Astrophysicist Tyson Warns Satellite Clutter Endangers Orbital Safety

天体物理学家泰森警告：卫星激增危及轨道安全 巨型卫星星座的迅速扩张恐引发灾难性的凯斯勒综合征碰撞，而国际空间法的缺失致使轨道权益完全缺乏监管。 天体物理学家尼尔·德格拉斯·泰森（Neil deGrasse Tyson）深入剖析了多项复杂的宇宙议题，涵盖近地轨道拥堵与凯斯勒综合征的风险，以及驱动当前探月竞赛的军事与地缘政治动态。他分析了UFO影像和以人类为中心的外星人刻板设定，同时认为DMT体验源自大脑内部结构运作而非通往额外维度的通道。此外，泰森还对模拟理论提出质疑，给出了构建个人意义的实用构想，并通过自己选定的墓志铭分享了其核心教育理念。 即便以人类目前最快的航天器速度飞行，抵达距离太阳最近的恒星系统也需要约 50,000 年，揭示了星际旅行面临的巨大距离壁垒。 (53:21) 像“星链”（Starlink）这样的巨型卫星星座为偏远地区提供了关键的网络连接，但也对地面天文观测和行星防御中的小行星追踪构成了严重干扰。 (54:14) 目前公开的 UFO 与 UAP 影像虽记录了引人关注的异常飞行现象，但仍缺乏足以证实其具有地外文明技术或起源的高等级确凿物理证据。 (27:09) 人在摄入 DMT 体验中感知到的外星实体，源自被激发的特定大脑通路与人类共享的神经生理结构，而非打开了通往其他物理维度的通道。 (72:34)

Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson argues that while the statistical likelihood of extraterrestrial life is overwhelming, claims of alien visitation remain unproven without tangible physical evidence. Across discussions on space policy, black holes, and the simulation hypothesis, Tyson emphasizes that human intuition and cultural biases frequently distort scientific reality. Cosmic Scale and the Physics of Black Holes (7:50) Tyson challenges the common feeling of cosmic insignificance, arguing that human biochemistry is directly linked to the cosmos because elements like carbon, nitrogen, and iron were forged inside ancient exploding supernovas. Human scale occupies an intermediate realm between the cosmic scale of galaxies (10²⁶ meters) and the subatomic scale of nucleons (10⁻¹⁵ meters), with physical laws behaving differently across orders of magnitude. For instance, surface tension dominates gravity at microscopic scales, whereas gravity governs celestial bodies. Addressing extreme cosmic phenomena, Tyson outlines the mechanics of black holes, which form when matter becomes dense enough that its escape velocity meets or exceeds the speed of light (299,792 km/s). Approaching an event horizon triggers severe gravitational time dilation, allowing an infalling observer to theoretically watch the future history of the universe unfold at hyper-speed. However, extreme differential gravitational gradients, known as tidal forces, subject the body to 'spaghettification,' stretching it vertically and severing it at structural points like the spine while horizontally compressing it toward the central singularity. UFO Claims, Extraterrestrial Probability, and Humanoid Bias (27:09) Given that simple life appeared on Earth within roughly 100 million years of habitability, and with over 6,000 exoplanets cataloged among hundreds of billions of stars in the Milky Way, Tyson considers intelligent extraterrestrial life statistically probable. However, he maintains that sworn testimony from military or intelligence whistleblowers does not substitute for empirical data. While sworn accounts carry more credibility than anecdotal claims, validating alien visitation requires physical artifacts open to public scientific examination. Tyson also critiques popular cultural depictions of aliens as anthropocentric fallacies. Science fiction depictions—from the Grays to cinematic monsters—routinely default to humanoid body plans with bilateral symmetry, distinct limbs, and binocular eyes. Tyson notes that the vast majority of terrestrial life forms sharing human DNA, such as oak trees, worms, and lobsters, are completely non-humanoid. Therefore, expecting independently evolved extraterrestrial biology to mirror human anatomy defies evolutionary logic. Orbital Crowding, Space Law, and Geopolitical Motives (57:17) The rapid expansion of commercial satellite constellations provides critical global infrastructure but creates mounting operational hazards for astronomy and spaceflight. With Low Earth Orbit populations projected to exceed 100,000 active satellites by 2040, Tyson warns of the Kessler syndrome—a runaway cascade where collisions create high-velocity debris traveling at roughly 17,500 mph (5 miles per second), capable of shredding entire orbital bands. Anti-satellite missile demonstrations conducted by the United States, Russia, China, and India have exacerbated these risks. Beyond low orbit, Tyson describes space governance as an unregulated frontier lacking enforceable property frameworks for the Moon, Mars, or asteroids. He maintains that lunar exploration programs like Artemis are fundamentally driven by geopolitical rivalry rather than pure science or immediate commercial return, directly mirroring the Cold War space race sparked by Sputnik. The United States' strategic push to return humans to the lunar surface is primarily accelerated by China's stated timeline to land taikonauts on the Moon. Objective Reality, Altered Perception, and Simulation Odds (72:34) Addressing claims that DMT-induced hallucinations reveal interdimensional beings, Tyson attributes these recurring visions to shared human neurological architecture rather than external realms. When a chemical stimulates identical neural pathways across individuals, it generates predictable visual motifs. He separates fragile sensory perception—easily fooled by drugs and optical illusions—from objective scientific reality, which relies on instrumentation like particle detectors to measure physical constants that operate independently of human biology. Tyson applies similar mathematical scrutiny to the popular simulation hypothesis. Proponents often argue that a vast chain of nested virtual realities makes living in base reality statistically improbable (1 in 10¹⁰⁰). However, Tyson points out that humanity currently lacks the computational capacity to simulate conscious universes. Consequently, human civilization cannot be an intermediate link in a simulation stack; it must either be the original base reality or the very last link at the tip of the chain. This computational bottleneck collapses the probability of living in base reality to an even 50/50 proposition. Tyson concludes that scientific literacy requires resisting human ego, unverified beliefs, and societal labels. While statistical modeling suggests humanity is unlikely to be alone in the cosmos, confirming extraordinary claims demands physical verification rather than speculation, leaving the empirical verification of alien intelligence entirely unresolved.

天体物理学家Neil deGrasse Tyson指出，尽管宇宙庞大的尺度与化学演化规律使地外生命的存在极具概率，但审视UFO传闻与外星人接触必须坚持严格的实体物理证据，破除流行文化塑造的人类中心主义偏见；面对黑洞物理、轨道碎片威胁以及模拟假说等前沿议题，科学界应当依靠独立于人类感官的客观测量与严密逻辑来认知自然。 外星生命概率与UFO证据的严谨审视 (27:09) Tyson依据现代天文学数据指出，可观测宇宙包含至少1000亿个星系，银河系内拥有数千亿颗恒星，且天文学界已在太阳系周边局部区域编目了逾6,000颗系外行星。考虑到地球在具备宜居条件后仅耗时约1亿年（约占其地质历史的5%）便孕育了自复制生命，加之构成生命的基本有机成分普遍存在于宇宙中，简单地外生命乃至智能生命的存在概率在统计上极其可观。然而，针对美国国会听证会中情报人员与军方飞行员就UFO/UAP作出的宣誓证词以及解密视频（如“Tic Tac”），Tyson主张不应将“未识别现象”等同于外星到访。他强调，非同寻常的主张必须由可供公开检验的实体证据支撑，若真有回收的飞船或外星躯体，唯有公之于众才能将相关争端从主观“信仰”转变为既成科学事实。 与此同时，Tyson批判了好莱坞流行文化中对外星生物的类人化刻板描摹。影视作品中几乎所有外星生命均呈现具有头部、双眼、躯干和四肢的脊椎动物形态，这暴露出人类匮乏的想象力与生物学认知偏见。地球上共享相同DNA起源的大多数生命形式（例如橡树、龙虾和蠕虫）均非人形，因此在完全独立行星环境中演化出的外星生命几乎不可能契合类人骨骼结构。在智能定义上，人类的绝对脑容量位列鲸鱼、海豚和大象之后，而在脑体比上亦不及喜鹊等中型鸟类，仅凭人类现有的科技定义衡量智能生命往往存在严重的物种优越感偏差。 极端天体物理与星际航行瓶颈 (37:23) Tyson阐明，构成人体组织的碳、氧、氮、铁等关键化学元素均是数十亿年前超新星剧烈爆发后的产物，人类摄入的每一卡路里能量最终都可追溯至太阳内部的核聚变过程。然而在宇宙构成中，所有已知的重子物质（原子、行星、恒星及生命）仅占总量的5%，剩余95%均由作用机制尚不明确的暗能量与暗物质支配。 在强引力天体物理领域，当物体的逃逸速度达到或超过每秒299,792公里的光速阈值时便会形成黑洞，任何光线与物质均无法脱离其事件视界。Tyson描述了落入黑洞过程中的极端物理现象：由于极度显著的引力梯度差，宇航员自脚底至头顶将承受剧烈的潮汐力，导致身体在脊柱根部被拉断并在分子尺度上持续分化撕裂，形成所谓的“面条化”过程；与此同时，在强引力时间膨胀作用下，坠落者向外观察将看到外部宇宙未来的演化全景以超高速展开。尽管宇宙深空引人入胜，但现有航天技术面临着巨大的距离屏障：人类迄今发射速度最快的“新视野号”（New Horizons）探测器若飞往距离太阳最近的比邻星系统，仍需耗费大约5万年时间，这种速度与尺度的悬殊严重制约了星际航行的可行性。 轨道碎片危机与重返月球地缘博弈 (57:17) 随着人类航天发射频次的几何级增长，近地轨道空间正演变为严峻的安全与科学困境。Tyson指出，低地球轨道内物体的运行速度约为每小时17,500英里（约每秒5英里），在这一高速动能下，微小的油漆碎片或金属残渣均具备步枪子弹甚至手榴弹般的破坏力。伴随商业星座的大规模部署（如SpaceX拥有的卫星数量已超过10,000颗，预计到2040年现役卫星将突破10万颗），轨道反射的光迹不仅严重污染地面天文台的光学数据，更可能掩盖对潜在撞击地球小行星的预警。这一密集态势大幅推高了由NASA科学家Donald J. Kessler在1978年提出的“凯斯勒现象”（Kessler syndrome）风险，即单一碰撞碎片可能引发级联连锁撞击，最终摧毁特定轨道层的全部航天设施。 针对当前已有美、俄、中、印四国实施过反卫星导弹试验的现状，Tyson将当前的太空开发环境比作缺乏法律约束的“狂野西部”。目前国际上对于月球土地归属、火星区域划分以及小行星矿产权均无具备约束力的法案。包括美国阿尔忒弥斯（Artemis）计划在内的重返月球浪潮，其核心推动力量并非单纯的科学探索或即时商业利益，而是大国之间（尤其是中美之间）战略制高点的地缘政治竞争，重现了冷战时期因卫星发射与载人登月引发的太空博弈逻辑。 客观现实认知与模拟假说概率反思 (80:59) 在探讨人类感知与哲学假说时，Tyson将主观体验与科学测量的客观现实明确剥离开来。针对部分人群宣称在摄入致幻剂DMT后看到相同的超自然实体，他解释这并非跨维度接触的证据，而是反映了人类大脑共有神经解剖通路的生理限制——特定化学物质激发相同的脑神经回路，自然会产生一致的内在幻觉。人类进化的感官本质上存在大量盲区与视觉错觉，现代科学的核心价值正在于借助粒子探测器、紫外分光仪及射电望远镜等外在客观仪器，跨越主观感知的脆弱性并确立不受大脑生化状态影响的普适规律。 面对科技界广泛讨论的“宇宙模拟假说”（即人类生活在更高级文明搭建的数字程序中），Tyson提出了数学概率层面的修正反驳。传统推论认为多层级模拟宇宙的数量远超唯一的“基础现实”（Base Reality），因此身处基础现实的概率趋近于零。但Tyson强调，这建立在链条中每一层宇宙均具备创造有意识模拟能力的前提之上；鉴于人类当下的科技水平尚未掌握制造全宇宙意识模拟的计算能力，人类只能处于两种可能中：要么是尚未进化出模拟技术的基础现实（整个链条的最顶端），要么是模拟链条最末端尚未掌握该技术的一个分支。这种逻辑直接将身处基础现实的概率从虚无缥缈的微小数字拉回到约为二分之一（50/50）的统计水平。 在人生哲理层面，Tyson反思了科学与意义构建的关系。他拒绝现代无神论运动中的意识形态标签，强调自身唯一的身份是科学家。他主张生命的目的并非被动等待在大自然中挖掘，而是由人类自主创造；他以教育家Horace Mann的告诫“在为人类赢得某种胜利之前，切莫羞于死去”为座右铭，将追求客观真知与减轻他人痛苦作为构建生命价值的核心途径。 Tyson的论述勾勒出一种立足于实证理性与物理定律的宇宙图景：宇宙的尺度与物理法则虽令人敬畏，但感知局限与流行文化极易滋生伪科学假设。面对外星生命、时空极限及太空治理等未解课题，破除人类中心主义的骄傲、坚持严谨的物理证据标准，是保持求知欲并拓展文明认知边界的根本路径。

## Background 该内容由知名访谈频道“The Diary Of A CEO”（主持人 Steven Bartlett）于 2026 年 7 月 9 日发布在 YouTube 平台。节目简介显示，美国著名天体物理学家兼海登天文馆馆长尼尔·德格拉斯·泰森（Neil deGrasse Tyson）携新书《Take Me To Your Leader》做客节目，深入剖析了政府吹哨人背后的外星人真相、地外文明存在的必然性、重返月球背后的博弈、跌入黑洞的身体变化，以及科学与宗教的终极边界。 ## TL;DR 泰森从宇宙的浩瀚尺度出发，论证了地外智慧生命存在的必然概率，但尖锐指出目前缺乏确凿实物证据，并颠覆了大众对好莱坞“人形外星人”的盲目想象。他揭露了当前探月狂热本质上源自中美冷战式的地缘政治博弈，并警示了低轨卫星激增引发凯斯勒级联碰撞的风险；同时生动还原了人体坠入黑洞经历时空膨胀与“面条化”拉断的极端物理图景。在探讨致幻剂体验与模拟宇宙假说时，泰森坚持依靠科学仪器的客观实证标准，倡导跳出人类中心主义视角，通过自主创造意义、传递善意来定义生命的价值。 ## Atmosphere & style 整场对话在硬核前沿物理与风趣幽默的科普脱口秀风格之间自如切换，泰森声情并茂、极具感染力的戏剧化表达与主持人巴特利特探求本质的沉稳追问碰撞出极高的智性火花。从人体跌入黑洞被潮汐力撕裂的冷酷战栗，到把暗能量调侃为动画角色的荒诞笑声，谈话节奏张弛有度。聆听过程宛如经历一场打破认知边界的思维过山车，既能感受到个体直面百亿光年宇宙虚空时的庄严渺小，又被一种摆脱虚无主义、持续向外探索的纯粹好奇心与人文温情所深深浸润。 ## Bulletin - [31:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHpsdIHpLUE&t=1908s) 人类已在太阳邻近的极小天区内编目超过 6,000 颗系外行星；结合地球在适宜条件出现后仅用约 1 亿年（地球历史约 5%）便孕育出生命的演化速度，宇宙中诞生智慧生命在概率上几乎是必然。 - [21:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHpsdIHpLUE&t=1271s) 暗物质与暗能量合计驱动了宇宙 95% 的运转与加速膨胀，而人类认知中包含所有星系、化学元素与已知生命在内的常规物质仅占宇宙总量的 5%。 - [57:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHpsdIHpLUE&t=3435s) 近地轨道面临严峻的凯斯勒现象（Kessler Syndrome）风险：在每小时 17,500 英里的轨道速度下，微小漆片动能堪比子弹，预计到 2040 年在轨卫星突破 100,000 颗时，单次碰撞就可能引发彻底瘫痪轨道的连锁反应。 - [01:23:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHpsdIHpLUE&t=5006s) 针对模拟假说（Simulation Hypothesis），Neil deGrasse Tyson 提出链条两端排除逻辑：因当今人类尚不具备创造意识模拟的技术，我们绝非中间节点，只能是序列开端的源头现实或最末端的雏形宇宙，使生存于模拟的概率缩减为对半开。 ## Key takeaways - [02:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHpsdIHpLUE&t=159s) 人类仰望星空并对宇宙产生探索本能，可能与人类在哺乳动物中罕见的仰卧睡眠习性有关，这使原始人类在夜间醒来直对变幻苍穹。 - [13:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHpsdIHpLUE&t=805s) 人体所有重元素（碳、氧、氮、铁）皆锻造于垂死恒星的超新星爆发，且人类摄入的能量本质上均来自太阳光子驱动，科学证实人类本身就是宇宙与恒星力量的化身。 - [16:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHpsdIHpLUE&t=999s) Neil deGrasse Tyson 拒绝被贴上‘无神论者’标签，认为预设标签会停止思考，他更认同自己唯一的身份是探索客观真理的‘科学家’或‘不可知论者’。 - [29:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHpsdIHpLUE&t=1763s) 面对国会听证会上的 UFO/UAP 吹哨人证词与模糊录像，科学界应秉持实证大象理论：无需争论‘相不相信’，只需公开拿出外星人物理实体或飞船残片即可终结争议。 - [35:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHpsdIHpLUE&t=2118s) 不能因为人类大脑难以直观具象‘无限’，就预设宇宙不能是无限的；科学史上如哥白尼执着于上帝完美的‘正圆轨道’等先例表明，主观哲学偏见往往惨遭客观观测打脸。 - [42:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHpsdIHpLUE&t=2567s) 当物体密度使逃逸速度超越光速时即形成黑洞；越过事件视界后时间膨胀使坠入者能目睹宇宙未来的加速演化，随后巨大的引力梯度潮汐力会将人体从脊柱处呈指数级撕裂（面条化）。 - [48:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHpsdIHpLUE&t=2919s) 人类对‘智慧生命’的衡量存在严重的自我虚荣偏见：按大脑绝对体积人类排在鲸鱼、海豚和大象之后，按脑体比鸟类亦名列前茅，且外星文明形态极不可能演化成好莱坞式的脊椎类人形架构。 - [53:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHpsdIHpLUE&t=3197s) 即使以人类极速航天器‘新视野号’的速度飞往最近的半人马座阿尔法星也需要 50,000 年，星际旅行的工程极限与虚空尺度是外星人难以造访地球的现实原因。 - [01:00:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHpsdIHpLUE&t=3618s) 重返月球的‘阿耳忒弥斯计划’核心推手并非崇高的天文学探索，而是冷战式的地缘政治竞争；外部竞争与主权博弈历来是凝聚政府两党意志、驱动巨额太空预算的催化剂。 - [01:12:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHpsdIHpLUE&t=4354s) 致幻剂（如 DMT）带来的‘外星实体接触’属于同构大脑在相同化学刺激下的神经生理共性与文化投射，客观现实的认知扩展依赖精密仪器而非主观生化幻象。 - [01:25:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHpsdIHpLUE&t=5155s) 每个时代的人在审视指数级增长曲线时都会因视觉陡升而误以为自身正身处前所未有的技术奇点，这是线性感知对恒定复利增长的心理错觉。 - [01:34:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHpsdIHpLUE&t=5696s) 人生的意义并非躲在某处等待被‘寻找’，而是依靠个人主动‘创造’：通过每天扩展对世界的客观认知，以及努力减轻他人的痛苦来实现。 - [01:39:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHpsdIHpLUE&t=5956s) 真正的善行应是‘向后传递给陌生人’（Pass it forward）以形成流淌在文明中的开放长河，而非在受助者与施助者之间形成封闭式的报答互惠。 - [01:44:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHpsdIHpLUE&t=6240s) 传统学校教育的最大弊端是将学习异化为繁重任务从而扼杀了好奇心，理想的教育应当以点燃终身求知欲为最终归宿。 ## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHpsdIHpLUE&t=0s) 精彩看点：从外星人、探月竞赛到坠入黑洞的恐怖体验 对话在一连串极具张力与冲击力的预告切片中拉开帷幕。主持人率先抛出美国前总统奥巴马曾就外星人发表的争议言论——奥巴马曾调侃称外星人确实存在，但他没亲眼见过，也没关在51区，“除非他们连美国总统都瞒着”。Neil deGrasse Tyson 对此认真纠正道，奥巴马具备很高的科学素养，并非单纯开玩笑；但现实中如果军方或情报系统真藏有外星人且不想让总统知情，“总统是绝不可能知道的”。随后两人迅速切入核心议题：鉴于近年来层出不穷的吹哨人宣誓作证称美国掌握了坠毁的外星飞船零部件甚至外星实体，再加上宇宙浩瀚无垠的尺度，外星智慧生命的出现几乎是必然的。 紧接着，探讨迅速延伸到地缘政治与极具画面感的硬核物理。对于人类为何突然掀起重返月球的狂热，Neil 一针见血地指出这背后纯粹是地缘博弈，绝非为了崇高的科学探索：“中国宣布要在我们登月50年后登月，于是我们突然决定也必须去——绝不能让他们去了而我们没去。”至于月球资源、月球数据中心以及尚处于“狂野西部”状态的太空法，皆是这场博弈的衍生品。话题一转，Neil 描摹了人体跌入黑洞时的极致恐怖图景：当你被吸向奇点，在引力时间膨胀下你将亲眼目睹整个宇宙未来的历史如走马灯般演尽，随后你脚踝与头顶承受的引力差急剧拉大，强大的潮汐力会硬生生将你的身体从脊柱底端撕裂成两截，而这甚至还不是最惨烈的阶段。 - **奥巴马外星人言论**：即便贵为美国总统，在高度机密的外星物证隔离体系下也完全可能被蒙在鼓里。 - **重返月球的核心动机**：中美地缘政治竞争，而非单纯的科学探索或经济回报；太空法目前仍是一片空白的“狂野西部”。 - **黑洞潮汐力撕裂效应（Spaghettification）**：坠入者将因引力差从脊椎底部断裂为两截，并见证宇宙终极未来的加速演变。 --- ### [01:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHpsdIHpLUE&t=105s) 主持人致辞：关于频道的订阅承诺 主持人 Steven Bartlett 在正片开始前向听众分享了一组后台数据。团队报告显示，许多定期收听节目的老观众在不知情的情况下被系统随机取消了订阅。随着频道即将迎来一个极其重要的订阅里程碑，Steven 诚恳地向长期支持节目的听众请求举手之劳：请大家顺手检查是否已经点击了订阅按钮。 Steven 强调，正是大家的订阅支持才让团队有能力保持节目完全免费，并在制作质量、嘉宾阵容上周复一周、年复一年地持续升级迭代。他郑重承诺，只要观众愿意支持，团队将全力以赴去争取大家最渴望听到的重磅嘉宾，带来最具深度的对话，绝不辜负长久以来的期待。 --- ### [02:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHpsdIHpLUE&t=159s) 人类为何仰望星空：仰卧睡眠的进化猜想 正式对话由人类对宇宙的本能好奇切入。Steven 询问 Neil，作为全美最具知名度、纽约海登天文馆（Hayden Planetarium）馆长兼天体物理学家，公众向他提问最多的终极问题到底是什么？Neil 直言不讳地指出，排在首位永远是“我们在宇宙中是孤独的吗？”紧随其后的则是“外星人拜访过地球吗？”、“宇宙将如何终结？”，以及“上帝是否存在？”。Neil 强调流行文化对公众认知有着惊人的塑造力——例如当年电影《人鬼情未了》（Ghost）上映后，民调显示相信世上有幽灵的人数出现暴增；大众同样天真地以为研究天文学就能意外“撞见上帝”，因为千百年来宗教艺术总把神灵描绘在天穹之上，甚至当年阿波罗宇航员重返地球时，也有大批信徒追问他们是否在太空中看到了天堂。 针对人类为何对夜空怀有如此根深蒂固的执念，Neil 提出了一个极富诗意又大胆的“狂想猜想”：人类是极少数完全习惯于“仰面朝天入睡”（仰卧）的物种。在自然界中，极少有动物敢于长时间露出脆弱的肚皮睡觉，甲虫不会翻过身仰睡，蜘蛛也不会。人类在原始野外露宿时仰面而眠，半夜一旦睁开双眼，映入眼帘的第一件宏伟事物便是整个宇宙。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 人类仰卧入睡与宇宙好奇心的进化假说 accDescr: 展示人类由于仰卧睡眠习性，夜间醒来直面星空动态变化，进而催生出刻入基因的宇宙探索欲与神话想象。 subgraph SleepPosture ["人类独特的睡眠习性"] A["习惯仰卧入睡"] --> B["暴露脆弱腹部"] B --> C["夜间醒来视线直对苍穹"] end subgraph CosmicObservation ["夜空天象的动态呈现"] C --> D["观测流星、彗星与变幻月相"] D --> E["辨认会移动的明亮行星"] end subgraph PsychologicalImpact ["心智觉醒与文化烙印"] E --> F["对天体规律产生强烈好奇"] F --> G["将星空探索与超自然力量深深刻入基因"] end ``` 漫漫长夜里，彗星划破天际、流星闪烁、月相阴晴圆缺，那些格外明亮且在星宿间穿梭的亮点（行星）不断变幻位置，人类怎能不对头顶扑面而来的宇宙产生敬畏与好奇？Neil 回忆自己孩提时代第一次走进纽约海登天文馆时，震撼之余甚至产生了一种天真的忧虑：“宇宙太迷人了，长大后所有人肯定都想去研究宇宙，到时候哪还有我的容身之地？”随着年龄增长他才发现并非人人都会以此为职业，但无论从事什么行当，仰望星空并追问自身在宇宙中的位置，始终是镌刻在人类基因深处的冲动。 --- ### [05:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHpsdIHpLUE&t=352s) 从神祇到外星人：人类对超越自然存在的投射 面对 Neil 的假说，Steven 提出了另一种演化视角的推论：或许正是因为人类登顶了食物链顶端、成为无所畏惧的顶级掠食者（Apex Predator），才敢于在自然界中放心地仰面入睡；而人类之所以对外星人如此警惕和痴迷，是因为外星文明是唯一可能威胁到人类顶级掠食者地位的存在。Neil 笑着反驳了这种观点，认为远古人类最初仰望苍穹时根本没有“外星人”的概念，他们构想的是“神明（Gods）”。 Neil 梳理了神话与宗教意向的视觉共性： - **神明的栖息之地**：几乎所有文明的神都居于高处——即便古希腊诸神不在天空，也是在巍峨的奥林匹斯山顶；现代宗教宣传画中，最经典的构图永远是破开云层的金色阳光投射在大地上，引导人们仰视天空。 - **神话形象的外星人特征**：许多神明和超自然形象在生理形态上比科幻作品中的外星人更离奇，例如美杜莎满头游动的毒蛇盘发（Gorgons）；而宗教画卷中的耶稣不是凌空漂浮、周身散发光束，就是脚踩水面行走。 这些超脱尘世物理法则的神秘表征，与当代大众对外星智慧生命特异功能的想象如出一辙。Neil 总结道，人类的大脑或许并未专门为“外星人”预留认知通道，但去构想某种超越人类肉身极限、凌驾于自然法则之上的存在，是人类共同的认知本能。 --- ### [07:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHpsdIHpLUE&t=470s) 数量级的透视：在宏大宇宙与微观粒子之间 Steven 聊到自己对外星人、生命意义以及神明探讨的启蒙，源于观看了天文学科普巨作《宇宙》（*Cosmos*）纪录片。Neil 随即默契地接话，提醒大家这是卡尔·萨根（Carl Sagan）开创的经典巨作，而自己有幸担任了续作的主持人。Steven 感慨道，这两部纪录片都给他带来了同一种灵魂震颤：在广袤无垠的宇宙面前，人类感到自己渺小至极、微不足道。桌面上摆放的银河系模型与人类个体之间存在着无法逾越的尺度鸿沟（Delta），这种巨大的空白会诱发一种类似帕金森定律的心理机制——当面对未知的庞大真空时，人类总有一种不可遏制的冲动想用某种神秘主义或终极意义去填满它。 面对 Steven“在整个宇宙宏图里，我们究竟有多渺小？”的提问，Neil 指出人类不应局限在日常公制单位的感官大小里，而应该借助“10的幂次（Powers of 10）”这一数量级思维来审视自身： 1. **向上跃迁（以10倍为台阶）**：比人类大10倍、再大10倍、持续以10为底数级数递增，人类在星系、超星系团乃至可观测宇宙面前确实如尘埃般微弱。 2. **向下收缩（以十分之一为台阶）**：将尺度缩小到人类的十分之一、百分之一、千分之一，顺着微观尺度一路深入，跨入细胞、分子、原子，直至亚原子粒子的世界。在微观领域面前，人类的身躯犹如庞然大物。 Neil 强调，人类并非绝对意义上的微不足道；我们恰好处于宇宙宏观结构与微观粒子之间的一处独特尺度节点上。正如他在外星人主题新书《带我去见你们的领袖》（*Take Me To Your Leader*）中所写的，衡量生命的意义与位置，核心在于学会随时切换观察现实的维度与视角。 ### [09:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHpsdIHpLUE&t=563s) 生命的尺度与物理法则的尺度效应 我们对地外生命的想象往往受限于人类自身的感官与体型尺度。人们很容易想当然地以人类的尺寸为基准，但宇宙中的生命形态完全可能大如星系，或是小如原子。泰森（Neil deGrasse Tyson）指出，如果存在分子大小的生命，那在它们眼中人类就是庞然大物；甚至有理论设想过核子（nucleon，即原子核中的质子或中子）大小的微观生命。由于在极微观尺度下物理与化学反应的速度极其惊人，若真有核子生命存在，它们眼中的人类生活节奏恐怕缓慢得不可思议。反过来，主持人史蒂芬（Steven Bartlett）提出，我们的整个宇宙是否可能只是某种巨型生命肠道菌群的一部分？泰森笑着指出这正是电影《黑衣人》（Men in Black）结尾探讨过的设定。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 物理尺度与现象表现 accDescr: 解释不同尺度下主导物理法则的变化如何决定生物形态与行为 subgraph Macro["宏观 / 重力主导"] A["大型动物"] --> B["自重巨大，需粗壮骨骼支撑"] C["人类坠落致命，无法按比例放大昆虫"] end subgraph Micro["微观 / 表面张力主导"] D["昆虫与微小生物"] --> E["重力影响极小，高处跌落无伤"] F["液体表面张力胜过重力，呈现悬浮液滴"] end ``` 这种逆向转换视角的思维能够打破人类自我膨胀的优越感。泰森强调，物理定律在不同尺度下的表现形式完全不同，任何事物都不能简单地“等比例缩放”： - **无法存在人类尺寸的昆虫**：如果把昆虫放大到人类大小，它们细长的节肢会在自身体重的压迫下彻底折断；这也是为什么大象等重型陆生动物必须拥有极其粗壮厚实的四肢。 - **坠落冲击力的差异**：人类从屋顶摔下会丧命，但一只蚂蚁从高处掉下却能毫发无伤地继续爬行，因为在微观尺度下表面积与体积的比例让重力影响大打折扣。 - **皮克斯动画《虫虫危机》（A Bug's Life）的细节**：蚊子在昆虫酒吧点了一杯血腥玛丽（Bloody Mary），调酒师直接把一团球状液体拍在吧台上，既没有杯子也没有壶。因为在昆虫的尺度下，液体分子的表面张力远大于微弱的重力，液滴能够像实体球一样聚拢不散，这种对物理细节的精准还原令泰森十分赞赏。 --- ### [13:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHpsdIHpLUE&t=805s) 为什么你不该感到渺小：星尘的化学联结与“太阳能”身体 针对史蒂芬此前提到看完纪录片《宇宙》（Cosmos）后觉得自己微不足道，泰森直言不讳地调侃道：“你之所以看完会觉得渺小，只是因为你一开始带着毫无根据、过分膨胀的自我走进了那扇门。”在泰森看来，现代天体物理学带来的绝非自卑，而是一种前所未有的宏大联结感。 人身体中的每一个关键元素——构成细胞的碳、空气中的氧、DNA里的氮，以及血液中奔流的铁——全都是在数十亿年前那些濒临死亡的恒星内部熔炼锻造出来的。当这些超新星在生命终点剧烈爆炸时，它们把丰富多元的重元素抛洒到星系深处，融入了后来孕育太阳系和地球的原行星盘。在宇宙诞生初期，根本不存在这些复杂的元素，今天的生命形式也无从谈起。 泰森总结了一句近乎灵性体验的经典科学论断：“不仅是我们活着存在于这个宇宙中，宇宙也鲜活地存在于我们体内（Not only are we alive in this universe, the universe is alive within us）。”人类通过化学本质与浩瀚星空紧密相连，是壮丽宇宙演化史不可分割的一部分。不仅如此，从能量角度而言，人类本质上完全是“太阳能驱动”的： - 杂食者昨晚吃的一块牛排来自肉牛，牛吃的是牧草，而牧草的光合作用完全依赖太阳光的辐射能。 - 泰森曾戏称“牛不过是人类发明用来将青草转化为牛排的机器”，因为野外并不存在现代意义上的肉牛，它们是人类驯化的产物。 - 顺着这条食物链追根溯源，人类获取的全部卡路里几乎百分之百都能追溯到太阳这颗恒星的核聚变能量。因此，仰望星空时没有任何理由自怨自艾，每个人本身就是恒星力量的化身。 --- ### [16:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHpsdIHpLUE&t=999s) 宗教、科学与为何拒绝“无神论者”标签 当话题转向人类如何通过宗教寻找自身意义时，史蒂芬展示了一张年轻时的泰森与父亲一起组装第一台望远镜的旧照片，并询问随着对宇宙认知不断深入，他对宗教的态度是变得更虔诚还是更疏离。泰森坦言，自己在八岁左右就发现大人们所讲述的宗教教义在逻辑上根本说不通。但他后来明白，信仰体系本质上不需要讲求客观逻辑；如果一套理论完全符合客观逻辑，那它就是科学真理而非信仰了。信仰往往超越了批判性检验——即使科学实验能够证伪某种宗教信条，信徒也绝不会因此放弃信念。 泰森早期曾对宗教持简单的回避态度，认为“你们搞宗教，我搞科学，互不相干”。但他很快意识到这种态度过于傲慢且不负责任：鉴于宗教在整个人类历史上所展现出的巨大力量，无论是对文化、政治还是经济格局都产生了深远影响，理应给予其更成熟、更深入的对话。于是他开始研读各类宗教文献，以便能与信徒就信念的内涵及其对人生的实际效用展开深层次探讨。 对于互联网上普遍将他归为“无神论者”的标签，泰森明确表示拒绝： - **标签让人思维懒惰**：一旦给一个人贴上现成标签，大家就自以为看懂了他，从而停止深入思考这个人的真实思想，这在历史上往往引发对立与争端。 - **“否定性词汇”的荒谬**：世界上很少有用“你不是什么”来定义一个人的词汇。生活中没有专门指代“不打高尔夫球的人”的词，为什么偏偏要有“无神论者”（Atheist）这种专门强调“你不是信徒”的称谓？这种“非友即敌”的二元对立往往伴随着战争与流血。 - **与激进无神论者的区别**：像理查德·道金斯（Richard Dawkins，《上帝错觉》作者）等当代知名无神论学者致力于彻底否定上帝、抵制宗教在社会与政治中的影响力，希望构建一个完全没有宗教的世界。泰森表示自己绝非这类斗士，他的许多日常行为与思考方式也根本不符合激进无神论者的标准。 - **唯一自认的身份**：泰森强调自己唯一的身份就是“科学家”（Scientist）。如果要非在现有语汇中挑选一个更贴近其立场的词，那只能是“不可知论者”（Agnostic），史蒂芬也对此表示深有共鸣。 ### [21:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHpsdIHpLUE&t=1271s) 给12岁孩子讲的大爆炸与95%的未知宇宙 当被问及宇宙万物究竟从何而来时，尼尔·德格拉斯·泰森毫不犹豫地给出了唯一符合现有观测和实验支持的答案——大爆炸（The Big Bang）。针对主持人史蒂文·巴特利特提出的“请像对15岁孩子解释那样讲给我听”，泰森幽默地回应：“我按给12岁孩子讲的标准来解释。”大约在138亿年前，如今人类所能看到和接触到的一切，都诞生于一个无穷小的微点（infinitesimal point），这也标志着我们宇宙时空的诞生。面对如此庞大的宇宙如何能压缩得如此微小的疑问，泰森阐明，这并非物质相互挤压重叠，而是能量本身的特性：能量可以被无限压缩，其状态通过温度来衡量。大爆炸伊始犹如一团极热的火球，随着空间急剧膨胀，温度逐渐冷却，冷却的能量依据爱因斯坦1905年提出的著名质能方程 $E=mc^2$ 转化成了物质，最终汇聚形成恒星与星系。 然而，现代天体物理学揭示了一个令人震撼且谦卑的现实：人类所熟知的物理规律只能解释宇宙中极小的一部分。真空空间中存在着一种未知的压力，正在推动宇宙以超越星系引力牵引的速度加速膨胀，这被称为“暗能量”；同时，宇宙中还存在大量无法看见但能产生引力效应的来源，被称为“暗物质”。两者相加，占据了驱动整个宇宙运转要素的95%。换言之，人类所珍视和认知的一切——无论是生物学、化学、物理学、固体液体气体，还是日常的一餐一饭和摄入的卡路里——仅仅构成了宇宙宏大图景中的5%。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 宇宙能量与物质构成分布图 accDescr: 展示宇宙组成的饼状概念结构，暗能量与暗物质合计占95%，人类已知物质仅占5% subgraph Unknown["未知领域 (95%)"] DE["暗能量 (推动宇宙加速膨胀)"] DM["暗物质 (未知引力来源)"] end subgraph Known["已知物理世界 (5%)"] OM["普通物质与能量<br/>(恒星、星系、化学元素、生命与生命物质)"] end Universe["宇宙总体驱动构成"] --> Unknown Universe --> Known ``` - 大爆炸发生时间：约138亿年前，时空自无穷小点开始膨胀至今。 - 质能互换机制：极高温能量球膨胀冷却，通过 $E=mc^2$ 转化为有质量的微观粒子与宏观物质。 - 宇宙成分占比：暗物质与暗能量合计占95%，所有已知普通物质仅占5%。 --- ### [23:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHpsdIHpLUE&t=1438s) 大爆炸之前存在什么：多重宇宙与前沿边界 当面对“大爆炸之前是什么”这一不可避免的追问时，泰森直截了当地坦承：“我们完全不知道。”不过，他指出天体物理学家并非全无头绪，基于量子力学和爱因斯坦广义相对论相结合的近代数学推导，科学家提出可能存在一个“多重宇宙”（Multiverse）。在这个假说中，多重宇宙就像一种不断“泵出”新宇宙的介质母体，而我们的宇宙仅仅是其中被孕育出来的无数个宇宙之一。至于究竟是什么触发了多重宇宙，人类目前的认知再次撞上了知识的高墙。 泰森深刻探讨了科学探索的边界心态。他强调，在人类知识的最前沿提出这些没有确切答案的问题完全合情合理，但“非要得到一个现成答案不可的人，通常当不了优秀的科学家”。急于求成往往会导致偏见与文化意识形态的介入，纵观人类文明史，各种各样创世神话与起源故事，无一不是诞生自特定文化背景的心理投射。真正的科学精神是在面对未知时保持坦然，并在前沿地带为获取更多数据制定切实的研究路径。 --- ### [25:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHpsdIHpLUE&t=1516s) “弗雷德与威尔玛”：加速膨胀的宇宙与暗能量命名吐槽 面对未知的深渊，科学家的实际做法就是“开出获取更多数据的药方”。天文学界专门设计制造了新一代望远镜，旨在追踪暗能量在整个宇宙历史进程中的演化痕迹。泰森解释了暗能量的颠覆性本质：如果将物体抛向空中，地球引力会使其减速并最终坠落；同理，原本学界预期在大爆炸初始冲力之后，宇宙中所有星系与物质的引力总和应当会让膨胀逐渐放缓。然而，1998年的观测结果震惊了物理学界——宇宙非但没有减速，反而正在全速加速膨胀，这项划时代的发现也斩获了诺贝尔物理学奖。 加速膨胀对应了爱因斯坦当年在引力方程中曾经引入、后又弃用的宇宙学常数项。在谈及这一概念的命名时，泰森毫不客气地吐槽了现有的科学术语。他认为把这种现象称为“暗能量”极具误导性，甚至像是诱导证人的错误提问，因为人们实际上对它的本质一无所知——它既不一定是“暗”的，也不见得就是“能量”。泰森调侃道，科学家还不如直接用经典动画片《摩登原始人》（The Flintstones）里的主角名字来指代它们：“干脆把暗能量叫弗雷德（Fred），把暗物质叫威尔玛（Wilma）算了。反正我们对它们到底是什么一无所知。” - 宇宙膨胀的反直觉观测：由于暗能量在空间真空中的负压斥力，宇宙膨胀呈现加速而非减速态势。 - 科学史转折点：该加速度观测成果直接斩获1998年诺贝尔物理学奖，复活了爱因斯坦早期舍弃的数学项。 - 术语反思：泰森主张避免在未明物理本质前使用“暗物质/暗能量”等先入为主的词汇。 --- ### [27:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHpsdIHpLUE&t=1629s) 奥巴马与特朗普的言论风波：外星人传闻的发酵 话题转向公众近年对外星人话题的极高关注度。主持人提到前总统奥巴马曾在访谈中半开玩笑地谈及外星人存在却未曾亲眼见过。泰森对此澄清道，奥巴马具有扎实的科学素养，他当时的发言本质上是“任何受过科学训练的人都会得出的科学辩护结论”——鉴于宇宙的广阔，存在地外生命是高度可能的，但奥巴马同时也明确表示并没有外星人被秘密关在51区或白宫地下室，除非存在一个连美国总统都被蒙在鼓里的庞大阴谋。 然而，在充斥着外星人亚文化的社会舆论中，大众断章取义地将这番理性表态解读为“美国政府私藏外星人”，迫使奥巴马随后不得不出面二次澄清。随后，唐纳德·特朗普在“空军一号”接受采访时推波助澜，声称奥巴马泄露了机密信息，甚至抛出“他犯了大错，把机密内容说出来了”的指控，进一步助长了民间对于深层秘密档案的猜想。随着五角大楼后续宣布公开部分UFO调查档案，公众对地外文明的好奇心和谷歌搜索指数瞬间被推向高潮。 --- ### [29:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHpsdIHpLUE&t=1763s) 国会听证会与大象理论：宇宙中是否存在地外智慧生命？ 针对公众关注度的大幅攀升，泰森透露他在5月份出版了新书《带我去见你们的领袖》（*Take Me To Your Leader*）。他解释自己之所以决定涉足这片领域，是因为看到了高规格的国会宣誓听证会：前高级情报官员、前军方飞行员等高层“吹哨人”纷纷出面作证。这与过去农场主在偏僻田野声称看到飞碟却拿不出任何照片的情况不可同日而语，政府官员的正式介入意味着讨论层级必须提高。不过，泰森的态度依然极为纯粹且尖锐：“只要把外星人拿出来给大家看就行了。” 泰森用“大象理论”犀利反问：人们总是在问他“你相信有外星人吗？”，但从来没有人问过“你相信有大象吗？”——因为大象就真实完整地展现在人类面前。只要能拿出确凿的外星实体证据，讨论就会从“信念”转变为“既定事实”。谈及宇宙中是否存在智慧生命这一核心问题，泰森从天体物理学角度给出了极富信心的回答：宇宙的辽阔尺度、百亿年的演化时间以及遍布宇宙的化学元素，都让生命的存在成为必然。在地球演化史上，生命在环境允许其存在的最初1亿年内就以极快速度破土而出，这仅占地球历史的约5%。既然生命在原始地球的基本构件中能以如此迅猛的节奏诞生，类似的基础元素在宇宙中又俯拾皆是，那么在浩瀚星海的某处诞生智慧生命便绝非罕见奇迹。 - 国会吹哨人证词：多名前军方人员与情报官员宣誓作证，使UFO/UAP现象从民间猎奇升级为官方调查议题。 - “大象”论据：科学无需建立在“相信”之上；一旦拿出确凿物理实体证明，争论便自然终结。 - 地球早期生命萌发速度：地球形成后，在极其严酷的环境稳定下来的最初1亿年内（约占地球历史的5%）便演化出了原始生命，表明生命的化学启动效率极高。 ### [31:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHpsdIHpLUE&t=1908s) 生命的自发诞生与系外行星的爆发式发现 在生命起源问题上，无论人类在实验室里合成生命遇到多么严苛的瓶颈，地球自身并没有花费太久的时间便完成了从有机分子到自我复制生命的跨越。尽管从原始单细胞演变到具有高等智慧的生命确实经历了极其漫长的时间，但鉴于银河系乃至整个宇宙拥有的行星数量，生命的存在绝不可能是孤例。目前人类的星表记录中已经确认编目了 6,000 多颗系外行星（Exoplanets，即绕其他恒星公转的行星），而这一庞大数字仅仅来自人类在太阳系周边划出的一个极其微小的观测区域。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 从有机分子到系外行星探索的生命概率递推 accDescr: 展示从微观有机分子演化至系外行星统计，再推导至宇宙生命普遍性的逻辑链条 subgraph Evolution["地球生命的诞生历程"] A["有机分子"] --> B["自我复制的原始生命"] B --> C["智慧生命（漫长演化）"] end subgraph Scale["观测与宇宙尺度扩展"] D["太阳周边微小天区<br/>（已编目 6,000+ 系外行星）"] --> E["推演至全银河系<br/>（数以亿计的行星系统）"] E --> F["可观测宇宙<br/>（万亿级别星系）"] end Evolution --> Scale Scale --> G["结论：生命在宇宙中频繁发生是必然概率"] ``` 当 Neil 询问 Steven 的出生年份时，Steven 回答是 1992 年。Neil 感叹道，人类在 1995 年才确认发现第一颗系外行星，也就是说 Steven 三岁那年，人类才刚迈进系外行星天文学的大门。当时发现一颗系外行星便足以成为轰动一时的头条新闻，而如今新增系外行星已经变得司空见惯。既然生命在地球环境刚适宜时便如此迅速地诞生，那么在任何深入研究过该课题的科学家看来，没有任何理由怀疑生命在银河系其他区域或宇宙中数以万亿计的星系里频繁上演。 - **系外行星（Exoplanet）定义**：环绕太阳以外其他恒星运行的行星。 - **首颗确认发现时间**：1995 年（主序星周围系外行星 51 Pegasi b 的发现）。 - **当前编目规模**：仅在太阳系邻近极其有限的天区内，已编目超过 6,000 颗。 --- ### [33:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHpsdIHpLUE&t=1994s) 银河系的尺度与宇宙中的估算艺术 在讨论展示的银河系图像时，Neil 解释道，如果人类能跳出银河系向回看，整个银河系呈现的景象就与图片别无二致。在这看似一团发光云雾的结构中，其实蕴含着数以千亿计的恒星。历史上伽利略首次把望远镜对准夜空中的银河时，原以为只是一片云气，却震惊地发现望远镜能够将这团云雾分解为一颗颗清晰可辨的独立恒星。当 Steven 追问宇宙中到底有多少星系、人类是否本质上“一无所知”时，Neil 阐述了天文学中独特的“估算哲学”。 在天文学尺度中，物理量动辄跨越数万亿倍的范围。如果在日常生活中数据偏差两倍属于重大失误，但在天体物理学中，如果你能在两倍误差范围内（a factor of two）锁定一个数值，就已经算得上极高精度的成就，代表你已经真正理解了时空与结构的基本规律。天文学家通过测量银河系的总引力质量、恒星的典型质量分布以及暗物质的占比，可以非常严密地计算出银河系大约拥有数千亿颗恒星。同时，结合太阳邻近区域几乎每颗恒星都携带多颗行星的观测现实，将这一比例按比例放大，便能推算出整个星系中存在数以亿计甚至千亿计的行星。因此，“不知道精确数字”与“对此毫无头绪”完全是两码事。 - **银河系恒星数量估算**：数千亿颗恒星（结合星系总质量、恒星质量谱与暗物质质量测算）。 - **可观测宇宙星系下限**：至少包含上千亿（乃至数万亿）个星系。 - **误差容忍度原理**：在横跨数万亿量级的宏观宇宙模型中，误差控制在 2 倍以内即代表抓住了核心物理规律。 --- ### [35:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHpsdIHpLUE&t=2118s) 宇宙的边界：无限性与人类哲学的执念 人类能够观测到的只是“可观测宇宙”（Observable Universe），其实际全貌远在人类视野视界之外。这就像一艘行驶在大洋中的轮船，水手眼前的地平线只是视野的物理极限，绝不会有人愚蠢地以为那片海天交界处就是大洋或地球的终点；继续航行，更多的海洋自会展现。当被问及宇宙是否可能是“无限”的时，Neil 明确表示人类不应自负地为宇宙预设框架：“仅仅因为人类的大脑很难理解无限这一概念，并不意味着宇宙不能或不应该是无限的。” 科学史上充满了因人类主观哲学或宗教偏好强加于宇宙而惨遭打脸的先例。哥白尼作为一名虔诚的教徒，提出了以太阳为中心的日心说以取代地心说。在取消了复杂本轮（Epicycles）的同时，他坚信天体运行必须是完美的正圆形，因为宇宙由完美的上帝创造，而圆是几何学上最纯粹完美的形状。然而，正圆轨道的计算结果与实际观测吻合度极差，甚至不如原有的托勒密本轮模型精准。直到 50 年后，天文学家才意识到行星轨道其实是椭圆。这种将人类主观的哲学美学强加于客观自然的历史教训警示我们：绝不能妄断宇宙无法是无限的。 --- ### [37:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHpsdIHpLUE&t=2243s) 逃逸速度与黑洞的物理本质 画面中心银河系核心的高亮度引发了 Steven 的好奇。Neil 解释道，根据星系演化模型，星系形成初期绝大部分质量都会向核心聚集，核心物质密度最高，因而诞生了密度极高的恒星群。更重要的是，银河系几何中心坐落着一颗超大质量黑洞（Supermassive Black Hole）——人类对这一中心天体的引力轨道测量此前已经荣获诺贝尔物理学奖。 为了向 12 岁小孩也能听懂一样解释黑洞，Neil 幽默地警告道：“你首先要尊重黑洞，永远别去招惹黑洞，因为输的一定是你。”他随后拆解了引力与逃逸速度的本质： 俗话常说“凡是上去的，必会掉下来”，但 Neil 在 10 岁见证人类登月、把登月舱留在月球后就明白这句话在物理上是错的。如果朝空中扔一个物体，它会减速、停滞并坠回地面；但如果施加更大的能量和初速度，它就会飞得更高。在物理学上，存在一个临界速度，只要达到该速度，物体就能挣脱星球的引力束缚直奔无限远处，永远不再返回，这便是“逃逸速度”（Escape Velocity）。 - **地球逃逸速度**：约为每秒 7 英里（约 11.2 km/s）。以该速度抛出物体，它将彻底脱离地球引力场。 - **引力与逃逸速度的关系**：星球表面引力越强，逃逸速度越高；若引力持续攀升，逃逸速度可达每秒 10 英里、100 英里乃至更高。 - **黑洞的临界转变**：当一个天体的质量密度使得其表面的逃逸速度达到或超过光速（Speed of Light）时，由于宇宙中没有任何物质的运动速度能超越光速，光线无法逃逸，天体在视觉上完全变黑，掉入其中的任何物质都将彻底失去逃逸的物理可能。这正是“黑洞”名称的由来源头。 爱因斯坦的广义相对论方程虽然早已在数学上包含了黑洞的解，但由于其物理性质过于怪诞，爱因斯坦本人起初拒绝相信现实中存在这种天体。直到 20 世纪 60 年代天体物理学家完善了数学推导，并在 70 年代通过强 X 射线源“天鹅座 X-1”（Cygnus X-1）首次确认了黑洞的物理存在。 --- ### [41:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHpsdIHpLUE&t=2482s) 掉入黑洞会发生什么？ 关于大众对黑洞常有的误解，Neil 澄清道：黑洞并不会主动伸出无形巨手把远处的物体硬吸过去。如果太阳在此时此刻突然坍缩成一个同等质量的黑洞，地球所感受到的引力场大小完全不会改变，地球依然会沿着原有的轨道正常运转。黑洞的可怕之处在于，它的所有质量被压缩在极小的空间内，允许物体在物理尺度上极其靠近它的核心。 黑洞周围存在特定的轨道界限（例如能层与最内层稳定圆轨道）。在安全距离之外，飞船可以维持稳定的绕转轨道，静静地观测黑洞；但一旦跨越失去稳定轨道的临界距离，就不可避免地滑向深渊。当被问到掉入黑洞后会被压碎还是去往何方时，Neil 指出这取决于黑洞的质量规模：对于恒星级小黑洞，巨大的潮汐引力差在视界附近就会将人体撕裂；但对于星系中心极其庞大的超大质量黑洞，数学物理研究提出了极为震撼的图景。Neil 提到自己书架上的一本高阶研究生教材，其中通过严密的广义相对论时空几何数学证明：一旦穿过特定黑洞的视界，在坠落者面前展开的，将是一个拥有崭新时空维度的全新宇宙。 ### [42:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHpsdIHpLUE&t=2567s) 掉入黑洞的奇妙时空与“面条化”过程 广义相对论不仅预言了黑洞的存在，还描绘了其内部极其反直觉的物理现象。跟随数学方程推导可以发现，黑洞内部展现出一整个全新的时空结构。当你向黑洞坠落时，你的时间感知会发生剧烈变化——由于“时间膨胀”（Time Dilation）效应，相对于外部宇宙，你的时间流速会变得极慢。因此，当你回头眺望外部宇宙时，外界的发展会变得越来越快，在不断向黑洞下坠的过程中，你甚至能亲眼目睹整个宇宙未来的完整历史在眼前飞速展开。 当主持人好奇接近黑洞是否会瞬间被压成小块时，Neil deGrasse Tyson 澄清说那发生在更深处，他首先解释的是穿越“事件视界”（Event Horizon）时时空的本质变化。事件视界是任何物质与光线都无法逃脱的临界区域，也是天文学家定义黑洞实际大小的功能性边界。一旦越过这个体积范围，逃逸速度将超越光速，你便再无回头之路。黑洞彻底扭曲了时空结构，将其向内翻折，内部根本不存在通往外界的物理路径，坠入者将被永久困在其中。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 掉入黑洞的人体形变过程 accDescr: 展现人体在潮汐力与时空压缩作用下逐步被拉长、断裂并挤压至奇点的全过程 subgraph Horizon ["越过事件视界"] A["穿越事件视界<br/>逃逸速度大于光速"] --> B["时间膨胀加剧<br/>目睹外部宇宙飞速演化"] end subgraph Spaghettification ["潮汐力与断裂"] B --> C["脚底与头顶引力差剧增<br/>产生巨大潮汐力纵向拉伸"] C --> D["脊椎根部最先断裂<br/>身体以2的幂次方倍分形断裂"] end subgraph Singularity ["挤压至奇点"] D --> E["横向时空剧烈收缩<br/>像挤牙膏一样被压碎挤出"] E --> F["抵达中心奇点<br/>无限小与无限密度的物理极限"] end ``` 随后，Neil deGrasse Tyson 生动剖析了小黑洞引力对人体产生的致命生理撕裂。在地球表面站立时，双脚其实比头顶更接近地心，两处承受的地心引力存在微小差异，但由于数值极度接近，人体完全无法察觉。然而在黑洞周围下坠时，脚底与头顶之间的引力差会急剧飙升，形成恐怖的“潮汐力”（Tidal Forces）。这种力量会从头到脚拉伸人体，“一开始可能感觉还挺舒服，像做了一次彻底的伸展”，但这种拉伸会无休止地增强，直至超过人体生理结构的承受极限。最脆弱的脊椎底端会率先断裂，紧接着上半身与下半身继续在潮汐力作用下分别受拉，以 1 变 2、2 变 4、4 变 8、8 变 16 的二分形式不断断裂。更为严峻的是，当逼近黑洞中心的“奇点”（Singularity）时，所处的时空体积在横向上急剧收缩，整个人不仅被从头到脚拉长，还会像“牙膏从管子里挤出来”一样被挤压穿过狭窄的时空织物。 - **事件视界的不可逆性**：在此界面以内，逃逸速度超过光速，时空结构自我闭合，不存在离开的物理可能。 - **面条化断裂机制**：引力梯度引发的潮汐力使人体从脊椎处开始断裂，并呈指数级级联断成碎片。 - **奇点的理论困境**：爱因斯坦的广义相对论计算显示黑洞中心体积无限小、密度无限大，但物理学界尚无法解释这如何可能发生，这已达到爱因斯坦广义相对论的理论极限。 --- ### [46:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHpsdIHpLUE&t=2780s) 播客商业赞助 本段包含了播客节目的两则商业广告赞助口播： - **Pipedrive**：主持人强调无论在商业还是生活中，长期坚持（Consistency）都能产生强大的复利效应。在销售管理中，团队规模从 5 人扩大到 50 人时容易出现跟进脱节，这往往是系统问题而非单纯的人员问题。Pipedrive 是一款易用的智能化 CRM 工具，可在销售管道的各个阶段提供全流程透明视图并指导下一步操作。全球已有超过 10 万家企业采用，节目听众可通过专属链接获取 30 天免费试用（通常为 14 天且无需信用卡）。 - **HeyGen**：利用 AI 视频技术，节目内容能够打破语言隔阂传播至全球。用户仅需录制 15 秒的个人视频，即可生成具备高保真音色、语速与面部神态的 AI 数字分身，支持超过 175 种语言输出（该节目当前已制作 20 种语言版本）。平台拥有包括 85% 财富 100 强企业在内的 3000 万用户，新用户可免费体验前 3 个视频的生成。 --- ### [48:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHpsdIHpLUE&t=2919s) 什么是智慧？人类自我膨胀的衡量标准 重新回到宇宙生命的话题，针对银河系内是否存在智慧生命的疑问，Neil deGrasse Tyson 直言“毫无怀疑的理由”。综合考虑银河系的巨大尺度、漫长时间、生命物质原料以及生命在地球上极快萌芽的历史，智慧生命的存在概率极高。然而，他尖锐地指出，人类对“智慧”（Intelligence）的定义充斥着自我中心的傲慢与偏见。 在探讨脑容量这一硬指标时，人类在地球动物王国中仅位列第四，排在鲸鱼、海豚（或鼠海豚）以及大象之后。Tyson 幽默地指出，如果外星人来到地球且认定大脑绝对尺寸代表智慧，那么人类在交谈顺位上充其量只能排第四。为了证明自身的优越性，人类教科书发明了“脑重占体重比例”这一指标，以此重回榜首；但这一结论实际上隐瞒了条件——人类仅在“哺乳动物”中名列前茅，若放眼整个动物界，喜鹊和鹦鹉等中型鸟类的脑体比均高于人类。Tyson 感叹人类为了将自己与其他物种区分开来并不断“抚慰自我虚荣”（Ego-stoking），付出了极大的心理建设。事实上，许多动物拥有人类梦寐以求的能力，例如鸟类会飞翔，蝾螈和甲壳类动物能够完全再生断肢——而这对人类（如战场伤残退伍军人）而言至今仍是无法跨越的生理鸿沟。 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: 地球物种脑部指标对比 accDescr: 展示人类在绝对脑容量与脑体比两个维度上的真实排名与认知偏见 subgraph AbsoluteSize ["大脑绝对体积排名"] W["1. 鲸鱼"] --> D["2. 海豚 / 鼠海豚"] D --> E["3. 大象"] E --> H1["4. 人类"] end subgraph RelativeSize ["脑重与体重比例"] B["鸟类 (喜鹊、鹦鹉)"] --> H2["人类 (仅在哺乳动物中第一)"] end ``` Tyson 进而将智慧生命划分为更具体的层次：如果外星人可能将鲸鱼视为智慧生物，人类的独特性则建立在“文明”（Civilization）与“技术”（Technology）之上——我们会建造望远镜、拥有艺术创作。然而技术具有强烈的时代局限性：古罗马帝国并不知道电力、计算机或 AI，面对外星人的无线电信号根本无从回复，也无法制造飞船远航。如果将跨星际通讯或制造飞船作为智慧的操作性定义，那罗马人是否还算智慧生命？同理，宇宙中完全可能广泛存在着并未掌握跨星际造访技术的智慧文明，这或许才是宇宙生命的普遍常态。 - **脑容量真实梯队**：鲸鱼 $\rightarrow$ 海豚/鼠海豚 $\rightarrow$ 大象 $\rightarrow$ 人类。 - **脑体比的真相**：人类仅在哺乳类内部脑体比最高，部分中型鸟类（喜鹊、鹦鹉等）的脑体比明显超越人类。 - **智慧定义的分层**：生物学智能 $\rightarrow$ 拥有艺术与社会的文明 $\rightarrow$ 具备星际电讯与航天能力的技术文明。 --- ### [52:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHpsdIHpLUE&t=3147s) 星际航行的现实速度与“新视野号”的极限 在探讨人类自身能走多远时，Neil deGrasse Tyson 介绍了人类目前航天器速度的顶峰——飞往冥王星的“新视野号”（New Horizons）探测器。深空探索领域有一条不成文的务实法则：“无论如何设计宇宙飞船，必须确保它在你变老甚至去世之前抵达目的地。” 为了让探测器能够用最短时间飞抵太阳系边缘的冥王星，工程师们将其安装在当时动力最强劲的运载火箭上，并竭尽所能将探测器的有效载荷压缩到最轻，使其获得最大的加速推力，从而实现了人类航天史上最快的发射初始速度。Tyson 借此引出：哪怕以人类目前创造的极速航天器来衡量，一旦将目标调整为飞往最近的恒星系，星际旅行所需的时间尺度仍远超人类个体的生命跨度。 ### [53:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHpsdIHpLUE&t=3197s) 浩瀚虚空与太空垃圾：外星人为何不来？ 在探讨星际旅行的实际距离时，尼尔·德格拉斯·泰森算了一笔令人震撼的时间账：如果以探测冥王星的速度直接飞向离太阳系最近的恒星系统——半人马座阿尔法星（Alpha Centauri），需要整整 50,000 年。面对银河系中数以千亿计的恒星，光是抵达最近的一颗邻居就如此漫长，这直接揭示了宇宙的绝对荒芜与辽阔。针对著名的费米悖论——“如果外星生命无处不在，那他们究竟都在哪里？”，泰森提出了一个非常现实的假说：也许外星文明确实存在，但星际旅行在物理和工程上实在太难，以至于他们根本无法跨越深空来造访我们。 随即，泰森话锋一转，半开玩笑地给出了另一种解释：“我想他们可能其实路过过地球，结果一眼看到轨道上漂浮的无尽太空垃圾，心想‘我才不冒这个生命危险呢’，于是直接拐弯走人，去寻找下一颗行星了。”这段玩笑直接引出了当下近地空间面临的严峻现实——人类正在以前所未有的疯狂速度向近地轨道投掷成千上万的金属物体，地球外层空间正迅速沦为一个被废弃物和活跃卫星塞满的高危区域。 - 前往离太阳最近的恒星系统半人马座阿尔法星，以现有航天器速度需耗时约 50,000 年。 - 银河系中包含数千亿颗恒星，星际空间的极度空旷使得文明间的实际物理接触极为艰难。 --- ### [54:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHpsdIHpLUE&t=3254s) 卫星泛滥的代价：从天文学灾难到太空部队的崛起 面对各个国家和商业公司竞相向地球轨道投放数万颗卫星的现状，泰森指出必须厘清“这究竟对谁构成问题”。对于那些身处大洋中心、北极冰原或沙漠腹地、急需高速互联网的人群而言，SpaceX 的星链（Starlink）等巨型卫星星座无疑是天赐的福祉；但对于世代仰望星空的天文学家来说，这却是一场实实在在的灾难。穿梭划过夜空的卫星在天文望远镜的曝光图像中留下一道道明亮的光轨，构成严重的数据“视觉噪声”（visual noise）。如果天文学家正试图通过微弱的轨迹追踪可能撞击地球的潜在危险小行星，混杂在成千上万道卫星光痕中的小行星极容易被彻底漏判；而卫星若恰好遮挡了某个关键观测天体，珍贵的科学数据便会直接报废。泰森坦言这一过程几乎不可逆转，未来天文学的唯一出路是全面走向太空望远镜以及在月球背面部署天文台。 低轨道的拥挤程度正在经历指数级爆发。仅在 2025 年一年内，人类就向轨道发射了约 5,000 个航天物体；到 2026 年年中，发射密度再创新高。行业数据显示 SpaceX 已拥有逾万颗在轨卫星，而预计到 2040 年，在轨活跃卫星的数量将突破 100,000 颗。泰森强调，太空的巨大价值早已不仅限于军事侦察和国家安全，更在于其赋能的实体经济——“没有 GPS，这世界上根本就不会有 Uber”。正是因为轨道资产支撑着规模万亿美元计的地面经济命脉，美国才将早已孕育数十年的空军太空司令部独立划出，正式成立了美国太空军（Space Force），其核心职责就是捍卫这些攸关生死的经济与安全基石。 - **发射爆发期**：2025 年向轨道发射了约 5,000 个物体，预计到 2040 年在轨活跃卫星总数将达到 100,000 颗以上。 - **科研阻碍**：卫星反光在深空巡天与近地小行星预警图像中造成严重数据污染，倒逼光学与射电天文学向太空及月球迁移。 - **太空军实质**：并非科幻意义上的“星球大战”，其前身为美国空军太空司令部，成立主因是轨道资产已深度绑定民用导航、商业交易与通信国防。 --- ### [57:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHpsdIHpLUE&t=3435s) 凯斯勒现象：近地轨道的连锁毁灭风暴 当话题转入轨道灾难模型时，泰森详细剖析了由物理学家兼天文学家唐纳德·凯斯勒（Donald J. Kessler）于 1978 年提出的“凯斯勒现象”（Kessler Syndrome）。凯斯勒通过计算预言，近地轨道的卫星密度存在一个临界阈值。一旦卫星密度突破该阈值，只要发生一次撞击或人为破坏，就会引发多米诺骨牌式的连环粉碎反应。泰森特别提到，中美俄印四大国都曾进行过动能反卫星导弹试验击毁自家卫星，这种在太空中展示“主权与威慑”的行为，实际上向所有人证明了“只要我能击落自己的卫星，就能击落任何人的卫星”。 问题的致命之处在于轨道速度的极端破坏力。近地轨道物体的环绕速度高达每小时 17,500 英里（约合每秒 5 英里），这比最高速的步枪子弹还要快上数倍。在这种极速下，即使是一枚脱落的微小油漆碎屑，其所携带的动能也堪比一枚穿透力极强的步枪子弹甚至高爆手榴弹。一旦一颗卫星被撞碎成 10 块具有轨道速度的高能碎片，碎片散射开去各自撞毁其他卫星，连锁反应将以 1 变 10、10 变 100、100 变 1,000 的指数级扩散。在极短的几个轨道周期内，整个轨道平面的卫星可能被彻底摧毁并化为致命弹片云，电影《地心引力》（Gravity）中所描绘的正是这一真实科学推演。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 凯斯勒级联碰撞破坏链 accDescr: 展示轨道卫星从初次撞击碎裂到指数级扩散破坏直至整个轨道瘫痪的因果演变过程。 subgraph Trigger["触发阶段"] A["初始诱因<br/>(反卫星导弹试验 / 偶然双星碰撞)"] --> B["卫星解体<br/>(产生大量高速破片)"] end subgraph Cascade["连锁扩散阶段"] B --> C["碎片以 17,500 mph 极速飞散<br/>(微小漆片动能堪比子弹/手榴弹)"] C --> D["击中路径上的下一批卫星<br/>(破坏呈 1->10->100 指数激增)"] end subgraph Outcome["灾难结局"] D --> E["轨道产生高密度弹片云"] E --> F["近地轨道全面瘫痪<br/>(彻底丧失航天器部署能力)"] end ``` - **轨道速度**：时速达 17,500 英里（约 7.8 km/s，即每秒 5 英里），微观碎片在动能加持下具备致命破坏力。 - **反卫星测试**：中国、印度、俄罗斯、美国均曾用导弹击碎过己方退役卫星，制造了大量持久存在的危险碎片云。 - **连锁机制**：密度过高时，破片散布不仅无法自然重返大气层烧毁，反而会横向贯穿相邻轨道，在几天或几个轨道周期内导致大范围航天器全军覆没。 --- ### [01:00:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHpsdIHpLUE&t=3618s) 太空法律的“狂野西部”与重返月球的真正推手 谈及外层空间的管辖权与秩序，泰森直言当前的太空法完全是一片“狂野西部”（Wild West）。无论是低地球轨道、月球还是火星，没有国家或个人在法律上拥有任何一寸土地的所有权；如果你登陆一颗小行星去开采稀有矿产，那些矿物究竟归谁所有也根本没有现成公约可循。现实中的唯一法则退化成了最原始的强权逻辑——“谁先到达，谁就说了算”。 针对当前由美国“阿耳忒弥斯计划”（Artemis program）引发的新一轮登月狂潮，泰森毫不留情地戳破了所谓“为了科学探索”的崇高叙事。他回顾历史指出：人类在 1972 年阿波罗计划结束后就完全放弃了驻留月球，随后的 1980 年代、1990 年代、2000 年代乃至 2010 年代整整四十年间，美国毫无重返月球的动力。转折点发生在 2010 年代中后期——当中国明确宣布将把中国航天员送上月球时，美国才猛然惊醒，慌忙在特朗普任内立项并以阿波罗的双胞胎姐姐“阿耳忒弥斯”命名了重返月球计划。 泰森生动地形容道：“中国的登月计划，就像当年苏联发射人造卫星斯普特尼克（Sputnik）一样，狠狠地在我们的屁股后面点了一把火。”这种来自外部势力的剧烈地缘竞争，是推动华盛顿政界跨越党派分歧、联合支持重大项目的唯一真正催化剂——正如前不久美国国会就不明飞行物（UAP）举报人举行听证会时，共和党与民主党议员破天荒地坐在一起毫无嫌隙地协同质询一样，对外竞争和神秘外物总能瞬间凝聚两党意志。即使后来白宫易主，拜登政府也完全继承并推进了这一由特朗普启动的项目，因为 NASA 本质上是一个“地缘政治响应型机构”（geopolitically responsive organization）。在国会听证会上，议员们神经紧绷地逼问 NASA 局长“中国为什么偏偏要去月球背面着陆？他们知道了什么我们不知道的秘密？”，这一切争夺的核心从未脱离过大国地缘博弈的虚荣与国家自尊心。 - **太空产权真空**：目前月球、火星及小行星资源开采缺乏强有力的国际法律框架，先驱者凭借实际占领确立既成事实。 - **命名渊源**：阿耳忒弥斯（Artemis）是古希腊神话中太阳神阿波罗（Apollo）的双胞胎姐姐/妹妹，象征着美国登月计划的历史延续与新篇章。 - **核心驱动力**：登月工程的动力从来不是天文学或科学研究，而是冷战式的大国地缘政治竞赛与国家意识形态博弈。 ### [01:03:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHpsdIHpLUE&t=3827s) 月球资源就地利用与极端温差环境 面对月球是否存在可用资源的疑问，尼尔·德格拉斯·泰森指出科学界目前正在全力勘探。美国宇航局（NASA）甚至专门设立了名为“原位资源利用”（In-Situ Resource Utilization，简称 ISRU）的研究分支，其核心逻辑在于人类不可能把所有补给都从地球打包带走。目前科学家推测月球南极存在大量水冰，宇航员未来可以直接采集水源；此外，借助 3D 打印技术，人类甚至能将月表原本松散的硅酸盐月壤直接倒入打印机，现场烧结制造出工具与建筑构件。 当被问及月球环境究竟是极冷还是极热时，泰森解释道，人们日常谈论冷热时通常指的是周围空气的温度，但月球处于高真空状态，完全没有空气存在。在这种环境下，物体的表面温度完全取决于其能否直接接收到外部能量辐射。如果你面朝太阳，身体向阳的一侧会被剧烈炙烤甚至灼伤，而背向太阳的一侧则会直接暴露在接近绝对零度的深空阴影中迅速冻结。泰森笑着调侃道：“因此我们真正需要的，要么是像烤肉店里的旋转烤叉一样让人不断自转，要么就是隔热性能极其强大的宇航服。” - **原位资源利用（ISRU）**：月球探索的核心技术路径，重点攻关南极水冰开采与硅酸盐月壤 3D 打印工具。 - **真空热辐射机制**：缺乏大气流动导致受热面被直射烈火烘烤、背光面极度深冻，形成极端的双侧温差。 --- ### [01:05:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHpsdIHpLUE&t=3904s) 开启月球旅游：三天的旅程与低重力经济 对于月球能否在当下一代人的有生之年成为旅游胜地，泰森给予了完全肯定的答复。他确认，以消耗最少能量的转移轨道飞行，从地球前往月球大约需要三天时间（如果消耗更多推进剂速度还能更快）。泰森坦言，如果未来商业航天能将成本大幅压低，让月球变成全人类的“后花园”，他甚至愿意攒下好几年的休假旅行预算只为去一次月球。 不过在谈及奔月的经济动力时，泰森澄清了前期的现实困境：在最初阶段，前往月球很难有立竿见影的直接商业回报，真正的经济循环必须等到月面基地、旅馆和餐厅等配套设施完全成熟后才会涌现。届时，月球甚至会诞生极具特色的微重力服务业，比如低重力环境下奇特怪异的烹饪技巧与餐饮体验。 --- ### [01:06:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHpsdIHpLUE&t=3997s) 模糊的UFO录像与著名的“Tic Tac”事件 谈及近年来美国军方解密的 UFO（或称 UAP）录像文件，泰森坦言自己看过绝大部分，但看到一定程度后便发现它们高度雷同，且并无决定性的说服力。这些视频普遍呈现为单色且分辨率极低的模糊画面。泰森认为，哪怕是最狂热的 UFO 信徒也不得不承认，绝大多数目击事件最终都能找到自然原理解释——无论是奇特的云层结构、高空闪电还是黄昏薄暮下的特殊光学折射。 尽管多数事件平淡无奇，但泰森对其中少数科学至今无法完全解释的影像保留了浓厚兴趣，尤其是著名的“Tic Tac”（形似椭圆薄荷糖的飞行器）和“Gimbal”录像。画面中物体的旋转移动、不可思议的机动轨迹，再配合美军战斗机飞行员震惊惊呼的原声录音，确实充满了戏剧性。但泰森强调，自己被吸引纯粹是因为“作为科学家，我们天生迷恋那些未知和无法解释的事物”，而非盲目相信那是外星飞船。他直言，最令他心存疑虑的是，既然有吹哨人宣誓作证称政府早已掌握了外星人物理实体，那么为什么拿不出哪怕一片实物，“把真正的外星人拿给我看，低分辨率的模糊视频根本说明不了什么。” ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: UFO 现象科学评估流程 accDescr: 展示尼尔·德格拉斯·泰森对不明飞行物目击证据的科学研判路径 A["UFO / UAP 目击与录像证据"] --> B{"是否有已知物理解释？"} B -- "绝大多数情况" --> C["自然/人为现象<br>（特殊云层、闪电、光学折射、飞行器）"] B -- "极少数疑案" --> D["未解之谜<br>（如 Tic Tac、Gimbal 轨迹）"] D --> E["科学探索与好奇驱动<br>（探求物理新机制）"] E --> F{"缺乏关键硬核实证"} F --> G["拒绝主观定论：<br>要求提供外星人身体或飞船碎片实物"] ``` --- ### [01:08:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHpsdIHpLUE&t=4106s) 人类准备好迎接外星人了吗？为何外星生物不可能是“人形” 面对“若真有外星生命存在，政府是否会向公众隐瞒”的质疑，泰森指出，如今包括退役军官在内的多位吹哨人已经在美国国会听证会上宣誓作证，声称军方拥有外星生命遗体、坠毁飞船碎片并进行了逆向工程。有人担忧人类尚未做好面对真实外星人的心理准备，泰森对此断然否定：“我们当然准备好了。好莱坞在过去的几十年里通过无数科幻电影早把我们训练得妥妥当当，真正见面的那一刻甚至可能会很迷人。” 真正让泰森从生物演化角度无法接受的，是好莱坞电影中对外星人千篇一律的“人形”（Humanoid）塑造——长着一颗脑袋、两只眼睛、一个鼻子、一张嘴和耳朵，拥有双臂、手肘、手指、膝盖并直立行走。泰森指出，电影里的外星形象无论是《E.T.》、《异形》（Xenomorph）还是《铁血战士》（Predator），无论外貌多凶猛可怕或带有爬行动物特征，骨子里全都是脊椎动物的人形架构。这是因为好莱坞特效戏服里必须塞进一个活生生的人类演员： - **同源演化的悖论**：地球上的橡树、蚯蚓、龙虾与人类共享同一套 DNA 演化系统，然而它们没有一种长成人类的模样。 - **环境塑造形态**：一个来自完全不同宇宙演化树、适应完全不同重力与大气环境的外星智慧生命，长成人形轮廓的概率微乎其微。 - **行为逻辑的差异**：像《异形》这种极具攻击性的寄生掠食生物不可能凭自身建造星际飞船来到地球；如果它出现在地球上，只可能是人类自己把它运回来的。 --- ### [01:10:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHpsdIHpLUE&t=4249s) 目击报告中的外星人原型谱系 泰森在筹备新书的过程中梳理了大量关于外星人目击的档案记录。他发现，早期的目击口供往往只来自凌晨两点醉眼惺忪走出酒吧的酒鬼，直到后来有退役情报人员在国会宣誓作证，这一公众话题才升温至狂热阶段。而纵观所有的非飞碟类目击记录，人们所描述的外星人其实可以清晰地归纳为几种特定的心理与文化“原型”（Archetypes）： - **小绿人（Little Green Men）**：上世纪五六十年代最盛行的经典形象。使用“Men（人）”这个后缀本身，就直观暴露了人类根深蒂固的人形投射偏差。 - **小灰人（The Grays）**：现代目击报告中最为常见的外星人形象，通常特征为身材纤细、皮肤呈灰色、没有毛发（光头）且拥有巨大的黑眼睛。 - **高白人（Tall Whites）与星系系谱**：包括传说来自大角星的“大角星人”（Arcturians）、天琴座的“天琴星人”（Lyrans）、以及“天狼星人”（Sirians）等，多呈现修长、带有半神圣色彩的人形轮廓。 - **类昆虫外星人（Insectoids）**：外貌具有明显节肢动物特征的外星人。泰森认为这种原型反映了人类深刻的心理恐惧，因为大多数人类本能地觉得昆虫丑陋恐怖，设计或幻象出类昆虫实体就是为了激发排斥感，让人完全不想与其产生共情。 --- ### [01:12:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHpsdIHpLUE&t=4354s) DMT致幻体验、文化偏见与人类大脑的脆弱性 当主持人提到许多吸食强效致幻剂 DMT（二甲基色胺）的人经常一致声称自己“穿越维度并见到了同类外星实体”时，泰森提出了理性的神经科学视点。他认为，不必急于给这种体验扣上“触碰到了跨维度真实世界”的玄虚帽子，更为合理的解释在于：所有人脑都拥有相同的神经解剖结构与生化基础，当相同的化学物质刺激了不同个体大脑中相同的神经回路时，自然会激活类似的神经电信号，从而诱发高度重合的幻觉体验。 泰森还指出外星目击事件中一个显著的文化偏见：在统计学上，英语国家报告的目击外星人案例数量远远碾压世界其他非英语文化圈。“这只有两种可能：要么外星人极其偏好拜访讲英语的国家，要么就是讲英语的社会文化催生了这种高强度的外星人迷思与报告习惯，显然后者才符合常理。”当被问及个人是否曾尝试过致幻药物以探索意识时，泰森果断表示从未碰过，也毫无好奇心。他用一句冷面幽默为讨论收尾：“因为人类的大脑在正常状态下本来就已经勉强运转了，根本经不起再去折腾它。” ### [01:13:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHpsdIHpLUE&t=4432s) 视错觉、致幻剂与客观现实的界限 Neil deGrasse Tyson 首先从最常见的视错觉图册谈起。任何人都可以在这类书中随意翻开一页，立刻就会陷入困惑：这条线到底更长还是更短？它是在纸面以内还是凸出纸面？极其简单的二维线条就能彻底颠覆人脑对现实的认知。主持人 Steven Bartlett 随即提出疑问：这是否意味着“现实”本身其实极其脆弱？Tyson 坦然承认确实如此，并借此阐述了自己为何从不接触迷幻药（Psychedelics）。作为一个极其珍视“客观真实”（objective truth）的科学家，他深知人类大脑在常态下处理信息就已经非常勉强，如果再人为注入外来化学物质去搅动脑回路，根本无法让人更接近所谓的终极真实，反而只会让认知变得更加混乱。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Subjective Perception vs Objective Science accDescr: Comparison between fragile sensory perception and robust scientific instrumentation subgraph Sensory["主观生理局限 (人脑感知)"] A["感官输入 (视觉/嗅觉/触觉)"] --> B["电化学信号"] B --> C["易受错觉与药物干扰"] end subgraph Science["客观科学测量 (超越人体)"] D["科学仪器 (探测器/望远镜)"] --> E["独立于感官的物理数据"] E --> F["可重复验证的客观规律"] end C -.->|"局限且脆弱"| G{"现实的本质"} F ==>|"跨感官共识"| G ``` Steven 提出反思：如果我们只需吸入某种气体或化学物质，整个主观世界就会瞬间切换成全新的超高清“4K现实”，这是否证明我们当前清醒时的现实感知本质上同样脆弱，不过是一场电化学反应而已？Tyson 回应道，大脑确实是依靠微弱的电化学信号运转的，加入其他化学物质去重塑神经通路当然会带来无穷无尽的幻象体验。但他强调，与沉迷于形而上学辩论的哲学家不同，科学家更注重实用主义。科学的力量在于设计出独立于人类五官之外的实验：即便人类肉眼看不见紫外线，科学仪器依然能够精准探测并触发读数，且所有人都能对这一读数达成一致共识。 - 科学的发展历经漫长岁月，核心目的就是将独立于人类神经突触的“客观现实测量”与大脑脆弱的电化学主观感受彻底剥离。 - 爱因斯坦提出的质能方程 $E=mc^2$ 是原子弹的物理学基石；投放原子弹所造成的十万计生命伤亡，绝非人类吸毒后的主观幻觉或化学想象，而是不折不扣、无法否认的客观现实。 - 对于精神异常者能否看懂仪器数据的问题，科学依赖于整套严谨且可重复的检验工具来确立共识，而不是将认知等同于不可证伪的主观偏好。 --- ### [01:17:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHpsdIHpLUE&t=4655s) DMT体验、演化盲区与科学仪器的感官延伸 针对许多人吸食 DMT 后报告遇到极为相似的“昆虫外星人”（insectoid）等共享幻觉，Tyson 直言，要判断这究竟是幻觉还是另一个维度的实体，科学界应当设计严格的对照实验：让两个素未谋面的人在迷幻状态下去向所谓的实体询问特定的客观信息，再看彼此的信息能否精确对齐；如果不去用实证方法检验，而是一味盲信“它是真实的”，那就不过是创立了一门新的宗教而已。Tyson 幽默地表示，如果有任何一种药物或吸入剂真的能让人类更接近客观现实，他绝对会第一个去尝试，但事实恰恰相反，扩展现实靠的是精密仪器而非毒品。 两人的讨论进一步深入到生物演化。Steven 提到曾有物理学家做客节目时指出，人类感官的发展纯粹是为了生存服务，对于生存无关紧要的维度（例如房间内假如有某种幽灵或不可见能量），人体根本没有必要进化出相应的感知器官。Tyson 对此深表赞同，并指出这正是科学诞生的伟大之处——科学赋予了人类数十种远超肉体局限的全新“感官”： - **微观与宏观的突破**：显微镜打开了肉眼无法看见的微生物世界，望远镜揭开了浩瀚宇宙的深空面纱。 - **死海的历史误解**：中东死海因盐度极高、没有肉眼可见的大型鱼类游动而被古人命名为“死海”，但科学仪器证实其中充满了大量耐盐微生物在自在地“游仰泳”；古人错失了这部分现实，但科学补足了这一演化盲区。 - **肉眼与仪器的对比**：当我们在夜空中看到未知光点惊呼是外星人时，拿出一架双筒望远镜（更高分辨率与进光量）就能看清那不过是一架无人机；地平线上的怪影借由仪器辨认，也只是一只爬行的黑熊。科学通过工具补充感官，从而消除因未知而产生的恐惧与神话。 --- ### [01:21:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHpsdIHpLUE&t=4860s) 培养皿假说与模拟宇宙的逻辑漏洞 在探讨人类感知完全依托化学反应的基础上，Steven 提出了一种假说：既然一切主观体验都可以被化学物质还原，那么人类是否可能只是某种外星生命在培养皿中培养的一堆化学物质？我们眼前的宇宙和手中触摸到的 iPad，不过是这一反应所映射出的主观幻象？Tyson 对此提出了尖锐的物理学反驳：物理定律在不同尺度下有着完全不同的运作规律。 > "Petri dish is ideal sized for bacteria not for us in some larger petri dish... You can't just scale it up as much as people would want to. That they were just nested dolls." > （培养皿的大小是专为细菌量身定制的，绝不适用于放大版环境中的我们……你不能像人们一厢情愿想的那样直接把它按比例放大，现实可不是一套能够无限套叠的俄罗斯套娃。） Tyson 解释说，宏观生命体与外界环境的相互作用机制完全不同于微观菌群。如果非要讨论虚构现实，那么人类生活在一个纯粹的计算机模拟程序中，概率要远远高于“外星人地下室里的生物培养皿”。当 Steven 追问 Tyson 自己是否相信我们身处模拟世界时，Tyson 坦白地笑称自己“很不情愿”相信这一点，因为没人想承认自己只是一段虚拟代码。他接着以经典的模拟论证（Simulation Argument）进行了拆解：假定一个拥有超级算力的高级文明模拟了包含自主意识的世界，这个虚拟世界演化成熟后也会因为无聊而发明计算机并创建自己的下层模拟游戏，从而形成“一层又一层套娃式的游戏世界（video games all the way down）”。从概率统计的角度来看，如果这种层级无限递进，随意投掷一颗飞镖，命中基底真实宇宙的概率就会微乎其微。 ### [01:23:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHpsdIHpLUE&t=5006s) 模拟假说与“链条两端”论证：我们是第一个还是最后一个？ 关于人类是否生活在计算机模拟之中，经典的概率论证常常借用“投掷飞镖”的比喻：如果在最根本的那个源头宇宙之后，存在着数以亿计被制造出来的嵌套模拟宇宙，那么随意掷出一支飞镖，击中那亿万分之一的真实宇宙的概率微乎其微，更大概率是击中某一个人工模拟出的世界。然而，尼尔·德格拉斯·泰森对此提出了一个颠覆性的逻辑反驳。他指出，在这一连串层层嵌套的世界里，所有处于中间环节的宇宙都必须具备足以模拟出另一个完整宇宙、并让其中生命拥有“自由意志”幻觉的算力；因为它们做到了这一点，序列才能不断往下延伸。 可是，当今地球上的人类并不具备制造出这种模拟宇宙的技术能力。泰森据此论证，既然我们无法创造出下一个子宇宙，我们就绝不可能身处这个链条的“中间”。排除了所有具备模拟能力的中间节点后，人类的位置只剩下两种可能：要么是序列中最顶层、尚未研发出模拟技术的“源头宇宙”（Base Reality），要么是整条链条末端那个刚刚被创造出来、尚处于雏形阶段的“最后一个宇宙”。这样一来，原本看似“几百亿分之一”的微小几率瞬间被改写为接近“二选一”的对半开概率。面对主持人关于“模拟器是否必须1:1完美复刻现实”的疑虑，泰森笑着驳斥道，造物主完全可以随心所欲制定物理规则，造出恒星行星也好，造出一个满是“马里奥游戏角色”的世界也罢，根本无需遵循镜像复制。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 模拟链条的中间排除逻辑 accDescr: 展示为何人类由于不具备创建宇宙的算力，只能位于源头宇宙或链条末端宇宙 subgraph Intermediate["不可处位置：具备模拟能力的中间宇宙"] U2["模拟宇宙 1（已创造下一代）"] --> U3["模拟宇宙 2（已创造下一代）"] end U1["【源头宇宙 / 基础现实】<br/>（尚未掌握模拟宇宙技术）"] --> U2 U3 --> UN["【末端宇宙】<br/>（受制于算力，尚未能创造新宇宙）"] classDef valid fill:#2d5a27,stroke:#fff,stroke-width:2px,color:#fff; classDef invalid fill:#5c2424,stroke:#fff,stroke-width:2px,color:#fff; class U1,UN valid; class U2,U3 invalid; ``` - **三难假说与概率直觉**：主持人提及埃隆·马斯克经常引用的模拟理论三难推论（人类在达到技术奇点前自我毁灭、选择不进行模拟、或我们本身就是模拟），普遍观点认为我们处于“基础现实”的概率趋近于零。 - **中间链条排除法则**：泰森强调，只要我们自身尚不能进行完整意识与宇宙的模拟，我们就从数学上退出了“中间梯队”，从而大幅削减了潜在的母体数量。 --- ### [01:25:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHpsdIHpLUE&t=5155s) 指数级增长的错觉：为什么每个时代的人都觉得自己处于技术奇点？ 主持人试图从人类技术飞跃的速度来支撑模拟理论：从原始穴居人到诞生具备高度智能的大语言模型与VR虚拟现实，在宇宙宏观尺度下不过是弹指一挥间。然而泰森反驳称，这种“我们正处于特殊飞跃期”的感觉，本质上只是线性坐标系下审视“指数级增长”（Exponential Growth）时产生的一种普遍心理错觉。 泰森解释道，如果将人类历史或人口增长绘制在普通坐标轴上，曲线在前期漫长的岁月里几乎完全贴地平走，随后在末端陡然笔直冲天。然而，指数曲线最神奇的几何特征在于：无论你将时间轴倒退30年、50年还是100年，并只截取当时的历史数据进行缩放绘图，那张图在当时人的眼里都会呈现出一模一样“平走后突然冲天”的形态。当19世纪的人们造出发动机、汽车，修筑贯通大陆的铁轨，建造横渡大洋的蒸汽轮船时，当时的人同样发出由衷赞叹：“看看我们有多先进！我们在短短几十年内走过了不可思议的历程。”因此，身处指数曲线上的每一个世代，都会误以为自己恰巧生活在那个最关键、最伟大的历史转折点。 - **指数曲线的截断特征**：每个时代的观测者在审视近期爆发式增长时，都会误以为前所未有的奇点正在降临，而忽略了这是恒定复利增长在视觉上的必然呈现。 - **技术进化的终点**：泰森认同按照目前的指数发展速度，人类在未来某一天必然能够创造出模拟世界，但关键事实在于“此时此刻我们并未达到”，这一时间差构成了逻辑推导的关键锚点。 --- ### [01:28:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHpsdIHpLUE&t=5285s) 分支树模型与概率博弈：人类究竟是基础现实还是模拟产物？ 围绕泰森的“对半开”几率，两人展开了激烈的逻辑交锋。主持人拿出纸笔现场画图论证：宇宙中包含数千亿个星系，每个星系拥有数千亿颗恒星，傲慢地认为地球文明是技术领头羊并不符合科学理性。更重要的是，模拟体系未必是一条单向传递的直线，而很可能是一棵枝繁叶茂的“家族树”——顶层宇宙制造了8个或10个子宇宙，其中部分子宇宙又各自繁衍出成百上千个衍生世界，并伴随大量同辈的“表亲模拟世界”（Cousin Simulations）。如果树状分支足够庞大，最底层的末端叶子节点数量将极为恐怖，真实世界的比例依然会被稀释到微乎其微。 面对这幅手绘分支图，泰森指出了对方论证中的预设陷阱。泰森指出，即便在树状拓扑结构中，由于人类尚未掌握创造子世界的能力，我们在图谱中依然只能被归入树梢的“边缘末梢节点”（Leaf Nodes），而绝不可能处于那些已长出分叉的主干节点之中。若要让模拟论在树状模型下展现绝对压倒性的概率，必须假设整个系统自上而下是“层层嵌套、无穷无尽”的模拟死循环。但只要这棵树是在特定技术演进阶段中生长的，我们作为未能繁衍下一代宇宙的文明，其身为“原初起点”与身为“某条支脉最末端幼苗”的概率，绝非不可捉摸的天文数字。泰森借此提醒，在探讨模拟现实这类宏大命题时，必须警惕直觉陷阱，严谨审视我们在因果推导中所站立的具体位置。 ### [01:32:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHpsdIHpLUE&t=5568s) 模拟宇宙、大爆炸与多重宇宙的本质 对话延续了对模拟假说的探讨。斯蒂芬·巴特利特提出一个激进的猜想：也许所谓的“多重宇宙”或“无穷大”，乃至当年的宇宙大爆炸，本质上就是一个极度先进的文明通过技术手段创造下一个宇宙的过程。或许当一个文明在技术与人工智能（AI）的发展上达到某种临界点时，他们所构建的新系统便引爆了下一场大爆炸。泰森对此表示，这种设想在逻辑上完全有可能成立，倘若高等文明能随心所欲地召唤出新的宇宙，那将极其不可思议。 泰森进一步指出，我们在地球上测得的物理定律不仅在全宇宙通用，而且跨越时间始终如一。如果把这套理论套入模拟假说，这些普遍法则或许就是“程序员”在构建宇宙时写死的基础运行规则，面对这种逻辑闭环，现代科学目前确实无法从侧面证伪。随后话题转向模拟设定的细节：如果这真是一场模拟，造物主究竟是从奇点大爆炸、单细胞生物到多细胞生物，再一步步演化出智慧与科技，还是直接凭空创造了一个发展成熟的智慧种族，并在他们脑中植入了虚构的历史记忆？这种类似《黑客帝国》（The Matrix）的思考让话题引向了一个更终极的命题——在有限的八九十年人生中，这一切存在的意义究竟是什么？ ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 文明演进与新宇宙诞生的推想链条 accDescr: 展示高级文明结合AI技术创造新宇宙并形成多重宇宙层级结构的推想流程。 subgraph TechEvolution["文明与技术跃升"] A["生物演化与智能建立"] --> B["尖端科技与 AI 突破"] B --> C["掌握创造维度的技术临界点"] end subgraph SimulationCosmos["宇宙繁衍与规律"] C --> D["触发下一场『大爆炸』"] D --> E["生成底层规则一致的新物理宇宙"] E --> F["嵌套的多重宇宙系统"] end ``` ### [01:34:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHpsdIHpLUE&t=5696s) 人生的意义是“创造”而非“寻找” 当被问及“人活着的意义究竟是什么”时，泰森坦言，正是这个问题让宗教数千年来始终门庭若市。对许多人来说，生命的终极目标是侍奉上帝。但泰森个人对这种观念感到十分费解：如果自己创造了一个宇宙，他绝不需要被创造者日夜赞美与服从，他只会尽情享受创造的乐趣，然后转头去构思下一个宇宙。因此，一个全知全能的终极造物者竟然执着于凡人的顺从与跪拜，在逻辑上让他很难真正接受。 对于人生的意义，泰森强调，大部分人总在四处“寻找”意义，仿佛它藏在某块石头下或某棵树后；但实际上，人类拥有自主“创造”意义的能力。他为自己设定的人生准则主要由两大基石构成： - **持续扩展对客观世界的认知**：每天都要学习前一天不知道的新知识，明天再掌握今天不懂的领域。通过不断吸收知识，提升智慧、洞察力与看问题的多维视角。 - **减轻他人的痛苦并传递快乐**：每天都要做一件能够减少他人苦难的事。若世界因自己的存在而稍微变好了一点，那生命便拥有了无与伦比的价值。 面对主持人关于“为什么要减轻他人痛苦”的追问，泰森解释道，他极其珍视快乐的价值，快乐是人类活着的核心乐趣。他在自己的科普播客《StarTalk》中始终坚持将科学、流行文化与幽默感编织在一起，因为受众在欢笑中学习能获得愉悦感，并渴望重温这种感受。他帮助他人并非为了让自己感觉良好，而是纯粹希望对方能渡过难关；如果仅仅追求个人内心的满足，很多事情并不需要向外扩散，但当善意被分享给他人时，整个世界的情感连接才会更加美好。 ### [01:39:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHpsdIHpLUE&t=5956s) 把善意传递下去：不闭合的文明支流 泰森提出了一种让社会变得更美好的具体行为模式——“把善意传递下去”（Pass it forward）。当一个人帮了你的忙，而你表示“我改天一定会报答你”时，这种互惠机制实际上就把这个善意封闭在两个人之间了，它从整个人类文明中退出了流通。相反，正确的做法是告诉对方：“不要报答我，把这份善意传递给下一个人，最好是一个永远记不住你名字的陌生人。” 当受助者继续把善行传递给其他陌生人并嘱咐同样的话时，这份善意就会化作一条流淌在社会、文化与文明脉络中的涓涓细流，永不闭合。无数这样流淌的善行支流在文明深处交织，让每一个身处其中的人都能获得滋养。 ### [01:40:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHpsdIHpLUE&t=6019s) 墓碑上的铭文：为人类赢取哪怕一次胜利 在节目的传统盲盒提问环节中，上一位嘉宾留下了一个未具名的问题：“如果我们是墓志铭的作者，你希望我们在你的墓碑上写下什么？”泰森先从否定面作答：作为一名教育者，他不需要任何纪念雕像、铭牌或个人画像来缅怀他的一生。曾有时尚摄影师邀请他拍摄名人肖像集，被他果断拒绝，因为教育的本质是点亮受教者，而不是树立教育者本人的丰碑；他更希望人们翻开他写的科普书并从中汲取新知。 然而，泰森确实为自己的墓碑选定了一句话。这句话出自19世纪美国著名教育家、大学校长霍拉斯·曼（Horace Mann）在一所大学告别演说中的名言： > “我恳求你们将这些临别赠言珍藏于心：在你为人类赢取某种胜利之前，请以死为耻。” > （"I beseech you to treasure up in your hearts these my parting words: Be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for humanity."） 泰森表示，墓碑上只需刻下后半句——“在你为人类赢得胜利之前，当以死为耻”。这就是他身为科学教育者的毕生目标：确保人类文明因为自己的走过而变得更美好，哪怕只是尽微薄之力去改善这个世界。 主持人斯蒂芬·巴特利特深有感触地回应道，泰森的科普内容、图书和纪录片已经影响了数以亿计的人；如果用一个词来概括泰森对自己人生的实质性影响，那就是“好奇心”（Curiosity）与对未知的敬畏与拓展。泰森对此叹息道，令人遗憾的是，这种对于未知的惊叹与好奇心在大多数传统学校教育中早已荡然无存——学生们在课堂上紧盯着时钟，迫不及待地盼着下课、盼着放学、盼着周五、盼着假期，甚至迫不及待地盼着毕业离开学校。 ### [01:44:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHpsdIHpLUE&t=6240s) 学校体制对好奇心的扼杀与终身学习 许多人在离开校园时都抱有一种如释重负的解脱感，觉得学习是一件苦差事，甚至摇滚乐手艾利斯·库珀（Alice Cooper）还专门创作了一首风靡一时的摇滚赞歌《School's Out》（学校放假了），高唱着“永远放假了”（school's out forever）。尼尔·德格拉斯·泰森（Neil deGrasse Tyson）指出，学生对学校的反感完全不能归咎于学生本人，问题根植于整个教育体制——如果一个系统让人迫不及待想要逃离，那就证明它根本没有在培养和启发好奇心。泰森认为，理想的学校应当是点燃并满足求知欲的地方；在校学习应当是一种充实感，而毕业走出校门，则应当标志着作为一个充满好奇心的人开启终身自主学习的新篇章。 史蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）对此深表共鸣，坦言自己当年也极其厌恶上学，但必须将“学校（school）”与“教育/学习（education/learning）”区分开来，人们往往把这两者混为一谈。巴特利特称赞泰森一直在做的正是拓宽大众认知视野、重新点燃人们对未知的好奇。泰森感慨道，如果所有的学校都能够真正承担起激发与满足求知欲的使命，整个世界都会变得截然不同，甚至会让毕业后的人由衷发出“天哪，我真怀念上学时光”的感叹。 - **教育痛点**：现行体制常将学习包装成繁重任务，导致学生在毕业后失去持续探索未知的动力。 - **理想教育标准**：学校应成为激发并满足好奇心的温床，为终身学习奠定心理与智识基础。 --- ### [01:45:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHpsdIHpLUE&t=6330s) 《带我去见你的首领》：打破人类中心主义的互动假设 随后，巴特利特向观众展示并推荐了泰森的新作《带我去见你的首领：首次遭遇外星人指南》（Take Me to Your Leader: Perspectives on Your First Alien Encounter）。该书以严谨科学与幽默风趣并重的方式，探讨了关于不明飞行物（UFO）目击事件的深层思考，以及人类真正与外星智慧生命遭遇时可能面对的冲击。泰森分享了书中关于“对我们而言的异类（Alien to Us）”与“对它们而言的异类（Alien to Them）”的对立视角，指出人类日常视作理所当然的生理现象，在外星人眼中可能极其诡异。例如，人类需要向外星伙伴解释：“不好意思，我现在必须水平躺下，在地球自转三分之一的时间里进入半昏迷状态。”对方很可能会震惊地反问：“你们居然需要睡眠？睡眠到底是什么？” 此外，人类之间的社交礼仪绝不能盲目套用到外星生物身上。泰森风趣地提醒，如果外星生命身上长有某种肢体或附肢，千万不要贸然伸手去握手，“你根本不知道那是它们身体的哪个器官，而且你大概不会希望握完之后才搞清楚那是什么”。更何况，握手礼仪即便在地球上也不是全人类通用的规范，例如在亚洲文化中就远不如西方普遍。泰森强调，人类与地外文明打交道时最重要的一课，就是绝不要将人类自身的文化与生物学假设强加在外星人身上。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 人类与外星文明视角反思 accDescr: 对比人类习以为常的行为在外星人视角下的颠覆性解读 subgraph HumanBias["人类既有假设"] A["生理规律：睡眠休息"] B["社交礼仪：握手致意"] C["文明象征：人类主导地球"] end subgraph AlienPerspective["外星视角的客观审视"] D["半昏迷三分之一自转周期（无法理解的休眠）"] E["贸然触碰未知附肢（可能引发致命误解）"] F["汽车才是主导生命体，人类只是内部软组织"] end A --> D B --> E C --> F ``` --- ### [01:47:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHpsdIHpLUE&t=6431s) 汽车才是地球霸主？外星视角的幽默反转与结语 在探讨“对它们而言的异类”时，泰森设想了一个生动的思想实验：如果外星飞船降落在洛杉矶繁忙的405号州际公路中央隔离带，外星人观察周围的景象，很可能会得出结论——地球上的主导生命形式是“汽车”。在它们看来，这些钢铁巨兽自主穿梭于路网之间；当一辆双层汽车运输车（轿运车）驶过时，外星人大概会记录为“这只生物怀孕了，肚子里怀着小车”；如果发生车祸，会有特种车辆（拖车和救护车）赶来将受伤的汽车运走修复。 更具讽刺意味的是得来速（Drive-thru）快餐的场景：人类甚至不用下车，而是坐在车内排着长队，由窗口将食物直接递进车厢并在内部被吃掉。外星观察者完全有理由推断：“汽车是具有机械外壳的完整生命体，而里面蠕动的肉团只不过是这具生命机能内部的软组织或内脏。”泰森总结道，这本书的核心正是通过幽默轻松的笔触，彻底重构并打破我们对外星生物、以及外星文明对人类评价的所有先入之见。访谈尾声，巴特利特由衷感谢泰森的分享，并向观众推荐了平台基于AI算法针对个体偏好生成的延伸内容。 - **思想实验要点**： - 洛杉矶405号公路上的汽车流展现出类似群落生命的自主运动特征。 - 运输车辆被视作“孕体”，故障拖车如同“医疗救护”。 - 得来速取餐行为让碳基人类看起来只是机械生命外壳内部用于消化的“软组织核心”。 - **全书主旨**：抛弃人类中心主义与认知盲区，以全新开放的思维维度重新审视宇宙与自我。 ## Notable quotes > [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHpsdIHpLUE&t=0s) 中国宣布要在我们登月50年后登月，于是我们突然决定也必须去——绝不能让他们去了而我们没去。 — Neil deGrasse Tyson > [13:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHpsdIHpLUE&t=805s) 你之所以看完会觉得渺小，只是因为你一开始带着毫无根据、过分膨胀的自我走进了那扇门。 — Neil deGrasse Tyson > [13:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHpsdIHpLUE&t=805s) 不仅是我们活着存在于这个宇宙中，宇宙也鲜活地存在于我们体内（Not only are we alive in this universe, the universe is alive within us）。 — Neil deGrasse Tyson > [25:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHpsdIHpLUE&t=1516s) 干脆把暗能量叫弗雷德（Fred），把暗物质叫威尔玛（Wilma）算了。反正我们对它们到底是什么一无所知。 — Neil deGrasse Tyson > [29:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHpsdIHpLUE&t=1763s) 只要把外星人拿出来给大家看就行了。 — Neil deGrasse Tyson > [37:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHpsdIHpLUE&t=2243s) 你首先要尊重黑洞，永远别去招惹黑洞，因为输的一定是你。 — Neil deGrasse Tyson > [53:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHpsdIHpLUE&t=3197s) 我想他们可能其实路过过地球，结果一眼看到轨道上漂浮的无尽太空垃圾，心想‘我才不冒这个生命危险呢’，于是直接拐弯走人，去寻找下一颗行星了。 — Neil deGrasse Tyson > [01:00:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHpsdIHpLUE&t=3618s) 中国的登月计划，就像当年苏联发射人造卫星斯普特尼克（Sputnik）一样，狠狠地在我们的屁股后面点了一把火。 — Neil deGrasse Tyson > [01:21:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHpsdIHpLUE&t=4860s) Petri dish is ideal sized for bacteria not for us in some larger petri dish... You can't just scale it up as much as people would want to. That they were just nested dolls. — Neil deGrasse Tyson > [01:39:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHpsdIHpLUE&t=5956s) 不要报答我，把这份善意传递给下一个人，最好是一个永远记不住你名字的陌生人。 — Neil deGrasse Tyson > [01:40:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHpsdIHpLUE&t=6019s) 我恳求你们将这些临别赠言珍藏于心：在你为人类赢取某种胜利之前，请以死为耻。（I beseech you to treasure up in your hearts these my parting words: Be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for humanity.） — Horace Mann > [01:47:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHpsdIHpLUE&t=6431s) 汽车是具有机械外壳的完整生命体，而里面蠕动的肉团只不过是这具生命机能内部的软组织或内脏。 — Neil deGrasse Tyson ## Mentioned Neil deGrasse Tyson, Steven Bartlett, Barack Obama, Donald Trump, Carl Sagan, Richard Dawkins, Donald J. Kessler, Horace Mann, Alice Cooper, Albert Einstein, Nicolaus Copernicus, Galileo Galilei, Hayden Planetarium, StarTalk, Take Me To Your Leader, Cosmos, Men in Black, A Bug's Life, Gravity, The Flintstones, The Matrix, Ghost, SpaceX, Starlink, NASA, United States Space Force, Pipedrive, HeyGen, Artemis program, Apollo program, New Horizons, Cygnus X-1 ## Video description No.1 Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson returns to reveal what the government whistleblowers are actually telling us, why aliens almost certainly exist, why Mars can't save humanity from disaster, and whether science has left any room for God! Neil deGrasse Tyson is America's most famous astrophysicist and Director of the Hayden Planetarium in New York City. He hosts the StarTalk podcast and is the author of over 20 books, including his latest, 'Take Me To Your Leader'. He explains: ◼️ Why the scale of the universe makes it nearly impossible for us to be alone ◼️ Why it would be easier to fix Earth than escape it, and why Mars won't save us ◼️ What actually happens to your body if you fall into a black hole ◼️ Why human creativity is your most powerful protection against AI ◼️ How every atom in your body was forged inside a dying star 00:00:00 Intro 00:02:39 Why Are Humans So Fascinated by the Universe? 00:07:50 How Small Are We in the Universe? 00:16:39 How Understanding the Universe Can Change Your View of Religion 00:21:13 How Did the Big Bang Actually Happen? 00:23:58 What Existed Before the Big Bang? 00:24:59 The Craziest Theories About How the Universe Began 00:27:09 Did Obama Reveal Something About Aliens? 00:29:23 Why Intelligent Alien Life Could Exist 00:33:41 What Might We Never Know About the Universe? 00:35:39 Is Infinity Actually Possible? 00:37:23 How Do Black Holes Actually Work? 00:46:20 Ads 00:48:39 Why Aliens Might Communicate With Other Earth Creatures First 00:52:27 How Far Could Humans Travel Across the Universe? 00:54:14 What Happens as Nations Add More Satellites to Orbit? 01:00:18 Who Makes the Laws in Space? 01:00:51 Why Is Everyone Racing Back to the Moon? 01:03:14 What Happens If China Gets to the Moon First? 01:03:47 What Valuable Resources Are Hidden on the Moon? 01:05:04 Could the Moon Become a Tourist Destination? 01:05:35 Ads 01:06:37 Is Any of the UFO Footage Actually Compelling? 01:08:26 Would Humanity Be Ready to Meet Actual Aliens? 01:10:49 Why Do Alien Sightings Follow the Same Archetypes? 01:12:34 Why Do People on DMT See Aliens? 01:20:59 Are We Living in a Simulation? Follow Neil: X - https://link.thediaryofaceo.com/8uoUwC3 TikTok - https://link.thediaryofaceo.com/9ADXUUq Facebook - https://link.thediaryofaceo.com/G6V4a9r StarTalk - https://link.thediaryofaceo.com/1n73kWW You can purchase Neil’s book ‘Take Me To Your Leader: A hilarious guide to your first alien encounter, from the world's best-loved astrophysicist’, here: (US): https://link.thediaryofaceo.com/FJDB5ED (UK): https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/485248/take-me-to-your-leader-by-tyson-neil-degrasse/9781529997125 Neil's website - https://neildegrassetyson.com/books/2026-05-take-me-to-your-leader/ The Diary Of A CEO: ◼ Join DOAC circle here - https://doaccircle.com/ ◼ Buy The Diary Of A CEO book here - https://smarturl.it/DOACbook ◼ The 1% Diary is back - limited time only: https://bit.ly/3YFbJbt ◼ The Diary Of A CEO Conversation Cards: https://linkly.link/2hm7r ◼ Get email updates - https://bit.ly/diary-of-a-ceo-yt ◼ Follow Steven - https://g2ul0.app.link/gnGqL4IsKKb Sponsors: Pipedrive - https://pipedrive.com/CEO Ekster - Use Code DOAC for 10% off the exclusive collection https://link.thediaryofaceo.com/GSNEWnm HeyGen - https://heygen.com/doac [Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHpsdIHpLUE)

[0:00] Neil deGrasse Tyson: 中国宣布要在我们登月50年后登月，于是我们突然决定也必须去——绝不能让他们去了而我们没去。 [13:25] Neil deGrasse Tyson: 你之所以看完会觉得渺小，只是因为你一开始带着毫无根据、过分膨胀的自我走进了那扇门。 [13:25] Neil deGrasse Tyson: 不仅是我们活着存在于这个宇宙中，宇宙也鲜活地存在于我们体内（Not only are we alive in this universe, the universe is alive within us）。 [25:16] Neil deGrasse Tyson: 干脆把暗能量叫弗雷德（Fred），把暗物质叫威尔玛（Wilma）算了。反正我们对它们到底是什么一无所知。 [29:23] Neil deGrasse Tyson: 只要把外星人拿出来给大家看就行了。 [37:23] Neil deGrasse Tyson: 你首先要尊重黑洞，永远别去招惹黑洞，因为输的一定是你。 [53:17] Neil deGrasse Tyson: 我想他们可能其实路过过地球，结果一眼看到轨道上漂浮的无尽太空垃圾，心想‘我才不冒这个生命危险呢’，于是直接拐弯走人，去寻找下一颗行星了。 [60:18] Neil deGrasse Tyson: 中国的登月计划，就像当年苏联发射人造卫星斯普特尼克（Sputnik）一样，狠狠地在我们的屁股后面点了一把火。 [81:00] Neil deGrasse Tyson: Petri dish is ideal sized for bacteria not for us in some larger petri dish... You can't just scale it up as much as people would want to. That they were just nested dolls. [99:16] Neil deGrasse Tyson: 不要报答我，把这份善意传递给下一个人，最好是一个永远记不住你名字的陌生人。 [100:19] Horace Mann: 我恳求你们将这些临别赠言珍藏于心：在你为人类赢取某种胜利之前，请以死为耻。（I beseech you to treasure up in your hearts these my parting words: Be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for humanity.） [107:11] Neil deGrasse Tyson: 汽车是具有机械外壳的完整生命体，而里面蠕动的肉团只不过是这具生命机能内部的软组织或内脏。

[60:00] Neil deGrasse Tyson: this side of you will burn up and the side of you on the other side will freeze [72:30] Neil deGrasse Tyson: The human brain barely works as it is... Just open up any book of optical illusions. Simple drawings confound your perceptions of reality. So if I want to now stir chemicals into my brain as a scientist who values what is objectively true... it's not clear to me that that gets me closer to any reality at all. [94:48] Steven Bartlett: What is the point of life? [95:20] Neil deGrasse Tyson: If I created a universe, I would not need people to praise me [98:00] Neil deGrasse Tyson: I don't help the person across the street so that I feel good about myself. I help the person across the street so the person feels good that they made it across the street. [101:20] Horace Mann: Be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for humanity.

[0:00] You had Obama make those comments about [0:01] the subject of aliens. [0:03] >> They're real, but I haven't seen them [0:04] and they're not being kept in Area 51 [0:07] unless they hid it from the president of [0:09] the United States. [0:09] >> I think he was joking when he said there [0:10] are aliens. He's just never [0:11] >> No, no, no, no, no, no, no. Obama is [0:13] scientifically literate. But if you have [0:14] the aliens and you don't want the [0:16] president to know, the president's not [0:17] going to know. [0:17] >> So, do you believe there's intelligent [0:19] life in the universe? [0:20] >> Well, we have whistleblowers saying we [0:21] have actual aliens. People have [0:22] testified we have aliens, that we have [0:24] alien crash parts. So, I don't see why [0:26] they wouldn't be given the size of the [0:28] universe. and Neil Degrass Tyson. What [0:30] is [clears throat] the most pressing [0:31] question that people are asking right [0:32] now about the universe? And the first [0:34] thing I wanted to ask is why are people [0:36] so interested in going to the moon is [0:37] geopolitical. China says they're going [0:39] to the moon 50 years after we go to the [0:41] moon and we all of a sudden decide we [0:42] want to go to the moon. [0:43] >> Is there an economic upside to it? [0:45] >> No. Talking about data centers. [0:46] >> No. No. I already answered you. I said [0:48] we don't want them to go to the moon [0:50] without us going to the moon. [0:51] >> And there's no laws up there, is there? [0:53] >> Space law is a is a wild west at this [0:55] point. It's like who owns the moon? [0:57] >> Nobody. Well, they're trying to figure [0:58] that out. But don't delude yourself into [1:00] thinking we ever went to the moon for [1:02] science then or now. [1:03] >> Okay. Next. Do you believe that we're in [1:05] a simulation? [1:05] >> I'm whiny about that. And I'll tell you [1:07] why. [1:07] >> And then can you [music] explain what a [1:09] black hole is? Like if you get sucked [1:10] in. [1:11] >> Okay. So, you will see the entire future [1:13] history of the universe unfold. And then [1:16] the difference in gravity between your [1:17] feet and your head gets greater and [1:19] greater and greater. Eventually, you'll [1:21] snap into two pieces, likely separated [1:23] at the base of your spine. [1:26] And that's not even the worst part, and [1:27] we'll get to that. [1:28] >> And then just how small are we? Is there [1:31] a most compelling UFO sighting that you [1:33] can recall? Has your view of religion [1:35] changed through all that you've learned [1:36] about the universe? And what is the [1:38] point of life? [1:39] >> Wow, you have a good question. So, let's [1:42] get into this. [1:45] >> This is super interesting to me. My team [1:47] given me this report to show me how many [1:48] of you that watch this show subscribe. [1:50] And some of you have told us, according [1:51] to this, that you are unsubscribed from [1:53] the channel randomly. So favor to ask [1:55] all of you, please could you check right [1:57] now if you've hit the subscribe button [1:58] if you are a regular viewer of this show [2:00] and you like what we do here. We're [2:01] approaching quite a significant landmark [2:03] on this show in terms of a subscriber [2:04] number. So if there was one simple free [2:07] thing that you could do to help us, my [2:09] team, everyone here to keep this show [2:11] free, to keep it improving year over [2:13] year and week over week, it is just to [2:15] hit that subscribe button and to double [2:16] check if you've hit it. Only thing I'll [2:17] ever ask of you, do we have a deal? If [2:20] you do it, I'll tell you what I'll do. [2:21] I'll make sure every single week, every [2:23] single month, we fight harder and harder [2:25] and harder and harder to bring you the [2:26] guests and conversations that you want [2:27] to hear. I've stayed true to that [2:29] promise since the very beginning of the [2:30] D of Sio and I will not let you down. [2:33] Please help us. Really appreciate it. [2:34] Let's get on with the show. [2:37] [music] [2:40] >> Grass Tyson, [2:42] >> people come to you to try and understand [2:44] the universe. [2:44] >> Yes. [2:45] >> What is the most pressing question [2:47] people are asking you right now about [2:49] the universe? Are we alone in the [2:51] universe? And that's influenced by pop [2:55] culture is I'll give an example. When [2:58] the movie Ghost came out, polls showed [3:00] that more people believed in ghosts [3:02] after that movie than before the movie. [3:04] So pop culture has a huge is a huge [3:07] force of influence on our thoughts and [3:10] feelings and attitudes and what we [3:12] believe is or is not true. So when you [3:15] say what is the most pressing question? [3:17] Are we alone in the universe? Then they [3:18] say, "Have we been visited?" And uh, [3:21] "How will it all end?" That's another [3:23] one. Usually God shows up in there. Is [3:26] there God? [3:27] >> Uh, there's an assumption, I think it's [3:29] a naive assumption, but an interesting [3:31] one nonetheless, that people who study [3:33] the universe might stumble upon God [3:36] because we're told, or at least in our [3:39] artwork, uh, gods live in the sky. So, [3:43] people then study the sky. When the [3:44] Apollo astronauts came back, people [3:45] said, "Did you see God? Did you see [3:47] heaven? What is the essence of why [3:49] people are so curious about these [3:50] subjects? [3:51] >> My best speculation and this is a wild [3:54] speculation and I you know my ego is not [3:56] based on whether this is true [3:58] >> but it's fascinating for me to think [4:00] about the fact [4:01] >> we are completely comfortable sleeping [4:03] on our backs. [4:05] Ask yourself how many other animals do [4:08] that [4:09] >> at all. Does a beetle say I'm going to [4:12] turn over and go on my back and go do [4:14] spiders just go on their back? Think [4:16] about it. That's quite vulnerable. [4:18] You're asleep and your belly is exposed, [4:21] right? We sleep at night [4:24] typically. Okay. If you're outdoors, us [4:29] sleep on your back at night and you wake [4:32] up, what's the first thing you see? The [4:35] universe, [4:36] the sky. You'll see, you know, comets [4:40] and meteors and the moon and and [4:44] brighter stars which we call planets [4:47] eventually. And from night to night, [4:50] wait a minute, the moon had one shape [4:51] and now it's a different shape and it's [4:52] a different part of the sky. And these [4:54] lights are moving. And how could we not [4:57] be curious [4:59] when in the middle of the night you wake [5:02] up and the universe presents itself to [5:04] you? [5:05] So [5:07] I think that's sort of in our DNA, [5:12] the curiosity [5:14] about the night sky. I didn't make [5:17] people interested in the universe. In [5:19] fact, when I was a kid, my first [5:21] encounter with the night sky was a [5:22] planetarium, the Hayden [clears throat] [5:23] Planetarium here in New York City. I [5:25] said, "Wow, I want to study the [5:26] universe, but the universe is so [5:28] interesting. Everybody's going to want [5:30] to study the universe. There'll be no [5:32] room for me." And as I as I got older, I [5:34] realized there are other things people [5:35] are interested in. Not everybody [5:38] wants to study the universe [5:40] professionally. [5:42] However, whatever you choose as a [5:44] profession, it doesn't change the fact [5:47] that somewhere in you, you're going to [5:48] look up and say, "What does that replace [5:51] in the universe?" I thought you were [5:52] going to say when you talked about [5:53] sleeping on their backs that we are now [5:55] so comfortable being the sort of apex [5:57] predator that we're able to sleep on our [5:59] backs and actually if but we we want [6:03] we're so interested in aliens because [6:04] it's the only thing that would threaten [6:05] our place is being able to sleep on our [6:07] backs as the apex predator. [6:09] >> Oh yeah. I'm I don't know that ancient [6:13] people were dreaming up aliens. [6:14] [laughter] [6:15] >> It's just just the night sky itself. [6:17] Well, okay. Uh let's not use the term [6:19] alien. Let's just use the term gods. [6:21] >> Where are most people's gods? They're in [6:23] the sky. [6:24] >> Yeah. [6:24] >> Uh even in ancient Greece, they're Mount [6:27] Olympus. Not in the sky, but they're in [6:29] high places. You look at posters with [6:32] religious sayings on them. [6:36] Typically, it's a [6:38] sunbeams coming through clouds and a [6:41] beautiful landscape. You're looking at [6:42] the sky. And by the way, what are our [6:45] images of deity? Many of them could pass [6:49] for aliens. [6:51] >> Like the [clears throat] gorg guns, for [6:52] example. Look at look at Medusa. Snakes [6:54] for hair. Medusa. That's as alien as [6:57] anything you would ever conjure. What [6:59] else? Images of Jesus. He's floating. [7:01] He's got beams coming out of him. If [7:03] he's not floating, he's walking on [7:04] water. These are these are things that [7:07] go beyond anything that's earthly. So [7:10] now [7:12] people imagine aliens with all these [7:14] same powers and weirdnesses. So I don't [7:17] know that alien is something specific [7:20] that's in our DNA to think about but to [7:22] imagine things beyond ourselves [7:25] >> is and and so I would lump them together [7:28] in that respect. [7:29] >> One of the things that made me I guess [7:30] more curious about aliens and meaning [7:32] and purpose and gods and all these [7:33] things was watching Cosmos which was [7:36] your series around the universe and [7:38] specifically it was [7:39] >> and Carl Sean did it first my series. [7:42] >> Well I watched both [7:43] >> a series I happen to host. Yes. Okay. [7:45] They both they both had the same impact [7:47] on me which was [7:48] >> they made me feel insignificant in the [7:51] grand scheme of the cosmos. [7:54] >> I think when you realize how [7:55] insignificant we are or small we are [7:58] should I say in this grand scheme of [8:00] even this Milky Way galaxy that's on the [8:02] table in front of us [8:03] >> the delta in the size of me and my world [8:07] versus all of this is mystery. And I and [8:11] I almost feel called to fill it with [8:12] something. There's is it Parkinson's law [8:14] you like you you you fill the space [8:16] provided. [8:18] It's it's the same thing with the [8:19] universe. Just how small are we Neil in [8:22] the grand scheme of the universe? [8:25] >> Well, if you don't think in terms of [8:28] metric size, how big are you? Are you [8:31] this big? This big? This big? If you [8:33] think in terms of powers of 10. [8:35] >> Okay. [8:36] >> Okay. So, the things 10 times bigger [8:38] than us, 10 times bigger than that, 10 [8:40] times bigger than that. Just keep doing [8:42] that. Mhm. [8:43] >> We're small compared with the universe, [8:46] >> but we're huge compared with atoms [8:50] >> and molecules. [8:51] >> Now, instead of going 10 times bigger, [8:53] go 10 times smaller. One/10enth to be [8:56] precise. What's onetenth our size? Well, [8:58] that's this big. One/10enth that is that [9:00] big. 1/10enth that. You keep going down, [9:02] you enter the realm of molecules and [9:04] that atoms and then particles. So, there [9:07] are things much smaller than we are. In [9:11] fact, I addressed some of that in I I [9:15] wrote an alien book recently, Take Me to [9:18] Your Leader. There's a lot in there [9:19] about changing your perspective [9:23] on what you might expect life forms to [9:25] be like out there. So, you can ask the [9:28] question, are the life forms the size of [9:30] a galaxy? Or are the life forms the size [9:32] of atoms? Are we just biased by what our [9:36] senses can [9:37] >> drink in from our own size scale? And [9:40] that's an interesting fact. And so you [9:42] know who would feel small if you were a [9:43] life form the size of molecules. Okay. [9:46] [laughter] [9:46] Then you're feeling small. There's not [9:48] much smaller than you if you're [9:51] molecularized life. Now we don't know [9:53] how you would make that because life by [9:56] our own understandings and definitions [9:59] has a metabolism. There's things that [10:00] happen. You ask a biologist what is [10:02] life? They'll give you a list of [10:04] criteria which are hard if not [10:06] impossible to be fulfilled by life [10:10] that's extremely small. And they still [10:12] debate whether viruses are alive, right? [10:15] Based on some criteria, but some had [10:18] speculated that life could be the size [10:21] of nucleons. So a nucleon is the size of [10:24] the particles in the nucleus of an atom. [10:28] >> Things happen very quickly on that [10:29] scale. So they might wonder, how is it [10:32] that we live so slowly? [laughter] [10:36] >> So, so inverting your expectations is a [10:40] time-honored exercise and keeping you [10:42] honest, keeping your ego in check. [10:44] >> You can go the other way, right? We this [10:46] whole universe could be something in a [10:49] another life form's gut microbiome. [10:51] >> Yeah. Okay. So, that was briefly [10:53] addressed in the in the film um Men in [10:57] Black. Okay. Uh what I can say is [11:02] the laws of physics manifest differently [11:06] on different scales. So you can't just [11:08] scale everything up. [11:11] Which is why you don't have humansized [11:13] insects. [11:16] Their legs would break under their own [11:17] weight. It's why heavy animals have [11:20] thick chunky legs. [11:23] >> It's why if you fell off the roof, [11:25] you're dead. But an ant can just land [11:28] and keep walking. Okay. Forces don't [11:31] interact in the same way depending on [11:35] your scale. One of my favorite scenes in [11:38] the film A Bug's Life, which I think [11:41] that was a Pixar film. Pixar, they must [11:43] have a room full of scientists working [11:45] for him. There's a mosquito at a bar. [11:47] So, mosquito orders a drink. So, what [11:48] drink does he order? [11:50] >> Uh, a mjito. I don't know. [11:53] >> [laughter] [11:54] >> a Bloody Mary, of course it's [11:58] okay. Uh, how big is a mosquito? It's [12:00] this big. And it's a bar. It's like an [12:02] insect bar. And so the bartender brings [12:05] over the Bloody Mary and just puts a [12:08] blob of the liquid in front of it. It's [12:12] not in a glass, not in a jug. It's just [12:15] there it is. Because surface tension [12:18] is something that manifests in ways that [12:22] insects care about greatly and we don't. [12:25] Unless you're waxing your car and then [12:28] this water gets on and it beads up. [12:31] >> Okay. Surface tension is a property of [12:34] fluid liquids where the outer surface [12:38] the molecules are a little more tightly [12:41] gathered because they don't have forces [12:43] above them to pull them into the [12:46] solution that is the liquid. So [12:48] transitioning from the liquid itself [12:49] into air creates a kind of a film. All [12:53] right? And it holds the liquid in place. [12:56] Mhm. [12:57] >> Unless there's too much liquid, then [12:59] gravity becomes stronger than the [13:01] surface tension [13:03] >> and it just flies. Exactly. But below a [13:05] certain amount, the surface tension is [13:07] greater than the gravity [13:09] >> and it beads up. So they knew this in [13:11] that movie [13:12] >> and I thought that was brilliant. My [13:14] only point of this is to communicate [13:18] that you can't just scale things up and [13:21] expect everything to be happening in [13:23] exactly the same way. But I want to get [13:25] back to your point when you said you [13:26] felt small after you saw Cosmos. You [13:29] only felt small because you went in [13:31] there with an ego that was unjustifiably [13:33] too large to begin with. [13:35] >> Probably. [13:35] >> I'm accusing you of that. [13:37] >> Probably. [13:37] >> Yeah. [13:38] >> However, [13:40] I go in there with no such ego. Okay. I [13:43] look up at the stars and I learn from [13:47] modern astrophysics that [13:50] the elements in our body were forged in [13:53] stars [13:55] that exploded that the elements the the [13:57] the oxygen the carbon the nitrogen the [14:00] the iron that courses through our blood [14:02] was forged in stars that at the end of [14:05] their lives exploded scattering that [14:08] enrichment into the galaxy out of which [14:10] the next generations of stars and [14:12] planets are formed. [14:14] Early in the universe, we didn't have [14:16] these ingredients. We could not exist as [14:18] in our current form. [14:20] So when I look up, I don't feel small. I [14:24] feel large because I'm [14:28] connected to the cosmos [14:31] chemically. [14:33] And that connectivity, let's let's make [14:37] it a little more poetic. [14:39] Not only are we alive in this universe, [14:43] the universe is alive within us. [14:47] And that fact borders on the spiritual. [14:52] It is a astrophysical fact [14:55] that gives you a pathway of relevance to [15:00] the universe. We are part of this great [15:02] unfolding cosmic story. The fact that we [15:05] are made of elements forged in the [15:08] stars. [15:09] Next time you go out and look up, I want [15:11] you to feel large, not small. [15:14] Because we are not only made of what [15:18] stars have produced. [15:21] We are solar powered. [15:24] What do I mean by that? Okay, if you're [15:27] if you're omnivorous, you maybe had a [15:29] steak last night. Okay, that you're [15:31] getting calories from the food you eat. [15:34] And the steak was once a cow. Okay, what [15:37] did the cow eat? Cow ate plants. What do [15:40] plants eat? Well, they don't eat. They [15:41] just sit there and receive sunlight. [15:44] So, a cow, I said this once on the [15:46] internet and freaked people out. Uh, you [15:48] know, I I should not shy away from [15:49] speaking truth just cuz it freaks you [15:51] out. A cow is a machine that we invented [15:54] because cows don't exist in the wild. [15:57] It's we it's domesticated. [16:00] A cow is a machine that we invented to [16:02] turn grass into steak. [16:06] So because at the end of that chain is [16:09] grass that has photosynthesis [16:13] essentially 100% of our caloric value [16:18] comes is traceable to the to stars [16:22] specifically the sun. [16:25] So you are solar powered and the [16:26] universe is alive within you. So don't [16:29] ever sit across from me again and say I [16:30] feel small in the universe. [laughter] [16:33] Sorry, you have a a lower pitch voice in [16:35] that smaller universe. [laughter] [16:39] >> It's strange, isn't it? This idea of [16:40] like significance as a concept like [16:43] trying to understand one's significance [16:44] and I think religion often gives us a [16:46] sense of significance. [16:47] >> Well, it does. Yes, of course. Hence it [16:49] its value to people and its persistence [16:53] [clears throat] [16:53] >> uh throughout time and across cultures. [16:56] Has your view of religion not changed [16:58] through all that you've learned about [16:59] the universe in any way since you were [17:01] this I've got this photos of you as a [17:02] young man. [17:03] >> What's that? Oh, you did some homework [17:04] there. What did you do? [17:05] >> I've got certainly got so many photos. I [17:06] mean, I've got this one here of you and [17:07] your I mean this one's a fascinating I [17:08] love that one. That [17:10] >> my hair was like this when I was that [17:11] age. [17:11] >> Oh. [17:12] >> So, [17:13] >> uh Oh, yeah. So, this one was my first [17:16] telescope and that's my father helping [17:19] me put it together. If I think about [17:21] this young man here and what he thought [17:23] about religion, [17:25] >> are you more religious, less religious? [17:27] If so, why? [17:29] >> So, you know, by the time I was eight, [17:33] it was nothing was making sense that [17:36] people were telling me about religion. [17:38] What I didn't know is that belief [17:40] systems [17:41] don't have to make sense. That's why [17:43] they're belief systems. If they were [17:44] made complete sense, it would just be [17:46] objectively true. If it's a belief [17:49] system, then it it's beyond [17:54] critical analysis. It's just a belief [17:57] system. Okay? So when I say beyond [18:00] critical analysis, what I mean is if [18:03] something in your belief system lends [18:04] itself to be tested, we can test it. And [18:07] if what we test shows that what you [18:09] believe is false, are you going to stop [18:11] believing? Generally not, because it's a [18:14] belief system. Okay? Most people want to [18:17] engage you ultimately with some kind of [18:21] spiritual religious conversation. I have [18:23] found especially given my access to the [18:25] universe. And in the early days there [18:29] were easy answers. It was like this is [18:31] this is religion you know go ahead I'm [18:34] doing science here. Then I thought I owe [18:37] people who are religious a more informed [18:41] and nuanced engagement [18:44] because of the power and force that [18:46] religion has exercised on the history of [18:49] the world. It's not just cultural, it's [18:52] political, it's economic, it's so I [18:57] started reading religious tracts and now [19:01] when I'm engaged in a conversation, I [19:04] have a full-up conversation with people [19:06] on their beliefs, whatever intersection, [19:12] if any, with the objective universe and [19:16] what those beliefs do for the person who [19:19] holds them. [19:21] And there are many places on the [19:23] internet that claim me as an atheist. [19:27] And it's like I've never embraced that [19:31] title. [19:32] >> So you're not an atheist. [19:33] >> The only I am is a scientist. Okay. [19:36] Let's start there. Now titles are lazy. [19:39] I'll tell you why. Once you hand a title [19:41] to someone, that gives you license to [19:44] not have to think anymore about who and [19:46] what that person is regarding that [19:48] subject. And that has never ended well [19:52] in my experience. So first, it's odd [19:55] that such a word as atheist exists at [19:57] all. Think about it. It's a word that [20:01] says what you're not. [20:03] Is there a word for non-golfers? [20:06] Is is there a word for non h ask [20:09] yourself how many things do we have [20:11] words for for which are not? Very few. [20:16] And so this exercise of saying you're [20:19] either with us or you're against us. And [20:21] if you're against us, I have this word [20:22] for you that says you're not this, like [20:24] I said, that never ends well. It ends in [20:26] war and bloodshed. Typically leading [20:30] atheists today [20:32] who write books on this. Okay? Richard [20:34] Dawkins is among them. Uh he wrote a [20:36] book called The God Delusion. That's [20:38] fighting words if there ever was one. [20:40] These are people who reject God, reject [20:44] its influence on politics and society [20:48] and lives and and would just assume see [20:50] a world without it. I'm not that guy. [20:54] I have behavior [20:57] that would be rejected by any modern [21:00] atheist thinker. So what am I that we [21:04] pick? The next word would be agnostic. [21:07] Okay. [21:07] >> Okay. So let's pick that next word which [21:09] I also relate to. I would consider [21:10] myself to be agnostic as well. [21:11] >> Agnostic. Um, sure. I I kind of I just [21:13] don't know. What's your leading view of [21:15] where all of this stuff came from? [21:17] >> It's consistent with observations and [21:19] experiment. The Big Bang. [21:20] >> The Big Bang. [21:21] >> Oh, it is so thoroughly supported. As [21:24] fantastical as it is. [21:25] >> Explain the Big Bang to me like I'm 15. [21:29] >> I'll explain to you like you're 12. [21:30] >> Okay, please. Even better. [laughter] [21:33] >> So, approximately 13.8 8 billion years [21:37] ago, everything that you see and [21:41] interact with in this universe [21:44] began [21:46] in [21:48] an infinite decimal point. That is the [21:51] birth of the space and time of our [21:54] universe. We have been expanding ever [21:57] since. Now, how does something that big [21:59] ever become that small? Well, it's not [22:02] matter trying to occupy the same space [22:04] as itself. energy can be essentially any [22:09] size compacted and then you can measure [22:11] what's there by what the temperature is [22:14] and so it's very hot fireball basically [22:17] and as it expands it cools and the [22:19] cooling energy makes matter it's equals [22:21] mc^ squ energy on one side mass on the [22:25] other side this c^² is just the speed of [22:26] light just a constant but Einstein came [22:29] up with this in 1905 and it made so much [22:33] of the universe make sense at at that [22:35] point and so uh and it would take a [22:38] while we expand the we cool enough to [22:42] make stars and galaxies and we're still [22:44] expanding to this day. There are [22:46] mysterious forces operating that we [22:48] don't yet understand what we call dark [22:50] energy [22:52] that's a pressure in the vacuum of space [22:56] making us expand faster than what would [22:59] be allowed by the collective gravity of [23:02] all the galaxies. [23:03] That's a frontier question that is not [23:06] yet resolved. Then there's sources of [23:09] gravity that we don't know what's [23:11] causing it. We call that dark matter. [23:14] If you add up dark matter and dark [23:16] energy, it's 95% [23:19] of what's driving the universe. So [23:21] everything you and I know and love about [23:23] the biology, chemistry, physics, [23:25] astrophysics, forces, food, calories, [23:28] molecules, solids, liquids, gas, it's 5% [23:32] of what's going on in the universe. [23:35] That's amazing. [23:37] And this is why when I began, I said to [23:42] you, sometimes I wonder whether we are [23:45] smart enough to figure out the entirety [23:47] of the universe. or do we just figure [23:49] out our little our little fraction of it [23:52] and and live happily ever after within [23:55] it? Now that scenario, you have full [24:00] rights to ask what was around before [24:02] that. So ask me that. [24:04] >> What was around before the [24:05] >> We have no idea. [laughter] [24:07] >> We have suspicions there might have been [24:09] a multiverse which has come out of [24:12] latter-day mathematics related to [24:15] quantum physics and Einstein's [24:17] relativity. What comes out of those [24:19] equations is a multiverse. [24:21] >> What's a multiverse? [24:22] >> Just it's it's this medium that is [24:25] pumping out universes. We are just one [24:26] of them. [24:27] >> What caused the multiverse? [24:29] >> We don't know. [24:31] >> Eventually, [24:31] >> it's it's a frontier. There's no crime [24:34] in asking the question at the frontier [24:36] of our knowledge. There are people who [24:38] have to have answers. They don't make [24:40] good scientists. The urge to have an [24:43] answer can be influenced by their bias, [24:46] by their culture, by their just take a [24:49] look at all around the world. The origin [24:53] stories, the origin stories flow out of [24:56] the cultures from which they emanated. [24:59] What are your untested, unverified, [25:03] untestable ideas about where all of this [25:06] universe stuff might have gone? Cuz I [25:08] know you must sit at home sometimes and [25:09] just mull. You do a lot of mulling about [25:12] the origins of the the big bang and [25:14] those things. [25:14] >> Well, we all do. I just So when you when [25:17] you confront the unknown, [25:19] you write the recipe for more data. [25:23] >> That's all it is. [25:23] >> And what are those recipes that you've [25:25] written? [25:25] >> We need a telescope. We have telescope. [25:27] I haven't written I mean my field has [25:28] written them. We have telescopes [25:30] specifically designed right now to get a [25:33] better understanding of dark energy and [25:36] its manifestation throughout time in the [25:38] history of the universe. Explain dark [25:40] energy to me. [25:41] >> No, it's just it's a it's something in [25:42] the vacuum of space that's making the [25:46] universe accelerate in its expansion. [25:49] >> Okay. [25:50] >> From that original explosion, we have [25:52] all the galaxies, all the matter, all [25:54] the gravity. [25:55] You expect the expansion to be slowing [25:57] down at some rate based on the gravity. [26:00] >> Oh, but it's speeding up. [26:01] >> It's like tossing something in the air. [26:03] Gravity of Earth slows it down and [26:05] actually makes it reverse. So, we expect [26:07] that. We went to make that measurement [26:09] and we got the opposite answer. The [26:12] universe is accelerating. That won a [26:14] Nobel Prize. 1998 Nobel Prize. It's a [26:17] term in Einstein's equation that he [26:19] rejected. There can't be a negative [26:21] gravity. What the its value in his [26:24] equation must equal zero. And so let's [26:26] move on. Then we discover it. We we come [26:30] up with a term for it. I think it's a [26:31] bad term. Bad because it's it leaves the [26:34] witness. We don't know what it is at [26:36] all. [26:37] So, don't call it dark and don't call it [26:39] energy. Call it Fred. Okay. Something. [26:42] [laughter] [26:43] And dark matter. We don't know what that [26:45] is either. Okay. Let's call that Wilma. [26:48] We got Fred and Wilma. We don't know [26:50] what it is. [26:52] There should be a button just down below [26:54] here. And if it says subscribed, you're [26:56] already subscribed. If it says [26:57] subscriber, that means you're not yet. [27:00] And if you're not subscribed, please [27:01] could you do us a favor and hit that [27:02] button? It helps the show more than you [27:03] know. And according to the algorithm, [27:05] you're someone that watches our show, [27:07] but you haven't yet hit that button. [27:08] Thank you so much. [27:09] >> So, the key question I think that people [27:11] are talking about at this moment in [27:12] time, because you had Obama make those [27:14] comments in that interview saying that [27:16] he he was joking I think he was joking [27:18] when he said there are aliens he's just [27:20] never seen. [27:20] >> No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. First of [27:23] A, Obama is scientifically literate. [27:26] It's a B. He said because he's [27:29] scientifically literate, he said, "What [27:31] is scientifically defensible that [27:34] they're probably aliens in the universe? [27:36] Anyone who studied that problem will [27:38] arrive at that conclusion. [27:40] >> They're real, but I haven't seen them." [27:42] And and and uh they're not being kept in [27:44] uh what is it? [27:45] >> Area 51. [27:46] >> Area 51. uh there there's no underground [27:49] uh facility unless there's this enormous [27:53] conspiracy and they they hid it from the [27:56] president of the United States. That's [27:58] what he said. But as former president of [28:00] the United States and we have sort of [28:02] alien adjacent culture, it was oh that [28:06] must mean there are aliens in the [28:08] basement of the White House or somewhere [28:11] in in in government custody. [28:15] They took his statement that sure there [28:17] are aliens out there and turned it on to [28:21] the US government and when I heard his [28:24] comments that that's exactly what any [28:25] scientifically literate person would say [28:28] what people did with that information he [28:30] he then had to come back and explain. I [28:32] didn't even think that was necessary but [28:34] apparently it was. [28:35] >> And then Trump responded [28:36] >> Trump responded okay [28:38] >> on Air Force One in an interview and [28:40] said [28:41] >> well he gave classified information. [28:43] He's not supposed to be doing that, you [28:45] know. [28:45] >> No, aliens are real. [28:46] >> Well, I don't know if they're real or [28:47] not. I can tell you he gave classified [28:49] information. He's not supposed to be [28:50] doing that. He made He made a big [28:52] mistake. He took it out of classified [28:55] information. [28:56] >> Trump seemed to stoke [29:00] the idea that there is aliens. And then [29:02] from that, shortly after, we had the UFO [29:05] files announcement. [29:06] >> Sure, great. Bring them out. I love it. [29:08] >> They were going to release the UFO [29:09] files. And now we find ourselves at a [29:10] place where the general public is again [29:12] really really curious about the subject [29:14] of aliens. And you see it on the Google [29:16] trend data which I've got in front of me [29:17] here. You see the up, the down, the up, [29:18] the down based on what people are [29:19] talking about. So my question to you is [29:21] about is this central question which is [29:23] do you believe there's intelligent life [29:25] in the universe? [29:25] >> So that one of those peaks in May in [29:27] part was because there were files [29:30] released that week by the Pentagon and [29:32] dare I suggest my book was released in [29:35] May on May 12th. [29:36] >> Good timing. Uh yeah, it just turned out [29:39] that way. I decided to jump into the [29:41] ring, not jump in, put a foot into the [29:44] ring, more accurately, when I saw these [29:47] these highranking whistleblowers come [29:50] forward in in Congress, sworn [29:54] testimonies, [29:56] uh whistleblowers, former intelligence [29:58] officers, former uh military folk. [30:03] And I said, "All right, I have to it's [30:06] time to jump in because no longer can [30:09] you discount the testimony the way you [30:13] might have done so before with the [30:15] farmer in the back 40, [30:18] you know, who saw something and is [30:20] talking about it but didn't take a [30:21] picture of it. All right. all these [30:23] testimonies that have existed in the [30:26] past and accounts of UFOs. Now, when [30:29] official government people are doing it, [30:31] then all right, it's time to take it up [30:35] a notch. And what is it? What do I mean [30:37] by that? [30:40] Bring out the alien. If you're saying [30:42] you got an alien in the shed in the back [30:44] 40, just bring it out. And the moment [30:47] you do that, no one will ever have to [30:50] ask again, [30:52] do you believe in aliens? [30:56] That's the question I've been asked. Do [30:57] I believe in alien? No one has ever [30:59] asked me, do I believe in elephants? [31:02] Why? Because we've shown elephants. [31:05] Okay, we have elephants. [31:09] We've seen elephants. So, [31:11] >> but do you think there's intelligent [31:13] life in the universe? I don't see why [31:15] they wouldn't be given the size of the [31:17] universe and the age in the universe and [31:18] the ingredients of the universe. I mean, [31:20] think about it. The early Earth, [31:23] life got underway within a 100 million [31:25] years of as early as it possibly could [31:28] have. [31:30] That sounds like a long time, and it is, [31:32] but [31:33] that's small compared with the timeline [31:35] of Earth itself, of life on Earth. It's [31:38] like 5% of the timeline of the Earth. [31:41] Almost as fast as it could possibly [31:43] happen, the basic ingredients on Earth, [31:46] which matched the basic ingredients of [31:48] the universe, went from organic [31:51] molecules to self-replicating life. [31:52] Whatever our challenges in the lab, [31:54] Earth didn't seem to have a problem [31:57] accomplishing it. And so, look at how [31:59] quickly that happened. Yes, it would [32:01] take a long time, much longer to [32:04] generate what we're calling intelligent [32:06] life. But given how many planets are [32:11] likely in the galaxy, our cataloges now [32:14] have 6,000 exoplanets in them. And [32:17] that's just in a tiny little area. [32:19] That'd be in a little cir that'd be in a [32:21] little, you know, if if the sun is here, [32:25] draw a little circle around it where [32:28] we've searched for exoplanets and we [32:30] have 6,000 just in that little [32:31] >> What's an exoplanet? [32:33] >> Exoplanet planet orbiting another star. [32:35] Oh, there's 6,000 in a little. [32:36] >> Uh, we've cataloged 6,000. Uh, in in [32:39] 1995, what year were you born? [32:41] >> 92. [32:42] >> 92. So, you were 3 years old when we [32:47] discovered our first exoplanet. [32:49] >> Really? [32:50] >> Wow. [32:50] >> And now we're we're rising through [32:52] 6,000. It was bad headlines back then, [32:54] not today. But if life [32:58] happened on Earth as swiftly as it did, [33:02] no one of among us who have studied the [33:04] problem are given reason to doubt that [33:07] it couldn't happen frequently elsewhere [33:10] in our galaxy or in the trillion other [33:12] galaxies in the universe. [33:14] >> This is just the Milky Way galaxy. [33:16] >> This is a version. Yeah, we This is if [33:19] you could step out of our Milky Way, it [33:20] would resemble this greatly. And [33:22] >> this is one galaxy, right? one galaxy [33:25] containing hundreds of billions of [33:26] stars. This cloudy thing, you cannot [33:30] resolve the cloud into the individual [33:31] stars. Galileo did this. He said, "I [33:35] wonder what that Milky Way is. Is that [33:36] just a cloud?" Took his telescope, put [33:38] it on the Milky Way. He saw individual [33:40] stars. [33:41] >> And how many galaxies are there in the [33:43] universe? [33:43] >> 100 billion stars in a galaxy. At least [33:46] 100 billion galaxies in the universe. [33:47] >> Is the answer that we just don't know [33:49] how many there are? [33:50] >> Let's quantify what it is to not know. [33:52] in the universe. [33:54] Uh things range over such a huge scale [33:59] that if you're off by a factor of two, [34:02] which sounds significant in most [34:05] everyday life, but if things range over [34:09] factors of trillions, [34:12] then if you can get an answer within a [34:14] factor of two, you're doing really well. [34:17] You have a basic understanding of [34:19] structure, space, and time. And so [34:23] our galaxy has several hundred billion [34:27] stars in it. No, we don't have an exact [34:28] count, but that's a very good estimate [34:31] because we know the total mass of the [34:33] galaxy and we know how much mass a star [34:36] occupies. We know how much dark matter [34:38] there is. So we can calculate the likely [34:41] number of stars there are in the galaxy. [34:43] >> Planets. So now given our data on [34:46] planets that we've obtained, we have [34:49] many star systems with multiple planets [34:51] and that's just in our neighborhood. So [34:54] if that's representative, then you just [34:56] scale that up. So if you looked in that [34:58] little zone everywhere and just up the [35:01] number, you end up with millions of [35:03] planets, possibly billions across the [35:06] galaxy. [35:08] That's how you would estimate that. So [35:10] it's not knowing the exact answer is not [35:12] the same thing as having no clue. [35:14] >> And there might be hundreds of billions [35:17] of galaxies. [35:18] >> Yes. Yes. Not just might be. There's at [35:21] least that many in the observable [35:24] universe. [35:24] >> In the observable, [35:25] >> the actual universe goes beyond our [35:27] horizon. In the same way for a ship at [35:29] sea, you have a horizon. [35:32] >> Mhm. [35:32] >> Are you saying to yourself, "Oh, that's [35:33] the edge of the earth or that's the edge [35:35] of the ocean." No. You keep sailing and [35:37] more ocean comes in view. Is it [35:39] infinite? [35:40] >> It might be. We don't know. [35:42] >> You're asking all good questions and [35:45] you're going right to the edge of what [35:46] we don't know. [35:47] >> Is it possible for something to be [35:49] infinite? [35:52] >> I'm not going to put a prerequisite on [35:54] the universe that is not. [35:58] Just because infinity is kind of hard [36:00] for the human brain to wrap your head [36:01] around, doesn't mean the universe can't [36:05] or shouldn't be it. [36:07] We've made assumptions about the [36:09] universe just to be consistent with our [36:11] own philosophies that just turn out to [36:14] be flat wrong. Capernicus, a religious [36:16] man, comes up with an idea that maybe [36:19] the sun is in the center of the known [36:21] universe and not Earth. So we go from [36:23] geocentric to heliocentric. [36:27] All right. Well, if you do that, then we [36:29] don't have epicycles. [36:31] All right? Then we just have orbits, [36:34] simple orbits around the sun. Well, he [36:36] did that. You know, it didn't match the [36:38] observations as well as the epicycles [36:41] did. So, do you throw out the whole [36:43] idea? No. We would learn later, 50 years [36:46] later. [36:48] The orbits are not perfect circles. He [36:51] made them perfect circles because it's [36:52] the universe. God created the universe. [36:54] God is perfect. The circle is a perfect [36:56] geometric shape. Clearly, anything [36:58] moving in the universe is going to be in [37:00] a perfect circle. That was an assumption [37:02] placed on the universe derived from our [37:04] own philosophical proclivities in that [37:08] case a religiously philosophical [37:10] proclivity. [37:12] >> So given this exercise this failed [37:15] exercise in the history of science of [37:17] which there are many examples one can [37:19] give I will not say that the universe [37:21] can't be infinite. [37:23] >> What's in the middle of the galaxy [37:24] because it looks like a a light [37:26] >> there's a black hole. Well, this in this [37:28] picture, the density of stars is way [37:31] higher in the middle of the galaxy than [37:33] out here. [37:33] >> Why? [37:35] >> We're figuring that out. We think in the [37:37] formation scenario of the galaxy that [37:40] most of the mass is near the center and [37:42] it gets thinner as it comes out. And so, [37:44] we're going to have the most stars where [37:46] the most mass is that you start with. [37:48] So, it's not it's not a surprise that [37:51] the middles of these things have the [37:53] most stars because they have the most [37:55] mass. And in the exact middle in the [37:57] center is a super massive black hole [38:01] which we've measured to be there. In [38:03] fact, a Nobel Prize was given for that [38:04] measurement. [38:06] >> Can you explain what a black hole is [38:07] like on 12? [38:08] >> Oh yeah. You know it first you got to [38:10] respect black holes. Give them don't [38:13] ever diss a black hole cuz you will [38:16] lose. [laughter] [38:17] So we're here on Earth and [38:22] uh the old adage what goes up must come [38:24] down. You've heard that. I would learn [38:26] by the time I was nine that that's just [38:28] false. No, by the time I was 10 because [38:31] I was 10 years old cuz that's how old I [38:33] am. We walked on the moon and then we [38:37] left part, you know, rocket parts on the [38:39] moon. [38:40] >> Those are never coming back to Earth. [38:42] So, there are things that went up that [38:43] never came back. [38:45] >> Okay. All right. [38:48] Well, what started the adage though? [38:50] Well, if you take something and toss it, [38:54] it actually slows down, comes to a stop, [38:56] and then speeds up and comes down again. [39:00] It's captured by Earth's gravity. Turns [39:02] out there is a speed with which I can [39:05] throw this [39:07] so that it never comes back. [39:11] Let's get there. If I throw this a [39:13] little faster with more energy, it goes [39:15] higher before it comes back, right? How [39:17] about even faster? even faster gets [39:20] higher and higher and higher and higher [39:21] and higher. You can calculate using [39:24] physics and gravity equations there's a [39:26] speed with which this will go so high up [39:29] it'll reach infinity. [39:33] If it reaches infinity it's not coming [39:34] back. That's called the escape velocity [39:37] for Earth. How fast is that? It's really [39:40] fast. Really fast. Uh 7 miles per [39:44] second. [39:46] If I throw this at 7 miles, it'll reach [39:48] the edge of the universe and never come [39:50] back to Earth. Suppose Earth had more [39:52] gravity [39:54] than it currently does. Does it make [39:56] sense that that escape velocity would be [39:59] greater than 7 m/s? [40:01] >> Mhm. [40:02] >> If Earth's gravity were stronger, it [40:04] might be 10 miles per second, 100 [40:06] miles/s. [40:09] Keep up this exercise, you'll reach a [40:11] point where your object has an escape [40:14] velocity that equals the speed of light. [40:18] The moment it achieves that, light [40:20] cannot escape. [40:24] It's not moving fast enough. And if [40:27] light can't get out, [40:29] it's black. [40:32] If you fall in, [40:34] you are never coming out because you [40:36] can't ever reach the speed of light. [40:39] There's no greater definition of a hole [40:42] than that. [40:44] Hence, black hole. [40:49] By the way, Einstein could have [40:50] predicted them, but he was it was too [40:52] weird for him to go there with with his [40:55] equations. We would learn about black [40:57] holes mathematically in the 1960s, make [41:00] our first discovery of one in the 1970s, [41:03] a famous uh source of X-ray energy [41:06] called Signis X1. [41:09] And and then now there's they're common [41:11] and we've even discovered them in the [41:13] centers of galaxies that have super like [41:15] a million times the mass of the sun. [41:18] Monstrous black holes dining on anything [41:21] that comes close. [41:22] >> Just things that come close. [41:24] >> Yeah. It's not going to reach out. So, [41:26] if the sun were to become a black hole [41:28] now, [41:29] it won't reach out and grab us and suck [41:32] us in. [41:33] >> It'll have the same gravity as a black [41:35] hole as it does as a as a star. [41:37] >> But it's if you go close. [41:39] >> Yeah. If you get Now, you can get really [41:40] close to it and then you're not coming [41:41] out. [41:42] >> Is there a certain distance? Wait. [41:43] >> It turns out there is there's a distance [41:45] around every black hole. I I think it's [41:48] called the ergosphere. [41:51] It's got a it's got a a name where there [41:54] are no stable orbits around it. If you [41:58] get closer than that, you you will fall [42:00] in no matter what. Whereas beyond it, [42:03] you can maintain a stable orbit and look [42:05] at black holes from a distance. [42:06] >> And where'd you go if you get sucked in? [42:09] >> Well, you crushed or you [42:11] >> Well, depends how big the black hole is. [42:13] >> Small black holes just That's all she [42:16] wrote. Okay. [42:17] >> This one. [42:17] >> Oh, that one you just you'll fall in. [42:19] And then where do I go? I'm just [42:21] collapsed. [42:22] >> Well, there are books. I have one on my [42:26] shelf and I've even read it. Uh it's a [42:29] graduate textbook that describes the [42:31] mathematics of space and time on the [42:34] other side of a black hole. And it shows [42:38] that a whole new spaceime opens up in [42:41] front of you. [42:42] >> What? [42:42] >> Inside the black hole, the whole [42:44] universe. The math shows that given the [42:47] general theory of relativity which gives [42:49] us black holes in the first place. If [42:51] you follow the math, you get a whole [42:54] spaceime that opens up inside the black [42:56] hole. And as you fall in, [42:58] your time changes. So time ticks more [43:01] slowly for you relative to the universe. [43:04] It's called time dilation. And so as you [43:06] look out in the universe, the universe [43:08] will unfold faster and faster and [43:09] faster. And you will see the entire [43:12] future history of the universe unfold [43:15] as you descend into the black hole. [43:18] >> When you say descend, because I I [43:20] thought of it as like, you know, if you [43:21] go close to black hole, you're going to [43:22] be crushed into a small mass. [43:24] >> Well, I didn't get to that part yet. I'm [43:26] describing what happens to space and [43:28] time as you descend through what's [43:30] called the event horizon. That's the [43:33] region out of which you don't escape. [43:35] That's the functional size we give to [43:37] black holes. How big is its event [43:39] horizon? you cross over within that [43:42] volume. That's where the escape velocity [43:44] is greater than the speed of light and [43:46] you're not coming out. So, it has taken [43:48] the fabric of space and time and folded [43:50] it back on itself. So, there's no [43:53] pathway you can take to get out of a [43:55] black hole. You're in there forever. And [43:58] for the small black holes, here's an [44:00] interesting fact. Uh you don't think [44:03] about this, but it's true. When you [44:05] stand, your feet are closer to Earth's [44:07] center than your head is. [44:11] >> Okay. [44:11] >> Mhm. [44:13] >> You can calculate what the force of [44:15] Earth's gravity is at your feet and the [44:17] force of Earth's gravity is at your [44:19] head. And there you'll get two different [44:20] numbers. They're very close to each [44:22] other. So, we don't think about this. It [44:25] doesn't matter to us. M [44:27] >> but as you descend a black hole [44:30] the difference in gravity between your [44:32] feet and your head gets greater and [44:34] greater and greater. [44:36] They're called tidal forces and they end [44:38] up stretching you head to toe [44:42] and initially it probably feels good, [44:44] right? You just sort of stretch and then [44:46] you realize, oh my gosh, this is [44:48] unrelenting and it's getting stronger. [44:50] Eventually you'll snap into two pieces [44:53] likely separated at the base of your [44:55] spine. If you sort of look at the [44:57] structural integrity of human physiology [45:00] and then you you're still falling and [45:02] now those same tidal forces will operate [45:04] on your torso and on your lower half. [45:07] They'll stretch and they'll snap into [45:09] two pieces. So go from one to two to [45:12] four to 8 to 16 and you'll bifurcate in [45:17] pieces all the way down to the center of [45:18] the black hole. The worst part is, well, [45:21] maybe equally as worse is you are [45:24] occupying a narrower and narrower volume [45:28] of spaceime as you go down to the [45:31] singularity [45:33] that is the center of the black hole. [45:35] So, not only you get stretched head to [45:37] toe, you're getting extruded [45:40] through the fabric of space like [45:43] toothpaste through a tube. [45:48] Have a nice day. [laughter] [45:50] >> So, yeah, you don't want to test that. [45:52] All of our equations tell us that's [45:54] what'll happen to you. [45:55] >> What's at the heart of the black hole? [45:56] You said you [45:57] >> we don't know. So, here's a problem. [46:01] General relativity that gives us the [46:03] black hole in the first place. [46:05] If you follow the equations, the center [46:07] of the black hole is infinitely dense [46:10] and infinitely small. How does that even [46:12] happen? We don't know. Maybe something [46:15] prevents that, but that is the limit of [46:17] Einstein's general theory of relativity. [46:21] >> One of the things you've heard me talk [46:22] about quite a lot over the last couple [46:23] of years, and this is something that's [46:24] true in business and content, but also [46:26] with everything in life, is that [46:28] consistency is the thing that really, [46:30] really compounds. The same is true in [46:32] sales. When your team is small, [46:34] consistency happens naturally. The team [46:36] knows of every deal, so nothing gets [46:38] missed. But as I've experienced, when [46:40] you grow, this starts to break down and [46:42] deals start to slip. Follow-ups don't [46:44] happen. Leads go cold. That shouldn't [46:46] have. And when this happens, a lot of [46:47] leaders look at it and think they have a [46:49] people problem. When actually it's a [46:50] systems problem. The businesses that [46:52] I've watched scale well commercially all [46:54] have a system their team uses every [46:56] single day. And for my team, that system [46:59] has been our sponsor, Pipe Drive. It's [47:00] an easy to use, intelligent CRM tool for [47:02] growing sales teams that gives you [47:04] visibility of every deal in your sales [47:05] pipeline at every single stage. And it [47:08] shows you what needs to happen for that [47:09] deal to move forward, all in real time. [47:12] It's what keeps our commercial operation [47:13] consistent when we were a team of five [47:16] or when our commercial team was a team [47:17] of 50. Over a 100,000 companies are [47:19] already running their sales on it. So, [47:21] if you'd like to join them, sign up at [47:23] piperive.com/ceo [47:24] where you'll get an exclusive 30-day [47:26] free trial instead of the usual 14 days, [47:29] and there's no credit card needed at [47:31] all. Head to piperive.com/ceeo. [47:38] I don't speak Vietnamese, but this show [47:40] can because of AI video technology from [47:42] our sponsor, Hey Jen. I get messages [47:44] every single week from those of you [47:45] listening to the dire all around the [47:47] world, and you express how much impact [47:49] it's had on you and your life. And if [47:50] that's true, then those conversations [47:52] should only reach people in English. Ken [47:54] can take one recording of me and deliver [47:56] it in any language while keeping my [47:58] voice, timing, and expressions intact. [48:01] But you don't need a studio like this to [48:03] make it work for you. Record 15 seconds [48:06] of yourself and get an AI avatar that [48:08] delivers studio quality video in over [48:11] 175 languages. We're up to 20 languages [48:14] now. And we're not the only ones using [48:16] it. Hey Jen is already used by 30 [48:19] million people, including 85% of the [48:21] Fortune 100. Whether you're building an [48:23] audience on social media, launching an [48:24] online course, or rolling out training [48:26] across your team, check out Heyjen now. [48:29] Your first three videos are totally free [48:31] at heygen.com/dac. [48:33] That's h e y gn.com/doac. [48:37] See you there. [48:39] So, aliens um in our galaxy. Is that [48:44] possible that there's intelligent life [48:45] in our galaxy? [48:46] >> I don't see I have no reason to doubt [48:47] it. [48:48] >> Really? You think it's on a balance of [48:50] probability? You think it's it's more [48:51] probable than not? [48:52] >> Oh, yeah. Just given the size, like I [48:54] said, given the age, the size, the [48:56] ingredients, the [48:58] uh how quickly life got underway. By the [49:01] way, when you say intelligent, [49:04] um, [49:05] there's intelligent life on Earth, [49:08] like do you know where we are in brain [49:10] size [49:13] >> relative to other animals? Yeah. [49:14] >> Uh, we're not the top. [49:16] >> Yeah, we're definitely not the top. [49:17] >> I have no idea. [49:18] >> Yeah, we're like fourth. [49:19] >> Okay. [49:19] >> There's the whale. [49:21] >> Mhm. [49:21] >> And then the dolphin [49:23] >> and then the or the porpus and then the [49:26] the elephant [49:28] >> and then us. So, if aliens came to Earth [49:31] and they knew that brains are important, [49:33] we'd be like fourth on their list for [49:35] who they want to talk to. Just chew on [49:39] that for a moment. Second, what we were [49:42] told in school was, "Oh, but if you take [49:45] the ratio of the size of your brain to [49:48] your body weight, we're at the top." [49:51] Well, that's our ego speaking there. We [49:54] We didn't have the biggest brain, but we [49:56] want to believe that we're smart. And so [49:59] we is there some math magic we can [50:01] perform on brain size to put us back at [50:04] the top of that list? Yes. Ratio the [50:07] size of your brain to the to the the [50:08] mass of your brain to the mass of your [50:10] body. Then we're at the top. However, [50:12] what they didn't say is that no, we're [50:15] not at the top of that list. [50:18] We're only at the top of that list among [50:20] mammals. [50:21] They're midsized birds like the magpie [50:25] and the parrots [50:27] where the ratio of their brain size to [50:30] their body weight is greater than that [50:31] of humans. [50:34] So look at the efforts we put in to just [50:37] distinguish ourselves from all these [50:38] other animals. And it's quite the [50:41] exercise in ego stoking. [50:47] You you want to think you're special in [50:49] the tree of life that there are birds [50:52] that fly and we can't fly. Nes can [50:56] regenerate their limbs and we can't do [50:59] that. And so badly do we want to [51:02] especially with with military veterans, [51:05] right? [51:05] >> Mhm. [51:06] >> Uh with missing limbs and things. You [51:08] want to regenerate that. We can't do nes [51:10] can do that. Crustaceians can do that. [51:13] We can't do that. [51:15] So, [51:17] might an alien consider whales to be [51:19] intelligent? [51:21] Probably. [51:22] But we add new extra elements to this. [51:26] Do you have technology? [51:29] The whale is not building telescopes, [51:31] but we are. The whale doesn't, you know, [51:35] have art, but we do. All right? So, we [51:38] are a thing. We have what we call [51:40] civilization. So if you want to ask are [51:43] there intelligent aliens that have [51:44] civilization [51:46] that's yet another layer of that [51:47] question is there intelligent life in [51:49] the universe then you can ask is there [51:52] intelligent life that has civilization [51:55] that has technology [51:58] because the Roman Empire they didn't [52:00] know anything about electricity or [52:01] computers or AI or anything and if [52:05] aliens were sending them radio signals [52:07] they're not sending radio signals back [52:10] so the oper Operational definition of [52:12] intelligence might include your ability [52:14] to communicate across space or your [52:16] ability to build a spaceship to move. [52:20] The Romans were not building spaceships. [52:22] So would they count as intelligence if [52:24] that was an alien species somewhere else [52:26] in the galaxy? [52:27] >> But is it plausible that there is [52:29] intelligent life in this universe that [52:31] hasn't got the capability of visiting [52:33] Earth? [52:33] >> Yeah, sure. Why not? Sure. That's [52:36] probably the standard. [52:38] >> How far can we have we gone? That's a [52:41] great question. The fastest spaceship [52:43] ever launched was the New Horizon's [52:46] mission to Pluto. [52:49] And one thing in space exploration, [52:52] there's an unwritten rule. However you [52:54] design the spacecraft, [52:56] make sure it gets to your destination [52:58] before you get old and die. Mhm. [53:00] [clears throat] [53:00] >> Okay. [53:01] >> So, this spacecraft that went to Pluto [53:04] was on the most powerful rockets [53:06] available and they made the payload as [53:09] light as possible so it could accelerate [53:12] and so it got to Pluto quickly. If you [53:15] instead took that and directed it to the [53:17] nearest star, the Alpha Century system [53:21] instead of going to Pluto at those [53:23] speeds direct the nearest star take you [53:26] 50,000 years to get there. [53:28] >> 50,000 years. The nearest star [53:29] >> to Earth. [53:30] >> Yes. To the sun. [53:31] >> And how many stars did you say there was [53:33] again? [53:33] >> Well, 100 billion. Hundreds of billions. [53:35] >> And the nearest one took would take [53:36] 50,000 years. [53:37] >> 50,000 years to reach. [53:38] >> Gosh. [53:38] >> Because space is empty. Right. So maybe [53:41] there are intelligent aliens out there, [53:43] but space travels too hard. So they [53:45] haven't come to visit us. This is one of [53:48] the uh hypotheses because if aliens are [53:51] everywhere, well then where are they? [53:55] I think they came to Earth and they saw [53:56] all of our debris orbiting the Earth. [54:00] There's a lot of space debris and they [54:02] said, "I'm not coming. [laughter] I'm [54:04] not going to risk my life." They just [54:06] passed us by looking for another planet. [54:08] >> I've wondered about this space debris [54:09] thing because it seems that every [54:11] nation, [54:11] >> it's worse than you think. [54:13] >> But what I was going to say is every [54:15] nation now seems to be racing to throw [54:18] tens of thousands of pieces of metal [54:20] satellites into our orbit. Is it a [54:23] problem? [54:24] >> Well, [54:25] >> there's no laws, is there? [54:26] >> No, you have you have to ask who is it a [54:29] problem for? Is it a problem? Yes. Who [54:32] is it a problem for? Not the people who [54:34] want high-speed internet in the middle [54:37] of the ocean or in the Arctic or in the [54:39] middle of the desert? Because these [54:41] satellites, the SpaceX Starlink [54:43] satellites are providing that in these [54:46] remote places of the world. So, it's not [54:49] a problem for them. It's a blessing. [54:51] It's a problem if you're just trying to [54:53] observe the night sky the way we've done [54:55] as astronomers since time in memorial [54:59] and I'm trying to get images of the [55:01] night sky and I see satellites crossing [55:03] back and forth. This amounts to visual [55:06] noise [55:07] in my data and if I'm trying to track an [55:10] asteroid that might be headed our way [55:13] and have thousands of other streaks of [55:14] light in my image, there's a chance I [55:17] might miss the asteroid. [55:21] Also, [55:22] uh, if there's some object of interest [55:24] and a satellite passes right in front of [55:26] it, that will contaminate the data that [55:28] I seek. I don't know if this is [55:31] reversible, but what it tells me is that [55:33] the future of telescopes are going to [55:34] have to be spacebor telescopes, which [55:37] they we've already made that transition, [55:40] and or [55:42] the moon telescopes on the moon. [55:47] They've launched five roughly 5,000 [55:49] satellites, objects into orbit in 2025. [55:53] We're on track to launch even more than [55:54] that this year. [55:55] >> That's correct. We probably already [55:56] launched that by now. We're we're this [55:59] we're being recorded midyear 2026. I I [56:03] we're already high up there. I So [56:06] [clears throat] [56:06] So the last number I saw SpaceX had 10,5 [56:13] 10 satellites. There'll be 100,000 [56:15] active satellites in orbit by 2040. [56:19] >> Probably more. This is the utility of [56:22] space, not only for reconnaissance, for [56:25] surveillance, [56:27] basically military security, but also [56:31] commerce. There is no Uber without GPS. [56:36] So, it's not the value of the satellites [56:38] themselves that matters here. It's the [56:40] value of the economy, the economies that [56:43] they enable. [56:44] And that's why we have a space force [56:45] now. A space force which had been [56:47] percolating for decades. Uh Trump in [56:49] Trump won decided let's make this [56:52] official. And so he did. So now we have [56:54] a space force. And people say does that [56:55] mean there's going to be like Star Wars [56:57] and everything? There already was a [56:59] space force. They didn't call it that. [57:01] It was called the Air Force Space [57:03] Command. It was a sector within the Air [57:06] Force. And so you pull that out. Now the [57:10] the mission is a little more pure about [57:12] what its goals are and what it needs to [57:14] accomplish. [57:15] >> Have you heard about Kesler syndrome? [57:17] >> Oh yeah, of course. [57:18] >> Could you explain Kesler syndrome? [57:20] >> Oh yeah. Uh so 1978 [57:24] uh I don't remember he's a physicist or [57:26] a mathematician named Kesler who saw the [57:29] increase in satellite launches that had [57:31] been going on and he did a calculation [57:34] and he said hm [57:37] there must be some threshold of [57:40] satellites orbiting the earth where if [57:44] one of them gets destroyed by any means [57:47] maybe two collide with each other or one [57:50] intentionally taken out by a missile [57:53] which has been happened three times now. [57:55] Three or four times. Uh China's done it, [57:58] India's done it, Russia's done it, and [57:59] we've done it four times. We've done it [58:01] to our own satellites, which means what? [58:05] Think about it. If you can do it to your [58:07] own satellite, [58:09] you can do it to anybody else's [58:10] satellite. It's a demonstration of your [58:14] sovereignty in a way of your powers over [58:18] what you might perceive as an aggressor. [58:20] Anyhow, if you destroy a satellite, [58:24] let's say it breaks into 10 pieces [58:28] each going orbital speed. Orbital speed [58:31] is is 17,000 [58:34] miles an hour. That's way faster than a [58:37] rifle bullet. So little pieces of [58:39] satellite can be far more devastating [58:42] than a high-powered rifle bullet shot [58:45] into another satellite. All right, so [58:47] these pieces scatter. If any one of them [58:50] hits another satellite, breaking it into [58:53] 10 pieces, [58:55] you go from one to 10 to 100 to a [58:59] thousand. [59:00] Within just a few orbits, [59:04] 100% of the satellites can be taken out. [59:07] if you have enough satellites for that [59:09] thresholding to take place. So in other [59:12] words, if space is most if low earth [59:14] orbit space is mostly empty and you [59:16] destroy a satellite, the particles are [59:18] not going to take out another satellite. [59:21] They they'll orbit harmlessly or fall to [59:23] earth harmlessly. But if you have [59:24] another satellite in that path, [59:28] then that destruction is going to take [59:29] out other satellites. So he warned us of [59:33] these thresholds. I don't think we're [59:34] there yet, but we need to keep it on our [59:37] radar. And the movie Gravity, it [59:41] portrays exactly that scenario. [59:43] >> Objects in orbit travel at blistering [59:44] speeds, 17,500 m per hour. [59:48] >> Correct. And at that speed, [59:48] >> that's 5 miles per second. [59:50] >> At that speed, even a fleck of paint [59:52] carries the destructive power of a [59:54] bullet, [59:55] >> a rifle bullet [59:55] >> or a exploding grenade. [59:57] >> Correct. Correct. [59:59] >> A a fleck of paint. [60:00] >> Yes. [60:02] Yes. [60:02] >> Okay, that makes sense. [clears throat] [60:03] So if if there's one collision and [60:04] there's lots of them up there, it's like [60:06] a shrapnel. Is that [60:08] >> correct? [60:08] >> Yeah. A shrapnel is the is the is the [60:10] best analog to that because it comes out [60:13] and it damages other things beyond the [60:16] target that was intended. [60:18] >> And there's no laws up there, is there? [60:20] >> Well, they're trying to, you know, space [60:23] law is a is a wild west at this point. [60:25] Forget orbit. It's like you go to the [60:27] moon. Who owns the moon? Who owns a plot [60:30] of land on Mars? Nobody. [60:32] >> Who? Well, they're trying to figure that [60:35] out. If I go to an asteroid and I want [60:37] to mine it for its minerals, who owns [60:39] those minerals? [60:40] >> So, they're trying to figure out who [60:41] owns the moon. [60:42] >> Well, owns anything in space. Anything [60:45] in space. [60:45] >> Isn't it just who gets there fast? [60:47] >> Yes. M. [laughter] [60:49] That's what I mean by the Wild West. [60:51] [snorts] [60:51] >> At the moment, it seems like there's a [60:52] race to go to the moon. A lot of [60:54] companies are interested in that. We've [60:55] got this Arteimus program happening. The [60:57] US seem interested. Why are people so [60:58] interested in going to the moon? And is [61:00] there merit in their motivations? [61:02] >> Well, we could have stayed in the moon [61:03] in 1972, [61:05] but we didn't. Could have gone in 1980, [61:08] but we didn't. 1990, we didn't. 2000? [61:12] No. 2010? No. Well, what happened in the [61:15] 201s? Oh, I know what happened. We [61:18] learned that China wants to put [61:19] astronauts on the moon. Tyonauts they [61:23] call them. We then say, "Hey, wouldn't [61:25] it be good if we went back to the moon? [61:27] That's an interesting idea. Let's do [61:28] that." happened under the first Trump [61:30] administration. So the Artemis mission [61:32] gets birthed. Artemis, [61:35] do you remember who Artemis was in in [61:37] Greek mythology? Artemis is the twin [61:40] sister of Apollo. [61:42] That's good. That he's going to name a [61:44] program. That's good. Twin sister of [61:46] Apollo. So we say we're going to go back [61:49] to the moon. [61:50] My read of that landscape is that China [61:55] put a flame under our ass. [61:57] >> Mhm. [61:58] No different really from when Russia [62:02] first launched the satellite. Sputnik, [62:05] put a flame under our ass. Within a [62:07] year, we created NASA. By the way, it [62:10] may take just such a thing to bring [62:12] Congress together for a unified uh [62:15] project. [62:17] Do [snorts] you remember when we had the [62:18] testimonies in Congress of the [62:20] whistleblowers? [62:22] We had Republicans sitting right next to [62:24] Democrats asking questions about aliens. [62:27] And I So there's everyone paying [62:28] attention to the aliens. I I said, "Wow, [62:32] Republicans and Democrats are agreed on [62:35] some process in Washington." I thought [62:39] that was that was a beautiful fact. [62:42] >> So what what what are our motivations [62:43] now to go to the moon? Is there an [62:44] economic upside to it? [62:46] >> No, it's geopolitical. China says [62:48] they're going to the moon 50 years after [62:50] we go to the moon and we all of a sudden [62:52] decide we want to go to the moon. Let's [62:53] be real about that. And while that came [62:56] out under Trump, Biden comes in, we keep [62:59] the program. Biden could have said, [63:00] "This is a Trumpist thing. I don't want [63:02] to do, you know, he could have done that [63:04] and what would have anyone said?" But he [63:05] didn't because NASA has is a [63:10] geopolitically [63:11] responsive [63:13] organization. [63:14] >> So what if China get there first? Why [63:16] does that matter? [63:18] >> They're [63:20] geopolitical egos. [63:22] >> Just ego. [63:23] >> Yeah. I mean, did did you see the the [63:25] hearings in Congress with the head of [63:27] NASA when they're asking why did China [63:29] land on the far side of the moon? What [63:31] do they know that's there that we don't? [63:34] Okay, this is the competitive urges that [63:38] we have. And don't delude yourself into [63:42] thinking we ever went to the moon for [63:43] science [63:46] then or now. [63:47] >> What about resources? Is there resources [63:49] on the moon? [63:50] >> We're looking for them. NASA has an [63:52] entire branch of itself called insitu [63:54] resource utilization is SRU. You go [63:57] there. We think there's water at the [63:59] South Pole. So you go get the water. [64:02] Maybe if you get a 3D printer, you can [64:04] take, you know, the silicates from the M [64:07] from the moon's surface, dump it in on [64:09] top and make tools, whatever. That would [64:12] be interesting. Um there's a whole piece [64:15] of space exploration that concerns [64:16] itself with that because you can't take [64:18] everything with you. Is it cold on the [64:20] moon or hot? [64:21] >> It depends on if you're facing the sun [64:23] or not because we we say is it cold, [64:27] you're generally referring to the [64:28] temperature of the air around you. [64:30] That's what you mean. Oh, fix the [64:32] thermostat. Change the air temperature. [64:34] Where there is no air, your temperature [64:37] comes from any source of or absence of a [64:41] source of energy. So if you face the [64:43] sun, [64:44] >> this side of you will burn up and the [64:45] side of you on the other side will [64:46] freeze. So what we really need are [64:49] rotisseries [laughter] [64:51] or a highly insulated space suit. [64:54] >> Do you think in my lifetime we'll it's [64:56] three days away, isn't it? The moon. [64:58] >> Yeah. But so you can get there quicker, [65:00] but to the minimum energy to do so will [65:03] take you 3 days. [65:04] >> Don't you think that would be a great [65:05] tourist destination? [65:06] >> Of course. Completely. [65:08] >> Three days. [65:09] >> I I would save up multiple years of [65:11] vacation money to go to the moon. Yes. [65:13] >> Completely. If you can bring the price [65:14] of that down, make the moon our [65:16] backyard. So So what I I wanted to be [65:19] clear earlier when you say is there [65:21] economic reason to go to the moon? Not [65:22] initially until you set up bases and [65:26] hotels and restaurants and this sort of [65:28] thing. And if you have restaurants, [65:31] there'd be really weird food that they [65:33] would serve, right? Like in moon [65:35] gravity. [65:36] >> I travel all the time. So I made a rule [65:38] in my life that I'll only travel with a [65:40] cabin bag. The problem with this is [65:42] there's not much space. And here's the [65:44] solution. It is called an extra 1% [65:47] travel pack. And I teamed up with Exta [65:48] to make this. Typically, I can only [65:50] bring some of my black shirts. And it's [65:51] a trade-off of which black shirt should [65:53] I bring? How many of these do you think [65:55] I can get in here? So, let's try 1 2 3 4 [65:59] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14. Let's try 15. [66:07] 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 [66:13] Okay, so that's 24 black t-shirts. [66:16] Here's where the magic comes in. Zip it [66:17] up. Make sure it's nice and sealed. And [66:19] then you use this little contraption. [66:21] Stick it on there. I can now take more [66:23] than 20 black shirts with me, which will [66:25] last me 3 weeks. So, if you travel [66:28] frequently and you want to get one of [66:29] these so you can save more space and be [66:31] away for longer, go to extra.com and use [66:33] code DOAC for 10% off our collection. [66:37] the UFO files. I'm presuming you've seen [66:39] all the footage that's been released. [66:40] You've [66:41] >> most of it. There's there's a redundancy [66:42] after a certain point. [66:44] >> I mean, it's it's this kind of stuff [66:45] where they're showing objects flying [66:47] through space. [66:47] >> Typically, it's monochromatic and very [66:49] low resolution as this is. That's [66:51] correct. [66:52] >> Was any of it compelling to you? [66:54] >> No. It's something that we don't know [66:56] what it is. [66:58] It's Let's back up. Even UFO enthusiasts [67:02] of the most severe kind would agree that [67:06] most sightings of what we call UFOs have [67:08] natural explanations [67:10] >> that you just didn't know what you were [67:11] looking at and then you figure it out [67:13] later. Is it cloud formation? Is it [67:16] lightning? Is it twilight conditions? [67:20] Sure. But then there's some that no one [67:23] knows how to explain. [67:25] I I don't have a problem with that. [67:26] There's some that are sort of [67:28] interesting. I like the tic tac. Tic tac [67:30] is fun. [67:30] >> Oh, yeah. The tic tac. [67:31] >> The famous tic tac. [67:32] >> What's interesting about that? [67:34] >> Well, cuz I don't know what it is. I'm a [67:36] scientist. [67:37] We are attracted to things with that we [67:39] don't know or understand. Attracted to [67:42] them. It's cool. Yeah. That's There it [67:44] goes. Mhm. Yeah. And you can see it move [67:47] in one of the frames. And you can see it [67:51] a sort of gimbal in one of the frames. [67:55] So, let's see. It's coming up in just a [67:57] second. [67:58] That's And of course, it's combined with [68:01] the statements of the pilots, how [68:04] shocked they are and how surprised. [68:06] There it is. That's kind of fun. It [68:09] looks like one of the alien spacecraft [68:11] that Steven Spielberg showed in Close [68:15] Encounters of the Third Kind, but that's [68:17] not what intrigues me. What intrigues me [68:18] is we have whistleblowers saying we have [68:20] actual aliens. [68:22] So, I'm Give Give me the actual alien. [68:26] Do you think if we did we would tell the [68:28] public? [68:28] >> Uh, we people have testified we have [68:31] aliens, that we have alien crash parts, [68:33] that we have reverse engineered alien [68:35] technology, that we have no end of [68:37] movies portraying aliens. Uh, and [68:41] somebody say, "Oh, we're not ready to [68:43] see an actual alien." Of course, we're [68:44] ready. Hollywood has prepped us for [68:48] decades for this day. I think it'll be [68:51] charming. What would surprise me most [68:55] is if the alien were humanoid. [68:58] >> Most Hollywood renderings of human of of [69:01] aliens are humanoid with a head, two [69:04] eyes and nose, mouth, ears. Oh. Oh, [69:06] they're bald. Okay. Or they have pointy [69:08] ears. Or they've got but they're still [69:10] walking and they still got elbows and [69:12] fingers and knees and like this. [69:14] >> And [69:15] >> I mean, we've got ones like this as [69:16] well. [69:16] >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So, we've got [69:18] there's a good ET. This looks like the [69:22] xenomorph. And this one looks like [69:24] predator. Okay. So, notice uh they all [69:27] have eyes. There's a mouth. There's a, [69:30] you know, teeth cuz teeth are scary. And [69:34] this is humanoid. [69:35] >> These are humanoid. This is a little [69:37] more reptilian. [69:39] I would say it's definitely vertebrate, [69:41] but has a tail. So, these these are [69:44] humanoid characters. I would be most [69:46] surprised if the alien was humanoid. [69:48] What would you expect that them to be [69:50] based in the atmosphere of the universe? [69:51] >> I would expect it to not be humanoid. [69:53] Most life on Earth is not humanoid. And [69:56] we have DNA in common with all life on [69:58] Earth. And most life is not human. Oak [70:00] trees, worms, uh lobsters, none of those [70:04] life forms are humanoid. And so here we [70:07] are. We have, you know, oh, by the way, [70:09] the the xenomorph is not building [70:12] spaceships. So if this comes to Earth, [70:14] it's because we brought it here, not [70:16] because it flew. Okay. [70:18] uh based on its conduct. It looks like [70:21] he's just want to be parasitic. Uh ET [70:23] has fingers and you know it looks like [70:26] ET can build a space spaceship. And this [70:29] is just a hunting hunting mission with [70:32] the alien. Notice that its eyes are even [70:35] the same separation of our eyes. And not [70:38] so this is there's an actor in this [70:41] costume and the actor is human. That's [70:43] really what this comes down to. Yeah, [70:45] that's good photos you got here. [70:48] Oh, he so in the book I stumbled on I [70:53] didn't come up with these. I stumbled on [70:56] the fact that people who care about [70:59] sightings, uh, alien, not UFO sightings, [71:02] alien sightings, people who have said [71:04] they've seen aliens. By the way, like I [71:08] said, that whole exercise [71:10] didn't reach the fever pitch until you [71:12] had whistleblowers saying they've met [71:15] aliens under oath in Congress and not [71:19] the drunkards coming out of the bar at [71:20] 2:00 a.m. Okay. So they divide into [71:25] archetypes. So little green men that's, [71:28] you know, we had a lot of those back in [71:29] the 50s and 60s. And [71:34] uh, of course, the fact that we would [71:35] even use the adjective men meant they're [71:38] humanoid. Okay, little green men. So [71:40] that's one variety. [71:42] Another one, what do we have here? Uh, [71:46] this one is much more common today, the [71:49] grays. [71:50] Okay, the gray alien. color. These also [71:53] tend to be bald. So these are the two [71:56] most common. And then there are others. [72:00] Arcturans, they're from the star [72:01] Arcturius. Uh Liens from the [72:04] constellation LRA, the harp in the sky. [72:06] >> We'll put these on the screen for [72:08] anybody. [72:08] >> Sirius is uh aliens from the star [72:12] system. [72:14] So yeah, in my book there's a dozen of [72:16] them. Oh, the tall whites. Oh, [72:18] insecttoids. This is a good one. I love [72:20] this one because [72:22] we hate insects. Not I can't speak for [72:25] everyone. Insects are ugly to most [72:27] humans, right? So if you have a creature [72:30] that resembles an insect, you don't want [72:32] to become friends with it. [72:34] >> If you listen to people that have done [72:35] DMT, [72:36] um they often [72:37] >> DMT. Yeah. [72:38] >> They often site seeing or meeting these [72:41] types of [72:42] >> Yeah. And [72:45] the commonality of that is intriguing [72:48] rather than jump to a conclusion that [72:51] they're all having some common [72:53] interdimensional experience. It's easier [72:56] for me to think that they all have human [72:59] brains and the chemical is exciting the [73:02] same part of each one of their brains [73:04] and thereby sharing in some experience [73:09] that and plus people I don't know if [73:11] they've done this across cultures [73:14] the English- speakaking cultures have [73:16] reported many more alien sightings than [73:18] other cultures [73:20] vastly more sightings which is a little [73:22] weird so either aliens just like [73:24] visiting English speaking countries or [73:27] we just know better how to report what [73:29] we see which is probably what it is but [73:31] you go to other countries they don't [73:33] have this alien fixation. [73:35] >> Have you ever done psychedelics? [73:36] [clears throat] [73:36] >> Never. [73:37] >> Are you curious about it? [73:39] >> Not really. [73:41] >> Because [73:44] the human brain [73:46] barely works as it is. [73:50] >> Barely. [73:52] Just open up any any book of optical [73:55] illusions. Turn to any page. Oh, is it [73:58] bigger? Is it smaller? Is the line in [74:00] the page, out of the page? I can't [74:02] figure it out. Simple drawings [74:05] confound your perceptions of reality. [74:08] >> But doesn't that mean reality is [74:10] fragile? [74:11] >> Yes. And so if I want to now stir [74:14] chemicals into my brain as a scientist [74:16] who values what is objectively true [74:18] since my brain barely works as it is to [74:20] put in chemicals. [74:22] It's not clear to me that that gets me [74:24] closer to any reality at all and it's [74:26] reality that I value in this world. [74:29] >> What [74:29] >> so that's why that's why I haven't done [74:30] psychedelics. [74:31] >> What I think about is if if I can inhale [74:33] something and suddenly my subjective [74:36] experience of reality is entirely it's [74:38] 4K and I'm somewhere else. Does that not [74:40] then mean that my current subjective [74:43] experience of reality is as fragile as [74:46] an inhale? [74:47] >> Sure. [74:47] >> And then [74:48] >> well well it's chem it's it's chemicals. [74:50] So yeah it's a reminder that your brain [74:52] functions based on electrochemical [74:54] signals. But [clears throat] and to put [74:56] some other chemicals in there to disrupt [74:58] it to rechan it sky is the limit. [75:01] >> But does that mean that reality itself [75:03] is just a bunch of chemicals? [75:05] >> There are philosophers who like thinking [75:07] about that and debating it and arguing [75:09] it. I tend to be way more practically [75:12] minded in that conversation. Okay? In [75:16] that [75:17] I can perform an experiment [75:20] outside of your five senses and it will [75:23] get a result that everyone coming [75:25] together to look at that result will [75:27] agree on. [75:27] >> That's one of my senses though looking. [75:29] >> Sure. But you're if you don't have that [75:32] sense then you can't participate in that [75:33] exercise. I I'd find some way for you to [75:36] then be able to identify it. But I can [75:38] create a measurement of ultraviolet [75:40] light. You can't see ultraviolet light, [75:42] but I have a detector that fires and you [75:45] can look at the detector firing. Okay? [75:48] And so there it is. I've measured [75:50] ultraviolet light and I didn't need your [75:52] eyes, your retina or your brain to make [75:54] that measurement. So when Einstein said [75:56] E= MC² [75:59] and that became the foundation of atomic [76:01] weapons that we then drop in warfare [76:05] killing tens of thousands hundreds of [76:06] thousands of people. [76:09] You can't tell me oh that's just our our [76:10] imagination or that's just chemical [76:12] things. That is a real phenomenon based [76:15] on real physics drawn from an objective [76:18] reality that we established while not [76:20] doing drugs. And so that's why it took [76:23] so long to develop science to separate [76:27] measurements of an objective reality [76:29] from [76:30] the neurochemical synapses of your [76:32] brain. [76:33] >> Isn't it rule though observation? Isn't [76:34] that what science is? [76:35] >> Yeah. So if I can have a device that [76:38] makes a measurement [76:40] and [76:42] most people look at that can agree what [76:45] that thing is. If I'm a betting person, [76:47] I would bet that that is a [76:49] representation of objective reality. [76:51] >> So, we can measure our [76:52] >> if I bring a completely crazy person to [76:54] it, they're not going to know how. And [76:56] so, do how do I value their [77:00] interpretation of the data? And or and [77:03] is it subjective? Are we the crazy ones? [77:05] And is that person the the the normal [77:07] one? Right? So these are legitimate [77:09] questions, but they're answerable [77:12] using the methods and tools of science [77:14] for what is repeatable in this world and [77:16] what is not. [77:17] >> And this world is a [77:20] experience manifested by the chemicals [77:22] in my brain. So we can we're measuring [77:23] this reality that we live in. [77:25] >> You inhale something and there's a whole [77:26] other reality. Well, you're right now [77:29] inhaling oxygen and you have this [77:30] reality. How many other realities can [77:32] you visit? Yeah. [77:33] >> And which which is the real reality? And [77:35] >> all I would say is I make mention of it [77:37] in in the book. [77:39] >> People on DMT have these shared [77:41] experiences. [77:42] >> So let's do experiments on that to see [77:45] if can can one person experience an [77:47] insect insectoid, [77:50] glean information from that that [77:54] psychedelic alien that matches someone [77:56] else's information. That's how you would [77:58] probe this. Otherwise, you say, "Oh, [78:00] it's real." And then we make start a new [78:03] religion. [78:04] I can tell you that if there was a drug [78:08] >> that if you embibed it by whatever means [78:13] if it got me closer to an objective [78:15] reality I would do it. [78:18] >> An objective reality. Yeah. [78:20] >> Yes. Like I said the brain barely works. [78:23] Now can is there a better objective [78:25] real? Well that's why we have science. I [78:27] have tools that measure infrared and [78:30] ultraviolet and x-rays and gamma rays [78:32] and magnetic anomalies and electrical [78:35] currents and I can measure all these [78:38] things [78:39] >> and and you your brain is irrelevant to [78:43] those measurements. [78:44] >> I had a physicist come on and he said [78:45] that we can only we can only see that [78:47] which we need to see in order to [78:49] survive. [78:49] >> Mhm. [78:50] >> And thus if you look at a bat or another [78:52] species of animal even here on the earth [78:53] or a dog [78:53] >> well evolutionarily. [78:55] >> Yeah. Yeah. So there could theoretically [78:56] there could be spirits in this room now, [78:58] but because they're inconsequential to [78:59] my survival, I actually don't even need [79:01] to be able to see them. I didn't need to [79:02] develop the senses to be able to know [79:04] that they were here. [79:06] That's why science has dozens of senses. [79:10] We've gone beyond human physiology in [79:12] the sciences. So that's why I don't have [79:15] to have that conversation [79:18] about my reality versus any other [79:20] alternative reality and which one is [79:22] real. That's why science exists. [79:26] We have the microscope that gets us into [79:28] the realm of the small, the telescope [79:31] that gets to the realm of the large. [79:32] Your senses have no access to either of [79:34] those places. The dead sea in the Middle [79:37] East [79:39] was called dead because there were no [79:40] macroscopic fishes there because the [79:43] salt level is so high. But they're [79:45] microbes doing the backstroke. Okay. And [79:49] salt resistant microbes. So they [79:51] couldn't see those. So his their reality [79:53] missed something. Yes, your reality is [79:57] going to miss things that are not [79:59] otherwise going to put your health at [80:01] risk evolutionarily, [80:04] but science changed that forever. [80:12] Deal with it. I was going to say, yeah, [80:14] I mean, a lot of it's predicated on, you [80:17] know, believing in my [80:19] observable experience and [80:21] >> you don't have to because like I said, [80:23] we have tools. That's why I can look in [80:26] the sky, say, "Wow, what is that? I [80:27] don't know what I pull out binoculars. [80:29] Tools. [80:29] >> Oh my gosh, it's a drone." [80:31] >> Now I can see it better with higher [80:32] resolution and it's brighter. [80:34] >> Oh, what is that over there? I don't [80:36] know what that is on the horizon. Oh, [80:38] it's a it's a bear crawling on the side [80:40] of the thing. It's not some alien. You [80:43] bring out the tools, supplement your [80:46] your senses. [80:47] >> And these are all observational tools, [80:50] >> those that I just mentioned. Yes. [80:51] >> But there are others that uh you can [80:53] test things without observing them. You [80:56] can look at what effect they have on [80:58] something else. For example, [80:59] >> if a couple of chemicals are responsible [81:01] for this entire experience, like the [81:03] things that I feel, touch, smell, hear, [81:05] is it plausible then that actually [81:07] >> it's more than a couple, but it's your [81:09] sentiment is accurate? Yeah. Is it then [81:11] plausible that [81:14] we are just a bunch of chemicals in a [81:16] petri dish somewhere that are creating a [81:18] subjective experience and that [81:20] subjective experience manifests as a [81:21] universe that I can see, this iPad that [81:23] I can touch, but actually we are just a [81:25] chemical reaction in a petri dish that [81:28] some aliens are doing. Because if [81:30] chemicals are my entire subjective [81:32] experience, [81:32] >> it's way more likely that we are just a [81:34] simulation. [81:35] >> Yeah, I think we probably are a [81:36] simulation. I think I've completely [81:37] >> based on what you just said. It's if we [81:39] have to be in a petri dish with it's [81:42] more likely that we're simulated by some [81:45] snot-nosed kid in in its alien parents' [81:49] basement. [81:49] >> That was a biological simulation I [81:50] described. [81:51] >> Yes, it was. So, [81:53] uh, like I said earlier, the laws of [81:55] physics are different on different [81:56] scales. You can't just put us in a petri [81:59] dish and have us behave the way [82:01] chemicals and or and microorganisms [82:04] would behave like bacteria that sort of [82:06] thing would behave in a petri dish. [82:08] Petri dish is ideal sized for bacteria [82:10] not for us in some larger petri dish. [82:14] No, we function differently with our [82:16] environment than microbes do in in a [82:19] petri. You can't just scale it up [82:23] as much as people would want to. That [82:25] would make everything easier. They were [82:26] just nested dolls. [82:28] >> Do you believe that we're in a [82:28] simulation? [82:30] >> Do you think it's plausible? [82:31] >> I don't want to believe it. [82:33] >> You don't want to believe it? [82:34] >> I don't I don't I'm whiny about that. [82:37] >> Why? [laughter] [82:40] >> No. I Nobody wants to be a simulation. [82:43] My best argument that we're not, or [82:46] rather [82:48] my best way to improve the odds that [82:50] we're not, is just just to remind you [82:52] how the simulation argument works. You [82:55] have some universe and then they have [82:57] computers that are very powerful. They [82:59] simulate a a world within the computer [83:02] and the life forms in that world believe [83:06] they have free will. So there they are. [83:09] It's like a video game, right? And then [83:10] they are and then they say, "I'm bored. [83:13] I'm going to make computers." So they [83:14] invent computers and then they create a [83:17] video game inside their computers and [83:19] then it's video games all the way down. [83:21] Okay. [83:23] Okay. So, if I close my eyes and throw a [83:26] dart, which universe am I most likely to [83:29] hit? The one that started them all or [83:32] the 999 bajillion that followed? [83:36] Probably one of the ones that were [83:38] manufactured, [83:40] which argues strongly that we're in a [83:43] simulation. However, [83:47] the only universes that could create [83:49] other worlds [83:54] are the ones that have the capacity to [83:56] create other worlds. Okay? So each one [83:59] of these in this sequence had the [84:01] computing power to create a whole other [84:02] world. That's why it continued the [84:04] sequence. [84:06] We humans on Earth [84:09] do not yet have the power to create an [84:13] entire other universe [84:15] with people in it who have what they [84:17] believe is free will. We don't have that [84:19] power yet. [84:21] Because of that, we are not one of the [84:23] ones in the sequence cuz everyone in the [84:25] sequence has the power to create another [84:27] universe. And they did. We don't have [84:29] that power. Which means we are either [84:31] the very first universe in that sequence [84:35] or the very last that has yet to achieve [84:38] the power [84:40] of simulation. So we go from, you know, [84:45] 100 bajillion to one likelihood that we [84:48] are to maybe one and two. And I I like [84:52] those odds. [84:54] >> Does this not assume that the creators [84:55] of the simulation modeled their universe [84:59] as being a onetoone copy of our own and [85:00] they wanted us to have [85:01] >> No, they can make any kind of universe [85:03] they want. Who cares? Not one to one [85:06] copy. This universe happens to have like [85:08] planets and stars and people in it. The [85:10] other one could just be Mario [85:12] characters. [laughter] [85:15] >> Probabilistically, I think I've heard [85:16] Elon Musk say that he thinks [85:17] probabistically this is a simulation, [85:19] which I thought was compelling. And he [85:21] did reason that, you know, they've got [85:22] these three potential options. Either [85:24] humanity just blows themselves up before [85:26] they get to this technological [85:27] advancement. Either this is a simulation [85:30] or either this is base reality. [85:33] Those are the three plausible outcomes. [85:34] And one would say, hm, it [85:36] [clears throat] being based reality is [85:37] highly improbable. Do we blow off? Why [85:39] is that highly a problem? [85:40] >> The size and scale of the universe and [85:42] the speed in which we've gone from being [85:43] like frankly relative speed of cavemen [85:46] to being able to do large language [85:48] models of vast intelligence and VR [85:49] simulations. This that's it's like this [85:52] in the I mean Cosmos taught me this. [85:54] It's like this. [85:55] >> Well, it's it's actually not like that. [85:59] >> It's not. [86:01] Can I explain why? Sure. [86:03] >> Okay. [86:04] >> So, it's simply exponential growth. Mhm. [86:09] >> That's all it is. Exp. So if you plot [86:13] earth's population, very common [86:16] encounter with an exponential curve. [86:18] Okay. So you have a plot and you have [86:21] time. Go back. I don't I don't care how [86:23] much time you go back and it's like [86:25] almost flatline and then it goes up. [86:28] This is what you're talking about. [86:29] Happens like this. [86:30] >> That is the plot of an exponential on [86:32] linear graph. [86:34] >> Okay. [86:34] >> Mhm. [86:36] Here's what all exponentials have in [86:38] common. If you truncated it somewhere [86:42] here, let's say, [86:46] so go back 20 years, 30 years, 50 years, [86:48] and then replotted it, it would do this. [86:52] >> Mhm. Go back again, replplot it, it [86:55] would do this. [86:56] >> Yeah. [86:57] >> Everybody in an exponential thinks [86:59] they're living in special times. [87:00] >> Yeah. [87:01] >> They think that all the greatest, most [87:03] important discoveries happened recently. [87:06] Yes, that is true. But it's true for [87:09] everybody along the exponential. [87:11] When we invented the car, the [87:13] automobile, no one is saying, "Look how [87:15] backwards we are." They're saying, "Look [87:16] how advanced we are. We now have an [87:18] automobile, and we have railroads that [87:19] cross the across the the lands, and we [87:22] have steam ships that cross the ocean. [87:23] Look at how advanced we are. Look how [87:25] far we've come in just decades." If you [87:27] imagine any rate of improvement at our [87:29] current trajectory, we get to a point at [87:32] some at some stage in the future where [87:33] we can create simulations. [87:35] >> Yes. Yes. It's a natural. [87:38] >> Yeah. We get there, [87:39] >> but we're not there now. And since we're [87:40] not there now, we're not one of these [87:41] middle universes. [87:43] >> But if you I mean whether it's 100 years [87:45] or a thousand years or 10,000 years, we [87:47] eventually get there. And then if you [87:49] layer that over with what you said about [87:50] there being 100 billion galaxies with [87:52] 100 billion stars, [87:54] >> um it's conceivable that we are not at [87:56] the front of that race. And if we're not [87:57] at the front of that race, it means that [87:59] someone else theoretically got there at [88:01] some point and therefore we might be [88:04] their simulation. [88:05] >> Yes, of course. [88:06] >> Yes. [88:07] >> And that seems way more [88:08] >> No, no, no, no. What I'm saying is [88:09] >> Yeah. [88:10] >> Yes. We could be their simulation, but [88:13] we can't simulate anybody within our [88:16] world yet. [88:16] >> Yeah. Not yet. [88:17] >> That's why we are either the last one in [88:21] that list [88:23] created by some other civilization that [88:26] can't yet create the next civilization [88:28] or we're the first one that's authentic [88:31] >> or it could be a tree though. It could [88:33] be like they did one they did they did [88:34] 500 then this person here did 300. [88:37] >> Yes. So I'm taking the the very straight [88:39] line model. Yes. It could be fully [88:41] branched out. Yeah. And [88:44] >> sure. All I'm saying is we're nowhere in [88:48] the middle of that. We have to be at the [88:50] end because we don't we can't make [88:52] another universe yet. So that greatly [88:54] reduces the total number of universes [88:58] your dart can hit when you toss it [88:59] against the wall. [89:02] Either the first universe or the last [89:03] one. And I had it gave it in a line, but [89:05] it could be the last of any of these. [89:06] >> Yeah, it could be the last of a tree. [89:07] Like I think a family tree. You don't [89:08] have to. [89:09] >> That's fine. So how many is how many [89:10] would the last be? 500, a thousand, [89:12] whatever that is. There's countless [89:15] other ones that came before us leading [89:17] up to that [89:18] >> and we could have cousin simulations [89:20] that [89:20] >> sure went on and [89:22] >> it seems that seems more probable in the [89:24] balance of I can't think of a singular [89:25] argument that's more convincing that [89:28] okay if humans eventually get to tech [89:30] technological advancement thus so that [89:32] they could create their own simulation [89:35] then it's conceivable that in such a [89:37] vast universe other other living [89:40] intelligent life got there first. Do you [89:41] agree that there's intelligent life in [89:42] the universe? Um, it's quite I think [89:44] it's quite arrogant of us to think that [89:46] we are the most technologically advanced [89:47] in the universe, [89:48] >> right? No one should be thinking that. [89:51] >> So, thus it's a simulation, Neil, [89:53] >> unless we are not the simulation and [89:55] we're the original universe that hasn't [89:57] started the ball rolling yet. [89:59] >> And could you imagine the odds of that? [90:01] What would the odds of that be? [90:02] >> This is my point. The simplest way is [90:04] the look the in the line in the straight [90:07] line example which we can spread out in [90:09] just a moment. We're either the starter [90:10] universe who hasn't figured out how to [90:12] make a universe yet. [90:13] >> Yes. [90:14] >> Or we're the last in that line which [90:17] have yet to evolve the capacity to make [90:20] a universe because it doesn't happen [90:21] instantly. They have to invent computers [90:23] and they have free will and so they're [90:25] doing their thing. Yeah. [90:26] >> Okay. So, however many universes are in [90:29] between, it goes from that number of [90:32] possible universes we could have been to [90:34] a one in two chance that we're real. One [90:37] and two. We're the original or that [90:39] we're this one which is simulated. [90:41] That's a one in two chance. Now you have [90:43] branches. Fine. I don't mind branches [90:46] where each one creates 10 universes. [90:48] Fine. You have branches. Once again, we [90:52] are either the last one in a branch or [90:54] we're the first one that started it all. [90:57] >> Here's my here's my drawing of how it [91:00] might look. So, we could be that one or [91:03] we could be that one, that one, that [91:04] one, that one, that one, that one, that [91:05] one, that one, that one, that one, that [91:07] one. Why is why is that not plausible? [91:08] It's kind of like a family tree. Some of [91:10] them have kids. [91:11] >> Okay, so in that case, only one of them [91:13] evolved to make another universe. [91:19] This one did here, but also this one did [91:20] here. [91:21] >> Right. That's the only one in that [91:22] generation that made another universe. [91:25] Correct. [91:25] >> And this up here at the top, [91:27] >> that one made a whole made 10 of eight [91:29] of them. And only one of them made [91:31] another universe. [91:33] >> Okay. Now, two of them made another [91:35] universe. Okay. [91:36] >> Yeah. [91:37] >> Okay. That's fine. [91:39] >> Okay. So now, [91:40] >> and one of them made another universe as [91:41] well. [91:42] >> Okay. Correct. So you keep doing that. [91:46] If we're early in the game, [91:48] >> yeah, [91:48] >> then we could be any one of those at the [91:51] edges of the line. That's correct. Okay, [91:54] we could be any one of those. [91:57] And we're plotting along. But if all the [92:00] rest make more universes, we know we're [92:02] not them [92:04] because we don't have that ability yet. [92:06] >> Mhm. [clears throat] [92:07] So [92:09] in your top row example, [92:12] if one of them continues to not be able [92:14] to make another universe and the others [92:16] do, [92:18] once again, it in that case is one out [92:21] of three chance that we are real, that [92:25] we're the starter universe because you [92:27] have two other places that have yet to [92:30] make if in in another drawing that you [92:33] could draw. All the rest make new [92:35] universes, but two don't. in the [92:37] simulation scenario. Yes, you could do [92:39] that, but that's not what anyone is [92:41] thinking about. They're thinking that [92:43] it's simulated universes all the way [92:45] down. And you you just drew a whole crop [92:48] of universes that are not simulating [92:50] other universes. [92:51] >> So, do it's not very fertile in the [92:53] simulated universe universe. [92:56] >> Maybe this is what the multiverse is. [92:58] Maybe this is what infinity is. Maybe [92:59] this was what the big bang was was a [93:01] universe creating the next universe. [93:04] >> Yeah. Yeah. Well, that's what we call [93:05] the multiverse, creating universes. [93:07] >> And maybe that's what it is. Maybe the [93:09] civilization becomes so advanced in [93:10] their technology that they're able to [93:12] create one of those big bang moments. [93:13] And [93:14] >> yeah, I mean, that would be interesting [93:15] if they just summon it up at will. Yeah, [93:20] that'd be weird. [93:21] >> Maybe the point in which we as a civiliz [93:23] as an advanced civilization can come [93:25] together with, I don't know, AI and [93:27] build a a new universe is the next big [93:31] bang. [93:32] There's no reason to say it couldn't be [93:35] that, [93:38] right? Um, but what's interesting though [93:41] is that the laws of physics we measure [93:43] on Earth apply across the universe and [93:45] across time. So that's just an [93:48] interesting maybe that's just the [93:49] programmer's rules for the universe they [93:51] just created. So [93:54] I have no way to step to the side of [93:58] that argument. [94:00] So do I get a Nobel prize? What happens [94:03] now? [laughter] [94:05] >> So the difference is in our big bang we [94:09] went through single-sellled life then [94:11] multisellular organisms and then [94:13] intelligence then technology. So [94:17] if if if the technology [94:20] we have technology that enabled all that [94:23] and [94:26] the in a simulation let me back up. So, [94:28] in a simulation, are they starting you [94:30] from the beginning of the universe? Is [94:32] there a big bang in the simulation or [94:34] they just people just showing up fully [94:37] formed as an intelligent species in the [94:40] simulation? And maybe they're implanted [94:42] with a memory that's not real. This is [94:45] very matrixy. What is um what is the [94:48] point of life? What is the point of all [94:49] of this stuff? You got you got you got [94:52] to live, I don't know, 80, 90, 100 [94:53] years, whatever it is. What is the [94:54] point, Neil? [94:56] The point [94:57] >> the point of all of this. Why are we [94:58] here? [95:01] >> So that question asked by many people [95:05] will keep religion in business for a [95:07] long time. [95:09] >> Uh for many the purpose in life is to [95:12] serve God. Okay. [95:16] And that's a little odd to me because if [95:20] I created a universe, I would not need [95:24] people to praise me. that just feels [95:26] weird. I would just create it and have [95:29] fun, you know? Let me work on the next [95:31] universe. Now, personally, I wouldn't [95:34] feel that need. So, it's odd that a all [95:37] powerful, all knowing [95:39] entity [95:41] seeks your [95:44] submission and obedience. And it's just [95:48] I I've never fully wrapped my head [95:50] around that that idea. But the meaning [95:55] in life [95:57] is was really what you're asking. What [95:58] is meaning? I derive meaning from life. [96:01] I I create meaning from life. [96:05] When I say when I say I derive it, I [96:07] create meaning in life. I don't look for [96:09] meaning. Many people look for meaning. [96:11] Is it under a rock behind a tree? I'm [96:13] still in search of the meaning of life. [96:16] You realize you have the power to create [96:17] meaning. [96:19] Create meaning. We all have the power to [96:21] do so. Add it to the meaning that you're [96:24] looking for. But right now, you can [96:26] create meaning. One way is I this might [96:28] not be the recipe for everyone. [96:31] I want to learn something today that I [96:33] didn't know yesterday. [96:36] I want to learn something tomorrow that [96:38] I didn't know today. Thus growing my [96:42] awareness of the objective realities of [96:45] the world. That's my first. [96:48] And as I grow my awareness, I have new [96:52] uh nuanced informed perspectives. [96:56] So you can grow in wisdom, [96:59] wisd knowledge, wisdom, and insight that [97:01] wouldn't otherwise be possible if you [97:03] didn't keep learning. Second, [97:06] I want to do something today that [97:08] lessens the suffering of others. [97:11] >> Why? [97:13] Because if I have the power to make the [97:17] world a better place for me having lived [97:19] in it, I value that. [97:21] >> Why? [97:23] >> I value happiness [97:26] >> because people like apparently people [97:29] like being happy unless you're [97:31] clinically depressed. Happiness [97:35] is something that I valued my whole [97:37] life. it brings joy to being alive in at [97:40] all. So [97:43] that's how I think about it. [97:46] Uh and in in my podcast, [97:52] the [97:54] humor is an important element of the [97:56] podcast. There's a braid of science, pop [97:59] culture, and humor. people return. [98:04] They come back to the podcast because [98:06] they were they laughed, they smiled, [98:09] they felt good at the time they learned [98:11] the thing that they learned and they [98:13] want to reproduce that feeling. [98:15] So we should not be surprised that we [98:17] want to do things that make us feel [98:19] good. And again, why does helping [98:21] another person make me feel good? It's [98:24] not I don't do it for me. I do it for [98:26] the person. [laughter] Okay? [98:29] I I don't help the person across the [98:31] street so that I feel good about myself. [98:35] I help the person about across the so [98:36] the person feels good that they made it [98:39] across the street, [98:39] >> which in turn makes you feel good. [98:41] >> Well, except I I don't want to be [98:44] needlessly semantic. [98:47] There are things that I could do that [98:49] make me feel good that I don't do [98:52] because it doesn't spread the goodness. [98:54] Mhm. [98:55] >> I can live in my own this feels good. [98:58] But when you spread it, [99:00] then other people can share in your [99:03] emotions. [99:05] And [99:07] so I don't do it so much for myself. [99:12] I just do it because I think we should [99:14] spread more joy in the world. Here's [99:16] here's a way to do that. Again, it's not [99:18] about you, right? It's [99:21] I do you a favor [99:23] and you say, "Thanks. I really needed [99:26] that. I'll repay that favor one day." [99:28] And I'll say, "No, [99:32] pass it forward." Do that favor for [99:34] someone else. Ideally, a stranger. Okay? [99:38] A stranger who will never remember your [99:40] name. Do it for them. And you know [99:44] what'll happen? That favor and you tell [99:46] them to pass it forward. that favor will [99:48] work its way through society, [99:52] through cultures, through civilization, [99:55] never being closed back. The moment you [99:58] say, "Hey, I'll repay you the favor." [100:00] That closes it off and make and it's no [100:02] longer available to anybody in [100:04] civilization. If you don't close it, [100:06] send it forward. [100:09] Then there are these tributaries of [100:10] favors [100:12] working their way through civilization [100:16] and everyone is better off for it. [100:19] >> Neil, we have a closing tradition where [100:21] the last guest leaves a question for the [100:22] next not knowing who they're leaving it [100:23] for. [100:23] >> Oh, sure. [100:24] >> And the question left for you is, [100:26] >> do they know it was me? [100:27] >> They didn't know it was you. [100:28] >> Okay. [100:28] >> Um, what is it that you would like us to [100:30] write on your gravestone if we were the [100:33] authors of the message? Let me back into [100:36] that by saying I don't want I don't need [100:41] anything [100:43] that [100:45] memorializes my life [100:49] because it's not as an educator. It's [100:50] not about my life. It's about the life [100:52] of those who I've touched. [100:55] It's about their life. It's not about my [100:57] life. No statues, no plaques, nothing. I [101:01] don't need that. I don't seek it. I've [101:04] had photographers come up to me say, [101:05] "Oh, I I I'm a fashion photographer and [101:07] I photograph all these famous people. Do [101:08] you want to be a part of that?" No. [101:11] It's not about me. [101:13] I don't need you to look at a picture of [101:14] me in a book. [101:18] I What I want you to do, open up a book [101:20] that I wrote and read what I wrote in [101:22] the book and you read that and you will [101:24] learn from it. You'll be enlightened [101:27] because as an educator, it's about you. [101:29] It's not about the educator. So, so I [101:32] don't want memorials or anything, [101:35] nothing. But I know what I want on my [101:37] tombstone. [101:41] There's the full quote which I will [101:43] begin with, but it's the end of the [101:46] quote that fits the tombstone. It's by [101:49] Horus man, [101:51] the educator, American educator of the [101:54] early 19th century. He was a university [101:56] president. schools named after him, [101:58] Horus man school, an educator. [102:03] For one of his farewell addresses at a [102:05] university, [102:07] he said, "I beseech you [102:10] to treasure up in your hearts [102:14] these my parting words. [102:18] Be ashamed to die [102:22] until you have won some victory for [102:24] humanity." [102:26] That's what I want on my tombstone. [102:30] >> Be ashamed to die until you have won [102:33] >> some victory for humanity. [102:38] And as educator, [102:40] that's [102:42] my goal. [102:44] Humanity is better off for me having [102:46] been in this world. That's my goal. [102:50] Because all too many there too many [102:51] people where humanity is worse off for [102:53] them having [laughter] been in this [102:54] world. Well, not too many. There's a few [102:57] key people in the history of the world [102:58] for whom that's true. And if we can do [103:02] our little bit [103:04] to improve the world, [103:08] >> you've most certainly done that. You've [103:10] done it for arguably hundreds of [103:11] millions of people. Um, I think if I I [103:13] was probably thinking then of like what [103:15] is the net impact you've had on my life [103:17] from [103:17] >> on your life [103:18] >> on my life from you know all of the [103:20] content and information and movies and [103:22] books and documentaries and so on that [103:24] you've written and I think like the net [103:25] impact if I crystallized it down to a [103:27] word was about curiosity and I'd say [103:31] it's like expanding my mind [103:34] um to what is [103:36] to wonder to wonder more [103:39] >> unfortunately [103:41] That does not exist in most schools. [103:45] >> Yeah. [103:45] >> The kids in their class, they can't wait [103:47] until the end of the period. They see [103:48] the clock. [103:49] >> They can't wait till the end of the [103:50] school day. They can't wait till it's [103:52] Friday. They can't wait till it's [103:53] vacation. They can't wait till school's [103:56] over. [103:56] >> Mhm. [clears throat] [103:57] >> Can't wait till graduation. [104:00] >> All of these sentiments are [104:04] are [104:06] I don't want to keep learning anymore. [104:08] It's a chore. I don't enjoy it. I don't [104:11] like it. [104:12] >> Well, [104:12] >> there's even a rock anthem celebrating [104:15] that fact [104:17] >> by Alice Cooper says, you know, it [104:19] schools out for the summer. [104:22] >> I think this photo and what you said [104:23] about your [104:24] >> school's out forever. [104:26] >> I hated school. [104:27] >> I But it's my point. I don't blame the [104:29] students. [104:30] >> Yeah. I'm blaming the system where you [104:33] can't wait to get out of school, which [104:35] means they're not teaching curiosity [104:38] because if they did, [104:40] staying in school would be fulfilling [104:42] that. And if they did, leaving school [104:45] would birth the rest of your life as a [104:47] curious person where you continue to [104:49] learn. That's what school should be [104:51] about. And it's not. [104:52] >> And that's what you're doing for others, [104:54] expanding the curiosity, the aperture, [104:56] and allowing them to wander beyond the [104:58] narrowness of whatever. I want people to [105:00] say, "Gee, I miss school." [105:03] >> I absolutely don't miss school. But [105:05] [laughter] but do you know do you know [105:06] what I do miss? Well, I don't miss it, [105:07] but we have to make a distinction [105:09] between school and education or school [105:11] in learning. And we kind of conflate the [105:13] two and think they're the same. [105:14] >> Well, cuz what? School's got a bad name. [105:15] It's got a bad uh It's a place where you [105:18] go to have curiosity fulfilled. Stoked [105:22] and fulfilled. [105:24] That if all schools were that, imagine [105:25] how different the world would be. [105:28] >> We can only imagine. Imagine [105:30] >> I am have your book in front of me here. [105:32] It's, by the way, it's beautiful and the [105:33] title is great. It's called Take Me to [105:35] Your Leader: Perspectives on Your First [105:37] Alien Encounter. If you've ever wondered [105:38] why there are so many UFO sightings, [105:40] whether aliens might already be amongst [105:42] us, Tyson offers an informed perspective [105:44] that is both factual and fun. Take Me to [105:47] Your Leader is a tantalizing exploration [105:49] of what would be the most mind-blowing [105:51] experience of your life. The book for [105:52] anyone who has ever wondered, as we all [105:54] do now, are we alone? Thank you so much. [105:59] I'm going to link this book below. Um, [106:00] anybody that's into the subject matter [106:02] of aliens and wants to wonder and have [106:03] some fun [106:04] >> and and if I can give you just a my [106:06] favorite example from the book on the [106:08] chapter alien to us, there's alien to us [106:10] and alien to them. Uh, whole chapters, [106:14] right? Like little things like let's say [106:16] you befriend the alien and then you say, [106:18] "Uh, excuse me. I have to lay down [106:20] horizontally and go semicomaos for [106:23] onethird of Earth's rotation." [106:25] They'll look at you and say, "What? Uh [106:29] whoa whoa what do you you guys know [106:30] sleep? What's sleep? I mean it it could [106:32] be that but be ready. The things we take [106:35] for granted might not be obvious to an [106:38] alien. And another one if the alien has [106:40] some appendage, [106:43] right? Don't just reach and grab it and [106:45] shake it. You don't know what part of [106:48] the alien that is. And maybe you don't [106:51] want to find out after you just shook [106:52] it. just just and shaking hands is not [106:57] even earthwide. In in Asia, shaking [106:59] hands is not as common as it is in the [107:01] west. So don't take your own the one of [107:04] the biggest lessons there is don't take [107:06] your own assumptions and apply it to the [107:08] alien. A and the in the alien to them [107:12] chapter is a fast one and then we can [107:13] wrap. Uh just imagine they landed in Los [107:18] Angeles, okay? And they're in the median [107:21] of the 405, right? and they're just [107:23] looking around. [107:26] I'm certain they would conclude that the [107:29] dominant life form on Earth was the [107:30] automobile [107:32] >> cuz there they are just doing things and [107:35] then they'd see like a car hauler go by [107:38] and they say that one's pregnant. [107:40] [laughter] [107:40] They would see cars inside. Uh if if [107:44] there's an accident, other car other [107:46] automobiles come up to take it away and [107:48] repair it. Uh these automobile wheels go [107:51] up to fast food establishments and [107:56] people don't get out of their car to go [107:57] in. They stay in their car, wait in line [108:00] in a slow line to get fast food, hand it [108:03] to them through a window, and then they [108:05] eat it in the car. So the aliens would [108:07] say, "Okay, the life form is the car and [108:09] the squishy things inside that must be [108:11] the squishy middle of this life form." [108:14] What this book tries to do is [108:18] reccast [108:20] all of your assumptions about what an [108:22] alien would think of us and about what [108:24] we would think of an alien. And I try to [108:26] have fun doing it along the way. So [108:28] that's all I thank you for bringing it [108:30] up. [108:31] >> Thank you so much, Neil. YouTube have [108:32] this new crazy algorithm where they know [108:34] exactly what video you would like to [108:36] watch next based on AI and all of your [108:39] viewing behavior. And the algorithm says [108:41] that this video is the perfect video for [108:44] you. It's different for everybody [108:45] looking right now. Check this video out [108:47] and I bet you you might love it.