0:07

I'm Lawrence Krause, and welcome to

0:10

this origin's podcast exclusive.

0:13

I say exclusive because today's podcast

0:16

is with the remarkable writer,

0:19

Cormack McCarthy,

0:21

a writing legend and certainly one of

0:23

America's greatest writers Cormack

0:25

is notorious for having done very,

0:27

very few interviews.

0:29

And I was very honored

0:32

when Cormack who is a friend old friend

0:35

agreed to invite us into

0:37

his house to have a discussion

0:39

upon the publication of his Recent

0:42

books. At the time, his

0:44

book, the passenger had just appeared. And

0:47

just this week, the second, book

0:50

associated with that Stella Maris appeared

0:52

on December sixth. And I wanted

0:54

to use that as a springboard to talk

0:56

about science. Cormack likes to talk about science.

0:59

What many people may not realize is, as

1:01

he said to me, but in other times, he's more interested

1:03

in science than literature. And

1:07

likes to have discussions of those ideas,

1:09

and I wanted to use

1:11

certain discussions

1:13

within the context of the book to elaborate

1:16

aspects of science and culture. Cormack

1:19

is notoriouslyaconic and

1:21

and it's very difficult to get him to.

1:24

not just do an interview which she almost ever does,

1:26

but to to to to speak

1:29

at length about about

1:31

about these ideas. And you'll

1:33

see in the discussion, it's it's more like

1:35

the kind of dialogue he and I have where

1:38

he likes to listen to

1:41

physicists talk about physics, and

1:44

and and then comment on that.

1:46

And and you'll see that I'm doing a lot of

1:48

talking in this in this discussion. And

1:52

I recognize that in advance, and

1:55

and I wish There

1:57

was less of me and more of Cormack, but I think

1:59

what

1:59

Cormack says is incredibly insightful

2:03

and interesting and gives you a view of

2:05

the processes that that go on in his

2:07

mind which have helped produce the kind of

2:10

remarkable literature that he's ultimately

2:12

produced. It's a discussion of science,

2:14

not literature,

2:15

and I hope you

2:17

enjoy it

2:18

and

2:21

find

2:22

what I find so remarkable that this

2:25

that this literary icon is

2:27

also incredibly knowledgeable about

2:29

math and science and comfortable talking about it.

2:31

and it represents, as I say, in the podcast,

2:33

the kind of fusion of art and culture,

2:36

which I think is so important and which the Origins

2:39

Podcast and the Origins Project Foundation

2:41

is built to demonstrate

2:44

and elucidate. So

2:46

enjoy this discussion

2:49

with Cormack McCarthy, one

2:51

of the unique experiences. He's ninety years

2:53

old, almost eighty nine, and

2:55

and it was late

2:57

afternoon, and and I'm sure he was

2:59

tired and I particularly appreciate

3:01

him taking the time out

3:03

to be to to have that discussion.

3:05

And you'll also see, for those who can watch it,

3:07

the challenges of recording podcast

3:10

in a room with

3:12

windows and no blinds in a very

3:14

sunny day. So

3:17

all that taking good context. I hope you

3:19

all you'll watch

3:21

the the version without advertisements

3:24

by getting a paid subscription

3:26

to the critical mass substack site

3:29

those subscriptions go to supporting the

3:31

Origins Project Foundation, which runs

3:33

the podcast and all of our other activities. And

3:37

if you can't do that, you'll watch it I hope on

3:39

on our YouTube channel or listen to it

3:41

on any place where you can listen to podcasts.

3:44

And

3:45

enjoy the rare occasion

3:47

to listen to

3:48

a few words from

3:50

Cormack McCarthy. Thanks.

4:01

Kormack, thanks so much for

4:03

spending time with me allowing us to be here and and

4:05

welcome us into your home so we can have a chat

4:07

about the world and science and

4:10

And it's a it's a real pleasure. Thank you very

4:12

much for for for doing this. Oh, thanks

4:14

for calling. It is it means more

4:16

to me than you may know to spend time together again.

4:19

and we're here to talk about

4:21

science. I don't know if a lot

4:23

of people know, but I do because we spend

4:26

time together How interested you are

4:28

in science? I think you once told

4:30

me that that's what you like to read the most with

4:32

science. Yeah. It's another

4:34

big thing. I mean, think it may be

4:36

clear from for the first time in your last

4:38

book where you actually talk about science, and then maybe

4:40

the first book where you talked about science,

4:42

I'm not sure. But Now, this is an Origins

4:45

podcast, and I wanna find

4:47

out, I never asked you, where

4:49

did your interest in Science begin? What where

4:51

your parents Were they scientific at

4:54

all? Or No. Where did that interest in

4:56

science begin? That'd be in science. It's

4:58

interesting. Yeah. But how did you get

5:00

exposed to it as well as a kid? Or or

5:02

Well, no. It's around. I mean, that

5:04

that why

5:05

wouldn't anybody not be interested? Well,

5:07

I agree. my feeling is once you know

5:09

that it's out there, how can you not be interested?

5:11

But you have to know what's out there. Did you read

5:13

books by scientists when you're a kid or did you

5:16

-- No. -- hear it on TV or when I was

5:18

a kid. No.

5:19

So it

5:20

must have stumbled upon it somehow.

5:22

stumbled

5:24

upon it somehow. That that's probably

5:27

the best answer. I stumbled upon it

5:29

somehow. Okay.

5:30

Yeah. And then Is

5:32

is physics the part of science that you find

5:34

most interesting, by the way? Yeah. I agree.

5:36

It's the most interesting. Yeah. And

5:39

once you stumble upon it, did you make an effort

5:41

then did to read books by

5:43

scientists? Yeah. Sure. Yeah. And

5:45

and did you read all the standards

5:47

like GAMA, George GAMA, and

5:49

people like that when you're younger? And

5:51

Feynman. And Feynman. Yeah.

5:53

Feynman, his was one turned

5:55

me on. I mean, his character of physical law, I think,

5:57

was the book that -- Yeah. -- really convinced me

6:00

You

6:00

know what it convinced me of? Wasn't

6:02

science was still alive. It wasn't all done

6:04

by sort of dead white men two hundred years ago

6:06

that there was so a lot to learn. Well, that's

6:08

interesting because Feynman said

6:10

that we live in a period where

6:12

we're going to learn all about science. And

6:14

after after we're there, there'd be nothing

6:16

else to know And

6:18

I think that's not

6:20

exactly right. Yeah. And in fact, I think you

6:22

use that quote in the new book when you talk about Feynman.

6:25

you specifically relate that. And it was very

6:27

unfindment esque to say that. Because

6:29

finally, you used to say that he didn't think there'd be ultimately

6:31

a theory of everything. He thought it'd be like an onion.

6:34

and each time we, you know, we pew back

6:36

more. Which seems like the opposite. Yeah.

6:38

Yeah. And so given that he said that, you'd think

6:40

he'd always think there'd be something more to discover.

6:43

Well, most of us do

6:45

think. Now,

6:46

we first met when was

6:49

visiting the Santa Fe Institute and

6:51

where you spent a lot of time how

6:53

did that interaction I mean, you didn't move to Santa

6:56

Fe for the institute, I was assuming. Yes,

6:58

I did. You did? Yeah. And it was because

7:00

of that that you wanted to be here so you could spend time

7:02

there. I moved to Santa Fe

7:04

so I could be near the Institute. And it

7:07

was because of the Viewer's Food Science. I didn't

7:09

realize that. Okay. Oh, yeah. Sure. and

7:11

you regularly and that's a good place to

7:13

meet people and talk about science and and

7:15

excellent. And you can see it from

7:17

the new book, but, you know, one of the people who

7:20

was instrumental in starting the Santa Vance two

7:22

was Murray Gullman, who Yeah. And

7:24

is that how you knew about the institute? Was it because

7:26

a Murray or or Yeah. He invited me

7:28

to come.

7:29

Oh, really interesting. And

7:31

he was an amazing

7:33

scientist who also knew

7:35

everything about everything. else? Yeah.

7:38

Yes, he did. Yeah. Yeah. In

7:40

fact, yeah, he he would no matter what it

7:42

was, he would explain to you why you were

7:44

wrong. He would

7:47

he would tell you why you mispronouncing your

7:49

own name. Exactly. He always said that. First

7:51

time I met him, he told me why I was mispronouncing my

7:54

own name. Yeah. Absolutely. And

7:56

it's for me, it was a joy in

7:59

reading the new book because for

8:01

the first time physics kind of

8:03

makes an impact. And there was kind of fun for

8:05

me to read indirectly about

8:07

Murray and Feynman and George Feige,

8:10

who I guess he also knew. No. George

8:12

is a very good friend of mine. We talk on the phone

8:14

all the time. Yeah. Of the time. And we'll we'll talk about

8:16

that. But, you know, one of the things

8:18

that I that hit me that you're

8:20

right about It was will

8:22

you first talk about math? In fact, I guess, the heroine

8:25

of this book is is

8:27

more of a mathematician than a physicist. Well,

8:29

the the book that's coming after this

8:31

book is monologue by a lady

8:33

mathematician. By a lady mathematician. Yeah.

8:35

Okay. Did you did you study math at all

8:37

when you were younger or no? Did did No. No.

8:40

You're a little bit later on. Yeah. So

8:42

so you you you actually like the mathematics. Oh,

8:44

yeah.

8:45

And

8:46

this connection between math and physics,

8:48

I did in green math and in one in physics.

8:51

And the connection, of course, is incredibly

8:53

important. But people

8:55

often fall on one side or another. Does

8:58

the math attract you more than physics? Or or I

9:00

don't know. George and I talked about

9:02

that one time. And I said, thought I

9:04

thought math was richer and there was more

9:06

depth to it. He he disagreed.

9:09

He said, no, there's there's lot more

9:11

to physics than there is to math. George

9:13

White, by the way, had the same experience.

9:15

He was seated,

9:17

math, and they did physics. And, you know,

9:20

for me though, what happened and I don't

9:22

want this view of me, but I wanna preface your character.

9:24

I did a degree in math and physics. I was always

9:26

good in math, obviously, in fact, I started doing mathematical

9:29

physics. That was the kind of physics. But

9:31

what I realized for me

9:33

was that with

9:34

physics I could see where was going

9:37

and with math I could do

9:39

it, but I didn't know where I was

9:41

going. So one of the characters,

9:43

the protagonist, your book, left

9:46

math for physics. He changed his major for

9:48

math to physics. Yeah. And and

9:50

it says, the reason he gave in his letter

9:52

were the best that he could come up with, but

9:54

they weren't the reason. The reason was that in

9:56

talking to his grandmother talking to

9:58

her on those warm nights at his grandmother's chemistry

10:01

I didn't talk to his grandmother. He

10:03

talked at his grand at his

10:05

grandmother. Okay. Thank you. and

10:07

at his grandmother's kitchen table, he had

10:09

seen briefly into the deep part of numbers

10:12

and knew that the world would

10:14

be forever close to him? Yeah. Because

10:16

of his sister who did see.

10:18

Yeah. So that really resonates with

10:20

me because it was like yeah,

10:22

you could do it, but somehow the deep part

10:25

of numbers, somehow the deep the

10:27

wealth and depth of mathematics you talk about

10:29

was something that I couldn't see

10:32

ahead. I could could accept it after

10:34

learning it, but I couldn't see it. Yeah.

10:37

Whereas the physics I knew where I was gonna

10:39

go. Yeah. And the math I could take it in,

10:41

but I didn't know there's something missing to me.

10:43

And was it was and it was a fascinating

10:45

experience. I that word, the way you described

10:47

it, totally captured my own experience.

10:50

And so Okay. And and do

10:52

you do you sense that you can't that you're limited

10:54

your own personal invitations and in

10:56

in under in getting into the numbers or

10:58

not? Well, I don't know everybody.

11:00

Everybody is limited. Yeah. We all

11:02

definitely how good you are, Matthew,

11:05

how deeply you pursued, there's always

11:07

more there. Yeah. There's always a lot more there.

11:09

Mhmm. In fact, the difference

11:11

between math and physics, there's

11:13

so many differences, but the math is all

11:16

possible worlds, whereas

11:17

physics is at

11:19

least the physics of our world is one of them.

11:21

Yeah. Matt is physics is a finite

11:23

business and math don't

11:25

know. Math appears to go on forever. don't

11:27

know if it does or not. Yeah. You know, and and

11:29

I forget his name now. I read one of my books

11:31

and I

11:34

invented the word gauge theory with

11:37

the mathematical physicist said he said when he

11:39

he said when he was forced to choose between

11:41

the true and the beautiful he'd always

11:43

choose the beautiful. Yeah. And I think

11:45

that's the difference between mathematician and physicist.

11:48

People write about the elegant universe, but elegance

11:51

is nice in physics, but it may not it the real

11:53

world may not follow that elegance. And whether

11:55

you like it or not, you have to follow the real world.

11:58

Well,

11:58

we could be misleading. A lot

11:59

of

12:00

quite a few famous

12:02

physicists

12:03

pursued it because of his beauty.

12:05

Okay. They can only do a stray. exactly

12:08

can lead you astray. And and you have

12:10

to realize sometimes, I mean, most of us,

12:12

it's like our children, we think, they're beautifully, even

12:14

if they are. But when you when you're a theoretical

12:16

physicist, I am You can come up with a theory

12:19

and it looks beautiful to you. And

12:21

the hardest part, almost to being a scientist,

12:23

is when you have something that looks so

12:25

beautiful, you figure it must be true.

12:28

And then you discover the nature decided

12:30

not to adopt that particular No. There there

12:32

are some There are some mathematical and

12:35

physical theories that are absolutely

12:37

gorgeous and wrong. Exactly

12:39

and wrong. And again, I'm jumping

12:42

all around here because I was gonna do this later, but

12:44

because Murray, both

12:47

of us knew him, and he later on

12:49

said no. But it was clear when when

12:51

he developed the concept of quirks. For

12:53

him, it was a mathematical it

12:55

was just a mathematical trick in some ways.

12:58

Right? I mean, he was thinking of it as mathematical

13:01

tool, but the real world really

13:03

wasn't like that. That's true. And and

13:05

and I can show it to you in his paper,

13:08

but he claimed He

13:10

claimed that that wasn't so

13:12

that he knew all the time that

13:14

it was real, but I can show you

13:16

the paper where he says the exact

13:18

opposite. Yeah. No. That's sense.

13:20

And somehow I knew that. And yeah, Murray later on

13:22

claimed various things. But the strangest

13:25

thing, if you're a theoretical physicist

13:27

and the hardest thing to really accept

13:29

is when you come up with some mathematical

13:32

idea on a piece of paper, the

13:34

realization that nature actually

13:37

behaves that way is

13:40

terrifying.

13:42

Well, yeah, when you realize that

13:44

nature thinks the same way you do,

13:46

and you've gotta stop and think,

13:48

how is that possible? Exactly.

13:51

How could it be? And so

13:53

I can see how you write something down and

13:55

say, okay, this is my trick and, you know, maybe

13:57

it maybe it touches nature a little bit, but

13:59

it actually

13:59

describes it. And there's this

14:02

history a

14:03

long history of, you know, even the concept

14:05

of atoms for a long time was

14:07

just mathematical trick. No one believed

14:09

atoms were real. Yeah. but it

14:11

was a nice way to to label and

14:14

categorize matter. Oh, George

14:16

told me that he always he always understood

14:18

the quarks, Virginia and This is

14:20

cool. Yeah. And just to use. Zweig

14:23

always thought they were genuine and and young man

14:25

thought that they were a genius. Exactly. Another

14:28

example which actually allude to in the book too

14:30

which is a famous example of of

14:33

Paul Derack. Probably

14:35

one of Next Einstein, one of the

14:37

greatest theoretical physicist of the twentieth century.

14:40

He was, as he said, cowardly, I

14:42

think his was the first but

14:44

what because it was. The first example in modern

14:47

physics of a of a particle

14:49

that was developed that was proposed purely

14:51

for mathematical reasons, the the positron, the

14:54

anti antimatter. Yeah. And

14:56

so he developed this theory and

14:59

and when he saw these particles had to exist,

15:01

he'd figured, well, it must be the proton.

15:04

He

15:05

can't be a new particle. You

15:07

know, he he thought somehow the proton had

15:10

to be and it had a very different mass the

15:12

electron, they thought maybe there are reasons that has different

15:14

mass. Yeah. And later on,

15:16

when the hippopotamus discovered, which was

15:18

predicted by his theory -- Yeah. --

15:21

you know, he said the theory was smarter than he

15:23

was, that he was a car because it must have been

15:25

incredibly daunting. It it never had happened

15:28

before that any theory predicted

15:30

a new particle in nature that never been discovered.

15:32

Yeah. And he was it was just too terrifying.

15:34

Yeah. And and so this connection

15:37

between mathematics and physics is

15:40

fascinating and awe inspiring

15:42

and and you know you probably know the I

15:44

know if you ever read the SA

15:46

written by Eugene Vigner. Did you ever read it on

15:48

the Oh, yeah. On the fantasy. The famous

15:51

essay on the unexpected sort

15:53

of why it's not clear why

15:55

mathematics should do such a good job

15:57

of describing the world. Yeah. And,

15:59

you know, I like to think now that

16:02

we have a better understanding of that when we

16:04

did when Wigner wrote that. Inevitably,

16:07

we must. Yeah. And the reason

16:09

being that now we tend to think We

16:11

understand physics almost purely in

16:13

terms of symmetries. mathematical

16:15

symmetries determine

16:17

the dynamics, the as I like

16:19

to say, the playing field determines the rules

16:21

of the game. Yeah. If, you know, if

16:24

baseball fields were five miles long instead

16:26

of ninety feet or whatever. We have

16:28

very deep game. Yeah. And and

16:30

so if we think that the symmetries of nature

16:33

are what determine how the world works, then it's kind

16:35

of easier to standpoint mathematics does

16:37

such a good job. People often

16:39

ask me, and I don't have an answer, whether

16:42

we discover the mathematics

16:45

or whether the mathematics is always there in some

16:47

sense. It's an interesting question.

16:49

It is an interesting question in mathematics.

16:52

gives the illusion of existing

16:55

in the world. In

16:57

other words, would mathematics be here if we

16:59

were? Yeah. That's the that's

17:02

the question. And and I think the answer

17:04

is no, it would not. It's a it's

17:06

a human invention. in spite

17:08

of the illusion of those. It's

17:11

I agree with you. It's a human invention, but it's

17:13

really surprising that it's

17:15

human invention that happens to be the right

17:17

language to describe nature. Yeah.

17:19

Well, we have lots of

17:20

languages. But, you know, but there's a difference

17:23

between math and other languages. math

17:25

is a language, but it's a language

17:28

plus a set of rules, a set of connections.

17:31

You know, Feynman In the character

17:33

of physical law, the book that probably influenced

17:35

both of us -- Yeah. -- that he pointed

17:37

that out in the, I think, very first chapter.

17:40

Take gravity. You

17:41

can you can have two different ways of describing

17:44

gravity. Gravity is a force that

17:46

varies as one over r squared and points between

17:48

the two objects. or you can say

17:50

gravity causes plants to ground

17:52

in ellipses that traverse equal areas

17:54

and equal times. Legistically, Those

17:57

have two completely different things that have nothing

17:59

to do with one another. The math shows

18:01

that they're exactly the same thing. Yeah. That's

18:03

true. But whether we're whether

18:05

the world is mathematics or whether

18:08

mathematics is just happens to be at

18:10

the the best language to describe the

18:12

world, is it debate? Am I guess we agree.

18:14

think it just happens to be the best language. I

18:16

don't think the world is mathematics. No.

18:21

I have to also say one

18:23

of my favorite lines. And I guess

18:25

you just came up with this for the book. We're

18:27

talking about math. After the bath

18:30

comes the aftermath. I

18:32

love that line. Did that had

18:34

David heard that line before or just wrote it down?

18:36

No. I did. She's just, you know, who's there

18:39

It's a great it's probably one of the greatest descriptions

18:41

of math. Anyway, as

18:43

you started to get interested in physics,

18:46

You said it was Feynman. Was it Feynman who

18:49

reading Feynman primarily who got you in? And

18:51

then, what about Einstein? Did you read his

18:53

books I did.

18:55

I didn't find them all that interesting. Other

18:58

people were more interested. I got

19:00

fascinated by firemen and I got to know him a little bit. Did

19:03

you ever get to talk to firemen at all? No.

19:05

I never did. Yeah. You would have

19:07

both enjoyed each other. Obviously, I would have

19:09

liked to. He was he

19:12

him and young man were complementary

19:14

in so many ways. But

19:16

your interest in science goes way beyond

19:19

physics because I remember one of I said to you,

19:21

one of the one of the favorite hours

19:23

I've ever done on radio was

19:25

when you came to to

19:28

to Phoenix, when when

19:30

Werner Herzog's movie came out, came to

19:32

the forgotten dreams. Yeah. And and you

19:34

and Werner came together, and and

19:36

and for the film. And, you know, we talked

19:38

about afterwards, but we did an hour of radio

19:41

where you and Werner were talking about early modern

19:43

humans. With the kind of authority,

19:46

that

19:47

I was so excited about because on radio,

19:49

for me and

19:52

for you science is just an integral

19:54

part of being human. Yeah. Most people

19:56

think of it as something separate, something you call

19:58

them B.

19:59

But the fact that you Both of you

20:02

are cultural icons in different ways, you and

20:04

Werner. And for

20:05

people to see that not just in

20:07

interested science, but in expertise,

20:10

that you were able to converse with,

20:12

I thought was incredibly important for people to

20:14

see, that they could do something else and still not

20:16

be, and still not be

20:18

ashamed of or afraid of actually

20:20

understanding science in a detailed

20:22

way. And

20:23

so I'm wondering where that interest in early

20:26

modern humans come from? Or did was it just because

20:28

it's a fascinating subject? I think just

20:30

because it's fascinating subject.

20:32

When it comes to early modern humans, we've

20:34

talked a little bit, I remember on the

20:36

phone having long conversation with you about evolution.

20:39

And

20:40

the There's

20:41

a bunch of times in the new book, I have

20:43

to say, where you alluded

20:46

to evolution in a way that's interesting

20:48

and may represent our differences in

20:51

the context of evolution and and the

20:53

notion of God. And I think

20:55

one of the characters has asked where they believe in

20:57

God and and and someone says,

20:59

and then he says, I don't

21:00

know who God is or what he is. But

21:03

I don't believe all this stuff got here by itself,

21:05

including me, Maybe everything evolves

21:07

just like they say it does. But if

21:09

you sound it to its source, you

21:12

have to come ultimately to an intention.

21:15

And I know we've had that discussion, and

21:17

you bet cookies. That's not me talking.

21:19

I know. I That's a character on the book.

21:21

I wanted to ask you. I don't and I

21:24

never assume that the character is you.

21:26

But I wanted to ask you, to

21:28

what extent you totally disagree

21:30

with that statement?

21:32

I I have depleted ignorance.

21:35

Okay. I'm pretty much a materialist. Oh,

21:38

you are? Okay. Yeah. And

21:39

and I think one

21:40

of the important things that one of the big

21:43

misconceptions that people have about evolution.

21:45

And Richard Dawkins talked about this a lot

21:47

rightly so. is the sense that

21:49

evolution is directed, is

21:51

that somehow it always has direction for

21:53

things to get better. There's no direction evolution.

21:56

and and and and people,

21:58

you

21:58

know, think that, oh, yes,

21:59

things evolve to always get better, but

22:02

it they just evolve in the circumstances and

22:04

there's no foresight There's no We're

22:07

that we have foresight, but but but but evolution

22:09

does. And it just happens to be the

22:11

way it is. And sometimes, maladaptions

22:14

occur that get in the way. In fact, it's They

22:16

do. Yeah. In in fact, one of the things

22:18

you talk about in the book, which is which

22:20

is something I remember Richard had said on

22:22

stage with me. I think it

22:24

was even in the believers. I'm not sure. Was

22:26

it what surprised him is that

22:28

humans evolved to understand quantum mechanics.

22:30

And in the book you talk about

22:33

somewhere, and I I could find the

22:35

quote there, that it's remarkable

22:38

and unexpected, that

22:40

that, you know, evolution produces things that

22:43

are not intentional. And, well,

22:45

supposedly, evolution is we

22:47

evolve so as to understand

22:49

things which will help us

22:53

to

22:53

survive there. But we

22:55

understand all kinds of things that

22:57

have nothing to do with our survival. Darwin

23:00

was always puzzled by that. Was that

23:02

Darwin? Yeah. you said, why do we

23:04

understand this shit is trying to go do this

23:06

any good? Yeah. No. Exactly. In

23:08

fact, some people would say it

23:11

might be counter it might be a

23:13

maladaptation, sometimes it is.

23:15

Yeah. And it may be in the context of us being

23:17

able to destroy ourselves. Ultimately,

23:19

a maladaptation.

23:21

You will.

23:22

I do imagine that we're gonna

23:25

still be here a hundred thousand years

23:27

from now. Oh, I agree. I a hundred thousand years

23:29

old. What a hundred what about a hundred years from now? What

23:31

do you think?

23:33

We have every opportunity of

23:36

destroying ourselves. We certainly do.

23:38

And and in fact, because

23:39

one of the characters of the book is involved

23:42

in ultimately the Manhattan project with

23:44

Oppenheimer and others. There

23:46

are some really remarkable

23:49

pages about the

23:51

experience

23:52

of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

23:56

And and one of things I I wondered was, is this

23:58

true? I didn't know it. You said there were people

24:00

who escaped from Hiroshima and

24:02

rushed to Nagasaki to see their loved ones

24:05

were safe. arriving just in time to

24:07

be incinerated? Apparently,

24:10

there were I don't know if there's any

24:12

proof that it was but This

24:14

really could be. Yeah. It's an amazing

24:16

thought. I hadn't I never occurred to me until

24:18

then. And your descriptions of

24:21

what this

24:21

character's father saw. But

24:24

those, again, imagineings in your mind, or

24:26

are they based on readings of what it was No. That's

24:28

no. That's what the people reported. There's

24:31

sit here that I can't resist asking

24:33

you about. Talking about, I think the

24:35

visit the first vision of

24:38

the explosion before the impact hits.

24:40

Yeah. And you said something like, in that

24:42

my kodal phantom blooming

24:45

in the dawn like an evil lotus, and

24:47

in the melting of solids, not heretofore

24:50

known to do so, stood a truth

24:52

that would silence poetry a

24:54

thousand years.

24:56

I I love that sentence. I

24:59

was

24:59

gonna ask you about it.

25:01

It's just a sentence. It's just a sentence.

25:03

The reason I I guess I'm asking is that is

25:05

that Oppenheimer who

25:08

was also a polymath. And

25:10

as you know, we quoted that same line from

25:12

the whatever it's Bob Gavid

25:15

Gavidar or whatever it's going. Yeah. Right after

25:17

the bombing off.

25:18

He's right sided poetry. were

25:20

after the first explosion when he first

25:22

saw it. I think he's I think he had

25:26

they took it up his sleeves. It was to be ready.

25:28

Yeah. Of course. Sure. He was like

25:30

Biden, I'm sure he was a showman. Yeah.

25:32

Very much. So Yeah. Yeah. I didn't yeah.

25:35

I didn't know him, but I I couldn't be hard to imagine

25:37

he wasn't showman. But sounds importantly

25:39

for a thousand years, the question, I guess,

25:41

I was gonna ask you, was

25:43

I

25:44

think you too much to once told me,

25:47

that for you science is much more interesting

25:49

than literature. Yeah. Do

25:51

you think in that sense

25:54

the results of science, science poetry

25:56

for a thousand years, namely, if

25:58

we think of human of the human experience

26:01

and what what I mean, there'll be no legacy

26:03

because we'll be all gone. But but if

26:05

we think of the of

26:08

of humans' contribution to the the

26:10

of culture, that science ultimately

26:13

outshine's literature. Well,

26:15

you have to go back to Spengler.

26:18

and you have to in spite of Mhmm.

26:20

Spud of Spangler being somewhat full of shit.

26:23

He's an interesting guy, and he is Spencer

26:25

said, you can't really write him off

26:28

as a

26:29

as a

26:31

fraud because he's too smart.

26:34

but Spingler understood

26:36

that science certainly does and would have been

26:39

probably forever. We

26:41

and to both you and I intimately recognize

26:43

that there's no separation. And as a scientist, I

26:45

spend most of my life, and much of what

26:47

this podcast about in my like,

26:50

trying to show the science as part of our culture.

26:52

And and get people as ex as you say, how could

26:54

people not be excited? And but because

26:56

people don't realize

26:58

that what fascinates them really is science. They

27:00

think it's something else. But I mean,

27:02

I'm a huge fan of Shakespeare. Don't get me wrong.

27:05

But

27:05

but

27:06

I It's hard to think that it competes

27:08

ultimately with the edifice of, say,

27:10

the standard model particle physics. What do

27:12

you think?

27:13

Well, I think that --

27:16

I think Spengler is right. We're going to have

27:18

science after everything else is

27:20

gone. Interesting.

27:22

After

27:23

everything else is gone, expand on that

27:25

a little bit for me. Well, poetry?

27:28

I mean, does people do people seriously

27:30

believe we still have poetry? No

27:33

interesting question.

27:35

you know, that's interesting question.

27:37

I I can't answer it. I've I'm a Philistine.

27:39

I have to admit. And and while I love

27:41

to read,

27:42

poetry is something I never

27:44

could fully appreciate. I I once

27:47

got

27:47

in trouble at Harvard

27:49

for saying to a a very eminent professor

27:51

of sort of poetry. I

27:53

was trying to provoke her, I must admit. But

27:55

I said, if poets really want to say something,

27:57

why don't they just write it down? I think

27:59

it's a fair

27:59

question.

28:01

I think, you know, I've always assumed it's my own

28:03

my

28:03

my own problem that there's something I'm missing that

28:05

I that I don't think so. Really?

28:07

Okay. Interesting.

28:09

Now,

28:10

besides evolution, which

28:12

in early modern humans, which

28:14

as I say, I've learned a lot about and

28:16

we've had fun talking about.

28:19

Well, I mean, do you actually Do you

28:21

think that maybe our intellects are our maladaptation?

28:25

I

28:25

mean, I can see

28:26

why the ability to plan has

28:29

an evolutionary value.

28:31

Right? I mean, you know, the ability

28:33

to foresee things and make plans in future

28:36

can be incredibly important for for especially

28:39

for humans living in the Savannah when

28:41

where food may be scarce and that sort of thing.

28:43

Okay. But but do you

28:45

think that

28:46

that having had that evolutionary purpose

28:48

that that the beauty that has led to,

28:51

that's led to art literature science was

28:53

a maladaptation ultimately or just a I

28:55

don't know. We don't know how long that sips gonna

28:57

be around. Maybe not long.

29:00

Yeah. Well, I think it'll be but we

29:02

both agree. It'll be a long run longer than maybe

29:04

than

29:04

poetry maybe.

29:06

There's what is essentially a chapter

29:08

of the book, which I really got a kick off,

29:10

which is really reminding my book the

29:13

greatest ever told so far. You give a great

29:16

description of the of the development of

29:18

the standard model of particle physics. And

29:21

the the historical examples of the

29:23

physics and the development center model

29:26

are

29:26

bang on. And there's some aspects that

29:28

I wanted to actually talk to you about that

29:30

I think I may have a slightly

29:33

different perspective on than you. So

29:34

we talked about quarks and I I think

29:37

III wanted to let you know that Iraq was the first

29:39

person to come up. His example was the first

29:41

time a particle had been invented. Now we do it all

29:43

the time. Yeah. The trade offs and other things were

29:45

later on and developed we got a tradition

29:48

of that, but it was It was a totally

29:50

new thing in science for for

29:52

mathematics to propose something a new particle

29:54

existed and it wasn't been terrifying. Yeah. But

29:57

But before them, someone who proposed

29:59

something that existed

29:59

that no one could really understand was BOLSMAN.

30:03

And --

30:03

Yeah. -- and he eventually killed himself because people

30:05

-- -- understand that. People

30:07

say boltzmann made suicide

30:09

because he was so ill treated by the

30:11

physician community. But the truth

30:13

is boltzmann kill him guilt because

30:15

he was suicidal. Yeah.

30:17

Well, I guess that's the truth that's

30:19

the truth statement. No. Yeah. That's

30:22

right. But but Let

30:24

me take the on that. In

30:25

the book, you mentioned Aaron Fest, and someone

30:27

and the characterized it, Aaron Fest, no

30:29

boltzmann, but

30:30

Aaron Fest's boltzmann student.

30:32

Did

30:32

you know that? He also committed suicide. Exactly.

30:35

He also committed suicide and killed his son.

30:38

Do you know this story from it's a guy

30:40

from Caltech David Goodstein

30:42

wrote one of my favorite physics texts. It

30:44

it's not in my own area. It's on condensed matter

30:46

physics. I think it's called states of matter.

30:49

I can't remember. but the introduction is

30:51

wonderful. It's it's all about physical

30:53

mechanics which Bolsman created as a field.

30:55

And it says Bolsman created as field and

30:57

and, you know, he committed suicide. then

30:59

his work was taken up by Aaron

31:01

Fest to work on this. And he committed suicide.

31:04

And then it says, now it's our turn to studies.

31:07

It's a great introduction. It's pretty funny. Yeah.

31:10

But now I want to get to quantum mechanics because

31:12

you you talk about it in an interesting way.

31:15

you know, because quantum mechanics has spawned

31:17

all of this philosophy that drives

31:19

me nuts. This

31:20

philosophy of quantum mechanics. It's pretty bad.

31:23

In fact, you say I love the way you say

31:25

Kent's view of quantum mechanics because, of course,

31:27

Kent was a lot before quantum mechanics. We say

31:29

his view is a quote is that which

31:31

is not adapted to our powers of cognition,

31:34

which is which is really true. That's a

31:36

quote from Kent. Is but not about

31:38

quantum mechanics. No. Well,

31:41

the quantum mechanics to come. Yeah. Cobre

31:44

Cash County anticipated it. You

31:46

know that Feynman one

31:47

of things he said about, you know, he was one of the first

31:49

people talk about quantum computers, right, in

31:51

later his life. And he said one of the reasons

31:54

was he figured if a quantum computer

31:56

which bases its

31:59

processing on

32:00

pure quantum processes, might

32:02

have a better intuitive understanding of quantum

32:04

mechanics than he did and might therefore be

32:06

able to explain it to him. Did

32:08

you know if he said that?

32:09

No. But that sounds right. Yeah. It

32:12

sounds right. I mean, I think the point is we

32:14

were classical beings, and

32:16

we we can't tattoo it quantum mechanics. And

32:18

it has spawned, we talked about this

32:20

at lunch, but I wanna talk about it again. This

32:22

whole notion, this misplaced notion,

32:25

which

32:25

I mentioned in my my old colleague, Sydney

32:28

Coleman, describe

32:29

beautifully.

32:31

that this whole field of the interpretation of

32:33

quantum mechanics has grown up, which

32:35

is pure, in my mind, pure waste

32:38

of words. because --

32:40

Okay. -- because the world is not class

32:42

classical. Interpreting the quantum

32:44

world in terms of classical world is

32:46

ridiculous. You go in the wrong way.

32:48

it's going the wrong way as -- Yes. -- as Sidi said, you

32:51

should talk to the interpretation of classical mechanics

32:53

because the world is biomechanical. And the fact

32:55

that when you talk to communication like non

32:58

local or all these things. It's

33:00

only because you're you're enforcing or

33:02

the many worlds interpretation. It's

33:04

only because you're forcing a classical interpretation

33:06

on something which is in class? That's exactly

33:09

right. And then these people

33:12

yeah. And then these people, right, books about it.

33:14

I love the fact that you say,

33:16

if if there's anything wrong with the cop Copenhagen,

33:19

it's that Borr had read a lot of bad philosophy

33:22

to it's true. Yeah. I mean, and

33:24

and I think he established that notion, you

33:27

know, the whole notion of complementarity and all

33:29

the rest, which is, you know, sounds and

33:31

it's built up this

33:32

whole mythology, there's more crackpot

33:35

science and bad science been built

33:38

up around quantum mechanics than any other area

33:40

of physics. Oh, was that a question? and

33:42

people abuse it, of course, and make money

33:44

off it like the secret and all of this nonsense

33:46

because people try and impose. But as

33:48

I say philosophers I mean,

33:50

there are philosophers to quantum mechanics, and I'm sure

33:52

they're doing

33:53

good work.

33:54

Mhmm. But what what they may okay.

33:57

You're not so sure. Mhmm. But what I'm but

33:59

but my

33:59

point is and they get offended. When I say physicists,

34:02

it

34:03

doesn't matter to physicists. They don't even They don't

34:05

read it. No. Gosh, no. And and and

34:07

that's true statement whether or not it means we're

34:09

Philistines or not. But you describe

34:11

it here something which I wonder whether you learn

34:13

from from

34:14

Murray.

34:15

about David Baum

34:18

who

34:18

won the also

34:20

won the Nobel Prize for

34:22

for describing the

34:23

probabilistic interpretation of quantum mechanics,

34:26

ultimately. And you say David

34:28

went to Einstein's office one day to

34:30

explain to him

34:32

Einstein why Einstein's objections

34:35

to quantum mechanics Where he said when he came out,

34:37

he lost his faith. Yeah. He lost his faith. Is

34:39

that true when you wanna explain it to me? I was fascinated.

34:41

Is that true story that you're Of course. Everything

34:43

I tell is true. Well, except for the things

34:45

that you do. Well, except for the

34:47

things that you do. Well,

34:49

what did he mean by what did he mean he lost his

34:52

faith in what? In

34:53

quantum mechanics? Well

34:55

yeah. Because Einstein didn't believe

34:58

in it. Yeah. So Einstein convinced him. He went

35:00

in there and spent an hour and a half talking Einstein

35:02

when he came out. He just written

35:04

a fat, fat book of that. He said

35:06

the mechanics. when

35:07

he came out. He didn't believe in it either.

35:10

Yeah.

35:10

And then he you say he spent rest of his life

35:12

trying to find a classical description, the fifth of theory.

35:14

which, of course, is a lot of people admit have

35:17

been misplaced. Yeah. And you talk about

35:19

hidden variables. The idea that there's something we can't

35:21

see. The quantum mechanics is incomplete. It's

35:23

weird, but it's only because we can't see it

35:25

all. And you point out something I hadn't

35:27

thought about. You say you can visualize hidden variables.

35:30

That is you can visualize how they might work

35:32

sort of. You could draw a picture, but

35:34

they don't work. But the thing is you can't visualize

35:36

quantum mechanics. So maybe the attraction

35:38

to hidden variables is just the fact you can visualize

35:41

them. You think Well, that's part of it, I think.

35:43

Sure. And

35:43

one of the nice things about the Nobel Prize

35:46

this last year is that it went for there

35:47

are a number of experiments that you can

35:49

show, disprove the possibility of

35:52

there being any

35:53

any classical description of quantum mechanical

35:55

phenomena. And

35:56

oh, okay. I hadn't followed it.

35:58

Yeah. Yeah. This is the and it was a bunch of I mean, there

36:00

were experiments that go way back that

36:02

go back to this thing called bells in equality, which

36:05

you may have heard of. I know. I know. I'm very

36:07

familiar with bills inequality. But you

36:09

know what? There's a much better inequality

36:12

And and the person I mentioned, Sydney Coleman,

36:14

in this lecture called quantum mechanics in your face,

36:16

describes it. Yeah. It's

36:18

a much better inequality. That's much more dramatic.

36:21

where you can describe these experiments

36:24

where if the world is classical, these experimenters

36:26

will measure numbers and their

36:28

product will always be plus one. And

36:31

-- Okay. -- and in quantum mechanics, the

36:33

product will always be minus one. It's

36:35

not as if there's just a slight difference between

36:37

the two. It's as dramatic as you could be. and

36:40

the experiment show plus one.

36:42

I mean, minus one. I mean, they show

36:44

quantum mechanics and and it tells you that

36:46

that you know, give up classical No matter what

36:48

you do. Yeah. The world isn't classical,

36:51

just get over it. Yeah. And stop worrying

36:53

about it. And just as as they

36:55

always say, don't worry about it. Just calculate. Yeah.

36:57

Shut up and fix it. Shut up and calculate,

37:00

which is what my my

37:02

my thesis supervisor. My first thesis

37:04

supervisor eventually left him,

37:06

but he used to tell me I was thinking of him.

37:08

He said, don't think just work. Yeah.

37:12

But I can in retrospect, I give

37:14

him credit because if you're a graduate

37:16

student, there's

37:17

a temptation to wanna know

37:19

everything before you do anything.

37:22

And it really gives you the

37:24

way that key. And maybe it's true for writers

37:26

too. realized, you

37:28

just have to

37:29

find something and go ahead and do it.

37:31

I wanna move

37:33

on. And by the way, I'm we I keep moving

37:35

towards you because the sun is in my eyes. So

37:37

she's It won't be intimidated. It doesn't don't mean

37:39

anything by it. But in

37:42

the book, you talk you really talk about

37:44

the development of the standard model. And as I say,

37:46

in a beautiful and wonderfully

37:49

lucid and correct way, And

37:51

one of the things your character

37:54

says or one of the character says about

37:56

it is that they didn't believe which I think is the father.

37:58

He said, Following on the fact that Murray

38:00

didn't, you know, didn't think of quirks as

38:02

real. He

38:04

he thought that Higgs paper was too elegant.

38:07

Oh, too elegant to be wrong. Yes,

38:09

sir. Yeah. And and it's interesting that he had

38:11

that reaction because my reaction the eggs is

38:14

it was too elegant to be right. It

38:16

just seemed like such a simple way

38:18

for nature to solve this

38:20

complicated problem that I was sure

38:22

while the mechanism worked that

38:25

the Higgs itself as a particle was just It's

38:27

wrong. It had to be wrong. It must be nature

38:29

must be doing something a little more fancy

38:31

than that. I was shocked that the Higgs that the

38:33

simplest possible way to describe

38:37

the the symmetry breaking that's so important

38:39

that makes the world we live in the world

38:41

we live in was due to the higgs. And

38:43

-- Yeah. -- and I was convinced it was

38:45

wrong. Well, nature

38:47

can take any path it uses Yeah.

38:49

No. I and and I love I mean, I love being

38:51

wrong. I But I remember

38:53

I when I when it was younger, I was convinced

38:56

that in fact, the mechanism was obviously

38:58

right. I mean, the mechanism that Steve

39:00

Weinberg developed and was first the

39:02

the connect the mathematical connection that

39:04

Shelly Glass showed Selami showed

39:06

was obviously right.

39:07

Yeah. And so the the the

39:10

mechanism that was described by this particle

39:12

in nature called the Higgs must be right. but

39:14

I thought the part there must be some out something

39:16

else more of a fancy in the physics

39:18

that would produce that mechanism. And I even worked on

39:20

it for a while to to produce a theory

39:23

without a higgs, and I and and

39:25

and I it's interesting that

39:27

that when you say too elegant to be wrong,

39:29

because that, as we pointed out,

39:31

is a danger. Physics -- Yeah.

39:34

-- are are are diluted by thinking

39:36

something is too elegant. I I mean,

39:38

I have had debates with my

39:41

my my my friends, but with Brian

39:43

Green who wrote a book called The Eligent Universe,

39:45

I think. And

39:47

Eligence doesn't, in some sense,

39:49

while beauty -- mathematical beauty

39:51

drives some theoretical physics, physicist

39:54

elegance doesn't matter. Eligence

39:56

doesn't matter at all. It's what works that matters.

39:58

That's true. There's

39:59

a lot of I don't know. The

40:03

the shoe under seat car the

40:07

yes said that given

40:09

a choice between picking something

40:11

for its rigorousness or for

40:13

its beauty, he'd go with beauty.

40:15

Well. It's

40:17

a dumb thing to say, you go with beauty.

40:19

You don't go with either one. You go with the one that's

40:21

right. The one that's right in them. In nature, that's

40:23

the one that nature adopts. And that's the difference between,

40:26

as I said earlier, between AAA

40:28

physicist and a mathematician. I think the mathematician

40:30

has a luxury of

40:31

going for the beauty, but the physicist has

40:34

to go with what nature does -- Yeah. -- whether you like

40:36

it or not. Yeah. And as a

40:38

physicist who then watched a

40:40

generation get in Well, let's

40:42

talk about string theory because you mentioned string theory

40:44

here. That string theory, I think

40:47

you you say in the book, which is really true, it

40:49

sort of just became has become mathematics.

40:51

but there was a generation of young physicists

40:54

probably because of a big gap between experimental

40:57

results that drove particle physics between

40:59

the nineteen seventies and

41:01

maybe the discovery of the Higgs fifty years later

41:03

were

41:03

driven by elegance to thinking

41:06

that what mattered in physics and

41:08

what should be important for career

41:10

developments was developing elegant

41:12

and complex mathematics that that

41:15

was what should be the thing that drives

41:17

success in physics. Whereas, of course,

41:20

generation that had lived with the experimental discoveries

41:22

of particle physics -- Yeah. -- knew that

41:24

what really should drive things is whether

41:26

it works or not. That's true.

41:28

did you talk to Murray

41:31

about that issue? I don't know. We

41:33

talked about everything, so I'm sure we did.

41:35

But I was surprised that he was

41:38

He was an early proponent. In fact, it had

41:40

actually made sure that that

41:42

Green, who who was one of the developers of

41:44

string theory, had a position

41:46

at Caltech for years of

41:48

actually a soft money position

41:51

before the string revolution happened

41:53

and he became a full professor But

41:56

Murray had been the one that make sure that he was still

41:58

still kept there because he thought it was

42:00

it was you know, he he Murray

42:02

felt it was the next was the next step

42:04

beyond

42:05

gauge theories of understanding nature?

42:09

Yeah. Until it until it We

42:11

saw what it actually was. Well,

42:13

yeah. Well, we don't know what it actually is.

42:15

I think that's the -- That's the same thing. -- and and

42:17

you yeah. You talk about that.

42:19

It's remarkable

42:21

sociologically. For

42:24

always been remarkable for me, string theory

42:26

initially required twenty six dimensions and then

42:28

it went down to eleven dimensions and maybe

42:30

ten dimensions. And

42:32

we'll talk about dimensions more in your character

42:34

talks. It's a great quote that I love about dimensions.

42:37

That physicists because

42:40

as you point out, one of the things that comes out of

42:42

string theory right away, which

42:44

is what suddenly caused the

42:46

community to jump on it, is that

42:48

What could be the possible quantum of gravity,

42:50

the graviton? A zero

42:52

mass spin two particle automatically comes

42:55

out of the theory.

42:56

And therefore It's the first thing you see.

42:58

Yeah. It's the first thing you see and in a world

43:00

where quantum mechanics and gravity don't

43:02

seem to work.

43:04

A theory that automatically gives

43:06

you what could be the quantum gravity is what

43:08

suggests it's a a theory of

43:11

quantum gravity. But what is amazing

43:13

and I don't know if this surprised you, but it surprised

43:15

me, is that that realization

43:17

alone was enough to cause a large

43:20

fraction of the physics community to

43:22

say, okay, yeah, all these extra dimensions

43:24

exist that we can measure.

43:28

Did that surprise you?

43:31

I had no more than a lot of things

43:33

in physics surprised you. I mean,

43:36

physics is full of surprises.

43:38

Without I mean, to me, you know,

43:40

I mean, it's a huge leap to

43:42

require not just one extra dimension,

43:44

but maybe seven or initially, you know

43:46

-- Yeah. -- list twenty two. Yeah.

43:48

And and and then say,

43:51

not only that they're

43:52

they're there, but we can't see

43:54

them,

43:55

And and

43:57

we have to admit reasons why we can't see

43:59

them. You remember what Feynman said about string theory?

44:01

Feynman didn't like string theory. And he

44:03

said, it didn't predict anything and it had

44:05

to just apologize. It had to

44:07

explain, you know, apologize for why

44:10

why you couldn't see any of

44:12

the aspects of of of the fundamental theory?

44:15

Well, some people would leave the room if you

44:17

mentioned string theory. Yeah. You mentioned

44:19

that Sally Glassha would leave the room. Yeah.

44:21

He he he moderated his views at one

44:24

point, but but, you know,

44:26

he once said to me, as I told you, he

44:28

was I was a student, he was influential, and

44:30

later became a friend, had

44:32

a profound impact on me as a

44:34

as a physicist given what we talked about,

44:36

I was mathematic I did mathematical

44:39

physics early on, and

44:40

I was struggling, and I met Shelly,

44:43

And what he told me was

44:46

there's formalism, and

44:47

there's physics, and you have to know the difference.

44:50

Okay. Well, it's Will Sid. It is Will

44:52

Sid. It had a profound impact because -- Yeah. -- one

44:54

of the things that show one of the things that made

44:56

Shelley great besides his incredible

44:59

creativity and also Joviality

45:02

was that he kept

45:04

an incredible touch with experiment. he

45:06

-- Yeah. -- I guess is true. And and for

45:08

him, that was incredibly important.

45:11

He was able to sort of see experiments

45:13

and then be the first one to

45:15

propose an underlying model that it

45:17

may explain those experimental norm anomalies.

45:19

And one of the reasons was not just because he was

45:21

a creative creative, but because he kept

45:23

his ear to the ground, he kept he knew

45:26

what

45:26

were important experiments in some way before

45:28

anyone else. It's really good. Okay.

45:31

And and and so for him, string

45:33

theory, that was why string theory was such

45:35

an anathema. This

45:36

is because it had no experimental grounding,

45:39

nor did it make as far as he could see

45:41

any experimental predictions. Yeah.

45:43

It just seemed right. but we talked about

45:45

lunch. Things you know, if your

45:47

baby always looks beautiful to you whether they're

45:50

beautiful or dot. And and

45:52

you have to guard against

45:54

the easiest person to fool is yourself, as Simon

45:56

said, you have to guard against something that looks

45:58

so beautiful. It must be right.

45:59

Yeah. Exactly. One of the

46:02

things you talk about but

46:04

you really would have to be an efficient auto to understand

46:06

it. And I remember it's because I've talked to

46:08

Marie about this, is that many of the ideas

46:11

of the standard model were anticipated

46:13

by Stukhulburg. And

46:16

and I first learned from I didn't know

46:18

about him, but Murray. No, buddy. No, sir.

46:20

Stukhulburg, but more Stukhulburg. had

46:23

Murray got mad. Yeah. Whenever and

46:25

he was the one, would always say, oh, yeah. That

46:28

was, you know, these that was already done by Stukhumber.

46:30

You should read stuff. That's right. because Murray

46:32

first one who who sort of eliminate let you know

46:34

about

46:34

that. I don't know. I don't know. I know.

46:37

I just

46:37

came across him somewhere, and his son

46:39

is really interesting. and guess what

46:41

he was. He was. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

46:43

And, yeah, he really was interesting.

46:47

And it happens ultimately, you know,

46:50

as you say in the book, and I think it's true that a lot of these

46:52

things get credited to other people.

46:54

Yeah. And, ultimately, that, you know, it's not

46:56

the end of world because, really,

46:59

what matters is who had the biggest influence

47:01

on

47:01

the way we think about the world.

47:03

And

47:04

sometimes it's not the person who first had the

47:06

right the idea -- Yes. -- that's that's

47:08

who else said. Yeah. And and, you know, it's sun

47:10

it's kind of like,

47:11

you know, I once I developed

47:14

programming physics entrepreneurship. And I there I learned

47:16

the difference in good ideas and successful

47:18

products. A lot of people have good ideas,

47:20

but the people who become the

47:23

the well known, the rich are the ones who actually know

47:25

how to get them into the real world. And I

47:27

think somehow and

47:29

and for better or worse, the Nobel Prize. It's Arbitrary

47:31

because the Prize. but it's really for the people

47:34

who who have the impact

47:36

on the world and chase the way the world thinks.

47:38

And she referred me over the ideas, but it was others

47:41

who change the way the community thinks.

47:43

Yeah. When

47:44

it comes to extra dimensions,

47:47

you you have a a great quote

47:49

in the book, which

47:51

which I'll read

47:53

says you scribbled somewhere in the margins that

47:55

when you lose a dimension, you've

47:57

given up all claims to reality.

47:59

save for the

47:59

mathematical. because again, one

48:02

of important things about string theory now

48:04

as it morphed is that the notion of dimensions

48:06

becomes kind of arbitrary one

48:08

person's four dimensional world or five dimensional

48:11

world can be another person's four dimensional

48:13

world because of the thing called theolography and

48:15

everything else. I wonder if we

48:17

could parse that statement if if that's again

48:20

the character or your thinking. When you

48:22

lose a dimension, you lose

48:24

we've given up all claims to reality.

48:27

Well, it's just a

48:29

simple statement about physical

48:32

reality about what it is. I

48:34

mean, it has to have dimensions.

48:36

who are just an idea.

48:39

But one

48:40

of the things that physics tells us is

48:42

that things that we

48:45

Think

48:45

of as reality that are not really

48:47

what we what they seem, like the fact

48:49

that you and I are made of particles that have

48:51

mass is just an accident of our

48:53

circumstances. At a fundamental level, they're

48:55

massless. It just happens. We live in

48:57

a world that happens has this pigs

49:00

see around us and it causes things to behave

49:02

in a way that's very different than

49:04

they are. So massive particles and massive particles

49:06

really the same. It's just an accident. of

49:08

our circumstances. So

49:10

physics causes us to realize that

49:12

at a or in quantum mechanics, at a fundamental

49:14

level, reality is not what we

49:17

experience.

49:18

Okay. So

49:20

it could be and I'm willing to accept

49:22

the possibility that while dimensions

49:25

are vitally important to us and real,

49:27

that it they could be an illusion of

49:29

our circumstances. Well,

49:32

that opens up a larger

49:34

view things. I mean, our

49:36

entire entire entire

49:41

assessment of reality is just

49:43

what we see in here Yeah.

49:45

And

49:45

and dimensions are incredibly important to it.

49:48

I I have to say for me

49:50

that's

49:50

the biggest failure of string theory, really.

49:54

is not the fact that it requires extra dimensions.

49:57

But there's no explanation intrinsically

49:59

of why the world that we experience

50:02

is three-dimensional. It's spatial. especially

50:04

four dimension if we include time. There's

50:06

no there's nothing in the theory that points

50:08

to why we should

50:11

the three dimensions we experience should be large

50:14

and

50:14

you can walk through them and

50:15

have a conversation in them.

50:18

And

50:18

there's nothing in the theory that points that are. It

50:20

seems to be complete accident. Well,

50:22

I don't think it's a complete accident.

50:24

I made it. It says that there

50:27

are only three ways you can shoot an arrow

50:29

without crossing it. yeah,

50:31

but if we lived in a five

50:33

dimensional world, there'd be a lot of other ways

50:36

to to shoot an arrow. And but

50:38

so That's it was that statement, by

50:40

the way, that Feynman said, was the

50:42

big flaw of Singularity. It it it it doesn't

50:44

explain anything. It makes apologies. because

50:47

-- No. -- you have to say string string theory is based

50:49

on the assumption that, yeah, there are a lot of extra

50:51

dimensions and they're very small.

50:53

And

50:54

the world we see is large, the three

50:56

dimensions we see are large. But why are those

50:58

extra dimensions small? There he doesn't tell you. No.

51:00

No. They're not really dimensions in the classical

51:02

sense. Well, it could be, but

51:05

but there's something that distinguishes

51:07

very clearly distinguishes an

51:10

eleven dimensional world from from

51:12

a world in which there are three dimensions

51:14

that we Yeah. But I just don't think that the

51:16

dimensions that

51:18

are thrown in there to make it have these

51:20

dimensions or like the three

51:22

dimensions we're familiar with. Three dimensions

51:25

we're familiar with are very simple

51:27

things. It's it's again,

51:30

it's where you can shoot a narrow with that

51:33

crossing one path over another.

51:35

Well, we happen to live in the world in

51:37

which we let most of us do. not all this.

51:40

But there's great description

51:42

in here. You talk about here. And

51:44

again, I can't help but read the words

51:47

here. Although, I know that your words, but they raise

51:49

the issues that I wanna talk about. because

51:51

we're never gonna get in this ridiculous notion

51:53

that somehow what

51:54

you write down has anything to do with what you happen

51:57

believe because that's an That's something that people

51:59

don't understand. And then when they ever talk about

52:01

it, it's best to close your ears. But

52:04

this character says, you will never know what the world

52:06

is made of. The only thing that's

52:08

certain is that it's not made of

52:10

the world. As

52:11

you close upon some mathematical description

52:13

of reality, You can't help but lose

52:15

what is being described. Every

52:18

inquiry displaces what

52:20

is addressed.

52:21

And I found that really interesting because again,

52:24

it asked it said it sort of says,

52:26

if I read it correctly and I can move away

52:28

from the sun now, what we

52:30

talked about before that there's

52:32

a mathematical description of the world and

52:34

there's the world. And

52:36

in And

52:38

they're not the same thing.

52:39

No. Is that

52:41

what you're trying to get out there? Well,

52:42

no. It's it's

52:44

it's a very plain simple

52:47

statement. I mean Well, lot people

52:49

would say, I don't know it's like, the

52:51

only thing that's certain is the world is not made

52:53

of the world. immediately.

52:55

It's true that the what's clear, we

52:58

now understand for quantum mechanics, is that the world

53:00

is made of objects that are not the

53:02

objects we experience. So you had fundamental

53:04

level. The world is not what what we see. And

53:06

I guess I kind of thought maybe that's what

53:09

you were talking about there. Well, the Dead

53:11

and other things. Yeah. What other things?

53:13

No. You don't

53:15

need this. You were you

53:18

know, it's a trap. Yeah. Just,

53:21

I don't

53:22

know, it's a simple statement, but if

53:24

you think about it, it's

53:27

hiding It's

53:29

hiding more than it. REVEAL -- Yeah. This moves.

53:32

-- the universe is hiding a more much and part

53:34

of the job of science and the joy for me is

53:36

to discover what's hidden. It doesn't

53:39

it doesn't amaze you that I

53:41

mean, sometimes I sit back. And

53:44

it it is amazing that here

53:46

on this remote planet in the middle

53:48

of nowhere, these these

53:50

hominids that isn't

53:52

amazing that we've what we've that how

53:55

much of the hidden universe, even in

53:57

in your lifetime, and my lifetime,

53:59

it's almost unfathomable how much of the hidden

54:02

universe we can now know about, isn't it? Well,

54:04

it's what Einstein said.

54:06

He said, it's what's really

54:08

what's really

54:09

battling

54:11

is that the world is understandable? Yeah.

54:14

That itself is is remarkable. That

54:16

that we can understand it at all. But, you

54:18

know, I I do astrophysicist in cosmology,

54:20

but I I look up at the night sky.

54:23

And I know I work in this field where

54:25

I know how many galaxies are and

54:27

and and and developments of dark matter. But

54:29

isn't amazing with these little telescopes. We're gonna

54:31

look and we know not

54:33

only the shape of our galaxy, but the but

54:36

the galaxy, you know, millions of layers

54:38

away and or in some cases billions.

54:40

We know large scale the makeup of the universe.

54:43

It's still It boggles my mind that

54:45

we and that's in less than a hundred years.

54:47

Right? A hundred years is going to a one galaxy.

54:49

Yeah.

54:50

I want to come back as we get near

54:53

the end here to this question about

54:55

that we've alluded to with science versus

54:57

literature. you said at

54:59

the very beginning, how can you not be fascinated

55:01

by science? So as if when I asked that question, like, it

55:03

was the most ridiculous question in the world.

55:05

Okay. And I and I and I

55:08

I feel that way too because I say that when, you know,

55:10

how can you not be fascinated with science? Did

55:13

you ever read Jacob Brenowski? I used to love

55:15

Jacob Brenowski. game. Yeah.

55:17

He really influenced me a lot. But he made some

55:20

statement about, you know, it's

55:21

not a game.

55:22

You can't play this game. The world science

55:25

infiltrates the world through and through in every

55:27

way. And and it's not a game

55:29

and you just have to accept that

55:32

it's real and whole.

55:34

And

55:34

that's incredibly important. But

55:38

The fact that we have to say that

55:40

means we live in a world where most people don't

55:43

have that appreciation at all. We're

55:45

doing something wrong.

55:47

Well,

55:48

there's there's really nothing

55:51

there's really nothing that has improved our

55:53

lives in the last hundred years. It's

55:55

not based in science.

55:57

In more than a hundred years, yeah, absolutely.

55:59

I mean, all of everything that makes our lives

56:01

the way it is is science. Yeah. And

56:03

that's true even that's

56:06

in a cultural sense true I think as well. It

56:08

impacts on the -- Okay. -- on the -- it

56:10

impacts on every aspect of our culture

56:12

as well as just the technology of

56:14

science.

56:15

But why don't more people

56:19

think like you? I

56:21

mean, the question is why We live in

56:23

a society where science is something we call

56:25

them be. And in many people

56:27

say it's just something I can't understand. It's

56:30

not interesting. Yet, they don't You

56:32

know, they may not like picasso, but

56:34

they don't say, I'm

56:36

not an artist and therefore I won't be interested

56:38

I'm not or I'm not a guitar player, and therefore,

56:40

I won't be interested in listening to Eric Clapton or

56:42

whoever is your favorite guitar player.

56:44

Yet in science, Some of them say,

56:47

well, I'm not a scientist. And therefore,

56:49

I I don't have to be

56:51

interested in it.

56:52

And And what can we do to change

56:54

that? I

56:55

have no idea. I don't want as much you can

56:57

do to change it. Most people are just not

56:59

interested in anything. Well, I

57:01

I'm leading to a trap here. So say

57:03

no. Okay. The trap

57:06

is you've written a book

57:08

in which science plays a a key role,

57:10

but

57:11

you write the

57:13

details of the standard model in here

57:15

and other aspects of mathematics. And

57:18

what I love about it is you write it as

57:20

if the reader should be

57:22

able to appreciate this as if you were talking about

57:24

Shakespeare or Milton or

57:27

the Holocaust

57:29

or anything else. Okay.

57:31

I'm wondering if that's the way

57:33

to do it, is to have the

57:35

writers that we most appreciate

57:38

and the musicians we most appreciate be

57:40

willing to talk about sciences

57:42

if it's Of course, I can talk about the standard

57:44

model. Why wouldn't I be able to? So I'm

57:47

wondering if Even though you say you don't know how to do

57:49

it, I'm wondering if in writing

57:51

this book in some ways you're not making you're

57:53

not contributing to the to the effort

57:55

to somehow convince people that they should be

57:58

able to at least converse about this

57:59

with some level of of

58:01

of learning.

58:03

he I suppose some part of you wants

58:05

people to have a

58:07

better understanding of science and better

58:10

to feel the war with world science than they

58:13

probably do. So

58:15

so there was some doubts before that.

58:17

There some was some intent. to include

58:19

that in this. Well, not it's

58:21

not the first intent. It's not the

58:23

first intent. Yeah. The first intent is to write

58:25

a good story, I see. Yeah. I think so. That's what

58:27

it should be. I agree. But But it's nice

58:29

to see it. It's the same thing as I talked about

58:31

with the radio program

58:34

you did with Werner. If people

58:36

who are literary or film

58:39

icons or whatever you wanna call the word.

58:41

Talk about sciences. If it's courses something

58:44

I'd be interested in, then he gives an example

58:46

of to others that, hey,

58:49

you know, it's not so strange to be fascinated

58:51

by this stuff. Yeah. Yeah. He's talking

58:53

about lunch.

58:55

your son like my daughter is very musical.

58:58

I love music. But

59:00

I can't

59:02

do it. Try as hard

59:04

as I might. To me, that I try

59:07

and wonder what it's like to someone who can't do mathematics.

59:09

It must feel the same.

59:12

But the difference is it doesn't stop me from

59:14

loving, listening to it.

59:15

Yeah. So what what's that

59:18

difference? I guess you can't just listen to mathematics,

59:20

so you can you can listen music.

59:22

Or

59:23

you can go into an art gallery

59:25

and just look and enjoy the art without

59:28

concluding. Whereas

59:30

with math, there's a somewhat

59:33

higher barrier. In order to really appreciate

59:35

it, there's some level you have to

59:37

get to. Mathematics is

59:41

Some people some people just

59:43

don't understand it and they will never

59:45

understand it. Yeah. and and I understand

59:47

that, you know, people have a barrier. And

59:49

but as I say that, but I think the thing that's

59:51

important is it, it doesn't mean you

59:53

can't talk

59:55

about it and have some perspective of what

59:57

it's about and

59:58

understand the questions you've always had like,

1:00:00

you

1:00:00

know, why are we here or how do we get here or

1:00:02

are we alone on diverse and the kind of questions that

1:00:05

everyone has about about --

1:00:06

Yeah. -- nature. Questions

1:00:08

that are the answers? Yeah. Which they

1:00:10

don't with the problem is people don't realize those questions

1:00:13

that fascinate them, as I said earlier, are

1:00:15

really science. They think it's something else. They think it's

1:00:17

theology. And they don't realize that the questions

1:00:19

that they're all asking are science questions. Yeah.

1:00:21

And somehow in our schools, we don't do a job

1:00:23

good job of explaining

1:00:24

kids that the questions and interests them are actually

1:00:26

scientific ones. Yeah.

1:00:28

No. Kids, you're interested in the same

1:00:30

questions. why we hear what's

1:00:32

going on. Yeah. By the way, I didn't

1:00:34

go let's go back at the beginning. Did you have good did

1:00:36

your teachers encourage your interest in science?

1:00:38

Or was school Useful

1:00:41

to you in that regard or not? No. I didn't

1:00:43

get much out of school. Yeah.

1:00:45

You're not the first person who told me that.

1:00:47

Like, a lot of people said they got interested in what they

1:00:49

got interested in in spite of their

1:00:51

teachers.

1:00:52

Largely true.

1:00:54

Yeah. Okay. Yeah. So and so you don't

1:00:56

have a a teacher that encourages you to Sorry?

1:00:58

None. It's not like that in college. Into

1:01:01

college. Okay. And that was a big different But did they

1:01:03

encourage yours in science or in

1:01:05

writing or what? I don't

1:01:07

know. They encourage my interest in reading

1:01:09

books. On reading books. Until they need to read

1:01:11

books much.

1:01:12

No. I would

1:01:15

That's they

1:01:16

saw somebody who like to read books as why

1:01:18

they were attracted.

1:01:19

Okay. Okay. So

1:01:21

that's so you always did like to read books.

1:01:24

I read books when I was a kid, and then

1:01:26

as I got older, I wanted to

1:01:28

be one of the guys and the

1:01:30

guys didn't read books. So I didn't

1:01:33

read books for a few years, and then I get

1:01:35

back into books again. The guys

1:01:37

took about cars and and and put them back together

1:01:39

again? Is that Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Well, it was

1:01:41

a good it was a it was a good

1:01:43

excursion. Yeah. Yeah.

1:01:48

I wish I'd I never had that. And so I never

1:01:50

got to do the car part. Well, the last

1:01:52

the last thing I wanna ask is a

1:01:54

quote in the same it's in the same

1:01:57

Paragraph is that last quote. And

1:01:59

you say, but above all, and lastly,

1:02:02

the world does not know that you were here.

1:02:05

Yeah. And that I that's a one of course

1:02:08

and again, another wonderful phrase,

1:02:10

but it's also a true phrase. It

1:02:13

is, but most people don't feel that way.

1:02:15

They feel similar rather their their

1:02:18

existence

1:02:20

on the planet is

1:02:23

Somebody has to know who maybe says me.

1:02:25

Yeah.

1:02:25

The the world we talked about you know,

1:02:27

I talked to you about my experience of touching that rock

1:02:29

at Greenland. I've been waiting for eight to one to

1:02:31

eight billion years for me to touch it. Yeah. But it

1:02:33

really was it, of course. But the the

1:02:36

the the realization the world does not know you're here

1:02:38

for some people is incredibly terrifying.

1:02:41

And for some people, it's incredibly

1:02:43

depressing. And for others, I suspect

1:02:46

like both Minyu, it's exhilarating.

1:02:49

Yeah, that's okay. I mean the

1:02:51

fact because it means

1:02:52

that, you

1:02:54

know, there's no plan and you have this

1:02:56

moment

1:02:58

to experience the world and you

1:03:00

should take advantage of it. Yeah.

1:03:02

Yeah. And

1:03:04

the fact that the world is not here,

1:03:06

does not know you're here, I

1:03:10

don't wanna really go too far into this, but

1:03:12

suggests that there's no divine plan

1:03:14

and you you buy that. There's no divine

1:03:16

plan for your being here. No.

1:03:18

I'm not a big believer in divine plans.

1:03:20

Okay. Well, look, I think I think

1:03:22

that the willingness to accept that the world does

1:03:24

not know we're here. and it doesn't revolve

1:03:27

around us. And that if we're

1:03:29

lucky, we get to experience

1:03:31

the world and learn about it by looking

1:03:33

outward. is the key to science

1:03:36

and the key to good literature because literature,

1:03:38

I like yours, opens another kind of

1:03:40

world for us to experience I can experience

1:03:42

the world through your imagination. And

1:03:45

so there's this real tie between the two.

1:03:48

So the world may not care

1:03:50

or know that you're here. but I do.

1:03:53

My life has been enriched by knowing

1:03:55

you personally and being able to

1:03:57

read you into and I'm the luckiest person in

1:03:59

the world to not just be able to read you you you

1:04:02

you but to talk to you about it and not

1:04:04

more than that for you to agree to talk to

1:04:06

me about it and trust me. So I I wanna thank you

1:04:08

so much for saying that you're welcome. Thank

1:04:10

you. It's been a joy, as always,

1:04:12

and a privilege. And III I'm

1:04:14

so lucky that others will get to hear it too.

1:04:17

Thanks again. You

1:04:18

will.

1:04:28

I hope you enjoyed today's conversation. This

1:04:31

podcast is produced by the Origins Project

1:04:33

Foundation, a nonprofit organization

1:04:36

whose goal is to enrich your perspective

1:04:38

of your place in the cosmos by

1:04:40

providing access to the people who

1:04:42

are driving the future of society in the twenty

1:04:44

first century and to the ideas

1:04:47

that are changing our understanding of

1:04:49

ourselves and our world.

1:04:52

To learn more, please visit origins

1:04:54

project foundation dot org.