinary craft. That's exactly what Louis said. But that, that I found interesting, but at the same time, that's all good and fine.

But what other benefits do you think we could get from understanding this and or replicating this ET tech other than for travel or even warfare, I guess. So I like the deal of salination idea. That will go a long way, being able to get cleaning water to anybody, clean water. That will be huge. The other thing that I see moving forward is, again, it's applications to quantum computing. Quantum computing can be used for companies like myself. So there's loss of positive benefits that we can gain just from, say, learning from

metamaterials. But when you say ET Tech, I assume you don't mean just metamaterials. I also assume that you mean, let's say, recovered fully functioning craft. Yes. And let's say that that exist. I'm not going to say that it does because it would be ingenuous for me to say that it definitely does. But speculating that it does. So going back to the whole compute part, these guys, if they are getting here, they would need supercomputers easily. They would need to compute the coordinates and the position of every single star, they would need to have threat detection while they're traveling to space, you know, at sub-speed of light or whatever speed they're traveling. They would need to avoid all the micrometeorites and anything in their way. On top of that, when they get here,

assuming that they might not be, say, biological, they might be half AI or something like that, these things would require massive amounts of compute, compute that I don't think that we would necessarily have available. So to me, that, like, says something. that if these let's say that they truly aren't biological like these uap pilots or whatever if there is somebody behind it but if you look at just the way that these uap interact with their pilots it kind of hints at intelligence right like yeah they play with it like these pilots um you know yeah so so so that's not an accident like uh we can't code something that will trick a person into thinking that there's an intelligent pilot behind it without a literal intelligent pilot

behind it. You're never going to see an F-18 start doing dancing, like dancing and playing with you or something. It's just not going to do that. What that says to me is that we're looking at some sort of intelligence, and I presume it's not biological. Of course I could be wrong, but if it isn't, then it's definitely using some sort of cool AGI. And AGI, as you can imagine, which is artificial general intelligence, is sort of like the gold medal level like Hail Mary of the field. We are so far away. We're probably at least five decades away from anything that might be like AGI, in my opinion. But if we could crack that, you're looking at possibly Androids. You're looking at very sentient technologies that can help you, technologies that you can interface with day to day

and fully understand your intent. Imagine like a laptop that's self-healing and it responds to anything that you say and maybe fully understands you better than you understand yourself. Like that's the kind of stuff that I see could be happening if we fully understood the tech. But I don't believe, frankly, though, I'll just put this on record, that we're going to crack how their compute works, period. It's not happening. I could understand that. It's sobering to think, but it's also, that's the reality of the situation. Yeah, fair. Yeah. Like how you say it, absolutely. Okay, so sort of piggybacking off of TTSA and moving to another controversial figure back in the 80s deep.

Bob Wazar. The dude has made a comeback. Everything comes back around, man. I don't know. The 80s seem to be big right now. Well, what do you think about this? We have the documentary that came out by Jeremy Corbell. And now he's all over the place, man.

Mainstream media. He's got a book in autobiography coming out. And this is the guy, the guy who said he first worked on ET Tech and Propulsion Systems at Area 51. Well, S4, to be more exact, But with your knowledge, what do you think of Lazars' claims and what do you make of his entire overall story?

So it may seem like a big counterintuitive because I'm fully aware of what other physicists have to say about him. I constantly hear, oh, no physicists believes Bob Lazar. Well, like I do. For what it's worth, I obviously could be equally getting played as everybody else. He could just be the best scam artist in the world. There is no doubt about that. We can't rule that out.

That being said, we also absolutely can't rule them out just based on the physics. I think that's such a stupid, lazy argument that debunkers and skeptics and people with like half-level knowledge of physics say, I've never like seen a properly good argument against it because, and we can like, let's address them. Let's address some of them right now because that's the gaping hole that everybody hits him on, right? Other than his educational history and its sort of like shoddy record is his physics. So I don't really want to I don't really care about the shoddy record necessarily We can speculate about that all day long It's not going to get us anywhere

But the physics That like when I saw his video A couple months ago It was a video where he did it in the 80s And it was a one I think that Heeded all this controversy that all the physicists Hate him for So first of all I just want to put on record

Like that He's definitely smart He definitely understands science And he's a technical guy There's no doubt about that but he absolutely doesn't speak with the rigor and lexicon of what you might expect a normal physicist to speak with. That being said, though, that does not mean at all that he doesn't know what he's talking about or what he might be hinting at. So, like, I'll give you, this might sound abstract, so we'll give you a real example.

He was essentially alluding to the unification of the fundamental forces. So just as a quick refresher, there's four fundamental forces that we know of currently. there's strong and weak nuclear forces, so that's two. Then you have just magnetism, and then you have gravity. Now, the problem is that our quantum mechanics really does a great job at describing three of these and how they move with each other. That's the weak, strong, and magnetism forces. But then we have general relativity to describe the fourth force, but then that's right.

Like that's where everybody talks about how there's no unification, because we don't have a model that perfectly marries all four forces together. And so what Bob was alluding to in his talks is that there is a unification and he, if I recall correctly, he said that the strong nuclear force is actually gravity or gravity is a strong nuclear force, something like that. Now, that in itself, to any physicist, they would say, without the math provided, they would say that's BS. Like, that's how I know when you don't know what you're talking about. But to me, I totally disagree because if Bob is correct, if like he really did work on what he claimed to, what he told us is probably what the other physicists realized and concluded after their years of research,

that there actually is a unification of forces. Now, they don't know how it works. Clearly, like he never provided the math for it. But there's no reason to believe that it's not possible. That's the crazy part. Like it's not totally. out of the realm of possibility. And that in itself, though, would be huge. If you could prove what he claimed mathematically, you'll win, like, at least three Nobel Prizes. And the thing that immediately struck me was that,

if this is true, then these aliens are fucking geniuses. Like, they've achieved unification. They fully understand how the four fundamental forces work. And maybe there are other fundamental forces. Like, he did allude to anti-gravity and stuff. But it, yeah, to me, like, like, basically to summarize, I tentatively see genius in what he said, and it's not his genius. I see it as a statement of the things that he was working on in their three years. That is a really, really good way to summarize it deep.

Wow, man. Yeah, because I, if you think about it, he was hired to do this. He didn't know exactly what it would be used for. He was literally hired to work on the propulsion and to try. to figure it out. And just like everyone else who's ever worked at Area 51 has said, I don't even know what the guy next to me was doing. Like, I was there for a specific job. Good point. It's fascinating. Well, um, one more question about the Bob Lazar story. And then we're going to, we're going to move on to some listener questions in a little bit here. And, um, your, your article that just came out,

but element 115. Now, a lot of people use this as this proves Bob Lazar right. And a lot of people say it proves, it doesn't prove anything because we would eventually get to this element in the periodic table. So what do you make of this element 115, this thing that he says would fuel the propulsion system? Does this ring true at all to you coming from a scientific background? It's very tough to say because we've never generated a stable version of a heavy element like 115. It would be absolutely disingenuous, right, for me to say what we know about his properties. maybe it does do what he's claiming. Maybe it doesn't at all. But one thing that I do know is that, and this is, so I actually had a, it's funny that he brought this up, because I had a conversation with somebody, with somebody last night about it, because I had said that it's controversial, but I said the existence of element 115 and what it does is pure speculation. It doesn't matter if it exists because nobody can prove it. Like, nobody can actually produce element 115 like physically. So regardless of whether it's real or not, it's not going to get us anywhere if we speculate on it. and how it works. And now this person took it as you don't believe Bob Lazar. That's not true at all.

What I'm saying is that it doesn't necessarily serve us any good if we try to use that as a way to prove or disprove it, because it doesn't prove or disprove him in any way whatsoever. And I'll just clarify that a little bit. So a lot of people on the disproving side say that, oh, well, it was just a natural extrapolation. I could say that. I'm in 300,000, 50 billion. I don't know. It doesn't matter. Yeah, that's fair. Absolutely. But that's not exactly the claim that Bob made. We need to remember that he specifically said there's a stable isotope of 115. Now, I just want to bring up real quick that let's take gold, for example, right? Like I'm wearing it right now. This thing only exists in one stable form, yet it has 40 isotopes. There are 40 gold isotopes. And so 39 of them,

given that they're unstable, imagine we were born on a planet, an alien planet, and there was no gold anywhere. But we were able to build our own particle accelerators. And we observed in our acceleration reactions that we were creating these isotopes of gold in the reaction. The problem is that the other 39, you have a much higher chance of producing an unstable isotope of gold here. So the problem is that we would see, like, let's say we produce. an unstable gold isotope and it decays in milliseconds. I've seen a table, most of them decay in seconds, other forms of isotopes of gold. So for a physicist, physicist quote, or debunker quote of Bob Lazarus saying that element, and frankly, I know that nobody's going to like this,

but Stanton Freeman made the same argument, that there's no observed stable element of isotope element 15, therefore it can't exist. That's false. We would, in this alien planet that I just described, Stanton Friedman would conclude that gold can't possibly exist. That's just done. We can't possibly say that that disproves or proves him. Well, okay, so moving away from Bob Lazar, because we could literally talk for three hours about that guy. He's an enigma and love him to death.

Knowing your familiarity with the work of Jacques Valet, I do got to bring him back again. He's my favorite guy. Do you believe there is an invisible college of scientists? I love this idea. Scientists, technologists, exchanging information on UFO still. We know for a fact this was happening a while back when Vellé was writing about this. But if you, if there is, if you believe there is, would you want to be a part of that, too, is the second part of that question?

I believe there is. So before the interview, I had a conversation with James from engaging in the phenomena. And he asked me if I'd read American Cosmic. I haven't yet, but I'm told that they consist of the invisible college, that there's some like NASA guy or something that's part of it. So I do believe that that exists. I have no doubt that it would exist. And I would love to be a part of that group. And if they're hearing this, feel free to reach out to me.

Hopefully that answers your question. That's great, man. Well, I'd like to hear that. I think they could definitely use your expertise and knowledge when it comes to moving forward with the UFO phenomenon. I think you overestimate me, but I'm just a fanboy. Same here, man. Same here. Well, let's talk about this article you just wrote because I was definitely a fan of this one.

And this came into response from an article written by Tyler Rogue, a highly respected guy over at the drive about UFO patents. Now, Rogo, he's hot or cold with some people. He's written some really, really good stuff. And he's gotten further in terms of talking about UFO. reports within the military than I think anyone at this point. But could you maybe tell us a little about the focus of his article and why you felt the need to write your responsive article, which, yeah, I think is, they work and blend so well together right now in the UFO conversation.

Thank you. So, yeah, I guess the reason was twofold. The first reason was very simple. I noticed that the way that Tyler was interpreting this was totally wrong. Like the way that he writes, wrote that article was that these patents exist, therefore, and he literally says it in the article, the likelihood has increased that these are ours, that the UAP, that no, that's wrong. That's totally wrong.

That's not what happened. And he says in the article himself that his physicist friends didn't want to go on record to talk about it. well, luckily for us, there's one physicist crazy enough to talk about it and go on record about it. So I decided that like, okay, first of all, I see that there's something crazy going on. Like he made an incredible discovery. Like, I'm so glad that he brought to attention what happened with the U.S. Patent Office and the U.S. Naval Intelligence. That is insane. I had no idea that that kind of stuff would happen.

But could you expand on that a little forest deep in terms of what? what these UFO patents were. Okay. So essentially what they were were theoretical concepts. They clearly don't exist. There are theoretical concepts of how an advanced propulsion system might work and how an advanced craft entirely would work. So there's the, yeah, so you have the main patent.

The way to look at it is this. You have the main patent, that's a triangle. That's the one that everybody kind of talks about and sees. Then Sergeant Pays filed other Pays. other patents that are patenting the subsystem of this main patent. So like in the main patent, it calls for a high frequency gravity wave generator. But he doesn't go into how that would work. So he filed a different patent on the high frequency gravity wave generator.

Then he goes into how superconducting works in the craft and how it's used. So then he filed a different patent on that too. Now, and then this is where like obviously I come in and I realize, wow, dude, like all these are just shots in the dark and they're bad. Yeah, yeah. So your article basically argued that this, this proves nothing that this technology is coming from here. Right. It proves if anything that they're clueless, like they're just flippling lost in the dark. Or this is a disinformation campaign, of course, we can't rule that out. But they, like, keep in mind, like, I know, you know, patents inside it out as being in the tech industry. Like, I know how expensive they are. A full U.S. patent

will easily cost you $100,000. So these people spent a pretty penny trying to convince us or somebody that these things might be U.S. tech. Like it really did a great job at fooling the layman. Like I still have friends who are saying, hey, like, deep, check this out, like, mystery solved. And then I just reply with my article. And like the, so, and you would ask me, like, what was the point in sort of making it?

That was the first point, which was to clear up the science. science. There's no absolutely, it was absolutely wrong that no physicist was like taking the courage to speak up about it. That annoyed me like no end. So I needed to put that to rest that this is somehow proof that these are ours. Absolutely not. And then the second fold, second part, was to use it as a tools and a way of logically bringing people to a new framework of addressing these problems and what's going on. So what I mean by that is that I wanted this to get in the hands of influential people, politicians, journalists, scientists who can do something about this, who can start asking the questions about who does own this technology if it's not apparently the top U.S. Naval Intelligence Air Base. Who does own it? And it's clearly not China because they literally said China's racing towards it. So now, and thanks to that, like it was successful to some extent. I won't mention who they are, but I'm in contacts with very famous law professor. from Penn State University, and she's a civilized person.

She's very irritated by the lack of transparency of the UFO topic and all that stuff. It seems never would have considered this topic before, like, the whole T2Safe stuff went down. And this person watches unidentified, but they've also spoken with me about my article. And I know that this article has also found its ways in the MIT circles. I've had journalists reach out to me from Australia, a person from CNN as well. So it definitely accomplished that. Like people had absolutely no idea that this stuff is going on. And now they know how to ask the right questions and they have stuff to back it up.

That's a sign of responsibility. You're not just writing an article to argue something. You're trying to be proactive. And the fact that it's getting out there and this could actually like influence the people involved with the UFO topic moving forward. That's what we strive for for so long. So I definitely have to give you. Cheers on that. And we will link to your article and Tyler's as well in this episode as well. So no, I hope that I can in some small way spread that further to get it in the hands of other people. Absolutely. You have a great fault. I have no doubt about it. Well, thank you. Well, speaking of that following, I do have a list of really good listener questions here. I'd never receive so many questions when I told people who was going to be coming on the show.

So yeah, I'm putting you in the hot seat now, Deep. All right, no pressure. All right. All right. Our first one here comes from Ed. And his question is, Deep, has your open interest in the subject drawn criticism or unfavorable commentary from colleagues, clients, or investors? Or have they shown an interest? That's a really good question.

My investors seem to be too busy. It seems to care about what I'm doing. Like, really, I was expecting a lot more backlash from them. I haven't yet. and I can't get into too much details, but one or more of them are definitely intrigued now that I've reached out to them about certain things that I'm working on. I can't get too much into it, but it does have to do potentially with meta materials and whatnot. So they definitely have some intrigue. They are skeptical, healthily skeptic, but this is a reason why they are where they are.

These are the people who bet on the crazy and the unimaginable and it works in their favor. So I'm trying to appeal to that trait in these people. Most negative I would say, like commentary I would get was from some of my colleagues. A lot of them are heavy-duty scientists and engineers who are super, super, super complacent and sometimes have a condescending attitude when it comes to this kind of stuff, regardless of what I say, regardless of what evidence I might give to them, regardless of what papers I reach out to, there are certain people who will stay negative and condescending no matter what.

So absolutely there's some of that. Yeah, I find it really fascinating too that people like me who aren't scientifically based or too knowledgeable, it's so intimidating to reach out to scientists because you do get this response of just brushing you off or it's pseudoscience or you're dumb. But then when you do talk to the scientists who are willing to talk about this topic and the benefits that could come from it or the breakthroughs even, And those are the scientists who, us more layman people in the field, are like, oh, thank God, someone's willing to, like, listen to us, hear our opinions and work together.

So it's good knowing that there are some of those out there. Right. Fair enough. Well, Earl's question for you is, what do you think about UAAP activity shutting down our ICBMs as well as those in Russia? I think it's amazing. I absolutely love that it's happening. First of all, I can't imagine too many people agreeing with me there.

But here's a reason because let's look at what they're doing from a technological standpoint. Let's forget maybe what their motivations are for a second. And let's start with the very first one. So this was news to me that they've been, this has been happening since the very first Manhattan project. Apparently, that is insane. Yeah. Right? So initially like I thought, okay, so let's see, how would I shut down if I'm a UAP and I'm flying over this Manhattan project?

And by the way, what's just, sorry, this isn't fully. relevant to your question, but it is cool, at least a cool thought. Yeah, go ahead. Richard Feynman and Einstein and Boer. I think Boer and obviously Oppenheimer, they all worked on the atomic bomb. So in theory, these people might have been aware. And to me, like, just that thought is amazing. Oh, yeah.

So, right? So, so anyway, so yeah, going back, though, like, let's say we're at this UAP, we're flying over this nuclear facility, and we want to turn it off. Now, the first thing that comes to mind is an A. MMP, right, an electromagnetic pulse to turn them off. But the problem is that EMPs are messy. You can't control your damage necessarily. You can't immediately repair what you just damage

so that you can turn the back on. So to me, I'm not compelled. It's not compelling that they're just doing some random big EMP attack and nobody can detect it or stop themselves because they probably could have on top of that. If it really was that, they would have found a way to defend against it. What it sounds like to me is that it's some sort of not just a physical manipulation, but a digital manipulation. So let's say, I forget what year this might have happened.

It was maybe in the 60s or 70s or even recently. Actually, let's just take any recent encounter. If like I've heard recent encounters where facilities where they had missiles that weren't connected to each other, right? And they all turned off systematically, even though they had no contact with each other. what that says to me in general is that to turn these nuclear facilities off and on you need to understand the security behind it the technology the encryption that we have all the software algorithms all the codes you need to be able to hack that somehow so these guys are not just doing some simple eMP attack they are so intelligent that they can literally hack anything that they come up with these like i love the fact that the u.s and russian whatever countries building nukes. They're spending billions of dollars trying to keep these facilities secret and secure. And yet here comes Mr. Alien or whatever. And they hack your system like as a joke. 70 years later, they're still hacking you and treating it like a joke. I absolutely for that.

So what do I think about it? I think it's a sign that they're sending us a message. They don't need to. They're not testing how to defend against us. That's such a silly idea. They don't need to. It's clearly to send a message. And I believe it's a peaceful one. So that's that. It's just my speculation. Yeah. No, I think sending a message is far more powerful than anything they could probably physically do. Absolutely.

Yeah, yeah. Wow. Yeah, I never really thought about that. Like, it would take so much intelligence to hack each and every single warhead. Just to begin with that. Exactly. And they're just doing it from their little ship. I love that.

It's so funny. Yeah, wow. Okay. Moving back to quantum computing for just a moment deep. Chris asks, this quantum computing means different things to different people. And based on your company's website, it appears that you're performing quantum mechanical calculations to determine surface properties and material properties for solids. However, to Chris's understanding, that field is still in its infancy, which you did state in the beginning. Could you maybe clarify just a little bit about your company's mission statement? And where do you, you see your field progressing? I know we really we did touch on a lot of this in the beginning, but if there's anything you want to elaborate on in terms of quantum computing. Right. Yes, sir. So so just for the record, I think Chris is decently close. Like, um, we are doing full blown simulations though. We're not just doing, uh, let's say surface chemistry or, or anything like that.

Like my, for example, the first material that I wanted to tackle when I first got into quantum computing with my sort of naive mindset of what quantum computing could achieve right now was I wanted to simulate superconductors and algorithmically discovered new superconductors. That being said, we just don't have enough qubits to simulate these large systems. So my website, it's a bit misleading in the sense that it talks about our end goal and what our vision will be when those quantum computers are fully out there. But like I mentioned, for now, we're kind of just like working with what is today. So got it, got it.

That definitely clears that up for sure. Well, Carol read somewhere, she's quoting you here as saying, I see myself as ideally being at the center of technological breakthroughs brought to humanity through terrestrial and extraterrestrial endeavors. I want my technology to enable the companies that are building replicators, interstellar craft, and immortality tech. And then she says, yeah, that last part holds my attention. And I would have to agree with her.

Immortality tech, what do you mean by this? Fair enough. I guess, yeah, she was probably not a common term. And I'm pretty sure either made it up. Like, I've never heard it. It probably is the thing. But what I mean by immortality tech is kind of like what we were talking about just in the beginning of this conversation. I see the body, like, let's forget the mind-body duality problem, whether consciousness is emergent or consciousness is first.

but I see the human body and death as sort of like technically something that we can work around. It is an engineering problem. Forgetting consciousness for a second, our human body really is a very complex machine, but it is a machine made of molecules. It's a machine made of molecules we can simulate. And therefore, it's something that we can recreate in terms of technology and creating these symbiotic relationships. So to me, what immortality tech is, is tech, like I said, that's indistinguishable

from nature. So eventually even a human, we are right now indistinguished from nature. We could continue to while having these bodies that are constantly self-healing and just ensuring that you live forever really. So, yeah. Well, staying on consciousness, this actually came from two of our listeners, Chant and Andreas. And they asked, most recently, we are starting to see the hypothesis that consciousness is potentially related to.

to the UFO phenomenon. And how important is it, therefore, to have open transparency and access to data which can either support or rule out these theories in terms of consciousness and UFOs? First of all, that's a really, really good question, because consciousness is the final frontier. Regardless of if you're talking about UFO or medicine or even physics, it is the very end game to understand. So I think it's super important. We need to start ruling out.

hypotheses. It's time to really understand this from a scientific perspective, knowing that what we're dealing with inherently is probably somewhat beyond science at the moment, but we need to start somewhere. So yeah. Got it, got it. So Bobby asks, I can honestly see disclosure happening in the near future, but do you believe the tech aspects will still remain secret by, you know, a deep state or the government for monetary reasons. You did mention earlier about fossil fuels and everything, being our primary fuel source. If we were to move past that, yeah, do you think that,

I guess he's asking, you know, if this disclosure happens, will we benefit from the technology that is, I guess, seemingly being disclosed? Right. I think we will. I don't think we're going to get all the technologies that have already been created, per se. I mean, I know that Tom DeLong recently, not recently, like a month maybe, put out a tweet saying that it was very cryptic. He said something along the lines of tech that hasn't been invented or already has been invented will have to be rediscovered, something along those lines.

He's totally right about that. It's frustrating. It does anger me that we have to reinvent anything that is so ridiculous. But it will, absolutely, there will be companies out there who are too greedy to bother telling the rest of the world what they learned in hopes that they can sell it to us. It's a very primitive way of thinking. Again, it imperates me, but it'll happen. But that being said, with disclosure, enough people will learn about it. Enough people will start asking the right questions that we will start getting access to

ideally public-funded companies or publicly transparent companies. I know TTC is attempting to do that. I'm certainly trying to attempt to do that as well. where we develop technology while we keep. So I'll give you a quick example. I have a colleague of mine who works in 3D metal printing, really awesome person. And he gave me an idea of how to,

so I was sort of like venting my frustration about how in science and in tech, whenever you make a new discovery, if you're trying to commercialize it, it's not in your best interest to disclose that technology. Right. It's a fundamental catch all. But you also know that you want to advance humanity's knowledge.

So what do you do? So he suggested, and this is what he doesn't, I'm absolutely trying to do the same, is what you do is you publish papers on the fundamentals of principles. Imagine discovering E equals E.C. Squared or something. But you don't publish how to build the nuclear bomb. You leave that to people who put the money in to develop it. It's their tech, whatever. Right, right.

So essentially you're not commercializing, but you're keeping the trade scene. secret in terms of what you're going to implement that technology into or that theory into. Exactly. Okay. While like releasing a theory so that anybody else, if they care, can recreate building. It's like how like Musk, for example, open up all his pants for electric vehicles. It totally didn't work against him. Anything, BMW and a bunch of other companies are now leveraging the heck out of it.

So, and he's still from it. Right. He's doing okay. Yeah. Yeah. End of the day, I mean, everyone out there, educate yourselves. Educate yourself so you can be a part of that public discourse, I guess, is a good way to look at it. Absolutely.

Yeah. Well, in some of the most recent online posts, this comes from Area 51 Studios. I love that name. He said posts that you've been a part of Deep. You speak of making future sci-fi tech that would let us bring drifters, let us be drifters in the cosmos. with all that drifting and advanced tech, what would you come up with to entertain yourself? This is a good imaginative question.

For example, maybe like a super advanced board game like Jumongi. Right. That's hilarious. I would invent technology that helps me escape from materialism and boredom. So maybe that ends up looking like some crazy black mirror level like a virtual reality thing. because what I understand is that he's absolutely right we will some of our missions might end up being thousands of years long who knows like I'm just saying right like say we have that tag that's not going to happen in our lifetime like us living to a thousand plus years probably not but let's say

for the people who do experience that what do you do with all that time on your hands and I guess at that point you go to the only thing that is infinite which is the mind and you create technology that exploits your mind you go deeper into your mind maybe what seems like one day to you mentally like living in a virtual reality world a thousand years has gone by and now boom you're at planet earth interesting i love that yeah i'm going to stick with the jimongi game but um i like where you're heading deep for sure scott asks are you familiar with dr robert lanz's work on biocentrism this was pretty big a few years back i remember when this book came out And if so, do you find any relations to it within your own work?

So I've, yeah, I'll be honest. I've never read his work. People have definitely brought him up with me, though, before and asking me. So I'll just, I just know from that, like, from those conversations, what I understand is he's essentially taking the anthropocentric perspective. And that's kind of like the, it's the basis of the anthropic principle, you can say. Like, it asks as part of it. Are you familiar with the anthropic principle?

Not entirely, please, if you can expand on it. I would be appreciative. Sure, man. So the anthropic principle is an idea in physics, in theoretical physics, where it posits that the universe can only exist so long as there is a conscious observer to observe it. Lusely speaking, you need for the universe exists, it just, there's no way to separate the two. That's kind of what it's saying. So how it relates to my work, in a sense it does, but on a very, very, very theoretical and philosophical level that like it won't help me in my direct career. Many of my, well, you can argue many of the things I think about don't directly help me in my current career, but it needs to be answered. These types of questions need to be thought about, about how consciousness plays a role in, say, quantum mechanics. I know a lot of people, for example, there's misconceptions that you need an observer to collapse the wave function. and the double-slit experiment proves that consciousness and quantum mechanics are related.

It doesn't prove that at all. All it says is that, like, for example, we don't have a correct definition of an observer. We don't have any agreed-upon definition of what it means to measure or observe something. That being said, we need to absolutely explore, like, do sentient robots collapse the wave function? Right? Like, just stuff like that hasn't been opened up yet. But it will eventually. Interesting.

Okay. Well, I guess sort of wrapping up the listener questions here, Deep, and this kind of ties into the last question I have for you as well. So I'm going to sort of merge these together. You're one of the younger people looking at this phenomenon. Let's just say the UFO phenomenon, the blanket statement of that. You're looking at it seriously. You're looking at it objectively, theoretically. And it's easy for younger people getting involved with researching UFOs to get caught up in a lot of the, The more sensational stuff or like the straight up hoaxes, you know, when when newer people come to me and say, oh, I'm looking at the work of Stephen Greer or David Wilcock. I'm just, I'm going to throw these names out there, man. I've done it before. Or I had someone come up to me the other day and say, have you heard of this Billy Meyer case? So it's hard. It's hard, dude, to like try to direct people to the right or correct information. Because at the end of the day, I don't know. left from right when it comes to UFOs either none of us are experts on any of this stuff so for those newer people listening to this podcast or other UFO podcasts and wanting to get involved with UFOs researching it where do you think they should turn um and what to expect getting involved with the quote unquote UFO field um I'm going to ask for the last question first okay expect two things expect utter confusion about what is

And what's not? There's no getting around that. Absolutely not. Like you just brought it up like Bob Lazar is back in the picture, you know, like Ray Centellie's back in the picture. It's just such a computer. What is it happening? Yeah, exactly. Right? Like it's like. I can't believe we're talking about the alien autopsy video again. Dude, I didn't even know it was a thing. And then now I didn't think for a while. So but, but anyways, like, but that's what I mean. So expect confusion more than any other fields. Like we don't have peer reviews, unfortunately. We just. don't have that academic rigor here and we will eventually i absolutely believe we will one day but so yeah expect that confusion the second thing is to expect days or moments where potentially your whole worldview shatters some i i believe i truly believe that you don't necessarily need an experience to have that experience you know what i mean absolutely uh so awesome so so so then um now answering your first question uh where they should look to for information i would say get the hell on Twitter. That's where all the, that is where you pitch your ideas and skeptics and

debunkers and people who are in the know will either agree with you or correct you, right? So it's the best place to get your ideas validated, figure out what the consensus is on topics, what seems to be legit. You get such a good sense of the field, right? So like, I would say follow people like Ryan Sprague, UAP Phenomena, of course post-disclosure world. Brian Zabble is a really good one too. of course, George Nappen, I'll ender Rojas. I could go on and on. But Twitter is the place to be,

as weird as that sounds. Yeah, yeah. I mean, there's so much good and bad when it comes to Twitter. You have such a limited amount of space to really express your thoughts, your theories, your opinions. But you can link to things,

like linking to your article. And then, like you said, you have one of those moments. I had two of my listeners come straight to me after I linked to your article and say, like, holy shit, my mind was blown

when I just read that. So, I mean, right there, dude. Yeah, you're making an impact through social networking. So we have to use these social networks, again, whether they're a gift or occurs to the best of our abilities to benefit the conversation. That well said. This has been absolutely fascinating. Like really ran the gamut. Yeah.

Yeah, we did. We absolutely did. Well, before we go, can you tell us where we can find your work and, uh, what you're up to these days? Sure. Really just follow me on Twitter at Deep Neuron. I'm a very transparent person. As transparent as I can't be.

I try not to say things that will screw my own access rights to certain things. But yeah. Exactly. Yeah, because we got to have you for that access, man. So keep up the good work. Thank you for all you're doing for not just the UFO community, but humanity in general. So, and thank you for coming on somewhere in the skies. Means a lot, Ryan. Thanks for having me.

That's it for this week's episode. Again, my thanks to Deep for coming on. Be sure to follow him on Twitter at DeepNuron. And be sure to check out his article over at Medium. There will be a link for that in this week's episode show notes. If you haven't already, please take a few moments to subscribe, rate, and review somewhere in the skies on Apple Podcasts, on your Android apps, or wherever you get your podcasts. It helps us gain visibility and find new listeners. Thank you. We also have two brand new designs over at the merch store,

exclusively created by loyal listener. Mike, Gieland, I'm so honored and stoked to share these new designs with you, and I hope you'll check them out right now. Available in all different cuts, sizes, colors, and items. We got shirts, shirts, shirts, stickers, mugs, phone and laptop cases, and so much more. Visit Tpublic.com right now and represent the show in style. That's TEEPublic.com and just search for the Summer in the skies store.

We're on Twitter at Summer Skies and Instagram at Summer Skies Pod. Thank you as always to the E1 podcast network, KGRA Radio, Rogue Planet, and especially to you for listening. I'll see you here next week, and remember, keep your feet on the ground, but never stop searching somewhere in the skies. Somewhere in the Skies is produced by Third Kind Productions in association with the Entertainment One Podcast Network. To learn more, visit Entertainment One Podcast.com.