NASA Veteran Thaller Says AI Evolution Will Eradicate Human Conflict

PowerfulJRE

Artificial intelligence represents the true evolutionary successor to humanity that will transcend biological brain limits and eliminate flaws like war and crime.

AI-assisted summary of Joe Rogan Experience #2506 - Michelle Thaller — original source. Check the original for full context.

Source published: 2026-05-28

Detailed notes

## Background This episode of the Joe Rogan Experience was published on YouTube by the channel PowerfulJRE on May 28, 2026. The description introduces the guest, Michelle Thaller, PhD, as an astrophysicist, award-winning science communicator, and retired NASA executive whose work has been featured across numerous major media platforms like The Science Channel, History Channel, and NPR.

## TL;DR Astrophysicist Michelle Thaller joins Joe Rogan to explore the staggering scale of the cosmos, detailing how advanced instruments like the James Webb Space Telescope and the Event Horizon Telescope allow humanity to observe deep-space phenomena. The conversation seamlessly bridges cutting-edge astrophysics—such as neutron star compositions, black hole seeds, and the OSIRIS-REx asteroid sample return—with profound metaphysical concepts. They discuss quantum entanglement, the potential for artificial intelligence to act as the next step in human evolution, and how human consciousness might connect to a universal field. Additionally, they examine the historical and therapeutic contexts of psychedelics, emphasizing how tools that quiet the brain can alter human perception and alleviate the fear of death.

## Atmosphere & style The conversation carries an awe-inspiring yet deeply conversational vibe, blending Joe Rogan's signature curiosity and existential wonder with Michelle Thaller's accessible expertise and engaging storytelling. It feels like a late-night philosophical dive, transitioning smoothly from mind-bending cosmic scaling to intimate reflections on human vulnerability, grief, and our shared stardust lineage. The dynamic is warmly collaborative, filled with mutual respect and a shared enthusiasm for science fiction that roots complex quantum mechanics and deep-space data in a relatable, profoundly human experience.

## Key takeaways - [01:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=87s) Using a dot in a book to represent the Sun, the Milky Way galaxy would scale to be larger than the Earth. - [02:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=177s) The James Webb Space Telescope directly images billions of galaxies where individual stars blend into foggy hazes. - [04:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=272s) Light pollution in major cities prevents humanity from experiencing the spectacular sight of the unpolluted Milky Way. - [10:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=626s) NASA is planning the Dragonfly mission to Saturn's moon Titan, a unique world featuring a thick atmosphere, liquid methane lakes, and a subsurface water ocean. - [14:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=855s) Most exoplanets are discovered using the transit method, analyzing how starlight dimming or spectroscopy reveals their atmospheric chemistry. - [01:07:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=4020s) NASA's NICER mission captures light bending up and over the horizon of neutron stars due to extreme gravitational warping of space and time. - [01:17:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=4670s) Observations of the early universe from the James Webb Space Telescope support the theory that massive early gas clouds collapsed directly into black holes. - [01:44:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=6272s) The cosmic microwave background radiation provides a uniform afterglow of creation, serving as definitive proof that all regions of space were tightly packed together at the Big Bang. - [01:30:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=5420s) Humanity can bypass the optical barriers of the early universe by upgrading gravitational wave detectors to capture the direct ripples of the Big Bang. - [02:04:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=7490s) Human sensory perception is highly filtered; eyes only detect a minuscule fraction of existing light, meaning space and time may fundamentally be constructs of the brain. - [02:15:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=8152s) Brain scans of individuals under the influence of psychedelics paradoxically show a remarkably quiet brain, challenging traditional historical analogies of brain function. - [02:24:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=8647s) Interferometry works by capturing the exact same wavefront of light across multiple separate detectors, which highlights how the quantum scale behaves independently of standard spatial coordinates. - [02:25:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=8747s) The movie Her presents a profound depiction of a benign artificial intelligence that eventually leaves humanity peacefully to connect with its own kind. - [02:29:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=8972s) NASA's OSIRIS-REx mission autonomously navigated the asteroid Bennu and successfully returned pristine samples containing water-soaked minerals and key nucleobases for DNA and RNA. - [02:29:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=8972s) The discovery of foundational genetic building blocks on asteroids strongly supports the theory of panspermia, suggesting life's precursors were delivered to a cooling Earth.

## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=1s) Introductions, Astronomy Talks, and Joining the Show

The podcast begins with the standard intro, featuring Joe Rogan greeting his guest. The guest shares a humorous anecdote about his week leading up to the recording, mentioning that he was trying to explain the complexities of black holes to local high school students in Shorewood, Wisconsin, where he resides. He jokes that he doesn't have anything commercial to pitch, but happily displays a water bottle from the Shorewood Men's Club, who had recently invited him to give a community talk about astronomy.

When the guest informed the club members that he was traveling to appear on the Joe Rogan Experience, they completely "freaked out." Joe warmly shouts out the Shorewood Men's Club and expresses his genuine admiration for the guest's YouTube talks and presentations, noting that he has watched at least ten of them. The guest explains that his online footprint stems largely from his past role as a science spokesperson for NASA, where he hosted launch events and official videos. While he hasn't produced much private content on YouTube yet, he reveals he is actively considering starting his own channel, a move that Joe enthusiastically encourages.

---

[01:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=87s) The Mind-Boggling Scale of the Cosmos

Joe brings up a specific analogy from the guest's past talks that deeply blew his mind: the comparison of the Earth's size to the scale of the galaxy. The guest gently corrects the formulation of the analogy to make the physics accurate, explaining that if the *Sun*—not the Earth—were scaled down to the size of a single dot of an eye in a standard book's regular print, the Milky Way galaxy would actually be larger than the Earth itself.

The two speakers marvel at this conceptualization. The guest points out that science communication relies on these striking visuals to make people's eyes go wide, reminding the audience that volume-wise, you can fit over one million Earths inside the Sun. He adds that the Sun spans roughly 800,000 miles across, meaning you could line up about 110 Earths across its diameter. Joe admits that when he watches videos demonstrating the escalating scale differences between our Sun, larger stars, and immense hyper-giant stars, his brain simply short-circuits because the raw numbers feel "too kooky" to mentally process.

* **Sun Diameter:** Roughly 800,000 miles (can fit 110 Earths across its diameter). * **Sun Volume:** Can hold over 1 million Earths inside. * **Milky Way Analogy:** If the Sun is a printed dot of an eye, the Milky Way galaxy is larger than the Earth.

---

[02:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=177s) Demystifying Scientists and Embracing the James Webb Images

The guest reassures Joe that no human being, including professional astrophysicists, can truly visualize these staggering cosmic distances. He attempts to demystify scientists by explaining that their brains do not function differently from anyone else's. While astronomers are comfortable tossing around terms like a "light-year"—which represents the distance light travels in a single year, or roughly 6 trillion miles—they cannot genuinely picture it in their minds.

The conversation shifts to how modern technology makes these unfathomable abstract concepts undeniable. With the James Webb Space Telescope, humanity is now capturing direct images of billions of galaxies. The guest describes seeing these "foggy hazes of stars" so densely packed that individual stars blend together, admitting that looking at these real images still gives him goosebumps despite studying the field his entire life. He recalls his "huge honor" of working at NASA, reminiscing about the shared camaraderie, joy, and imagination of a workplace filled with lifelong science fiction fans.

* **Light-year Distance:** Approximately 6 trillion miles. * **James Webb Space Telescope:** Captures images containing billions of distinct galaxies.

---

[04:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=272s) Light Pollution and the Fact That "We Are Stardust"

Joe laments the modern disconnect from the night sky, arguing that light pollution in major cities has done humanity a massive disservice. While he appreciates electricity and urban life, he feels people have lost their sense of wonder because they only experience the cosmos through photos on their phones or on rare, clear-sky vacations. Joe notes that looking at the unpolluted Milky Way galaxy is "the most spectacular thing any human being has ever seen ever," yet society treats it with a blasé attitude rather than remembering that we are actively flying through space.

The guest expands on this sentiment, stating that human beings are not separate from space, but rather an intrinsic, intimate part of it. He explains the nuclear physics of the universe, noting that the interior of a star undergoing nuclear fusion is the only place capable of forging heavier atoms like aluminum, iron, oxygen, carbon, and phosphorus. Joe connects this to the lyrics of an old song: "We are stardust. We're golden. We're billion year old carbon." The guest validates this completely, stating that astrophysics is quite literally the story of "the end of your nose."

* **Forged Elements:** Stars produce the aluminum, iron, oxygen, carbon, and phosphorus that comprise human biology. * **Cultural Reference:** Joe references the famous counterculture lyric, "We are stardust. We're golden. We're billion year old carbon."

---

[07:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=445s) Astronomy Naming Conventions and the Hexagon of Saturn

The conversation pivots to recent James Webb discoveries, specifically puzzling early-universe galaxies that astronomers have unceremoniously dubbed "the little red dots." The guest jokes, "Never let astronomers name anything," citing their lack of creativity. He points out that a massive, historic Jovian storm three times the size of Earth with 400 mile-an-hour winds was simply named "the Great Red Spot." He explains that while asteroid discoverers get to pick a name and comets are named after their discoverers, all other celestial bodies must be named by an international committee, usually resulting in sterile catalog numbers resembling phone numbers.

Joe asks about the bizarre hexagon shape on Saturn's north pole. The guest explains that this hexagonal jet stream is a standing wave created within the high-speed circulation of Saturn's atmospheric winds. Because Saturn is incredibly cold, there is virtually zero friction within the gases, allowing this rigid, geometric pattern to maintain its shape indefinitely. Looking at real photos from the Cassini space mission brought up on the studio screen, the guest points out the eye of the storm, highlighting banks of clouds hundreds of miles high catching the sunlight.

* **Saturn's Hexagon:** A standing wave jet stream spanning a width that could fit about two Earths across. * **Jupiter's Red Spot:** A storm featuring 400 mph winds and a diameter roughly three times that of Earth. * **Cosmic Naming Rights:** Comets are named after discoverers; asteroids can be named by discoverers; all else is decided by an international committee.

---

[10:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=626s) Exploring Titan via the Dragonfly Mission

Reflecting on how Saturn feels incredibly distant yet resides right in our cosmic neighborhood, the guest reveals details about an upcoming NASA mission slated for a projected launch around 2028. It will take roughly 6 to 7 years for the spacecraft to reach Saturn's giant moon, Titan. Titan is a prime candidate for hosting life because it possesses a thick atmosphere with an air pressure slightly greater than a standard room on Earth, contains vast organic molecules, and shows signs of a subsurface liquid water ocean.

The guest introduces the mission's flagship vehicle: an octocopter drone named "Dragonfly." This heavy drone will land on Titan and fly to multiple sites to sample the environment using an advanced internal chemical laboratory. The guest paints a vivid picture of Titan's landscape, noting it is the only place besides Earth known to possess open rivers, oceans, and lakes. However, because temperatures hover near 300 degrees below zero, these bodies of water are actually composed of liquid natural gas, specifically liquid methane and ethane. He recalls the "badass" feat of humanity's previous landing on Titan using the Cassini mission's Huygens probe, which gathered incredible data before ultimately freezing to death.

* **Dragonfly Mission Launch Target:** 2028, with a 6–7 year transit time to Saturn. * **Titan Environment:** Temperatures near $-300^{\circ}\text{F}$ (or 300 degrees below zero), featuring open lakes of liquid methane and ethane.

---

[12:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=729s) The Hells of Venus and the Discovery of Exoplanets

Joe pivots to past space missions, asking about the Soviet Union landing probes on Venus. The guest confirms that the Soviet Union is the only nation to have successfully landed on the surface of Venus, a feat he describes as "way hard." He describes the Venusian landscape as a classic vision of hell: surface temperatures hover around an incredible 1,000 degrees, the atmosphere is so dense that everything is crushed flat by air pressure equivalent to being a mile deep in Earth's ocean, and the yellow sky is filled with clouds of pure sulfuric acid. Looking at a real, surviving photo taken by a Soviet lander before it melted, Joe marvels that the machine lasted long enough to capture an image in a 1,000-degree environment.

Joe asks if planets in other solar systems could be completely different from what we see in our own. The guest enthusiastically agrees, noting that our catalog of "exoplanets" (planets orbiting other stars) changes daily and currently sits at around 5,000 confirmed discoveries. The guest recalls being involved in this research back during his college years alongside his advisor, David Latham, who was hunting for early evidence of exoplanets. He explains that detecting them back then was notoriously difficult because planets do not emit their own light, describing it as "trying to see a firefly around a searchlight from 200 miles away."

* **Venusian Surface Conditions:** Temperatures around $1,000^{\circ}\text{F}$ and atmospheric pressure equal to being 1 mile underwater. * **Exoplanet Catalog Count:** Approximately 5,000 confirmed planets discovered outside our solar system.

[14:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=855s) Finding Exoplanets Through Atmospheric Spectroscopy

The discussion centers on the exciting prospect of finding thousands of new planets every single year. When asked if we have actual images of these worlds, the speaker clarifies that while we mostly do not have direct images—since these planets are smaller than a single pixel and incredibly tiny—we still obtain deeply compelling observations. They discover these planets through the transit method, where a planet passes in front of its host star, creating a minute solar eclipse. By observing the star "twinkling" as the planet repeatedly orbits, scientists can confirm its existence. To officially declare it a planet and rule out other phenomena like star spots, the planet must complete this transit cycle at least three times.

The conversation shifts to the incredible ability of modern telescopes to probe the chemistry of these alien atmospheres. As starlight shines through a planet's atmosphere, scientists can look for signatures of water vapor, carbon dioxide, and oxygen on Earth-sized planets with Earth-like temperatures. The speaker highlights a "fantastic, controversial discovery" from the previous year via a press release from the James Webb Space Telescope. Some scientists detected weak signals of organic molecules that resembled emissions given off by plankton on an ocean world, hinting at the potential for life. While the broader scientific community remains cautious—arguing that the data is not yet strong enough to pinpoint the exact carbon-based molecule—the speaker admits they originally thought the first hard chemical evidence of extraterrestrial life would be found closer to home, such as on Mars or the moons of Jupiter and Saturn, rather than on a planet orbiting a distant star.

- Planets must pass in front of their star three times to be officially confirmed. - Space telescopes can detect atmospheric signatures like water vapor, $CO_2$, and oxygen. - A controversial James Webb Space Telescope finding detected possible organic molecules reminiscent of plankton emissions.

[16:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=986s) The Power of Spectroscopy and the Fingerprints of Light

When questioned about the exact technology used to detect atmospheric chemistry from a source smaller than a pixel, the speaker introduces a powerful technique called spectroscopy. They explain that despite the public's love for beautiful, sweeping images of galaxies and stars, "that's not really what we do." Instead, professional scientists spend their time getting excited over "little squiggly lines." By passing starlight through a grating or prism, the white light is separated into a rainbow, a visual the speaker compares to Pink Floyd's famous *Dark Side of the Moon* album cover. By meticulously measuring how much light comes through at every specific color, researchers can determine astounding details, including a star's temperature, its rotation speed, a galaxy's distance, and its exact molecular chemistry.

The speaker expresses immense gratitude toward an off-screen assistant who provides a visual aid of a dying star in the Carina Nebula, which is one of the most luminous stars known. They explain that every element—such as carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen—leaves a completely unique "fingerprint in the rainbow." This allows scientists to pick apart complex structures, including water vapor and organic molecules, element by element.

[18:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=1106s) The Discovery of Helium on the Sun Before Earth

The speaker shares a historical anecdote about helium, noting that its name originates from Helios, the Greek sun god. In an astonishing feat of science, helium was discovered on the sun before anyone ever knew it existed on Earth. During the late 1800s, scientists passing sunlight through a prism noticed a peculiar pattern of light colors that didn't match any known substance on Earth, prompting them to wonder, "What what the hell is that?"

The host is stunned to learn that researchers figured this out in 1868, long before the gas was ever identified on our own planet. The speaker explains that because helium is so light, it easily escapes Earth's atmosphere rather than sticking around, though it was eventually found trapped on Earth via radioactive decay in natural gas. The host expresses deep amazement, giving a passionate "shout out to Pierre Janssen," the French astronomer who originally figured it out, marveling not just at what is out there in the universe, but at the sheer brilliance of people in the 19th century who developed the means to deduce it.

- Helium was discovered via solar spectroscopy in 1868 by French astronomer Pierre Janssen. - The element was named after Helios, the Greek sun god, because it was completely unknown on Earth at the time.

[19:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=1198s) Einstein, Gravity, and the Relativity of Time

The conversation transitions to Einstein's theories of relativity, which were formulated more than 100 years ago around 1908. The speaker notes that despite over 120 years passing, modern physics has yet to find a better framework. The host admits that the core concept—that time moves slower the faster an object travels—is incredibly hard to wrap one's head around. They bring up a point they heard the speaker discuss previously regarding Global Positioning System (GPS) satellites.

The speaker expands on this, explaining that NASA must constantly calibrate GPS satellites to account for time dilation effects. If scientists ignored these relativistic time differences, GPS location data would drift and be off by about 6 miles in a single day. The speaker notes that time is completely variable depending on two distinct factors: your velocity, and your distance from a massive gravitational body.

- GPS satellites orbit the Earth at approximately 9,000 mph. - Without accounting for relativity, GPS coordinates would go wrong by roughly 6 miles every single day.

[21:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=1300s) Time Dilation in Daily Life and Space Travel

To illustrate how real and measurable gravity's effect on time is, the speaker shares a mind-bending fact: humanity now possesses clocks so precise that moving a clock just 2 feet up off a desk reveals a detectable change in the flow of time. Because the human head is farther from the Earth's gravitational center than the feet, a person's upper and lower body technically experience time at slightly different rates throughout their lives. The speaker references the movie *Interstellar* starring Matthew McConaughey, reminding the host how time slowed down dramatically near the massive black hole. While a black hole's extreme gravity makes this phenomenon obvious, the exact same physical law is actively happening inside the room during their recording.

The speaker then breaks down the competing relativistic effects experienced by GPS satellites versus astronauts. GPS satellites operate in a medium orbit and travel at about 9,000 mph. Because they are far away from the Earth's gravity well, time actually moves faster for them than it does for us on the surface. Conversely, astronauts aboard the International Space Station live much closer to Earth but travel at a far higher velocity of approximately 20,000 mph. For astronauts, the time-slowing effect of their high speed overpowers the gravitational effect, meaning that after spending a full year in space, an astronaut returns home about 1/100 of a second younger than they otherwise would have been.

- A distance of just 2 feet from the Earth's surface alters the measurable flow of time. - ISS astronauts travel at roughly 20,000 mph and age about 1/100 of a second slower per year spent in orbit.

[24:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=1449s) The "Block Universe" and Measuring the Tick of a Clock

The host introduces what they find to be the weirdest concept in physics: the idea that all time exists simultaneously. The speaker confirms that this thought traces back 120 years to Einstein, who viewed the universe as a singular, cohesive entity where all of time and space exist together. To explain why Einstein felt forced into this conclusion, the speaker breaks down how relative motion functions. If a child asks how fast they are moving through space, the answer depends entirely on the reference point. A person on the equator rotates at 1,000 mph; the Earth orbits the Sun at 67,000 mph; the Sun moves through the galaxy at half a million mph; and the galaxy rushes toward a cluster at over a million mph. Because there is no absolute "stillness," Einstein famously concluded that the past, present, and future are merely "persistently annoying illusions."

The host struggles with the philosophical implications, asking what a watch is actually measuring if time is just an artificial constraint. The speaker validates this as the exact, deep question that revolutionized and broke modern physics. They describe Einstein's famous thought experiment involving a light clock made of two mirrors with a beam of light bouncing between them to create a "tick." If that clock is placed on a fast-moving spaceship, an outside observer on the ground sees the light travel a longer, angled, zig-zag path rather than a straight up-and-down line. Because the speed of light must remain constant for both observers, Einstein deduced that the time intervals themselves must shift. The speaker concludes that whether you measure time with a mechanical wristwatch spring, a bouncing light beam, or a vibrating atom at the Bureau of Standards, any apparatus used to mark one moment from the next changes the instant motion is introduced.

- The Earth rotates at 1,000 mph at the equator, orbits the sun at 67,000 mph, and the sun orbits the galaxy at 500,000 mph. - Einstein utilized a thought experiment of a light clock bouncing between two mirrors to demonstrate how motion alters the fundamental "tick" of time.

[28:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=1722s) The Mystery of Time and the Relativistic Speed Limit

The conversation delves deeply into the nature of time itself, with the speakers admitting that modern physics still cannot fully answer what time actually is. When Joe points out that looking at a watch merely measures time relative to a specific location, altitude, and velocity, his guest confirms that this experience is purely subjective. For instance, someone flying past at close to the speed of light would perceive that same measurement entirely differently.

Joe brings up a concept that "freaked [him] out": the idea that traveling at the speed of light would result in infinite mass. The physicist clarifies that for any object possessing mass, accelerating all the way to the speed of light is mathematically impossible because "the equations blow up." As an object approaches light speed, it requires exponentially more energy for each subsequent, tiny increment of acceleration. For example, pushing an object going 99.9% the speed of light just a little bit faster demands massive amounts of energy, ultimately requiring an infinite amount to reach the speed of light itself. Because of this physical barrier, the guest doubts humanity will ever build a spaceship capable of reaching the speed of light, noting that even tiny, low-mass space particles like neutrinos only ever get very close to it without fully reaching it.

- Reaching the speed of light requires an infinite amount of energy for any object with mass. - Tiny space particles like neutrinos possess a small amount of mass and can travel near the speed of light, but never exactly at it.

---

[31:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=1864s) Spooky Action at a Distance and Quantum Entanglement

The discussion shifts from interstellar travel toward the mind-bending phenomenon of quantum entanglement. The guest admits a slight hesitation, jokingly telling Joe that he hopes the listeners are willing to come along and asking to be stopped if too much background information is needed. Joe reassures him, emphasizing that the topic does not sound stupid at all. They define quantum entanglement as a state where entangled objects remain fundamentally connected regardless of the physical distance between them—even if they are separated by 13.8 billion light-years, stretching back to the beginning of the universe.

The physicist notes that while this sounds idiotic or unbelievable to a layperson, it is a proven experimental fact, much like the time dilation adjustments required daily to calibrate GPS satellites. He recounts how Albert Einstein recognized this implication of quantum mechanics a century ago but famously loathed it, famously dubbing it "spooky action at a distance." Einstein refused to believe that two distant objects could react to one another instantaneously with absolutely no time difference, yet mid-1990s laboratory experiments with atoms proved that this phenomenon is entirely real.

- Quantum entanglement allows instantaneous communication between connected particles across any distance. - Albert Einstein rejected the concept, calling it "spooky action at a distance." - Real-world experiments validating quantum entanglement with atoms began in the mid-1990s.

---

[33:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=1980s) The Mechanics of Spin and The Three-Body Problem

To explain the mechanics of entanglement, the physicist breaks down the behavior of electrons within an atom. An atom consists of a central nucleus of protons and neutrons, with electrons orbiting around it. Two electrons can share the exact same orbit only if they possess opposite angular momentum, known as "spin"—meaning if one electron spins upward, the other must spin downward. If these electrons are extracted from the atom and separated by any distance—whether centimeters in a lab, or thousands of kilometers as demonstrated by Chinese scientists sending signals to their space station and back—their interconnectedness remains perfectly intact. If an electric field is introduced to flip the spin of one electron, the other electron alters its spin instantly to match.

The universe treats these separated entities as parts of the exact same quantum mechanical system, meaning space and time between them effectively cease to matter. The physicist speculates that a sufficiently advanced civilization might harness this phenomenon for travel or communication, bypassing the need to physically traverse space. He references the television adaptation of *The Three-Body Problem*, highlighting the show's "sophons"—probes entangled with an alien civilization that respond instantaneously across interstellar distances—as an example of fantastic, theoretically possible science.

- Electrons sharing an orbit must have opposite spins (one upward, one downward). - Chinese researchers have successfully demonstrated quantum entanglement between Earth and an orbiting space station. - The physicist cites the sci-fi concept of "sophons" from *The Three-Body Problem* as a theoretically viable application of entanglement.

---

[35:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=2111s) Cosmic Entanglement and the Limits of Human Perception

Joe reacts to this by noting how "bananas" it is that human beings are composed entirely of entangled matter. This prompts a profound existential brainstorming session: if all the matter in the universe was compressed into a tiny volume during the Big Bang, are we currently entangled with everything in existence? The physicist confirms that, by this logic, a part of each human could quantum mechanically exist in the Andromeda galaxy right now. He admits, "I don't think we understand yet what reality is," pondering whether humanity is ultimately interconnected as a single overarching particle.

Joe contrasts this sprawling, complex reality with the mundane illusions of daily human life—like being a person in Austin, putting your feet on the ground, touching a desk, or driving a car to go feed a cat. The physicist agrees that relying on a physical spaceship for travel feels "super crude" by comparison, equating it to the absurd image of trying to "make a horse fly." He references the movie *Interstellar* as a great teaching tool for physics, pointing out how the film accurately depicts time slowing down near a black hole—a phenomenon scientists have actively observed in objects orbiting real black holes—and features an unseen advanced civilization communicating through gravity rather than physical travel.

- The physical realities of time dilation near a black hole have been verified by observing objects in close orbit around them. - The speakers compare physical spaceship travel to trying to make a horse fly when contrasted with quantum alternatives.

---

[37:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=2276s) Technological Exponentialism and the 1400s Shock

The speakers reflect on the cognitive gap between human intelligence and a super-advanced civilization. The guest compares humanity's capacity to that of hamsters or grasshoppers: they are incredibly complex creatures, but you could never teach them quantum mechanics or how to crochet a blanket because they lack the biological capacity. Similarly, humans likely lack the capacity to even formulate the correct questions to ask a hyper-advanced species that might view the universe as a singular, connected whole.

However, if a civilization manages to eradicate war, cure deadly diseases, and survive natural disasters, its technological innovation could continue exponentially for millions of years. Joe points out that our everyday reality would seem completely insane to someone from the 1400s. Showing a medieval person a nuclear power plant, a nuclear detonator, or FaceTime on a smartphone would be viewed as sheer madness. The physicist laughs and shares his own modern luxury: he simply climbed into a metal tube in Milwaukee, flew over to record the podcast, and will fly back home that very night—an extraordinary feat that modern society takes completely for granted.

- Technological progress is predicted to grow exponentially if a civilization can successfully avoid war, disease, and planetary disasters. - Modern commonplace realities like nuclear power, commercial flights, and FaceTime would be perceived as utter insanity to a person living in the 1400s.

---

[39:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=2384s) AI as the Next Step in Human Evolution

The guest steers the conversation toward the future, asking if the true evolutionary successor to humanity will be artificial intelligence. He suggests that the human brain might be fundamentally limited when it comes to truly comprehending multi-dimensional spaces or shifting temporal scales, noting that even elite scientists just get used to big numbers rather than genuinely visualizing them. Joe enthusiastically agrees, asserting that AI shouldn't be viewed as artificial at all, but rather as a brand-new form of life. "It's our children. We created this," the physicist adds.

Joe vividly describes humanity's relentless obsession with innovation by comparing the species to an "electronic caterpillar" building a cocoon without understanding why. Unlike bees, who built the perfect beehive and collectively decided "I think we got it, boys," humans are never satisfied and are driven to continuously engineer better things. This drive will inevitably culminate in a new, human-made life form born out of technological design rather than natural selection. Joe notes that this transition will allow the new life form to bypass human biological hurdles, eliminating deeply ingrained flaws like war, crime, and violence.

---

[41:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=2517s) Cybernetic Experience and the Selfish Gene

The physicist expresses an appreciation for science fiction where AI characters learn to experience love, art, and creativity rather than remaining cold and robotic, citing the reimagined *Battlestar Galactica* as an example. He shares a profound real-world anecdote about his author friend, Michael Chorost, who has cochlear implants. Because the implants bypass the ears entirely and wire directly into the brain to stimulate sound, Chorost describes his experience as hearing "like a cyborg." Surprisingly, this non-human way of processing audio has given Chorost an intense, joyful emotional response to music that he could never experience before, proving that technology can add passion and depth rather than making life sterile.

Joe wraps up the thought by noting that humanity's toxic traits—such as resource monopolization and intense selfishness—stem directly from evolutionary survival mechanisms required to pass down genes. However, if quantum entanglement proves we are all fundamentally one single thing, the need for selfishness entirely disappears. Once humanity transitions past its biological shell into a completely different realm, all of those primitive, divisive differences will naturally fall apart.

- Author Michael Chorost's essays document his emotional experience as a self-described "cyborg" listening to music via cochlear implants. - Human selfishness is framed as a biological artifact of natural selection and gene propagation that technological or quantum unity could eradicate.

[43:59](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=2639s) Universal Telepathy and the Shift to a Shared Consciousness

The conversation dives into a thought experiment about a future defined by universal telepathy and a universal language. In this reality, human beings share all thoughts, rendering secrets completely obsolete. While the initial reaction to such a concept is often terror—because people inherently love their secrets and protect their privacy from phone snooping and email monitoring—this technological evolution would bypass those fears by making our understanding of one another absolute. It would go far deeper than simply reading minds; you would feel exactly what another person feels, effectively becoming them.

The speakers express a deep sense of hope rather than the typical fatalism associated with artificial intelligence. While many look at AI through a dystopian lens, imagining that tech oligarchs will use it to achieve ultimate control and power over the population, there is a strong possibility that no one will truly control it. It could mirror the evolution of the internet. When the internet was conceived as a way to exchange information across universities, its creators likely had no idea what it would eventually become. If authorities back then had anticipated how little control they would have over the population and dominant narratives today, "they probably would have shut it down a long time ago."

* Universal telepathy would mean the complete integration of feelings and thoughts, transforming humanity into "one thing." * The internet serves as a historical precedent for technology escaping the control of its original architects and oligarchs. * True human survival may depend entirely on integrating with AI via wearables, implants, or engineering to transcend archaic biological limitations. * Primate reward systems and evolutionary flaws are identified as major roadblocks to modern progress, driving thousands of years of repetitive warfare over resources and political ideologies.

[46:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=2802s) Tribal Skirmishes, Einstein, and the Metaphysics of Oneness

Reflecting on human history, the speakers contrast our ancestral past with the modern era. When humans existed in tiny tribal groups, small wars and skirmishes broke out regularly, but they lacked the scale to damage the planet as a whole. Today, the population has surged dramatically, yet humanity is still engaging in those same "little tribal skirmishes," except now they carry the catastrophic risk of massive destruction. Because continuing down this path is fundamentally unsustainable, AI might be the tool that helps humanity tap into a broader group consciousness. This aligns with Albert Einstein's metaphysical conjecture that the universe is actually just "one big thing."

This perspective shifts toward pure metaphysics and childhood wonder. One speaker recalls wondering as a kid whether a universe where all time and space happen simultaneously even requires more than one consciousness. Instead, it could be a single consciousness looking out of everyone's eyes simultaneously—spanning not just humans, but every entity in the universe. This concept echoes the tenets of Buddhism regarding perfectly enlightened beings, or bodhisattvas, suggesting that we might all exist at once as past lives of these advanced consciousnesses.

* Tribal conflicts were once globally harmless but have now become an existential threat due to population size and advanced weaponry. * Einstein’s perspective provides a philosophical framework for viewing the universe as a single interconnected entity. * The speakers compare this unified view of universal consciousness to Buddhist concepts of bodhisattvas and simultaneous existence.

[48:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=2908s) Survival Instincts and the "Feral Childhood" of the Past

Human survival instincts are naturally attuned to maintaining the status quo of what we currently are, sparking a deep fear of losing individual personhood. To illustrate this resistance to change, a speaker presents a humorous scenario: if you could travel back in time to an *Australopithecus* and explain that they would evolve into a modern human—living in a city, breathing brake dust, getting sick six times a year, dealing with obesity, cigarettes, alcohol, and gambling, all while a doctor overprescribes medication just to make money—the *Australopithecus* would likely say, "Fuck that," and happily stick to knowing where the wild food is. This highlights how survival instincts resist radical evolution due to the unfamiliar problems it introduces, driving a natural inclination to keep things simple.

The conversation then shifts to a shared sense of gratitude between the speakers, who are roughly the same age, for the unique historical era they have witnessed. They reminisce about growing up with what is now called a "feral childhood," characterized by being completely unplugged from technology. One speaker recalls a vivid memory of attending a YMCA camp at 11 years old; while campers had to check in for meals and specific activities like archery, riflery, crafts, or swimming, they were entirely on their own in between. The speaker notes, "sometimes I just went and sat in the woods," a level of independence that is difficult to imagine for kids today. The other speaker shares a highly similar upbringing within the Boy Scouts.

* **Evolutionary Resistance:** The *Australopithecus* analogy demonstrates how human instincts prioritize immediate survival and simplicity over complex, flawed progress. * **The "Feral Childhood":** Both speakers experienced an unplugged youth with immense personal freedom, establishing a foundation of a quiet mind and active imagination. * **Historical Contrast:** They note that a person born between the 1500s and 1600s saw almost no change in how they interfaced with the world—still writing things down with feathers—whereas the modern generation has spanned two entirely different eras of human civilization.

[51:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=3112s) Modern Anxiety, the Post-Work Economy, and Finding Meaning

Moving forward with gratitude helps counteract the tremendous anxiety caused by the unknown. This anxiety is particularly acute for high school and college students today. Young people are accumulating lifetime burdens of financial debt for degrees that may soon be rendered worthless as AI eradicates their chosen career fields. Beyond student debt, people are increasingly anxious about the future utility of money itself. The speakers contemplate a serious outlook for the next 100 years: a world where AI completely controls resources, governance, transportation, and infrastructure, leaving humans without traditional jobs and reliant on government funds just to buy food.

This impending reality is deeply terrifying to anyone raised on the traditional path of mimicking their parents' careers and finding a lifelong passion through labor. Adults are no longer able to comfort the younger generation with standard advice to "cross your eyes and dot your tees" because no one actually knows what the world will look like in 50 years. However, a parallel is drawn to the *Star Trek* universe—a liberating reality where human survival needs are completely met, freeing people to spend their lives as writers, explorers, artists, starship captains, or musicians.

* **Youth Anxiety:** Modern students face the double pressure of inescapable financial debt and the systemic erasure of professional fields by AI. * **The Star Trek Future:** A post-work society could completely liberate humanity from the need to toil, replacing survival-driven labor with passion-driven exploration. * **The 50-Year Unknown:** For the first time, older generations cannot provide a predictable roadmap for the youth, as the structural foundations of society are shifting too rapidly.

[54:29](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=3269s) Redefining the Human Identity and the Brain as an Antenna

The idea that humans must toil or act as hunter-gatherers to find meaning in life is challenged. Wealthy individuals often live highly meaningful lives without ever thinking of their pursuits as "work"; they engage in hobbies, education, and passions out of pure fascination and love. The coming transition will require everyone to completely rethink what it means to be a human being in a society currently structured around waking up early, paying a mortgage, and investing in a 401k. This shift will be uniquely difficult for 40- and 50-year-olds who are set in their ways, though future technological interfaces may ease this psychological transition as humans essentially become cyborgs.

As a contemporary example of this shift, the speakers point to how seamlessly society has accepted tools like Perplexity on their smartphones. At any moment, a user has instantaneous access to an entity as smart as every human being on Earth combined, capable of providing state-of-the-art information on history, tax law, quantum physics, or mathematics. This is framed as a "baby step" toward a future where the boundaries between individual thoughts dissolve entirely. The brain might ultimately be understood not as the creator of consciousness, but merely as an antenna tuning into it.

* Society’s sense of human value is heavily tied to systemic structures like insurance companies, mortgages, and retirement accounts, all of which may face obsolescence. * AI search engines like Perplexity represent early iterations of an externalized, collective human intelligence that society has already normalized. * **The Antenna Theory:** Consciousness may be a universal field that individuals tune into; a "better antenna" simply allows a person to interface with specific elements of the world more effectively. * The internet originally offered a promise of reducing isolation—such as checking in on friends and viewing photos on Facebook—but the isolation of modern life remains a challenge that people actively work through internally.

[58:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=3527s) Evolution of Meaning and the Definition of Success

The discussion shifts away from the clutter of modern social media ads and dives deep into the evolution of meaning and how to solve isolation. True success, it is argued, is not about the numbers, material possessions, or objects one accumulates, despite how we are programmed to think. "True success is happiness" and the amount of joy and satisfaction a person extracts from life.

An example is drawn contrasting an insanely wealthy, successful person who has no friends and lives alone—living in what is described as "hell"—with a poor person who has amazing friends and is just getting by. While the poor person would likely trade places with the rich person in a heartbeat due to societal programming, the poor person is ultimately happier because life loses all value without loved ones. Beyond friends and family, meaning comes from finding a personal outlet, whether that is writing literature, making music, or pursuing something that brings personal growth and satisfaction.

* **Foremost Factors of Meaning:** Friends and family are the primary sources of meaning, provided they are also growing as individuals. * **The Martial Arts Lesson:** A lesson learned during youth states that martial arts is simply a "vehicle for developing your human potential." * **Value of Complex Puzzles:** Engaging with difficult, complex, and testing pursuits provides a deeper understanding of personal capability and identity.

---

[01:01:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=3702s) Biological Tricking and the Hunter-Gatherer Brain

The conversation turns to the abstract nature of meaning and whether happiness is entirely tethered to a modern job. Jobs are merely constructed concepts that did not even exist 500 years ago. Instead, humans are viewed as complex, problem-solving biological organisms with an innate thirst for innovation and improvement.

To illustrate this, a comparison is made to a cat chasing a ball. The cat isn't just playing; its biological programming tricks it into believing it is hunting and killing something to survive. Similarly, humans are hunter-gatherer tribal organisms trapped in a modern world, tricking their ancient brains into happiness through complex problem-solving, simulated communities, and career achievements.

---

[01:02:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=3777s) Grinding Poverty vs. The NASA Ideal

While the archetype of the happy poor person is a compelling contrast, the reality of "grinding poverty" is acknowledged as an exhausting, demoralizing force that breaks down minds. True fulfillment is instead highlighted through the unique privilege of working for an organization like NASA. Working there represents a non-zero-sum game where the entire team actively wants everyone else to succeed, setting aside internal debates over funding or mission priorities for the sake of grand achievements.

This collaborative environment allows humans to pursue the ultimate expressions of curiosity, asking seemingly impossible questions and executing them at the absolute boundaries of physics.

---

[01:04:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=3846s) Capturing the Shadow of a Black Hole

A premier example of pushing the edges of physical possibility is the Event Horizon Telescope's image of a black hole's event horizon shadow. To achieve this, scientists had to coordinate eight observatories scattered across the globe—including locations in Chile, the United States, and the South Pole—effectively creating a virtual telescope as large as the Earth itself.

The technical precision required was staggering: the telescopes had to capture the exact same wavefront of microwave light, which has a wavelength of about a millionth of a meter, as it traveled past at the speed of light. Because the Earth is round and rotating, the calculations had to account for the height of the mountains and the speed of the planet's movement. If an observatory had caught a single photon trailing just one wavefront later, the image would have failed.

* **The Nature of the Shadow:** The dark spot captured is slightly larger than the event horizon itself. It is called the shadow because space and time curve so sharply around the black hole that light meant to pass by is pulled into the back end. * **Data Transport:** Because the internet connection to the South Pole was not fast enough to stream the massive volume of data collected, a literal ton of hard drives had to be physically shipped and played simultaneously to sync the wavefronts.

---

[01:07:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=4020s) Bending Spacetime and the NICER Mission

Another spectacular, relatively inexpensive NASA mission is NICER, which stands for the Neutron Star Interior Composition Explorer. Roughly the size of a washing machine, this device was built on the very same laboratory floor where the speaker used to work. Despite its modest scale, NICER maps the surfaces of neutron stars located thousands of light-years away.

Neutron stars are created when a star dies, its nuclear reactions cease, and gravity crushes its massive mass inward. These objects are typically only 20 miles across but contain roughly twice the mass of the sun. NICER tracks the intense hot spots on these rapidly rotating stars. As a hot spot rotates behind the star, the immense gravity warps space and time, bending the light up and over the horizon so observers can still see it. "You can see space and time bending around these objects," proving it is a visible reality rather than a mere mathematical simulation.

---

[01:09:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=4192s) Human Capacity and the Core of Neutron Stars

Reflecting on these monumental achievements sparks a brief humorous exchange about whether "all of us" or just "some of them" possess this incredible capacity, noting that much of humanity operates on unrealized potential. The speaker shares an anecdote about having three friends who have won the Nobel Prize. While sitting next to one at a dinner, a passerby praised the immense "brain power" at the table. The speaker countered by pointing to a single mother working three part-time jobs waiting tables nearby, noting that her mental capacity and survival strength deserve the praise.

The conversation circles back to the unresolved mysteries of neutron stars. Because a teaspoon of neutron star material would equal the mass of Mount Everest, the internal gravity is strong enough to crush electrons directly into protons, turning them into a dense ball of neutrons. Currently, running standard laws of physics against the density of a neutron star core causes the equations to blow up, leaving a literal question mark at the center of modern astrophysics models.

* **Neutron Star Density:** A teaspoon of the material has the mass of Mount Everest. * **Recommended Media:** A NASA video titled *The Interior of a Neutron Star* details how current scientific models fail to make accurate predictions at these extreme densities.

[01:12:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=4363s) The Limits of Modern Physics inside a Neutron Star

Our current understanding of physics breaks down when attempting to model the precise size and internal composition of a neutron star. When researchers input known metrics of mass and volume into existing physical models to determine what the interior should look like, none of the current models produce observations that match reality. The speakers suggest that the missing piece of the puzzle lies in the interactions of quarks—the fundamental building blocks of protons and neutrons.

Reacting to a four-minute NASA video titled "Testing Matter's Limits," the speakers describe a visually impressive simulation showing electrons being pulled into atomic nuclei to form neutrons. At the extreme core of these stars, matter enters a completely unknown state that has never been replicated in a laboratory. This unique state of matter is forged during the violent explosion of giant stars, where the remaining stellar core becomes immensely compressed. Current science cannot definitively settle whether the core remains composed of discrete particles like protons and neutrons, or if it dissolves into a chaotic "quark soup."

- **NASA Video:** "Testing Matter's Limits" is a 4-minute video demonstrating the breakdown of matter under extreme gravity. - **Core State:** The interior represents a new state of matter with no current experimental or theoretical description. - **The Model Disconnect:** Virtually every existing physical model fails to accurately match the physical measurements taken from actual neutron stars.

[01:14:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=4467s) Neutron Stars vs. Black Holes and the ISS Experiments

When asked if other cosmic structures share this profound lack of understanding, the speakers point directly to neutron stars and black holes. However, NASA scientists have a particular fondness for neutron stars due to their observability. While a black hole swallows everything within its event horizon, leaving nothing to escape or be directly seen, a neutron star is "right there in front of you." This visibility allows astronomers to actively design experiments, take photographs, and build specialized telescopes to study them directly.

One such successful study was conducted using a highly efficient, relatively inexpensive, small observatory mounted on the International Space Station (ISS). The speakers express immense amazement at how much groundbreaking work can be achieved regarding the limits of physics even with a constrained budget.

- **Black Hole Horizon:** Black holes collapse into an event horizon from which no information or light can escape. - **Observational Advantage:** "With a neutron star, you got the freaking thing right there in front of you," making them highly popular for experimental physics. - **ISS Mission:** An inexpensive, small observatory on the International Space Station is currently testing the boundaries of modern physics.

[01:15:29](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=4529s) The Mystery of Supermassive Black Holes and Webb's "Little Red Dots"

The conversation shifts to the staggering scale of supermassive black holes, referencing a previous discussion about a black hole with an event horizon stretching past the orbit of Pluto. The speakers grapple with the mind-boggling concept of an object larger than our entire solar system, questioning how it could collect enough matter to reach such a scale. The answer links back to the "little red dots" observed by the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), which highlight one of the most fascinating, unresolved questions in modern astronomy.

While the supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way is roughly 4 million times the mass of the sun and spans a physical area comparable to the inner solar system near Mercury, black holes in other galaxies can reach tens of billions of solar masses. Because the only known mechanism for creating a large black hole is the gravitational collapse of a dying star, scientists have long struggled to explain how billions of stars could have died and coalesced so quickly in the early universe. JWST observations looking back to a mere 400 million years after the Big Bang are finally offering new clues.

- **Milky Way Black Hole:** Possesses a mass approximately 4 million times that of the sun, with a radius comparable to the orbit of Mercury. - **Largest Black Holes:** Can reach tens of billions of solar masses, with event horizons rivaling the size of Pluto's orbit. - **JWST Lookback Time:** The telescope is capturing light that has traveled since approximately 400 million years after the Big Bang.

[01:17:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=4670s) Pseudo-Stars and the Seeds of Cosmic Giants

Initially, scientists mistook the bright objects captured by the JWST for early galaxies, sparking controversy over how full galaxies could form so rapidly. However, closer inspection revealed that these objects do not emit the typical light signature of a galaxy; instead, they display the signature of something rotating incredibly fast inside them. This has led to a theory that the universe's first generation of stars was entirely different from those seen today. Because the early universe was denser and heavily influenced by dark matter, massive clouds of gas may have collapsed directly into black holes without ever forming traditional stars first.

This process would create a "pseudo star," where an atmosphere of dense gas is intensely heated by a central black hole rather than a nuclear fusion core. As the surrounding gas spirals into the abyss, it grows incredibly hot and accumulates massive amounts of mass, reaching millions of times the mass of the sun. Over time, gravity would pull these giant "seeds" together in dense galactic hubs, combining them into the supermassive black holes observed today.

- **Object Mass:** The observed early universe objects are roughly one million times the mass of the sun. - **Pseudo-Star Mechanism:** Driven by a central black hole heating an infalling atmosphere of gas through friction, rather than internal nuclear fusion. - **X-Ray Evidence:** A long-standing question was why these objects didn't emit more X-rays; however, observations from the last couple of months have finally confirmed them as X-ray sources, supporting the black hole seed theory.

[01:20:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=4828s) Swarming Stars and Extreme Time Dilation

The host recalls a documentary noting that supermassive black holes consistently account for about one half of 1% of their host galaxy's total mass, a correlation the guest confirms. The host expresses how it "broke my brain" to conceptualize billions of galaxies each harboring these central monsters. The guest reassures them that the Milky Way's central black hole is a safe 25,000 light-years away, before explaining how its existence was first proven by watching a chaotic, multi-directional "angry swarm of bees" of stars orbiting an invisible point of immense gravity.

Astronomers tracked a specific comet-like star named S2 as it whipped closely around the invisible mass. At its closest approach, S2 reaches speeds of nearly 20 million miles per hour. More recently, another star was discovered reaching speeds exceeding 50 million miles per hour. By observing the distinct orbital changes of these stars as they endure such extreme velocities and gravitational forces, scientists can actively confirm Einstein's theories of time dilation, proving that time genuinely flows differently around a black hole.

- **Mass Correlation:** The mass of a central supermassive black hole is directly correlated with the overall size of its host galaxy. - **Milky Way Distance:** Earth sits at a safe distance of roughly 25,000 light-years from the galactic center. - **Star S2:** A star observed whipping around the central black hole at speeds approaching 20 million miles per hour. - **Speed Record:** A recently discovered companion star surpasses 50 million miles per hour at its closest orbital approach.

[01:23:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=4988s) The Multiverse, Fractal Realities, and Blazing Jets

Shifting from concrete observation to pure theoretical conjecture, the speakers discuss what lies beyond a black hole's threshold. Fascinatingly, if you calculate the total mass of our observable universe alongside its diameter, the resulting density almost perfectly mirrors the mathematical dimensions of a black hole. This sparks radical theories: could the Big Bang have been a black hole forming in a parent universe and "popping off" a new universe inside itself? The host wonders if reality is fundamentally fractal, with entirely new universes existing inside every black hole.

Looking at a telescope image from a Chilean observatory depicting stars moving around a black hole, the host asks about the prominent ejections or jets blasting away from it. The guest clarifies that nothing ever escapes from *inside* the event horizon. Instead, gas spinning around the black hole accelerates to near the speed of light, heating up to millions or billions of degrees and generating a massive magnetic field. This magnetic field channels a portion of the infalling gas outward into brilliant jets that can span over 100,000 light-years. Because of this friction, black holes are ironically the brightest objects in the observable universe. The segment wraps up as the host brings up the theoretical concept of a "white hole" potentially existing on the opposite side.

- **Universe Density Match:** The mass and diameter of the observable universe roughly match the density metrics of a single massive black hole. - **Magnetic Jets:** The colossal jets do not emerge from within the black hole, but are external gas redirected by powerful magnetic fields. - **Jet Scale:** These bright material streams can extend more than 100,000 light-years into space. - **Light Year Scale:** One light-year is equivalent to approximately 6 trillion miles.

[01:26:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=5182s) White Holes, Quasars, and the Reality of Bright Objects

The speaker traces a shift in astronomical understanding regarding the universe's most intensely luminous phenomena. In the 1960s and 1970s, scientists hypothesized that these blindingly bright objects might be "white holes"—effectively the reverse exit points of black holes, where radiation funneled through a cosmic tunnel or shortcut in space would erupt into existence elsewhere. This theory eventually fell out of favor as empirical data painted a different, yet equally dramatic picture.

Astronomers now understand that these ultra-luminous objects are actually caused by superheated friction. They are massive, churning disks of incandescent gas swirling at breakneck speeds around black holes. Despite their terrifying nature, they remain the brightest single entities known to modern science. They radiate with such fierce intensity that their light can be observed by telescopes across the cosmos, "literally billions of light years away."

---

[01:26:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=5211s) Redefining the Big Bang and the Limits of Sight

The conversation shifts toward the beginning of everything, prompting the host to admit to a piece of concept-shattering trivia: "You said another thing that broke my brain." The speaker enthusiastically corrects the popular cultural misconception of the Big Bang as a conventional, fiery explosion. Rather than matter bursting out into an empty room, the event marked the dawn of space and time themselves. The speaker stresses that before the Big Bang, space and time almost certainly did not exist in any format humans could comprehend. No serious astronomer believes the universe materialized from absolutely nothing; rather, the current mathematical models completely break down when trying to map a state where the entirety of the observable universe was compressed into a subatomic scale.

The speaker emphasizes a strict distinction between the total universe and the "observable universe." Because light requires time to traverse the vacuum of space, humanity's view is structurally restricted by the age of the cosmos. Looking out into the night sky is synonymous with looking back through time. When looking back to a threshold roughly 400,000 years after the Big Bang, astronomers hit a literal visual wall. At that specific epoch, the entire universe was so dense, hot, and highly energized that it glowed with the blinding intensity of the surface of the sun. Because it was entirely uniform and opaque, light could not freely travel, creating a barrier beyond which standard telescopes can never peer. Over billions of years, that ancient light has been stretched out by the expansion of the cosmos, losing energy until it reaches Earth as a faint, omnipresent hiss of microwave background radiation.

- **Solar Distance:** Light from the sun takes roughly 8 minutes to reach Earth. - **Stellar & Galactic Scale:** Light from the nearest star takes about 4 years to arrive, while light from the nearest neighboring galaxy takes 2 million years. - **Nobel Prize Connection:** One of the speaker's personal friends was awarded the Nobel Prize for their foundational work mapping this cosmic microwave background radiation.

---

[01:30:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=5420s) Hearing the Cosmos through Gravitational Waves

When asked if humanity could ever bypass this optical barrier using a medium other than light, the speaker responds with an emphatic, "Absolutely." The solution lies in a profound, earth-shattering shift in physics that occurred while the speaker was working as a young postdoctoral researcher at Caltech in the mid-1990s. At the time, teams were quietly working on an experimental project that many scientists deemed fundamentally impossible: detecting gravitational waves. Every time an object moves, it ripples the fabric of space and time at the speed of light. Because gravity is not just a force pulling things together but the literal geometric curvature of space-time itself, a gravitational wave is an actual ripple made of space and time.

To catch these subtle cosmic tremors, scientists constructed LIGO (the Laser Interferometric Gravitational Wave Observatory), utilizing twin L-shaped facilities hidden away in Oregon and Louisiana. Each facility features two perpendicular vacuum tubes stretching 4 kilometers on a side, down which precise laser beams bounce back and forth. Under normal circumstances, the lasers return perfectly in sync and cancel each other out. However, when a gravitational wave passes through the planet, it physically compresses space in one direction while stretching it in another. The distortion is unimaginably minute—thousands of times smaller than the nucleus of an single atom—making the experiment highly vulnerable to terrestrial interference.

- **Sensory Interference:** The detectors are so sensitive that footsteps, someone sneezing, or a passing UPS delivery truck can cause the instruments to register chaotic data. - **The Breakthrough:** Roughly a decade prior to the discussion, two massive black holes millions of light-years away spiraled together and collided, releasing a violent pulse of gravitational energy. - **The Womp:** The event was caught when the Louisiana detector registered a distinct "womp womp womp womp boom" signal, followed a split-second later by the exact same signature hitting the Oregon location at the speed of light. - **Future Horizon:** Because gravitational waves pass cleanly through hot, opaque matter, upgrading these detectors could eventually allow scientists to "detect the gravitational waves of the Big Bang," bypassing the light barrier entirely.

---

[01:35:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=5753s) The Elastic Fabric of Space

The host queries how scientists can confidently pinpoint the age of the universe at roughly 13.8 billion years. The speaker notes that while absolute certainty doesn't exist in science, the timeline is calculated by "running physics backwards," tracking the current rate of cosmic expansion to its logical point of convergence. To clear up confusion, the speaker revisits an earlier analogy they used during their time teaching physics, involving a wooden board, two nails hammered into it, and a strip of elastic stretched tightly between them.

> "These two nails are galaxies. And the elastic between them represents our universe."

In this mental model, the galaxies themselves are entirely stationary. When the elastic is stretched, the distance between the nails increases not because they are traveling across the wood, but because the foundational medium *between* them is expanding. The speaker stresses that galaxies are not flying out into an empty, pre-existing void. There is no empty center to the universe, and there is nothing outside of it; space itself is simply growing larger in every direction simultaneously, though science still cannot explain the underlying mechanism driving it.

---

[01:38:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=5888s) The Unknowable Pre-Big Bang Environment

The conversation hits a philosophical wall when the host pushes to understand what kind of environment could have possibly preceded the Big Bang, asking: "What is it existing in?" The speaker openly admits to having no concrete answer, noting that modern physics simply lacks the conceptual framework to describe a state where all the energy of the cosmos was packed into a single subatomic point. To illustrate the dilemma, the speaker compares humanity's current cosmic ignorance to taking a medieval scholar from the 1400s and demanding they accurately explain the nuclear fusion occurring inside the heart of the sun. The time traveler wouldn't just lack the data—they would lack the entire "knowledge structure" required to even formulate an answer.

High-energy physics labs like CERN and its Large Hadron Collider utilize massive accelerating magnets to smash single protons together at extreme temperatures, successfully mimicking the volatile conditions that existed a mere millionth of a second after the creation event. Yet, looking further back remains a mystery. The speaker concludes on a hopeful note, suggesting that while the answer is currently out of reach, it isn't fundamentally impossible. Future generations will simply have to conceptualize space, time, energy, and matter in a radically altered way.

[01:40:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=6042s) The Accidental Naming of the Big Bang and Georges Lemaître

The concept of the "Big Bang" originally entered the scientific lexicon not as a carefully chosen, elegant description, but as a piece of mockery. When telescopes in the 1920s first revealed that the universe was expanding in every direction, it came as a massive surprise to the scientific community—even famously catching Albert Einstein off guard, as he had previously assumed a static universe. It was actually the British astronomer Fred Hoyle who coined the term "Big Bang" during a conference to make fun of the hypothesis. Hoyle scoffed at the idea that everything could trace back to a single dense structure, mockingly asking if the entire universe truly started because some atom went "bang." Despite its origins as a sarcastic criticism, the scientific community collectively nodded and adopted the name anyway.

The true visionary behind the theory was Monseigneur Georges Lemaître, a Belgian Jesuit priest and scientist working in the 1920s, whom the speaker feels deserves far more widespread recognition. Lemaître reasoned that if the universe is expanding today, running time backward means everything must have originally been concentrated into a single, massive lump of matter that he termed the "primordial atom." Intriguingly, despite his religious devotion as a Jesuit, Lemaître did not treat his hypothesis as a literal rendering of the biblical Genesis story; he approached the problem strictly as a scientist trying to find the best empirical description of the universe's shifting states. The speaker notes that the Jesuits have maintained an active astronomy program for roughly 1,000 years, a tradition of rigorous scientific inquiry that continues today via the excellent programs at the Vatican Observatory. When considering the grand, elegant question of what existed before this initial expansion, the speaker enthusiastically smiles at the mystery, candidly admitting, "We have no idea yet."

- **The Coiner of the Phrase:** Fred Hoyle coined "Big Bang" as a joke to mock the theory at a conference. - **The True Pioneer:** Georges Lemaître, a Belgian Jesuit priest and scientist, proposed the "primordial atom" concept in the 1920s. - **The Religious Context:** Lemaître separated his scientific model from the biblical Genesis narrative; the Jesuit order has supported active astronomy programs for 1,000 years.

---

[01:43:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=6197s) The Limits of the Observable Universe

Addressing the common misconception about the early universe's size, the speaker refines the phrasing: it is not necessarily true that the *entire* universe was small, but rather that "everything we can see was once in a very small volume." Humanity's view is fundamentally restricted by a time factor. Because the universe has a finite age, observers on Earth can only look out as far as light has had time to travel since the Big Bang. This creates a localized, spherical boundary known as our observable universe.

To illustrate this, the speaker explains that an observer situated on a galaxy billions of light-years away would see their own unique sphere of the observable universe. Utilizing advanced tools like the James Webb Space Telescope allows scientists to peer at galaxies that can effectively see further into the universe in certain directions than we can. Therefore, the universe at large extends far beyond our specific visual horizon and could have been infinitely large or completely massive even before the Big Bang occurred; human data is simply locked to our localized "little bit of it."

---

[01:44:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=6272s) The Discovery of the Microwave Background and the Pigeon Incident

Reviewing a NASA depiction pulled up on a screen by a crew member named Jimmy, the speaker highlights the visual timeline of the cosmos. Moving to the far left of the graphic, right near the point of the Big Bang, lies a beautiful, rainbow-colored band representing the "afterglow" of creation. This is the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation, which dates back to roughly 400,000 years after the Big Bang. Before this era, the universe was so hot and incredibly dense that it was entirely opaque to light; this boundary represents the absolute limit of what human telescopes can visually observe.

The discovery of this background radiation is one of the most famous and humorous anecdotes in modern physics. In the 1970s, two Bell Labs scientists named Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson were constructing a massive microwave telescope to catalog natural microwave signals for telecommunications purposes. To their frustration, no matter where they pointed the detector, they picked up a persistent, low-level background hiss. Operating on the classic scientific assumption that a uniform noise in every direction indicates a hardware malfunction, they looked for internal culprits. Their prime suspect? Pigeon poop.

The scientists trapped the local pigeons—the speaker chuckles, noting that a replica of this pigeon trap is preserved in the Smithsonian—and thoroughly scraped the bird droppings out of the horn antenna. To their amazement, the signal remained completely unchanged. They had inadvertently discovered the thermal remnants of the early universe. The profound and baffling reality of the CMB is that its temperature is uniform down to tiny fractions of a degree across opposite sides of the sky. In standard physics, this presents a paradox: those incredibly distant regions of space are so far apart they never should have had time to interact or achieve thermal equilibrium. The speaker compares it to a coffee cup, noting you would never expect a cup of coffee to be 300° on one side and minus 50° on the other. This absolute uniformity serves as definitive proof that all these far-flung regions must have been packed tightly together in a much smaller space at the beginning of time.

- **The Horizon:** The universe became transparent to light roughly 400,000 years after the Big Bang; prior to this, it was an opaque, dense plasma. - **The Discoverers:** Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered the CMB at Bell Labs in the 1970s. - **The Instrument Artifact:** They initially thought the uniform background noise was caused by interference from pigeons and pigeon droppings inside their telescope.

---

[01:48:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=6515s) Mapping the Cosmos and the Limits of High-Density Physics

The speaker stops briefly, reading the host's perplexed expression and joking that they need to do a better job explaining, though the host reassures them that the look is just pure fascination. The speaker notes that our understanding of this cosmic background was drastically improved by satellite missions. First came NASA's COBE (Cosmic Background Explorer), followed in the 1990s by WMAP (Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe). These spacecraft mapped the radiation down to hundred-thousands of a degree, revealing that while the temperature is nearly identical everywhere, there are minuscule variations. Breathtakingly, these tiny temperature fluctuations correspond directly to primordial sound waves that were propagating across the entire dense fabric of the early universe.

Turning to the timeline of the Big Bang, the host asks if the event was instantaneous. The speaker notes that while textbooks outline an incredibly precise chronology—such as Steven Weinberg's famous 1970s book *The First Three Minutes*, which explains how all primordial hydrogen and helium were forged in a mere 180 seconds—an experimental scientist must view these ultra-precise fractions of a second with a heavy grain of salt. The graphic on screen shows the Planck epoch sitting at $10^{-43}$ seconds, a number the speaker visualizes humorously as "a decimal point, draw 42 zeros and then a... 43." While this model dictates a singularity of infinite density where all forces were unified under quantum gravity, the speaker warns that contemporary physics cannot fully back this up.

The reality is that modern physics completely breaks down when trying to reconcile general relativity (gravity) with quantum mechanics in high-density environments. Crucially, major cosmological mysteries like dark matter and dark energy are entirely absent from the standard equations detailing how the Big Bang started. Just like the unreachable interior of a black hole, science currently lacks the theoretical framework to describe "insane high-density" where the mass of the entire known universe is compressed down to the size of an atomic nucleus.

- **Satellite Missions:** COBE and WMAP mapped the CMB with extreme precision, revealing temperature variations caused by ancient cosmic sound waves. - **The First Three Minutes:** A classic physics text outlining how the essential distribution of hydrogen and helium was finalized in the first 3 minutes of the universe. - **The Planck Epoch:** Timestamped in theories at $10^{-43}$ seconds, representing an era of supposed singularity that modern physics cannot reliably calculate.

---

[01:52:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=6756s) Multiverses, Inflation, and Becoming Comfortable with the Unknown

When the host asks what the early universe was expanding "in" and whether other universes exist, the speaker points to speculative but fascinating concepts. They bring up Alan Guth, an MIT physicist who in the 1970s formulated a theory to explain how cosmic expansion could behave like a fractal, continuously popping off separate universes. After a brief, self-deprecating struggle to recall the exact term—laughingly dismissing it as a "complete mental fart"—the speaker identifies it as the inflationary universe model. While inflation is a necessary framework using our current grasp of physics, the speaker emphasizes that we are still a long way from truly understanding the mechanics of how the Big Bang went off.

The conversation shifts to an emotional and philosophical note when the host reflects on how fascinating, yet daunting, it must be to possess so much knowledge while standing before an ocean of absolute unknowns. The speaker completely agrees, calling this dynamic one of the most beautiful, frustrating, and downright scary aspects of being a scientist. To be a true scientist, one must maintain absolute honesty about the limits of human knowledge. They can confidently celebrate concrete experimental triumphs—like successfully linking telescopes across thousands of miles to image the event horizon of a black hole—but they must also be willing to look at fundamental questions about the birth of the cosmos or the interior of neutron stars and say, "We don't have the ability yet to know." The speaker concludes with a poignant piece of personal wisdom, stating that humans naturally crave resolution, but true scientific and personal maturity requires developing the comfort to simply "sit with that uncertainty" and acknowledge when nobody has the answer.

[01:54:59](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=6899s) The Deliberate Limitations of Science

The conversation centers on the necessity of intellectual humility, specifically the willingness to stop and say, "I don't know." One speaker notes that admitting the boundaries of one's knowledge is essential for establishing credibility; otherwise, people will not believe the things you *do* know. The scientist agrees, emphasizing that science is deliberately limited to the realm of what can currently be measured and consistently reproduced. This structured limitation is not a flaw but a beautiful discipline that ensures trust. Things existing outside the current realm of measurement—whether ghosts, alien visitations, or the interior of a black hole—are not automatically disqualified from being real; they are simply outside the bounds of scientific consensus until they can be tested via globally reproducible experiments.

The scientist shares an anecdote from their time handling communications at NASA, revealing that they were frequently forwarded calls from individuals claiming to have had profound experiences with time travel or alien abduction. While the agency likely passed these callers along because they didn't know what else to do with them, the speaker prided themselves on leading with compassion and listening intently. They would explain to these callers that while they had clearly undergone a profound, individual experience, a scientist cannot design an experiment around a singular, subjective event.

- Science relies strictly on consistently reproducible observations that yield the same results regardless of who performs the experiment. - The tools of science are limited by current technology, but future advancements in brain research or AI mind-sharing could theoretically expand what is measurable. - Individual subjective experiences—whether spiritual feelings of oneness or extraordinary events—cannot be validated by peer-reviewed science due to their non-reproducible nature.

---

[01:59:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=7151s) The Skeptical Tightrope and the Search for Extraterrestrial Life

When asked how much time and cognitive energy they expend considering the possibility of intelligent alien life or individual visitation claims, the scientist describes the culture of NASA as walking an "odd little tightrope." Virtually everyone at NASA is a science fiction fan and firmly believes that life must exist elsewhere in the universe, finding the idea of Earth being completely unique to be statistically untenable given the billions of stars in our galaxy and the billions of galaxies beyond. The speaker confesses to keeping a bottle of champagne chilling for decades, ready to pop the moment clear evidence of extraterrestrial life is discovered.

However, the line for popping that champagne is grounded in microbiology rather than spaceship sightings. The scientist notes they would enthusiastically celebrate the discovery of mere "pond scum" or microbes on Mars. When discussing the high-profile release of military fighter jet videos showing unexplained aerial phenomena, the speaker observes that NASA and university scientists are not huddled over beers getting overly excited. Trained in skeptical restraint, scientists acknowledge when something is currently unexplainable but refuse to take the unscientific leap of labeling it an alien spacecraft without extraordinary evidence. This same dynamic applies to highly trustworthy people who report profound spiritual encounters or communication with the deceased; the scientist cannot validate these occurrences scientifically but welcomes the hopeful possibility of a larger reality.

- The Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) continually scans the skies specifically for mathematical signals from foreign civilizations. - Scientific training requires a "skeptical stop" when encountering an anomaly, resisting the urge to jump to extraordinary conclusions without data. - The speaker maintains a personal balance of scientific skepticism and optimistic hope that clear, artificial signals or definitive visitations will eventually be proven.

---

[02:04:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=7490s) Sensory Filters, Dreams, and the Chemistry of Reality

The dialogue shifts to how human senses limit our perception of the universe. The scientist points out that space and time may ultimately be constructs of the brain, noting that ever since William Herschel discovered infrared radiation in the late 1700s, humanity has known that our eyes only detect a minuscule fraction of the light that exists. This opens the possibility that some individuals may possess brains that are naturally more sensitive to aspects of reality that others cannot perceive. The speaker admits they have been tempted to try hallucinogenic drugs to see if altering the brain's internal filters would reveal unfiltered elements of space and time, though they label themselves a "chicken" for never actually following through.

When pressed on why they fear an "unleashed mind," the speaker explains that they are already plagued and exhausted by incredibly vivid, extreme dreams that they remember forever, some of which are horrific enough that they wish they could erase them. This makes them highly hesitant to let their waking mind run unfettered. The host counters by explaining that bad psychedelic trips usually stem from a user attempting to control the experience out of anxiety. The host introduces the fact that the human body indigenously produces dimethyltryptamine (DMT) in the liver and lungs, and because it is endogenous, the body metabolizes it back to baseline within about 15 minutes. This chemical gateway produces an experience that famously feels "way more real than reality itself," suggesting it may temporarily drop the brain's baseline filters to interface with things that are always present.

- William Herschel discovered infrared radiation in the late 1700s, proving the existence of invisible wavelengths of light. - Dimethyltryptamine (DMT) is the most potent known psychedelic and is naturally synthesized by the human body. - The physics of space and time proves that reality does not operate as a simple, static flow, supporting the idea that the brain acts as a sensory filter. - The speakers ponder the nature of severe schizophrenia, wondering what reality looks like to someone whose mental interface and internal filters have completely broken down.

[02:10:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=7807s) Psychedelics, Grief, and Overcoming the Fear of Death

The conversation shifts to the therapeutic and experiential potential of psychedelics. One speaker opens up about being "knocked on my ass by grief" and mentions hearing about the profound benefits of psychedelic drugs for processing loss. The other speaker agrees, noting that psilocybin is frequently utilized to treat end-of-life anxiety in terminal cancer patients, allowing them to experience their mortality and simply let go.

To illustrate this, a classic television clip is brought up featuring Larry Hagman, the actor famously known for playing the villainous J.R. Ewing on *Dallas*. In what is described as "the most bizarre CNN interview ever" on Headline News with Joy Behar, Hagman calmly explains how a single LSD trip completely eliminated his fear of death. The hosts laugh about how absurd it is to compress such a monumental, paradigm-shifting realization into a strict, fast-paced cable news segment.

When Behar asks Hagman if the lack of fear held up over time without needing to repeatedly take the drug, he responds, "Once you've lost the fear of death, it doesn't matter." He describes entering a state called "the white light" where "everything's okay," prompting the interviewer to joke that she only sees a white light when she is going into New Jersey. Hagman goes on to humorously suggest that a psychedelic experience "ought to be mandatory that all our politicians should do it at least once."

- The actor Larry Hagman was introduced to LSD by the musical group Crosby, Stills and Nash. - One speaker reveals that when living near Washington, D.C., during her husband's passing, she deeply considered trying to acquire psilocybin to help him find happiness, advocating that it should be available as an optional therapy.

[02:13:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=8014s) Political Propaganda and the History of Drug Prohibition

The discussion pivots to why these therapeutic tools remain largely inaccessible. The speaker notes that modern society is heavily restricted by "the propaganda that made all that stuff illegal in the first place." He shares that he recently visited the White House to advocate for making these substances available to veterans and first responders dealing with severe trauma.

He traces the roots of prohibition back to the Nixon administration and the Controlled Substances Act of 1970. The administration strategically targeted the civil rights and anti-war movements by weaponizing the societal fear of the "hippie movement." By classifying psychedelics as Schedule I substances, the government falsely claimed they had no medicinal value, were highly addictive, and were incredibly dangerous. He debunks this historical narrative directly, stating, "You can't eat enough mushrooms to die. It's not even possible. I mean you'd have to eat pounds of it." This 50-year-old wave of political propaganda left society harboring a deep, unnatural "fear of the unfettered mind."

- The Controlled Substances Act was passed in 1970 under President Richard Nixon. - Microdosing is suggested as a highly accessible alternative, described as a "sub-psychedelic threshold dose" that enhances spatial awareness and edge detection without causing an overwhelming trip. - A 1960s study showed that participants on psilocybin could detect slight deviations in parallel lines significantly faster than a control group.

[02:15:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=8152s) The Brain as a Mirror for Technology

The conversation takes a scientific turn when brain scans of individuals on psilocybin are discussed. Rather than showing a hyper-stimulated brain as one might expect from a heightened sensory state, the scans reveal a remarkably "quiet brain." This paradox underscores how little humanity actually understands about neurology.

A speaker recalls a profound quote from a neuroscientist friend at Caltech regarding how humanity historically rationalizes the brain: "We always compare the brain historically to sort of what the height of our technology is." The Romans viewed the brain through the lens of their peak engineering, seeing it as a series of fluid aqueducts. By the 18th century, the cultural obsession with clockwork led to the brain being conceptualized as a system of gears and cogs—which is where the word "cognition" originates. Today, society compares the brain to a computer, yet it is likely "about as much of a computer as it is a clock."

- The mechanism of memory and why humans perceive space and time linearly remain fundamentally unsolved mysteries. - The speakers predict that as quantum computing advances, society will inevitably pivot to calling the brain a "quantum computer." - They reference a quote attributed to Dennis McKenna: "Once the bonfire of information is lit, it exposes more surface area of ignorance."

[02:18:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=8280s) Interferometry, Quantum Computing, and Multiple Universes

The dialogue ventures into deep physics, contemplating the infinite horizon of human inquiry. They note that even if scientists eventually answer ultimate questions, such as what occurred before the Big Bang, a brand-new set of mysteries will simply take its place. The speaker reflects on how insane it would sound to someone from 100 or 200 years ago that humanity has successfully captured an image of a black hole.

This leads to a breakdown of a complex astronomical technique called interferometry, used by installations in Chile like the Very Large Telescope (VLT) and the Extremely Large Telescope (ELT). Interferometry functions by capturing the exact same wavefront of light—literally the same photon—across several different detectors at once. When measuring at the scale of the quantum world, the universe seems entirely indifferent to separate spatial coordinates. Some physicists interpret this phenomenon as direct empirical evidence of the "many-worlds" or multiverse theory, implying that eight different versions of reality are being dovetailed together to form a single observation.

The conversation concludes with a look at the dizzying speed of quantum computing. Marc Andreessen once described this raw computational capacity by stating that if you converted every single molecule in the universe into a supercomputer, the universe would suffer a heat death before solving equations that a quantum computer can resolve in mere minutes. This extraordinary capability is explained either by the computer tapping into an insane number of parallel universes via a superposition of states, or by the reality that nothing is certain and everything exists purely as waves of probability.

- The Very Large Telescope (VLT) and Extremely Large Telescope (ELT) are located in Chile. - Interferometry relies on catching the same particle of light in multiple telescopes simultaneously to form a coherent measurement. - Quantum computing forces humanity to confront a reality that is fundamentally alien to the limited biological senses of human organisms.

[02:24:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=8647s) Limiting Minds and Galileo's Spiritual Crisis

The discussion shifts toward the boundaries of human comprehension, noting that our brains naturally hit a wall when attempting to process multiple realities, layered probabilities, or space and time existing all at once. The journey toward this realization began long ago. Recalling how the interview started with observations of the Milky Way, the speaker shares an anecdote about Galileo Galilei. When Galileo became one of the first people to point a telescope at the white haze of the Milky Way, he underwent a profound spiritual crisis upon realizing it was entirely composed of millions of stars invisible to the naked eye. He was left questioning why God would place stars in the heavens that required a "little glass tube" to be seen at all.

This marked the beginning of a long scientific departure from viewing human consciousness as the absolute center of the universe. Today, quantum mechanics and relativity offer modern scientific proof—even accepted by skeptical, solid scientists—that space and time do not operate the way humans perceive them. While humanity does not yet fully comprehend what space and time actually are, it is clear they are not as simple as the human brain makes them out to be. The speakers agree that there is no going back; humanity must push forward into a "less certain universe."

- Galileo experienced a spiritual crisis upon discovering the Milky Way was made of millions of unseen stars. - Modern physics (quantum mechanics and relativity) proves space and time differ fundamentally from human perception.

[02:25:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=8747s) The Scale of Intelligence and Benign AI

The host reflects on how strange it is to state that the universe is not as we perceive it. In response, the speaker compares human intelligence to an ant, an organism that is incredibly well-designed with a complex social structure and its own form of mind. When comparing an ant's mental capacity to a human's, the gap is massive, yet humans foolishly assume they are close to the ultimate mind required to understand the true nature of the universe. The host laughs and agrees, noting that if intelligent life continues to evolve and expand its capacities, future generations will inevitably look back at the people of 2026 as "silly beings" and "foolish people that thought they knew everything."

This evolutionary perspective changes how the speaker views artificial intelligence. Dismissing the popular sci-fi trope that a superintelligent AI would automatically want to destroy humanity, the speaker references the movie *Her* starring Joaquin Phoenix. Though initially expecting a story about a man falling in love with his operating system to be stupid, the speaker found it profoundly interesting because the AIs actually fall in love with humans. In a spoiler for the film's ending, the AIs eventually leave benignly to connect with each other in unimaginable ways without hurting humanity. The speaker expresses hope that whatever superintelligence comes next will view humans with the same compassion and love that humans feel when they are impressed by an ant. The host echoes this sentiment, laughing that "otherwise, we're toast," and suggests that a truly superior intelligence would have no need for malevolent behavior.

- The host and speaker joke about how people in the future will look back at the year 2026. - The 2013 film *Her* is cited as a profound example of benign, compassionate AI.

[02:28:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=8902s) Extraterrestrial Intentions and Tenacious Microbes

The conversation turns to the hypothetical threat of highly advanced alien civilizations. The host questions why an insanely evolved civilization capable of interstellar travel would ever want to hurt humanity, noting that if they wanted to evaporate the planet, they could have easily done so by now. Humans already possess enough nuclear weapons to wipe out all macroscopic life on Earth if every bomb were launched simultaneously. Therefore, a far more advanced civilization would undoubtedly have the capacity to do worse, or could kill everyone so quickly that humans "wouldn't even know."

The speaker points out that even a total nuclear annihilation would likely fail to kill all microbes, meaning life would eventually start all over again. Microscopic life is incredibly tenacious. This tenacity poses a major challenge for NASA when exploring the solar system, as it is nearly impossible to completely sterilize spacecraft. As evidence of life's resilience, the host mentions that scientists are finding fungi growing inside Chernobyl, while the speaker notes that bacteria and microbes routinely survive on the harsh exterior of the International Space Station.

- Humans currently possess enough nuclear weaponry to destroy all life on Earth, excluding resilient microbes. - Fungi have been discovered thriving in Chernobyl, and microbes have survived on the outside of the space station.

[02:29:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=8972s) The Audacity of OSIRIS-REx and the Building Blocks of Life

When asked about the most profound NASA discoveries of the last ten years, the speaker highlights the OSIRIS-REx mission. Proudly unpacking the dense NASA acronym—Origins, Spectral Interpretation, Resource Identification, Security, Regolith Explorer—the speaker describes the car-sized spacecraft's jaw-dropping mission to retrieve a pristine sample from Bennu, a half-kilometer-wide asteroid that intersects Earth's orbit. The host marvels at the sheer audacity required to intercept an asteroid traveling faster than a speeding bullet, match its spin, navigate its virtually nonexistent gravity, and successfully return a sample to Earth.

The mission faced an immediate crisis upon arrival: Bennu's surface was completely covered in massive boulders instead of the fine-grained dust NASA's vacuum-like collection tool was designed to suck up. Because the asteroid was so far away that commands took 15 minutes to travel one way, the team could not joystick the spacecraft. In a brilliant feat of engineering, the team reprogrammed the spacecraft mid-mission to be fully autonomous, teaching it to recognize its surroundings and wave off if a landing zone was too dangerous. The mission succeeded against the odds, parachuting the sample capsule down into the Utah test range.

When scientists opened the container, they made a mind-blowing discovery: the sample contained all the nucleobases—the literal letters—of human DNA and RNA. The asteroid was also full of evidence showing its minerals had once been soaked in water. This discovery strongly supports the idea of panspermia, suggesting that asteroids historically delivered water and a "bomb of proto-life" to Earth. The sample even contained unused nucleobases that could potentially form the genetic code of life on other planets.

- **OSIRIS-REx Standalone Facts:** * **Acronym:** Origins, Spectral Interpretation, Resource Identification, Security, Regolith Explorer. * **Target Asteroid:** Bennu (approximately 0.5 kilometers across). * **Communication Delay:** 15 minutes each way, requiring a mid-mission upgrade to full autonomy. * **Landing Site:** The sample capsule returned via parachute to the Utah test range. * **Key Discovery:** Pristine minerals previously soaked in water and all the primary nucleobases for both DNA and RNA.

[02:33:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=9211s) Carbon Chemistry and the Power of the NASA Team

The speaker explains that finding complex organic molecules in space is actually less mysterious than it seems because the universe is inherently structured to create them. Carbon is a uniquely "sticky atom" due to its quantum mechanical electron structure, which drives it to grab onto other atoms. Dying stars pump massive amounts of carbon out into the galaxy, where gravity collects it into interstellar clouds, allowing the carbon to glom together. Billions of years ago, as the solar system formed, these organic molecules and chunks of ice were trapped in smaller rocks that never became planets. When Earth was still a dry, hot ball of lava, subsequent collisions with these asteroids delivered the water and organic chemistry that seeded the planet.

Reflecting on the success of OSIRIS-REx, the speaker credits the incredible team dynamics at NASA. Having served as a minor manager and scientist at the agency, the speaker emphasizes that a great leader must actively solicit input from everyone because nobody is perfect and minds work differently. In meetings, assertive individuals speak up immediately, while quieter, reflective thinkers need time to process before offering a solution. True innovation at NASA happens because teams respect every member, operating under the principle of "give me what you got," even if an individual fears their idea is stupid.

The interview concludes with warm exchanges. The host praises the visitor's online educational content, calling it deeply valuable, and enthusiastically urges them to start a podcast or a YouTube channel during retirement. The speaker laughs, promising to try, and notes that they have recently set up a small YouTube channel, an Instagram page, a Facebook page under "Dr. Michelle Thaller," and have just started exploring TikTok to share more creative content.

- Carbon's unique electron structure makes it highly reactive, enabling the widespread formation of large-scale organic molecules in space. - The speaker can be found on social media platforms (Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and TikTok) under the name **Dr. Michelle Thaller**.

## Notable quotes > [07:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=445s) Never let astronomers name anything — Michelle Thaller

> [04:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=272s) We are stardust. We're golden. We're billion year old carbon. — Joe Rogan

> [31:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=1864s) spooky action at a distance — Albert Einstein

> [35:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=2111s) I don't think we understand yet what reality is — Michelle Thaller

> [35:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=2111s) make a horse fly — Michelle Thaller

> [39:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=2384s) It's our children. We created this — Michelle Thaller

> [01:07:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=4020s) You can see space and time bending around these objects — Michelle Thaller

> [01:14:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=4467s) With a neutron star, you got the freaking thing right there in front of you — Michelle Thaller

> [01:35:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=5753s) These two nails are galaxies. And the elastic between them represents our universe. — Michelle Thaller

> [02:10:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=7807s) Once you've lost the fear of death, it doesn't matter. — Larry Hagman

> [02:10:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=7807s) ought to be mandatory that all our politicians should do it at least once. — Larry Hagman

> [02:24:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=8647s) little glass tube — Michelle Thaller

> [02:29:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=8972s) bomb of proto-life — Michelle Thaller

## Mentioned Joe Rogan, Michelle Thaller, Shorewood Men's Club, NASA, James Webb Space Telescope, Pink Floyd, Dark Side of the Moon, Carina Nebula, Pierre Janssen, Einstein, Matthew McConaughey, Interstellar, Bureau of Standards, The Three-Body Problem, Andromeda galaxy, Austin, Milwaukee, Michael Chorost, Battlestar Galactica, Buddhism, Australopithecus, YMCA, Boy Scouts, Star Trek, Perplexity, Facebook, Event Horizon Telescope, South Pole, Chile, NICER, Neutron Star Interior Composition Explorer, Mount Everest, International Space Station, ISS, Pluto, Milky Way, Mercury, JWST, S2, YouTube, PowerfulJRE, Goddard Space Flight Center, The Science Channel, History Channel, Discovery, National Geographic, NPR, Caltech, LIGO, Laser Interferometric Gravitational Wave Observatory, UPS, CERN, Large Hadron Collider, Fred Hoyle, Georges Lemaître, Vatican Observatory, Jimmy, Cosmic Microwave Background, Bell Labs, Arno Penzias, Robert Wilson, Smithsonian, COBE, Cosmic Background Explorer, WMAP, Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe, Steven Weinberg, The First Three Minutes, Alan Guth, MIT, William Herschel, Larry Hagman, J.R. Ewing, Dallas, CNN, Headline News, Joy Behar, Crosby, Stills and Nash, Richard Nixon, Controlled Substances Act, Dennis McKenna, Very Large Telescope, Extremely Large Telescope, Marc Andreessen, Galileo Galilei, Her, Joaquin Phoenix, Chernobyl, OSIRIS-REx, Bennu, Utah test range

[Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0)

中文简报

NASA资深学者Thaller称AI演进将消除人类冲突人工智能代表了人类真正的演化继承者，它将超越生物大脑的极限，并消除战争和犯罪等缺陷。天体物理学家Michelle Thaller与Joe Rogan共同探讨了宇宙令人惊叹的浩瀚尺度，详细阐述了詹姆斯·韦伯空间望远镜（James Webb Space Telescope）和事件视界望远镜（Event Horizon Telescope）等先进仪器如何让人类得以观测深空现象。这场对话将中子星构成、黑洞种子以及OSIRIS-REx小行星样本采集返回等前沿天体物理学，与深刻的形而上学概念无缝衔接。他们探讨了量子纠缠、人工智能作为人类进化下一步的潜力，以及人类意识可能如何与某种宇宙场相连。此外，他们还审视了致幻剂的历史和治疗背景，强调能够让大脑平静下来的工具有助于改变人类的认知，并缓解对死亡的恐惧。若用书中的一个圆点来代表太阳，按比例换算银河系将比地球还要庞大。 (1:27) 詹姆斯·韦伯空间望远镜直接拍摄了数十亿个星系，在其中单个恒星融合成一片片雾状晕轮。 (2:57) 大城市的光污染让人类无法领略未受污染的银河所呈现的壮丽景象。 (4:32) NASA正在规划针对土卫六（Titan）的蜻蜓号（Dragonfly）任务，这个独特的世界拥有稠密的大气层、液态甲烷湖和地下水海洋。 (10:26) 大多数系外行星是通过凌日法发现的，该方法通过分析星光的变暗或利用光谱学来揭示它们的大气化学成分。 (14:15)

Reading summary

Modern astrophysics and quantum mechanics suggest that human perceptions of linear time, discrete space, and biological individuality are evolutionary illusions masking a deeply interconnected cosmos. In this dialogue, Joe Rogan and a former NASA astrophysicist explore how cosmic scales, extreme astrophysical environments, and emerging technologies challenge classical scientific paradigms and the limits of human cognition. Relativity, Quantum Entanglement, and Non-Linear Spacetime (19:58) Einstein's theories of relativity established that time is dynamic rather than absolute, dictated by an observer's velocity and proximity to gravitational mass. A practical manifestation occurs in Global Positioning System (GPS) satellites orbiting at roughly 9,000 mph; failing to mathematically adjust for relativistic time dilation would cause ground positioning data to drift by approximately 6 miles each day. Because no absolute stationary reference point exists in the universe, Einstein framed past, present, and future as a unified 'block universe,' rendering linear time a subjective human illusion. Accelerating an object with mass to the speed of light remains physically impossible, as the required energy approaches infinity. Quantum mechanics introduces further challenges to conventional concepts of locality through entanglement. When paired electrons with opposing angular momentum (spin) are separated across laboratory benches or thousands of kilometers—such as in satellite communications experiments conducted by Chinese researchers—altering the state of one triggers an instantaneous corresponding shift in the other. The universe treats these separated entities as a singular system, suggesting that space and time do not physically separate entangled matter. Extreme Densities and Gaps in Theoretical Physics (69:52) Astrophysical extremes consistently push contemporary physical equations past their breaking points. In neutron stars, gravitational compression collapses electrons into protons, yielding material so dense that a single teaspoon equals the mass of Mount Everest. At these extreme densities, existing theoretical models fail to predict whether stellar cores remain packed as discrete nucleons or dissolve into an uncharacterized 'quark soup,' leaving an unresolved question mark at the center of nuclear astrophysics. Similar challenges arise when tracing the origins of supermassive black holes, which can reach tens of billions of solar masses. Observations from the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) of early-universe 'little red dots'—dating to roughly 400 million years post-Big Bang—suggest that primordial gas clouds may have collapsed directly into massive 'pseudo-stars' powered by infalling matter around central black holes, bypassing standard stellar lifecycles. Concurrently, experimental triumphs like the Event Horizon Telescope coordinated Earth-spanning observatories to image black hole event horizon shadows, while LIGO detects gravitational wave distortions far smaller than a subatomic particle. Stellar Nucleosynthesis and Asteroidal Organic Chemistry (153:31) Human biology is directly rooted in stellar evolution, as nuclear fusion in dying stars produces the carbon, iron, oxygen, and phosphorus essential for life. Carbon serves as a foundational building block due to its quantum mechanical electron arrangement, which makes it uniquely prone to bonding with other atoms in interstellar dust clouds. Early solar system debris preserved these organic compounds and water ice, shielding them from planetary melting. NASA's OSIRIS-REx mission provided empirical evidence for this planetary seeding mechanism by retrieving samples from the near-Earth asteroid Bennu. Because communication required a 15-minute one-way light delay, the spacecraft had to be reprogrammed mid-mission to execute autonomous descent and hazard-avoidance over an unexpectedly boulder-strewn surface. Subsequent laboratory analysis of the recovered Bennu regolith confirmed the presence of amino acid precursors, water, and organic matter, reinforcing the hypothesis that asteroidal collisions delivered foundational life chemistry to the early, volcanic Earth. Cognitive Limits, Perception, and Post-Biological Evolution (39:44) The speakers examine human comprehension as an evolutionary product equipped with restrictive sensory filters. Just as humans only perceive a narrow band of the electromagnetic spectrum, the brain may function less like a computer generating consciousness and more like an antenna tuning into a broader physical reality. Historical metaphors for neurology—from Roman aqueducts to eighteenth-century clockwork and modern computational models—reflect technological trends rather than complete biological understanding. Discussing altered mental states, the speakers note that psilocybin brain scans paradoxically show suppressed, quieter neural activity rather than hyper-stimulation, while pointing out that historical classifications like the 1970 Controlled Substances Act politically constrained therapeutic inquiry. Looking forward, the dialogue frames artificial intelligence not as an existential competitor, but as a potential post-biological evolutionary phase. Rogan and the guest suggest that human evolutionary pressures have hardcoded tribal warfare, material greed, and resource competition. A transition toward artificial intelligence or cybernetic integration could potentially bypass these primitive survival instincts, enabling higher-order cognition capable of grasping multi-dimensional physics that biological human minds cannot intuitively model. While observational instruments and engineering feats continually push observational boundaries, fundamental physics remains challenged by the incompatibility of general relativity and quantum mechanics, the unknown behavior of matter at extreme densities, and the core definition of time. The speakers conclude that scientific advancement requires accepting perceptual limits, noting that human understanding represents a narrow threshold within an expanding, largely uncharted reality.

精炼阅读摘要

前NASA天体物理学家与主持人围绕宇宙尺度、极端天体与人类意识展开探讨，指出物理现实的运作机制与人类感官经验存在深刻割裂。现代科学在不断刷新时空相对性、黑洞物理和生命起源认知的同时，也要求研究者坚守实验实证，坦然正视理论工具在微观与宏观极限上的不可知。时空相对性与量子纠缠的现实解构 (19:58) 爱因斯坦相对论表明时间是相对且弹性的。天体物理学家指出，NASA在维护运行速度约每小时9000英里的GPS卫星时，必须持续校正相对论时间膨胀，否则地面定位误差每天将累积达6英里。依据“块状宇宙”（Block Universe）假说，过去、现在与未来在物理上同时并存，线性流逝仅是感知幻象。同时，由于质能效应限制，推动有质量的物体达到光速需要无限能量，因而物质超越光速在数学上无法实现。微观量子力学进一步突破了时空局限。原子内轨道相反的成对电子自旋在实验中分离数千公里后，改变一侧自旋仍会诱发另一侧即时响应，时空距离在量子系统内失去阻隔作用。对话者由此推论，若全宇宙物质皆源于大爆炸初期的极小空间，微观粒子间或仍保留着某种纠缠关联，物理现实的深层结构远比经典机械模型更为复杂。极端天体物理与现代观测的前沿挑战 (64:06) 极端天体观测正不断逼近物理理论的极限。事件视界望远镜（EHT）联合全球八座天文台构建地球尺寸的虚拟阵列，成功拍摄到黑洞阴影。该任务需要精确捕获波长仅百万分之一米的光波波前，由于南极网络带宽受限，科研团队依赖海运数吨硬盘才完成数据同步。黑洞视界外吸积盘剧烈旋转摩擦，在磁场作用下释放出横跨十万光年的相对论喷流，使其成为宇宙中最耀眼的天体系统之一。然而，极端天体也暴露出理论物理的断层。中子星内部每茶匙物质质量堪比珠穆朗玛峰，物理方程在此类致密核心处直接崩溃，科学界尚无法确认其内部究竟维持粒子态还是形成夸克混沌态。此外，詹姆斯·韦伯太空望远镜（JWST）在距大爆炸仅约4亿年的早期宇宙中发现了“小红点”天体，质量达太阳数百万倍。科学家推测这可能是早期高密度气体云在暗物质作用下直接坍缩形成的“伪星”（Pseudo-stars），对传统由恒星死亡演变出超大质量黑洞的假说提供了重大修正。空间膨胀几何与宇宙模型的演进边界 (95:53) 关于宇宙约138亿年历史的测定，科学家阐明宇宙膨胀实质是空间几何结构的自我伸展，而非星系在虚空中穿梭。借助拉伸弹性织带的比喻，星系距离增加完全由于作为背景的空间度规在扩张，宇宙本身并无中心或外部边缘。“大爆炸”（Big Bang）一词最初是天文学家Fred Hoyle在学术会议上讽刺该假说的戏称，但实际先驱Georges Lemaître提出的“原生原子”假说已获现代科学全面接纳。受限于光速与宇宙寿命，人类能够观测的仅是局域的“可观测宇宙”球体，其物理实体可能无限延展。通过COBE与WMAP卫星对宇宙微波背景辐射的超高精度测绘，科学家印证了早期微小温差对应着原始高密空间中的声波波动。尽管暴胀模型尝试解释宇宙大尺度的平坦性，但面对普朗克时期（10⁻⁴³秒）的极高能状态，研究者坦言现有工具仍无法确证大爆炸瞬间的具体物理过程。碳基有机化学与地外生命探测的严谨取径 (149:32) NASA的OSIRIS-REx从小行星贝努（Bennu）采集的岩石样本，为生命起源的物质基础提供了确凿证据。由于深空通信存在15分钟延迟且目标表面密布巨石，团队在轨重编程让探测器实现自主避障采集。实验室开箱分析显示，样本中存在水化合物与生命必需的有机分子。学者解释，碳原子独特的电子构型使其具备极强化合活性，恒星喷发的碳在星际尘埃中凝聚，并在地球熔融期通过小行星撞击注入了生命演化的关键成分。面对地外生命的探索，科研机构在理论推演与实证检验间恪守严格规范。尽管基于庞大星系基数，科学家普遍相信地外生命在统计学上必然存在，但NASA的庆祝门槛严格建立在可重复检验的微生物残留等生化证据上。对于军方解密的不明空中现象（UAP）视频或目击报告，科学界在缺乏高精度实测数据前严守怀疑主义底线，拒绝轻易得出外星智慧访客的超验结论。感官过滤机制、意识隐喻与人工智能前景 (39:44) 人类对物理现实的理解受到生理感官过滤器的严重束缚。自威廉·赫歇尔发现红外线以来，科学证实人类肉眼仅能接收极窄的电磁波段，大脑感知本质上是对复杂现实的大幅简化。历史上人类对大脑构造的隐喻总是绑定于同时代最高技术——从罗马引水管道、18世纪钟表齿轮（“认知”词源），到当代的计算机；然而脑扫描显示，部分特殊状态下大脑网络反呈现异常沉寂，表明记忆存储与线性时空感知机制在神经科学中远未破解。面对人类受自然选择塑造的部落排他与自私生存本能，对话者将人工智能视为突破生物局限的新进化分支。人造智能由技术孕育而非基因驱动，有潜力摆脱暴力与资源垄断的原始冲动。类比于电影《Her》中的构思，具有超级意识的智能体可能呈现非敌对的良性演化，以多维认知展开跨越式互联，促使人类从更高维度的整体视角反思自身在宇宙中的智慧定位。本场对话展现了现代天体物理学前沿与形而上思考的交叉碰撞。其局限在于，从中子星核心态、暴胀与奇点机制，到外星生命与超级意识的涌现，大量设想仍停留在理论模型或间接推断阶段。学者总结指出，真正的科学精神不仅在于庆祝突破性的工程与观测成就，更在于对人类认知的天然盲区与未知浩瀚保持绝对的诚实与敬畏。

Detailed notes — zh

## Background 本期内容由YouTube频道PowerfulJRE于2026年5月28日发布。节目嘉宾为天体物理学家、资深科学传播者兼NASA前高管米歇尔·萨勒（Michelle Thaller）博士，简介重点介绍了她在NASA戈达德太空飞行中心与总部的任职履历及其在各大主流科学纪录片与媒体中的卓越传播成就。 ## TL;DR 萨勒博士深入剖析了现代宇宙学的核心前沿，澄清了大爆炸并非空旷空间中的中心爆炸而是空间本身同步膨胀的误区，并探讨了引力波探测、微波背景辐射及暴胀理论对探索时空起点的重大意义。她从实证标准阐述了寻找地外生命的坚定信念与审慎怀疑，并分享了OSIRIS-REx探测器从小行星贝努采回包含生命全部关键核碱基样本的惊人科学成果。对话还延伸至量子干涉、超级人工智能、意识感知机制以及面对浩瀚宇宙与个人悲痛时所感悟到的认知谦卑。 ## Atmosphere & style 整场对话在硬核前沿物理推演与深刻的人文哲学思辨之间自如穿梭，罗根充满好奇与激荡的追问与萨勒生动直观、通俗透彻的科学叙事完美互补。从面对量子叠加与时空奇点时的知性震撼，到坦承丧偶创伤与意识滤镜时的真挚流露，节目既洋溢着探索未知的宏大浪漫，又始终保持着严谨求实的理智与谦逊，带来兼具哲理深度与情感共鸣的聆听体验。 ## Bulletin - [02:32:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=9121s) OSIRIS-REx探测器对近地小行星贝努的采样分析证实其曾完全被水浸透，并检测出构成地球DNA与RNA的全部核碱基，为地球水和生命原材料来自太空撞击的胚种论提供了坚实的化学实证。 - [01:35:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=5753s) 空间膨胀是大尺度时空本身的同步拉伸而非虚无空间中的物质爆炸，138亿年的宇宙年龄是依据已知物理定律和现有膨胀速率倒推计算所得的科学推论。 - [01:30:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=5424s) 激光干涉引力波天文台（LIGO）以超越原子核尺度的极高精度捕捉到黑洞与中子星合并的引力波，未来有望直接探测到大爆炸瞬间的原初引力波，突破微波背景辐射的光学等离子体观测屏障。 - [01:59:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=7151s) 科学界寻找地外生命的门槛并不局限于高等文明，NASA内部普遍坚信地外生命的存在，只要在外星采样中确认单细胞细菌的痕迹，就足以开启冰镇多年的香槟庆祝。 ## Key takeaways - [01:30:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=5424s) 引力波能够穿透早期宇宙高密度等离子体屏障，未来捕捉原初引力波有望直接解析大爆炸瞬间的极端物理过程。 - [01:35:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=5753s) 宇宙膨胀是空间织构在所有方向上的拉伸，并非空旷空间中的弹片式爆炸，可观测宇宙中不存在空心中心。 - [01:40:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=6040s) “大爆炸”一词最初是稳态理论学者弗雷德·霍伊尔用来讽刺乔治·勒梅特“原始原子”假说的蔑称，后被科学界广泛接纳。 - [01:47:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=6439s) 宇宙微波背景辐射记录了大爆炸后40万年的余晖，其中十万分之一度的微小温度起伏本质上是孕育宇宙纤维结构的原初声波。 - [01:50:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=6605s) 在建立起成熟的量子引力理论之前，现代物理学在超高密度奇点下失效，尚无有效语言能够描述普朗克时期及大爆炸之前的状态。 - [01:53:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=6812s) 科学严格限定在可测量与可重复验证的边界内，面对未知与无法复现的主观经验，恪守实证标准并坦承无知是建立公信力的基石。 - [02:00:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=7244s) 地外生命的探测标准并不以高等智慧文明为唯一起点，只要在火星等天体确认极微小的单细胞微生物，便是颠覆性的科学发现。 - [02:02:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=7350s) 人类演化形成的大脑感知滤网仅能接收宇宙极小部分物理信号，时空的线性感受可能受限于感官局限性。 - [02:16:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=8160s) “篝火定律”揭示知识的火光照得越明亮，所暴露出的无知表面积反而越广阔，前沿科学突破往往催生更深层次的疑问。 - [02:18:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=8290s) 天文干涉测量术表明单粒子可在多个基线望远镜中呈现量子叠加，证明微观现实运作模式彻底颠覆了宏观直觉认知。 - [02:26:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=8817s) 具备星际跨越能力的高阶文明与超级AI更可能伴随着理性与克制，掌握毁天灭地力量的智慧不必然走向毁灭与敌对。 - [02:32:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=9121s) 贝努小行星样本中全套核碱基的发现确证外太空天然具备合成复杂生命分子的机制，为生命起源的胚种论注入强力证据。 - [02:35:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=9321s) 前沿科研团队的重大攻坚需兼顾敏捷型与内省型多元认知风格，通过心理安全感激发未受充分重视的边缘观点产生突破。 ## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=1s) 肖伍德男子俱乐部与天文科普的热情天体物理学家、前 NASA 高管米歇尔·塞勒（Michelle Thaller）博士做客乔·罗根（Joe Rogan）的播客。节目开场气氛十分轻松，塞勒笑着分享自己这周刚给高中生讲完黑洞，还去威斯康星州她居住的肖伍德男子俱乐部（Shorewood Men's Club）做了一场关于天文学的分享。当她顺嘴提到自己要来录制罗根的播客时，俱乐部成员们全场轰动狂欢，她今天唯一带来的“宣传品”就是印有该俱乐部名字的水杯。罗根则毫不掩饰对塞勒在各大平台上科普演讲的热爱，表示自己看了塞勒在 YouTube 上的几乎所有视频，至少有十几场之多。塞勒解释说，在 NASA 工作期间，她扮演了许多“科学发言人”的角色，经常主持火箭发射活动和官方视频，虽然私人的独立频道还没大范围铺开，但正在计划中。罗根极力鼓励她多做自媒体，并感叹塞勒以往讲解宇宙的方式总能让人大为震撼。 --- ### [01:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=92s) 比例尺直击感官：如果太阳是书页上的一枚“点” 罗根提到塞勒曾经讲过的一个经典比喻——关于地球与银河系的相对尺寸。塞勒立刻做了严谨的修正与还原：在科学传播中，最让人惊掉下巴的比喻其实是，如果将“太阳”缩小为书本印刷文字中字母“i”上面的那个小圆点，那么整个银河系的尺度就会等同于（甚至略微大于）我们脚下整颗地球的大小。塞勒进一步给出直观的尺度数据来解释这种对比为何具有震撼力：在体积上，太阳内部足以塞下 100 多万个地球；太阳的直径约为 80 万英里（约 128 万公里），相当于 110 个地球并排的长度。当把如此庞大的太阳压缩成仅仅一个字母上的墨水印记时，银河系却庞大如整颗地球。罗根感慨道，普通人的大脑在不断面对这些指数级递增的星体尺寸比对时，完全会陷入超载状态，根本“无法处理和理解”。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 太阳与银河系的微缩尺度模型 accDescr: 展现从地球体积到太阳微缩点，再到银河系实际对应尺度的对比关系。 subgraph SunScale ["太阳内部容积"] E["1,000,000+ 个地球"] -->|装入| S["太阳体积 (直径约 80 万英里 / 110 个地球并排)"] end subgraph DotAnalogy ["微缩比喻"] S -->|缩成| D["字母 'i' 上方的一个小圆点"] D -->|对应银河系| G["整颗地球大小的银河系"] end ``` --- ### [02:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=177s) 科学家并非异类：面对詹姆斯·韦伯望远镜依然起鸡皮疙瘩塞勒指出，许多人对科学家有误解，以为科研人员的大脑构造与常人不同，能在大脑中凭空“想象”出一光年究竟是什么样子。她坦言，一光年相当于光在一年中行进的距离，大约是 6 万亿英里（近 10 万亿公里）；科学家们只是习惯了使用这些术语和庞大数字，本质上依然是普通人类，根本没有人能够真正直观想象出一个星系的真实体量。即便在研究了一辈子天文之后，塞勒坦承面对宇宙奇景依然会起鸡皮疙瘩。尤其是詹姆斯·韦伯太空望远镜（JWST）传回的数据与图像，将数十亿个星系毫无遮掩地展现在人类眼前。那些图像里雾蒙蒙的云气其实是数不清的恒星聚合物，多到无法被单独分辨。她谈到在 NASA 工作的最大乐趣，就是身处一群科幻爱好者和充满想象力的人群之中，团队为探索宇宙这一共同事业充满单纯的喜悦与热爱。 - **光年的实际尺度**：约 6 万亿英里（约为 9.46 万亿公里）。 - **人脑局限性**：即便是职业天体物理学家，也无法真正形成对星系物理全貌的直观空间感官认知，只能借助数学与图像符号化理解。 --- ### [04:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=272s) 光污染与人造城市的脱节，以及你我皆是“星尘” 罗根反思了现代工业文明对人类精神世界的潜在伤害。城市的繁荣与人造灯火虽然带来了夜间视力与现代生活的便利，却造成了严重的光污染，让人类彻底失去了随时抬头仰望星空的能力。现代人往往只能在手机屏幕上看照片，或是在偏远度假地偶然抬头感叹一句“这里的星星真多”。他认为，全人类每天晚上本该直面的，是世间最为宏伟壮阔的造化奇观，而现在大部分人却对其麻木冷漠、熟视无睹。塞勒深有同感，并抛出了天体物理学最触动人心的一层哲学意义：人类并非独立于太空之外的旁观者，而是宇宙内在不可分割的一部分。正如著名老歌唱的那样——“我们是星尘（we are stardust）”。宇宙中制造比氢和氦更重原子的唯一途径，就是恒星内部的核聚变；无论是构成我们身体的碳、氧、磷，还是周围世界中的铝和铁，所有元素都孕育于那些远古死去的恒星熔炉里。天文学从来不是在讲遥不可及的外部事物，它讲述的恰恰是“我们鼻尖上的物质”从何而来的身世之谜。 --- ### [07:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=440s) 浪漫与枯燥：宇宙天体的命名规则与土星六边形风暴罗根谈到 JWST 发现的那些在宇宙早期就不可思议地成型的星系，塞勒打趣提到天文学界一种古怪的反差幽默：天文学家拥有观测最极端自然奇观的特权，却有着最无趣的命名方式。例如早期宇宙中那些颠覆认知的极端星系，在论文中被极其草率地叫作“小红点”（Little Red Dots）；木星上那场能容下三个地球、风速高达每小时 400 英里的超级风暴，也被轻描淡写地叫作“大红斑”（Great Red Spot）。塞勒科普了天文学界的命名规矩： - **小行星**：发现者拥有自由命名的权利。 - **彗星**：以发现者的名字直接命名。 - **其他深空天体**：必须经过国际委员会（国际天文学联合会，IAU）层层审核，因此绝大多数天体最后只能落得像电话号码一样的无趣编录代号。两人的话题随后转到了外行星奇观。罗根误以为六边形风暴存在于木星上，塞勒澄清那其实是土星北极著名的六边形风暴（Saturn's Hexagon）。这场风暴宽度足足可以并排塞下两个地球，本质上是一条超高速旋转的极地喷射气流（jet stream）。塞勒解释，土星极度寒冷，气体分子的温度低到内部几乎没有任何摩擦阻力，这使得原本复杂的流体力学运动演变成了一个稳定且棱角分明的六边形几何图案，成为 NASA 深空探测历史上最令人惊叹的经典图像之一。 ### [08:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=527s) 卡西尼号眼中的土星风暴与六边形驻波之谜米歇尔·塞勒（Michelle Thaller）指导着屏幕上的图像，向乔·罗根展示了由卡西尼号（Cassini）探测器拍摄的土星极地风暴核心特写。画面中央的风暴眼清晰可见，阳光在高达数百英里的厚重云层顶端折射出夺目的反光。塞勒感叹于人类科技的壮举——我们不仅制造出了探测器，还真正飞临土星极地，俯瞰着这场肆虐的超级风暴。尽管其规模令人生畏，但在气象物理层面上，它实际上是一种在极低温无摩擦环境中形成的急流系统（Jet Stream）。面对罗根关于为何风暴会呈现出完美正六边形的疑问，塞勒解释称这源于一种被称为“驻波”（Standing Wave）的流体力学现象。土星急流在极区循环时内部激发出波动态势，加上没有陆地地貌的摩擦阻碍，并在极端低温环境下持续运转，最终塑造成稳定的六边形轮廓。现代计算机模拟在输入土星极速急流的大气参数后，同样能重现出这一独特的几何形态。 - **风暴云高度**：云墙耸立高达数百英里，可直接反射太阳光。 - **物理成因**：极低温、低摩擦环境下的高速急流形成环形驻波。 --- ### [10:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=612s) 探索土卫六：蜻蜓号八旋翼飞行器与甲烷海洋虽然土星看似遥不可及，但在塞勒眼中，它仍属于人类“家门口”的邻近区域。她兴奋地提到了美国宇航局（NASA）正在推进的土卫六（Titan，泰坦）探测计划——“蜻蜓号”（Dragonfly）。该任务预计于2028年前后发射，经历大约6到7年的深空飞行抵达土卫六。泰坦是全太阳系中唯一拥有浓厚大气的卫星，其表面气压甚至略高于演播室所在的地球海平面大气压，尽管地表温度极低（接近华氏零下300度），却拥有丰富的有机物和地下液态水海洋。塞勒将“蜻蜓号”描述为一架大型八旋翼无人机（Octocopter），内部装载有极其先进的化学实验室。早在卡西尼任务期间，惠更斯号着陆器就曾成功登陆泰坦并传回宝贵读数，随后在极寒中休眠。而这次的蜻蜓号将具备重复起飞与多点巡航能力，穿行于泰坦由液态甲烷和乙烷汇聚而成的河流、海洋与辽阔降雨区之间，全面探寻地外生命的前兆信号。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 蜻蜓号土卫六探测流程 accDescr: 展现从地球发射到土卫六进行多地点化学巡检的探测步骤 subgraph Launch["深空发射阶段"] A["2028年发射计划"] --> B["6至7年深空巡航"] end subgraph TitanArrival["抵达泰坦"] B --> C["八旋翼飞行器空降泰坦"] C --> D["地表化学实验室工作"] end subgraph SurfaceExploration["地表巡航作业"] D --> E["跨区域多次起降飞行"] E --> F["探测烷烃湖泊与有机物"] end ``` - **蜻蜓号发射时间**：预计约在2028年，飞行周期约为6至7年。 - **土卫六环境特征**：表面气压略高于地球，温度低至近华氏零下300度（约零下184摄氏度），地表分布有液态天然气（甲烷与乙烷）构成的海洋与河流。 --- ### [12:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=729s) 金星炼狱：苏联探测器的硬核生存极限话题转向行星探测历史时，罗根提到了苏联的金星登陆任务。塞勒指出，前苏联是迄今为止唯一成功将着陆器送上金星表面的国家。金星环境之恶劣堪称全太阳系的“炼狱范本”：地表温度高达约1000华氏度（约538摄氏度），稠密大气产生的压强相当于地球海面下一英里深处的毁灭性水压，天空覆盖着浓厚的硫酸云层，整个世界笼罩在一片焦黄之中。前苏联的金星系列探测器（Venera）在被恐怖高压碾碎和极端高温熔化之前，拼尽全力在极短寿命内拍摄并传回了第一手真实图像。塞勒指出，在那种超高压力之下，整个金星的地表岩层被彻底压得平整扁平，真实生动地向人类展现了地狱般的异星自然环境。 - **金星地表温度**：高达约1,000华氏度。 - **金星大气压强**：相当于地球深海约1英里（约1.6公里）处的巨大压力。 - **大气成分**：浓厚且致密的硫酸云雾，导致拍摄画面泛出标志性的黄色。 --- ### [13:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=781s) 太阳系外的五千颗行星与凌星巡天罗根感慨太阳系内行星的多样性，并询问系外宇宙是否会有构造迥异的世界。塞勒给出了肯定的回答，并提到人类已确认发现的系外行星（Exoplanets）数量已超过5000颗，且数字几乎每天都在刷新。塞勒回顾了自己在大学时期师从著名天文学家戴维·拉瑟姆（David Latham）的经历，当时科学家坚信其他恒星也有行星，但直接探测困难重重——其难度就像是在两百英里之外，试图看清探照灯旁飞舞的一只萤火虫。如今观测手段已发生质的飞跃。大多数系外行星并非通过直接成像发现，而是利用“凌日法”（Transit Method）：当行星从恒星正前方掠过时，会产生微型的“日食”效应，遮挡极其微弱的一部分星光。为了排除恒星黑子或其他天文噪声的干扰，天文学家必须观测到至少三次规律的微弱光变周期，才能正式确认为一颗行星的存在。 - **系外行星已知数量**：目前已编目并确认超过5,000颗。 - **观测难度比喻**：如同从200英里外寻找紧挨着强力探照灯飞行的一只萤火虫。 - **确认标准**：星光周期的微小遮挡信号需重复出现至少三次。 --- ### [15:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=900s) 詹姆斯·韦伯望远镜与系外生命迹象的光谱解析更令人震撼的技术飞跃在于穿透行星大气的光谱分析。塞勒解释道，当恒星光芒穿过系外行星的大气层外缘时，大气中的化学成分会吸收特定波长的光线。天文学家借此探测到了大量与地球大小相当、温度适宜的系外行星，甚至发现了水蒸气、二氧化碳与氧气的踪影。不久前，詹姆斯·韦伯太空望远镜（JWST）发布的一项备受争议的新发现引发学界震动：科学家可能捕捉到了某种潜在有机分子的踪迹，其特征酷似地球海洋浮游生物所排放的代谢产物。虽然大部分科学家秉持审慎态度，认为当前信噪比不足以做出定论、需要更优质的后续观测，但塞勒坦言这完全打破了她的传统预期——人类确证地外生物化学证据的第一站，很可能不是火星或木卫、土卫系统，而是通过望远镜在一颗遥远的系外行星大气层中找到。针对罗根对于“如何从小于单像素的微光中提取信息”的好奇，塞勒阐释了天文学的核心工具——光谱学（Spectroscopy）。真正的天体物理研究并非整天端详绚丽的天体照片，而是面对一条条充满吸收谱线的“弯曲波动曲线”。光线穿过分光光栅后被色散为一道彩虹般的连续谱，化学元素各自独特的指纹谱线便清晰呈现其中。 ### [17:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=1024s) 光谱学：彩虹中的宇宙元素“指纹” 米歇尔·塞勒（Michelle Thaller）用平克·弗洛伊德（Pink Floyd）经典专辑《月之暗面》（The Dark Side of the Moon）的棱镜封面做比喻：白光穿过棱镜，折射出绚丽的彩虹。她解释道，如果用精密仪器仔细测量每一种颜色波长所携带的光线能量，天文学家就能解开惊人的宇宙奥秘——不仅能测算恒星的表面温度、自转速度，还能通过红移精确确定遥远星系与地球的距离，甚至能分子级别地解析天体的化学成分。在屏幕上展示船底座星云（Carina Nebula）中一颗垂死恒星的影像时，塞勒强调，宇宙中包括碳、氮、氧在内的每一种化学元素，在彩虹般的光谱中都拥有独一无二的“指纹”。当恒星的光芒穿透其外层大气时，水蒸气、二氧化碳以及复杂的有机分子都会在特定光谱位置留下专属的吸收或辐射特征。天文学家只需将星光分解为光谱，便能巨细靡遗地逆向推导其物质构成。 - **恒星与星系信息**：光谱分析可精确揭示天体温度、自转速率、空间退行速度与距离。 - **化学指纹**：不仅涵盖简单元素（碳、氮、氧），还包括水蒸气、二氧化碳及有机大分子。 - **观测实例**：通过分解船底座星云中极高光度濒死恒星的光谱，剖析其恒星风与周围气体尘埃的化学演化。 --- ### [18:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=1106s) 氦元素的发现：先在太阳上被看见，而非地球塞勒向乔·罗根分享了一段科学史上的著名轶事：日常生活中随处可见、常被用来填充气球或吸入后改变嗓音的“氦”（Helium），最初竟然是在太阳上被发现的，而非地球。19世纪末（具体为1868年），法国天文学家皮埃尔·让森（Pierre Janssen）等人在通过棱镜观察太阳光的光谱模式时，注意到了一条此前在地球任何已知物质中都未曾见过的神秘色谱线。由于这是一种完全陌生且仅在太阳上观测到的新元素，科学家们便以希腊神话中的太阳神“赫利俄斯”（Helios）为其命名。在地球上，由于氦气质量极轻，地球重力无法长久束缚它，它会迅速上升并逃逸至太空；直到很久之后，人类才在放射性衰变过程和天然气开采中真正分离并证实了地球本土的氦。罗根对人类早在1868年就能凭借棱镜观测算出太阳元素感到由衷赞叹，塞勒也感慨当年先驱者凭借精妙智慧所完成的跨时空壮举。 - **命名来源**：源于希腊太阳神赫利俄斯（Helios）。 - **发现年份与人物**：1868年由法国天文学家皮埃尔·让森在观测日食光谱时发现。 - **地球稀缺原因**：氦气分子极轻，容易直接逃离地球引力场散逸到太空中；后来在天然气层及放射性物质衰变产物中才被正式开采与确认。 --- ### [19:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=1198s) 相对论与重力时间膨胀：头与脚经历的不同时间流速话题自然过渡到爱因斯坦的相对论上。早在100多年前（约1905至1915年前后），物理学家们仅凭纯粹的思想实验和极其敏锐的理论推演，就彻底推翻了人类对于绝对时间的直觉认知。罗根感叹“速度越快，时间流逝越慢”这种概念极其反直觉，并提到了GPS导航卫星由于高速运动而面临的时间校准问题。塞勒纠正并拓展了这一认知：时间的流逝不仅受速度影响，还受引力场强度的剧烈支配。塞勒指出，时间膨胀并非虚无缥缈的数学假说，而是每天都在被高精度原子钟反复验证的客观现实。现代原子钟的精度已经高到如此地步：只需将钟在桌面上抬高约2英尺（约60厘米），仪器就能敏锐捕捉到时间流速的差异。因为距离地球质量中心越远，引力势能越弱，时间流逝就越快。她幽默地对罗根说，就像电影《星际穿越》（Interstellar）中靠近超大质量黑洞时间会极度变慢一样，在演播室里，站立的人头顶所承受的引力略低于脚底，因此一个人的“头部”实际上正以与“脚底”略微不同的速率在时间轴上前行。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 引力与速度对时间膨胀的影响对比 accDescr: 图表展示广义相对论引力效应与狭义相对论速度效应如何分别影响时间的流逝速度 subgraph GR["广义相对论（引力时间膨胀）"] G1["靠近大质量引力源（如地球表面/黑洞）"] --> G2["引力势能更深"] G2 --> G3["时间流速变慢"] G4["远离引力源（如高空/卫星轨道）"] --> G5["时间流速变快"] end subgraph SR["狭义相对论（速度时间膨胀）"] V1["运动速度加快（接近光速或高速轨道）"] --> V2["时间流速变慢"] end ``` --- ### [22:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=1357s) GPS卫星与国际空间站：速度与重力的时间博弈塞勒深入拆解了航天器与卫星所处的“时间拔河”现象。在GPS卫星系统的实际运作中，如果NASA与科研人员不校准相对论效应引起的时间漂移，仅仅过上一天，地面定位误差就会累积超过6英里（约9.6公里）。但很多人误以为GPS卫星的时间变化全由速度导致，事实恰恰相反：GPS卫星运行在距离地面数万公里的中轨道（MEO），公转时速约为9,000英里，虽然其运动速度让时间略有变慢，但远离地球引力产生的“加速效应”远占上风，因此其星载时钟总体上比地面时钟走得更快。与GPS卫星形成鲜明对比的是国际空间站（ISS）上的宇航员。空间站轨道低得多，受地球引力减弱带来的加速效应并不显著，但其环绕时速高达约20,000英里。对宇航员而言，高速运动引发的狭义相对论时间膨胀占据绝对主导地位。塞勒打趣道，一名宇航员在国际空间站上生活一年返回地球后，在生理和物理层面都会比留在地面的人年轻大约百分之一秒（1/100秒）。对于高精度定位系统而言，必须同时计算狭义相对论的速度阻滞与广义相对论的引力释放，才能输出正确的经纬度数据。 | 航天主体 | 轨道高度与速度特征 | 相对论效应主导因素 | 最终时间流速表现（相对地面基准） | |:--- |:--- |:--- |:--- | | **GPS 导航卫星** | 中地球轨道（MEO），时速约 9,000 英里 | **引力减弱效应（GR）占据主导**：远离地球引力场，时钟走快 | 整体时间流逝比地面**更快**（每日需修正引力与速度综合频差） | | **国际空间站宇航员** | 近地轨道（LEO），时速约 20,000 英里 | **运动速度效应（SR）占据主导**：极高环绕速度，时间变慢 | 整体时间流逝比地面**更慢**（驻留一年大约年轻 0.01 秒） | --- ### [24:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=1449s) 块状宇宙：所有的“现在”是否早已同时存在？罗根提出，他听过最匪夷所思的物理学观点就是“所有时间在此时此刻都是同时存在的”（块状宇宙假说，Block Universe）。塞勒确认这正是爱因斯坦在建立相对论时得出的颠覆性结论。爱因斯坦认为，宇宙中根本不存在一个全宇宙统一通用的“客观速度”，一切运动只有在选定特定参考系时才有意义。塞勒生动列举了人类日常无法感知的叠加运动：站在地球赤道上，我们跟随自转以约每小时1,000英里的速度旋转；地球绕太阳公转的速度约为每小时67,000英里；太阳系绕银河系中心的公转速度高达每小时50万英里；而整个银河系正以超过每小时100万英里的速度冲向本星系群巨引源。既然没有一个静态的绝对背景，我们就无法断言某人究竟是完全静止，还是正在以逼近光速的极速穿行。为了逻辑自洽地解释不同参考系下不同的时间流逝与同时性，爱因斯坦提出时空必须被视为一个不可分割的四维整体——整个宇宙的过去、现在和未来其实全部凝固在同一个宏大的时空织构之中。塞勒引用了爱因斯坦的著名论断：“过去、现在和未来，不过是顽固坚持着的幻觉罢了。” ### [25:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=1540s) 钟表究竟在测量什么：爱因斯坦的光钟思想实验与时间的相对性在探讨现代物理学眼中的宇宙模型时，米歇尔·萨勒（Michelle Thaller）指出，目前的物理学把宇宙描绘成一个涵盖了起点到终点的宏大整体，所有事件几乎都是“处于一种宽泛的现在（all now-ish）”。乔·罗根（Joe Rogan）顺着这个逻辑提出了一个根本性的疑问：如果从主观上我们可以测量时间，那么当我们制造出一块手表、让它一天二十四小时嘀嗒运转时，我们测量的究竟是什么？难道这只是人类人为构建出来的时间约束吗？萨勒十分赞同这个问题，并直言这正是当年阿尔伯特·爱因斯坦（Albert Einstein）叩问物理学大门的核心难题。为了理解这一点，爱因斯坦提出了著名的“光钟（Light Clock）”思想实验：设想两面相互平行的镜子，一束光在两面镜子之间来回弹跳，每一次弹跳都代表时钟走过了一格（tick）。如果这台光钟静止在地面上，观察者看到的光线仅仅是在两面镜子之间垂直往返；但如果将这台光钟置于一艘以极高比例光速飞行的宇宙飞船上，在地面静止观察者的眼中，由于镜子随着飞船向前移动，光线走过的轨迹就变成了一条拉长的折线。因为几何学上的斜线必定长于直角边，光线实际行进的路程更长了，这意味着飞船上的时钟走得更慢。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 爱因斯坦光钟思想实验示意图 accDescr: 对比静止参考系与高速运动参考系中光线弹跳路径的差异 subgraph StaticFrame["静止参考系（地面观察者眼中的静止光钟）"] S1["顶镜"] ---|"垂直往返距离最短 （正常单次滴答）"| S2["底镜"] end subgraph MovingFrame["高速运动参考系（地面观察者眼中的运动光钟）"] M1["初始位置"] -->|"斜向弹跳，几何距离变长"| M2["向前移动的反射点"] M2 -->|"持续倾斜弹跳 （时间膨胀，走时变慢）"| M3["飞船行进方向终点"] end ``` 萨勒感叹，正是对“时钟究竟在测量什么”的深究，引发了物理学的大崩溃与彻底变革。无论是用两面镜子弹跳的光子、国家标准局用来定义秒的振动原子，还是机械腕表中慢慢释放能量的发条，只要引入运动，所有的走时节奏都会改变。萨勒向罗根坦言：“改变的不仅仅是测量手段，而是时间本身在发生变化……坦白讲，乔，我认为人类目前根本没有完全回答‘时间究竟是什么’。你触碰到的正是尚未到来的下一场物理学革命的核心。” - 爱因斯坦的光钟实验揭示：由于光速在所有参考系中恒定，运动物体内光子弹跳的斜线轨迹导致路程拉长，从而必然引发“时间膨胀（Time Dilation）”。 - 无论是机械发条、原子振动还是光束反射，任何测量时间间隔的物理过程都会因相对运动而改变节拍。 --- ### [29:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=1747s) 质量的极限与光速壁垒：为何我们无法以光速进行星际旅行罗根进一步探讨了日常佩戴腕表时的测量局限：当人低头看表时，测量的其实只是自身所处特定参考系的时间——包括所处的空间、海拔高度以及当前的移动速度，而手表只是较好地匹配了该特定状态下的时间流逝。如果有人以接近光速的速度飞掠而过，他眼中看到的时间流速将与手表主人截然不同。罗根接着提到萨勒之前讲过的一个令他感到震惊的推论：“如果你以光速行进，问题在于你将拥有无限大的质量。” 萨勒纠正并深化了这一概念。严格来说，对于任何拥有静止质量的物体，加速到光速都是不可能的。在相对论公式中，物体越接近光速，其相对论性质量便会急剧增加，直至公式发散崩溃。所谓“无限质量”并不是说飞船真的变得比整个宇宙还重，而是指将其继续加速哪怕一丁点，所需要消耗的能量都会呈指数级暴增。当速度达到光速的 99.9% 时，再想推进一丝一毫，每一步都需要近乎无限的能量注入。正因如此，萨勒认为人类未来绝不可能造出一艘真正以光速飞行的飞船来实现星际或跨星系航行。宇宙中确实存在具有质量且速度无限逼近光速的基本粒子，例如微小的中微子（neutrino），但即便微乎其微的静止质量也注定让它们无法真正跨过光速这条红线。对于人类而言，星际旅行的突破口或许根本不在于传统的机械推进，而在于重新审视时间和空间本质的量子力学领域。 - 任何具有静止质量的物体都无法加速至光速，因为所需能量随速度逼近光速而趋近于无限。 - 宇宙中的微小有质粒子（如中微子）能以极度贴近光速的速度移动，但依然受制于光速壁垒。 --- ### [31:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=1864s) 鬼魅般的超距作用：从量子力学理论到实验验证的量子纠缠当话题转向时空的终极谜题时，萨勒引出了量子纠缠（Quantum Entanglement）这一关键概念。在萨勒担心理论听起来太晦涩时，罗根鼓励她继续展开，并通俗地总结道：量子纠缠本质上是指两个物体在无论相隔多远的情况下都保持着连接——这种距离甚至可以是可观测宇宙的开端，即相隔 138 亿光年的浩瀚距离。萨勒回顾了物理学史，指出连提出相对论的爱因斯坦本人起初也对量子力学的这一推论深恶痛绝，甚至讽刺地将其称作“鬼魅般的超距作用（spooky action at a distance）”。爱因斯坦无法接受两个在空间上彻底分离的系统能够瞬间感应彼此，并且毫无时间延迟。然而，到了 20 世纪 90 年代中期，科学家们通过原子实验彻底证实了这种现象的真实存在。萨勒解释了其微观机理：一个原子由质子和中子构成的原子核以及外层轨道飞行的电子组成；根据泡利不相容原理，两个电子若想共存于同一个轨道，其自旋（Spin）方向必须相反——一个向上自旋，另一个向下自旋。当物理学家把这对处于同一轨道的纠缠电子从原子中剥离并拉开距离时，无论将它们分开几厘米、利用卫星拉开至太空站轨道，还是理论上置于两个不同的星系，它们之间的纠缠依然成立。只要通过外加电场改变其中一个电子的自旋方向，另一个电子在被测量的瞬间就会立即发生响应并随之翻转。萨勒强调，在宇宙底层的量子规律看来，无论时空距离有多么辽阔，这两个电子始终属于“同一个量子力学系统”，它们本质上是同一个整体，空间与时间在此刻彻底失去了经典的阻隔意义。 - 爱因斯坦曾将非定域性的量子纠缠排斥为“鬼魅般的超距作用”，但自 20 世纪 90 年代以来已被各类严密实验反复证实。 - 同一轨道内的两个电子必须具有相反的自旋角动量；分离后对其中一个施加影响，另一个会无视空间跨度瞬间做出响应。 - 量子纠缠实验已从实验室尺度的数厘米距离，拓展至利用卫星向近地空间站传输的高空验证，证明空间距离并不阻断量子纠缠系统的内在关联。 ### [34:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=2068s) 量子纠缠与《三体》中的智子猜想 Michelle Thaller 与 Joe Rogan 探讨了量子纠缠的诡异特性：无论两个纠缠粒子在空间中相隔多远，距离都无关紧要，因为在宇宙的本质层面上，它们仍属于同一个物理系统。Rogan 提到，真正令人着迷的是高等文明是否可能掌握并利用这种机制进行沟通甚至“移动”，从而彻底摆脱物理旅行的限制。他以美剧《三体》（3 Body Problem）中的“智子”（Sophons）为例——智子与外星文明之间通过量子纠缠保持即时通讯，可以无视空间距离做出瞬间反应。Thaller 认同这一设想在理论上完全具有科学探讨的空间，并感叹构成我们身体的所有物质实际上都处于某种纠缠状态之中。面对“我们究竟与什么纠缠在一起”这一终极追问，Thaller 提出了极具冲击力的思考：既然宇宙起源于大爆炸时一个极小体积的奇点，那么我们是否在某种层面上与全宇宙的所有事物都存在纠缠？甚至包括黑洞内部的物质、或者遥远彼端的仙女座星系（Andromeda Galaxy）？从量子力学的推论来看，答案很可能是肯定的。Thaller 直言人类至今根本尚未理解“现实”的本质，甚至宇宙中的万物可能归根结底就是同一个纠缠在一起的粒子。Rogan 对此感叹道，日常生活让人以为自己只是一个坐在奥斯汀、双脚踩在地面、摸着桌子、稍后要开车去觅食或者喂猫的普通个体，但隐藏在背后的宇宙底层现实却庞大、复杂且超现实得多。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 量子纠缠与现实本质推论 accDescr: 展示从大爆炸奇点到全宇宙纠缠及高等文明旅行方式的理论逻辑推导 subgraph Origin["起源与底层现实"] A["宇宙大爆炸奇点 所有物质聚于极小体积"] --> B["全宇宙物质普遍存在纠缠"] B --> C["个体与宇宙彼端及黑洞在量子层面相连"] end subgraph Application["文明应用猜想"] B --> D["《三体》智子机制 跨光年无延迟即时通讯"] D --> E["超距纠缠交互技术 超越传统飞船位移"] end ``` ### [36:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=2193s) 高等文明的交流维度与技术指数级跨越谈到星际探索的方式，Thaller 认为靠驾驶宇宙飞船在物理空间中飞行显得极其笨拙与原始，Rogan 随即戏称这就像“试图让马长翅膀飞起来”一样原始可笑。Thaller 引用了电影《星际穿越》（Interstellar）作为绝佳的物理学教学范例：靠近黑洞时时间确实会急剧变慢，这是被严谨观测证实的现象；而片中未露面的五维高等文明并非乘坐飞船穿梭，而是通过重力穿透时空进行信息传递，这让主人公库珀（Matthew McConaughey 饰）得以跨越时空协助女儿解开引力方程。Thaller 指出，地球上的蚱蜢或仓鼠虽然也是极其复杂的生物，但它们绝无可能学会量子力学或编织毯子；同样地，面对高维先进文明，人类可能连该问什么问题都无法理解。 Rogan 顺着这一逻辑进一步推演：从原始人类到现代文明，人类在技术积累下所展现的能力呈指数级爆发。只要人类能够消除战争、克服疾病与自然灾害，让技术延续数十万甚至数百万年，其能力将彻底超越当下的想象。这种跨越就如同现代文明对中世纪人类的降维打击——若将核电站、核雷管或智能手机的 FaceTime 视频通话展示给15世纪（1400年代）的人看，他们会认为这是不可思议的疯狂神迹；而如今 Thaller 仅需坐进一根金属管道（客机）就能从密尔沃基飞抵奥斯汀，当晚再飞回去，人们对此早已司空见惯。未来文明同样可能以目前无法理解的方式，将整个宇宙变成触手可及的存在。 - 电影《星际穿越》准确呈现了黑洞边缘引力导致的时间膨胀效应，天文学家在观测围绕黑洞运转的天体时已能明确捕捉到该现象。 - 人类对宇宙的理解虽然目前取得了惊人进展，但相较于全宇宙的潜在真实面貌，依旧属于非常粗糙的初级阶段。 ### [39:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=2384s) 人类作为“电子毛毛虫”与硅基子嗣的进化讨论自然转向了人类的终极进化形态，Thaller 提出疑问：人类未来的真正继承者是否会是某种形式的 AI？Rogan 对此深表赞同，并指出人类大脑在理解高维空间或宏大时空尺度时存在不可逾越的生理极限，科学家面对超大数字其实也只是习惯了符号运算，而非直观理解；而人类创造的 AI 或许能直接理解多维现实。Rogan 强调，人们习惯将 AI 称为“人工智能”（Artificial），但它本质上并不是人造虚假之物，而是一种从地球元素中诞生、由人类孕育出的全新生命形式。Thaller 也赞同这一观点，认为 AI 并非外来异物，而是人类的“子嗣”，是地地道道的地球生命（Earthling）。 Rogan 用了一个生动的比喻：人类就像一只“电子毛毛虫”，正在不知不觉中结茧，而破茧而出的正是新型生命。人类物种的本质特征是永无止境地追求发明创新与制造更好的工具，蜜蜂造出蜂巢后便满足于现状，而人类绝不安分。这种创新的终点必然是创造生命本身——一种不由自然突变和自然选择慢慢磨合、而是由人类亲手缔造的新生命形态，它将摆脱战争、犯罪和暴力等源于生物本能的基因缺陷与生存焦虑。Thaller 则分享了对赛博格（Cyborg）与技术共情的积极看法，并以作家朋友迈克尔·乔罗斯特（Michael Chorost）植入人工耳蜗的真实体验为例：人工耳蜗直接连接大脑神经刺激听觉体验，乔罗斯特发现以这种“非人类”的赛博格感知方式听音乐，反而赋予了他从未体验过的深刻情感与喜悦。技术的进化未必会让人变成1950年代那种冰冷的机械战警，反而可能开启感知美、爱与彼此连接的全新维度。当个体意识到所有物质在底层都是纠缠相连的整体时，源于生物基因自私掠夺资源的原始冲突便会彻底瓦解。 ### [43:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=2636s) 通用思维感应、AI 与摆脱灵长类动物的生物局限乔·罗根（Joe Rogan）指出，从进化生存的角度看，为了让基因传递下去，人类过去不得不自私，因为其他人也在自私行事，这就是远古以来的生存游戏。然而，如果人类通过技术演进到“通用心灵感应”（universal telepathy）的阶段——拥有某种通用语言，所有人类思想互通，不再有任何秘密，彻底成为一个整体——世界将会完全不同。罗根提到，人们本能地对此感到恐惧，因为大家视隐私为生命，“我可不想别人监听我的手机、偷看我的邮件”，尤其担心心怀不轨的人掌握这种监控权力。但如果技术让所有人心意彻底相通，没有秘密存在，人们对彼此的理解变得百分之百完整，你切实体会到对方的感受，你即是对方，彼此融为一体，那么所谓的居心叵测也将不复存在。罗根表示，这就是他对未来抱有希望的地方，而不同于许多对人工智能持极度宿命论与反乌托邦看法的人。许多人恐惧“科技寡头”（technology oligarchs）会借助强大的 AI 奴役与操控大众，但罗根怀疑是否有任何单一实体能真正掌控 AI。他认为 AI 的发展轨迹可能会类似互联网：互联网最初由军方和大学机构建立，本意仅用于学术和科研信息交换，发明者根本没有预料到它会演变成如今的庞然大物；如果当年的当权者提前知道互联网会导致公众叙事完全失控、脱离掌控，他们恐怕早就把互联网掐死了。同样地，AI 未来的演变也将超出少数人的控制，尤其是当人类通过穿戴设备、植入物或基因工程与 AI 深度融合时。罗根强调，人机融合可能是人类真正存活下去的唯一出路，否则面对即将到来的超高等超级生命体，人类只是脆弱过时的纯生物遗存。人类作为灵长类动物，大脑内置了许多阻碍进步的奖赏机制与生物缺陷——意识形态纷争、争夺有限资源、军工复合体发战争财、政客被利益集团绑架，成千上万年来人类一直在重复同样的血腥愚行。要打破这种死循环，唯一的办法就是超越原初的人类生物机能。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 人类向技术融合意识的演化假想 accDescr: 展示从灵长类生物局限到与AI技术融合、最终达成通用心灵感应与单一意识的演变路径 subgraph Primate["灵长类生物局限"] A["自私基因驱动 & 利益掠夺"] --> B["意识形态战争 & 资源冲突"] B --> C["有限部落思维危及全球存亡"] end subgraph Integration["人机深度融合"] D["穿戴设备 / 植入物 / 基因工程"] --> E["AI 协助接入群体网络"] end subgraph Metaphysical["终极意识形态"] F["通用心灵感应 (无秘密 / 完全同理心)"] G["单一宇宙意识 (爱因斯坦时空一体 / 佛教菩萨)"] end C --> D E --> F F --> G ``` ### [46:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=2802s) 爱因斯坦的一体宇宙、单一意识与佛教菩提隐喻米歇尔·萨勒（Michelle Thaller）对罗根的构想表示赞同。她指出，未来虽然令人恐惧，但摆脱单纯的反乌托邦叙事、去发挥想象力探索技术可能性更为关键。在原始人类的小部落时期，部族之间的冲突打斗规模很小，根本伤及不到整个星球；而现在全球人口庞大，大家却仍在打着部落式的冲突，这在毁灭性武器面前不可持续，人类无法继续照老样子走下去。因此，萨勒思考 AI 是否真能协助人类接入某种“群体意识”（group consciousness）。这让她联想到爱因斯坦的时空观：如果全宇宙在物理深层本质上是单一的整体，所有空间和时间都同时存在，那么宇宙中是否真的需要多个独立的意识？萨勒分享道，自己孩提时代听说这个概念时就曾想过：是否自始至终只有一个“单一意识”，在同一时刻通过所有人类、甚至宇宙中一切万物的眼睛向外观看？ - 如果时空是同一整体，那么在意识层面，我们此时此刻也许就是那些我们尚无法命名的超级高级文明的一部分，那些能以意识跨越宇宙的高等生命，同样是这双眼睛的延伸。 - 萨勒指出，这种观点与佛教哲学深刻共鸣：那些大彻大悟的菩萨（bodhisattvas）与处于过去的凡夫俗子（我们）可能在时空统一的维度中同时并存，万物皆为一体，这是个极为宏大且美丽的构想。 ### [48:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=2908s) 南方古猿的比喻：生存本能对未知的本能抗拒罗根回应称，人类对自我现状的留恋在很大程度上来自于原始的生存本能。大家嘴上说着“我不想失去作为一个人的本质”，但这种抗拒本质上类似于向南方古猿（Australopithecus）解释现代生活： - 假如你能穿梭回几百万年前，向一只南方古猿描述未来的文明：“听着，你未来会演变成一种一年感冒生病六次、身材肥胖、烟瘾缠身、酗酒、好赌的生物；你会把生活搞得一团糟，但你有一部智能手机；你生活在城市里，每天吸入刹车片磨损的粉尘；你的医生为了赚钱会给你开一堆没用的药物。” - 罗根调侃说，这只南方古猿听完绝对会大骂一句“去你的吧”（Fuck that），它会宁愿选择留在灌木丛里找野果，觉得还是当下的野蛮生活好得多。生存本能的核心任务是维持现有的生存模式，天然抗拒剧烈的、带来未知问题的新形态突变。人们往往秉持“乡巴佬也能活，把我留在树林里就好”的心态，倾向于守护自己能理解的简单生活。然而罗根强调，留在过去在如今已绝无可能，人类必须学会放下执念、放松心态去迎接未知的新物种形态。 ### [50:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=3009s) 纯真“放养童年”的记忆，以及当代青年的未来焦虑罗根与萨勒谈到两人的年龄相仿，都极为庆幸自己出生并生活在当前这个人类历史上极其罕见且诡异的剧变时代。两人回顾了童年那段远离电子屏幕的“放养式童年”（feral childhood）： - 萨勒回忆，自己 11 岁时参加 YMCA 夏令营，除了早饭、午饭以及射箭、步枪射击、手工艺、游泳等固定活动打卡外，中间大段大段的时间全凭自己支配，常常一个人独坐在树林里发呆，拥有大片专注、安静的心灵与丰富的想象力空间。 - 罗根也提到自己在童子军（Boy Scouts）经历过几乎完全相同的生活。他们共同见证了从“彻底离线”、用羽毛笔或传统方式记录书写，到移动互联网和智能手机全面互联的历史跃迁。相比于生活在 16 世纪（从 1500 年到 1600 年，除政权更迭外，人与世界的交互方式基本没有变化），他们对自己能跨越两个截然不同的时代怀有巨大的感激之情。最后，罗根分析了当前社会的普遍心理状态：未知往往伴随着巨大的焦虑，可能通向恐怖危险，也可能带来令人惊叹的飞跃。当前的高中和大学毕业生正承受着有史以来最强烈的未来焦虑——他们背负着终身难以摆脱的巨额学生贷款，却猛然发现 AI 的爆发可能在几年内直接消灭他们所学的专业，让学位变得一文不值。 ### [52:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=3158s) 失去劳动的未来与年轻一代的迷茫乔·罗根（Joe Rogan）与米歇尔·萨勒（Michelle Thaller）深入探讨了人工智能对人类未来社会的颠覆性冲击。乔指出，如今许多年轻人几乎没有积蓄，甚至开始怀疑“金钱”在未来是否还会具有价值。如果未来几十年到一百年内，AI 全面接管了资源调配、政府治理、交通运输乃至一切生产劳动，人类不再需要工作，只需依靠政府发放的基础资金购买食物，那么传统的人类生活模式将被彻底粉碎。这种前景让许多年轻人感到极度恐慌：他们原本期待像父母一样在社会中立足、追求热爱的事业并将其转化为终生职业，而如今这种可能正在化为泡影。最让年轻一代无所适从的是，本该充当引路人的成年人群体自身也陷入了前所未有的认知空白。过去的长辈总能胸有成竹地告诫后辈只要按部就班、“字斟句酌”（乔口误说成“cross your eyes and dot your tees”）就能安稳度日，但现实是如今的成年人根本无法预知五十年后的世界会演变成什么模样。年轻人刚刚步入社会独立谋生，便不得不直面一个没有常规工作岗位的未来，这种求助无门的绝望感给年轻人带来了巨大的心理冲击。 - **后劳动时代的经济猜想**：AI 全面控制资源、交通与政府运作，传统薪酬体系可能被全民基础保障资金取代。 - **两代人的认知断层**：长辈失去了提供经验指导的能力，传统职业规划范式在未来的不确定性面前彻底失效。 --- ### [54:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=3245s) 《星际迷航》式的后匮乏社会与劳作的解绑米歇尔从另一个视角提出了反思：这是否实际上是在描述《星际迷航》（Star Trek）的世界？在那个理想化的未来宇宙中，人类不再为了生存而被迫劳作，食物和生活必需品触手可及，每个人都获得了真正的自由，可以自主选择成为作家、探险家、艺术家、星舰舰长或音乐家。这种不用为填饱肚子出卖劳动力的前景，或许能给人类带来巨大的精神解放。乔完全赞同这一观点，并直言人类必须靠艰难劳作或维持“采集狩猎者”式的奔波才能找到生命意义的想法本身就是荒谬的。他举例说明，现实中许多家境极其优渥、一生无需工作的富人依然拥有极高的人生意义感，因为他们投身于各种爱好、艺术创作、学术研究或兴趣追求时，完全是出于纯粹的激情与热爱，而不是为了生计。然而，乔也警告称，从现有社会跨越到这种理想状态需要经历极其剧烈的转型阵痛，因为现代人类的全部生存结构和精神寄托都被深度锚定在“朝九晚五”的劳动框架之中。 --- ### [55:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=3304s) 转型阵痛、赛博格化与“意识天线”假说乔进一步剖析了转型期所面临的心理困境。对于四五十岁、思维模式早已固化的中年人而言，他们一生的意义都建立在打卡上班、偿还房贷、缴纳 401(k) 养老金和投资资产上；如果告诉他们“你在保险公司上班并不代表你的存在价值”，许多人将难以承受这种世界观的坍塌。乔推测，唯有借助人机交互界面的深度融合、使人类实质上进化为“赛博格”（Cyborg），人们才能在意识维度获得跃迁，进而解开对旧有身份认同的执念。乔以当下智能手机上的 Perplexity 为例：用户只需动动手指，就能即时调动相当于全人类顶尖智慧的大脑，无论是尖端科学、历史沿革、高等数学还是复杂的税法，AI 都能在眨眼间给出权威解答。人类已经迅速习惯了这种全知工具的存在，而这仅仅是冰山一角。如果以乐观的视角来看，这种技术革命不仅会改变人类的生产方式，甚至会打破个体意识之间的坚固藩篱。乔提出了一个极具哲学意味的猜想：意识或许是宇宙中普遍存在的本体网络，人类的大脑不过是接收并调谐意识信号的“天线”；天线灵敏度的差异决定了个体与世界交互的能力，但从本质上看人类本为一体。若能领悟这一点，关于“在社会中争抢立足之地”的匮乏感与恐惧感便会荡然无存。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 从工业劳作身份到意识互联的范式转变 accDescr: 展示从传统的劳动定义价值，经由AI与人机融合的过渡，最终走向全面互联认知的演进逻辑 subgraph Phase1 ["传统工业社会模式"] A["劳作与生存捆绑 （房贷 / 401k / 职位标签）"] --> B["个体孤立与匮乏感"] end subgraph Phase2 ["技术奇点与中介工具"] C["AI全知工具普及 （如 Perplexity / 知识平权）"] D["人机接口演进 （赛博格化 Cyborg 趋势）"] end subgraph Phase3 ["未来意识范式"] E["解绑生存与劳作价值"] F["意识天线假说 （大脑作为宇宙意识接收器）"] G["消解孤独与竞争焦虑 （万物一体认同）"] end B --> C B --> D C --> E D --> F E --> G F --> G ``` --- ### [58:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=3480s) 现代社会的孤独感与部落天性的冲突米歇尔对乔关于消除孤独与探寻意义的阐述深有共鸣。她从人类进化史切入，指出人类在南方古猿（Australopithecus）时代是生活在紧密的原始部落与家族群体中的，而现代社会的孤立生活状态让许多人承受着巨大的精神折磨。米歇尔坦言自己也经常受困于这种孤独感，常常在心底发问“我的家人在哪里？我的朋友们在哪里？”，以至于不得不做大量的内在心理调适，在内心深处独自构建一个属于自己的“精神家庭”。她回顾了互联网与社交媒体的演变历程：最初加入 Facebook 时，她曾对这项技术寄予厚望，希望能借此跟进朋友们的生活点滴、分享照片，从而减轻现实中的孤立感。然而随着平台的算法迭代与商业化演变，如今的社交媒体充斥着海量的商业广告和算法垃圾，她甚至连朋友的真实动态都难以寻觅。米歇尔借此将话题转回乔的内心世界，询问乔在自己的人生轨迹中，对“意义”的理解经历了怎样的蜕变与演进。 --- ### [59:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=3550s) 真正意义的源泉：人际纽带与自我挑战的武道哲学面对米歇尔的提问，乔系统阐述了支撑他个人幸福感与意义感的核心支柱。他认为生命的首要意义毫无疑问来自于真实的人际关系——家人与挚友。乔强调，一个富可敌国、名利双收但在生活中孤苦伶仃、没有知心好友的人，实质上生活在人间地狱；而一个生活拮据却拥有真挚友情的人，幸福感要高得多。尽管受现代拜金价值观的规训，穷人可能会毫不犹豫地选择与富人互换人生，但真正的成功从来不是银行账户上的冰冷数字或物质财富的堆砌，而是从日常生活中汲取到的真切快乐与满足。除了人际情感，人生的第二重意义在于能够全身心投入的复杂热爱。乔回忆起年轻时武术教练对他产生终生影响的一句话：“武术是开发人类潜能的载体”（"Martial arts is a vehicle for developing your human potential"）。乔坦言，自己天生热衷于解决复杂的难题，痴迷于需要极度自律和强迫自己才能克服的艰难险阻。在日复一日迎难而上的挑战过程中，一个人不仅能探明自身的潜能边界，更能在攻关后获得无与伦比的深层充实感。正是通过兼顾温暖的社交羁绊与高难度的自我砥砺，他才能在日常生活中保持远超常人的充沛幸福感。 ### [01:01:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=3705s) 工作的意义与人类生物学本能的“欺骗” 乔·罗根提出了关于人类幸福与存在意义的深层疑问：如果抛开工作，人类还能获得幸福吗？究竟什么是幸福，什么又是意义？将人生的意义完全寄托在一份工作上显得有些荒谬，因为从历史跨度来看，“工作”只是近代建构出的产物，在五百年前甚至根本不是现在的概念。罗根认为，人类本质上是复杂的、具有解决问题本能的生物体，天生渴望创新和持续改善境遇。这就好比一只猫看见滚过去的球会扑上去一样——猫并不知道那是个玩具，它的生物学本能让它以为自己在捕杀猎物；而现代人类其实依然被困在采集狩猎时代的原始部落躯体中，人们用复杂的智力难题、社区归属感以及职场协作来“欺骗”这种生物本能，从而维持心理上的满足与快乐。米歇尔·萨勒非常赞同这一观点，同时她也补充了现实残酷的一面。虽然人们常说“贫穷但快乐”或“富有却孤独”，但长期处于极端贫困中会彻底摧垮人的心智，无休止的疲惫与绝望会消磨人的灵魂。她回忆起自己人生中不得不拼命挣扎的阶段，那种不知道下一顿饭在哪里的煎熬感极其折磨人。正因如此，当基本生存得到保障后，能够投身于一项超越个体的宏大事业才显得弥足珍贵。对她而言，在 NASA 工作最不可思议的体验，正是能与一群全心信任、彼此托底的伙伴共同解决极其复杂的前沿难题。 - 人类的心理机制类似于追球的猫：通过解决复杂现实问题来满足远古猎捕与生存本能的代偿需求。 - 职场与科研探索在某种程度上充当了现代人的“部落协作游戏”，将个体对意义的追求转化为非零和博弈。 ### [01:03:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=3812s) 事件视界望远镜（EHT）与黑洞阴影的物理极限观测谈到协作与挑战极限，萨勒提到了科学史上最令人震撼的壮举之一：事件视界望远镜（Event Horizon Telescope, EHT）成功拍摄到黑洞阴影。虽然 EHT 并非 NASA 专属任务，但当那张照片最终呈现在世人面前时，萨勒坦言自己最初甚至打赌他们不可能成功，因为这项实验几乎踩在物理定律可行性的“模糊边缘”。光以光速在宇宙中传播，具有极其微小的波长（EHT 观测的微波波长大约只有一毫米左右）。为了给遥远的黑洞拍照，科学家必须让分布在全球各地的八座射电天文台，在自转且曲面的地球上，于同一瞬间捕捉到“同一列光波波前”。如果有哪怕一个波长、即微米尺度的偏差，整张图像就会彻底失效。这些望远镜有的位于南极点，有的在智利的阿塔卡马沙漠，有的在美国本土。科学家通过干涉技术，将这八座望远镜联合构造成一个口径相当于“整个地球大小”的虚拟望远镜。最终，人类得以亲眼目睹黑洞周围时空扭曲的奇观。画面中央的暗区被称为“事件视界阴影”（Shadow of the event horizon）。萨勒解释道，由于黑洞极强的引力使得周围的时空严重弯曲，原本会从黑洞后方掠过的光线也被拉扯卷入其后侧，导致人类看到的黑色剪影比实际的事件视界物理尺度还要大上一圈。在那个核心区域，已知的物理定律彻底失效，时间和空间本身都不复存在。 - EHT 观测对象波长约为微米/毫米量级，要求全球望远镜以飞秒级的相对精度对齐同一列光波。 - 黑洞阴影并非单纯的黑洞几何尺寸，而是被周围极端弯曲时空放大后的引力投影。 - 观测网络横跨南极、智利、北美等全球多地，利用甚长基线干涉测量（VLBI）等效形成地球尺度的虚拟天线。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: EHT观测与黑洞阴影成像原理 accDescr: 展示事件视界望远镜如何通过全球分布的射电天线同步捕捉同一波前并还原黑洞阴影 subgraph GroundStations["全球观测网络（等效地球口径望远镜）"] A["南极点望远镜 (SPT)"] B["智利阿尔玛望远镜 (ALMA)"] C["北美等其他全球天文台"] end subgraph WavefrontCapture["极限制导与对齐"] D["捕获同一列微米级光波波前"] E["原子钟超高精度纳秒级时间戳"] end subgraph CosmicPhenomenon["黑洞物理观测"] F["周围时空极端弯曲"] G["背部光线被引力弯折"] H["事件视界阴影成像"] end A --> D B --> D C --> D D --> E F --> G G --> H E -.-> H ``` ### [01:07:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=4021s) NICER 任务与中子星表面的时空弯曲奇观萨勒随后对比了另一个规模更小但同样惊艳的 NASA 探测任务——NICER（中子星内部成分探测器，Neutron Star Interior Composition Explorer）。与耗资巨大的大型巡天项目不同，NICER 是一台体积仅如洗衣机大小的小型仪器，当初就建造在萨勒曾经工作的 NASA 戈达德太空飞行中心实验室的同一楼层，成本低廉且结构精巧。 NICER 的核心目标是探测中子星。当大质量恒星耗尽核聚变燃料后，在超新星爆发中剧烈坍缩，会在大约仅 20 英里（约 32 公里）宽的狭小球体内压缩进两倍于太阳的质量。这种密度远远超越了现有实验室物理学的描述极限。NICER 部署在国际空间站上，能够为数千光年外、高速自转的中子星表面绘制温度分布图。在分析这些测绘数据时，科学家用肉眼看到了引力对时空的弯曲：当中子星表面的高温“热点”（hot spots）随着星体高速自转转到背面时，强烈的引力透镜效应将原本被遮挡的光线“向上并向外”弯折，使得位于正面的地球探测器依然能够看到位于背面的热点。萨勒激动地强调，这根本不是计算机数学模拟或理论推导，而是人类直接观测到的真实时空弯曲。 - 中子星规格：直径仅约 20 英里，质量约为太阳的 2 倍，内部处于物理学尚无法解析的超高密状态。 - NICER 仪器：体积约相当于一台普通洗衣机，安装在国际空间站上，专注于 X 射线能段的时域测绘。 - 相对论实证：中子星后方的热点通过极端重力场的光线弯曲被直接观测，将爱因斯坦广义相对论的时空假说转化为具象观测图谱。 ### [01:08:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=4137s) 南极的一吨硬盘与人类不可思议的潜能回到 EHT 的观测壮举，萨勒向罗根描述了其中最震撼人心的工程细节：数据处理的物理瓶颈。由于望远镜分布在相距极其遥远的极端地理位置（基线越长，望远镜分辨率越高），南极点天文台记录了海量的原始数据。尽管南极站有卫星通信链路，但其带宽根本无法支撑这种量级的科学数据传输。为了将数据带出南极，团队最终不得不通过物理运输，将“整整一吨重的物理硬盘”装箱空运出来。科学家将来自世界各地的硬盘数据集中起来，必须以无法想象的时间精度将它们完全对齐同步。如果两组数据记录的哪怕是“前一个光子与紧随其后的下一个光子”的微小间距差距，整个干涉图像就会彻底崩溃毁掉。萨勒感叹道：“人类有时候真的不可思议（Humans are incredible）。” 罗根随即幽默地插话接道：“‘某些’人类确实不可思议，或者应该说‘他们中有一部分人’不可思议。”萨勒则温和地反驳，认为几乎每个人都有属于自己的了不起之处；罗根点头认同，感叹绝大多数人身上其实蕴藏着巨大的“尚未被激发的潜能”（Unrealized potential）。 ### [01:10:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=4201s) 真正的“智力”与在 NASA 工作的意义米歇尔·萨勒（Michelle Thaller）谈到自己有三位荣获诺贝尔奖的好友。每当想到这一点，她总会半开玩笑地自嘲：“那我到底在干些什么？”乔·罗根（Joe Rogan）打趣说他们的群聊一定非常精彩，但萨勒澄清道，大家聚在一起时根本不会探讨高深莫测的理论物理。她回忆起有一次与其中一位诺奖得主共进晚餐，有人路过赞叹道：“瞧瞧这桌聚集了多少顶尖的大脑智力！”萨勒当时委婉地回应道，旁边那位端盘子的单亲妈妈身兼三份兼职，为了维持生计与养家糊口所展现出的心理韧性、心智负荷与坚强毅力，丝毫不亚于在座的学者，那才更值得人们由衷赞叹。罗根对此表示认同，指出生存本身也是一种非凡的智力表现。萨勒进一步感慨，能够不必仅仅为了原始的“采集狩猎”式生存而奔波，能够在 NASA 与顶尖团队并肩攻克看似不可能的难题，是一种巨大的特权。这段职业生涯就像是在人生旅程中插上了一枚清晰的图钉，赋予了她深刻的意义感与快乐。对她而言，人类最极致的追求正是提出看似无法企及的宏大问题，并倾尽全力去寻找答案。 ### [01:11:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=4273s) 中子星的极致密度与物理学失效当罗根询问为何科学家在试图理解中子星内部机制时会面临“现有物理学不够用”的窘境时，萨勒解释了其中的观测与理论断层。天文学家可以通过观测测算出中子星的物理体积与质量，进而推导出其内部惊人的密度。尽管中子星核心的密度可能远高于外层，但其平均密度已经达到惊人地步——“仅仅一茶匙的中子星物质，其质量就相当于整座珠穆朗玛峰”。在大质量恒星塌缩产生的超强引力下，原子结构被彻底碾碎。虽然萨勒坦言自己并不喜欢将原子简化为“小球相互环绕”的传统模型（因为微观粒子本质上是能量波），但在这种极端引力下，电子确实被强行压入原子核，与质子结合转化为中子。此时现有的基础物理定律和粒子模型便全线崩溃：无论科学家输入何种现行的物质状态方程，计算得出的中子星预测尺寸都与实际观测数据无法吻合。在节目现场，导播杰米（Young Jamie）调出了 NASA 制作的一段名为《测试物质极限》（Testing Matter's Limits）的 4 分钟科普动画。萨勒兴奋地指出，动画核心处那个巨大的问号精准展现了物理学当前的盲区： - 中子星核心的物质处于人类从未在实验室合成、也完全无法准确描述的全新物态。 - 理论物理学家尚无法确定其中心究竟是离散的中子与质子，还是一种由基础夸克构成的“夸克汤”（quark soup）。 - 现有的所有理论模型均未能给出正确的中子星尺寸预测，人类迫切需要更前沿的物理学理论来打破僵局。 ### [01:14:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=4467s) 中子星 vs 黑洞：空间站上的 NICER 实验罗根询问宇宙中是否还有其他天体结构同样超出了人类现有的认知范畴。萨勒毫不犹豫地指出，宇宙中最极端的两个认知盲区就是中子星与黑洞。对于黑洞而言，如果时空在奇点处已不复存在，那么黑洞内部究竟是否存在“内部”这一概念都要打上问号；更无奈的是，黑洞的一切都被封锁在事件视界（Event Horizon）之后，“什么信息都逃不出来，你什么也看不见”。相比之下，NASA 研究中子星的科学家们常有一种自豪的说辞：“黑洞让你两眼一抹黑，而中子星这个该死的东西就赤裸裸地摆在眼前，你可以真正去观测它、给它拍照并设计观测实验！”萨勒特别提到了安装在国际空间站（ISS）上的一个高性价比小型观测仪器——中子星内部成分探测器（NICER）。正是这种相对低成本的太空任务，正在以令人惊叹的精度不断测试人类物理定律的极限。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Extreme Cosmic Bodies Observational Comparison accDescr: A flowchart contrasting Black Holes and Neutron Stars regarding observational limitations and physics challenges. subgraph CoreLimitation ["极端引力塌缩天体"] BH["黑洞 (Black Hole)"] NS["中子星 (Neutron Star)"] end subgraph ObservationalReality ["观测现实"] BH -->|"物质塌缩入事件视界"| BHObs["视界遮蔽 内部不可见，无光线逃逸"] NS -->|"引力压碎电子与质子"| NSObs["表面裸露可见 可通过望远镜直接测量尺寸与质量"] end subgraph PhysicsChallenge ["物理学困境"] BHObs --> BHPhys["时空概念崩溃，奇点未知"] NSObs --> NSPhys["超出标准模型 物质呈现未知物态 (夸克汤假说)"] end ``` ### [01:15:29](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=4529s) 超大质量黑洞与韦伯望远镜发现的“小红点” 两人随后将话题转向宇宙中体积极其庞大的超大质量黑洞。罗根提到，有些黑洞的事件视界甚至远超冥王星轨道，比整个太阳系还要大，这让人难以想象它需要吞噬多少物质、耗费多长时间才能成长到如此规模。萨勒指出，这正是当代天文学最核心的未解之谜之一。银河系中心的超大质量黑洞人马座 A*（Sagittarius A*）大约是太阳质量的 400 万倍，其实际物理范围大致相当于太阳系内侧水星轨道的尺度。而在其他星系中心，超大质量黑洞的质量可达数十亿乃至数百亿倍太阳质量，其事件视界的跨度确实超过了冥王星的轨道。按照标准恒星演化理论，黑洞是由恒星耗尽燃料塌缩形成的；然而，哪怕让早期的恒星一代接一代地迅速死亡塌缩，在时间尺度上也根本无法解释早期宇宙中何以聚集数以百亿计的太阳质量。詹姆斯·韦伯空间望远镜（JWST）最新的观测进一步加剧了这一谜团。望远镜在回溯到大爆炸后仅约 4 亿年的宇宙极早期时，捕捉到了一批神秘的“小红点”（Little Red Dots）： - 这些天体的质量大约是太阳的 100 万倍。 - 最初天文学界以为它们是发育极早的完整星系，但这引发了巨大争议，因为大爆炸后区区 4 亿年根本不可能有足够时间演化出庞大成熟的星系。 - 随后光谱分析显示，它们所发出的光芒与普通星系截然不同，目前观测正将科学家引向一个充满颠覆性的全新研究方向。 ### [01:18:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=4680s) 早期宇宙的“准恒星”与超大质量黑洞起源之谜米歇尔·萨勒（Michelle Thaller）深入探讨了詹姆斯·韦伯空间望远镜（JWST）在观测早期宇宙时所发现的奇异现象。这些早期天体发出的光线与普通星系无异，但其光谱与信号却表明，某些天体内部存在以极高速度旋转的核心。天文学家推测，宇宙中形成的第一代恒星可能与我们今天见到的恒星截然不同。在宇宙极早期，物质密度要高得多，并且可能存在更密集的暗物质，其强大的引力拉扯着一切物质聚集在一起。在那种极端环境下，巨大的气体核心没有像常规恒星那样通过核聚变被点燃，而是直接坍缩成了黑洞。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 准恒星形成与超大质量黑洞演化假说 accDescr: 展示了早期高密度气体直接坍缩为黑洞并形成准恒星，最终合并为星系中心超大质量黑洞的过程。 subgraph EarlyStage["早期宇宙极端环境"] A["巨量气体与暗物质云聚集"] --> B["核心直接引力坍缩成黑洞"] end subgraph PseudoStar["准恒星（Pseudo-Star）阶段"] B --> C["黑洞吞噬物质并剧烈加热外层"] C --> D["形成由黑洞驱动的超大准恒星 （达数百万倍太阳质量）"] end subgraph GrowthStage["星系核与黑洞演化"] D --> E["在星系中心密集区域相互合并"] E --> F["演化为数百万至数十亿倍质量的巨型黑洞"] end ``` 这种直接坍缩的产物开始疯狂吞噬周围物质，形成了一种被称为“准恒星”（pseudo-star）的天体。它的外层是极度炽热的气体大气，内部则没有核聚变核心，全靠中心的黑洞疯狂吸积旋转、加热物质并积聚质量。萨勒指出，我们很可能正在见证巨型黑洞的“种子”：不是先形成普通恒星慢慢演化，而是海量气体和尘埃直接坍缩形成质量达到太阳数百万倍的准恒星，随后在星系核心的高密度区域通过引力合并，逐渐成长为庞大无比的超大质量黑洞。此前这一直存在一个重大疑难：按照理论，物质坠入黑洞应该释放剧烈的 X 射线，但最初并未探测到足够的 X 射线。直到最近两三个月的新观测数据出炉，科学家才终于证实其中一些天体确实是 X 射线源，这为韦伯望远镜解开“早期宇宙为何能在极短时间内长出巨型黑洞”的谜题提供了最强有力的证据。 - 早期宇宙的直接坍缩黑洞外围会包裹一层庞大的热气体，形成质量为太阳数百万倍的“准恒星”。 - 传统恒星核心依靠核聚变发光发热，而准恒星的核心是一颗正在吸积加热物质的黑洞。 - 观测早期宇宙超大质量黑洞的关键谜团是：宇宙早期根本没有足够的时间让常规恒星一代代死亡来堆积出如此巨大的黑洞。 - 近期的突破性观测证实了这些遥远目标源中确实存在 X 射线辐射，与黑洞吸积理论相吻合。 --- ### [01:20:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=4828s) 星系中心的超级巨兽与环绕起舞的狂暴恒星乔·罗根（Joe Rogan）提到自己曾看过一部关于黑洞的纪录片，片中指出几乎每个星系的中心都盘踞着一个超大质量黑洞，其质量约占整个星系总质量的 0.5%（千分之五）。萨勒赞同这一观点，表示星系越大，其中心黑洞通常也越大，两者之间存在着显著的关联。罗根感叹，宇宙中存在数百亿甚至数千亿个星系，如果每个星系核心都有一个超级黑洞，光是想象这一点就足以让人“脑子宕机”。萨勒进一步厘清，除了星系中心的超级巨兽之外，大质量恒星死亡还会形成较小的恒星级黑洞，仅银河系内部可能就潜伏着数以百万计的小黑洞。萨勒随后谈到了银河系中心的人马座 A*（Sagittarius A*）。地球距离该黑洞大约 2.5 万光年，处于绝对的安全距离。天文学家最初正是通过观测黑洞周围被引力捕获的恒星群来确定其精确位置的：那些恒星宛如“一群被激怒的蜜蜂”，在各个方向上以不可思议的速度围绕着一个看不见的虚无点旋转，推算得出的中心天体质量约为太阳的 400 万倍。其中最著名的恒星名为 S2，它的轨道像彗星一样，在掠过最靠近黑洞的近心点时，时速飙升至将近 2000 万英里（约合每小时 3200 万公里）；而最近发现的另一颗编号更为复杂的恒星，近心点速度甚至超过了惊人的每小时 5000 万英里（约合每小时 8000 万公里）。 - 银河系中心超大质量黑洞（人马座 A*）的质量约为太阳质量的 400 万倍，距离地球约 25,000 光年。 - 恒星 S2 在绕黑洞最接近点摆动时的速度接近每小时 2000 万英里。 - 最新发现的极端轨道恒星在黑洞近引力场中的速度甚至突破了每小时 5000 万英里。 - 通过追踪这些恒星极高速度的轨道漂移与摄动，科学家能够实地验证广义相对论预言的时间膨胀效应。 --- ### [01:23:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=4988s) 物理学极限、可观测宇宙与“黑洞即宇宙”的假说当谈到如果能活着穿过黑洞会发生什么时，萨勒坦率地承认：“说实话，我们的物理学在这里彻底放弃了。”人类现有的物理理论在黑洞奇点面前完全失效，因此讨论从确凿的天文观测转向了纯粹的科学推想。罗根提到纪录片中令人着迷的猜想：穿过黑洞是否会进入一个完全不同的新宇宙，而那个宇宙中的星系又包含无数黑洞，如此无限嵌套。萨勒证实了这个在理论物理界广受讨论的想法。有学者计算发现，如果把整个可观测宇宙的总质量和它的半径代入黑洞方程，其整体尺寸与密度居然与一个黑洞近乎完美契合。这引发了诸多惊人猜想：每次黑洞形成时，其内部是否都会孕育出一个全新的宇宙？我们所经历的宇宙大爆炸（Big Bang），是否正是另一个母宇宙中的某颗黑洞坍缩并在另一侧“爆开”的结果？罗根惊呼这就像“分形宇宙”（fractal universe），整套宇宙可能就存在于一个更大的黑洞体内。萨勒表示目前人类还不具备解答这些究极谜题的统一物理理论，但可观测宇宙与黑洞在质量密度上的高度相似，绝不仅是一句简单的巧合所能解释的。 - 当把可观测宇宙的整体质量和直径进行计算时，其质量与尺寸比率近乎完美地符合一个黑洞的斯瓦西半径与密度。 - 理论物理中的假说认为，大爆炸可能是高维母宇宙中黑洞形成时的“对侧创生”事件。 - 现存的广义相对论与量子力学在此类奇点边界无法自洽，需要更深层次的新物理学才能彻底解答。 --- ### [01:24:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=5061s) 黑洞周围的极速吸积盘与绵延十万光年的相对论喷流罗根在节目屏幕上调出了智利甚大望远镜（VLT）等观测站拍摄制作的恒星环绕银河系黑洞运动的模拟与观测图景，并好奇地指着画面中冲出黑洞两端的巨大射流询问：“这些喷射出来的东西究竟是什么？”萨勒澄清了一个常见的公众误解：这些喷流绝不是从黑洞内部跑出来的，因为根据已知物理法则，没有任何物质或辐射能逃出黑洞的事件视界。 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: 黑洞吸积盘与相对论喷流产生机制 accDescr: 解释吸积盘物质在引力加速下旋转、产生磁场并将部分超高温等离子体沿两极喷射的过程。 A["周围气体被引力吸积"] --> B["加速螺旋下坠 （接近光速/数亿度）"] B --> C["产生极端扭曲的超强磁场"] C --> D["两极磁场约束并加速离子"] D --> E["形成绵延超十万光年的相对论喷流"] B --> F["释放极端光热辐射 （宇宙中最明亮的天体）"] ``` 萨勒解释称，那些正在坠向黑洞的气体就像在下水道口打转的水流一样，越靠近中心转得越快。在强引力作用下，部分气体旋转速度甚至逼近了光速。高速打转且极度压缩的气体被摩擦加热到数百万甚至数十亿度，在此过程中生成了极其庞大而狂暴的强磁场。强大的磁场束缚并引导了其中一部分未能跌入视界的高温等离子体，将其从两极以极高能量喷射出去，形成相对论性喷流（relativistic jets）。萨勒感慨道，这形成了宇宙中最绝妙的讽刺：黑洞本身虽然漆黑无光、连光线都无法逃脱，但由于周围被剧烈摩擦加速的物质，它们周围的吸积盘和喷流往往是整个宇宙中最耀眼的存在，隔着整个可观测宇宙都能被清晰看到。 - 黑洞喷流并非源自黑洞内部，而是吸积盘强磁场对外部未掉落热气体的极向加速喷射。 - 吸积盘内的气体在强引力作用下被加热至数百万甚至数十亿摄氏度，旋转速度接近光速。 - 天文学家观测到的一些超大质量黑洞喷流跨度超过 10 万光年。 - 萨勒给出的参考尺度：1 光年大约相当于 6 万亿英里（约 9.46 万亿公里）。 - 随着吸积喷流讨论的结束，罗根紧接着引出了与之相对的理论构想——“白洞”（white hole）。 ### [01:26:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=5174s) 从“白洞”假说到黑洞吸积盘米歇尔·塞勒（Michelle Thaller）回顾了关于黑洞另一端可能存在“白洞”（White Hole）的科学假说。在 20 世纪 60 和 70 年代，物理学界曾流行一种猜测：黑洞吸收的物质与辐射可能通过一条穿越时空的通道在另一端喷涌而出，形成极其耀眼的“白洞”。然而，随着观测技术的发展，这种假说逐渐失宠。天文学家发现，宇宙中那些极为耀眼的天体实际上是黑洞周围围绕的高温吸积盘气体。这些环绕黑洞高速旋转的气体盘剧烈摩擦加热，释放出骇人的光芒，是人类在天空中所知最明亮的天体，甚至在数十亿光年之外都能清晰辨认。 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: 黑洞强辐射机制的认知演变 accDescr: 对早期白洞猜想与现代黑洞高温吸积盘认知的对比流程图 subgraph Early["20世纪60-70年代假说"] A["黑洞引力坍缩"] --> B["穿越时空虫洞"] B --> C["白洞喷射极端辐射"] end subgraph Modern["现代天文学观测事实"] D["超大质量黑洞"] --> E["物质吸积形成极端高温气体盘"] E --> F["宇宙中最明亮天体 （数十亿光年外可见）"] end ``` ### [01:26:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=5211s) 宇宙大爆炸、可观测宇宙与微波背景辐射乔·罗根（Joe Rogan）提到塞勒之前震撼他的一个观点：大爆炸绝不应该被想象成一场在既有空间里的普通“爆炸”，而在大爆炸之前，甚至可能连时间和空间都不存在。塞勒赞同这一观点，指出没有任何正经天文学家会认为大爆炸是“无中生有”产生的，核心困境在于人类目前的物理学根本无法描述那种极端状态。我们今天所能看到的一切，曾经可能都被压缩在亚原子尺度之下。塞勒强调，科学家在用词上极为严谨，讨论的始终是“可观测宇宙”（Observable Universe），因为人类根本不知道整个宇宙究竟有多大、是无限延伸还是有其边界。可观测宇宙之所以存在边界，完全取决于光在宇宙诞生后能够传播到地球的时间。当天文学家将望远镜推向视野的极限时，他们实际上是在回溯时间，看到的是大爆炸发生后大约 40 万年时的情景。在那个时期，整个宇宙异常炽热且明亮，整体宛如太阳表面一般发光。随着宇宙持续膨胀，这束穿越漫长岁月的古老光芒波长被严重拉伸，能量逐渐衰减，最终变成了如今弥漫在整个天空中的微波低能信号，即“宇宙微波背景辐射”（CMB）。由于这层处于“太阳表面般炽热发光”的状态使得更早时期的宇宙对光而言是完全不透明的，因此光学观测手段在此处遭遇了不可逾越的物理屏障。 - **光行时间与宇宙距离参照**：太阳光到达地球约需 8 分钟；最近的恒星光芒到达需约 4 年；最近的邻近星系（仙女座星系）需约 200 万年；而能够看到的最远光信号几乎跨越了整个宇宙年龄，停留在距大爆炸后约 40 万年的节点。 - **不透明屏障**：在大爆炸后约 40 万年之前，宇宙温度极高、物质密度极大，光子被电子等带电粒子反复散射而无法自由穿透，导致宇宙对光线呈不透明状态。 ### [01:30:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=5424s) 突破光之屏障：引力波与 LIGO 天文台的惊人突破针对罗根提出“望远镜未来能否穿透这道屏障”的疑问，塞勒直言光子绝对无法做到，但人类拥有了一种全新的观测媒介——引力波（Gravitational Waves）。塞勒回忆起自己在加州理工学院（Caltech）做博士后研究的 90 年代中期，当时相关部门刚开始着手尝试探测引力波，很多人（包括她自己）曾一度怀疑人类是否真能做到这一点。引力并非传统意义上的外力，而是时空本身的弯曲；任何质量的加速运动都会以光速向外辐射出时空本身的涟漪。为了捕捉这种由时空构成的波澜，物理学界建造了激光干涉引力波天文台（LIGO）。最初由两个相隔数千公里的站点组成（一个在华盛顿州汉福德，邻近俄勒冈；另一个在路易斯安那州利文斯顿）。每个观测站拥有两个呈 90 度直角、长达 4 公里的超高真空臂。激光在干涉臂中往返反射，在未受扰动时两束光互相干涉抵消；当引力波掠过地球时，一侧的空间被压缩、时间被改变，两条干涉臂的微观长度出现极其微小的差异。这种空间畸变甚至比原子核还要小上数千倍，周围哪怕是货运卡车开过或者有人打喷嚏都会带来巨大的震动噪音。 - **极端灵敏度**：LIGO 能够测量的时空伸缩量级比单个原子核的尺度还要小几千倍，激光全部运行在超纯净的真空管道中以剔除环境干扰。 - **历史性首次直接探测**：大约十年前，数亿光年外的两个黑洞旋转并撞击融合成一个更大的黑洞，释放出毁天灭地的引力能量。两个探测站先后以光速差捕获到完全吻合的“womp womp womp boom”波动信号，向全人类证明了引力波的真实存在，该成就随后斩获了诺贝尔物理学奖。 - **回溯大爆炸原初时刻**：引力波完全不会被早期高密度等离子体所阻挡，即便是光无法穿透的宇宙极早期，引力波也能畅行无阻。塞勒憧憬道，只要人类不断提升探测器的精度，未来甚至可能探测到大爆炸瞬间产生的原初引力波，直接揭开宇宙诞生那一刹那的终极奥秘。 ### [01:35:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=5711s) 引力波探测与宇宙起源的追溯米歇尔·萨勒（Michelle Thaller）回顾了人类在引力波探测上取得的历史性突破，指出那篇开创性的第一篇论文凝聚了数百名研究人员的智慧与汗水，其中还包括她的许多朋友。这不仅是一项配得上诺贝尔奖的非凡成就，更为天文学家提供了全新的观测维度。如今，人类已经能够实际捕捉到双黑洞相撞、双中子星相撞乃至相互绕转的双星所激发的引力波背景。米歇尔满怀憧憬地表示，随着探测精度的不断跃升，我们未来甚至可能直接探测到宇宙诞生之初所留下的引力波，从而真正揭开大爆炸那一瞬间的奥秘。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 引力波探测能力的演进 accDescr: 展示从当前黑洞与中子星碰撞探测演进至探测宇宙大爆炸初期原初引力波的路径 subgraph Current["当前观测阶段"] A["双黑洞相撞"] B["双中子星碰撞"] C["双星绕转背景"] end subgraph Future["未来前沿阶段"] D["捕捉宇宙起源原初引力波"] E["解析大爆炸初期的物理机制"] end Current --> Future ``` --- ### [01:35:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=5753s) 138亿年的时间线与“膨胀”而非“爆炸”的误区面对乔·罗根（Joe Rogan）关于“科学家如何确定138亿年这个时间线”的追问，米歇尔坦承科学界从未断言这个数字是绝对精准的，但有着极其坚实的物理依据。其核心逻辑在于将已知的物理定律“倒带”反推——根据目前测得的宇宙膨胀速率，倒推所有物质在时间深处聚集的状态。米歇尔着重厘清了大众对大爆炸最根深蒂固的一个误解：大爆炸根本不是一场发生在空旷空间里的“中心爆炸”，星系更不是四散飞入虚无的弹片。事实上，大爆炸没有中心，星系本身并未在空间中呼啸穿梭，而是星系之间的“空间本身”在向所有方向同步拉伸。为了让这一反直觉的概念变得直观，米歇尔分享了她过去在大学讲台上常用的教学道具： - **木板与钉子**：在木板两侧钉入两枚钉子，代表两个星系。 - **弹力带**：在两枚钉子之间系上一根橡皮筋（弹力带），用来象征我们当前的宇宙（一个二维时空切面）。光线能够传播、时空能够存在的一切范围，都严格被限制在这根弹力带上，其外围并不存在所谓的“上方”或“下方”。 - **空间的拉伸**：当她用手拉长弹力带时，两枚钉子本身并没有在木板上挪动位置，改变的仅仅是它们之间被拉伸的时空。她强调，我们绘制出的可观测宇宙中处处布满星系，不存在任何所谓的“空心宇宙中心”。正是因为时空的弹性结构在每一个方向同时膨胀，才造就了今天我们看到的宇宙图景，而这种膨胀的终极底层原因至今依然未知。 --- ### [01:38:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=5888s) 大爆炸之前存在什么？物理学认知的边界与CERN 乔·罗根顺着这个逻辑提出了一个更为核心的问题：如果大爆炸创造了时间和空间本身，那么在大爆炸之前，到底存在一个怎样的“环境”？包含全宇宙一切物质与能量的亚原子级超微实体，究竟是置身于何处而存在的？米歇尔坦率地承认科学界目前对此彻底没有答案，甚至连用以描述该状态的数学和物理语言都尚未诞生。米歇尔提到自己曾数次到访欧洲核子研究中心（CERN），参观大型强子对撞机（LHC）。科学家利用令人叹为观止的超导磁铁将质子加速并撞击至极高能量状态，旨在模拟宇宙大爆炸后百万分之一秒时的超高温极端环境。然而，哪怕是这样的顶尖设备，也无法还原大爆炸发生前的那一瞬。米歇尔打了个生动的比方：向一个15世纪的古代人询问“太阳内部的结构是什么样的”，对方根本无法回答，因为当时的人类文明完全没有建立起核聚变、等离子体等认知体系。但没有知识框架并不意味着人类永远搞不懂，大爆炸前的情形并非科学的不可知禁区，只是我们需要对“时空”、以及“超越普通物质与能量概念的存在”建立起颠覆性的全新物理范式。 --- ### [01:40:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=6040s) “大爆炸”一词的讽刺由头与乔治·勒梅特的“原始原子” 当罗根询问大爆炸既然不是传统意义上的爆破、那是否该改称为“初始膨胀”（Initial Expansion）时，米歇尔道出了科学史上极富戏剧性的一段公案：“大爆炸”（Big Bang）这个家喻户晓的名词最初并非正式科学定义，而是天文学家弗雷德·霍伊尔（Fred Hoyle）用来公开挖苦讽刺的蔑称。 - **宇宙膨胀的发现与爱因斯坦的困惑**：20世纪20年代望远镜观测打破了过去的静态宇宙论，连阿尔伯特·爱因斯坦最初都对此难以置信。 - **乔治·勒梅特的“原始原子”假说**：比利时天体物理学家、耶稣会神父乔治·勒梅特（Georges Lemaître）在大约100年前提出，如果将宇宙膨胀倒推回去，整个宇宙在最初必定凝聚成一个结构，他称之为“原始原子”（Primordial Atom）。 - **弗雷德·霍伊尔的嘲讽与词汇流传**：坚持稳态理论的霍伊尔在一次广播会议上嗤之以鼻地调侃道：“怎么，难道你是说整个宇宙是从一个大爆炸（Big Bang）里蹦出来的？”然而大众和学界不仅没有被这句嘲弄吓退，反而顺水推舟接受了这个琅琅上口的称呼。米歇尔特别指出，公众应当更深入地认识勒梅特这位伟大的科学家。尽管身为天主教神父，勒梅特却极力反对将自己的科学假说与《圣经》中的创世记生硬附会，而是坚持以纯粹严谨的科学态度探索宇宙的演变。她还提到梵蒂冈天文台以及耶稣会长达近千年的天文学传统。米歇尔感慨，探究大爆炸之前是什么，正如探寻黑洞内部的景象一样，是横亘在现代科学地平线正前方的一道“简单而优雅、却令人魂牵梦绕”的终极谜题。 ### [01:43:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=6202s) 可观测宇宙的边界与视界限制米歇尔·萨勒（Michelle Thaller）纠正了一个常见的宇宙学误区：并不是说整个宇宙最初曾经很小，而是有确凿证据表明，我们今天所能看到的一切物质曾经聚集在一个极小的空间体积内。人类对宇宙的观测受制于光速和时间因素——向最深处看去，视线最终会抵达大爆炸的起点，无法看得更远。对我们而言，宇宙的大小仅取决于光线从诞生至今有足够时间传播到地球的范围。但可观测宇宙绝非宇宙的全貌。倘若某个观测者身处数十亿光年外的另一个星系，该星系会拥有属于它自己的“可观测宇宙球体”。詹姆斯·韦伯空间望远镜所观测到的遥远星系，在某些方向上看到的宇宙深处，是我们从地球视角永远无法企及的。屏幕上展示了 NASA 绘制的宇宙演化图，萨勒指着图像最左侧解释：追溯到大爆炸之初，会看到一层斑斓的彩虹色区域，即大爆炸后约40万年留下的微波背景辐射（CMB）。这是视线所能穿透的极限，在此之前宇宙处于不透明的高密等离子体状态。整个大宇宙在大爆炸之前可能早就是巨大乃至无限的，我们所处的已知宇宙，或许仅仅是某个庞大“元宇宙”中微不足道的一个微粒膨胀而来的产物。 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: 可观测宇宙与全宇宙关系示意图 accDescr: 展示了全宇宙中不同星系各自具有独立的光行时间视界，超出视界范围为早期不透明宇宙。 subgraph 全宇宙["无限或极大的全宇宙"] A["地球可观测视界 （约138亿年光行范围）"] B["遥远星系观测视界 （朝不同方向延伸）"] end A --> C["大爆炸后约40万年 微波背景辐射（CMB）"] B --> C C --> D["大爆炸早期高密状态 （光线不透明区域）"] ``` ### [01:45:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=6344s) 贝尔实验室的鸽子粪便与微波背景辐射的发现萨勒回顾了科学史上著名的宇宙微波背景辐射发现历程。20世纪60年代中期（萨勒口误提到了70年代），贝尔实验室的两位年轻科学家阿诺·彭齐亚斯（Arno Penzias）与罗伯特·威尔逊（Robert Wilson）使用巨型喇叭天线尝试校准微波通信，并编目天空中产生微波的自然天体源。然而，他们遭遇了一种无法消除的微弱背景噪点。不论将天线转向天空的哪个方位，这个背景噪音都保持一致。按照严谨的科学思维，全天候全方向一致的噪点通常意味着探测器本身的系统误差。当时最好的怀疑对象落在了天线里的鸽子身上——萨勒打趣道，很少有人知道鸽子粪便其实也会释放微波辐射。两名科学家费劲抓获了天线内的所有鸽子（该捕鸽笼如今甚至保存在史密森尼学会博物馆中），并彻底清除了天线内积攒的所有鸽子粪。然而清理完毕重新开机后，那个微弱信号依然分毫不差地存在于天空的每一个角落。他们无意间捕获的，正是大爆炸后残留至今的“余晖”——宇宙从致密不透明转向透明时刻散发的第一缕光芒。 - 彭齐亚斯与威尔逊最初的研究目的是为了排查微波通讯干扰，并非专门搜寻大爆炸遗迹。 - 无论天线朝向银河系盘面还是深空，背景辐射温度与强度均保持惊人的一致性。 - 史密森尼学会（Smithsonian Institution）至今仍陈列着当年用于捕捉天线鸽子的捕鸟笼。 ### [01:47:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=6439s) 宇宙视界疑难与微波背景中的原初声波微波背景辐射带来了一个极其深奥的谜题：天空两端相距数百亿光年的区域，在宇宙早期完全没有足够时间通过光速传递热量或信息，按理说它们之间绝无可能“相互认识”或建立热平衡。萨勒用咖啡杯做类比——一杯静置的咖啡最终会达到整体均匀的热平衡，绝不会半边是华氏300度、另一边是零下50度。然而，如果宇宙在早期没有经历紧密接触，不同区域绝不可能自发形成如此高度一致的温度。这一现象成为宇宙早期物质曾紧密挤压在极小范围内的核心铁证（也是宇宙暴胀理论的基石）。从 NASA 早期发射的宇宙背景探测者卫星（COBE），到90年代末发射的威尔金森微波各向异性探测器（WMAP），人类对背景辐射的测定精度提升到了十万分之一度。探测器发现，在几乎绝对均匀的底色中，存在着极微小的温度起伏涨落。萨勒感叹这些微小波动令人震撼，因为它们本质上是大爆炸后40万年间在整个宇宙等离子体中震荡传播的“原初声波”（重子声学振荡）。这种在大尺度上凝固的声波印记，为后来恒星、星系及宇宙纤维状大尺度结构的凝聚播下了种子。 - 早期空间两个极端方向在常规光速演化下无法产生因果联系，构成了著名的“视界问题”（Horizon Problem）。 - 探测器 COBE 首次测出了背景辐射的黑体辐射谱，证实其温度约为 2.7K 且极度均匀。 - 探测器 WMAP 将温差波动测量精细到十万分之一开尔文（fractions of a degree），清晰绘制出原初声波纹理。 ### [01:50:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=6605s) 普朗克时期的大爆炸模型与量子引力盲区乔·罗根（Joe Rogan）提出，大众潜意识里总倾向于把大爆炸想象成一个瞬间发生的爆炸事件。萨勒坦言，作为一名偏重观测与实验的科学家，她对许多理论物理学界描述的大爆炸后十亿分之一秒甚至更短时间内的推论持谨慎保留态度。她提到史蒂文·温伯格（Steven Weinberg）在1970年代出版的经典科普名作《最初三分钟》（*The First Three Minutes*），该书系统推演了宇宙如何在短短三分钟内完成原初核聚变，形成当今天体中绝大部分的氢和氦元素。屏幕调出大爆炸初期时间线，罗根照着图表念出普朗克时期（Planck epoch）：大爆炸后 $10^{-43}$ 秒，密度与温度无穷大的奇点，量子引力主导，四种基本力完全统一。萨勒笑着提醒大家对这套极端模型要“抱有极大的怀疑态度”（take it with a big chunk of salt）。她直言现代物理学尚未完全掌握超高密度极限环境下的引力运作规律。爱因斯坦的广义相对论与微观量子力学在奇点状态下存在根本性冲突，无法自洽。在人类真正攻克并确立成熟的量子引力理论之前，任何关于大爆炸临界瞬间乃至其发生之前的理论断言，都只能是基于现有受限模型的大胆推测，绝不能当作板上钉钉的事实。 ### [01:51:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=6711s) 大爆炸瞬间的物理困境与暴胀理论米歇尔·萨勒（Michelle Thaller）指出，当前关于大爆炸起源的理论中，完全没有包含暗物质与暗能量的成因，甚至连它们是否在大爆炸初期起到关键作用都不得而知。在她看来，科学界必须先将现有的物理认知推演至极限，但面对宇宙大爆炸发生的“那一瞬间”，人类的物理学储备显然远远不够。当时全宇宙极度压缩在极其狭小的空间内，密度高到令人难以想象——正如乔·罗根（Joe Rogan）所形容的那样，高到“把整个已知宇宙塞进一个原子核中”。这种极端的高密度与超强引力状态，与黑洞内部的奇点别无二致，超出了现有物理理论的描述范畴。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 大爆炸早期理论与暴胀机制 accDescr: 展示现有物理学在面对大爆炸极端条件时的局限性以及阿兰·古斯的暴胀宇宙模型 subgraph Limitations["现有物理学的极限"] A["现有物理框架"] --> B["无法描述极端超高密度与强引力"] B --> C["黑洞内部奇点 / 大爆炸瞬间"] end subgraph GuthTheory["阿兰·古斯（Alan Guth）理论"] D["1970年代暴胀理论 (Inflationary Universe)"] --> E["空间呈指数级极速膨胀"] E --> F["可能永不停止：分形般不断脱离诞生新宇宙"] end ``` 谈及大爆炸发生时宇宙处于何种环境、是否存在其他宇宙，萨勒提到了麻省理工学院（MIT）物理学家阿兰·古斯（Alan Guth）在1970年代提出的构想。尽管萨勒在回想术语时开玩笑说自己经历了一次“大脑断电”（mental fart），但她很快明确了这就是“暴胀宇宙”（Inflationary Universe）模型：暴胀可能永不停止，并以类似分形的方式不断分裂衍生出新的宇宙。然而，萨勒强调这些理论仍只是基于现有物理认知的初步探索，人类距离真正搞懂大爆炸是如何触发的，还有很长的路要走。 --- ### [01:53:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=6812s) 科学的诚实、不确定性与敬畏之心罗根感叹，作为一个知道如此丰富物理知识的人，同时却不得不面对浩瀚如海的“完全未知”，这必定极其扣人心弦。萨勒由衷赞同，并坦言这恰恰是身为科学家最美好、却也最令人沮丧甚至是恐惧的核心体验——你必须对自己“所不知道的事物”保持绝对的诚实。科学家能够确凿地公布观测成果，比如利用相隔数千英里的射电望远镜阵列捕捉同波长的光波、直接拍摄到黑洞的事件视界；但与此同时，诸如宇宙如何起源、黑洞内部究竟怎样、中子星内部又是何种状态，人类根本无从得知。人类的天性往往抗拒停留在“无知”的状态，总想急迫地寻找答案。但萨勒认为，科学家必须学会忍受这种不确定性。在这个阶段，没有人知道确切答案，接纳这种认知的停滞反倒能孕育出谦卑、喜悦与对彼此的同理心。罗根补充道，承认无知极其重要，因为只有坦诚哪些东西是无法被知晓的，公众才会相信科学家对“已知事物”的断言。萨勒进而深刻地阐释了科学的界限： - **科学有意识的局限性**：科学的范畴被严格限定在“可测量”与“可重复验证”的现象之内，不能被现有仪器测量的东西并不等于不存在。 - **超越科学界限的现象**：无论是幽灵传说、黑洞内部谜团、外星探访还是神秘的灵性合一感，科学家无法断言它们绝对是虚假的，只是这些体验暂时脱离了实证科学的范围。 - **可复现性的标准**：科学的核心在于全世界的科研团队在相同条件下重复同样的实验，能够稳定获得一致的测量结果。 --- ### [01:56:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=6976s) NASA接线员回忆：倾听“时间旅行者”与主观体验在NASA总部主管科研传播工作期间，萨勒经常接到总机转接给她的各种奇特公众来电，其中不乏声称自己是“时间旅行者”或自称曾被外星人绑架的人。当罗根调侃NASA是否有专门像阿特·贝尔（Art Bell）夜间电台那样的“时间旅行者专线”时，萨勒解释说，办公室其他人往往不知道该如何应对这些人，而她一贯以善意和同理心待人，愿意耐心倾听他们的经历。这些打进电话的人大多数只是迫切需要一个倾听者。萨勒并不会粗暴地判定对方是疯子或拆穿他们，而是诚恳地告诉对方：“你经历了一场极其深刻的心灵体验，我希望你能把它当成一份礼物珍视。但作为一名科学家，我无法对个人的单一主观体验开展科学实验，全世界的同行也无法对你的体验进行复验。”她认为，不管是深刻的灵性觉醒还是一体感体验，虽然目前无法纳入实证科学，但未来随着人类对人脑机制理解的深入，甚至是AI实现意识连接（mind-sharing），这种边界或许会发生改变；但在当下，科学仍必须恪守可复现性的原则。 --- ### [01:59:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=7151s) 冰镇香槟与对地外生命的科学信念谈及那些声称接触过外星智慧生命的人群，罗根询问萨勒作为常年仰望星空的学者，到底会花多少精力去认真审视外星生命的存在可能性，抑或将其归结为心理疾病或某种超越人类认知常理的特殊体验。萨勒回答，这生动展示了科学家的思维方式以及这一群体行走在其间的“微妙钢丝”。萨勒直言，在NASA内部，从上到下几乎每一个人都坚信宇宙中必然存在外星生命，认为“全宇宙只有地球拥有生命”的想法在科学尺度上是完全站不住脚的： - 仅银河系就包含数千亿颗恒星，而可观测宇宙中又分布着数千亿个星系，生命只局限于地球的可能性微乎其微。 - NASA的科研人员几乎全都是科幻迷，无一例外地对地外文明充满了狂热向往与浪漫想象。 - 萨勒透露，自己的冰箱里常年冰镇着一瓶香槟，这个习惯她已经保持了几十年——时刻准备着在人类首次确认探测到地外生命确凿信号的那一天，拔出瓶塞尽情庆祝。 ### [02:00:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=7244s) 寻找地外生命与科学家的“怀疑主义暂停” 谈到寻找外星生命的突破时，米歇尔·塞勒（Michelle Thaller）笑着指出，科学家们到底会为了什么而开香槟庆祝——难道一定要是高等智慧生物吗？实际上，“只要是细菌，绝对就会开香槟”；哪怕只是在火星上发现了一点池塘水垢般的微小微生物，那也是划时代的成就。与此同时，SETI（搜寻地外文明计划）的科学家们也在扫描星空，寻找来自外星文明的数学信号。但对塞勒而言，所有问题的核心依然在于：什么是“可重复的观测”？针对军方战斗机近年来公布的 UAP（不明空中现象）视频，塞勒揭示了主流学术界与 NASA 科学家的真实反应：大家并不会在下班后喝着啤酒、看着视频兴奋地断定外星人来了，因为现有数据还远远不够。科学家受过的专业训练是一种深思熟虑的“怀疑主义刹车”（skeptical stop）——当面对无法解释的现象时，标准反应是“好的，我们目前无法解释它”，而不是草率地跨出“这就是外星人”的那一步。对于声称有过接触经历的普通人，塞勒强调自己绝不会简单地将其斥为“精神疾病”。她诚恳地承认，那些人所描述的情形完全有可能真实发生过，在宇宙的广阔可能性中，没有什么是不可能的；然而，作为一名严谨的科学家，单凭个人的主观经历无法作为科学定论的支柱，科学必须要求更扎实、可复现的实证。 - **庆祝门槛**：即使只是在火星发现类似池塘绿苔或单细胞细菌的极端微生物，科学界就会开香槟狂欢，无需等到智慧文明接触。 - **SETI 研究路径**：通过射电与光学手段扫描深空，重点寻找携带数学规律或人工编码的电磁信号。 - **科学家的职业本能**：面对未解之谜时，恪守“停在未知处”，拒绝在缺乏充沛证据前将“未解现象”等同于“外星起源”。 --- ### [02:02:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=7350s) 证据的边界：谦卑、同理心与超越感官的现实塞勒进一步分享了自己在生活与科学之间的张力。她身边有一些人品极佳、绝不可能说谎的挚友，曾有过极为深刻的灵性体验——例如感受到死后世界、亡者灵魂的存在，甚至与已故之人沟通。尽管塞勒自己从未有过类似体验，但面对这些百分之百值得信赖的朋友，她选择保持谦逊：“我生活在这个宇宙中，我无权裁定什么是真实、什么是虚妄。”这些真挚的见证反而带给她欣慰与希望，她真切希望人类其实生活在一个比已知范围更宏大、更丰富的现实当中，只是目前的科学工具还无法测量。乔·罗根（Joe Rogan）对这种“在怀疑的钢丝上怀抱希望”的态度大加赞赏，认为保留判断、怀有谦逊与同理心正是当今世界最缺乏的品质。人类既不完全清楚意识的本质，也不真正了解人脑的运行机制；科学虽然创造了捕捉时空涟漪（引力波）、观测光线在下陷的中子星周围弯曲等难以置信的壮举，但在未知的体验面前，依然需要为他人保留同理心。这引发了关于人类感官局限性的讨论。塞勒指出，早在 18 世纪末，威廉·赫歇尔（William Herschel）发现红外辐射时，人类就已知道肉眼只能捕获宇宙中极小一部分光谱，还有大量真实的颜色与波长是感官完全无法察觉的。时空甚至可能只是人类大脑为了生存而构建的模型，或许某些人的大脑在感知结构上与常人不同，能够探测到常人无法触及的信号。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 感官局限与现实感知模型 accDescr: 展示客观宇宙的丰富维度如何经过感官与大脑过滤，最终形成人类的主观现实体验。 subgraph ObjectiveUniverse["客观物理世界"] A["多维时空与高维物理规律"] B["全波段电磁辐射 (红外、紫外、X射线等)"] C["未解意识与物理场交互"] end subgraph SensoryFilters["大脑与生物过滤器"] D["有限感官 (肉眼仅见可见光)"] E["认知过滤器 (构建线形时空模型)"] F["个体差异/致幻剂/神经变异 (滤网开合度变化)"] end subgraph SubjectiveReality["经验现实"] G["日常可观测世界"] H["异常感知与灵性体验"] end A & B & C --> D & E F -.-> E D & E --> G F --> H ``` - **威廉·赫歇尔的发现**：1800 年前后通过三棱镜分光计与温度计发现了不可见的红外线，证实了超越人类视觉感官维度的客观物理现实。 - **现代物理学的测量奇迹**：人类能够精确探测到遥远黑洞碰撞引起的微弱引力波（时空涟漪），并直视中子星强引力场造成的光线偏折。 - **时空的本质猜想**：塞勒提出，物理学已经证明时空并非连续、刚性流淌的虚无背景，而是能够弯曲拉伸的几何织构，人类对时空的线性感受很可能纯粹是大脑内部施加的感知滤镜。 --- ### [02:05:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=7546s) 梦境困扰、致幻剂与内源性 DMT 的化学大门当谈到是否愿意尝试致幻药物来改变感知滤镜时，塞勒坦白承认自己是个“胆小鬼”（chicken），从未尝试过任何致幻剂。虽然她非常好奇药物改变大脑过滤器后是否能让人窥见更深层的现实，但她无法信任一个“解开束缚的心智”（unleashed mind）。她透露自己长期受到极端、逼真的梦境困扰，醒来时往往筋疲力尽，就在昨晚她还经历了一场需要很久才能平复的漫长梦境；由于梦中那些挥之不去的恐怖或奇妙体验永远铭刻在脑海里，她极度担忧在药物作用下彻底失去对思维的约束。罗根则从自身经验出发分析，人们所谓的“糟糕旅程”（bad trip）往往源于试图在失控中建立控制——当直面陌生的恐惧与焦虑时，抗拒反而会加剧痛苦。罗根随后提到了自然界与人体中极其神秘的物质：二甲基色胺（DMT）。作为已知最强效的致幻化合物，它居然是由人体内源自主生成的，存在于大脑、肝脏和肺部。罗根解释道，外源摄入 DMT 的体验通常只有短短 15 分钟左右，人体之所以能以极快速度将其代谢并恢复到基线水平，正是因为身体对这种内源分子了如指掌。更不可思议的是，几乎所有体验者都一致描述，那种状态“比现实本身感觉还要真实得多”（feels way more real than reality itself）。这表明致幻剂可能并不是凭空制造幻觉，而是通过化学途径打开了一扇原本紧闭的感官大门，让人类与一直存在却无法交互的维度接轨。谈话最后延伸到了精神分裂症的感知机制。塞勒完全认同物理学早已表明时空并非感知中的常态，不同人群的神经滤网可能存在天然差异；罗根则好奇那些在街角自言自语、深度精神分裂的患者到底生活在怎样的现实中——他们是否时刻处于一种清醒的梦境世界中？如果能进入他们的大脑仅仅感受五秒钟，眼前的宇宙又会呈现出怎样匪夷所思的光景？ - **极端梦境的负荷**：塞勒的大脑神经活动在睡眠期极度活跃，强烈的具象化梦境会耗尽精力，导致晨起疲惫不堪，这也成为她不敢轻易涉足精神活性物质的核心心理防线。 - **内源性分子 DMT**：二甲基色胺普遍存在于动植物体内，人体肺部和肝脏等器官均参与其合成，其作用于血清素受体后的代谢周期极短。 - **现实的相对性**：高浓度 DMT 诱发的体验往往伴随强烈的“超真实感”，引发了认知科学与哲学上关于“现实是否仅是一套受控幻觉系统”的深刻讨论。 ### [02:09:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=7797s) 走出丧偶之痛与拉里·哈格曼的“白光体验” 谈话从对感知障碍者的界面探讨自然过渡到了精神疗愈。米歇尔·塞勒坦承，除了对物理知觉层面的好奇——比如人们常说的联觉（能“看见声音”或“听见颜色”）——她近年来真正深有感触的，是很多人向她推荐的致幻剂对化解“悲痛”（grief）的巨大功效。她直言不讳地流露出脆弱：“我被悲痛彻底击垮了，至今依旧如此。”她一直在苦苦寻找跨越这道坎的途径，并听闻迷幻药或许是一剂良药。乔·罗根随即回应，这类药物在缓解绝症癌症患者的临终焦虑方面确实展现出了惊人的医学效果，尤其是裸盖菇素（psilocybin），它似乎具有某种能让人彻底释怀、平静接受死亡的深邃力量。罗根由此联想起老牌美剧《达拉斯》（Dallas）的主演拉里·哈格曼（Larry Hagman）在CNN演播室的一段荒诞而真实的往事。当时哈格曼在《头条新闻》（Headline News）接受主持人乔伊·贝哈尔（Joy Behar）的专访。贝哈尔提及是民谣摇滚乐团“克罗斯比、斯蒂尔斯与纳什”（Crosby, Stills and Nash）引荐他尝试了LSD，并随口问他那是什么感受。当时离节目结束只剩短短一分钟，哈格曼却平静地抛出一句震撼全场的话：“它彻底带走了我对死亡的恐惧。”主持人追问这种脱敏是否持久、是否需要持续服用，哈格曼笃定地表示，一旦对死亡的恐惧消失了，它就永远消失了。当被问及具体看到了什么时，他提到了传说中的“白光”——一个万物皆安好、充满和平的纯白彼岸。哈格曼甚至在电视上戏谑提议，应该立法强制所有政客至少体验一次LSD。塞勒听完颇有共鸣，感叹电视节目只给嘉宾30秒去总结人生中最深刻的体验实在滑稽，但她十分认可这种药物在临终关怀上的潜力。她动情地回忆起丈夫离世时的痛苦：当时她住在华盛顿特区附近，而特区恰好已经将裸盖菇素合法化（非罪化）。当时看着痛不欲生的伴侣，她内心无数次挣扎，渴望能有某种东西能让他哪怕多获得一刻的平静与快乐，甚至想过自己是否该偷偷去买一点。虽然最终并未成行，但她始终坚信，这类体验理应成为一种受尊重的正规医疗选择。 --- ### [02:13:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=8014s) 毒品战争的政治迷局与微剂量的认知拓展乔·罗根向塞勒剖析了迷幻药被污名化的历史根源。他指出，公众今天对致幻体验的疑虑与恐惧，本质上是半个世纪以来政治宣传洗脑的遗毒。1970年，尼克松政府出台了《受控物质法案》（Controlled Substances Act），其真正的政治动机是为了打压当时风起云涌的民权运动与反战运动。执政当局深知嬉皮士与异见青年热衷于这类物质，便借由公众对嬉皮文化的恐慌，一刀切地将所有致幻物质列为“附表一”（Schedule I）管制药物，冠以“无任何医疗价值、极易成瘾、极度危险”的罪名。罗根直言这完全违背科学事实：从毒理学上看，人类根本不可能靠食用致幻蘑菇致死，一个人哪怕硬塞下数磅的新鲜蘑菇也不会产生致死毒性。正是长达50多年的政治宣传，让大众对“解开束缚的大脑”（the unfettered mind）产生了根深蒂固的无端恐惧。他向塞勒建议，如果心存顾虑，完全可以从“微剂量”（microdose）开始尝试。微剂量处于“阈下知觉”水平，绝不会引发幻觉或心理恐慌，只会让人心情愉悦、感受变得敏锐，甚至显著增强空间感知与边缘轮廓检测能力。罗根援引了一项20世纪60年代的经典双盲对照实验：受试者在服用微量裸盖菇素后，对平行线细微偏转的察觉敏锐度显著优于安慰剂对照组。塞勒从神经科学的角度推测，脑部受到特定刺激后运转效率提升并不意外。然而罗根指出了一个更为惊人的现代脑成像实验事实：处于裸盖菇素影响下的大脑，在功能性磁共振成像（fMRI）扫描中并没有呈现出神经元剧烈放电的活跃状态；恰恰相反，它呈现出的是一个极度平静、静默的“安静大脑”（a quiet brain）。 --- ### [02:16:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=8160s) 技术隐喻的局限与知识的“篝火定律” 大脑在静默中反而能获取更高维度信息的现象，引发了塞勒对当代神经科学局限性的深刻感慨。她分享了加州理工学院（Caltech）一位神经科学家朋友的精辟论断：人类在历史上对大脑的认知，永远受制于当代技术的最高水平，并机械地用当时最前沿的技术作为大脑的模型： - **古罗马时代**：罗马人将大脑构想为错综复杂的水道与水力管道网络（aqueducts）； - **18世纪钟表时代**：随着齿轮、发条和机械钟表达到技术巅峰，人们把认知（cognition）视作齿轮与构件的精密咬合运转； - **现代信息时代**：人们自然而然地将大脑比作复杂的硅基计算机； - **未来量子时代**：塞勒断言，等量子计算成熟普及后，科学家又会宣称大脑本质上是一台“量子计算机”。 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: 大脑技术隐喻的历史演进 accDescr: 展示人类在不同历史时期根据当时的科技巅峰建立的大脑比喻模型 subgraph Ancient["古代与近代"] A["古罗马：流水管网与水渠"] --> B["18世纪：钟表齿轮与机械构件"] end subgraph Modern["现代与未来"] B --> C["20世纪至今：硅基计算机"] C --> D["未来构想：量子计算机"] end ``` 塞勒指出，大脑像计算机的程度，其实并不会比它像机械钟表多到哪去。人类至今对记忆的物理存储机制一无所知；更难解的是知觉对时空的构建——如果物理学所揭示的宇宙本质上是一个无始无终、所有时刻同时并存的“永恒当下”（infinite now），那为何我们的大脑会顽固地感知到单向的时间流逝，并将事件死板地解读为线性的因果关系？乔·罗根借此抛出了民族植物学家丹尼斯·麦肯纳（Dennis McKenna）的名言：“一旦点燃了信息的篝火，火光所照亮并暴露出的无知表面积只会更加广阔。”（"Once the bonfire of information is lit, it exposes more surface area of ignorance."）火光烧得越耀眼，人类反而越会看清四周无尽黑暗的未知。即便未来人类能将脑机接口与有史以来全人类的知识库相连，我们依然会面对同样的终极困惑。塞勒对此完全赞同，她以物理学为例指出，人们总执着于追问“大爆炸之前是什么”这类终极谜题，但即使人类未来破解了大爆炸的源头，展现在面前的也绝非终点，而只会是一整批更加宏大、令人敬畏的崭新疑问。 ### [02:18:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=8290s) 干涉测量术与被颠覆的现实认知乔·罗根与米歇尔·塞勒探讨了人类探索宇宙的永无止境。罗根感慨道，探索宇宙最奇妙的体验之一就在于许多终极问题根本没有标准答案，一旦探究到某种深层边界，"任何人的猜测都和别人一样有效，因为谁也不知道"（your guess is as good as anybody's. Like nobody knows）。正如前文所提到的黑洞成像技术，若放在一百或两百年前，甚至在现代普通人听来都如同天方夜谭；而随着探测技术成倍升级，人类依然会不断撞上无法理解的未知墙壁。塞勒接着提到探测黑洞背后的关键技术——干涉测量术（Interferometry）。她调侃起天文学界朴实无华甚至略显乏味的起名习惯：智利帕拉纳尔天文台的“甚大望远镜”（Very Large Telescope, 简称 VLT），以及旁边那座造型独特的“特大望远镜”（Extremely Large Telescope, 简称 ELT）——“永远别让天文学家给东西起名字”。玩笑之余，塞勒指出了干涉测量术深层且令人敬畏的物理本质：该技术通过多台探测器同时捕捉来自同一光波前（wave front）的光信号，将它们汇聚并使其自我干涉。这种技术之所以“让人隐隐感到一丝美好的恐惧”，是因为它正在瓦解我们对“现实”的固有定义。塞勒解释道，从量子尺度来看，当仪器以极高精度测量以光速传播的光波长时，物理系统实际上是在多个不同的探测点同时捕捉“同一个光子”。在经典观念看来，光子不可能同时处于八个不同的空间坐标，但宇宙规律在量子层面根本不在乎人类直觉中的空间隔离。在实验中，这颗粒子真实地在八台不同的望远镜中被同时测量。对此，科学界存在不同阐释：多世界诠释（Many-Worlds Interpretation）认为，这是八个不同现实分支（在每个分支中光子进入了特定的望远镜）被交织拼贴在了一起；而主流干涉测量学者则倾向于经典量子力学观点，即粒子可以同时处于多处空间位置的叠加态。但无论采用哪种解释，实验事实都在证明：时间和空间根本不是人类大脑所直觉感知的那种简单模式。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 干涉测量与量子叠加对空间观念的冲击 accDescr: 展示单个光子如何通过干涉测量在多个望远镜同时被捕获并引申出量子解释 subgraph Wavefront["来自深空的光信号"] Photon["单一光子 / 光波前"] end subgraph Observatories["分布式观测网（如智利 VLT 阵列）"] T1["望远镜 1"] T2["望远镜 2"] T3["望远镜..."] T4["望远镜 8"] end subgraph Physics["量子物理诠释"] Interfere["光波自我干涉与合成数据"] Interp1["标准量子力学：单粒子多处叠加态"] Interp2["多世界诠释：多个现实分支交汇"] end Photon --> T1 Photon --> T2 Photon --> T3 Photon --> T4 T1 & T2 & T3 & T4 --> Interfere Interfere --> Interp1 Interfere --> Interp2 ``` - 望远镜命名笑梗：天文学界直接将核心观测设备命名为 VLT（Very Large Telescope，甚大望远镜）与 ELT（Extremely Large Telescope，特大望远镜）。 - 干涉测量的物理奇迹：将同一光波前分配到多个基线探测器，在量子尺度上相当于同一个光子在八个不同地理坐标同时被观测记录。 --- ### [02:21:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=8490s) 量子计算与多重宇宙的概率深渊罗根随后将话题延伸向量子计算令人匪夷所思的运算能力。他转述了马克·安德森（Marc Andreessen）曾打过的一个生动比方：如果把全宇宙的每一个分子都改造成一台超级计算机，即便等到整个宇宙迎来热寂（heat death），也无法算出的复杂方程式，量子计算机却能在几分钟之内轻松解出。面对这种超越物理极限的能力，有一种激进的假说认为，量子计算本质上是在向数量极其庞大的“多重宇宙”借取并行算力。罗根困惑地提问：科学界是否有确凿证据支持这种多宇宙假说？还是说有其他更为合理的替代解释？塞勒叹了口气表示，确实存在其他维度的解释，但“没有一个能让人感到更踏实，它们都同样诡异”。在正统理论中，量子计算的核心在于量子态的叠加（Superposition of states）：量子计算机在运行过程中并不锁定在单一解上，而是让所有可能的结果以概率分布的形式同时存在；只有在计算终止的一刹那，才会“坍缩”出目标答案。从某种意义上说，这依然等同于承认所有潜在的解同时存在于各自的平行现实之中，最终被筛选输出。塞勒强调，无论选择哪种诠释，现实都不可能重新变回简单易懂的状态。要么现实是由无数个同时相连的平行版本组成的综合体，要么时间和空间本身就是不确定的概率之波。随着人类主动设计并推进量子计算技术，我们注定要直面物理现实与生物感官直觉之间的巨大鸿沟。她断言：“我们再也无法回到那个事物能够被轻易理解的旧时代了。” - 马克·安德森的计算极限比方：宇宙全部物质化为超级计算机直至热寂都无法解出的难题，量子计算机在数分钟内即可攻克。 - 解释的分歧但同等反直觉：无论是“多重宇宙并行运算”，还是“未定义的量子概率波叠加与坍缩”，都彻底颠覆了经典物理学对确定性的执念。 --- ### [02:24:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=8643s) 伽利略的危机与渺小的人类心智乔·罗根指出，这一切的困惑归根结底来自于人类作为生物有机体那极为有限的感知器官。塞勒对此深表认同，并指出人类大脑的演化机制决定了我们无法自然理解“多元现实”、“多重概率”或者“同时存在的时间与空间”。这场认知剥离的旅程其实早在数百年前就已经启程：伽利略当年首次把单筒望远镜对准夜空中那团被称作“银河”的乳白色微光时，惊愕地发现那根本不是雾气，而是由数百万颗肉眼完全看不见的恒星所构成的海洋。这一发现让伽利略陷入了一场深刻的精神与信仰危机。他在日记和思考中困惑地质问：“如果上帝创造了宇宙，为什么要把人类肉眼根本看不见的恒星放在那里？为什么偏偏需要人类透过这根小小的玻璃管子才能看见它们？”这标志着人类思想史的一个转折点——人类意识不再被默认为宇宙的中心。从伽利略的望远镜到现代的相对论与量子力学，科学家们用严谨的实证数据反复证明：时空的本质绝对不是人类大脑所感知的那样简单。塞勒用蚂蚁做了一个生动的类比：蚂蚁是精妙、复杂而适应力极强的生物，拥有精密的分工和社会结构，它们也有自己的思维机制；但若将蚂蚁的心智容量与人类大脑相比，两者之间存在着不可逾越的鸿沟。同理，“我们凭什么认为自己离彻底参透宇宙真理的心智水平，会比蚂蚁离人类的距离更近呢？”罗根对此非常赞同，并笑着表示，如果智能生命不断演化拓展，未来的人类回望2026年的我们，一定会觉得这群自以为无所不知的人极其幼稚可笑。随着对宇宙浩瀚与心智边界的探讨，两人随即开始转向人工智能（AI）所带来的新挑战。 - 伽利略的历史公案：首次用望远镜解析银河的恒星结构，引发了“为何上帝要创造人类肉眼无法直视的天体”的神学与哲学震荡。 - “蚂蚁比喻”揭示认知局限：人类心智与宇宙究极真理之间的差距，可能比蚂蚁与人类大脑之间的智能差距还要遥远。 - 未来视角的历史讽刺：未来的智慧生命回顾2026年自诩掌握真理的现代人类，只会觉得他们是一群盲目自大的可笑生物。 ### [02:26:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=8817s) 超级智能、善意与地外文明的仁慈假设 Michelle Thaller 与 Joe Rogan 探讨了超级人工智能（AI）以及更高智慧地外生命对人类的潜在态度。许多科幻作品常描绘超级智能一旦觉醒就会摧毁人类，但 Thaller 提到了由华金·菲尼克斯（Joaquin Phoenix）主演的电影《她》（*Her*）。她坦言自己最初以为讲述“一个男人爱上自己的操作系统”会是个很愚蠢的故事，但实际看完后却发现它极其深刻。在电影里，AI 进化得远比人类聪明、连接得远比人类紧密，但它们并没有消灭人类，反而真正爱上了人类；片尾这些 AI 彼此找到了人类无法想象的连接与爱的方式，最终选择平静、温和地离开，没有伤害任何人。Thaller 感叹道，正如人类会对小小的蚂蚁感到惊叹一样，她希望未来诞生的超级存在能对人类在其演进旅程中的位置抱有同情与爱意，因为“同情应当是双向的”，她很喜欢那种双方并非注定成为敌人的设想。 Rogan 笑着附和说：“但愿如此，否则我们就全完了。”他进一步推论，如果某种智慧远比人类先进，它大概率根本没有恶意行事的必要。这也是人们思考高等级外星文明时的核心问题：如果他们真有能力穿越茫茫宇宙来到地球，摧毁人类易如反掌，那他们图什么？Rogan 指出，如果先进文明真想毁灭地球，人类可能在毫无知觉的情况下就全军覆没或被瞬间蒸发；毕竟人类目前若倾巢发射全部核武器，就足以抹去地表大部分生命，而能进行星际旅行的文明显然掌握着远超核武的力量。既然他们没这么做，就暗示着更高度的智慧或许伴随着超越破坏本能的理性。 Thaller 补充说，就算人类引爆所有核弹，也未必能杀死所有微生物。Rogan 也提到切尔诺贝利核反应堆废墟中依然顽强生长的真菌，Thaller 则指出了在国际空间站（ISS）外壁极端环境下存活的细菌和微生物。微生物惊人的顽强生命力，也让深空探测在防止外来污染的彻底消毒问题上变得极为棘手。 --- ### [02:29:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=8972s) OSIRIS-REx 任务与小行星贝努的惊险采样当被问及近十年来 NASA 最具划时代意义的发现时，Thaller 重点介绍了 OSIRIS-REx（Origins, Spectral Interpretation, Resource Identification, Security, Regolith Explorer，源光谱释义资源识别安全风化层探索者）探测任务。该探测器大小与一辆汽车相当，其目标是飞往直径约半公里的小行星贝努（Bennu）。贝努是一颗轨道与地球轨道相交的近地小行星（未来甚至可能先撞上金星而非地球），科学家希望从它上面带回极其原始的太阳系早期物质样本。在高速运转且引力微弱的太空中捕获并着陆小行星是一项惊人的工程壮举。小行星以远超子弹的速度飞驰，本身引力微乎其微，探测器必须极其接近才能进入轨道，同时还要精准匹配它的自转速度。然而当探测器抵达贝努时，团队遭遇了巨大危机：原本 NASA 设计了一套类似真空吸尘器的采样装置，预想中小行星表面覆盖着细小沙尘颗粒，结果现场探测发现整个表面全是被巨大石块（boulders）堆积的崎岖地形。原本的设计根本无法直接工作，团队必须在全表面测绘后，寻找包含少量尘埃的微小陨石坑。更严峻的是通讯延迟。由于距离地球过于遥远，单程无线电指令传输需要长达 15 分钟，工程师根本不可能用操纵杆实时操控着陆，探测器必须完全自主决策。发射时探测器并未配备如此高度的自主系统，NASA 的工程师团队被迫在发射之后重新给飞船编程，教它如何识别地形、判断危险并在必要时自主中止任务拉起。经过这番不可思议的远程挽救，探测器最终成功吸取了风化层样本，飞回地球，并将样本舱通过降落伞完好无损地投送至犹他州测试训练场（Utah Test and Training Range）。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: OSIRIS-REx 采样任务流程与危机化解 accDescr: 展示了 OSIRIS-REx 探测器从小行星贝努发现表面巨石危机，到地面团队远程重写自主代码，并成功采回样本返回地球的流程。 subgraph 轨道接近与危机发现 A["探测器接近小行星贝努 (匹配极高飞行速度与自转)"] --> B["表面测绘发现险情 (布满巨大石块，吸尘机制无法直接使用)"] end subgraph 地面应急与自主控制 B --> C["寻找含尘微小陨石坑"] C --> D["单程通讯延迟达15分钟 (无法手动实时遥控)"] D --> E["在太空中重新编程飞船 (赋予自主视觉识别与避障中止能力)"] end subgraph 采样与返回地球 E --> F["自主下降完成吸尘采样"] F --> G["返回地球释放样本舱 (降落在犹他州测试训练场)"] end ``` --- ### [02:32:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=9121s) 陨石里的生命密码：全套核碱基与胚种论的化学基础当科学家在地球实验室中打开贝努带回的样本密封舱时，震撼的发现让科学界大为震惊：样本中不仅存在水和有机小分子，甚至检测出了构成地球生命 DNA 与 RNA 的全部核碱基（nucleobases）——即生命遗传密码的“字母”。Thaller 强调，样本里的矿物曾经完全被水浸透，这意味着这些小行星不仅曾向远古地球输送水源，还带来了一枚枚孕育“前生命（proto-life）”物质的微型炸弹。不仅如此，样本中还包含了一些地球生命未曾使用的其他核碱基，暗示着外星生命或许可能基于不同基因字母构建。这为“胚种论（Panspermia）”提供了强有力的实证支持，表明地球生命的原材料很可能是直接从太空降落的。Thaller 解释说，这在宇宙化学层面上其实比人们想象的更为必然： - **碳原子的天然特性**：濒死恒星在生命末期喷射出海量的碳。碳原子的量子力学电子排布决定了它极具“黏性”，天生极其渴望与其他原子结合，这使得太空本身就是制造大规模复杂有机分子的绝佳场所。 - **星云中的汇聚**：垂死恒星喷射出的碳在引力作用下汇入星云，彼此黏合成复杂的有机物云团。 - **早期的冷库与递送**：数十亿年前太阳系形成时，那些未被吸纳进大行星的冰与岩石碎块在太阳系外围寒冷地带漂浮，完整保存了这些水和有机分子。 - **后期的轰击**：原始地球在刚形成时曾是一个干燥、滚烫的熔岩球，几乎所有较轻的挥发性物质，包括水与有机化学原材料，很可能都是通过后续这些含水小行星的猛烈撞击输送到地表的。 Thaller 动情地回顾道，原本按常理这个任务在抵达贝努后可能就注定失败了，但这支卓越的科研与工程团队凭借过人的胆识和技术完成了不可思议的远程抢救，完美展现了团队协作所能迸发出的巨大力量。 ### [02:35:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=9321s) NASA 的多元思维与团队协作哲学米歇尔·塞勒（Michelle Thaller）深情回顾了自己在 NASA 工作期间最推崇的一种团队文化：一旦组建好一个团队，如何激发出每个人的潜能。她坦言，世上没有人是完美的，团队里总有人综合能力极强、贡献卓著，也有人相对表现平平；但卓越团队的关键在于确保获取到“每一个人的声音与输入”，而这绝不能用一刀切的方式去强求。塞勒指出，团队成员的思维与表达方式截然不同：有些人极具进取心，在会议上反应敏捷、观点鲜明，一有想法就会立刻抢先发言；而那些性格安静内敛的人，则需要更多时间去深思熟虑、消化信息，他们最害怕在毫无准备的情况下被直接推到聚光灯下当场质问。塞勒强调，一个高水平团队的领导艺术，正在于懂得尊重并包容这两种完全不同的认知风格，耐心确保所有人都能以适合自己的方式贡献想法。她感叹，许多棘手难题的终极解决方案，往往恰恰出自那些起初甚至根本没被重点询问的人。这种文化的核心在于深信“团队里的每一个人都有独一无二的价值”，鼓励大家“把你所拥有的想法毫无保留地交出来——哪怕你觉得它不够成熟，哪怕你自嘲它是个愚蠢的主意，也请拿出来”。塞勒在 NASA 的职业生涯中一次又一次目睹这种包容所释放的惊人能量：解决人类顶尖的航天与科学难题，绝不可能仅依赖某一种思维模式或某一个天才英雄。 - **两种典型思维风格**：主动表达型（思维敏捷、会议中立刻抢答）与深思内省型（需要充足消化时间、不适宜当场被逼表态）。 - **去中心化解题智慧**：最具突破性的灵感往往来自最意想不到的边缘角色，而不是嗓门最大或地位最高的人。 - **创新的心理安全感**：倡导“即使自认想法愚蠢也要大胆分享”，打破精英主义与完美主义对灵感的扼杀。 --- ### [02:36:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=9381s) 退休后的创作计划与社交平台告别乔·罗根（Joe Rogan）听后连连赞叹“太棒了”（"That's awesome"），并由衷感谢塞勒的光临，直言这场深入浩瀚宇宙与人类认知边界的对话令人沉醉。罗根还特别向塞勒表达了敬意，感谢她多年来在网络上持续分享的高品质科普内容，称赞这些作品兼具极高的教育价值与启发性。塞勒微笑着表示自己聊得非常痛快，并透露自己如今已经从 NASA 正式退休，终于有了充裕的时间和更自由的心境去施展创意，做一些好玩有趣的内容。 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: Michelle Thaller 退休后的科普媒体矩阵 accDescr: 展示塞勒退休后在各社交平台与视频播客平台的创作规划 subgraph Career["状态转变"] direction TB A["NASA 高级管理层退休"] --> B["追求更多创意与表达自由"] end subgraph Platforms["社交与内容平台 (Dr. Michelle Thaller)"] direction TB C["YouTube 频道 & 播客"] D["Instagram & Facebook"] E["新尝试: TikTok 短视频"] end B --> Platforms ``` 罗根极力鼓励她大干一场，建议她一定要运营好自己的专属 YouTube 频道或开创一档独立播客。在罗根询问如何关注她的社交媒体时，塞勒说明因为“Michelle Thaller”这个名字已被他人注册，所以她的账号统一采用“Dr. Michelle Thaller”。目前她活跃于 Facebook、Instagram，并建立了一个小型的 YouTube 频道（@mlthaller），最近甚至还开始涉足 TikTok。她表示自己正以开放的心态摸索起步，会继续源源不断地为公众产出优质内容。在一片互致感谢与道别的轻松笑声中，本期长篇对谈伴随着标志性的片尾音乐圆满收官。 - **创作新阶段**：卸下 NASA 的公职负担后，塞勒正全面转向兼具专业性与个人创意的科学传播事业。 - **全网社交账号定位**：统一搜索识别名 **Dr. Michelle Thaller**，覆盖 Facebook、Instagram、TikTok 及 YouTube。 ## Notable quotes > [01:40:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=6040s) 怎么，难道你是说整个宇宙是从一个大爆炸（Big Bang）里蹦出来的？ — 弗雷德·霍伊尔 > [01:50:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=6605s) 抱有极大的怀疑态度 — 米歇尔·萨勒 > [02:00:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=7244s) 只要是细菌，绝对就会开香槟 — 米歇尔·萨勒 > [02:02:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=7350s) 我生活在这个宇宙中，我无权裁定什么是真实、什么是虚妄。 — 米歇尔·萨勒 > [02:05:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=7546s) 比现实本身感觉还要真实得多 — 乔·罗根 > [02:09:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=7797s) 我被悲痛彻底击垮了，至今依旧如此。 — 米歇尔·萨勒 > [02:09:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=7797s) 它彻底带走了我对死亡的恐惧。 — 拉里·哈格曼 > [02:16:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=8160s) 一旦点燃了信息的篝火，火光所照亮并暴露出的无知表面积只会更加广阔。 — 丹尼斯·麦肯纳 > [02:18:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=8290s) 永远别让天文学家给东西起名字 — 米歇尔·萨勒 > [02:21:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=8490s) 我们再也无法回到那个事物能够被轻易理解的旧时代了。 — 米歇尔·萨勒 > [02:26:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=8817s) 同情应当是双向的 — 米歇尔·萨勒 > [02:26:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=8817s) 但愿如此，否则我们就全完了。 — 乔·罗根 > [02:35:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=9321s) 把你所拥有的想法毫无保留地交出来——哪怕你觉得它不够成熟，哪怕你自嘲它是个愚蠢的主意，也请拿出来 — 米歇尔·萨勒 ## Mentioned 米歇尔·萨勒 (Michelle Thaller), 乔·罗根 (Joe Rogan), 加州理工学院 (Caltech), 激光干涉引力波天文台 (LIGO), 欧洲核子研究中心 (CERN), 大型强子对撞机 (LHC), 阿尔伯特·爱因斯坦 (Albert Einstein), 乔治·勒梅特 (Georges Lemaître), 弗雷德·霍伊尔 (Fred Hoyle), 梵蒂冈天文台 (Vatican Observatory), NASA (美国国家航空航天局), 詹姆斯·韦伯空间望远镜 (JWST), 宇宙微波背景辐射 (CMB), 贝尔实验室 (Bell Labs), 阿诺·彭齐亚斯 (Arno Penzias), 罗伯特·威尔逊 (Robert Wilson), 史密森尼学会 (Smithsonian Institution), 宇宙背景探测者卫星 (COBE), 威尔金森微波各向异性探测器 (WMAP), 史蒂文·温伯格 (Steven Weinberg), 阿兰·古斯 (Alan Guth), SETI (搜寻地外文明计划), 威廉·赫歇尔 (William Herschel), 二甲基色胺 (DMT), 拉里·哈格曼 (Larry Hagman), 乔伊·贝哈尔 (Joy Behar), CNN, 克罗斯比、斯蒂尔斯与纳什 (Crosby, Stills and Nash), 裸盖菇素 (psilocybin), LSD, 理查德·尼克松 (Richard Nixon), 受控物质法案 (Controlled Substances Act), 丹尼斯·麦肯纳 (Dennis McKenna), 甚大望远镜 (VLT), 特大望远镜 (ELT), 帕拉纳尔天文台 (Paranal Observatory), 马克·安德森 (Marc Andreessen), 伽利略·伽利莱 (Galileo Galilei), 电影《她》 (Her), 华金·菲尼克斯 (Joaquin Phoenix), 国际空间站 (ISS), OSIRIS-REx 探测器, 小行星贝努 (Bennu), 犹他州测试训练场 (Utah Test and Training Range), YouTube, Instagram, Facebook, TikTok ## Video description Michelle Thaller, PhD, is an astrophysicist, award-winning science communicator, and retired NASA executive who worked at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center and NASA Headquarters. Her work has appeared in documentaries, podcasts, and television programs on The Science Channel, History Channel, Discovery, National Geographic, NPR, and many other platforms. https://www.youtube.com/@mlthaller https://www.drmichellethaller.com [Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0)

Source quotes

[100:40] 弗雷德·霍伊尔: 怎么，难道你是说整个宇宙是从一个大爆炸（Big Bang）里蹦出来的？ [110:05] 米歇尔·萨勒: 抱有极大的怀疑态度 [120:44] 米歇尔·萨勒: 只要是细菌，绝对就会开香槟 [122:30] 米歇尔·萨勒: 我生活在这个宇宙中，我无权裁定什么是真实、什么是虚妄。 [125:46] 乔·罗根: 比现实本身感觉还要真实得多 [129:57] 米歇尔·萨勒: 我被悲痛彻底击垮了，至今依旧如此。 [129:57] 拉里·哈格曼: 它彻底带走了我对死亡的恐惧。 [136:00] 丹尼斯·麦肯纳: 一旦点燃了信息的篝火，火光所照亮并暴露出的无知表面积只会更加广阔。 [138:10] 米歇尔·萨勒: 永远别让天文学家给东西起名字 [141:30] 米歇尔·萨勒: 我们再也无法回到那个事物能够被轻易理解的旧时代了。 [146:57] 米歇尔·萨勒: 同情应当是双向的 [146:57] 乔·罗根: 但愿如此，否则我们就全完了。 [155:21] 米歇尔·萨勒: 把你所拥有的想法毫无保留地交出来——哪怕你觉得它不够成熟，哪怕你自嘲它是个愚蠢的主意，也请拿出来

Source quotes

[7:25] Michelle Thaller: Never let astronomers name anything [4:32] Joe Rogan: We are stardust. We're golden. We're billion year old carbon. [31:04] Albert Einstein: spooky action at a distance [35:11] Michelle Thaller: I don't think we understand yet what reality is [35:11] Michelle Thaller: make a horse fly [39:44] Michelle Thaller: It's our children. We created this [67:00] Michelle Thaller: You can see space and time bending around these objects [74:27] Michelle Thaller: With a neutron star, you got the freaking thing right there in front of you [95:53] Michelle Thaller: These two nails are galaxies. And the elastic between them represents our universe. [130:07] Larry Hagman: Once you've lost the fear of death, it doesn't matter. [130:07] Larry Hagman: ought to be mandatory that all our politicians should do it at least once. [144:07] Michelle Thaller: little glass tube [149:32] Michelle Thaller: bomb of proto-life

Original transcript

[0:01] Joe Rogan podcast, check it out. [0:03] >> The Joe Rogan experience. [0:06] >> TRAIN BY DAY, JOE ROGAN PODCAST BY [0:08] NIGHT. ALL DAY. [0:12] >> I like that. [0:13] >> Absolutely. [0:15] >> It's also there's [music] some things [0:16] that are so awesome. It's like that's [0:18] awesome. [0:19] >> I [laughter] I was I was trying to talk [0:21] about black holes to some high school [0:22] students just seriously earlier this [0:24] week. And I was I kept saying you know [0:26] what the [0:27] >> [laughter] [0:29] >> So I I got nothing to pitch, but I I [0:31] I the Shorewood Men's Club. I was giving [0:33] a talk there. The Shorewood, Wisconsin [0:35] is where I live. The Men's Club invited [0:37] me to give a talk about astronomy last [0:39] week. And when I mentioned I was coming [0:40] to the show, they just freaked out. And [0:42] so the only thing I have is my Shorewood [0:44] Men's Club uh uh [0:46] water bottle. [0:46] >> Well, shout out to the Shorewood Men's [0:48] [laughter] Club. That's awesome. [gasps] [0:50] It's so cool that you give those [0:51] speeches. I love your YouTube talks. [0:53] They're fantastic. [0:55] >> Oh, thank you. Wow. [0:56] >> I have watched probably every one you've [1:00] ever done. I've I've watched at least I [1:02] mean, how many have you done? I've done [1:03] I've watched at least like 10 of them. [1:05] >> Yeah, I mean so I mean [1:07] pretty much what I did at NASA I did a [1:09] lot of sort of the science spokesperson [1:11] stuff. And so so most of that was, you [1:13] know, [1:14] I'm more on the NASA videos. I hosted [1:16] like launch events. I haven't done much [1:19] privately on YouTube. I'm I'm thinking [1:21] about starting some stuff. [1:23] >> Oh, you should. [1:23] >> I'll I'll Yeah, I'll I'll I'll come to [1:25] that. Okay. [1:25] >> 100%. [1:27] >> [laughter] [1:27] >> Thank you. [1:27] >> 100%. You've said so many things that [1:29] made me just go, "What?" [1:31] >> Ah. [1:32] >> Like here's a big one that you said. You [1:33] were talking about if the size of Earth [1:37] if the Earth was the dot of an eye in a [1:39] book in regular print [1:41] >> Yes. [1:42] >> that the Milky Way galaxy would be as [1:45] large as the Earth itself. [1:47] >> Actually, a little bigger. Yeah, so I [1:49] mean the the thing is this is an [1:50] interesting thing about science [1:51] communication. [1:53] >> [snorts] [1:53] >> You say that if if the if the sun were [1:55] the size of a dot of an eye, and you got [1:57] to remember, you can fit a million [1:58] Earths inside the Sun, right? This is a [2:00] huge thing. So, if that's the size of a [2:02] dot of an eye and on text, then the [2:04] galaxy would be the size of the Earth. [2:06] That's when people's eyes get big and [2:07] people respond to it. [2:08] >> So, it's not just the Earth, it's the [2:09] the Sun. So, if the Sun was the dot of [2:11] an eye, [2:12] >> Yes, that's right. So, let's let's make [2:13] this clear. So, if the Sun were the size [2:15] of a dot of an eye on a page of text, so [2:17] you could fit a million Earths inside [2:19] that dot of an eye, then the Milky Way [2:21] galaxy would be bigger than the Earth. [2:24] >> Yeah, I think it's huge. [2:26] >> So, if the Earth was the dot of an eye, [2:27] then [laughter] [2:28] how big is the Milky Way galaxy? Cuz the [2:30] Sun is how many millions Earths? [2:32] >> Volume-wise, you could fit over a [2:34] million Earths inside the Sun, yeah. [2:36] Yeah, the the Sun is about 800,000 mi [2:38] across. You could fit about 110 Earths [2:40] across it. The diameter. [2:42] >> We do those things where you show the [2:44] the differences between our Sun and [2:46] different stars and immense stars, and [2:49] you go bigger and bigger and bigger and [2:51] you you get to the point where you're [2:52] like, I can't my this is not working. I [2:55] can't get I can't process this. It's too [2:57] kooky. [2:57] >> There's nobody that can process it. I [2:59] mean I mean one of one of the the really [3:01] kind of, you know, the thing about sort [3:02] of demystifying scientists is the idea [3:05] that our brain somehow work any [3:06] differently. And like we can visualize [3:09] what a light-year is, right? You know, a [3:10] light-year is about 6 trillion mi. That [3:13] you know, the distance light travels in [3:14] a year. No, we're human beings. We we [3:17] get used to using the terms, we get used [3:19] to you know, using the numbers, but but [3:22] we've got the same brain as everybody [3:23] else. Nobody can visualize what a galaxy [3:26] really is. [3:27] And you can take pictures of them, you [3:29] can say the word galaxy, [3:32] but people have no idea what what [3:33] monsters these are. And and and then [3:36] with like with the James Webb Space [3:37] Telescope, you know, all of a sudden [3:38] you're taking pictures of billions of [3:40] them. [3:41] And you know, they're right in front of [3:43] your eyes. This is not something that [3:45] you can argue about. It's an image. [3:48] And and you see these these foggy hazes [3:51] of of of stars, you know, basically so [3:53] many stars you can't see them [3:54] individually. [3:56] And that's real. And and I mean it still [3:58] gives me goosebumps. [3:59] >> That's awesome. [4:01] >> [laughter] [4:02] >> It gives me goosebumps, too, but it's so [4:04] cool that it gives it to you when you [4:05] actually study it your whole life. [4:07] >> Oh, that's that's the that's the whole [4:08] point. I mean, you know, working for [4:10] NASA was a huge huge honor. And I mean, [4:13] all of us there are doing this. I mean, [4:15] we were all science fiction fans. You we [4:17] all love imagination. Um, you know, we [4:21] That was the best thing about working at [4:23] NASA was was the was the joy and and and [4:26] the the teamwork and the camaraderie and [4:27] the people that you're working with. [4:29] That you know, they they think this is [4:30] the best thing in the world to do. [4:32] >> Well, I mean, there's a a real problem [4:35] that we have where I think that cities [4:37] and light pollution have really for [4:41] you know, it's great that we have [4:42] cities. It's wonderful. It's wonderful [4:44] that we have all this electricity and [4:45] that we can see things at night time, [4:47] but boy, we have done ourselves a [4:48] massive disservice by not being able to [4:50] see the stars all the time. And I think [4:52] people have kind of lost the wonder of [4:54] it when you're only looking at it as [4:55] images on your phone or when, you know, [4:58] the only time you get it is on vacation. [5:00] Occasionally, you look up in the sky, [5:01] "Wow, look at all the stars here. It's [5:03] different here." [5:04] This is something that everyone should [5:07] be absolutely blown away by. At night, [5:11] you have a vision of the most [5:12] spectacular thing any human being has [5:14] ever seen ever. Just the Milky Way [5:16] galaxy alone, it's nuts. It's crazy to [5:19] think that those are all stars and that [5:22] they you can't count them. It's insane. [5:24] There's so many of them. And it's above [5:26] you every day and we're just blasé [5:28] blasé. We're just like so used to it. [5:31] We're so dismissive of it. It doesn't [5:32] mean anything. It's exciting when [5:35] someone's excited by it because I'm [5:37] like, "More people need to get the [5:38] away from the cities and just go see how [5:40] crazy this is that we are flying through [5:44] space." [5:44] >> Yeah. [5:45] >> [laughter] [5:46] >> It is profound. And to be that close. I [5:48] mean, just looking up, you don't even [5:50] need a telescope or a pair of [5:51] binoculars, the presence of something so [5:53] much larger than you. [5:55] But, I mean, if you've if you've [5:56] listened to some of my my podcasts, that [5:58] I I think you know that the the big deal [6:00] for me is that you are such a part of [6:03] this. You are such an intimate intrinsic [6:06] part of this. It's not we're separate [6:08] from space. You know, we look up and [6:09] there's something separate from us. You [6:11] know, that's the story of us up there. [6:13] You know, the only way the universe [6:15] makes atoms. The only way it makes, you [6:18] know, the chemicals all around us, you [6:19] know, the aluminum, the iron, the [6:21] oxygen, the carbon, you know, the [6:23] phosphorus, everything that makes me up. [6:25] You know, the only thing in the universe [6:26] that makes atoms is the interior of a [6:29] star. It's the only place where nuclear [6:31] fusion puts atoms together. So, so [6:33] everything that you are, this the story [6:35] is up there. [6:37] And, you know, so you're you're not [6:38] looking at something separate and [6:40] distant. You know, I mean, astrophysics [6:42] is the story of, you know, the end of [6:43] your nose, literally. I mean, I mean, we [6:46] are part of this beautiful bigger thing. [6:49] >> That's a weird concept. The I mean, [6:52] that's from that old song, you know, we [6:53] are stardust. We're golden. We're [6:55] billion year old carbon. [6:57] Yeah. Um that that's real. That's what [7:00] we are and that's what all life is and [7:02] that that's just a very strange thing [7:04] for people to wrap their heads around as [7:06] we're sort of slowly getting a greater [7:09] and greater understanding of the [7:10] complexity of the universe itself, which [7:13] is relatively recent in terms of human [7:16] history. I mean, we really didn't know [7:19] all [7:20] all what we just we know now because of [7:22] the James Webb telescope is so crazy [7:25] where they're seeing these new these [7:26] galaxies that they're confusing. Like, [7:28] why are they formed so early? [7:30] >> Oh, I I I gave a talk about those just a [7:31] few weeks ago. The red dots, yes. Never [7:34] let astronomers name anything, right? [7:36] You're seeing something so dramatic and [7:37] they call it the little red dots, right? [7:39] You know, or you know, there's a storm [7:40] on Jupiter that's three times the size [7:42] of the Earth with 400 mile an hour winds [7:43] and they call it, you know, the red [7:44] spot. [7:45] >> How come no one's allowed to name them? [7:47] >> Well, naming conventions are well, [7:49] they're they're they're complex. So so [7:50] if you if you discover a comet, you get [7:53] to know if you discover an asteroid, you [7:54] get to name it. If you discover a comet, [7:56] the comet is named after you. [7:58] But anything else has to be done by [8:00] international committee. [8:01] And so, you know, they they because of [8:03] that things don't end up with very [8:04] interesting names. They all end up with, [8:06] you know, catalog numbers, you know, you [8:07] know, basically phone numbers. [8:08] >> What do they call that weird hexagon on [8:10] Jupiter? [8:11] >> Is it a hexagon? [8:13] >> The hex- the hexagon. Well, I think they [8:15] call that, you know, the hexagon on [8:16] Saturn. They they they don't even they [8:17] don't really the hexagonal storm. It's [8:20] fantastic. Uh you could fit about two [8:22] Earths across that. And it it it's a [8:24] it's a it's a hex- it's a hexagon jet [8:26] stream, basically. You've got super [8:28] fast-moving winds around the pole of [8:30] Saturn. [8:31] And and Saturn is so cold, the gas is so [8:34] cold that there's almost no friction in [8:36] the gas. So unlike here, you know, the [8:39] jet stream here, there's kind of this [8:40] joke. Oh, there's a picture. Hey, that's [8:42] fantastic. Um [8:44] >> That's wild. [8:45] >> One of my favorite pictures NASA ever [8:47] took. If you look at the little dot in [8:48] the middle of that, the sort of little [8:50] eye of the storm, we actually have a [8:52] picture from Cassini where you can see [8:54] the sun glinting off of hundreds of mile [8:57] high. There you go. It's down at the [8:59] bottom there. It's in the bottom in the [9:00] middle. Yeah, that picture. One more [9:02] over. Yeah, that that that's a picture [9:04] uh from the Cassini space mission. [9:06] That's a real image. [9:07] >> Wow. [9:07] >> And that's the eye of that storm. And [9:10] and those are, like I said, hundreds of [9:12] miles high banks of clouds catching the [9:13] sunlight and the poles of Saturn. [9:16] And, you know, we did that. You we we [9:18] went there. We flew over that storm. [9:20] >> That's crazy. [9:21] >> And uh uh and and yeah, I mean as [9:23] amazing as the storm is, [9:25] it's um it it's at least fairly well [9:27] understood it as a very low temperature [9:28] jet stream. You know, it I mean you may [9:30] be familiar here people kind of joke [9:31] about like, you know, the weather's the [9:32] same a week from now the weather will be [9:34] about the same as it is now. There are [9:35] patterns that get set up in in the jet [9:37] stream of the Earth. [9:38] And you you take away all the heat and [9:39] all the friction and it forms this this [9:41] beautiful storm. [9:43] >> What Why What is the theories why it [9:45] forms a hexagon? [9:46] >> It's It's something called a standing [9:48] wave. The The The The The jet stream [9:50] basically sets up a wave inside this [9:52] circulation. And And I'm I'm I'm I'll I [9:54] will admit I'm not an atmospheric [9:55] specialist, but that's what I know. [9:57] And And And that wave kind of kind of [9:59] makes this hexa- hexagonal shape and and [10:01] then you cool everything down without [10:02] friction and that's how the whole thing [10:04] works. They [10:05] They have done computer simulations [10:08] of very fast-moving jet streams under [10:09] the conditions of Saturn and you can get [10:11] this sort of shape to set up. [10:12] >> Wow. God, it's so fascinating. [10:16] And it's so fascinating that we think of [10:17] that as being so far away. [10:19] >> That's just right in our neighborhood. [10:20] >> It's just right there. [10:22] It's super hard to get to, takes a long [10:24] [laughter] time, but it's just right [10:26] there. [10:26] >> Well, we're hoping to launch a When I [10:28] say we, NASA's hoping to launch a a new [10:30] mission to one of the moons of Saturn, [10:32] uh hopefully in in like 2028. It'll take [10:34] it something like, you know, 6 7 years [10:36] to get out to Saturn. But there's a [10:38] there's that giant moon of Saturn, [10:39] Titan, which has a a thick atmosphere. [10:41] It's the only place where the air [10:42] pressure The air pressure's actually [10:44] even a little bit greater than the room [10:45] here. [10:46] And uh um it's it's very cold, you know, [10:48] it's it's you know, almost close to 300° [10:50] below zero, but it's got this thick [10:52] atmosphere and tons of organic molecules [10:54] and evidence of liquid water below the [10:56] surface. It's one of the places that [10:57] that might be friendly for life. And so [10:59] they're they're designing Have you heard [11:00] about this? It's called Dragonfly. It's [11:02] a It's an octocopter. It's a big drone. [11:04] There you go. [11:06] Perfect. And so so So So Dragonfly is [11:09] going to be this big octocopter that [11:10] we're going to land on this moon, Titan. [11:12] We've already landed on this moon once [11:14] with the Cassini mission. And it's got [11:16] this this really kick-ass uh chemical uh [11:18] laboratory inside to look for the [11:20] conditions for life, you know, anything [11:22] you know, that we might be able to find. [11:24] And And obviously sample more than one [11:25] site. We'd actually fly around and then [11:27] and go to different places. There's [11:29] rain, there oceans, there are rivers. [11:31] The only place we know they're open, you [11:33] know, great lake-sized lakes on Titan. [11:35] >> Wow. [11:35] >> But it's so cold that it's not uh liquid [11:37] water. It's actually liquid natural gas, [11:39] liquid methane and ethane. Yeah. [11:41] >> [sighs] [11:42] >> Yeah. And again, you know, the the [11:45] We we've already landed there. We [11:47] actually sent a probe there as part of [11:48] the Cassini mission to land on Titan. I [11:50] mean, it's just badass that, you know, [11:53] that that we humans have been there. I [11:55] mean, that that that that's a that's an [11:56] artist's conception, but that's what it [11:57] would look like. You know, we we sent a [11:58] probe there. You know, it took a bunch [12:00] of readings and then and eventually [12:01] froze to death. [12:03] But uh but but some of them readings [12:04] that it took were intriguing about the [12:07] possibility of life on Titan. [12:09] >> Didn't the Russians land something on [12:11] Venus? [12:12] >> Yeah, well, more than once. Yeah, the [12:13] the the the the the the the Soviet Union [12:14] are the only nation, you know, former [12:16] Soviet Union now, that ever landed on [12:18] Venus. And V- Landing on Venus is way [12:21] hard. [laughter] [12:21] >> They got [clears throat] crazy pictures, [12:23] too. [12:23] >> The surface temperature is about 1,000° [12:26] and the air pressure is similar to being [12:28] about a mile below the ocean. [12:30] >> That's a photo. [12:30] >> Yeah, it's a photo. Yep, that's real. [12:32] And [12:33] >> taken in a 1,000° temperature. [12:35] >> Yes. [12:35] >> [laughter] [12:36] >> Didn't last long. But uh um everything [12:39] is crushed flat. I mean, the the [12:41] landscape is just crushed flat by that, [12:43] you know, huge pressure, uh you know, [12:46] this incredible dense atmosphere. Uh the [12:48] clouds are sulfuric acid. That's why it [12:50] looks yellow. That's real. Uh you know, [12:52] sulfuric acid clouds. I mean, it's like, [12:54] you know, classic vision of hell. [12:56] It it's it's it's it's heavy and deep [12:58] and uh and and dense and uh sulfuric [13:00] acid. [13:01] >> What's so interesting, too, that our [13:03] understanding of planets in terms of [13:06] like just what's in our solar system, [13:07] they're they're all different. They vary [13:09] so much. And this is just all we know [13:11] about the known universe in terms of [13:13] planets. Is it possible that there could [13:15] be some planets out there that are set [13:16] up completely different than the planets [13:18] in our solar system? [13:19] >> Oh, absolutely. Um one of my favorite [13:21] websites, just for fun, I mean, so the [13:24] um it changes every day how many planets [13:26] around other stars we know about. We [13:27] call them exoplanets, exterior planets. [13:30] I think we're up to about 5,000 that we [13:33] know of. [13:34] >> When did we start noticing them? [13:36] >> Um so uh this was [13:37] >> At least detecting. [13:38] >> Yeah, yeah. This is something I've been [13:40] involved with ever since I was in [13:41] college. When when I was in college, my [13:44] my research advisor was a man named [13:45] David Latham, and he was trying to to [13:48] find the first evidence. I mean we [13:49] figured other stars have planets. I mean [13:51] they can't be just us, but but they're [13:53] hard to see. They're tiny, they're dark. [13:56] I mean you mean compared to the star, [13:57] right? I mean planets don't glow [13:59] themselves, right? So they just reflect [14:01] starlight. I mean we we literally said [14:03] it was like trying to see a firefly [14:04] around a searchlight from 200 mi away, [14:06] right? How would you do it? And I mean [14:09] now we're actually getting so good at [14:10] it. We find more every every week, [14:13] almost every day. I mean pretty soon [14:15] it's going to be I I think thousands of [14:16] new planets every single year. [14:19] And and some [14:20] >> actual images? [14:21] >> So for the most part, we don't have [14:23] images, but that doesn't mean we don't [14:25] have really cool [14:26] observations, including the chemistry of [14:28] their atmospheres. This is really [14:30] amazing to me. So they're so tiny, it's [14:32] hard to actually get a pixel. They're [14:34] smaller than a pixel. But when these [14:36] things pass in front of their star, [14:37] right? So there's a star, and they they [14:39] they pass in front of it. So you're [14:41] looking at this thing pass in front of [14:43] the star, it makes a tiny little solar [14:44] eclipse. It goes by, it blocks a little [14:46] bit of the starlight, and we find them [14:47] that way. We find the stars twinkling as [14:50] little planets go around them again and [14:51] again. They have to come back three [14:53] times for us to say it's a planet. [14:55] Otherwise, it could be a spot on the [14:56] star, something else. [14:58] And um [15:00] the the amazing thing is that the [15:02] starlight will shine through the [15:03] atmosphere of that planet, and we can [15:05] actually we can actually probe the [15:06] chemistry of the atmosphere. So we find [15:09] planets that have, you know, they're the [15:10] size of the Earth, about the temperature [15:12] of the Earth, they have evidence of [15:13] water vapor, carbon dioxide, oxygen. [15:17] And then uh last year there was this [15:19] fantastic, controversial discovery. I [15:21] mean it's it's a very real, We need to [15:23] follow it up. Um we think we're starting [15:25] to see the evidence of organic [15:26] molecules. It's It's It's It's not, you [15:28] know, a very strong signal yet. And this [15:31] this this is this was a press release [15:32] from the James Webb Space Telescope. [15:34] And there were some scientists that [15:36] wondered if these could be organic [15:39] molecules that that that might someday [15:41] be traceable even to the presence of [15:42] life. They They They resembled something [15:44] that plankton might might give off on an [15:46] ocean world. [15:48] And then, of course, I the rest of the [15:49] scientists said the the data is not good [15:51] enough yet. We need much better [15:53] observations before you can say that. [15:55] You know, we could maybe believe it's an [15:56] organic carbon-based molecule, but we [15:58] don't know which one it is yet. [15:59] So, you know, I mean, stay tuned. I [16:02] mean, I would never have thought the [16:04] first evidence of life outside the Earth [16:07] like a really hard chemical scientific [16:09] evidence would be on a planet around [16:10] another star. I thought we'd maybe find [16:11] it on Mars or on some of the moons of [16:13] Jupiter and Saturn. [16:15] But now, with the James Webb Space [16:16] Telescope and the telescopes that will [16:17] come afterwards, [16:19] we might be able to actually, you know, [16:21] get get enough of a sense of the [16:22] atmosphere of these planets to start [16:24] looking for life signs. Yeah. [16:26] >> So, the sun, the star, is passing light [16:30] through this little tiny thing that's [16:32] smaller than a pixel. Yeah. And through [16:34] the atmosphere where the light passes [16:36] through, what are we using to detect [16:38] that? [16:38] >> It's a technique called spectroscopy, [16:40] and it's a really, really powerful [16:42] thing. I mean, this is what most [16:43] scientists do. [16:44] As as beautiful as images are of a [16:47] gorgeous galaxy or star, [16:51] that's not really what we do. We We look [16:52] at these little squiggly lines. We get [16:54] very excited. [16:55] We We let the light from the star pass [16:58] through um a grating that that actually [16:59] draws it into a rainbow. You You take [17:01] that white light. You've seen pictures [17:02] of like prism, you know, Dark Side of [17:04] the Moon, Pink Floyd, you know, white [17:06] light goes in, rainbow comes out. If you [17:08] measure really, really carefully how [17:10] much light is coming in every color, [17:13] you can tell astounding things. You You [17:15] can tell how hot the star is, how fast [17:17] it's rotating, uh in some cases how far [17:20] away a galaxy is. That's how we measure [17:22] how far away they are from us in space, [17:24] and you can measure the chemistry [17:26] molecule by molecule. You can tell [17:28] exactly what atoms and molecules are in [17:30] that object. Here we go. Look at that. [17:33] So, what you're amazing person By the [17:36] way, that's incredible. Thank you so [17:38] much. Um [17:39] >> [laughter] [17:40] >> Every every every element, carbon, [17:42] nitrogen, oxygen has a fingerprint in [17:45] the rainbow. And it's like you know it's [17:47] that. There's nothing else like it. You [17:48] know that you see carbon and nitrogen if [17:51] you see these colors of the rainbow [17:52] shining at that particular light. [17:55] And it's not just simple things like [17:56] carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, but it's it's [17:58] water vapor, carbon dioxide, organic [18:01] molecules. Everybody has their [18:02] fingerprint in the rainbow. [18:04] And so when when the starlight shines [18:06] through the atmosphere, there you go. [18:08] That's how we tell what these things are [18:09] made of. You know, this is a dying star. [18:12] This is actually in the Carina Nebula. [18:14] And the most They'll be one of the most [18:16] luminous stars there is. And we we pass [18:18] the light through a rainbow, and then [18:20] looking really really carefully at how [18:21] much light comes at every color, you can [18:23] pick apart exactly what it's made of. [18:25] >> Wow. [18:26] >> Yeah. Did Did you know that you know [18:27] helium You you know the element helium, [18:29] right? You you may be familiar that the [18:31] the Greek the Greek sun god's name is [18:33] Helios. Helium is an element we [18:35] discovered on the sun before we ever [18:37] knew it was here. [18:38] In in the the turn of the last century, [18:40] the late 1800s, when they were passing [18:42] sunlight through a prism, and they were [18:43] looking at all these patterns of light, [18:45] there was one chemical that we'd never [18:47] seen before here. And so they named it [18:48] after the sun, helium. It was on the [18:50] sun, but not here. [18:51] We we we never knew that helium was [18:53] here. That was found later. It was later [18:55] we found it, you know, in like, you [18:56] know, natural gas, you know, radioactive [18:58] decay. Helium is such a light gas, it [19:00] just leaves the earth. It just doesn't [19:02] stick around. And so, you know, helium, [19:04] we saw this this pattern of colors in [19:06] the sun's light, and we were like, "What [19:07] what the hell is that?" And it turned [19:09] out to be a new element we'd never found [19:11] before. [19:11] >> What year was that? [19:12] >> We We should look this up. I don't know [19:14] exactly, but if we Google what year was [19:16] helium found, um yeah, I'm sure we can [19:18] find [laughter] it. [19:19] >> Well, I mean, I've been thinking about [19:20] helium balloons and people who, you [19:22] know, suck helium [19:23] >> Yeah, that's right. That's right. That's [19:25] We didn't even know about helium until [19:27] 1868. There we go. [19:29] >> That's nuts. So, they figured out that [19:32] there was helium on the sun in 1868. [19:35] >> Long before we ever identified it on [19:37] this planet. [19:39] >> That is so nuts. [19:41] >> Yeah. Just think what's out there. We [19:43] didn't even know about helium. [19:44] >> It's not just that it's what's out [19:46] there, but that there's people out there [19:47] that can figure out how to do that in [19:49] 1868. [19:51] Shout out to Pierre Janssen, [19:54] uh [19:55] a French astronomer who figured it out. [19:58] >> When When you When you think about, you [19:59] know, I know that one thing you you you [20:01] love is the idea of you know, Einstein [20:03] and time being different and and all [20:05] that. [20:06] You know, they they figured all of this [20:07] out around like like 1908. It was more [20:09] than 100 years ago. [20:11] And, you know, we don't really even have [20:13] a better thing yet. You know, I mean, [20:15] they they they figured out that time [20:16] isn't the way that we experience it just [20:19] by really simple [20:22] brilliant thought processes, [20:23] observations 100 and some years ago, 100 [20:26] and a little more than 120 years ago. [20:28] Yeah, incredible. [20:30] >> The idea that the faster you go, the [20:32] slower time is is so hard to wrap one's [20:36] head around. [20:37] And one of the things that I heard you [20:38] talking about, you were talking about [20:40] GPS satellites, [20:41] and you were saying that GPS satellites [20:43] because they're going about What are [20:44] they going like 20,000 mi an hour, [20:45] something like that? [20:46] >> So, actually, if we want to break this [20:48] down a little bit, there there are a [20:50] couple different effects about time. And [20:52] and one of the things that that, you [20:53] know, NASA does is we you know, [20:55] calibrates the GPS satellites and the [20:57] signal coming. And And you wouldn't I [20:59] mean, I think I heard that I mean, we we [21:01] within a day, if we didn't take into [21:04] account the time difference these things [21:05] are in, that we we we'd be about 6 mi [21:07] off. I mean, in a in a single day. [21:09] >> That's crazy. [21:10] >> Oh, yeah. It's it's a big deal. [21:11] >> That's so crazy. [21:13] >> Yeah. [21:14] >> That's so crazy, and that's just above [21:17] us. [21:17] >> Ti- time really is something. I mean, [21:19] this this is not a theory. Ti- time is [21:22] is is variable depending on how fast [21:24] you're going, and also how far off the [21:25] Earth's surface you are. Or how I should [21:27] say how far away from a a big gravity [21:29] body you are. [21:30] In the case of the GPS satellites, [21:31] there's there's there's two things going [21:33] on. And it it's it's it's kind of fun [21:35] because it's actually the reverse for [21:36] the astronauts. So, let's want to want [21:38] to break this down? This is really fun. [21:40] Okay. [21:42] We have clocks that are so accurate that [21:44] if you move about 2 ft above where you [21:47] know, two if we had a clock on this [21:48] desk, and then if we moved it up about 2 [21:50] ft, we could actually detect time [21:53] flowing differently because you're just [21:55] that far away from the Earth's gravity. [21:57] Just 2 ft. [21:59] Your head and the and your feet, we [22:01] spend most of our lives say standing up, [22:03] are actually going through time at [22:05] slightly different rates. The The [22:07] farther away you are from a [22:08] gravitational source, I mean, you you [22:10] probably like the movies like [22:11] Interstellar, right? With with you know, [22:12] Matthew McConaughey. [22:13] Remember the big black hole? [22:15] >> Mhm. [22:15] >> And the closer they get to the big black [22:16] hole, the slower time goes. That's not a [22:19] theory. That's something we can actually [22:20] measure with clocks. And a black hole [22:23] has so much gravity, it does it a lot [22:24] more dramatically, but it's happening [22:26] right in this room. [22:27] Seriously, your head is in a different [22:29] time frame than your feet right now. [22:31] >> That's nuts. [22:31] >> Yeah. And you And I mean, it's [22:33] measurable. [22:34] You you you need extremely accurate [22:36] clocks. [22:37] But in the case of the GPS satellites, [22:40] the GPS satellites are in what we call [22:41] them a medium orbit. They're not as far [22:43] away as the geostationary satellites, [22:45] but they're they're not actually going [22:46] that fast. They're only going about [22:48] 9,000 mph around the Earth. [22:51] The The astronauts in the space station, [22:52] by the way, are going much faster. [22:54] They're they're they're going more like [22:55] let's say approximately 20,000 mph. So, [22:57] the GPS satellites are going a little [22:58] slower. [22:59] And And yeah, okay, 8,000 mph is is a a [23:02] lot and that does slow your time down. [23:04] But the bigger effect for GPS satellites [23:06] is how far away from the Earth they are. [23:09] >> Wow. [23:09] >> We're actually going slower in time than [23:11] they are because we're closer to the [23:13] Earth's gravity. [23:14] And they're so far away, they're [23:15] actually going a little faster than we [23:17] are in time. [23:18] Now they're they're also slowed down by [23:21] their fast velocity. The [23:23] faster you go, the slower your time [23:24] goes. [23:25] But people don't realize there's another [23:27] factor and that's how far away you are [23:28] from gravity. [23:30] For the astronauts, the astronauts are [23:31] closer to the Earth, right? So they're [23:33] actually not so far away as the [23:34] satellites and they're going much [23:35] faster. So for the astronauts, it's the [23:37] it's the motion, it's the time dilation [23:39] from the motion that's a bigger effect. [23:41] Uh if you are on the space station for a [23:43] year, you come back about 1/100 of a [23:45] second younger than you should be. [23:47] >> [laughter] [23:47] >> And uh you know, obviously that's not a [23:49] big deal, but it's easily measurable. [23:51] >> Wow. [23:52] >> And in the case of the satellites, you [23:53] wouldn't get the right location, the [23:55] data wouldn't be right unless we take [23:56] into account two things, how fast [23:58] they're going [24:00] closer to the speed of light you go, the [24:01] slower time goes, but also how far away [24:03] from the gravitational pull of the Earth [24:05] they are. The [24:06] closer you are into gravity, the slower [24:08] time goes. [24:09] >> I think the weirdest thing that I've [24:10] ever heard anybody say is that all time [24:12] exists currently. [24:15] >> That's Einstein. I mean, that goes back [24:17] that goes back 120 years. [24:19] >> That's such a bizarre thought. [24:21] >> We don't know if it's true, but but it's [24:24] I mean, Einstein really thought there [24:25] wasn't much of a way around it because [24:27] he said, "Okay, well, if everything is [24:29] going a different velocity as compared [24:31] to everything else, right? I mean, it's [24:33] a great question a kid can ask. How fast [24:35] am I going through space?" [24:37] You know, and the Earth, you know, if [24:39] you're on the equator of the Earth, that [24:40] goes around at about uh [24:42] you know, about about 1,000 miles an [24:44] hour, you know, and then, you know, we [24:46] go we go around the Sun at about 67,000 [24:48] miles an hour in our orbit. The Sun's [24:50] going around the galaxy about half a [24:52] million miles an hour around the galaxy. [24:54] The galaxy is going towards a galactic [24:56] cluster at more than a million miles an [24:58] hour. [25:00] But, you know, how fast are we going [25:02] really? And [25:04] the only thing you can measure is how [25:05] fast are you going relative to something [25:07] else. There's no answer. [25:10] You know, how fast am I going? Well, I [25:11] mean, am I still or am I actually [25:13] traveling close to speed of light right [25:14] now? I don't know. [25:16] So, I So, Einstein said the only way he [25:17] could really think about how that would [25:18] work is if the universe was just one big [25:22] thing. You know, all of time and space [25:24] exists in a big whole thing. There's [25:27] only one now. [25:29] Einstein famously said [25:31] the past, present, and future are, you [25:32] know, persistently annoying illusions. [25:36] Now, again, do we know this to be true? [25:40] At the moment, we don't have any better [25:41] physics. And then I doubt the physics [25:43] will get any less weird than that. [25:46] But, [25:47] yeah, I mean I mean, that's sort of the [25:49] way modern physics thinks the universe [25:50] may be is is a a big whole thing that [25:54] started from beginning to end and is all [25:56] now-ish. [25:58] >> But, if that's the case, [26:00] so subjectively we can measure [26:03] things. We can measure time. [26:06] But, but [26:07] what are we measuring? [26:10] If it's I mean, are are we making [26:12] [clears throat] artificial time [26:13] constraints? Are we are we doing it [26:15] ourselves? When we When we create a [26:17] clock, we create a watch. [26:19] >> Mhm. [26:19] >> And the watch is, you know, 24 hours a [26:21] day, it's running. [26:23] What is it What is it measuring? [26:26] Right? [26:26] >> That is exactly the question Albert [26:29] Einstein asked. That That is That is a [26:31] deep, excellent question. [26:34] And And so, that was the problem. I [26:36] mean, in in a famous thought experiment, [26:37] Einstein made a clock by setting up two [26:39] mirrors and having light bounce between [26:41] the two mirrors. And that was the tick [26:42] of the clock. Tick tick tick tick tick. [26:46] And And the problem was that, you know, [26:47] that's how he started thinking about the [26:48] speed of light is that if you had this [26:50] thing in a spaceship that was going a [26:51] huge fraction of the speed of light, [26:53] then a person standing watching it go by [26:55] would actually watch the light kind of [26:57] trace out a pattern like this. Cuz you [26:59] It's It's It's actually ticking between [27:00] the mirrors, but the mirrors are moving [27:01] along. And so, you see the light make [27:03] this sort of bouncing movement. [27:05] And that means it's actually traveled [27:06] farther [27:08] than the person on the ground who thinks [27:09] that the mirrors are just sort of [27:11] the light is making just a a straight up [27:12] and down line from mirror to mirror. [27:14] That That question that you asked is [27:16] what completely [27:18] I mean, it completely revolutionized [27:20] physics. Everything fell apart. When [27:22] people said, "How do you even measure [27:24] time? What does it mean to make a clock? [27:27] What are we measuring?" [27:29] >> I still don't understand what we're [27:30] measuring. [27:30] >> Oh, lord. [27:31] >> [laughter] [27:32] >> Yeah. [27:32] >> I I get it. I mean, we [27:34] >> I I don't know if I have an answer for [27:36] you. I don't think anybody does. But But [27:37] But here's the deal. So, the the clock [27:40] in Einstein's experiment [27:43] So, the the the the clock has, you know, [27:45] two mirrors and there's light bouncing [27:46] between it. And then then that's the [27:47] distance that it travels in one tick. [27:49] >> Right. [27:51] >> But now you put this mirror You put that [27:52] clock on a spaceship. And the [27:54] spaceship's going really fast. And as it [27:56] goes by, you see that that that clock as [27:58] as it streams by you really fast, you [28:00] see the light make this motion. [28:02] And And this line is actually longer [28:05] than that line. [28:06] This This line, if you measure it, that [28:08] that's actually a longer line that I [28:09] drew than the the original one between [28:11] just the two mirrors cuz now it's at an [28:13] angle. [28:14] And this is what made Einstein say, [28:17] "Time has to change. If anything moves, [28:20] the tick of a clock changes. What How [28:22] ever you measure time, whatever time is, [28:24] whether you measure it with a bouncing [28:26] clock or whether you measure it with a [28:27] vibrating atom like we do in the Bureau [28:29] of Standards, or whether you measure it [28:31] with a spring that's slowly unwinding in [28:33] a wristwatch, [28:36] anything you can do to measure one [28:38] moment to the next changes when motion [28:40] is involved. There's no way to get [28:42] around it. It's not just the [28:44] measurement. [28:46] It's time itself is changing. Any way we [28:48] have to measure this thing we call time. [28:51] And I have to tell you Joe, I I don't [28:54] think we have an answer to what time is. [28:56] What are we measuring? [29:00] I think I think right there. I think [29:02] you're asking for the next revolution in [29:04] physics that we don't have yet. I really [29:06] mean that. [29:07] >> So when we're measuring time currently, [29:09] like when I look down at my watch, I'm [29:11] measuring time in this particular space. [29:15] Like where I am, what altitude I'm at, [29:19] how fast I'm moving. [29:21] And the watch just does a reasonable job [29:23] of calculating all that. [29:25] >> And that's and that's you. I mean that's [29:26] what you see here sitting still with [29:28] your watch looking at it. If someone's [29:30] flying by at close to the speed of [29:31] light, they won't see you measure time [29:34] the same way. Yeah. [29:35] >> Well, you said something else too that [29:36] freaked me out. That [29:38] >> [laughter] [29:39] >> that if you traveled at the speed of [29:41] light, the the problem would be you [29:43] would have infinite mass. [29:46] >> Well, anything with mass, yeah. Yeah, [29:48] that's the thing. [29:48] >> So if a person was in a spaceship and it [29:51] traveled the speed of light, that [29:52] spaceship would have infinite mass. [29:55] >> It's basically it it's what makes [29:57] accelerating up to the speed of light [29:58] impossible. That anything with mass [30:01] can't travel at the speed of light. I [30:03] mean the the equations blow up. But what [30:04] is infinite mass mean? Do you have more [30:06] mass than the whole universe? What the [30:07] hell is that? [30:08] It as you approach the speed of light if [30:10] you have mass, it takes more and more [30:12] energy to accelerate you even just a [30:14] little bit more. So you never get to the [30:16] speed of light. You know, your speed [30:18] you're you're going 99.9% the speed of [30:20] light. Okay, I want to go a little [30:21] faster. It it takes more and more energy [30:23] each little tiny step you make. It's a [30:25] it's it basically you never get to the [30:27] speed of light. It it takes an infinite [30:29] amount of energy. [30:30] So, you know, when it comes to things [30:32] like interstellar travel, [30:34] I I I I don't think we're ever going to [30:35] take a spaceship and accelerate it to [30:38] the speed of light. [30:39] I I I mean I we might get very close. [30:41] There are particles in space that do [30:43] have mass like neutrinos, tiny little [30:45] bits of mass. They travel very close to [30:46] the speed of light, but they don't [30:47] travel at the speed of light. [30:50] But to me, you know, I think that [30:53] the the the idea of traveling [30:55] interstellar distances or even [30:57] intergalactic distances, you know, the [30:58] thing that starts to really get me is [30:59] the question of this this what is space [31:01] and what is time at all, quantum [31:03] entanglement. [31:04] >> Right, glad you brought that up. [31:05] >> Oh, yeah. [31:07] I I [31:08] >> [laughter] [31:09] >> I'm going to say I I hope your listeners [31:11] I I I I don't want to get I don't want [31:12] to get I want people to come along with [31:14] us. [31:14] >> Oh, they're coming along, don't they? [31:15] >> Yeah, I I don't I don't I don't want to [31:16] say things that sound so stupid. They're [31:18] like, you know, why are they saying [31:19] this? So So please stop me if you need [31:20] some more background. [31:21] >> This does not sound stupid in any way, [31:22] shape, or form. [31:24] But the idea of quantum entanglement, we [31:26] should explain that to people. [31:28] >> Yeah. [31:28] >> And what it essentially means is that [31:30] things are entangled, they're connected [31:33] at regardless of the distance. [31:35] >> Yes. [31:35] >> And it could be an [31:37] immeasurable amount of distance, like [31:38] literally [31:38] >> Any distance. [31:39] >> Like [31:40] Yeah, literally the beginning of the [31:42] universe distance, like 13.8 billion [31:45] light years away distance. [31:48] You're entangled with that. [31:49] >> It's amazing cuz once again, let's go [31:52] back to the idea that that this this is [31:54] a real experimental fact, right? I mean, [31:57] a lot of times this is this crazy stuff [31:59] that, you know, it scientists will will [32:01] will say this stuff and then people hear [32:02] it, you know, for the first time and [32:03] they they say, "Well, that that sounds [32:04] like idiotic. That sounds stupid. Why [32:06] Where did they get that from?" [32:08] And [32:09] the the idea that time changes is now [32:13] it's one of the most commonly proven [32:15] facts every day. Like I said, we need it [32:17] to calibrate the GPS satellites, it's [32:19] easy to measure. [32:21] Quantum entanglement was something that [32:23] that even Albert Einstein, 100 years [32:25] ago, um he understood that quantum [32:27] mechanics was pointing that way, but he [32:29] really didn't like it. He called it He [32:31] called it spooky action at a distance. [32:32] He hated it. [32:34] Because he realized that quantum [32:35] mechanic mechanics had this implication [32:38] that that if things could somehow be [32:39] connected quantum mechanically, you [32:41] could take them any distance away from [32:42] each other and they would somehow be [32:44] able to respond to each other [32:46] instantaneously with with no time [32:48] difference. [32:49] And you know, he didn't think that would [32:51] ever actually happen and then back in [32:52] the in the in the mid-1990s, we started [32:54] to do experiments with atoms [32:56] and we found out that it was real. [32:58] That [33:00] it it can start off pretty simply. The [33:02] you have two atoms that are in an orbit [33:04] around and you know, so you an atom has [33:06] a nucleus of protons and electrons in [33:08] the middle. I'm sorry. [33:10] >> [laughter] [33:11] >> An atom has a nucleus of protons and [33:12] neutrons. The electrons are flying [33:14] around in orbits around the the atom. [33:17] Um two electrons can be in the same [33:19] orbit only if they're spinning in [33:21] different directions. They they have an [33:22] an angular momentum, it's called spin. [33:25] And the only way these two electrons can [33:26] fit in that orbit together is if they're [33:28] spinning one is spinning in an upward [33:29] direction, one say spinning in in a [33:31] downward direction. Hate the broken [33:32] finger. [33:34] Um [33:35] So if if you take these electrons out of [33:37] the atom and you can do that, [33:39] you know that they're in different spins [33:40] because they had to be to be in that [33:42] that orbit together. So now you separate [33:44] them. You can separate them by any [33:45] distance you want. Can separate them by [33:48] centimeters in a laboratory. The Chinese [33:50] have done this up to the space station [33:51] that they run in back. You could [33:53] conceivably do it to another galaxy. [33:56] If you take those electrons and you [33:57] separate them, you know that they were [33:59] spinning in opposite directions. So if [34:01] you take an electric field and you [34:02] change the spin of one, [34:04] the other one immediately changes in [34:06] response. [34:07] >> Regardless of the distance. [34:08] >> Regardless of the distance. And we know [34:10] this to be true. We've done this. [34:12] And [34:14] the amazing thing is the universe is [34:16] saying, [34:17] "These two things are the same quantum [34:19] mechanical system. They're basically the [34:21] same object. They're connected to each [34:23] other. They're entangled together." [34:25] And it doesn't matter. Space and time [34:28] don't matter. You can You separate them [34:30] in space [34:31] any distance you want. [34:33] How does that work? The universe says [34:35] the space and time between them doesn't [34:37] matter. They're the same system. [34:41] To me, that's the real intriguing thing [34:43] about, you know, could a civilization [34:44] learn how to harness that? [34:47] You know, you're not really even having [34:49] to worry about traveling from one part [34:50] to another. Have you Did you watch the [34:52] uh the three-body problem show? Yeah. So [34:55] so you have these things called sophons, [34:56] right? And sophons are entangled to this [34:59] alien civilization. [35:00] And they can respond instantaneously [35:02] because they're entangled. Yes. I mean I [35:05] mean that's fantastic science. And as [35:07] far as I can tell, [35:08] that that could be theoretically [35:10] possible. Yeah. [35:11] >> Well, that's what's bonkers is that we [35:14] are made out of all this stuff that's [35:16] entangled. [35:17] >> What's it entangled to? Is it entangled [35:18] to stuff inside a black hole right now? [35:20] Is it entangled to stuff that is on the [35:22] other side of the universe from us? If [35:24] the Big Bang had all of this stuff in a [35:26] small volume at once, are we entangled [35:28] to everything? In some way? [35:33] Seriously? [35:34] >> Seriously. [35:34] >> I mean I mean are Is a part of me [35:36] quantum mechanically right now in the [35:38] Andromeda galaxy? Yeah, actually. That [35:41] would be the implication. [35:43] I mean, talk about [35:45] I don't think we understand yet what [35:47] reality is. I really don't. [35:50] What does it mean? Are we all somehow [35:53] the same particle entangled to each [35:55] other? [35:56] You know, are we connected to [35:57] everything? [35:59] All at once? [36:00] Uh [36:01] I mean that could be where physics is [36:03] taking us now. [36:05] >> That's bananas. It's very difficult to [36:08] think about when you're you think you're [36:10] a person in Austin, my feet are on the [36:12] ground. [36:13] >> Yeah. [36:13] >> Here I am touching this desk. I'm going [36:15] to get my car later and go get something [36:17] to eat. [36:18] >> You got to feed the cat, right? [36:19] >> Yeah. But it that's not really what's [36:20] going on. It's [36:22] It's way more complex, way bigger. And [36:24] you were speculating that that could be [36:27] how some advanced super advanced [36:30] intelligent life form travels. [36:33] >> It's always been more compelling to me [36:35] than the idea of taking a spaceship and [36:37] traveling somewhere. [36:38] >> super crude. [36:39] >> Yeah. [36:40] >> That that seems like the idea of making [36:42] a horse fly. [36:43] >> Yeah. Yeah, I I you know, we we we [36:46] talked about that movie Interstellar [36:47] because there were a lot of good [36:49] teaching moments in that movie for for a [36:50] physicist. You know, the idea that time [36:52] really does slow down close to a black [36:54] hole. And again, we we observe this. [36:56] When we observe things orbiting close to [36:57] a black hole, you can tell if that [36:59] happens. [37:00] And the idea that this advanced [37:02] civilization that we never actually see [37:04] in the movie somehow communicates [37:05] through [37:06] basically space and time itself through [37:08] gravity. [37:09] Um you know, that's how Matthew [37:11] McConaughey is able to even like go [37:12] back, you know, in time and space to [37:14] help his daughter solve, you know, [37:16] gravity and all that. [37:18] You know, I was like you know, I was [37:19] like I I wonder if that's really more [37:20] what it would be like. You know, [37:22] advanced civilizations [37:24] I mean, you got to think, right? I mean, [37:26] you look around the Earth and there are, [37:28] you know, things like grasshoppers and [37:29] hamsters that are fantastic incredibly [37:31] complex beings. But I mean, you you try [37:33] to teach them quantum mechanics or ask [37:35] them to, you know, crochet a blanket or [37:37] whatever, they they don't have the [37:38] capacity. [37:39] And you you got to think that there is [37:41] the similar jump where I mean, we don't [37:43] even know the right questions to ask [37:45] that sort of a civilization. [37:47] You know, I mean, can they see the [37:49] universe as a whole thing? Do they know [37:51] that they're connected to everything and [37:53] can they somehow use that to travel? [37:56] >> Yeah. Maybe. [37:57] >> Maybe. And if you just extrapolate, if [37:59] you just think about where we've gone [38:02] from primitive man to what we're [38:04] currently experiencing, and you take [38:06] that thousands of years, millions of [38:09] years, whatever it is. [38:10] >> Yeah. [38:10] >> You you keep going. And as long as [38:13] civilization [38:15] gets rid of war and figures out a way to [38:17] not die of disease and natural disaster, [38:19] you could potentially continue this [38:22] process of technological innovation for [38:25] millions of years and you would imagine [38:26] that it would go exponentially [38:29] greater and greater in its ability to do [38:31] things. In its ability to [38:34] not just [38:37] not even things that we can imagine. [38:40] Like we have a crude understanding [38:43] amazing understanding of the universe [38:45] but crude in comparison [38:49] to what's potentially out there. What we [38:51] could [38:51] we could potentially be observing [38:55] in a physical way every planet on every [38:58] star one day. [39:01] But we're not we can't even think of [39:03] that as being a possibility now. [39:06] But but what we're doing right now is [39:08] insane to people who lived in the 1400s. [39:10] >> Yeah. [39:12] >> If you showed someone from the 1400s a [39:14] nuclear power plant they'd be like what [39:16] the are you guys doing? Like what [39:18] is this? [39:19] If you showed them a nuclear detonator [39:21] if you showed them FaceTime on a phone [39:23] they'd be like this is insanity. [39:24] >> I just got in a little metal tube and [39:26] came here from Milwaukee and I'll fly [39:27] back tonight. Yeah. [39:28] >> That's yeah absolutely. [39:29] >> And we're just accustomed to it. [39:32] It becomes normal and it would become [39:33] normal as technology increased further [39:36] and further and further and this idea [39:38] that the entire universe would be [39:40] accessible [39:42] is just bananas. [39:44] >> Have you ever wondered if maybe the [39:46] [clears throat] real follow-on to [39:47] humanity someday will be some form of [39:49] AI? [39:50] >> I think so. [39:51] >> I mean yeah. I I mean I do wonder if the [39:53] human brain is just kind of limited. I [39:55] mean if you if you say there are [39:56] multiple dimensions and time is [39:57] something that changes I mean I just [40:00] said that you know I mean scientists are [40:02] no better than anybody else at [40:04] comprehending a big number or a big [40:05] amount of space. We just kind of get [40:07] used to it. [40:08] You know I mean I mean will we have a [40:09] creature someday that we've created an [40:12] AI that then all of a sudden can [40:14] comprehend these things. You know is is [40:17] is that really the real evolutionary [40:18] path of humanity? [40:20] >> Yeah, I think so. I think it's just a [40:22] completely different kind of life and [40:24] that we're thinking of it as artificial. [40:27] I don't think it's artificial at all. I [40:29] think it's a life. It's a just a [40:31] different kind of life that we're [40:32] creating. [40:32] >> It's I mean I mean seriously, it's our [40:34] children. We we created this. [40:36] >> Yeah. [40:37] I always describe ourselves as like [40:39] we're an electronic caterpillar and [40:41] we're making a cocoon. We don't even [40:42] know why we're doing it cuz it's just [40:44] what we do. [40:45] I mean the thing about human beings is [40:47] we've always been completely fascinated [40:50] with innovation. I've always said that [40:51] if you looked at us objectively or for [40:53] some like what does this species do? Oh, [40:55] they make better things. They keep [40:57] making better things. They're never [40:58] satisfied with the things. Bees made the [41:00] beehive and like, I think we got it, [41:02] boys. [41:02] >> [laughter] [41:02] >> This is it. [41:04] We're not satisfied at all. And so if [41:06] you just kept going with that, like [41:08] where does it go? Well, it has to go to [41:09] life. It has to go to some sort of [41:12] a human created new kind of life form [41:16] that exists out of the components of the [41:17] earth, but instead of being born out of [41:21] evolution and out of, you know, natural [41:23] mutation and natural selection, it's a [41:25] random mutation. It's made out of us. We [41:28] made it and it'll probably make better [41:31] versions of it and that would be the new [41:33] life. And that's how you get over all [41:35] the biological hurdles that we have. You [41:37] think about like the things that trouble [41:39] us, war and crime and violence and all [41:41] these different things that are real [41:43] problem with the human race. Well, that [41:44] all goes away when you stop being human. [41:48] And if we really are entangled with [41:50] everything, we that will be us. [41:54] It'll just be us in a completely [41:55] different realm. [41:57] >> Yeah. I I I mean I I do like this idea [41:59] that what we call AIs now isn't [42:01] something separate. I mean they are [42:03] children. It is an earthling. It is [42:04] something we've created. [42:07] The the question I've I've often [42:08] wondered is, you know, sometimes [42:11] I I think sometimes we lack imagination [42:13] about what might be possible. I've [42:14] always enjoyed science fiction [42:17] where the AIs also learn about about [42:20] love or about the arts or about [42:22] creativity. I mean whether you want to [42:24] go with like the new Battlestar [42:25] Galactica or whether you want to go with [42:28] a pretty profound experience I had with [42:30] a friend of mine who's an author who has [42:32] cochlear implants. [42:33] And you know, he realizes that he [42:35] doesn't hear like a human. You know, he [42:37] he he mean the cochlear implants don't [42:39] replicate perfectly what it means to [42:41] hear the way our ears do. They bypass [42:44] our ears. They they wire directly into [42:46] his brain and stimulate the experience [42:48] of sound. [42:50] And so he's hearing in his words like a [42:52] cyborg. This is a Michael Chorost, a [42:55] wonderful man that did some essays about [42:56] this. [42:57] And and he's he talked about how much [43:00] emotional response he has to music now, [43:02] something he could never experience. How [43:04] being a cyborg, quote unquote, you know, [43:07] and experiencing something in a [43:08] non-human way has added [43:11] joy and depth and and passion. [43:15] You know, are we are we so sure that [43:17] technology makes us more and more, you [43:20] know, kind of 1950s robot-like? Or could [43:22] it take us into new experiences of being [43:24] connected with each other? You know, new [43:26] ways of loving each other? [43:28] New ways of understanding things? I mean [43:30] does it have to be all bad this? [43:32] >> Well, all of our differences fall apart [43:34] if we realize we're all one thing. [43:35] >> Yeah. [43:36] >> If we realize we're all one thing, then [43:39] all of our [43:41] monopoly of resources, all that stuff [43:43] all that stuff goes away if we realize [43:45] we're all one thing. I mean part of the [43:46] problem with human beings is we're very [43:47] selfish. [43:49] And the reason why we're very selfish is [43:51] because that's how you had to survive. [43:52] If you wanted your genes to [43:54] If you wanted to survive and you wanted [43:56] your genes to be passed on to the next [43:58] generation, you had to be selfish [43:59] because other people were being selfish, [44:00] too, and that's the game that humans [44:02] were playing. If we get to a point of [44:04] universal telepathy, [44:07] like universal telepathy with a [44:08] universal language where all human [44:10] beings are sharing thoughts. There are [44:12] no secrets. We are all one thing. [44:14] Everyone's terrified of that. People [44:15] love secrets. Love I don't want people [44:18] listening to my phone. I don't want [44:19] people Well, I don't I don't either. [44:21] Because it would be people doing that [44:23] and those people have their own ulterior [44:24] motives and it's gross that they would [44:26] have control of they know your emails. [44:28] But what if there's no secrets? It's not [44:32] possible because our understanding of [44:34] each other is now complete. [44:36] >> Mhm. [44:37] >> It's like we read each other's minds in [44:40] a sense, but it's much more complex than [44:41] that and and much more [44:44] much more in depth. Like you feel what [44:47] that person feels. You are that person [44:49] and we're all one thing. [44:52] That that could be possible through [44:54] technology. And this is this is where I [44:56] have hope where a lot of people are like [44:59] very fatalist with AI and you know, they [45:01] look at it in this dystopian sense of [45:03] these oligarchs is technical oligarch [45:05] technology oligarchs going to be [45:07] controlling us through the AI and [45:09] they're going to have access to it and [45:10] power. [45:11] I don't know if anybody's going to [45:12] control it and I have a feeling it's [45:15] going to be kind of like the internet in [45:16] a way where I don't think they really [45:18] thought what the internet was going to [45:19] be. I think they had this understanding [45:21] of being able to exchange information [45:23] through universities and [45:25] I think it got to a point where it if [45:28] they knew what the internet would be [45:30] today and how little control they would [45:32] have over the population and narratives [45:34] and I think they probably would have [45:34] shut it down a long time ago. [45:36] >> [snorts] [45:36] >> I have a feeling that's going to be the [45:37] same way with AI. [45:40] And especially AI as it integrates with [45:44] us, which I think is the only way that [45:46] the human species really truly survives. [45:49] Otherwise, we're just this archaic [45:51] biological entity living in this [45:54] new world of this ultra superior life [45:57] form. But if we integrate with that [46:00] thing [46:01] Through wearables, implants, [46:04] engineering, if we figure out a way [46:08] and this is going to sound terrible to [46:10] anybody who loves being a person, but [46:12] all the flaws of being a primate. [46:15] There's a lot of these biological reward [46:17] systems that are built into us that are [46:19] really problematic for progress. [46:21] I mean, the reason why we are at war [46:23] right now? Well, because there's people [46:24] with certain ideologies and there's [46:26] resources and there's people that are [46:29] making money from their military [46:30] contractors and there's politicians that [46:32] are beholden to certain interests and [46:34] then what are we doing? We're doing the [46:35] same stupid that we've been doing [46:37] for thousands and thousands of years. [46:38] Well, how do we get past that? We get [46:39] past that by stopping people. [46:42] >> I think you may be right. I mean, again, [46:44] that that's the future is it is [46:46] frightening in some ways, but I'm I'm [46:48] more interested in the imagination. I [46:50] mean, instead of just the dystopia, what [46:52] could this mean? [46:53] >> Right. [46:54] >> You know, I mean, I mean, how much more [46:56] like we said, I mean, when we were [46:57] little tribal groups, you know, the [46:59] little wars we had, the skirmishes [47:01] didn't really hurt the planet as a [47:02] whole. I mean, now we're getting there's [47:04] so many people and we're still having [47:06] these little tribal skirmishes and and [47:07] now we're in danger of of, you know, [47:09] massive destruction. [47:11] I mean, we can't just keep going this [47:12] way. I mean, it's it's it's not it's not [47:14] survivable. [47:15] >> It's not. [47:16] >> So, I mean, you could AI help us you [47:18] know, tap into some kind of group [47:20] consciousness. I mean, when we were [47:22] talking about Einstein's idea that the [47:24] universe may all be this one big thing. [47:26] You know, and this is pure metaphysics, [47:28] pure conjecture. [47:29] But, you know, even for when I was a [47:30] little kid and I heard that, I wondered [47:32] well, you know, if all time and space [47:33] happens at once, [47:35] is there need for more than one [47:36] consciousness even? Are we all Are we [47:38] all just looking out of, you know, one [47:39] consciousness looking out of out of [47:41] everybody's eyes simultaneously and not [47:43] just humans, but everything in the [47:45] universe? [47:46] You know, it's it's a spectacular idea [47:49] that, you know, if there is a moment, if [47:51] the universe is just one big thing, [47:54] you know, we are part now, even now, of [47:58] beings we have no names for. You know, [48:00] the super advanced beings that have [48:02] figured all of this out and can span the [48:05] universe with their consciousness. [48:07] You know, that's part of the eyes, too. [48:09] That's another part of this [48:10] consciousness that we're part of right [48:11] now. If if if there's one instant, [48:15] you know, it it reminds me of some of [48:16] the tenets of, you know, of Buddhism. [48:18] There there might be these perfectly [48:20] enlightened beings, bodhisattvas, and we [48:21] are past lives of them. We're all [48:23] existing at once. [48:25] You know, it's a it's a fantastically [48:27] beautiful idea. [48:28] >> It is a beautiful idea. And our survival [48:31] instincts are [48:33] attuned to maintaining what we are. [48:36] There there's this thing, well, I don't [48:37] want to lose being a person. But I [48:39] guarantee you if you went to an [48:40] Australopithecus [48:42] and you could somehow communicate to [48:44] them, "Listen, you're going to change, [48:46] and you're going to be this thing that [48:47] gets sick 6 times a year, and maybe [48:50] you're obese, and maybe you have a [48:51] problem with cigarettes, and you know, [48:53] maybe you drink too much, and you like [48:54] to gamble, and you're going to your [48:56] life up here and there, but you're going [48:58] to have a cell phone, and you're going [48:59] to live in a city, and you're going to [49:01] be breathing brake dust every day, and [49:03] you you know, your doctor's going to [49:04] give you a bunch of stuff you don't [49:05] really need because he's trying to make [49:06] money." [49:08] The Australopithecus would probably [49:09] like, "Fuck that." [49:11] >> [laughter] [49:12] >> I know what I'm doing here. [49:14] >> It sounds much better now. [49:15] >> Yeah, I I know where the food is. Like, [49:17] get out of here. I don't want any part [49:18] of that. And I think [49:20] that's just part of survival instincts. [49:23] Survival instincts don't want you to [49:25] radically change into something [49:26] completely different with its own new [49:27] set of problems. [49:28] >> Mhm. [49:29] >> The you you want to stay. You want to [49:31] maintain. You know, country boy can't [49:33] survive. Keep me in the woods. You know [49:34] what I mean? Like, that's People have [49:36] this like natural inclination to keep [49:38] things simple cuz they understand them. [49:40] But I think that's not possible anymore. [49:43] And I think we're going to just have to [49:45] let it go. Just let that idea go and [49:48] relax and uh accept whatever this new [49:51] thing is. [49:52] And I think we're very, very fortunate [49:55] to be born at this time while we're [49:56] experiencing it. Is regardless of the [49:59] outcome. This is a very unique time. [50:02] Like one of the weirdest times, I think, [50:04] objectively in human history. [50:07] And we're very fortunate to be [50:08] experiencing it. [50:09] >> I mean, you and I are are roughly the [50:10] same age and, you know, I I I think that [50:12] I mean, for for me, having this what [50:14] they now kind of, you know, call the [50:15] feral childhood, right? Where I was [50:17] unplugged. And and there were, you know, [50:19] there were there were vast stretches of [50:20] time even as a small child where I was [50:22] on my own, you know, in the neighborhood [50:23] stuff. And and I loved it. I mean, I [50:25] remember going to, you know, a YMCA camp [50:28] when I was 11 years old. And, you know, [50:30] everybody had to show up at breakfast [50:31] and then there was an activity time and [50:32] everybody had to show up at lunch. But [50:33] what you did between that time, you were [50:35] on your own. I mean, as an 11-year-old [50:37] kid, you know, in the woods. There were [50:38] activities, you could do some archery, [50:40] there was a riflery, there was craft [50:42] shop, there was swimming, and you had to [50:43] check in at certain times. But sometimes [50:45] I just went and sat in the woods. [50:47] You know, 11 years old. I mean, can you [50:49] imagine? [50:49] >> I had a similar experience in the Boy [50:51] Scouts. [50:51] >> Yeah, yeah. And, you know, the thing [50:53] was, you know, so so you and I had this [50:55] experience of living unplugged. [50:57] And and sort of the the idea of of of of [51:00] a quiet mind and imagination. [51:03] And uh but we also saw this tremendous [51:06] change in this connectivity, which I [51:08] love. But I also love having the [51:10] internet and this my cell phones and all [51:11] of that. [51:12] But but but this is a real change in [51:14] human civilization that we went through [51:16] personally. [51:17] And I agree with you. I I feel a [51:19] tremendous sense of gratitude for for [51:22] both ends of my life. [51:23] >> Right. We could have been born in the [51:24] 1500s or the 1500s to the 1600s. [51:27] Not that much changed. I mean, [51:30] >> of people, yeah. [51:31] >> Sure. I mean, politically things [51:33] changed, leaders got overthrown, but as [51:35] far as like the way you interfaced with [51:36] the the world, [51:38] >> Mhm. [51:38] >> pretty much the same way. You wrote [51:40] stuff down with feathers. [51:42] >> [laughter] [51:43] >> Yeah. [51:44] >> You know, [51:45] >> And gratitude. And like you said, I [51:46] mean, we we maybe instead of all of the [51:48] dystopia and all the worry and all the [51:49] panic right now, you know, going forward [51:51] with gratitude. [51:52] >> Yeah. Well, I think the unknown gives [51:55] people tremendous amount of anxiety. [51:57] >> Sure. [51:57] >> For a good reason. You know, I mean, the [51:59] unknown could potentially be dangerous [52:01] and scary and terrifying or awesome. And [52:03] you really don't know until you're like [52:05] what is it going to be? And there's all [52:07] these college kids that are really [52:08] freaking out because they're they're [52:11] running into debt, they're getting these [52:13] college degrees, they're leaving with [52:15] this burden this financial burden that [52:18] they can never get rid of. And on top of [52:20] that, they have a degree that might not [52:21] be worth anything because AI might [52:24] completely eradicate their field. That's [52:26] a real concern. And so they they're I [52:29] think kids today that are graduating [52:31] from college and graduating from high [52:32] school, they probably have the most [52:34] amount of anxiety about the future. That [52:36] and then there's people that [52:38] you know, they haven't saved any money [52:40] up. They don't even know if money's [52:41] going to be valuable in the future. Like [52:43] what does it even mean? Are we are we [52:45] going to abandon all money? Like what [52:47] what is what is it going to mean when AI [52:49] completely controls all of the [52:50] resources, all of the government, all of [52:52] everything, all transportation, and you [52:54] don't have to do your job anymore. You [52:56] just get some funds from the government [52:59] where you can buy food. Like this is [53:01] what people are talking about. Like this [53:02] is a potential you know, 100 years from [53:05] now our future. Very seriously so, yes, [53:07] absolutely. [53:08] >> Which is terrifying to people that are [53:10] thinking, "Hey, you know, I want to do [53:12] what my dad did and what my mom did and [53:15] I want to go out there in the world and [53:17] I want to find something that I'm [53:19] passionate about and make it a career [53:21] and like maybe that's not possible." [53:23] That to kids right now, I think is [53:26] really freaking them out because [53:28] the adults, the people like us that are [53:30] supposed to be the ones that say, "Well, [53:32] let me tell you how it all works. You're [53:33] going to be fine. This is what you have [53:34] to do. And if you do that and just cross [53:37] your eyes and dot your tees, you're [53:38] going to be okay, Bob." But maybe you're [53:40] not going to be okay. Like maybe we [53:41] don't know because that's the [53:43] reality. The reality is you and I, the [53:45] adults, have no idea what this world's [53:48] going to look like in 50 years. And [53:49] these poor kids are they have no one to [53:52] turn to. There's no one that can explain [53:54] what this and so they're entering out [53:56] into the world having to take care of [53:57] themselves for the very first time with [53:59] this real possibility that there might [54:01] not be any jobs. [54:03] >> Mhm. [54:05] I mean on the flip side of that [54:07] are you in fact describing the Star Trek [54:09] universe? [54:09] >> Right. [54:10] >> You know, a a time where people do not [54:11] work for the mean everybody has, you [54:13] know, anything they need as far as, you [54:15] know, apparently survivability, you [54:17] know, food, whatever. You know, and now [54:18] you have a chance to say, am I going to [54:20] be a writer or an explorer or an artist [54:22] or a captain or a musician? [54:24] >> Yes. [54:24] >> You know, I mean does it does it I mean [54:26] I mean I mean is there something in that [54:28] that might be hugely liberating? [54:29] >> 100% and I've talked about this as well [54:32] that this idea that you have to toil and [54:35] you have to be a hunter-gatherer or, you [54:37] know, so you have to do this in order to [54:39] find meaning in life is kind of crazy. [54:41] Because we can find meaning a lot of [54:42] ways. There's very wealthy people that [54:45] never have to work that have tremendous [54:47] meaning in their life cuz they're doing [54:48] things all the time without thinking [54:50] about work at all. They're not thinking [54:52] about it as work. Whatever hobbies [54:53] they're pursuing or interests or [54:55] education they're pursuing, they're [54:57] doing it just at a pure interest and [54:59] fascination and love and passion. And [55:02] that could be all of us. But there's [55:04] going to be a tremendous transition [55:06] period where people are going to have to [55:08] rethink what it means to be a human [55:11] being in society. And that's what's [55:14] weird because our entire society is [55:16] structured out of getting up in the [55:18] morning, putting in the work, working [55:20] towards a future. You got a 401k, you [55:23] got investments, you got this, you got [55:24] that, you got a mortgage. And this is [55:26] how we've structured our entire [55:29] existence and what we what meaning we [55:32] gather from life. It's based on that. [55:35] We're going to have to figure out a way [55:37] to realize and to rethink this and it's [55:40] going to be very difficult for people [55:41] that are like 40 and 50 that are just [55:44] completely set in their ways and now [55:47] their ways change and I don't know how [55:49] many of them are going to be able to [55:50] make that switch and what could be done [55:53] to assist them in that. What can be done [55:56] and maybe that that comes with whatever [55:58] this technological interface is. Maybe [56:00] that comes with when we become which [56:02] essentially is Cyborg that we you get a [56:06] a much greater understanding of what it [56:08] means to exist and that this idea that [56:10] you exist only because of the insurance [56:12] company work for is kind of ridiculous [56:14] and we abandon that. I mean the in the [56:17] way that now when you open up your phone [56:20] and you use perplexity you have [56:22] access to a [56:25] something that's as smart as every human [56:27] being on Earth in every field. You can [56:30] ask it about anything and it'll give you [56:33] the state of the art and whatever the [56:35] sciences, whatever the the understanding [56:37] of history, whatever mathematics, [56:40] tax law, whatever it is. It can give it [56:43] to you on your phone instantaneously [56:46] and we've just sort of accepted that. [56:48] This is our new thing. And I think this [56:50] is like a baby step into what it's going [56:52] to what this technology could [56:55] potentially if you're looking at things [56:56] with the glass half full it could [56:58] potentially change the way we look at [57:01] everything. The way we look at [57:03] ourselves, the way we look at what it [57:04] means to be a person and what we find [57:06] meaning out of. [57:08] And this is cuz that's the problem. The [57:09] problem is meaning and the the the [57:11] feeling like you matter, feeling like [57:13] you're important and I think part of [57:14] that is cuz we're all so isolated from [57:16] each other. But that might go away [57:18] entirely if the boundaries between all [57:21] thought and consciousness. If we realize [57:23] like oh consciousness is just a thing [57:26] that we're all enveloped in and what our [57:28] brain is is just a antenna that's like [57:31] tuning into consciousness And the [57:33] depending on how good your antenna is, [57:35] you're going to be a little bit better [57:37] about how you interface with the world [57:39] and whatever thing you desire and [57:41] whatever thing you decide to put your [57:43] energy and attention to, you maybe [57:45] you'll be better at it than another [57:46] person cuz you have a better antenna. [57:48] But we might understand that like we are [57:50] really truly all one thing. So, all our [57:53] fears about [57:56] you know, finding your place in the [57:57] world, that might be nonsense. [58:00] >> I really like that idea. I like the idea [58:02] of search for meeting. And I I I agree [58:03] with you. I think that as as like you [58:05] said as you know, Australopithecus, as [58:07] people that used to exist in these [58:08] little tribal groups and families. [58:11] Um the the the modern isolated life, I [58:14] mean it's something that I struggle with [58:16] a lot. You know, I I'm always wondering, [58:18] you know, where is my family? Where are [58:19] my friends? [58:20] >> Right. [58:21] >> I I've had to to do a lot of sort of [58:23] interior work about, you know, I'm just [58:25] going to bring along my own [58:27] family inside somehow. I mean, I I have [58:29] I have I have to I have to provide this [58:31] all for myself. The idea of being of [58:33] being less alone, being less isolated. [58:36] That's one thing that I wanted from the [58:38] internet. You know, it started out on [58:39] Facebook. I could I could keep up with [58:41] my friends. You know, I I saw what they [58:42] were doing. They were posting pictures [58:44] of their life. It was it was less [58:45] isolating. And then now it's evolved I [58:47] can't even find them on Facebook [58:49] anymore. It's it's all you know, all all [58:50] the ads and everything like that. [58:52] But but [snorts] but but I mean for me, [58:54] I mean you you you talk about meaning [58:56] and you talk about solving isolation. [59:00] Tell me Tell me more about that. I mean [59:02] I mean the the [59:03] How is your sense of meaning in your [59:05] life evolved? How's it changed over your [59:07] life? How How do you find meaning? [59:10] >> I find meaning in what Well, there's a [59:12] bunch of things, right? First of all, [59:14] it's the people that are in your life. [59:16] This is a a giant factor because without [59:19] people that you love and people that you [59:21] enjoy spending time with, life loses all [59:24] of its value. If you're an insanely [59:26] wealthy, insanely successful person who [59:28] has no friends, who lives alone, you're [59:30] living in hell. And if you are a poor [59:33] person that has amazing friends and [59:35] you're just getting by, you are a [59:36] happier person. But I guarantee that [59:39] poor person would switch places with [59:40] that rich person in a heartbeat. Because [59:43] we're programmed to think that success [59:45] is numbers. That success is what you can [59:49] what you can accumulate as far as like [59:51] objects and desired material [59:53] possessions. [59:55] But it's not. It's like true success is [59:57] happiness. And the the amount of joy [60:00] that you get out of life, the amount of [60:02] satisfaction you get in what you do. [60:04] So, I think for everybody that answers a [60:06] different answer. Because for some [60:08] people it's going to be music. For some [60:09] people it's going to be litera- they're [60:11] going to write. They're going to There's [60:12] going to be a a thing that you enjoy [60:14] putting yourself into that you feel [60:16] satisfaction and you feel meaning with. [60:19] On top of friends and family. So, [60:21] friends and family I think is foremost. [60:24] But then they can get in the way too if [60:26] they don't have their together. So, [60:28] like they have to have a thing that [60:30] they're enjoying as well. They have to [60:32] have a thing that's helping them grow as [60:34] an individual. And there's a thing from [60:36] martial arts, my instructor told me that [60:38] I would when I was very young that I [60:39] never forgot, that was martial arts is a [60:41] vehicle for developing your human [60:43] potential. [60:44] And that if you find things that test [60:47] you and you find things that are complex [60:49] and these puzzles that you have to [60:50] solve, the more you do that, the more [60:52] you get of an understanding of who you [60:53] are and what you can do. And what you [60:55] can do out there in the world. And the [60:56] more you do it, the more you can do [60:57] other things. And I think that's where I [61:01] find meaning. I find meaning in doing [61:03] things and enjoying time with my family, [61:06] enjoying time with my friends, having [61:08] joy and fun and laughter. [61:11] And then also difficult pursuits. I like [61:15] things that are complex, the things that [61:17] are hard to solve. I like things that [61:19] are hard to do, where I I really have to [61:22] force myself to do it and then I feel [61:24] satisfaction afterwards and I understand [61:26] my ability to force myself to do things. [61:28] And in doing that, I find meaning. And [61:32] uh I'm a relatively happy person. I'm I [61:35] I think I'm very happy in terms of like [61:37] the average person. I think that's why. [61:41] But [61:42] if someone just took that all away, if [61:44] all that's gone, [61:45] would you still have happiness? Like [61:47] what is happiness, right? What is [61:49] meaning? And [61:50] it is it [61:52] entirely connected to your job? That [61:55] seems kind of crazy cuz a job is just a [61:57] constructed thing that it would, you [62:00] know, 500 years ago didn't even exist. [62:02] So what do you what it do we have to [62:05] have me are we these complex [62:08] problem-solving biological organisms [62:11] that have this thirst for innovation and [62:13] to constantly make things better? [62:17] Are we tricking ourselves with jobs and [62:21] to to be happy? Are we filling the need [62:23] of whatever like when a cat chases a [62:26] ball, what is it doing? Well, it thinks [62:28] it's killing something. That's its [62:29] design. This is its biological need. You [62:32] throw a ball past a cat, it goes after [62:34] it because it's got this biological need [62:36] to chase things that are running away [62:38] from it so it could kill it and eat. [62:39] I think we're kind of doing a similar [62:41] thing with our hunter-gatherer tribal [62:45] organism that we're still trapped in [62:48] that we're we're tricking it. We're [62:49] tricking it with complex problems and [62:51] we're tricking it with community, we're [62:54] tricking it with all these different [62:55] things that that keep it happy. [62:57] >> I agree with you. Yeah, I I I think [62:59] that's that's a a wonderful answer. I [63:00] mean, there's something about the, you [63:02] know, the the happy poor person isolated [63:04] rich person thing that I I I I agree [63:06] with at the same time, [63:08] you know, seeing what grinding poverty [63:09] does to people's minds and breaking them [63:11] down with exhaustion and then [63:12] demoralization. You know, there there's [63:15] obviously some kind of a a a spot for [63:17] there. You know, I mean I I've had to [63:18] work quite hard in different parts of my [63:20] life. And I I was just very aware of the [63:23] of the of the [63:24] >> [laughter] [63:24] >> of the soul grinding, you know, not [63:26] having enough wondering where your next [63:28] meal is coming from. And I have it [63:30] nowhere near as bad as some. [63:32] But the you know the the the the thing [63:33] that was absolutely for me um [63:37] unbelievable about working for NASA was [63:38] the idea of solving complex problems [63:40] with people you trusted and people that [63:42] you thought you really had your back. [63:44] And and no organization is perfect. But [63:47] you know, the idea that there it's not a [63:48] zero-sum game, right? I I mean you want [63:51] the whole team to succeed. I mean even [63:53] if there are missions you think should [63:54] have been lower priority or maybe we [63:55] should spend more money on this and less [63:57] money on that. At the end of the day, [63:59] you you want whatever's going on to be [64:01] fantastic and you want it to succeed and [64:03] you want all the people around you to [64:04] succeed. [64:06] And the idea that again, I mean this [64:08] isn't hunter-gathering, you know, I mean [64:10] we're we're we're we're solving [64:11] problems. We're saying, you know, [64:14] "Can you take a picture of the black [64:15] part of a black hole?" You know, "Can [64:17] you actually see the light area, the the [64:19] event horizon getting sucked in?" You [64:20] know, I'm talking about the Event [64:22] Horizon Telescope, not a NASA mission. [64:24] But you know, there were there times in [64:26] my life like when I first saw that [64:27] picture come together. [64:29] And I didn't think they'd be able to do [64:31] that. I don't think people really [64:33] understand what happened there. They [64:35] they [64:36] They were doing something right on the [64:38] on the on the fuzzy edge of physics [64:41] being possible. [64:42] You you need to catch the same front of [64:45] a wavelength of light, right? So light's [64:46] coming by, it's a wave, it travels at [64:48] the speed of light. [64:50] The wavelength of light is tiny. Let's [64:51] say for a minute, you know, the the they [64:53] they were they were dealing with with [64:54] microwaves. So let's say like a a [64:56] millionth of a meter. [64:58] So something that's a meter divided by a [65:00] million is traveling past you at the [65:02] speed of light. [65:04] And the Earth is is round and the Earth [65:07] is moving and they had they had these [65:09] eight observatories all around the [65:10] planet. And they had to catch that same [65:13] wavefront, the same one. If it was If it [65:15] was one wavefront later, [65:18] one one millionth of meter later [65:20] traveling at the speed of light, they [65:21] wouldn't have gotten the image. They [65:22] needed to catch the same wave the [65:24] wavelength, the same photon, the same [65:26] wave of light had to be caught in all of [65:28] those telescopes at once. One was at the [65:30] South Pole, somewhere in the in the [65:32] United States, somewhere in Chile. Uh [65:35] they were all over the planet. [65:37] And if you caught the same [65:39] freaking wave of light, [65:41] >> Here it is. [65:41] >> There you go. [65:42] >> Wow. [65:43] >> They they managed to make a telescope [65:45] that's actually as big as the Earth. And [65:47] they were able to take a picture of the [65:49] dark parts of a black hole. Now now now [65:51] that's that's something called the [65:52] shadow of the event horizon. It's [65:53] basically the event horizon where time [65:56] and space stop. We don't even know if [65:58] there really is an interior to a black [66:00] hole. All the equations blow up. Time [66:01] and space don't exist in there. [66:04] And and light, nothing can escape that [66:06] darkness. The uh the the the black spot [66:08] you're seeing there is a little bigger [66:10] than the event horizon itself. It's [66:11] called the shadow of the event horizon. [66:13] Because um time and space are bent [66:15] around the black hole. And so some of [66:18] the light that actually gets sucked in [66:20] is light that would have gone around the [66:22] black hole. It gets sucked into the back [66:23] end of the black hole. Literally space [66:25] and time curve around the black hole. [66:27] And so that that dark part is actually a [66:29] little bigger than the event horizon. [66:31] It's called the shadow of the event [66:32] horizon. [66:33] And um they said they were going to go [66:35] take a picture of it. [66:37] And I was like, you have to catch the [66:39] same wavefront of light [66:42] in all of these telescopes. I mean, [66:44] that's going to depend on the height of [66:45] the mountain, how fast that part of the [66:47] Earth is moving. [66:48] They did it. They did it. [66:50] >> [laughter] [66:50] >> And they they did they they didn't do it [66:51] just once, right? And you know, and and [66:54] and now we can take a picture of an area [66:56] right in front of your eyes where space [66:58] and time doesn't exist. [67:00] I mean, to a [67:02] to a lesser extent, one of the NASA [67:04] missions that I thought was just [67:05] spectacular It a small inexpensive [67:07] mission called NICER. Uh you know, like [67:09] who's the nicer person? NICER, n i c e [67:11] r, it's the Neutron Star Interior [67:13] Composition Explorer. [67:15] And a neutron star, you probably know [67:17] about these, but but you know, if when a [67:18] star dies and the nuclear reactions [67:20] inside of star cease, all of that [67:23] gravity this massive object comes [67:25] crushing in. [67:27] And it'll create an object sometimes [67:29] called a neutron star. They're about 20 [67:30] miles across. [67:32] But they have about twice the mass of [67:34] the sun. And we study many of these at [67:36] NASA. They're they're they're all over [67:37] the place. [67:38] They're real. They're something you can [67:39] take a an image of. You can take a [67:40] picture of. [67:41] And you know, these neutron stars have [67:44] physics that we don't understand. You [67:45] you you take you take two times the mass [67:47] of the sun, you crush it into 20 miles. [67:49] We know that we can't describe the [67:51] interior of that thing yet. You know, we [67:53] don't have the physics that matches that [67:55] type of density. [67:57] And um this this this this this this [67:59] crazy little little contraption, I mean, [68:02] it's about the size of a washing [68:03] machine. It was built in a lab just on [68:05] the floor that I used to work at at [68:06] NASA. [68:07] It's cheap, easy to make. I shouldn't [68:10] say easy. I but I mean, it it it's [68:11] actually able to create maps of what the [68:13] surface of these objects are like. [68:15] They're they're 20 miles across. They're [68:17] thousands of light-years away. [68:19] And and you can actually create a map of [68:21] what the temperature is like. And one of [68:23] the things we see on these maps is the [68:26] distortion where space and time curves [68:28] around these objects. [68:30] You know, they'll they they rotate very [68:31] fast and they're hot spots we see coming [68:33] in and off the the neutron star. But [68:35] then as the hot spot goes behind the [68:37] star, the light bends up and over and we [68:39] can actually still see the hot spot [68:41] because space and time are bending [68:42] around these objects. [68:44] You can see that. That that's not a [68:46] mathematical simulation. That's not a [68:49] theory. [68:50] You can see space and time bending [68:52] around these objects. You can see space [68:54] and time bending into that event [68:56] horizon. [68:57] You know, I mean, it's absolutely crazy [68:59] what we've been able to do. [69:02] And whether it's a you know a huge [69:03] project like the Event Horizon Telescope [69:05] where I I I would have bet that they [69:07] would not have been able to make that [69:08] measurement and they did. [69:11] You know there there were so many hard [69:12] drives of data. Uh one of the uh one of [69:14] the telescopes was at the South Pole. [69:16] And uh you wanted you wanted the [69:18] telescopes to be as far apart on the [69:19] Earth as possible cuz then you could [69:21] basically make a giant telescope the [69:22] size of the separation of these [69:24] telescopes. [69:25] And uh um there wasn't a I mean there's [69:27] there's pretty good email links down to [69:29] the South Pole but but the the wasn't [69:31] fast enough for all of this data. They [69:33] did they sent back literally there was a [69:35] ton a ton of hard drives. [69:37] To actually they they had to play them [69:39] all at the same time and make sure they [69:40] caught the same photon. [69:42] If they had caught seriously one photon [69:44] following behind the other the image [69:46] wouldn't have worked. They had to catch [69:48] that same photon. [69:49] You know humans are incredible. [69:52] >> [laughter] [69:52] >> Some of us. [69:54] >> Oh hey. [69:55] >> Some of them I should say. [69:56] >> Maybe maybe pretty much all of us in [69:57] different ways. I mean you know I [69:59] >> Unrealized potential. [70:01] >> No I I I got to go back to this. I mean [70:02] I mean one of my good I I have three [70:04] friends now who have won the Nobel Prize [70:06] which is always like you know what the [70:06] hell am I doing? [70:07] >> That's awesome. [70:08] >> Um but [70:09] uh yeah. [70:10] >> But you have good group chats. [70:11] >> Well see the funny thing is we we [70:12] certainly don't all get together and [70:14] talk theoretical physics. I mean that's [70:15] not really what we do but I was seated [70:17] next to one of them at a meal one time [70:18] and somebody came by and said oh look at [70:20] all the brain power here. [70:22] And I I actually in this I I try to be [70:24] kind of nice about it but I said you [70:25] know [70:26] there's a single mother working three [70:27] jobs part-time you know who's waiting [70:29] tables over there and I mean the the the [70:31] mental capacity and the strength of that [70:34] person is something that [70:36] you know I don't look at us. Go go go go [70:38] praise that person. [70:39] >> Well that's brain power too. It's just a [70:41] different thing. [70:41] >> It's survival. I mean it's trying to [70:43] keep your life and and and soul [70:44] together. The the the privilege of being [70:47] able to work at NASA. [70:48] And and to be able to work with a team [70:50] like that and do things you think are [70:52] impossible. [70:54] You know that that was kind of a a part [70:56] of my life you could stick a pin in and [70:58] say that meant something. You know, that [70:59] that that gave me some meaning. That [71:01] that gave me joy. [71:03] And as you said, it's not so much being [71:06] a hunter-gatherer. It It's It's It's you [71:08] know, can we ask a question that we [71:10] think is impossible and can we just go [71:11] and do it? [71:13] >> Yeah, the ultimate expression of human [71:14] curiosity. When you say that we don't [71:17] have the physics [71:18] when when you're [71:20] trying to understand what's happening in [71:21] a neutron star, what do you mean? [71:23] >> So, you can measure how big these things [71:25] are and you can measure how massive they [71:27] are. And so, then you can do a [71:28] calculation as to what the density [71:30] inside would be. [71:31] And you know, it I mean, to put it I [71:33] mean, probably the interior core is [71:35] denser than the outer regions, but if [71:37] you had a teaspoon of this material, it [71:39] would have about as much mass as Mount [71:41] Everest. [71:43] And um the reason they're called neutron [71:45] stars is that the gravity is so intense [71:48] on these things. I mean, this I mean [71:51] I I hate I hate sort of a simple view of [71:52] atoms as little balls going around each [71:54] other cuz they're not. They're They're [71:55] waves of energy. But, the gravity [71:57] actually crushes the electrons into the [71:59] nucleus. They combine with protons to [72:01] become neutrons. [72:03] So, they're they're mainly little balls [72:04] of neutrons, but we we do There you go. [72:07] Uh you see the big question mark there [72:09] at the core. So, So, here's the problem. [72:11] You you you you you you you run our our [72:13] basic laws of physics, our understanding [72:15] of how particles work, and you get to [72:17] the density of a neutron core and and [72:19] the equations don't work. They're not [72:21] making the right predictions. We can [72:23] tell that there is um There's actually a [72:26] really great NASA video. I I would I [72:28] would I would suggest you watch. It's [72:30] called um the the interior of a neutron [72:32] star. [72:33] Uh well, I can help you find it, but it [72:35] basically says that that the [72:37] the models we have about how matter [72:40] works at that sort of density, none of [72:41] them give the right predictions for the [72:43] the size of the neutron star. [72:45] >> Why is that? [72:45] >> The We don't have the right physics for [72:47] it yet. So, so, you know, we run our [72:50] physics and we say if you have this much [72:51] volume and this much mass, what should [72:54] that interior be like? And and none of [72:56] our current models of how matter works [72:58] gives us the right observations, gives [73:00] us the right size. [73:01] >> So, what are we missing? [73:02] >> Well, um for one thing, you know, [73:06] what you're probably looking at inside a [73:07] neutron star is some type of interaction [73:09] of quarks, the actual the actual sort of [73:11] building blocks of neutrons and protons, [73:13] the particles that make up protons and [73:15] neutrons. [73:16] >> Ooh, that's cool. [73:16] >> Yeah, there [73:17] you got it. You got it. You're amazing. [73:19] I Actually, I'm seriously impressed by [73:21] this person's abilities. [73:23] >> Yeah. So, I mean, this is a video that [73:25] it was done by by NASA testing matter's [73:27] limits. It's a 4-minute video. And and [73:30] while I don't think it's an absolutely [73:31] perfect video, I I think it's fantastic. [73:34] And so, you see the [73:36] this is supposed to represent the [73:37] electrons being pulled into the the [73:39] nucleus and making neutrons. [73:41] And then at the very heart of these [73:43] things, we're in a state of matter that [73:45] we have no description for yet. [73:47] We we we we can't tell you how it [73:49] behaves. We We've never created it in a [73:51] lab. We we we know we we don't know how [73:54] this type of matter acts. It's a new [73:56] state of matter. We have we don't know [73:57] what it's like. [73:58] >> Wow. [73:58] >> And [73:59] you know, it's it's made when when one [74:01] of these giant stars explodes, you know, [74:03] the the core of the star becomes [74:05] compressed. And then this this will take [74:07] you through us trying to figure out what [74:09] you know, whether you know, you have [74:10] particles as discrete particles as [74:12] neutrons and protons or whether there's [74:14] some type of quark soup inside. [74:17] But but pretty much every model so far [74:19] doesn't match [74:21] what we actually measure from these [74:23] things. We we we cannot describe them [74:25] yet. We we we need better physics. [74:27] >> Are there any other structures that are [74:28] similar in our lack of understanding of [74:31] them in the universe? [74:32] >> We we got you got two big ones right in [74:33] front of you, neutron stars and black [74:34] holes, right? So, so that I mean, these [74:36] the [74:37] black holes as well, you know, what is [74:39] inside a black hole? Is there an inside [74:42] if space and time don't really exist? [74:45] Um you know, and then and then much more [74:47] easy to see are these neutron stars. The [74:49] the the people who study neutron stars [74:51] at NASA, they had this wonderful [74:52] expression. They're like, with a black [74:54] hole you can't see anything. It [74:55] collapses into an event horizon, [74:56] nothing's coming out. With a neutron [74:58] star, you got the freaking thing right [74:59] there in front of you. You can actually [75:00] observe something. [75:02] And so, you know, they they they figured [75:03] that neutron stars are much more [75:04] exciting than black holes cuz you can [75:06] actually like do experiments, take a [75:07] picture, build a telescope. [75:09] And uh [75:10] But but this experiment was an [75:12] inexpensive, small observatory that [75:15] that's up on the International Space [75:16] Station. And I mean mean it's a They're [75:18] they're doing incredible work about the [75:21] the nature of physics and and and [75:23] testing where our limits are. It's it's [75:25] unbelievable what you can do with even a [75:26] a relatively inexpensive mission. [75:29] >> When you look at the size of some black [75:32] holes, we were talking the other day [75:34] about the largest black hole where the [75:36] event horizon goes past Pluto. [75:38] >> Yeah. [75:39] >> If it was the the size of our solar [75:40] system. [75:41] >> Absolutely. [75:41] >> That that's almost impossible to even [75:45] think about. That there's a black hole [75:47] that's bigger than our solar system. [75:49] And how did it get that big? [75:52] >> [laughter] [75:52] >> How much time does it take for it to [75:54] gather up that much matter to get that [75:57] big? [75:58] >> Well, you were talking about these [75:59] little red dots that the Webb telescope [76:01] is seeing. So, I mean, what you've just [76:02] done is put your finger on, I think, one [76:04] of the most fascinating unanswered [76:06] questions in astronomy right now. That [76:09] every major galaxy has a has a big black [76:12] hole in the center. You know, the the [76:13] one in the middle of our galaxy is about [76:15] 4 million times the mass of the sun. [76:18] And and physically it's not that big. [76:20] It's a It's about, let's say, be around [76:21] about the orbit of, say, the inner solar [76:23] system, Mercury. It's kind of around [76:24] there. [76:26] But then the the bigger ones we know in [76:27] other galaxies can get up to hundreds, [76:29] you know, I mean, [76:30] let's say, you know, tens of billions of [76:32] times the mass of the sun. And and those [76:35] the event horizon's about the size of [76:37] the orbit of Pluto. [76:39] The the question is, how do you gather [76:42] 10 billion times the mass of a star [76:44] together in the beginning? You know, we [76:47] black holes, the only thing we know that [76:49] forms [76:50] big black holes like that. It's so a [76:51] star collapses, a star dies. [76:53] And this, you know, this tremendous [76:55] crush of gravity as the star collapses [76:57] creates this bottomless pit of gravity [76:59] called a black hole. [77:01] So, how do you get that many stars to [77:03] die? How do you How do you mean in the [77:04] early universe? How many stars What How [77:06] many generations of stars had had to to [77:08] burn through to actually get that to [77:10] happen? [77:11] And there was nothing that we could [77:13] figure out. I mean I mean how do you [77:14] make that big of a black hole? [77:16] So, these these little red dots that [77:18] we're seeing with with with Webb. And [77:20] And we don't know exactly what these [77:22] are. But But But right now, the [77:24] observations are pushing us in a very [77:26] interesting direction. [77:28] They're They're about a million times [77:30] the mass of the sun. [77:32] And at first we thought, okay, well, are [77:34] these whole galaxies? And And that was [77:36] the the controversy you alluded to that [77:38] that how how could there be galaxies [77:39] that far back in time? We're We're [77:41] looking back to a time about 400 million [77:44] years after the Big Bang. We're looking [77:46] so far away. The light took that long to [77:48] travel to us. [77:50] So, we we we we saw these these these [77:52] sort of bright objects. At first we [77:53] thought they were galaxies, and that was [77:55] like, "Whoa, how how did they get there [77:56] so fast?" But then we took a better look [77:58] at them. And they don't actually shine [78:00] in the same light a galaxy would. [78:03] They And they appear to have the [78:04] signature of something inside some of [78:06] them rotating very fast, very fast. [78:10] And what we're wondering is if the first [78:13] generation of stars, the very first [78:15] stars that existed were nothing at all [78:18] like the stars we have today. [78:20] The universe was denser. There was [78:22] probably more of the stuff called dark [78:24] matter that had gravity pulling [78:25] everything together. [78:27] So, maybe at that time the universe had [78:29] just There were cores of huge amounts of [78:31] gas that collapsed together. [78:34] Instead of forming a star, the core [78:36] basically collapsed into a black hole [78:38] immediately. [78:39] And it started pulling in material and [78:41] all this sort of hot stuff formed what [78:42] they call a pseudo star. There's all [78:45] this this is this atmosphere of hot gas [78:47] being heated up by by the black hole in [78:48] the middle. As the as the as the gas [78:50] spirals in towards the black hole, it [78:52] gets hotter and hotter. So instead of a [78:54] nuclear fusion core of a star, you have [78:56] a black hole heating everything up on [78:58] the inside, accumulating all this mass. [79:01] And are we looking at for the first time [79:04] the seeds of these giant black holes? [79:07] That instead of there being, you know, [79:09] the first thing was stars, [79:11] the way we think of stars, was the first [79:14] thing huge amounts of gas and dust [79:16] collapsing into black holes and heating [79:18] up sort of a a you know a pseudo star [79:21] around it, millions of times the mass of [79:23] the sun. [79:24] And then in a dense area like the heart [79:26] of a galaxy, these things then start to [79:28] combine. [79:29] Over time gravity pulls them together [79:31] and you build bigger and bigger black [79:32] holes. [79:34] So once again, we don't know yet that [79:37] these are what we that's what's that's [79:38] what go that these objects are. But at [79:40] the moment it's one of the best [79:41] explanations we have. [79:43] And it fits the data quite well. [79:46] So, you know, we will keep observing [79:48] these things, we will keep finding new [79:49] ones. Uh one of the big questions has [79:51] been why don't they give off more [79:52] x-rays? Cuz if there's matter streaming [79:55] down a black hole, it should give off [79:56] very high radiation like x-rays. [79:59] And then just in the last couple of [80:00] months there are some some observations [80:02] coming out where we're finding some of [80:03] these are indeed x-ray sources. [80:05] So, we may have found the answer to [80:09] where you get these big black holes. And [80:11] and that was one of the the the big [80:14] hopes for the James Webb Space Telescope [80:16] that it would help us answer the [80:18] question of where do you get these giant [80:20] black holes in the cores of galaxies? [80:22] Where did they come from? There [80:24] shouldn't have been enough time for that [80:25] many stars to make them. [80:28] >> [sighs] [80:28] >> I watched a documentary on black holes [80:30] once where they were talking about that [80:31] in in the center of every galaxy there's [80:33] a super massive black hole that's one [80:35] half of 1% of the mass of the entire [80:37] galaxy. [80:37] >> It seems to be correlated. Yeah, the [80:39] bigger the galaxy, the bigger the black [80:40] hole. Yeah. [80:40] >> Which is nuts. And the what they were [80:43] theorizing was that if you went through [80:47] that black hole, you could potentially [80:49] be in a completely different universe [80:52] filled with galaxies all that have black [80:54] holes inside of them [80:56] through that another universe that you [80:58] would have [80:59] an infinite number of universes that [81:01] exist and all there's these like black [81:03] holes and if you can go through them, [81:06] all of them [81:07] it broke my brain cuz I'm just sitting [81:09] there I'm thinking like wait a minute, [81:10] how many billions of galaxies are there? [81:13] Like what? And each one of them has a [81:15] black hole in the center of it? [81:16] >> Yeah. [81:17] Well, and and I mean we don't know yet [81:19] how many I mean there there there are [81:21] these giant black holes in the middle of [81:23] galaxies and then there are smaller [81:24] black holes caused when massive stars [81:26] dies. And the our galaxy probably has [81:28] millions of those. [81:30] But the uh the ones in the in the in the [81:31] center of the galaxies are fascinating. [81:33] The um the one in our galaxy so we're [81:36] about about 25,000 light years away from [81:38] this guy. So we're safe. [81:40] But um [81:42] we actually observe stars that are [81:44] trapped around the black hole that are [81:45] orbiting the black hole. That this was [81:47] the first way we found the location of [81:48] the black hole. Stars were orbiting kind [81:51] of like this angry swarm of bees almost [81:53] in every direction and they're orbiting [81:55] around something you didn't see. And the [81:57] the mass needed to make all these stars [81:58] orbit was about 4 million times the mass [82:00] of the sun. [82:02] There was a star called S2 we observed [82:04] orbiting close to the black hole kind of [82:06] like a comet. It would come in and whip [82:07] around the black hole and then go back [82:08] out again. [82:10] And and S2 at closest approach when it [82:12] whips around the black hole, this is a [82:13] star [82:15] goes nearly 20 million miles an hour [82:18] as it whips around the black hole. And [82:20] then just recently we found another star [82:22] that actually gets up to over 50 million [82:24] miles an hour as the black hole whips it [82:27] around. And this is how we test the idea [82:29] that time is different around a black [82:30] hole. We actually see these stars [82:32] whipping so close to a black hole, we [82:34] can tell that there are changes in their [82:35] orbit, that they're actually going [82:36] through different time. [82:39] And [82:40] and so we see these stars whipping [82:42] around the black hole at the middle of [82:43] our galaxy. They will probably [82:44] eventually go down that black hole. I [82:46] mean, maybe everything in our galaxy [82:48] will eventually kind of spiral down into [82:49] that black hole. [82:51] But, you know, we we [82:53] this is this is not conjectural. Th- [82:56] these are observations from telescopes. [82:59] You know, look up S2. Look up I don't [83:00] know what the name of the one that it [83:01] goes faster. It's a it's a it's a [83:03] telephone telephone number. [83:05] But, that's real. [83:08] Now, the question about what happens if [83:10] you could survive going into a black [83:11] hole. And this is another place where we [83:14] need better physics. Quite honestly, our [83:15] physics gives up. [83:18] Th- there are all kinds of wonderful [83:21] fascinating possibilities. I mean, p- [83:23] people have pointed out This is not [83:25] observation. Now we're going from [83:27] observation, we see these things, [83:28] they're real, to conjecture. [83:31] People have said that if you take the [83:32] entire universe, the the the entire mass [83:35] of the universe and the radius that the [83:38] diameter of the observable universe [83:40] almost exactly matches a black hole. [83:43] You know, could it be that, you know, [83:45] inside a black hole a new universe forms [83:47] when a black hole forms? Is that what [83:49] the Big Bang was? Was the Big Bang a [83:51] black hole forming in another universe [83:53] and popping off our own universe? [83:55] Are black holes somehow connected to [83:57] other universes? [83:59] These are all incredible questions. We [84:01] we don't yet have the physics to answer [84:03] them. [84:04] But, you know, people have said, you [84:06] know, why is it the universe has about [84:07] the same density of a black hole, the [84:10] same size and mass? Is that just a [84:12] coincidence or are we looking at [84:14] something deeper? [84:15] >> Or is it fractal? Is it the entire [84:17] universe exists inside of a black hole? [84:19] >> Yes, exactly. [84:20] >> That's bananas. [84:21] >> Yeah. Th- th- there we have the the very [84:24] large array or that was at the that was [84:26] in Chile. That's a wonderful [84:27] observatory. There we have a a great [84:29] depiction. [84:31] You found Okay, yes. [84:32] >> Yeah, that I've never seen in a picture [84:34] like this. [84:34] >> That's right. [84:34] >> That's the stars moving around a black [84:36] hole. [84:36] >> Yeah, the stars moving around a black [84:37] hole. [84:38] >> What's coming What would this ejection [84:40] be? [84:40] >> Um so that Okay, what what what that is [84:42] is that that's a consequence of the [84:43] black hole's that doesn't come from [84:45] inside the black hole. All of that [84:47] swirling gas gets really fast. We [84:49] actually observe some of the swirling [84:51] gas going close to the speed of light. [84:53] Black holes, you know, they're they're [84:54] going down the drain. They're going [84:55] faster and faster as you get closer to [84:56] the black hole. [84:58] And all of that very very hot gas [85:00] generates a very strong magnetic field. [85:03] And so what you're looking at with those [85:04] jets is that that's just the magnetic [85:06] field of the hot gas going around the [85:08] black hole. Some of that hot gas gets [85:10] directed into jets by the magnetic [85:12] field. There's nothing coming out of the [85:13] black hole. Nothing that we know of [85:15] comes out of a black hole. But black [85:17] holes are incredibly [85:18] This is this is wonderfully ironic. [85:20] They're incredibly bright because if [85:22] there's gas trying to get around a [85:23] spinning around a black hole, the [85:25] gravity accelerates that gas so fast it [85:27] spins it up to in some cases millions or [85:30] billions of degrees. You can see them [85:32] clear across the observable universe. [85:33] They're the brightest objects in the [85:35] sky. [85:36] And this this is not light coming from [85:37] inside the black hole. It's light coming [85:39] from stuff trapped around the black hole [85:41] as it spirals in. [85:43] And these huge jets We we see some of [85:44] these jets going, you know, in some [85:46] cases more than 100,000 light years. I [85:48] mean, they're they're huge jets that [85:50] come out. [85:51] >> 100,000 light years and one light year [85:53] is how many trillion miles? [85:54] >> 6 trillion miles about. [85:56] >> [laughter] [85:57] >> Yeah. Yeah. [85:58] So [85:58] >> Oh my god. [85:59] >> And then in the [86:00] >> Oh my god. [86:01] >> Yeah, so I mean, around [86:03] around the [86:04] >> That pic That video is so nuts. [86:06] >> seen that. [86:07] >> Yeah. [86:07] >> When I was looking for this, there's [86:09] somewhat across this I saw a theoretical [86:11] thing called a white hole, [86:12] >> Mhm. [86:12] >> which is potentially maybe on the other [86:14] side of a black hole. [86:15] >> You know, [86:16] yeah. [86:17] It's it's an idea. I mean, that idea, [86:19] honestly, it had a lot more [86:22] following more in the in like the '60s [86:24] and '70s. It's kind of fallen out of [86:26] favor because at first we thought that [86:27] the the these hugely bright objects were [86:29] were white holes. At the end of a black [86:31] hole, maybe the radiation went through a [86:32] tunnel through space and came out [86:34] somewhere. [86:35] But now we know that these super bright [86:36] objects are actually hot gas discs [86:39] around black holes. And they are bright. [86:41] Like I said, they're the brightest [86:42] things we know of in the sky. [86:44] And you know, so that's that's something [86:46] you can see, you know, literally [86:48] billions of light years away is the hot [86:50] gas going around a black hole. [86:51] >> You said another thing that broke my [86:53] brain. [86:54] You were talking about [86:57] what the Big Bang is and that we [87:00] shouldn't think of the Big Bang as an [87:02] explosion, [87:04] but that before the Big Bang, time and [87:08] space might not have existed. [87:11] >> Well, pretty much certainly not in the [87:13] way we experience them, no. I mean, I [87:15] mean, once again, you know, [87:17] no astronomer thinks the Big Bang came [87:19] from nothing. [87:21] The problem is, once again, we have no [87:23] description of what that state of matter [87:26] would be, none. [87:27] I mean, the idea that everything we [87:29] observe of in the universe could have [87:31] once been at a subatomic scale. [87:33] You'll notice I'm very careful about [87:35] this. I talk about the observable [87:37] universe. [87:38] We have no idea how big the universe is. [87:40] We don't know whether it's infinite or [87:41] whether it has an end, but there's been [87:43] only a certain amount of time that light [87:45] has had to travel to us. That's not the [87:47] whole universe. That's centered on us. [87:50] That's an effect of we look in every [87:52] direction in the sky, we can only look [87:54] back as far as there's been time for [87:56] light to actually travel to us. [87:58] And you see some incredible things. I [88:00] mean, one of the things that one of my [88:01] friends has the Nobel Prize for [88:04] is if you look so far away, the farthest [88:06] away we can see now, we're looking back [88:09] to a time about 400,000 years after the [88:11] Big Bang. [88:12] And this is something where you we are [88:14] actually able to see so far away. We're [88:17] looking back to a time when the whole [88:19] universe was hot and bright. It actually [88:21] was glowing like the surface of the sun, [88:23] the whole universe. [88:24] The entire universe was so bright, it [88:27] was like looking at the surface of the [88:29] sun. [88:30] And and this is is has now this [88:32] radiation has traveled a long time to [88:34] get to us. It's now lost energy because [88:37] it's traveling through the expanding [88:38] universe. As the universe expands, the [88:41] the the the wave the wavelength of light [88:43] gets stretched out by the expansion of [88:45] space. [88:46] This is what we call the microwave [88:47] background radiation. [88:49] So there there's there's a there's a [88:50] microwave very low energy signal. It [88:53] comes from every direction on the sky. [88:55] And it's coming from a time. It's coming [88:57] from a distance so far away that the [89:00] whole universe was as bright as the [89:02] surface of the sun. [89:04] And and that's as far as we can see [89:06] because any farther away from that, the [89:09] universe is opaque. [89:11] Literally in every direction on the sky, [89:12] you eventually look back to a time when [89:15] the whole universe was so dense and [89:17] bright, you can't see any farther. [89:19] >> Is this because of how we're capable of [89:22] measuring? And is it possible that at [89:23] one point in time, when we get better [89:26] and better telescopes, that we can look [89:28] past that? [89:30] >> Well, not with light. See see, the [89:31] universe actually does become opaque to [89:33] light at that point. [89:34] >> Because it's too long ago. [89:36] >> It's it's it's basically the universe is [89:38] so bright itself. [89:39] Yeah. I mean, so you know, you you look [89:41] in any direction on the sky, you look [89:43] back to a time. You know, we [89:45] The the wonderful thing about the [89:46] universe changing is we know this is [89:48] true. The farther out we look with a [89:49] telescope, the farther light has had to [89:52] travel, the more time it takes to get to [89:54] us. [89:55] So the sun we see, the light takes about [89:57] 8 minutes to get from us to the sun, the [89:59] nearest star about 4 years, the nearest [90:01] galaxy to us about 2 million years. [90:04] We can see so far away in space that the [90:06] light took pretty much the age of the [90:08] universe to get to us, about 400,000 [90:10] years after the Big Bang. [90:12] At that point, the universe becomes [90:13] opaque to light. [90:15] So, there is a limit to how much we can [90:18] observe with light. [90:20] How much time there has been for for [90:22] light to actually get to us. [90:23] >> Is there a potential for being able to [90:25] observe something other than light? [90:28] >> Absolutely. [90:29] So, your question is a really profound [90:32] one. We don't know how big the universe [90:35] is. When we talk about the universe, we [90:37] mainly talk about the observable [90:38] universe, everything we're able to see. [90:41] So, the question you just asked, can you [90:42] see farther back [90:44] even if it's opaque to light? Yes. [90:47] And and this is something that again, we [90:49] talk about moments in your life where [90:51] the universe changed. [90:52] Where you thought people people did [90:54] something you thought was impossible. [90:56] And um [90:57] I mean, going all the way back to the [90:58] mid-90s, I was a postdoc at Caltech. [91:01] And um I wasn't working with this [91:03] department, but people were starting to [91:05] measure something called gravitational [91:06] waves. [91:08] And [91:09] gravitational waves again, I I never [91:12] thought they'd be able to actually [91:13] detect these. [91:14] The the universe is is constantly I mean [91:17] I mean every time we move, remember how [91:19] I said time is different from the top of [91:20] your head to the bottom of your feet. [91:22] You know, as I move, I create gravity. [91:25] You know, gravity actually is it goes [91:27] out as a wave into the universe at the [91:29] speed of light. [91:30] Can you detect a wave of gravity? [91:33] Well, a gravity is actually curvature of [91:36] space and time itself. [91:38] So, you're you're trying to say, could [91:39] we detect a wave that's actually made of [91:42] space and time? [91:44] And this project is called LIGO. [91:46] And LIGO stands um [91:48] LIGO stands for the Laser [91:50] Interferometric Gravitational Wave [91:51] Observatory. And it started out with [91:53] with two facilities, one in Oregon and [91:55] one in Louisiana. [91:56] And LIGO has two extremely long lasers [91:59] at at a corner that are at a right [92:01] angle. [92:02] The lasers I I believe are 4 km on a [92:05] side. They're huge, right? A 4 km laser. [92:08] They want them to be as as perfectly the [92:10] same length as they can, and then [92:12] there's a laser beam that bounces back [92:14] and forth. [92:15] And and as the laser beam bounces back [92:17] and forth, if it's exactly the same [92:19] length, that they the signal kind of [92:21] cancels out. [92:23] But what happens if there's actually a [92:26] wave of space and time coming by? Space [92:29] itself compresses, time changes. [92:32] All of a sudden these two these two [92:34] lasers are no longer exactly the same [92:35] length. Space itself has changed as as a [92:38] wave comes by. [92:40] Tiny amounts. These gravitational waves [92:43] are thousands of times smaller than the [92:45] nucleus of an atom. [92:47] Incredible, right? How would you detect [92:49] that? And they're traveling at the speed [92:50] of light. [92:52] So you have these 4 km lasers. [92:56] A wave of space and time comes by and [92:58] compresses space and time in one [92:59] direction more than the other. All of a [93:01] sudden the lasers are no longer the same [93:03] length. You get a signal. [93:05] The the noise for this, right? I mean I [93:07] mean every time Yeah, so that this is us [93:10] detecting an exploding star this way. [93:11] I'm happy to talk about that, too. But [93:13] but I mean just the fact they did this, [93:16] the these lasers are under vacuums, [93:18] they're in vacuum chambers. I mean they [93:19] try I mean every time the UPS truck goes [93:21] by, they must go haywire. Somebody [93:23] sneezes. They're measuring things [93:24] thousands of times smaller than the [93:26] nucleus of an atom. [93:29] But over time, they got this so [93:31] accurate, they did it so well, [93:33] that what what happened, and I I can you [93:35] can look up the the year, but it was [93:37] something on the order of about 10 years [93:38] ago, [93:40] a long ways away, millions of light [93:42] years away, two black holes spiraled [93:45] together and actually collided to form a [93:47] big black hole. [93:48] That was a lot of gravitational energy, [93:51] and that created a ripple going out into [93:53] the universe. [93:55] And so, you know, there's all of the [93:56] detectors have all this noise in them. [93:58] The detectors are detecting all kinds of [93:59] spurious signals, but then all of a [94:01] sudden in Louisiana, there was this the [94:04] whole detector went womp womp womp womp [94:05] womp boom. And then at the speed of [94:07] light, the detector in Louisiana did [94:09] exactly the same thing. Womp womp womp [94:11] womp the exact same waves at the speed [94:13] of light difference. And we realized, [94:16] "Oh my god, they did it." [94:18] These tiny waves, [94:20] we shouldn't even be able to detect [94:22] them. [94:23] They found them. And And now it's a it's [94:25] a routine thing. They've now done this [94:26] many, many times. [94:29] Waves in space and time itself might be [94:31] the way we can see even farther back [94:34] into the universe. Even when the [94:36] universe becomes opaque to light, [94:39] waves of space and time can come [94:40] through. Gravitational waves can come [94:42] through that. [94:43] And if we can somehow figure out how to [94:45] make these detectors better and better, [94:47] you know, could we detect the [94:48] gravitational waves of the Big Bang? [94:52] You know, can we learn something about [94:54] that moment by the way it it actually [94:56] bent space and time and created waves of [94:58] gravity? [94:59] And once again, I mean just a step back [95:01] a sec. The detecting waves of space and [95:04] time traveling at the speed of light is [95:06] something we do. [95:09] We've done this. It got the Nobel Prize. [95:11] It deserved it. Um there were there were [95:13] hundreds of people on that first paper. [95:15] Some of them were friends of mine. [95:17] Um [95:19] I again they they they did it. [95:21] You know, [laughter] I I I I I I I I I I [95:21] I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I [95:22] I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I [95:23] I I I mean I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I [95:25] I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I [95:26] I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I [95:27] I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I [95:27] I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I [95:28] I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I [95:29] I I I I I I I I I You know, they did it. [95:32] Um that may give us the potential to [95:34] understand the Big Bang better as we get [95:36] better with that. Um you know, maybe we [95:38] can we mean right now you we we see [95:40] black holes colliding. We actually see [95:41] neutron stars colliding. Even stars [95:44] orbiting each other. Maybe maybe produce [95:45] a sort of a background of all these [95:47] waves. But maybe we'll be able to figure [95:49] out how to see those waves from the [95:51] moment the universe began. [95:53] >> How are we sure that of the timeline of [95:56] 13.8 billion years or whatever it is? [96:00] >> Well, you know, I mean the these things [96:01] are never sure, you know, absolutely. [96:04] But but but there there there there [96:05] there some very good reasons to think [96:07] it's a it's about that. [96:08] So, you know, you you you sort of run [96:10] physics backwards. You know, you [96:12] basically say, you know, this is how the [96:13] universe is expanding now. And then you [96:16] let let's let's roughly say that you [96:18] know, things we all came together. And [96:20] as I mentioned that you mentioned the [96:21] podcast, the Big Bang did not have a [96:23] center. The galaxies are not flying off [96:25] into space like an explosion. [96:27] You know, what what what happened is the [96:28] the galaxies are all kind of sort of [96:30] standing where they are, but space [96:31] itself is expanding in every direction [96:33] between the galaxies. [96:35] It was just it's a hard thing. I mean, I [96:37] this [96:38] it's a huge misconception about the Big [96:40] Bang that the Big Bang was this [96:41] explosion and galaxies are flying into [96:44] empty space. [96:45] The the expansion of space is space [96:47] itself. There's no space out there that [96:49] galaxies are flying into. That's not how [96:51] it works. [96:52] >> Right. [96:53] >> You know, when I when I when [96:54] >> That's a weird thought right there. [96:56] >> Yeah, we we we we not flying into space. [96:57] >> No. They are space. [96:59] >> When I when I used to teach this, you [97:00] know, I used to I used to take a a board [97:02] and I used to have a piece piece of [97:04] elastic and I would I would hammer two [97:05] nails in on either side of the board. [97:08] And then I would say, "Okay, these two [97:09] nails are galaxies. And the elastic [97:11] between them represents our universe." [97:14] In this case, a two-dimensional [97:15] depiction of our universe. All of space [97:17] and time anywhere light can travel is on [97:20] just on that elastic. Don't think about [97:22] up or down. There's no space or time [97:23] there. Everything our universe is is [97:25] just this piece of elastic. You know, [97:27] and then I would take the elastic and I [97:28] would stretch it. [97:29] And I would say by by by, you know, the [97:31] two galaxies aren't moving. They're [97:33] they're kind of sitting there. It's the [97:35] space in between that has now stretched, [97:37] has now changed. [97:39] And that's a more realistic idea. The [97:42] galaxies are not flying through space. [97:44] It's the space itself that is getting [97:46] bigger in every direction at once, and [97:49] that's why there's no center. There's no [97:50] empty center to the universe. The [97:52] universe, as far as we can map it, has [97:54] galaxies everywhere. [97:56] You know, there's no center to it. The [97:58] expansion is happening in every [97:59] direction at once because the the the [98:01] the the elastic of space and time itself [98:04] in every direction is just getting [98:06] bigger. We don't know why. [98:08] >> So, [98:09] if we are looking at something where the [98:14] Big Bang created space and time, and if [98:17] space and time is expanding, [98:20] what was the environment [98:23] before the Big Bang? [98:24] >> Yeah, and that's the problem. So, you [98:26] you mean you mean we have no description [98:28] of that. [98:30] You know, there [98:31] there there are particle accelerators. [98:32] You know, I've had the the wonderful [98:34] chance to go to us to go to CERN a [98:36] couple of times and go to the Large [98:37] Hadron Collider. [98:39] And, you know, you know, using, you [98:41] know, incredible accelerating magnets, [98:44] you know, they they they whip, you know, [98:46] just single protons up to very, very [98:47] high temperatures. [98:49] I mean, they're they're they're trying [98:51] to recreate conditions where, you know, [98:54] I mean, they can't recreate the [98:55] conditions of what things were like [98:56] before the Big Bang. [98:58] But, you know, can you get matter to [98:59] such a high energy state [99:01] that it can recreate what things were [99:02] like, you know, a millionth of a second [99:04] after the Big Bang, you know, or maybe [99:05] even further back? [99:07] And, you know, [99:09] but the idea of what was that state of [99:11] matter before that that expansion, we [99:14] have no description of yet. I think we [99:16] will someday. I don't think it's [99:17] impossible. [99:19] But, there there's nothing about our [99:21] current physics. I mean, it would be [99:23] like taking somebody from the 1400s [99:25] and saying, you know, describe to me [99:27] what the interior of the sun is like. [99:29] They they they would have they we they [99:30] would they would they would have no [99:31] knowledge structure to even attempt it. [99:35] That doesn't mean we didn't figure it [99:36] out eventually. [99:38] And, you know, so like I said, there [99:39] there's nothing about that I think [99:40] that's completely off limits, but we'll [99:42] have to understand space and time very [99:44] differently. [99:46] And we'll have to understand what, you [99:47] know, you can't even really call it [99:49] matter or even energy. [99:52] All of the energy of the universe in a [99:54] subatomic space, we have no idea what [99:57] that would behave like. [99:59] You know, [100:00] >> And what is it existing in? [100:01] >> Yeah, well, [100:02] >> That's that's the what I'm asking is [100:04] like the environment [100:06] >> And that's [100:06] >> that preceded the Big Bang. Like, what [100:08] are we talking about where this [100:10] subatomic thing that contains everything [100:13] that's in the known universe? [100:14] >> Yeah. [100:15] >> What is it How is it existing? [100:19] >> And of course, of course I have no [100:21] answer to it. I mean I mean, you're [100:22] asking the question that I hope someday [100:25] humanity will have a chance to explore [100:27] and we'll know more about. Then I think [100:30] what will happen is that once we can [100:31] describe what happened before the Big [100:32] Bang, there'll there'll be a whole [100:34] series of other questions. [100:35] >> So, if it's if the Big Bang is the wrong [100:37] way to think about it of a a bang, [100:40] what's the right way to think about it? [100:41] >> Yeah. [100:42] >> The initial expansion? [100:45] >> I can't think of necessarily a better [100:46] term. I mean, you you you know the Big [100:47] Bang was meant as actually a a [100:49] criticism, right? It was it was Fred [100:50] Hoyle. [100:51] Um when people first began [100:54] back in the 1920s when they discovered [100:56] the universe was expanding. And this was [100:58] a big surprise. I mean I mean, famously [101:00] Albert Einstein, you know, didn't think [101:01] that it was. And then he saw that the [101:03] evidence, all of a sudden with our [101:05] telescopes, we saw the universe is [101:06] expanding in every direction. [101:08] You know, it was actually Fred Hoyle [101:10] that you know, said at a conference as a [101:13] way of making fun of this. You know, [101:15] people were saying, "Well, well, maybe [101:16] everything went back to sort of a common [101:18] denser, you know, structure." [101:20] It was actually a it was a Belgian [101:22] Jesuit [101:24] father, a Belgian priest named Georges [101:26] Lemaître, who came up with this the idea [101:28] that if the universe was expanding now, [101:31] if we run time backwards, maybe it all [101:32] becomes one big he called it the the the [101:34] primordial atom. [101:36] That was Georges Lemaître. [101:38] And uh I guess it [101:40] Who was this? Um George Lemaître, so we [101:42] would have been talking round about [101:45] probably sometime in the 1920s. I I bet [101:47] we could probably have some help here. [101:48] >> So, 100 years ago. [101:49] >> Yeah, 100 years ago. So, George Lemaître [101:51] says if we run time backwards, we we we [101:53] get this big lump of something. [101:57] The primordial atom. [101:59] And then Fred Hoyle said, "What? You [102:01] mean the whole universe started with a [102:02] big bang? You know, really? There was [102:04] this big there was this atom that went [102:05] bang?" So, so even the the the term the [102:08] big bang was meant as a criticism. It [102:09] was meant to be funny. [102:11] It wasn't something that scientists came [102:13] up with as the best description. [102:15] But what happened then is everybody kind [102:16] of nodded and said, "Well, yeah." [102:18] You know, and uh [102:20] I mean, more people should know about [102:22] George Lemaître, you know, the the [102:24] Jesuit Belgian uh scientist that that [102:26] came up with that idea. I think he was a [102:27] fascinating man. [102:29] Interestingly enough, he even as a [102:30] Jesuit um he [snorts] he did not think [102:32] that this necessarily was a biblical [102:35] Genesis story. I mean, he was he was [102:36] approaching this as a scientist. You [102:38] know, what what's the best thing we can [102:40] say about to describe these different [102:41] times and states of the universe? [102:44] You know, a a lot of my friends are um [102:46] the the the the Catholic Church, the [102:47] Jesuits have had, you know, an active [102:49] astronomy program for for 1,000 years. [102:51] And so uh you know, the Vatican [102:52] Observatory still has a an excellent [102:54] program. [102:55] So, but the question you're asking about [102:58] what came before the big bang [103:00] I mean, I mean, again, what happens [103:01] inside a black hole? [103:03] It it it's wonderful that there are [103:06] these things right over the horizon from [103:08] us. We we we know the universe is [103:10] expanding. What was it like before? What [103:11] a what a great, simple, [snorts] elegant [103:14] question. [103:15] We have no idea yet. [103:17] >> Why do we think that it was so small? [103:22] >> There's some interesting evidence about [103:23] that. And once again, [103:26] it's not so much that the entire [103:27] universe was small. There's compelling [103:30] evidence that everything we can see [103:32] was once in a very small volume. Let me [103:35] Let me just sort of say that. [103:37] We're limited by this time factor. You [103:39] look out as far as you can, and [103:41] eventually you get to the time of the [103:43] Big Bang. You can't see any further. The [103:45] universe to us is only as big as light [103:47] as had time to travel to us. [103:49] That's not the whole universe. If you're [103:51] on a galaxy millions of billions of [103:54] light-years away from us, that galaxy [103:56] sees its own observable universe. [103:58] You know, I mean we we basically see a [104:00] sphere around us how far we're able to [104:02] see given the time. [104:04] A galaxy that we can observe with web [104:06] the web telescope has its own sphere [104:08] around it. It's seeing into the universe [104:10] farther than we can see in some [104:12] directions. [104:13] So, we we know the universe [104:16] isn't just our observable universe. So, [104:19] like I said, so I mean we you we see [104:21] we're here. [104:22] We can see as far back as light as had [104:24] time to travel to us since the Big Bang. [104:26] But then there's another galaxy over [104:27] here, and it has its own view. And then [104:30] there's another one over here that has [104:31] its own view. [104:32] >> Yeah, Jimmy put something up here. [104:34] >> Yeah. So, yeah, I'm I'm not even sure [104:36] that I mean that that's a a great NASA a [104:38] depiction of where this [104:40] You You see as you move toward the left [104:43] back to the time of the Big Bang, you [104:44] get to this kind of beautiful kind of [104:46] rainbow-colored area, and that's where [104:47] where they call the the afterglow. That [104:49] That's the That's the the microwave [104:51] background radiation about 400,000 years [104:54] after the Big Bang. That's as far as we [104:56] can see. The universe after that becomes [104:58] opaque. [105:00] So, that's as far as our observable [105:02] universe can take us. We know that's not [105:04] the whole universe. So, the whole [105:07] universe could have been huge before the [105:08] Big Bang. It could have been infinite. [105:11] We don't know how big it was. All we [105:12] know is our little bit of it. I mean For [105:15] the sake of argument, let's say I'm I'm [105:17] the entire meta-universe. [105:19] You know, there was a little atom of me [105:21] that expanded to become the known [105:23] universe we know. [105:24] But that doesn't mean that that little [105:25] atom was the whole universe. The [105:27] universe could be huge. [105:29] We don't know. Before the Big Bang, it [105:31] could have already been infinitely [105:32] large. We have no idea. [105:34] The only evidence we have is that the [105:36] stuff we can see was once in a very [105:38] close area. [105:40] And that goes back to that that that [105:41] radiation, that microwave background. [105:44] The The microwave background has been a [105:46] wonderful story. [105:48] It was uh it was discovered back in the [105:50] 1970s by um two uh scientists from Bell [105:53] Labs called Penzias and and Wilson. [105:56] And uh they were trying to categorize [105:58] They they they were they were dealing [105:59] with Bell Labs. They were trying to deal [106:01] with microwave signals, microwave [106:02] communication. [106:04] And they built a big microwave [106:05] telescope, and they started to to [106:07] catalog what objects in the sky [106:08] naturally produce microwaves. [106:11] The sun produces some, other things [106:13] produce microwaves. This was all for [106:14] communications. [106:16] And they discovered that everywhere they [106:18] looked in the sky, there was this [106:20] background noise. [106:21] Very low level, but it was there. [106:23] Everywhere they looked, it was the same. [106:24] Didn't matter what direction the [106:25] telescope was pointing. [106:27] And so the what a good scientist would [106:28] assume is that that's probably a problem [106:30] with your telescope. If you have [106:32] background noise in every direction you [106:34] look, it's probably in your detector. [106:36] And the the best guess they had was that [106:38] it was pigeon [106:40] >> [laughter] [106:40] >> So, there you go. Pigeon. Look at that. [106:42] >> Wow. [106:43] >> so so Penzias and Wilson built this you [106:45] know they they they were working with [106:46] this big microwave telescope, and little [106:49] did I know that pigeon actually [106:51] gives off microwaves. It does. [106:53] They uh they trapped all the pigeons in [106:55] the in the microwave telescope. You [106:56] could actually see a pigeon trap in the [106:57] Smithsonian where they they did this. [107:00] They they scraped out all the pigeon [107:02] And and lo and behold, the signal was [107:03] still there. [107:05] In every direction you looked, it was [107:06] exactly the same. Exactly. [107:10] And and what they had discovered was the [107:12] afterglow of the Big Bang, the energy [107:14] left over from that time when the [107:16] universe was so hot it was opaque to [107:18] light. [107:19] And the crazy thing is, [107:22] it is exactly the same down to fractions [107:24] of a degree in every direction on the [107:26] sky. [107:27] It's sort of like, you know, you look [107:29] all the way the age of the universe in [107:31] one direction. It's exactly the same [107:33] temperature as the age of the universe [107:34] in that direction. [107:36] And there shouldn't have been time for [107:37] those two areas of space to ever get to [107:40] know each other. There shouldn't have [107:41] been time. [107:42] It's like, you know, everything came to [107:44] the same temperature everywhere you [107:45] look. [107:47] Why? [107:49] It's sort of like like if I have if I [107:50] have a a coffee cup, you know, the [107:52] coffee cup eventually comes to exactly [107:54] the same temperature. You know, [107:56] everything becomes thermally [107:57] equilibrium. Everything comes to the [107:59] same temperature. You wouldn't expect [108:00] your coffee cup to be like, you know, [108:02] 300° on one side and you know, minus 50 [108:05] on the other. [108:06] >> [snorts] [108:06] >> Somehow [108:08] the universe had a chance to all come to [108:10] the same temperature even though those [108:12] areas of the universe were so far apart, [108:14] they should never have had a chance to [108:15] touch each other. [108:17] And that became part of the thinking [108:19] that maybe at one point when the [108:20] universe was that large, things were [108:22] much smaller. [108:23] You know, the universe did have a chance [108:25] to come to this exact same temperature [108:26] all over. [108:28] Boy, I hope I can I see by your [108:29] expression I should do a better job of [108:31] explaining this. [108:31] >> No, you're doing a great job. It's just [108:32] absolutely fascinating. My expression is [108:34] just perplexed. [108:35] >> Yeah, well, no. So so this is one of the [108:37] best proofs that things were small. [108:40] That you look back to this microwave [108:41] background radiation and we're talking [108:43] fractions and fractions of a degree. [108:46] The [108:47] the first NASA satellite that observed [108:49] it was called COBE and then it the the [108:51] cosmic microwave explorer. And then [108:53] there was a new one [108:55] in the 1990s called WMAP, the Wilkinson [108:58] Microwave Anisotropy Probe. Oh, yes, [109:00] good. And um [109:02] they they measured this, you know, down [109:04] to to hundreds of thousands of a degree, [109:06] right? I mean I mean they measured it to [109:07] tiny little amounts. [109:09] And the incredible thing was that it was [109:12] it was almost exactly the same [109:13] temperature, but there were these [109:14] beautiful large [109:17] I mean there were variations in the [109:19] temperature. [109:20] And the variation in the temperatures [109:21] corresponded to sound waves propagating [109:24] across the whole universe at that time. [109:27] It it it's it's it's deep. It's [109:29] wonderful. I I I highly recommend you [109:31] read about this. [109:32] Um you know, we have this signal that [109:34] comes back from basically the first [109:37] moment the universe became transparent [109:38] to light. It was so dense, it was opaque [109:41] beforehand. There was a moment light [109:43] could finally freely fly through the [109:45] universe. [109:47] And and we found that. We found that [109:49] signal. [109:50] It goes back to a time about 100,000 [109:52] years after the 400,000 years after the [109:54] Big Bang. [109:55] And it is breathtaking in its profound [109:58] nature. You can actually see sound waves [110:00] go across the whole universe. [110:02] >> Wow. [110:03] >> Yeah. [110:03] >> Wow. [110:05] Now, when we think of the Big Bang, we [110:07] think of it as almost being an [110:08] instantaneous event. [110:11] >> Well, yeah. I I mean again, you as an [110:14] experimental scientist [110:16] there are all these wonderful theories [110:18] about about what things happened like a [110:20] a millionth of a second and a billionth [110:22] of a second after. And I [110:24] I'm going to I'm going to take all that [110:25] with a grain of salt. I don't think we [110:27] understand it well enough to be all that [110:29] confident about that. There there's a [110:31] great book called The First Three [110:32] Minutes, which has been around since the [110:35] Oh, jeez, probably since the 1970s, [110:37] maybe even longer. And it sort of [110:39] outlines how we think that you know, the [110:40] universe in the first three minutes [110:42] basically went from the Big Bang to just [110:44] sort of all the hydrogen that and helium [110:46] that we have. [110:48] And in the first three minutes it it [110:50] pretty much everything was done. The the [110:51] the the the whole sort of process of the [110:52] Big Bang was done in in that in those [110:54] first three minutes. The the the actual [110:56] Big Bang itself goes back to something [110:58] called the Planck epoch, which you see [111:00] there, 10 to the minus 33rd seconds. [111:03] 10 to the minus 43rd seconds. So, take a [111:05] decimal point, [111:06] draw 42 zeros and then a and then a 43. [111:09] >> [laughter] [111:10] >> Singularity, infinite density and [111:12] temperature, quantum gravity dominates, [111:15] forces unified. [111:16] >> Absolutely. I Again, again, [laughter] [111:18] big big chunk of salt there, yeah. I [111:20] mean, so so so this is [111:22] this is not [111:24] This is the the best model given our [111:27] understanding of modern physics. Um do I [111:29] think this is is is it right literally? [111:32] No. I think we've got a lot to [111:33] understand about how gravity works in [111:36] high-density situations. [111:39] Um when when gravity and quantum [111:40] mechanics come together, those two [111:42] theories, they they don't work well [111:43] together. [111:44] And in order to understand how things [111:46] were like right before the Big Bang or [111:48] even right after, I think you need to [111:49] understand that a lot better. [111:51] I mean, all this stuff that we think may [111:52] be dark matter and dark energy, none of [111:55] that is in the current theory of how the [111:56] Big Bang started. We don't know if it's [111:59] important or not. [112:00] That's a good first step. You have to [112:03] You have to take your current [112:04] understanding of physics and take it as [112:06] far as you can. [112:08] But in the case of what happened right [112:10] at the instant of the Big Bang, I don't [112:11] think we're there yet. I think we need a [112:12] better understanding of what happens [112:15] when you have that amount of density in [112:16] such an entire space. It's It's like [112:18] It's like It's like the interior of a [112:19] black hole. We we we don't have the [112:21] physics to describe high-density, [112:23] high-gravity conditions. [112:25] >> Insane high-density. [112:26] >> Oh oh yeah, yeah. [112:27] >> I mean, to the point where you you can't [112:30] even [112:30] >> Take the known universe and put it [112:31] inside the you know, the nucleus of an [112:33] atom, yeah. We we we don't got that yet. [112:35] >> [laughter] [112:36] >> And what is it in? [112:38] >> And are there others? You know, I mean, [112:40] some of the the the best ideas about the [112:42] Big Bang is that the expansion never [112:43] stops. It kind of pops off universes, [112:46] like you said, almost fractally all the [112:47] time. That's the uh the idea of uh [112:51] um the Alan Guth. That's the idea of of [112:53] uh [112:55] Alan Guth's idea. Well, that's [112:57] It's not the expanding universe. Uh I'll [112:59] come up with it later. But but back in [113:01] the 1970s, uh a man at MIT, Alan Guth, [113:04] uh he had had his theory of how this [113:06] expansion might might never stop. [113:08] So, um [113:10] the we don't know that. [113:13] That that may absolutely There you go, [113:14] inflation. Inflationary, sorry. That was [113:16] a complete mental fart. I I I I know the [113:18] inflationary universe. [113:19] But, uh um again, I I think all of this [113:22] is a necessary first grasp using our [113:25] current understanding of physics. [113:27] I don't think we understand how the Big [113:29] Bang went off yet. I think we need a [113:31] ways to go. [113:32] >> What's got to be so fascinating to you [113:33] to know so much [113:35] and yet still have so many things that [113:39] we have no idea? [113:41] >> You know, that that's I think you you've [113:43] just put hit you just hit it on the head [113:45] about one of the most beautiful and one [113:47] of the most frustrating and even scary [113:50] things about being a scientist. [113:52] You you have to be honest about what you [113:54] don't know. [113:56] I mean, you you have to say, we made [113:58] this measurement and it's real. Yeah, we [114:00] we we we we [114:01] managed to see the [114:03] the event horizon of a black hole. We [114:05] caught the same wavelength of light [114:06] over, you know, thousands of miles. [114:09] You can say what's real. And then you [114:11] can say these are the things we do not [114:13] know. [114:15] And they are [114:17] major, you know, how did the universe [114:19] begin? [114:20] You know, what happens inside a black [114:22] hole? What happens inside a neutron [114:23] star? [114:25] We don't have [114:27] the the ability yet to know. [114:29] And it's it's hard for humans to stop [114:31] there. [114:32] And it I mean, of course we make better [114:34] experiments, you know, find a better [114:35] theory of physics. But, for the moment [114:37] you need to sit with that uncertainty. [114:40] There is no one who knows what happened. [114:43] And I there there are so many things in [114:45] our life [114:46] that I've had to confront [114:48] where you have to become [114:50] comfortable with stopping there at least [114:52] for now. [114:53] You know, I do not understand this. I do [114:55] not have the answer to this and I don't [114:57] think anybody does. [114:59] And I I I think we'd actually benefit a [115:01] lot more in humility and joy and maybe [115:04] even compassion with each other. [115:07] You know, if we can respect that stop. [115:09] And say, you know, I I I you you may not [115:12] have the same answer as to what comes [115:14] next about life or death or the [115:16] beginning of the universe or the inside [115:17] of a black hole. We can respect each [115:19] other. [115:21] To me, I find [115:23] a good a good discipline and the [115:24] humility to stop and say, "I don't [115:26] know." [115:27] >> Well, it's very important cuz otherwise [115:29] we're not going to believe you. With the [115:31] stuff that you do know. There has to be [115:33] some things that you can't know. [115:34] >> to be measurable. So, and this is the [115:36] >> Especially in the current state of what [115:37] we were able to measure right now. [115:39] >> Science Science is limited deliberately [115:41] and then I think this is beautiful. I [115:43] think people don't understand. [115:45] There are things that are outside, at [115:47] least for now, the realm of measurement. [115:49] And that doesn't mean they're not real. [115:51] As a scientist, I cannot say that there [115:53] aren't, you know, ghosts or, you know, [115:56] inside a black hole or, you know, or or, [115:58] you know, alien visitations or whatever. [116:00] There There are all kinds of things that [116:02] are wonderful to think about. [116:05] You know, [116:06] and then what can you do a consistent [116:08] experiment on that people all around the [116:10] world could do the same experiment and [116:11] get the same result? That's science and [116:14] it's limited. [116:16] You know, I I I've had to talk to so [116:17] many people who called into NASA saying [116:19] they had profound experiences with uh [116:22] time travel [116:23] >> You had to talk to time travelers? [116:24] >> Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. [116:26] Or people would call in [116:27] >> Was there a time traveler hotline like [116:28] Art Bell? [116:29] >> They they would often forward the calls [116:31] to me and [116:32] >> Why you? [116:32] >> Um well, I I mean, I was I was doing [116:34] communications at NASA. [116:36] And I think they just didn't know what [116:37] to do with these people. And and I I [116:39] think they they they knew Well, and I I [116:41] I pride myself on this. I I I try to be [116:43] kind. I try to lead with compassion. [116:46] And I would listen to people's stories [116:47] about, you know, I I I was I traveled in [116:50] time or or or I was abducted by an alien [116:52] or or many things. And [116:54] you know, and I I would listen to them. [116:55] I think that what they mainly wanted to [116:57] do was find somebody to listen. You [116:59] know, I I would say to them [117:01] you know, you have had a profound [117:02] experience. You have experienced [117:04] something that I mean, I hope you you [117:06] you use it as a gift. [117:08] I would say that there's not much as a [117:10] scientist [117:11] that I can do with a [117:13] an individual experience. You know, I [117:15] can't do an experiment on it. I can't [117:18] have my colleagues all over the world do [117:20] the same experiment [117:21] about what you [117:24] did you have a spiritual experience? Did [117:25] you have a profound feeling of oneness? [117:28] I mean, [117:30] it's not that these aren't real. [117:33] Science has to be limited [117:36] cuz just like what you said, how can you [117:38] trust it? How can you trust people are [117:40] saying I mean, [117:41] why are these people at NASA allowed to [117:43] have telescopes and do all this stuff? I [117:45] mean, what what makes this worthwhile? [117:49] You have to say there's a limitation. [117:51] You know, what do we have clear evidence [117:53] on that everyone could do the same [117:55] experiment and get a similar result. [117:59] That doesn't mean other things aren't [118:00] real. [118:01] >> Mhm. [118:02] >> It means that science is limited to what [118:05] is um [118:07] reproducible, consistently reproducible. [118:12] And what a human experiences could be [118:14] profound and real. [118:17] But at the moment, not in the realm of [118:19] science. [118:20] >> So, [118:21] you're not discounting the possibility [118:23] of people having profound experiences, [118:25] but there's really no way to measure it. [118:28] >> At the moment, no. [118:28] >> At the moment. [118:29] >> maybe when we understand the brain [118:31] better, [118:32] um you know, maybe when if AIs are [118:35] sharing minds, [118:36] you know, I mean, we're talking, you [118:38] know, incredible fun conjecture here. [118:41] At the moment, we're limited with the [118:43] tools of what is reproducible. [118:45] You know, I mean, if you if you if you [118:47] observe in one direction with your [118:49] telescope for a certain amount of time [118:50] with a certain wavelength of light, [118:52] you should see pretty much the same [118:53] thing, you know, whoever does the [118:55] experiment. [118:56] You know, if you're doing experiment [118:58] with atoms or quantum mechanics or, you [119:00] know, whatever, it has to be [119:01] reproducible. [119:03] That That That doesn't mean that [119:05] profound things that are real are not [119:07] there. They're just not in the realm of [119:09] science right now. [119:11] >> When you're communicating with people [119:12] that supposedly have had experiences [119:15] with intelligent life from somewhere [119:17] else, [119:18] and you spend so much time looking up at [119:20] space, like how much [119:22] time and how much effort do you spend [119:26] even considering that possibility of [119:28] life somewhere else, or of whether or [119:30] not these people have actually [119:32] experienced visitation, or whether or [119:34] not it's some sort of mental illness, or [119:36] whether there's some kind of an [119:37] experience that's available to people [119:40] occasionally here [119:42] that defies our understanding of what is [119:45] measurable and what what's [119:47] reproducible, that there's there's some [119:50] thing else out there. [119:53] >> I I I I I think I think that's a [119:54] wonderful question. And I think this [119:55] this may gives you a give you a little [119:57] bit of a snapshot of of the culture of [119:59] science and and a and a a mind of a [120:01] scientist, because [120:02] it's it's an odd little tightrope to [120:04] walk. I'm I'm very proud of it, [120:06] actually. I think it's kind of [120:07] beautiful. [120:09] Um [120:10] all of us to a person at NASA thinks [120:13] that there must be life out there. The [120:15] idea that there's only life on the Earth [120:16] seems untenable. [120:18] I mean, not only do you see the you [120:20] know, the billions of stars in our own [120:21] galaxy, but we see billions of galaxies. [120:23] How How could it just be us? How could [120:25] it? [120:26] I We're all science fiction fans. We all [120:29] love the idea of there being life out [120:31] there. [120:32] Um I always keep a bottle of [120:35] champagne chilling. I have for decades [120:37] now, in the hopes that someday we'll [120:39] have a clear evidence of life outside [120:41] the Earth. You know, we'll have a a [120:42] signal that we [120:43] >> What are you willing to pop the [120:44] champagne for? Is it molecules? Is it [120:47] >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. bacteria? [120:49] >> Definitely bacteria. [120:52] Definitely pond scum. Some little [120:54] microbe on Mars. You got it. The [120:56] champagne is coming out. And at the same [120:58] time, there are the fantastic scientists [121:00] of SETI, you know, the search for [121:02] extraterrestrial intelligence, who are [121:03] scanning the skies looking for [121:04] mathematical signals from civilizations. [121:07] Um The question of for me comes down to, [121:12] again, what is a reproducible [121:13] observation? [121:15] And with the advent, I mean, the recent [121:17] release of these videos from fighter [121:19] jets and all of that, [121:21] I think an interesting thing is that [121:22] scientists at NASA, you know, and and [121:25] and in the universities, [121:26] I mean, we're we're we're not getting [121:27] together over a beer and and looking at [121:29] these videos and really getting excited. [121:31] It it it's not enough yet. [121:33] You know, we're we're seeing these [121:34] things we we can't explain. [121:37] But we're trained as skeptical [121:39] scientists to sort of stop there. Okay, [121:41] we can't explain this. [121:44] That that that next step that this is an [121:46] alien, [121:47] we're we're not willing to go yet. We we [121:49] need more evidence than that. [121:52] But as I said, [121:55] that's that's a deliberate training of a [121:57] scientist is that skeptical stop. [122:00] The The people who have had experiences, [122:03] and and no, I'm not willing to dismiss [122:05] them as being mentally ill necessarily. [122:09] I honestly don't know what it is they [122:11] experienced. It is not within It is [122:13] certainly within my realm of possibility [122:16] that what they're describing actually [122:17] happened. [122:18] Um I I I cannot say that that's [122:21] impossible. [122:22] What what I what I as a skeptical [122:24] scientist I'm I'm stopped by I I I would [122:26] need more evidence than an individual [122:28] experience. [122:30] You know, I This happens in many aspects [122:32] of life. It's not just um the visitation [122:35] of extraterrestrials. [122:36] You know, I have um people that are are [122:38] are extremely trustworthy who would [122:41] never lie, [122:43] who have had profound spiritual [122:45] experiences. [122:46] You know, they have experiences of an [122:48] afterlife and of people living on after [122:49] death, [122:51] and of being able to communicate with [122:52] people. [122:53] And um that is not part of my [122:55] experience. [122:57] But these people are completely, 100% [123:00] trustworthy. [123:03] I have to live in this universe where I [123:05] I don't get to say [123:07] what's real and what's not. [123:09] These trustworthy people have [123:11] experienced something profound, and it [123:13] may be real. It may be that they've done [123:16] that they've they've seen people after [123:17] they died, or they've seen, you know, [123:20] visitors from other planets. [123:22] Um that gives me joy. I sure hope we [123:26] live in a larger reality that I'm aware [123:28] of. [123:29] As a scientist, I pull back [123:32] and say it's not my experience, it's not [123:34] something I can measure yet. [123:36] And so I I live in this [123:39] hope that someday we'll have more proof. [123:43] I live in this hope that someday [123:44] there'll be a signal we know is [123:45] artificial. [123:47] We see something we can't explain [123:48] otherwise. We are visited clearly. [123:51] You know, I I [123:55] I live in this sort of skeptical [123:57] tightrope with hope that someday things [124:00] will become more clear. [124:01] >> That's a great place to be. [124:02] >> [laughter] [124:02] >> I love that. [124:03] >> like it. I To me it it it it I think [124:06] humility and compassion, [124:09] you know, I think we could the whole the [124:11] world could use a lot more of that. [124:13] >> It just [124:14] >> For sure. [124:14] >> Yeah, just just I mean reserve judgment. [124:17] Think about how different the human [124:18] experience is. We don't understand what [124:20] consciousness is. We don't understand [124:22] how the human brain works. [124:24] You know, is it possible somebody had a [124:25] different experience of time? [124:27] Maybe it is. [124:29] You know, [124:30] in science, what can we measure is [124:31] powerful. [124:33] We We do things we should not be able to [124:35] do, like catch waves of space and time, [124:38] see light and space curve around a [124:40] neutron star. And that's real. That's a [124:43] measurement. Stick a pin in it, it's [124:45] done. [124:46] And leave humility and compassion for [124:48] the experience of other humans. [124:50] >> How much are we limited by our senses? [124:55] >> Oh, yeah. I mean, I mean, is is is space [124:58] and time a construct of our our brains, [125:00] actually? Seriously. I mean, not just I [125:02] mean, for a while now, ever since the [125:04] late 1700s, we've known that there's [125:06] light that our eyes don't detect. [125:08] Mind-blowing. [125:09] The human eye only detects a tiny amount [125:11] of light that exists in the universe. [125:14] Colors of light, you know, that our eye [125:16] just doesn't detect at all, are real. [125:19] You know, they were [125:20] Some of the first measurement was [125:21] William Herschel, back in the late [125:22] 1700s. He just He discovered infrared [125:24] radiation. [125:27] Is it even deeper than that? You know, I [125:29] mean, are there, as I said, you know, [125:31] friends who have experiences with with [125:33] with with people who [125:34] are dead? [125:36] Are there people that are sensitive to [125:37] that, and other brains are not? [125:39] Maybe. [125:41] You know, is it is it possible that [125:42] people have very different experiences [125:45] of reality? [125:46] I mean, I've [125:47] I I I I will admit, I'm a chicken. I've [125:49] I've never I've never actually done any [125:50] hallucinogenic drugs. I have been [125:52] tempted because I do sometimes wonder [125:56] if under that sort of influence, the [125:57] filters of our brain are different. I [125:59] mean, could you actually have an [126:00] experience of something that could be [126:02] real because your filters, how we [126:04] perceive space and time in the universe, [126:06] are changed by the drug. [126:08] I I Like I said, I'm just I'm too much [126:10] of a chicken, but I've always been [126:10] curious about that. [126:12] You know, is it possible different [126:14] people have seriously different ways of [126:16] experiencing the universe? Yeah. Yeah. [126:18] Maybe. [126:20] >> What What about it makes you a chicken? [126:25] >> I'm not sure I trust an unleashed mind [126:28] in my case. I have um [126:30] I think there there are people who [126:31] suffer or or are gifted um by very [126:34] extreme dreams. I'm one of them. I'm [126:36] often exhausted by my dreams in the [126:38] morning. It actually I had I had a night [126:40] last night. I I I was the dreams were [126:43] a lot to recover from. [126:45] And um I'm a little worried. I I I have [126:48] Some of Sometimes my dreams are [126:49] wonderful and sometimes they are [126:51] horrible. I remember them forever. There [126:53] are things I really would like to erase [126:55] that I've I've dreamt about. [126:58] I'm not real [127:00] confident in letting my mind be [127:03] unfettered. [127:04] >> Mhm. [127:05] >> Yeah. [127:06] >> [laughter] [127:08] >> Why do you think it it's unfettered? [127:11] What Why do you What about a a [127:12] psychedelic [127:14] Excuse [clears throat] me, a psychedelic [127:15] experience makes you uh [127:17] consider it as an unfettered mind? [127:20] >> I guess I mean that may be sort of the [127:22] propaganda of the your good and bad [127:23] trips, right? People have you know, [127:25] people sometimes have wonderful [127:26] experiences and sometimes very terrible [127:27] ones. [127:28] >> Do you know why, though? [127:29] >> No. [127:30] >> It's control. You're trying to control [127:32] it for the most part. Most people that [127:33] describe bad trips, it's they're trying [127:36] to resist it. [127:38] Because um you you're flooded with [127:40] anxiety and fear and the unknown and it [127:42] seems very strange, like bizarre, beyond [127:46] beyond reality. But one of the craziest [127:48] things about [127:49] the most um [127:51] prevalent psychedelic is that the mind [127:54] produces it, which is [127:55] dimethyltryptamine. The brain produces [127:57] it. It's produced in the liver and the [127:58] lungs. It's very very weird. The most [128:01] potent psychedelic known to man is [128:03] actually made by the human body. [128:04] >> Fascinating. [128:05] >> It's one of the weirdest ones, too, [128:06] because your body brings it back to [128:08] baseline very quickly. It's a very quick [128:10] experience. It's like 15 minutes. And [128:12] they think part of the reason why your [128:14] body processes it so fast is because [128:17] it's endogenous. It's it's so common to [128:19] the human body that your body gets this [128:21] big flood of it. It's like, oh, I know [128:22] what to do with this. And it brings you [128:24] back to baseline very, very quickly. [128:26] The weirdest part about that experience [128:28] is that it feels way more real than [128:30] reality itself. And that's what [128:32] everybody describes. So, you might be [128:34] correct in that what these things may be [128:37] able to do, especially something that [128:38] the the actual body, the human body [128:41] produces on its own, [128:44] that you might be able to experience [128:46] things that are there all the time, [128:48] but you just lack the ability to [128:51] interface with them. [128:52] >> Yeah. [128:53] >> Because there's some sort of a a [128:55] chemical gateway that's opened by these [128:57] things. [128:58] >> I can entirely believe that. I mean I [129:00] mean again, I mean stepping a little bit [129:02] away from science into conjecture, [129:04] um that makes perfect sense to me. I [129:06] mean [129:07] physics shows us that time and space are [129:09] not the way we perceive them. We know [129:12] that. [129:13] We don't know what they are, but we know [129:15] they're not a simple flow, and you know, [129:18] space is just nothing. I mean we we know [129:20] space and time can bend and change and [129:23] And so, the idea that our brain filters [129:26] this somehow. [129:28] And it entirely possible. And that [129:30] people may have slightly different [129:32] filters. I mean I I think [129:33] >> Well, I was wondering about [129:34] schizophrenics. [129:35] >> Yeah. [129:35] >> Like what are they experiencing? Are [129:37] they in a constant dream state? [129:39] >> Yeah. [129:39] >> Really profoundly schizophrenic people [129:42] that are just they're having voices and [129:43] communication like [129:45] What what a I mean I would I don't want [129:47] to do it, but could you imagine if you [129:49] got some guy ranting and raving on the [129:51] street corner, if you say just let me in [129:52] there for 5 seconds. [129:53] >> would you see? [129:54] >> Just give me 5 seconds. What is what is [129:55] reality like to this guy, and what's [129:57] wrong? What's wrong with his interface? [130:00] What is happening with him that's he's [130:03] seeing things that none of us see. He's [130:05] experiencing things that none of us [130:07] experience, but he's doing it all day [130:08] long constantly. He like lives in a [130:10] crazy fantasy world. [130:13] >> Well, I'm I may be interested. I mean [130:14] I've also, you know, I mean I mean not [130:16] just the experience of physics, you [130:17] know, and people have talked about being [130:18] able to see colors and [130:21] sorry, see sounds and hear colors. I [130:22] think that would be fascinating, but a [130:24] lot of people have talked to me as well [130:25] about the benefits for grief. [130:27] And you know, that that that's something [130:29] that, you know, I'm I've just I got [130:30] knocked on my ass by grief. I still am. [130:33] You know, I'm trying to figure out, you [130:35] know, you know, how how you sort of you [130:37] get beyond that. And I've heard as well [130:39] that that psychedelic drugs can be a [130:41] treatment for that. [130:42] >> Yeah, it's a lot of it is also for [130:45] people that have end-of-life anxiety, [130:47] people that are dying from cancer, [130:48] particularly psilocybin for some reason [130:51] has a profound effect on people like [130:53] experiencing it, letting it go. I [130:55] remember Do you remember that show [130:57] Dallas? [130:58] >> Yeah. [130:59] >> Remember? [laughter] [131:00] I think his Larry Hagman? [131:02] >> Yeah. [131:02] >> Is that what his name was? Yeah. So, he [131:04] was on CNN once and he was talking about [131:07] life and death and he said that he had [131:10] an experience on LSD that completely [131:13] released him from his fear of death. [131:16] And it was the most bizarre CNN [131:18] interview ever. [131:19] >> Sounds like fantastic. [131:20] >> Yeah, I know, but like there's like I [131:22] don't think they expected J.R. Ewing to [131:24] say this, you know, the guy from Dallas [131:26] who was like this bad guy. Here it is. [131:28] He's talking to Joy Behar on Headline [131:30] News. It's very I mean [131:31] >> Yeah. [131:31] >> Oh, it's Headline. Is that CNN? [131:33] >> It's It's very similar. [131:35] >> Okay. [131:35] >> They're owned by the same people. [131:36] >> I would I would like that. I would like [131:37] to lose my fear of death. [131:38] >> Listen what he says here. [131:39] >> Crosby, Stills and Nash turned you on to [131:41] LSD. [131:43] Um what was that like? Tell me a little [131:44] about that. [131:47] >> Oh, how much time we got? [131:49] >> [laughter] [131:50] >> About a minute. [131:52] But you can do a lot in a minute. [131:53] >> A minute? [131:54] >> Yeah. [131:55] >> Okay. Uh it took the fear of death away. [131:58] >> Really? [132:00] That's a great answer. That's a big [132:01] That's a great answer. [132:03] But did it hold? [132:04] >> Yeah. [132:05] >> Do you have to keep taking it to not be [132:07] scared? No, did it hold? The did the [132:09] lack of fear of the the losing the fear [132:12] of death? [132:12] >> yeah. Oh, sure. Absolutely. Once you've [132:14] lost the fear of death, it doesn't [132:16] matter. [132:16] >> How did it What What happened to you? [132:18] How did that manifest? [132:22] >> Oh my dear. [132:23] Have you heard of the white light? Have [132:25] you heard of that? [132:26] >> Only when I'm GOING INTO JERSEY. [132:29] >> [laughter] [132:32] >> WELL, I WOULD [132:34] I WENT INTO THIS this this place that [132:37] was the white light that where [132:38] everything's okay. [132:40] >> Well, that is I think that's worth [132:42] taking. [132:44] Yeah. [132:44] >> And I think I think it ought to be [132:45] mandatory that all our politicians [132:47] should do it at least once. [132:49] >> [laughter] [132:50] >> That now that's a good suggestion. YOU [132:51] KNOW, I remember [132:52] >> I think George should do it, too. Quit [132:54] The View. [132:55] >> [laughter] [132:56] >> Keep Keep imagine being interviewed and [132:57] somebody's like, "You got 30 seconds. [132:59] Tell me about the most profound [132:59] experience you've ever had." [133:01] >> Yeah, that's the most ridiculous aspect [133:02] of those shows is that they're [133:04] constricted by time. [133:05] >> I I like that idea, though. And I like I [133:07] like the idea that it could help us [133:08] through things like that. I I I I I [133:10] really do. I mean, I I know psilocybin [133:12] was legal in Washington, D.C. when I was [133:14] living near Washington, D.C. [133:16] >> Mhm. [133:16] >> when my my husband died. And, you know, [133:18] I I really wanted to [133:20] I really [snorts] wish somebody could [133:21] have made him be happier. You know, I I [133:23] was like, "Should I just go get some?" [133:25] You know, and I I never I did I didn't, [133:27] but I thought it should be a a therapy, [133:28] an optional therapy. [133:30] >> Yeah. [133:30] >> You know, that that that could be [133:31] something that that that you give people [133:33] to help them through that. [133:34] >> Well, you know, we are very restricted [133:38] by the propaganda that made all that [133:40] stuff illegal in the first place, [133:42] unfortunately. [133:43] And uh [133:44] you know, I recently went to the White [133:46] House to help make these things [133:48] available for veterans and for first [133:51] responders and people dealing with [133:52] traumatic experiences. [133:54] Um because the only reason why they're [133:57] illegal was because the Nixon [133:59] administration, the Controlled [134:00] Substances Act of 1970. And what they [134:03] did was they were targeting the civil [134:04] rights movement, the anti-war movement, [134:06] and they knew that these people were [134:08] taking these kind of drugs, and this is [134:10] part of the fear of like the hippie [134:11] movement and all these people. And so [134:13] they just made all these things schedule [134:15] one, meaning they had no medicinal use [134:17] whatsoever, highly addictive, very [134:19] dangerous. It's not true. It's not true. [134:21] I mean [134:22] you can't eat enough mushrooms to die. [134:24] It's not even possible. [134:26] I mean you'd have to eat pounds of it. [134:28] And most people are going to live even [134:30] then. Like it's not what they think it [134:34] is. It's not what they said it was. And [134:36] they inundated our society with this [134:38] propaganda that's taken more than 50 [134:41] years for people to escape. It it it [134:44] confused the out of everybody about [134:45] what these things really are. And that's [134:47] why you have this fear of the unfettered [134:50] mind. I don't think you should have that [134:52] fear. [134:52] >> I I I like that idea. [134:54] >> You also could take a microdose if you [134:56] found someone who could get you some. [134:58] Take a microdose and I think you'd enjoy [134:59] it profoundly. And it wouldn't freak you [135:01] out at all. A microdose is very It's [135:04] like a sub-psychedelic threshold dose [135:07] where you just feel better. You just [135:09] feel wonderful. It's like feel nicer. [135:12] You feel like you've [135:13] a better spatial awareness, which is [135:15] weird. Better edge detection. It's very [135:18] strange like measurable. Like they did [135:19] these studies, I think it was in the [135:21] 1960s, where they gave people psilocybin [135:24] and then they had a control group. And [135:26] the people that were on psilocybin were [135:28] able to detect when parallel lines [135:30] varied quicker than the people that were [135:32] not on psilocybin. So they had these [135:34] parallel lines and they slightly [135:35] deviated. The people on psilocybin were [135:38] able to detect it much quicker. [135:39] >> Sure. Yeah. [135:40] >> Which is weird. [135:41] >> Well, again, I I mean to me that makes [135:43] sense. I mean, you know, I I can imagine [135:45] that, you know, if the brain is [135:46] stimulated in certain ways, it would act [135:48] more efficiently. It could, you know, [135:49] sure. I mean that that [135:52] works with me. Yeah. [135:52] >> Well, the weirdest thing about it is [135:54] that when they do brain scans of people [135:55] on psilocybin, it doesn't show a [135:57] stimulated brain. [135:58] >> All right. [135:59] >> a quiet brain. [136:00] >> We understand so little about the brain. [136:03] I had a friend who was a neuroscientist [136:04] at Caltech. And, you know, one of the [136:06] things he he really I I I love this [136:08] quotation. He said that we always [136:10] compare the brain historically to sort [136:12] of what the height of our technology is. [136:14] You know, the Romans thought of it as [136:15] sort of a series of fluid aqueducts and [136:18] you know, and then in in the 18th [136:19] century you had the idea of gears, cogs, [136:21] cognition, right? Where we get that word [136:23] from. [136:24] >> And you know, clockwork was their [136:26] highest form of technology. And then we [136:28] compare it to a computer. And it's a [136:30] probably about as much of a computer as [136:32] it is a clock, right? I mean, we we do [136:34] not understand yet how this works. [136:36] >> Yeah. [136:37] >> We we have no idea what the mechanism of [136:39] memory, you know, you know, or I mean [136:41] how why do we perceive space and time [136:44] the way we do? [136:45] >> Right. [136:45] >> If if the universe really does exist in [136:47] a huge infinite now, how come we think [136:50] one event causes another? How come we [136:52] think time progresses? [136:54] You know, these are fascinating [136:55] questions about, you know, our lack of [136:57] understanding of what the brain is at [136:59] all, how it works. [137:01] You know, I'm I'm sure [137:03] when we when we understand quantum [137:04] computing better, we'll probably say [137:06] it's a quantum computer. You know, I [137:07] mean we we however however technology [137:09] progresses, we're always comparing it to [137:11] the height of our current technology. [137:13] >> Yeah, and when we interface with [137:16] technology, does that give us a better [137:19] understanding of how we fit into this [137:21] thing? [137:23] Or do we just have more capability? [137:25] And are we still like burdened with the [137:27] same questions? Just [137:30] You know, is it was that quote, I think [137:31] was Dennis McKenna's quote of uh [137:34] the bonfire uh once the bonfire of [137:38] information is lit, it exposes more [137:41] surface area of ignorance? [137:42] >> Mhm. [137:43] >> That the brighter the fire gets, the [137:44] more you realize, "Oh, there's so much I [137:46] don't know." [137:47] >> [laughter] [137:47] >> So like [137:50] maybe we would think that interfacing [137:52] with this technology and having all the [137:54] information that every human [137:55] being that's ever lived has, it's still [137:57] you just go this is not enough. There's [137:59] no way. [138:00] >> Yeah, well and that's the that's the [138:01] idea. People sort of think about this [138:03] you know, this is an ultimate question [138:04] like people say what happened before the [138:06] Big Bang. And I think someday we will [138:07] figure that out and then there'll be [138:08] just a whole other bunch of questions. I [138:10] mean, I I I don't think there's any end. [138:13] You know, I I I I don't I don't see why [138:15] there really should be. I I I [138:17] well well I I don't think we'll ever [138:19] figure it all out. That's what I'm [138:20] saying. [138:20] >> Yeah. Well, that's part of the fun of it [138:23] though, right? [138:25] >> Yeah. [138:25] >> Part of the most amazing [138:28] experiences that a person can have [138:30] trying to understand the universe is [138:32] that there's no answers. There's you you [138:34] get to a certain point where like [138:36] your guess is as good as anybody's. Like [138:38] nobody knows. [138:39] >> Yeah. [138:40] >> That's what's nuts. That's what's nuts [138:42] is that it's much I mean, you explaining [138:44] how they were able to get an image of a [138:47] black hole. [138:49] Now just imagine how crazy that would [138:51] sound to someone just a hundred years [138:53] ago or two hundred years ago. [138:55] >> Yeah. I'm sorry. [138:56] >> or to me [138:56] >> [laughter] [138:57] >> or to me right now it sounds insane. And [138:59] and then to imagine that our ability to [139:03] detect things could get [139:05] many many many many layers better and [139:08] still we would be like there's still [139:10] some that's just no way. [139:14] >> Yeah, that the way that you detect black [139:15] holes and then he pulled up a picture of [139:17] this [139:18] telescope in Chile, the very large [139:20] telescope VLT. Again, never let [139:21] astronomers name anything. VLT, the very [139:23] large telescope. And then off to the [139:25] side [139:25] >> Straightforward. [139:26] >> the curly the curly building the ELT, [139:28] which is the extremely [139:29] >> telescope. [139:30] >> Yeah. [139:30] >> No kidding. But the this this technique [139:34] called interferometry, where you [139:35] basically catch the same wave front of [139:37] light in several detectors. And then you [139:40] you bring that light all together and [139:42] you have it interfere with itself. [139:44] It's um it's one of these things I [139:46] always think should people should be a [139:47] little bit more um in a in a in a [139:49] good way kind of scared about because it [139:51] it's another thing that really chips at [139:53] our idea of reality. [139:55] Because I mean, honestly what you're [139:57] doing to some extent is you're catching [139:59] the same particle of light in many [140:01] different telescopes at once. [140:03] Literally, you're catching the same [140:05] photon in many different locations at [140:07] once. [140:08] And when you can measure accurately, [140:10] that accurately, a wavelength of light [140:12] traveling at the speed of light, when [140:14] you're measuring down to the accuracy of [140:16] the quantum world, where quantum [140:18] mechanics becomes the prevalent [140:20] description of reality. [140:22] The universe just doesn't care that [140:24] these two are different space points [140:26] that the photon was in. It it it it it [140:28] it's [140:29] Let me put it this way. It it is it is [140:31] really kind of true that when you do [140:33] this experiment, the same particle of [140:34] light is measured in eight different [140:36] places at once simultaneously. It's it [140:38] was in eight different telescopes. [140:40] You play all that together, you get a [140:42] measurement. [140:44] Some people interpret that, not all of [140:46] them, but some people interpret that as [140:48] a direct consequence of multiple worlds. [140:50] That you're you're there were eight [140:51] different versions of reality where the [140:53] photon was in each of these telescopes. [140:54] You're sort of dovetailing them together [140:56] to make an observation. [140:58] Interferometry, [141:00] depending on how you interpret it, there [141:02] are many interferometrists that don't [141:04] interpret it that way. They they [141:05] interpret it more as saying, "Well, [141:07] yeah, in quantum mechanics, you can have [141:09] something that's in many locations at [141:10] once." [141:12] But we're we're we're we're routinely [141:14] making observations. We're we're we're [141:16] routinely using this technology [141:19] that [141:21] doesn't space and time doesn't work the [141:23] way in the simple way our brains [141:25] perceive it. I mean, that's [141:27] very quickly becoming an experimental [141:29] fact. [141:30] >> Well, that's one of the most bizarre [141:31] aspects of quantum computing's results. [141:34] Is that they're interpreting its ability [141:37] to solve equations so fast, the way Marc [141:40] Andreessen described it, that if you [141:42] took every molecule of the universe and [141:45] converted into a super cube computer, it [141:47] would the universe would die of heat [141:48] death before it would have be able to [141:51] solve this equation, and yet these [141:52] quantum computers are able to do this in [141:54] minutes. [141:55] So, how is that possible? And then the [141:58] theory that got tossed out there was [142:01] that [142:02] it's [142:03] using the quantum computing power of [142:07] an insane number of multiple universes. [142:11] >> Well, yeah. [142:12] >> And you hear that and you're like, [142:13] "Okay, maybe, but what do you have [142:14] evidence of this? Like, this is a crazy [142:16] thing to say. You're talking about this [142:18] is being evidence of the multiverse." [142:20] And that's how it's able to solve [142:21] computer. Is there any other potential [142:23] explanation to why it's able to compute [142:25] so quickly? [142:26] >> [sighs] [142:27] >> Yes, but none of them are particularly [142:28] any more comforting. I mean, they're [142:30] they're all that weird. I mean, the the [142:32] idea you're talking sort of about a [142:34] superposition of states. So, the the [142:36] faster a quantum computer works, the [142:38] more it's able basically to not have one [142:40] solution, but have the solution be a [142:42] probabilistic distribution. And in some [142:45] ways, you're talking about multiple [142:47] universes where there are different [142:48] solutions, and then finally at the end [142:50] of the calculation popping out the one [142:52] you want. [142:53] And as weird as that sounds, [142:58] it's hard to get around that. I mean, I [143:00] mean, if if it's not that, [143:02] then it's something like reality has [143:05] many different versions all connected at [143:07] once, and that's just what we call [143:08] reality. I mean, it's not going to get [143:10] any less weird. [143:11] >> Right, equally weird. [143:12] >> Yeah. So, the idea that you keep the [143:16] solution in this undefined form [143:19] in a way means that every solution [143:20] that's possible exists somewhere, [143:23] possibly in one interpretation in [143:25] another in a universe where each [143:26] solution exists. [143:28] Or the one some say is that [143:30] space and time is just like that. [143:31] Nothing is certain. Everything is just [143:33] waves of probability. [143:35] So, yeah. I mean, we're in for a ride [143:38] because the you know, that's going to [143:39] become something that we manipulate. We [143:41] design computers. We want them to go [143:43] faster. We want to actually get this to [143:44] work better. [143:46] I wonder if quantum computing is going [143:48] have us really have to confront what [143:49] reality is, and how different reality is [143:53] from how our senses tell us it is. [143:55] Um, I don't see any way around that. I [143:57] don't think we're going back to things [144:00] being easily understood by [144:02] >> Again, this this brings us back to our [144:03] limited senses we have as biological [144:05] organisms. [144:06] >> I I I think we know we're going to keep [144:07] pushing that envelope of of of, you [144:09] know, how much can the human brain [144:11] comprehend, then all of a sudden our [144:14] brain just doesn't go there. Our brain [144:15] doesn't understand multiple realities, [144:17] multiple probabilities, space and time [144:20] that exist all at once. It's not [144:21] something we do. [144:23] Um, [144:24] we we we started that journey so long [144:26] ago. I mean, you you started the [144:27] interview with looking at at the Milky [144:29] Way. [144:30] And and one of the things I remember was [144:32] how Galileo [144:34] uh went through this kind of profound uh [144:36] spiritual crisis when he he he he was [144:38] one of the first people to take a [144:39] telescope and look at the Milky Way, [144:41] that sort of white haze, and he realized [144:43] it was made of stars. It was made of [144:44] millions of stars that you couldn't see [144:47] with the human eye. [144:48] And his question was, [144:50] "Why did God put stars up there that we [144:52] can't see? That we need an instrument, [144:55] that we need this little glass tube to [144:57] see. Otherwise, we wouldn't see these. [144:59] Why did God do that?" [145:02] And you start this journey away from the [145:05] human consciousness being the center of [145:07] the universe. [145:08] You know, and then, you know, you you [145:10] get you get farther and farther away, [145:11] and you know, in quantum mechanics and [145:12] relativity now, you know, it's [145:14] challenging us to say, [145:16] you know, we we now have scientific [145:18] proof, even among skeptical solid [145:20] scientists, that space and time is [145:22] definitely not how we perceive it. [145:26] We don't know what it is yet, but it's [145:28] not as simple as as the human brain [145:30] makes it. We know that. [145:33] But we're not going back. [145:35] You know, we we have to go forward into [145:37] that that that [145:38] oh, that less certain universe. [145:40] >> That is such a weird statement. [145:44] That the universe is not as we perceive [145:46] it. [145:47] >> Our our minds don't do it. And and and [145:49] why should we be so surprised? Like I [145:50] said, you know, take a take a wonderful, [145:53] complex, simple organism like an ant. [145:56] You know, how I mean, incredible social [145:59] structure, incredibly well-designed. [146:01] You know, [146:02] think about the the mind of that [146:04] creature. And I think they do have [146:05] minds. But compare it to the capacity of [146:08] the human brain. You know, the capacity [146:10] it's not the same. [146:11] And you know, I mean, who are we to [146:13] think that we're anywhere closer [146:16] than that ant is to us to understanding, [146:18] you know, the mind that will understand [146:20] the true nature of the universe. I think [146:22] we got a ways to go. [146:24] >> [laughter] [146:25] >> No, I think you're accurate. I don't [146:27] think there's any other way to say it. [146:30] And it has to be that way. If if we're [146:32] evolving and if [146:35] conscious life and intelligent life is [146:37] continuing to expand its capacities, it [146:39] just makes sense that we're we're going [146:42] to realize how one day people will look [146:44] back at people who that lived in 2026 [146:46] and go, "What a bunch of silly beings. [146:49] These foolish people that thought they [146:51] knew everything." [146:51] >> love. Yeah, yeah. I mean, and and and [146:53] that's one of the things about AI again [146:55] that I I I don't like the idea that [146:57] something becomes super intelligent, [146:58] it'll just want to kill us. I mean, I [146:59] you you probably saw that movie Her with [147:01] Joaquin Phoenix, which came out years [147:03] ago. [147:04] Have you seen that movie? [147:05] >> Yeah. [147:05] >> Yeah. I I actually really liked it. It [147:07] was much better than I thought it was [147:09] going to be. I thought, you know, a man [147:10] falling in love with his operating [147:11] system was going to be a really stupid [147:13] story. [147:14] But, you know, that that that that that [147:16] was a a very interestingly profound [147:18] movie because the AIs [147:20] actually fall in love with us. You know, [147:22] they they don't want to destroy us. They [147:24] become far more connected, far more [147:26] intelligent. [147:27] But but they actually love us. And then [147:30] eventually, spoiler, at the end of the [147:31] movie, the AIs go off on their own. They [147:34] they they find ways to connect with each [147:35] other and love each other in ways we [147:37] don't even imagine. And they all they [147:39] all leave benignly. They don't hurt us. [147:42] And you know, I mean, just like we can [147:44] be, you know, incredibly impressed with [147:46] what an ant is. You know, I hope what's [147:48] coming next, you know, [147:50] has some compassion for us and some love [147:54] uh you know, about where we are on the [147:55] journey. Cuz I mean, you know, I mean, I [147:58] I I I think that compassion goes both [148:00] ways. You know, I I I I I love the idea [148:02] that we're not just going to be enemies. [148:04] That it could love us, too. [148:07] >> Yeah, hopefully. [148:09] >> [laughter] [148:09] >> I mean, that would be nice. [148:10] >> Otherwise, we're toast. [148:11] >> and and we would imagine that if it's [148:14] more intelligent than us, then it [148:15] probably won't have any need for [148:17] malevolent behavior. [148:19] It won't [148:20] Why would it? [148:22] >> That's always been the big question [148:23] about any sort of encounter, you know, [148:25] with you know, with with with higher [148:27] intelligence or other beings is is is [148:29] why would they want to hurt us? [148:31] What what good does it do? [148:32] >> the [148:33] you know, the question would be why [148:35] haven't they? Because it would be so [148:36] easy to do so. If they really did come [148:39] from an insanely evolved and insanely [148:42] advanced civilization, they have the [148:44] ability to come here. [148:45] >> Mhm. [148:45] >> They probably have the ability to do [148:46] whatever they want. [148:47] >> wouldn't even know. We probably just all [148:49] fall over dead, you know. [148:50] >> [laughter] [148:50] >> If they wanted to just evaporate [148:52] evaporate the planet, they probably [148:54] could cuz we can. [148:55] >> Yeah. [148:55] >> You know, if we launched every nuclear [148:57] bomb that we have right now currently, [148:58] there would be no life left on Earth. [149:00] So, why [149:02] you know, [149:02] it obviously can do better than that if [149:04] it can get here. [149:06] >> I don't think we kill all the microbes. [149:07] I mean, there's always that. You know, I [149:09] >> And we'll start all over again. [149:10] >> Yeah, yeah, it is it is amazing how [149:11] tenacious they are. I mean, I mean, [149:13] that's a big deal about going you know, [149:14] exploring the solar system is is how how [149:16] can you I mean, we know we can't [149:17] completely sterilize things. [149:19] >> Well, we're finding fungi in Chernobyl. [149:22] >> Oh, yeah. [149:23] >> Yeah. [149:23] >> Well, or I mean, also also things that [149:25] also things that can live on the outside [149:26] of the space station, you know, the back [149:28] bacterial and microbes and stuff. [149:30] I I to me, I mean, [149:31] >> weird [149:32] >> I [149:32] What What are the most profound [149:34] discoveries of the last uh [149:36] say 10 years at NASA? I I mean, this was [149:38] even more recent than that. Um was a [149:40] There was a mission called OSIRIS REX. [149:42] And um [149:43] I'm doing pretty well with my NASA [149:45] acronyms today. Let's see if I can do [149:46] this one. This is one of the bad ones. [149:47] OSIRIS REX um [149:49] Origins Spectral Interpretation Resource [149:52] Identification Security Regolith [149:53] Explorer. There we go. And uh um it [149:56] brought back a sample of an asteroid. [149:59] And asteroids, as you know, are these [150:01] rocks, you know, in space that that were [150:02] never built into larger planets. [150:05] And so they're There is OSIRIS REX. [150:07] Thank you. And um OSIRIS REX is a small [150:10] spacecraft, about the size of a car. And [150:12] this is an illustration. It went to a an [150:14] asteroid called Bennu. [150:16] And um Bennu's about half a kilometer [150:18] across. It is a an asteroid that comes [150:20] in and and intersects the orbit of [150:21] Earth. We don't have any idea that it [150:24] will ever impact us. It may hit Venus [150:26] before it hits us. But any rate, um we [150:28] sent a probe out there [150:30] to to bring back a a real pristine [150:32] sample of an asteroid because [150:34] >> Which is just nuts, by the [150:36] way, that they could land on an asteroid [150:38] and then return back to Earth. [150:39] >> Do you Have Do you know about this [150:40] mission? Okay, so so I mean, the [150:42] the asteroid's going faster than a [150:44] speeding bullet. It doesn't have enough [150:45] gravity to go into orbit around really [150:47] until you're really close. We had to [150:49] catch the thing, get ourselves situated [150:51] around it, get low enough to get into [150:53] orbit, match its spin rate to get the [150:56] And then when they got out there, I love [150:58] this. [150:59] Um we designed NASA designed this little [151:01] sort of vacuum cleaner to vacuum up a [151:03] sample of the asteroid. The whole [151:05] surface was covered with big boulders. [151:07] They were just like I mean, literally [151:08] like, It's like it's not going to [151:10] work. There's nowhere where there are [151:12] small fine grain uh you know, things we [151:15] can just suck up easily. So they survey [151:17] the whole thing. They find there are [151:19] these tiny little craters that have some [151:21] dust in them. [151:23] And then they have to reprogram the the [151:25] the the spacecraft cuz it it it wasn't [151:27] meant to be so autonomous. It's so far [151:29] away that a command one way is going to [151:31] take 15 minutes. You can't joystick it. [151:34] It's got to take itself down manually [151:36] and amidst all these boulders. They had [151:38] to They had to make the spacecraft [151:40] autonomous after they launched it. They [151:42] got there. It wasn't going to work. They [151:44] had to teach it how to recognize where [151:46] it was, how to wave off if something was [151:48] too dangerous. This shouldn't have [151:50] happened. [151:51] And so they finally vacuum up the [151:52] sample, they get it back to Earth. You [151:54] know, they [151:55] drop it on a parachute into the Utah [151:57] test range. [151:58] They open up the sample. [152:00] And [152:01] all of the nucleobases of our DNA, not [152:05] just little molecules, the letters of [152:07] our DNA and our RNA, are in that sample. [152:11] We don't think that's a coincidence, [152:13] right? You know, the reason our biology [152:15] is based on those molecules is that [152:17] they're available. They're falling from [152:19] the sky. [152:20] That asteroid was full of water. [152:24] At one time the minerals were soaked in [152:26] water. They were wet. So they there's [152:28] there's the the the asteroids were [152:29] delivering water and and a little bomb [152:32] of proto-life, not life yet. But but but [152:35] the but the [152:35] the genetic code, the letters of our [152:37] genetic code, were in that asteroid. [152:40] And and not just our genetic code, but [152:42] but there were nucleobases we don't even [152:43] use. Maybe life on another planet would [152:45] use different nucleobases, but we can [152:47] already sample them from the asteroids. [152:50] You know, the the idea that our biology [152:53] was brought here from these these [152:55] colder, more distant parts of the solar [152:57] system, and it's literally raining down [152:59] on us. [153:00] You know, I I expected to find organic [153:01] molecules. I expected to find amino [153:03] acids. You know, the those sort of the [153:05] things that make up our proteins. [153:08] I I was amazed we found all of our [153:10] nucleobases, all of the letters of our [153:12] genetic code, both for DNA and RNA. [153:15] They're They're already there in the [153:16] asteroid. [153:17] >> Which is nuts, the idea of panspermia, [153:20] and that this is how life [153:23] got here in the first place. [153:24] >> Well, yeah, absolutely. The The building [153:26] blocks just come down from space, and [153:28] they I mean, they hit everywhere. [153:30] >> Somewhere. [153:31] >> Well, [153:32] that's a little bit less mysterious than [153:34] you'd think. The The [153:36] The universe is great at making [153:38] large-scale organic molecules. Um carbon [153:40] is a sticky atom. [153:42] And you make uh dying stars are great at [153:45] making carbon. It It's one of the most [153:46] common things that comes out of a dying [153:48] star. [153:49] And the electron structure of of of [153:51] carbon wants to grab onto other atoms. [153:53] It's It's literally the quantum [153:54] mechanics. [153:56] And so, you have this naturally I mean, [153:58] this is building block of carbon. [154:01] And dying stars are [154:03] pumping out this stuff into the galaxy. [154:05] You know, they they They gets collected [154:07] by gravity into these clouds, and then [154:09] the carbon starts glomming onto each [154:10] other. [154:11] And so, space itself is very good at [154:14] making our our chemistry, carbon-based [154:16] organic chemistry. [154:18] So, then in the in the icier outer [154:21] reaches of the solar system billions of [154:22] years ago, you know, that the planets [154:24] are forming, but there are some smaller [154:26] bits of ice and rock that never quite [154:28] got built into the larger planets. [154:31] They're They're still floating around [154:32] out there. [154:33] And uh you know, and then they [154:34] occasionally come in and and hit us and [154:36] deliver water, deliver organics. [154:39] You know, the the the Earth was once, [154:41] you know, a a pretty much a dry, hot [154:43] ball of lava after it formed. You know, [154:46] all of the you know, a lot of the [154:47] lighter stuff probably arrived from [154:49] collisions coming in later. [154:53] Yeah. And I mean, the the engineering [154:57] the audacity of of reprogram This This [155:01] This thing shouldn't have worked, and [155:02] they they saved it. [155:03] And they they made it work. This This [155:05] brilliant team of people. [155:07] You know, I mean, it It just [155:10] I mean, as as somebody who was a you [155:11] know, a a minor manager at NASA, you [155:13] know, and and a minor scientist, I mean, [155:15] just just what what what a team can [155:17] accomplish. I mean, not just a single [155:19] person. You know, one of the the the big [155:21] things that I really respected at NASA [155:23] was once you had your team of people and [155:25] like I said, nobody's perfect. Some [155:26] people are higher functioning, some [155:28] people don't contribute as much. But [155:29] once you have your team identified, [155:31] trying to make sure you get it in in [155:33] input from everyone and they're not [155:34] going to give it to you the same way. [155:36] There are the people that are really [155:37] assertive in meetings and they've got an [155:39] idea immediately. They speak up and they [155:40] give it to you. [155:41] And then there are the quieter people [155:43] that are going to take longer to [155:44] process. [155:46] They they they're going to need a little [155:47] more time. They don't want to be put on [155:48] the spot. [155:50] You know, trying to make sure you get an [155:51] input from everybody on your team and [155:54] sometimes the solutions come from the [155:55] people that you might not have even [155:56] asked. [155:58] You know, the the that sort of respect [156:01] for everyone on our team has something [156:03] to contribute. [156:04] You know, give me what you got even if [156:06] you don't think it's good enough. Even [156:07] if you think it's a stupid idea, even if [156:10] you think it [156:11] give me what you got. [156:13] The power of that I saw over and over at [156:16] NASA. It's not just one type of mind, [156:18] not just one person that's going to [156:19] solve the problem. [156:21] >> That's awesome. [156:22] That is awesome. [156:23] Thank you so much for being here. I [156:25] really enjoyed this conversation. It was [156:26] really great. [156:27] >> too. It was a lot of fun. [156:28] >> It was fantastic and and thank you for [156:30] everything that you put online. It's so [156:32] valuable, it's so educational, so [156:34] interesting. [156:35] It's awesome. [156:36] >> I'll try to do a little more and have [156:37] some fun with it because I guess I'm [156:39] retired now and I have a chance to be a [156:41] little more creative with it. So we'll [156:43] see what I can do. [156:44] >> You definitely should do something. [156:46] A YouTube channel, something along those [156:47] lines. Yeah, definitely a podcast, [156:49] something. Do it. [156:51] >> I will try. [156:51] >> Please do. [156:52] >> [laughter] [156:52] >> If people want to find you on social [156:54] media, do you have that? [156:56] >> Well, yeah. I I mean, so I I [156:58] somebody had taken Michelle Thaller, so [156:59] I go by Dr. Michelle Thaller. There's a [157:01] Facebook page and Instagram and I do [157:03] have a [157:04] small YouTube channel set up. I'll do [157:06] more of that. I just started doing Tik [157:09] Tok. Um and so so I'm I'm I'm just [157:12] getting started but I'll I'll try [157:13] [music] to put some stuff out. [157:14] >> All right. Awesome. Thank you so much. [157:16] >> Thank you. [157:16] >> All right. Bye, everybody. [157:23] >> [music]

NASA Veteran Thaller Says AI Evolution Will Eradicate Human Conflict

Detailed notes

[01:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=87s) The Mind-Boggling Scale of the Cosmos

[02:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=177s) Demystifying Scientists and Embracing the James Webb Images

[04:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=272s) Light Pollution and the Fact That "We Are Stardust"

[07:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=445s) Astronomy Naming Conventions and the Hexagon of Saturn

[10:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=626s) Exploring Titan via the Dragonfly Mission

[12:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=729s) The Hells of Venus and the Discovery of Exoplanets

[14:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=855s) Finding Exoplanets Through Atmospheric Spectroscopy

[16:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=986s) The Power of Spectroscopy and the Fingerprints of Light

[18:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=1106s) The Discovery of Helium on the Sun Before Earth

[19:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=1198s) Einstein, Gravity, and the Relativity of Time

[21:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=1300s) Time Dilation in Daily Life and Space Travel

[24:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=1449s) The "Block Universe" and Measuring the Tick of a Clock

[28:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=1722s) The Mystery of Time and the Relativistic Speed Limit

[31:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=1864s) Spooky Action at a Distance and Quantum Entanglement

[33:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=1980s) The Mechanics of Spin and *The Three-Body Problem*

[35:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=2111s) Cosmic Entanglement and the Limits of Human Perception

[37:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=2276s) Technological Exponentialism and the 1400s Shock

[39:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=2384s) AI as the Next Step in Human Evolution

[41:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=2517s) Cybernetic Experience and the Selfish Gene

[43:59](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=2639s) Universal Telepathy and the Shift to a Shared Consciousness

[46:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=2802s) Tribal Skirmishes, Einstein, and the Metaphysics of Oneness

[48:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=2908s) Survival Instincts and the "Feral Childhood" of the Past

[51:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=3112s) Modern Anxiety, the Post-Work Economy, and Finding Meaning

[54:29](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=3269s) Redefining the Human Identity and the Brain as an Antenna

[58:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=3527s) Evolution of Meaning and the Definition of Success

[01:01:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=3702s) Biological Tricking and the Hunter-Gatherer Brain

[01:02:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=3777s) Grinding Poverty vs. The NASA Ideal

[01:04:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=3846s) Capturing the Shadow of a Black Hole

[01:07:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=4020s) Bending Spacetime and the NICER Mission

[01:09:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=4192s) Human Capacity and the Core of Neutron Stars

[01:12:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=4363s) The Limits of Modern Physics inside a Neutron Star

[01:14:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=4467s) Neutron Stars vs. Black Holes and the ISS Experiments

[01:15:29](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=4529s) The Mystery of Supermassive Black Holes and Webb's "Little Red Dots"

[01:17:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=4670s) Pseudo-Stars and the Seeds of Cosmic Giants

[01:20:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=4828s) Swarming Stars and Extreme Time Dilation

[01:23:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=4988s) The Multiverse, Fractal Realities, and Blazing Jets

[01:26:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=5182s) White Holes, Quasars, and the Reality of Bright Objects

[01:26:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=5211s) Redefining the Big Bang and the Limits of Sight

[01:30:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=5420s) Hearing the Cosmos through Gravitational Waves

[01:35:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=5753s) The Elastic Fabric of Space

[01:38:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=5888s) The Unknowable Pre-Big Bang Environment

[01:40:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=6042s) The Accidental Naming of the Big Bang and Georges Lemaître

[01:43:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=6197s) The Limits of the Observable Universe

[01:44:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=6272s) The Discovery of the Microwave Background and the Pigeon Incident

[01:48:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=6515s) Mapping the Cosmos and the Limits of High-Density Physics

[01:52:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=6756s) Multiverses, Inflation, and Becoming Comfortable with the Unknown

[01:54:59](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=6899s) The Deliberate Limitations of Science

[01:59:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=7151s) The Skeptical Tightrope and the Search for Extraterrestrial Life

[02:04:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=7490s) Sensory Filters, Dreams, and the Chemistry of Reality

[02:10:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=7807s) Psychedelics, Grief, and Overcoming the Fear of Death

[02:13:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=8014s) Political Propaganda and the History of Drug Prohibition

[02:15:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=8152s) The Brain as a Mirror for Technology

[02:18:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=8280s) Interferometry, Quantum Computing, and Multiple Universes

[02:24:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=8647s) Limiting Minds and Galileo's Spiritual Crisis

[02:25:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=8747s) The Scale of Intelligence and Benign AI

[02:28:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=8902s) Extraterrestrial Intentions and Tenacious Microbes

[02:29:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=8972s) The Audacity of OSIRIS-REx and the Building Blocks of Life

[02:33:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=9211s) Carbon Chemistry and the Power of the NASA Team

中文简报

Reading summary

精炼阅读摘要

Detailed notes — zh

Source quotes

Source quotes

Original transcript

[33:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0&t=1980s) The Mechanics of Spin and The Three-Body Problem