The Basement: Quantum Compilation | From Particle Colliders to Parallel Realities

Today's episode is a little different. We pulled together some of the best science conversations we've had in the basement. Physicists, astrophysicists, and researchers who spent their careers staring at the edges of what we actually understand. You'll hear from Dr. Travis Taylor on his theory that our universe might sit inside a black hole. "I like those Russian nesting dolls, except every doll is on fire, and also everyone we love is inside it." Daniel Whiteson breaking down the Higgs boson and why the Planck scale isn't the wall people think it is. Avi Lowe on the search for gravitons and whether extra dimensions are hiding in plain sight, and it gets even stranger. Eric Wargo, on quantum retro causation, why the future might be able to influence the past. "I was so future me already knows how tonight ends. I must be nice having someone that reckless making all my decisions for me." Tom Campbell and Rizwan Burke on entanglement, the double slit experiment and whether reality itself might be simulated, along with a few other insightful guests. We start with the fundamentals, and by the end we're deep into consciousness. Time and question science still hasn't answered. "Question science hasn't answered my favorite game." This one's a journey. Let's go down to the basement. Everyone starts with skin work with you, but I got to do this for me. I want to start with the universe in a black hole. Is that the paper you're working on? Yeah, so for your next PhD, you need another one of those. Well, a lot of people ask me why so many degrees, why I want to do all these different things. For the longest I was trying to get in the astronaut program. If you look at the story much grave, for example, that guy's got umpteen masters degrees, he jumps out of planes at, you know, 30,000 feet and all sorts of things, you know, test pilot, all that stuff. And so I thought, well, you got to compete with those guys. You really, you got to bring your A-game. And also my goal, when I was a kid, I was about 10 years old, my dad, who was a master tool maker. He brought me a book. It was a beat up paperback book, and since it's not I've been reading this, I think you would really enjoy it. Once you read it, then we'll talk about it. And it was Eric Von Daniken's "Chariots of the Gods." Wow. And so I read it, absorbed it, read it again, bent pages on it so that we could come back and talk about it. And my dad and I since that time for it, you know, 48 years ago, we still to this day, we discuss new ideas that we've discovered, say, in some religious texts, or theological book, or even just a poll, somewhere written in history. And we say, well, that sounds a lot like that they're describing technology, you know, not, and that's what, that's what got me into understanding the universe from the ancient aliens, sort of perspective. George O. Suculus, like to say, ancient astronaut theory. I keep explaining to him a theory has a much larger acceptance. This is a hypothesis. That's an ancient astronaut hypothesis. But that's okay. You know, he's not a scientist. He's a researcher. And I applaud everything that the guys have done. Even if sometimes they go off in weird rabbit holes and lead you down a path that isn't the right answer, that's okay. That's how you learn, right? There's a, and the other reason, so not to skew too far, there, there was a, when it came out, that I had been the chief scientist of the UAP task force. There was a guy who wrote a article in, I think it was the Washington Post. It said government, it says something like critics mystified or baffled by the government's choice of guy who believes in paranormal for the UAP task force chief scientist. I've never once said I believe in anything paranormal. I don't even like the word paranormal, because if it's paranormal, paranormal means not within the universe, and if it's within the universe, or if it's not within the universe, then how are we seeing it and studying it, right? It's something that's happening as some, as I don't believe in the word fringe, because there's this thing as fringe science, science is science. If it's an unknown, you got to study it. But in that article, even the guy even went so far as to say, his alleged education, alleged, alleged education. He didn't do his homework, man. And I'm like, you're going to take pictures of my diplomas on my wall and my study at home, or I'm sure my mom's got pictures of graduations, not like other folks who claim they have master's degrees from somewhere and they can't even prove they went there, not to get into that, but my point, my point about that is, yeah, he didn't do his homework for a reason. And that's where there's somebody, there's an active source of people, whether it's an act of general conspiracy, just culturally, or there's officially something being driven to discredit anybody who's asking questions. And for example, you know, Michael Schermer's a smart guy. He's a really smart guy, but his answer is always the skeptical answer from the start. And that's actually a violation of the scientific method, honestly. I think he's getting his directives from somewhere. Yeah, so I think that's the point. And that's where I'm going to, and I wanted to make a point about something. That's why I brought that up. I'll give you a real simple example so that you can use to explain to anybody. Let's say we have the videos that have come out and somebody says, well, we believe we can show the wine, wine, vogue UFOs. This could just be some phenomena, airplane light, cleaning off of it. You know, as, as Will Smith said, light reflecting from Venus, right? And, um, well, that's fine. That is a possible solution. It's not the only solution. What's the square root of four, right? Two? No, it's not square root of four is plus or minus two. That's true. Think about that because minus two times minus two is still four. There are two solutions to that question. And either one are equally valid. So is it light reflecting off of swamp gas from Venus or whatever, you know, or could it be something else? If it is a solution, a viable solution, it is still a possibility that has to be investigated. And so that's why I wonder why there's something saying, well, don't look at that set of solutions. It's never minus two. It's always two, right? That's the Collins group. Yeah, yeah. We don't call that, we don't know who they are, but within the task force, we called them the antibodies. Yeah. And we would run into the antibodies often. And we just for asking questions, right? And when we became the official UAP task force, the National Defense Authority of Authorization Act, NDA of 2019 and 2020, gave us authority to be briefed at all classifications at all, all classifications. So and they didn't have to, they didn't have to brief us in and say, this is the technology's how it works. But if we ask them, was this you, they had to tell us by law, and it said that there's a felony if they didn't. And we had, we had multiple star officers tell us that they would commit the felony before telling us. Of course. Of course they would. So that to me, that is, they're admitting that they're going to break the law. It's it's treason. Yeah. Sorry, I got us off on a tangent. No, that's okay. That's why, that's why I, I've kind of learned everything I possibly can since I was 17 years old, get behind that door to see these things, understand these things. And, and, and, and number one, what if we need to be doing something? We don't have an Avengers initiative. Right. That's true. That's on my list is when you were 17, how you worked on SDI, but black holes. Oh, yeah. Archipathria that said universes of black hole in the 70s. We've got Paplowski in the 2010s. So this is not new, but your paper, I think, says our universe could fit into like five to 10 solar masses. Yes. So the, the paper that I, it's really weird that came about. I was actually working on a simulation hypothesis presentation for a conference. I forget which conference it was. And I was looking at world maps of video games. Okay. Like say Minecraft. You got the square world map or, you know, whatever. And, and how they worked. And I realized that since you couldn't go, they weren't like the old Atari in Asteroid dream off this side and you come back on this side, right? You know, that, that's actually a sphere. People don't realize that. But I was looking at the world map and I realized you can't go outside the boundaries of that. And so the video game itself has an event horizon. I just published a cookbook with Hungry Root called Guardian's Humpty Recipes. Because by Wednesday, who doesn't want a little Humpty treat? I built this cookbook around the food that hits that certain move. You know the one. That one. Get your mind out of the gutter. This is a cooking app. Wednesday's a weird day. You're halfway through the week and you're done with leftovers, but too tired to cook something. That's when this cookbook comes in. Hungry Root isn't just a meal kit. It's a whole grocery store. Recipes and groceries in one place. For dinner, I went with the slow cooker Cuban spice Black beans chili. Hard to say, but tasty to eat. Because you said it in the morning and it's ready by the time Wednesday's beating it down. My herb pork chili verde with Mexican pinto beans made the cut too. Compar food that actually tastes like someone made it for you, not like a diet. And for snacking, air fryer pickle chips with buttermilk ranch, because Humpty treats don't always have to be dessert. And from the Hungry Root Grocery section, I stocked up on the pickled red onions and pasture-raised hard-boiled eggs to pile on literally everything. Every single item on this list is 100% worth it, consequences and all. This floor, my digital cookbook on Hungry Root today, and find recipes that are right for you. Go to HungryRoot.com/TheBasement to access my cookbook, Gertie's Humpty Recipe. Okay, that hit my, and at the same time, I pulled a picture that was made by a cosmology group. You can, anybody can go find it. It's a circle that shows sort of a logarithmic plot across time and space to the edge of our universe. And it's a big circle and shows we're somewhere near the middle and then you got the giant galaxies that, when they were beginning to form and all this out at the edge of time, when the big bang allegedly occurred. And there's nothing beyond that circle that you can see. And I looked at it and said, "Well, this is exactly the same world map as in Minecraft. There's an event horizon on our world map that we can't see beyond." And I said that the only thing that I know of like that that has an event horizon that traps all the information on the inside of it is a black hole. And then I realized, Stephen Hawking actually wrote a paper with the guy in Beckenstein that black holes actually do emit a certain amount of radiation. But it's so tiny that the amount of radiation, it's such a long wavelength and so low energy, we can't build detectors to detect it. So it'll be decades before anybody can prove or disprove Hawking's concept, his hypothesis. But it matches with the math and everything I've heard. That's probably true. Probably. It's just we can't prove it for a long time. We get better building instruments. But I realized I said, "Well, if there's energy leaking out of this black hole, well, then that energy is a signature of what's inside it." And so you know how you can take your radio dial in your car back in the old days when you can turn it. You can see all the numbers there. That's the frequency spectrum of all the transmissions your radio can do, right? At in time, it sends a signal, but across the frequencies, you can see all these spots on the dial. Well, I thought, "Now what if the signal, if we look at its spectrum, if it tells us all the information that's inside coming from the inside of the black hole?" And when I did certain types of math, it let me reproduce what we see is modern cosmology running backwards from the outside looking in. So in other words, we believe we have models of our universe, right, going this way, expanding outward from the big bang. Well, in a black hole, if you look at it from the outside in, times reversed, and it would be falling inward. And I thought, "Well now, that's an interesting corollary." And so I used all the math from Hawking and everything, and I ran a bunch, and it told me a lot of, it's such a long Python code that it took me for, I had to vibe code a lot of it with the, you know, chat GVT because I'm not a super computer hacker, you know. But you have to always go back and make sure the math is right because, you know, AI will, will give you fake stuff. It will. But anyway, so once I ran the models over and over and convinced myself that the code was right, it showed that any, any black hole between five and ten solar masses should have similar cosmology as our, our universe, which suggests, no, I'm not saying it proves it, but it suggests that we live in a black hole that's about somewhere between five and ten solar masses. And my model stopped somewhere about seven point two solar masses. So Pplowski said that, that we would inherit the characteristics and spin of our parrot black hole, but what I can't square is the swarge child radius. Well, so the swarge child radius is only something you see from the outside. Oh, that's the event horizon. Right. So as we don't, we can't go past it. We can't get out that well, explain swarge child for, for the folks listening. Yeah. So, if you take a amount of mass and you squish it as, as small as you can make it, there is a radius around it, spherically, makes a, you know, virtual spheres, a geometric sphere around it. And at that radius is, is the race where light can't even escape the gravitational attraction, even light will fall in right there. So there's no way, unless you maybe have a warp drive that you could escape or quantum tunneling. Right. And so the interesting parallel though, AJ when I was doing this was it led back to my simulation hypothesis presentation, because like Elon Musk has said that he believed that he doesn't believe there's any chance that we're in the prime universe that we're in a nested simulation. What in billions? A simulation within simulation within simulation. Sure. Well, look across our cosmology, how many black holes there are. And within our universe, we see black holes everywhere, right? And if we're in a black hole, that means that there are black holes in our black hole. And those black holes probably have black holes in those black holes. And those black holes will have holes in those black holes and it's turtles all the way down and all the way up. So could our universe be a black hole in someone else's sky? Yes. That's the point. It's turtles all the way down and all the way up. Because you worked at the US Army Space and Missile Defense Command. Global scientists of quantum entanglement and space technologies lab. What does the Army want to do? What's the Army that's around with quantum mechanics for? Well, many reasons. One is are there sensors that would use new new methods of quantum physics that would give you more information on battle assessment, battlefield awareness and so on. The other would be communications. If you can do quantum entanglement encrypted communications and what I was specifically working on as my main project at the time, was to create a satellite experiment that would use quantum encrypted communications so that no one could eavesdrop or spoof or jam the comms to the battle groups on the ground. Didn't China just do this? You're thinking of the, it spelled Misha, so I think they pronounce it something like Mosa or something like that is an out-of-understand Chinese spelling and pronunciations. But they're talking about that experiment where yes, they did a, what's called a QKD quantum key distribution experiment where they flew a satellite in 2016, 2017 timeframe and they encrypted a video transmission with their quantum key and did it from one point on one part of the globe to another part, which was really impressive and exciting. There are a lot of people who tried to debunk it and say that they didn't really achieve it, but I was one of the teams to look at what they did and as far as I can tell, it was functional and it's really interesting not tooting my own horn, but myself and one of my first mentors, Dr. Friend Cisco J. Dorte, Frank Dorte, he and I wrote a paper in 2015 that laser-focused world nominated as one of the top ten papers of the year and we showed that quantum communications would be the key for encrypted satellite communications and then within a year the Chinese did it. And so at least we thought of it, but they did it. But they went and did it, so my lab was a hybrid lab between University of Alabama, Huntsville and the Army, Space and missile defense command, to get smart young folks in there working on it, hands on building the experiment, building the space hardware and we'd already flown one project on the International Space Station for 28 months and our second mission was to fly the quantum communications package and we got the first prototype build and then politics changed within the Army and some groups said, "Well, where are they only group in the Army that's supposed to be doing that?" So they pulled our funding and put it there and we sort of limped along but I also was about the time that I had pulled into the UAP task force and so my focus was sort of reoriented. Well, I understand how quantum encryption would work but why would entangle it necessary? So that way you can, over large distances, create your key on both ends. Oh, that's right. So you have your entangled photons, flipping up or down and if you measure over here whatever it is, you know what the other one is supposed to be and so what happens is this person gets a key, entangles it, sends it over to the other person and then they send through a regular comms channel, I use this measurement tool to measure it and so then they take that measurement tool and do some adjustment to it, measure and whatever they get then it tells them what their key was and so if they don't have both of those, the actual entangled piece and the classical comm piece then you can't get the key, you can't open the door and so it's a perfect encryption. And it's not right. breakable. Well, there are some quantum hacks that have been discovered since, but it's not, I don't think it's really been done in application. Right. It's theoretically possible in theory. You should be able to break it, I guess, instantly, right? Well, but if you do break it, the other guy knows that you broke it. That's right. So if anybody eavesdrops on you, you know that you've been eavesdropped on. And so that's useful as well, right? Yeah. And so that's what we were working on. And it was, it was an exciting project. It was hard. I mean, it's one of those things that, you know, nobody had done yet. So I mean, other than the Chinese, but nobody had done it in this country yet. And the problem was, the problem with this country is for the research funds, you got so many people fighting and stabbing each other in the back over getting something done that were our own worst enemies in that regard. Instead of saying, Oh, these guys have done great work. We should go look to what they've done. And maybe we get funding to do something similar or whatever and say that we better kill them and get their funding. That's how it works in this country. I mean, it really does. And our scientific community, publication community, it's all a big Spanish inquisition. It's a mess. Were you studying quantum field theory and then decided to just write the textbook yourself? That's, that is exactly what I did. What, what, what, what was wrong with the, with the syllabus that you had to write your own textbook as a student. Well, so what happened? It was a, I noticed that quantum field theory was on the catalog for the University of Alabama Huntsville physics department, but it was never offered. Now went to the dean and said, Why, why is it not offered? You know, I mean, studying, I'd want to take a official course in it. And he said, Well, we don't have anybody that wants to teach it. And he said, I could, but I don't have time. And I said, Well, say what? Let me see if I can create a syllabus for you and write the course. And so I started putting the course work together. I got several other textbooks looking at him like, I read like stereo instructions, you know, instead of trying to explain it in a way that the student can understand it. And so to teach myself, you know, quantum field theory, I had, I mean, I had to learn it well enough that I could teach it to somebody else, right? Explain it to the third grader, so to speak. Right. And which is, that's a hard one to do, by the way. Yes, it is. Who did you study to put that together? So there are, there's several books. The, the two main sets of books that I used were a book by Cloudber and then one by Lan Kester and Blundel. There was like something like a quantum physics for gifted amateur and one student friendly quantum field theory or something like that. And then then there was the standard textbooks that people have used. And I looked at what I found in my tea coursework online and just everywhere I could find information. I'd read, I'd read everything about this particular piece of it and be like, I don't understand what they were telling me there. This one, I kind of understand. I don't, then I figured out after, you know, putting it all together a way to understand it. And so I said, well, I kind of done all this work. It might as well be a book. And so I contacted the publisher who, who published my rocket science book. And they said, we would love to have a quantum field theory book. First graduate course in that. Yeah, we'd love to do that. And so I spent the next year putting that book together. Did anyone take your course? Well, I've caught it. Okay. The book just came out, you know, six months ago. Oh, it did. Yeah. Okay. And so I just finished it not, you know, not long ago. And I've already found a couple of errors. And so I'm going to have to do an updated edition or something to fix it. But that's usually what happens with textbooks. You teach a class in it. And the students find where you made a mistake. Sure. And so I'm hoping that somebody adopts it and they'll get notes from professors and, well, there's a error here. There's, you know, that's happening with my rocket science book too. So yeah, I get emails from fans and scientists say all the things I got wrong. I heard. I've heard about that. Were you working on decoherence when you were in the lab? So a little bit. One of the things that we were really interested in that I miss specifically was how do we know or how does it know to deco here? What is the thing that triggers what is called the collapse of the wave function in quantum physics? And there are a lot of people that debate it that people still think that or want to argue with you that no, it's just statistics and there never was this live and dead cat in the box. But we've done experiments that suggest that it is a superposition of two states at once the cats alive and dead in the box at the same time. But for how long? So you know, pinrows, Roger pinrows, this is what I was getting at, has a theory called quantum gravity and it's not really tying gravity to quantum physics is just what he called it. That based on how much mass an object has is how long it can stay in this superposition of unknown states, right? Like the cats alive and dead. But since the cat is so heavy, it's like, you know, billions of a second or a nanosecond or even less that it could be in flux. But an electron, for example, whose mass is tiny, 10 to the minus 31 kilograms or something, that's so small you can't even match so many zeros, you know, that it can stay in that in that flux for almost forever unless something interacts with it. And so where is the middle ground where there are big things, big enough things that you can watch and see it happen. And I think there were some experiments done with micron size, you know, a millionth of a meter sized nanotubes, like carbon filaments, like the size of a human hair, something like that under certain field conditions. And they've been able to see it perform at both states at once, meaning that the cat is alive and dead in the box. It's just a little bitty box. Sure. And a very cooperative cat. I've always said, I don't know how Schrodinger was going to get that cat in the box in the first place. Now cat will jump into a box if you leave it there open. Right, but you can't put it in there. But you can't put it in here if it can't do what they want to do. So, so Techmark says that decoherence is almost instant and warm wet environment. Yeah. That's not really true, is it? Though, well, that's the warm squishy brain idea. So what you're getting at is quantum consciousness, right? And pinrows and hammer holes. I'm thinking about bird's eyes and quantum tunneling through all factory senses. Even before we get the consciousness. Well, one of the things that led me down this path was my first child was born in 2004. And when my wife was pregnant, I remember watching all these videos about, well, at this stage, the baby grows, this happens and this happens. And I go, how the hell do they know? Why does it do that? And nobody knows why these things are happening. They just, it's just been, they've watched them so long, so long they say, this is what usually happens. It's just observation. It's not knowledge. Right. And what's triggering these things to happen? And how does it know? And the things happen in ways that seem faster than they should be able to happen. They still don't really know. No, they don't have any idea. No. And so now I think, well, if you get a splinter in your finger, the immune response happens immediately. And it's much faster than the ion channel to travel from your arm up to your brain and back down your brain and back to say sin stuff there, right? So could it be through a quantum connection, through an interaction? And that's what led me to start studying pin rows and hammer-offs orchestrated objective reduction and the warm squishy brain thing. Right. And you know, there are people who haven't really paid attention to that. The idea is that there are these proteins in your brain. And there's more of these proteins in your brain than there are grains of sand on the beach or stars in the universe, tryptophan. No, they're called tubulins. Oh, the micro tubes. Yeah. Okay. Every time you swipe your cash app card, there's leftover change. A few cents here, a few cents there. Normally that change just vanishes into rounding. But cash app does something smarter with it. Roundups take that spare change and put it straight into Bitcoin. No extra tap, no daily decision, no staring in a chart wondering if today's the day. You buy a coffee, spare change goes to Bitcoin. You grab groceries, spare change goes to Bitcoin. It adds up in the background while you're living your life. I like that it turns something I already do swiping a card into a habit that builds a position for me. Dollar cost averaging usually takes discipline. This just takes a debit card. You don't need to lump some either. Cash app lets you buy Bitcoin infractions. So even a few cents becomes real ownership, not just a rounding trick. When you're buying Bitcoin over time, the small costs add up. That's why I like the cash app offers zero fees and zero spread on automatic Bitcoin purchases like auto invest roundups and paid in Bitcoin. So if you're building a position over time, more of each purchase goes into Bitcoin. It's a straightforward way to add Bitcoin exposure without over complicating the process. Download cash app today. Visit our link in bio, Bitcoin Services by Block Inc. See the Bitcoin Disclosures at cash.app/legal/podcast. And the protein, the tubulin protein. It's a tripped-fancy amino acid in those. So bin rows and hammer off hypothesized that these tubulin can trap an electron like the cat in the box. And so that protein becomes what's called a qubit, a quantum processor. And that's what we're building right now at Google, at IBM, these quantum qubit processors. And where The programs that we've built quantum computers physically, there are tens to hundreds of qubit processors, there are like 10 to the 20 or so of them in your brain. And so doesn't matter if they deco here quickly. This is where tagmark didn't pay attention to engineering. Right. So even if they do deco here so quickly, there's 10 to the 20 something of them. That's that's a good point. And they could be deco hearing but they can be reinforced by the next one, not being deco here, and so on. Chipped to them does reinforce these. Well, and there's other. So here's the thought about that, is their architecture in your brain to do error reduction? That's why you would, you know what, when you do error reduction in computing and computing processing, you add extra processors. Right. Guess what? There are 10 to the 20 something of these processors in your brain. And so I believe that that that your brain is a quantum computer, whether it was organically grown, designed by, you know, the Anunnaki or whatever you want. I don't care, but that's what's happening. And it's led me to write a book in the early 2000s called The Science Behind the Secret. And I was watching, my wife and I were watching these, it's when the secret came out. It was all popular. No one, I don't know. There was people who were on Oprah talking about it. We all read it. Yeah, we all read it. And they started talking about what else? You know, it's like a electromagnet, a electromagnetism. And I'm like, well, that's not right. Like a electromagnetism, causing and in magnets and electricity, like things repel each other. And you're saying, like things stay and it's the only thing that does that I know is quantum physics, cause in quantum, quantum wave functions will have constructive interference if the wave functions are similar. And they'll be destructive if they are dissimilar. So like things would stay and unlike things would go away. And that started leading me to think, well, what they're saying in the secret isn't, they're not physicists. They're like self-help people, philosophers, whatever. They don't understand what they're saying, but they're saying it right, right. And so I started looking at the quantum physics of the human brain and how the universe works. And it led me down this path of looking into ancient texts, even more so than just for things like from ancient astronaut hypothesis, right, more than deeper than Vandana can, you know, more of the William Henry sort of direction. Sure. And it led me into really wanting to understand quantum physics at a level of, is there an observer effect that are we influencing every experiment? Everything that happens. And here's the thing that gets me is, how do I have dreams of people I don't know in detail? We all do. Yeah. So, but you know them in the dream? Yes. And I know these environments in the dream that I've never been to. Is it, is, am I that good at making up stuff? Or is my brain in idle mode and the noise floor is brought down because all my other systems are shut down. And I'm connecting like a quantum transceiver to other quantum transmissions that are happening. And, and I'm decoding it. And I'm, I'm like playing that game. I'm part of that reality for a minute. And I, that leads me down the path that because we don't understand dreams, cause we don't understand things like DMT. Because we don't understand that when people are hallucinating that their brain function actually goes into a coma like state instead of hyperactive, that leads me to think that we're doing something more on the lines of detecting quantum information because you got a, it's very sensitive to noise, right? And so if you brought the noise down, then you're seeing things that aren't usually there or detecting things that aren't usually there or having experiences you don't usually experience. It suggests to me, that sounds like quantum physics. What was that first experiment that first reading? Well, go wait a minute. So I, I mean, I'd literally been there 30 minutes to an hour. That's it. Yeah. My first time to visit Brandon Fugel, the owner flew me in on his helicopter. We landed at the helipad. We got out and had a lunch and then walked up to the top of the mesa where they just put out a new sensor. They're going to show me the sensor. And I carried a spectrum analyzer with me as we went. And the, the other scientist there had one with him, Eric Bard. And we were there up on top of the mesa. We just got there. And then suddenly my spectrum analyzer pegged out in the microwaves. And, and I mean pegged out like not, not popping popcorn on the inside, but if you were popping popcorn and held your microwave detector right by the door, that's how much microwaves I was detecting coming from everywhere. Wow. And what was the frequency? There's around 1.6 gigahertz. And, and that's, you know, that's right where GPS is. That's where space to, uh, is 1575. And Eritium is 161. Yep. That's a busy frequency. That is a very, it's all spaced ground, ground space kind of stuff. And it was pegged pegged. And it was coming out of the ground. What is it? I don't know. I mean, I looked for it. I was like, I was like scratching my head, running around crazy like, uh, you know, a chicken with his head cut off, not, not understand what's going on. I was literally like a cockroach in a microwave running around. Yeah. I was running like trying to figure out what was going on. Well, you drilled, you dug. What do you, what's down there? Oh, don't know. We, so we, uh, we drilled in a spot where a ground penetrating radar told us there was some big anomaly in, in there. And, uh, when we, we hit something and we put pressure against it, uh, eight thousand pounds of pressure against it for like minutes, many minutes. And you'd think a drill bit would have got high, didn't it cooled off, which is odd. The friction would have been enormous unless it were frictionless, odd, impossible, impossible. Right. Right. Unless it were frictionless or something. Uh, but what we found in the spoils pile, when we pulled, uh, pulled the drill bit out, uh, were these pieces of metallic fragments and surround, they were ceramic like. And when we went and had them analyzed, they were, uh, they had been centered and built in a blast furnace in a way that, uh, the, the experts in the material in the, uh, metal, uh, metallurgy lab said were like tiles on the space shuttle that, uh, are used for reentry or their own starship now, right? They use the same kind of tiles. Um, it's not the exact chemical makeup, but we're built or manufactured in the same way. So there's something manufactured inside this mason. It was, this was 377 feet in and 78, 75 feet, I think down. Was it an alloy? Uh, it's a mixture. It was a compound of some of the compounds. So it was made. It was made. Yes. What was the, what were the metals? What were the components? Uh, well, so it had a little bit of aluminum in it. Oh, what's really interesting is it had a mixture of 50 percent aluminum and 50 percent iron in some of the metal fragments, which we don't do that. We don't mix 50, 50 aluminum and iron. No. Why? Why? What is that? Where did that come from? And then the ceramic like fragments had, uh, all sorts of materials in it like, uh, there was some thorium. There was, uh, there was, uh, so that's radioactive. Yeah. It was very low level. It was very, very, very low level. It was, uh, uh, what else was in it? There was, of course, there was a lot of carbon. There, there was a little bit of aluminum. There was, it was almost like, uh, aluminum, uh, cutting blades. It was almost that kind of material or I originally tasted it. It was kind of like a break pad. You know, right. And I thought, somebody's buried a car down in there, right? But it wasn't exactly a break pad, right? It was more like, uh, uh, it was hard on the outside and more fragile on the inside. Uh, and we took it and put it in an electron microscope at the university, uh, uh, Utah Valley University in the physics department there. And when we hit it with electron beams, it would open up and we turned the electron beams off. It would close back up and exactly the same configuration it did it every time like, like self healing metal. Well, that's what we thought it was. We thought we were blowing holes in it first and it was, and it was healing itself. But it, uh, it appeared to be more like an umbrella that it was opening and closing or a pom-pom when you put it in a, uh, static electric field, how it, or your hair will stand up and then it'll go back down. It seemed more like that. Uh, but it's, we're still to a lot more experimentation on that to figure that out. And some of the metal fragments we found were in layers that had the iron and aluminum mixture as the middle, the Oreo part. And then the cookie part was on one side was almost pure telurium. And the other side was almost pure aeropium. And that's really similar to how we build solar panels. Mm-hmm. And that's really hard. Also, you know, how did that get inside this mace, uh, you know, 30 something at the maximum, the maximum height or closest to the surface that our holes got to was 38 feet down. But the materials we believe came out around 78 feet, 75 feet down and 370 something feet in. How big is this object, according to the GPR? Um, well, it's like 20 meters wide. And, and it could be as much as, you know, 50 meters like a cigar shape. It's cigar shape. Yeah. It looks at what it would tell you what, it looked at their smaller pieces all around it. It literally looks like, uh, like an airplane crash debris field. It literally looks like something crashed into the mace and there's pieces spread out in there. Uh, I mean, and here's the most bizarre thing. Um, we were looking at the material, uh, the metal fragment and, and from the elemental analysis of it, uh, the night we found it, we used an equipment we had on a ranch. And, uh, I said, well, it's not a meteor fragment. And, uh, the Eric Bard said, well, the only thing it's missing to be a meteor would be to have some nickel in it. The next morning, oh, no, the archaeologist pulled out of the same spot, 370 something feet in, send me something feet down, a 1964 nickel. What is going on in the next day? How can a 1964 nickel get inside the mason? It can't. Well, so we went, uh, so I, I asked it freaked me out, right? Our archaeologist said, well, that means there was a dig here. So what do you mean? He said, oh, it's standard, uh, protocol, archaeologists are trained that when you finish a dig, you drop a coin from that year in the dig. So future archaeologists will know there was a dig here and he said, I'll bet you anything there was a dig here in 1964. So I went and got, uh, man, the other guys we went and got every publicly available, um, aerial photograph of the property all the way from 1935. And what's interesting is from 1963 to 1968, the, uh, six, three is the last one and then 69 is the next one. There are no images from 64 to 68 that are available publicly. None. Zero. Like it, man. None. Can't be. And, and, and so it's, it's really bizarre that, uh, that, that something happened there and, and it's been, it's been covered and we wonder, there's this myth of people say bad things happen to you. If you dig on Skinwalker Ranch, makes me wonder if it was more of a non disclosure agreement saying bad things will happen to you if you dig on Skinwalker Ranch. It sounds like it. Um, I mean, we were talking earlier. I said, we're going to watch the show because I thought it was like another Oak Island thing and you're like, no, man, it's all real what we're doing there. Yeah. What did you find on the ranch that, that compelled you to go to Washington and get in the skiff? Yeah. So, well, that first day when, um, uh, I started big detecting these microwaves, they were, they were at levels that would be in violation of FCC, regulations, right? All I guess is to could jam the satellites. Yes. Yes. So that, and I was like, this is somebody's doing something nefarious is what I thought. I thought it was Russians, is it Chinese? Is it some kid doing something stupid, but somebody that'll feel disruption if you could do it. Oh, Lord, yeah. And none of our GPS stuff would work. Right. So I'm thinking, oh, somebody's jamming GPS and why? No guiding ordinance. Uh, well, think about airplanes landing at an airport. Right. I really was kind of freaking me out. So I went to my, uh, uh, I had security clearance. You know, my day job was still with the army and I went and told our security guys, they said, well, I don't know what to do with that. Let me see. I think call around say who you need to talk to and they kept handing me off up the food chain. And at the same time, one of our other guys, uh, that was there with me that day, uh, one of the scientists on the team, he had contacted some contacts and they kept doing the same going up and trying to figure out where, and eventually we got handed off to, well, you need to have a meeting with these people in the Pentagon. And so all right. So I flew up to the Pentagon and briefed them on all the data. We were going to skiff and these two guys come in and, uh, I noticed that one of them had a copy of my alien invasion book, which is a serious book. I wrote in, uh, 2003, uh, with one of my mentors in the intelligence community, Dr. Bob Bone. We were at a three letter organization meeting and, uh, this is a serious book called alien invasion. Yes. It's a textbook on how we would defend the planet and what we should be doing to prepare. Okay. Uh, so yeah, we were in, yeah, we were in this meeting is after, you know, two years after 9/11, we're in deep in Operation Anaconda, all that stuff's going on. And so this is a top secret meeting on how to come up with clever ways to understand asymmetric warfare and all this stuff, right? You know, we were on the high side, of course, the, the Iraqis and the Afghanis and all those were on the low side. So we're, uh, we're in this meeting and, uh, this three star general makes this comment like, wow, we need to put ourselves in our enemy shoes and walk a mile in them so we can understand how to think like them and I laughed. And, uh, and at this time, I was, you left out loud, out loud, yes, yeah. At this time, I was like a GS 14 equivalent and, uh, and this was a three star and, and, and, and he got her up, you know, and, and my boss, uh, my mentor just, he said, he's like, oh, what, what's, I know what's coming now. But our boss was a, uh, a one star equivalent in the three letter organization. Uh, and he kind of looked at me like, I don't know if you should say anything, but you know, you have something to say and I said, well, sir, uh, our poor people have X boxes and, and two TVs and a car in the driveway and they have $100 shoes. It's unlikely that they'll ever be able to understand these, these people that we're fighting because they have a completely different world they live in and only way Americans would ever be on the low side of asymmetric war was if we were invaded by aliens. I was doing a typical Southern thing, explaining by exaggeration. Well, the general just kind of rolled his eyes and moved on. So after the meeting or, or at a break in the meeting, we're in, uh, in the, in the break room and I'm getting a soft drink or whatever and, um, and, and, and the three letter boss comes up to me, three letter organization, boss comes up to me and he says, what would we do if we were invaded by aliens? That's my next question. And, uh, and I said, we'd probably die. Well, do we have a plan? And I say, well, I think you would know more about that than I, and he said, well, why don't you two look and he's talked to me in my mentor and said, why don't you two look and see what you can come up with? And so we spent the next year studying warfare, warfare models, uh, intelligence models, technologies, and it led us to, uh, we kind of threw together this book on all the things that we'd studied. And of course we briefed it at other levels, but we, but we asked him, can we publish this as a, as a book? Sure. We don't care. You know, and, uh, and so we did, and it's interesting on the cover of the book, uh, the first version of it, uh, the chief scientist of the, uh, in our row, actually put on there that, uh, it was, it was fascinating. Roleman had a pretty good run until it didn't. Emperor's kept shaving the silver out of their coins to stretch the treasury, a denarius that was almost pure silver under Augustus was less than 5% silver two centuries later. Same coin, a fraction of the metal, prices tripled, then tripled again. People stopped trusting the money and started hoarding anything real, land, grain, silver they can hold. That's not a metaphor. That's just what happened 2000 years later, the playbooks the same, just with the printing press instead of the mint. You don't need a currency to be silver anymore for it to get diluted, you just need more of it printed. The mechanism's different, the outcome for regular savers hasn't changed much. GoldenCress Metal helps people move part of a 401k or IRA into physical gold and silver. The stuff that doesn't get diluted, tax and penalty free, no pressure, no hard sell, just information, and right now they're running a bonus up to $25,000 in free silver on qualifying purchases. Visit goldencressmetals.com/thewifiles or text-the-word files to metals that's 63825. GoldenCressmetals.com/thewifiles or text-the-word files to metals to receive a free investor kit, a free portfolio review with no obligation or hard sell, and on qualifying purchases of $25,000 in both a silver. So, what happens there is that we have two pillars of physics, quantum mechanics, which describes gravity and all that stuff, mostly they don't intersect because you're talking about big stuff for relativity or small stuff for quantum mechanics, right? But at 10 to the minus 35 meters, you need both of them and those two theories, we don't know how to get them to play well together, like there's no theory of quantum gravity that makes them come together in harmony, they disagree, they disagree by the nature of space, by the nature of time, about everything. So we have these two pillars of physics and mostly they're fine, but sometimes they overlap, and at 10 to the minus 35 meters, we don't know how to proceed. That doesn't mean that there's no explanation for what happens below 10 to the minus 35 meters or that there can't ever be, it's just like the current horizon of our understanding. So, you see people say like that's the pixel size of the universe, it's more like the limit beyond which we cannot predict with our current theories, but tomorrow somebody makes string theory work or comes up with a new theory of quantum gravity that predicts past that point. Boom, now we can see deeper into the history of the universe and into the very, very tiny. So it's not a fundamental limit at all of our understanding, it's a limit of our current theories, which of course are not the final story. Is that a common opinion among physicists, or are you, because I've heard you say that we only understand 5% of physics, I don't know if every physicist likes that number, but in that 95% is unified field theory. in there? I mean, do your gut. Yeah, so there's a couple of questions there. I think that almost every physicist sees that the same way, but there's often a gap between the way physicists see their work and the way the public understands it. You know, the way like mass is misunderstood and black holes are misunderstood. The big bang is widely misunderstood and misexplained. So I think that almost every physicist would agree with me that the Planck scale is not a fundamental limit to our possibility of understanding. I think that's pretty widely understood inside physics. Though in popular science, it's not often described that way. And it frustrates me that there's this gap between our what physics has revealed about the universe and how scientists think about and talk about it and how it's described and understood in popular science. And that's unfortunate because I want people to know what is the real story? What are scientists thinking? And I respect that sometimes that has to be translated and sometimes those translations go wrong for good reasons and good intentions. Absolutely. It's hard to translate it. But when there's that persistent gap, I feel like that's unfortunate because people are being not intentionally misled, but they're misunderstanding what we know and what we don't. That's why I encourage everybody to check out your podcast because you and Kelly do a great job of making this accessible. It's also super fun. Like you guys are funny. Kelly is a great friend of mine. She's a great scientist and it's just two people talking about science. And we talk about topics that she understands. And so I'm learning about biology and history of cholera. And we talk about stuff that I understand. And so she's learning about particles and dark matter in space. And then the listeners get to learn about, you know, huge variety of topics in science. And I hope have a good time at the same time. So to get beyond, to get smaller than plank, is there an experimental way to do that? I don't know. Look, you know how they say there's no stupid questions. Today you're going to get a lot of those. No, there are no different questions. It's a great question. It's an important question because you know, physics has more than one branch to it. It's got the theoretical side. Like how could the universe work? And that's really important. And often we feel like the answers are there. But it's also got the experimental side, which is going out there to just ask the universe, hey, show us how you work. But you know, that requires efforts. It requires cleverness. Sometimes people think all the smart guys are in theory, right? But the experimentalists have a different kind of cleverness because they have to force the universe to reveal the answers. You can't just sit on a rock and like think your way to the understanding of the universe. The Greeks tried that, right? Then they make a lot of progress. You got to force the universe to reveal it, which means coming up with clever situations where if the answer is A or B, you'll get a different outcome, right? That's the whole idea of experimental physics is like, how do we force the universe to show us? But we're limited with our tools, right? And the frustrating thing about understanding general relativity and quantum and quantum mechanics is that mostly it's hard to bring them near each other. So if we could see inside a black hole, we would know the answer to how do you unify general relativity and quantum gravity and quantum mechanics. We can't see inside a black hole too bad. If we could see the early universe, we could as well because the early universe had a stage where things were denser than the Planck scale. The Planck scale you can express as a distance or as a temperature. And so things were hotter than the Planck temperature. And a time as well, yeah? Yeah. Absolutely. So when you say the early universe, we know that Big Bang acceleration, everything happens. Are you talking about that first femptosecond like before the what happened right there? Right. Exactly. So this is all related to what we were talking about earlier. And I think the Big Bang is deeply misunderstood. So let's be very careful what we mean when we say the Big Bang and what we mean by like a certain time. So you know, we know the universe is vast and it's pretty cold and it's pretty dilute. But when we look back in time by looking out into space and seeing how things looked earlier, we see it was denser. So the universe is less dense now. It's more dense in the past. You rewind the clock. What happens? Things get denser and denser and denser and denser. And our theories work really, really well predicting things when they get all the way up to a certain temperature or a certain density. And that's the Planck scale. That's the Planck temperature. That's the Big Bang is the expansion of the universe from that Planck scale density, which I'm going earlier that is another thing from that Planck scale density up till now. That's the Big Bang. The Big Bang is widely misunderstood as the universe began as a point in space and it exploded out into existing space. That's what most people's impression of the Big Bang is. And that's basically totally wrong. They're widely described that way. Of course, it's wrong because the Big Bang doesn't claim to explain the origins of the universe. It's not the beginning of time. It says, look, we understand from this point forward, how the universe expanded and cooled. Before that, big question mark, we don't know. That's part is speculative. And there are lots of theories there we can dig into, but that part we don't know. So everything from Planck scale forward is the Big Bang. Before that, question mark. So we don't know how the universe began. The Big Bang does not claim how the universe began. It does not, it's agnostic on that question. And the other thing people don't understand is there was never a point in empty space. The Big Bang was everywhere. The whole universe was always filled with stuff. Wait, hold on, hold on. The whole universe is all the universe was there. And I have to put there in quotes before the Big Bang. So we don't know where all the stuff came from. Right. There's some hot dense state 13.8 billion years ago unexplained. I'm singing the theme now to Big Bang theory. Okay. That the universe then expanded and became more dilute, less dense. Right. So the Big Bang is about density. Right. Now, if the universe is infinite today, and we don't know, but let's say that it is, then it was infinite then, because you can't go from a finite universe to an infinite universe. Right. So that means if we start with an infinite universe, that's big and not very dense. And we rewind the clock to an infinite universe that's dense. It's an infinite universe filled with infinite matter. It's an infinite Big Bang. It was not an explosion of a point out into empty space. There was no empty space. It's just all the space is already filled with stuff. Now people listening are going to be like, okay, but where did that stuff come from? Right. You can't just say we don't know. And we're not just saying we don't know. We're saying the Big Bang doesn't explain that. It's not an infinitely dense point which exploded out into space. Lots of theories about where that stuff came from, inflation, et cetera. But we don't know if there was a beginning. We don't know if those goes on forever backwards in time. We don't know what happened there. And so when I say, you know, maybe the early universe can help us understand how to bring general relativity in harmony with quantum mechanics, I say that we could just watch it. You know, if we can look and see what happened before the moment of the plank density, then we could know. And so that's hard, right? Experimentally that's very, very challenging. Of course, I'm good. I've heard everything from quantum foam to in the beginning. Yeah. So where I mean, if you if you had to we have to we're going to do a lot of speculation today. Where do you go? Where do you lean? Yeah. Well, we're going to know we're going to figure it out. We are. We absolutely are. I had confidence. Look, humans are clever, right? And when we want to know when we are driven by our curiosity, we're going to figure this stuff out. And anybody, anytime somebody tells you this is impossible to figure out, like, that just means we haven't been smart enough yet or the right kid hasn't been inspired yet. And that's, you know, one reason why I want people to understand what we don't know about science because the some kid out there who's thinking, oh, science is mostly figured out, I'm going to go and be a rock star instead. And like, no, I want that genius to come crack these problems to be inspired by the mysteries. But you know, we have a path forward already, like the earliest thing we've seen in the universe is not from T equals zero at the moment of plank density. It's like 400,000 years later. That's when the universe became transparent universe was hot and dense like the center of the sun. So if you made a photon, it just got reabsorbed, right? Like if you turn it on a flashlight in the center of the sun, it's not the beam is not going to get to earth, right? The sun is opaque. The universe was opaque. And then it became transparent and light created right at that moment when the universe became transparent is still around. We can see it incredibly powerful. Scientifically tells us about the early universe and proves that it was dark matter already back then. Amazing. But that's like 400,000 years after the point we're interested in, how do we go deeper? So the key is that the universe was opaque to light before that point. Right. But you know, the universe can be transparent to other stuff. For example, neutrinos. Neutrinos can pass right through the earth. You know, there are neutrinos passing through my fingers right now, like a trillion every second pass through my fingernails. So they can they exceed the speed of light? They cannot. They cannot. Nothing can exceed the speed of light. And they have a tiny little bit of mass. So they moved just below the speed of light. Okay. Yeah. But they were flying around the early universe. And the universe was transparent to neutrinos, just like a second after this plank moment. So if we could see neutrinos from the very early universe, we could see 400,000 years earlier than we've ever seen before. We could see the structure of the universe, the shape of the universe, what was going on? Was it foamy? Was it smooth? Were there purple dragons? We don't know. That's exploration, right? We have ideas, we have theories, we can use, you know, our ideas to figure it out, but the best part of science is when you're surprised. Yes. When you ask the universe something, and the answer is something nobody expected. Those are the reasons I got into science for those moments, right? When you're like, what? That's the way it works, nobody expected that, right? What's it like at Sir? What, I mean, you go in, you got your thermos, you punch a clock. I mean, we all know what it is, but what you like to just be there and spend a day there. It is so exciting. It is the center of the world for particle physics. It's like the nerd capital of the world. Everybody is there, and they're buzzing with excitement, you know, when the machine is running, you never know what day is going to be the day you make a discovery, right? Every day could be like, look, what we saw in the data, look what the universe delivered. Something I think a lot of people don't understand about the collisions at Sir, is that we do the same experiment over and over again, right? It's two particles, very high energy smashing against each other. And every time we do it, every 24 nanoseconds, the universe decides what comes out. Every 24 nanoseconds. 24 nanoseconds, there's a collision. Okay. And quantum mechanics tells you that you can do the same experiment twice and get two different outcomes. I mean, essentially, infinitely and get all, you get all the options. That's right, that's exactly it. We don't know what the universe can do, but if we do the same experiment over and over again, eventually everything it can do is reveal to us. And that's what we want to know, is like, what can happen when you smash two protons together? If you're thinking of protons, it's like little billiard balls and you think, well, I smash them together, then they're going to bounce off at a certain angle and the initial state determines the final state. That's classical physics. The initial state determines the final state. Take the same shot and pull over and over again. If you're really precise, you get exactly the same outcome. But quantum mechanics says what's predicted, what's determined is not the outcome, but the probability of varies outcome. Right. And that's how we explore the universe with collisions, is that, you know, we're looking for things that are really, really rare, one to trillion, one to quadrillion collisions. And you do enough collisions. Eventually, the universe will show you the rarest of rare things that it can make. You know, what's on its secret menu of what it can do? The things that I want to know, like, what is the smallest thing? What is everything made out of? What is the heaviest thing? And so it's exciting to be at CERN. It's also really fun, like the cafeteria CERN is filled with people from all over the world. You hear, like, Italian and English and Japanese and Romanian and people eating all sorts of weird foods. And probably the best summer of my life I spent as a student at CERN was very, very young. Really? Yeah, hanging out with a bunch of Italians who taught me Italian and how to cook and bake and make pizza and, you know, drinking with the checks. And it's, it's just a wonderful, wonderful place. It's open. It's collaborative. You know, CERN was built after World War II. It was an effort to like, hey, let's connect scientists from around the world. So we're all humanizing each other and we're not like building weapons of mass destruction to forget each other, right? It's all about peace and science and harmony. And, you know, this argument's for sure. And you also, it's fun to learn how different people argue, you know, when somebody from Italy tells you know, it means something different from when somebody from Japan tells you know, and you learn these things. And it's fun to hear people argue in English and all sorts of different accents, you know, it's fun to argue with people about like, where do you put a comma in this paper? You know, don't get my wife started on the archery comma. Well, we have 5,000 authors in every paper, which means everybody gets to weigh in on the comma. The comma goes in, the comma goes out, the comma goes in, the comma goes out, it's comical, you know, but it's a lot of fun. It's really exciting. Every time I go to CERN, I'm just reinvigorated by the possibilities, you know, what we can learn about the universe. It's, it's incredible to me that we, we know how to find the secrets of the universe. We just have to go do it, you know, if, if you gave me a hundred billion dollars, I could build you a collider that would reveal secrets of the universe. We just have to do it. We just have to decide. If we built new space telescopes, we would see things in the early universe that would shock us, would blow our minds. It's happened with every time we build the telescope. We see something that goes every time, right? And these things are cheap, I mean, on the scale of countries and GPs. So we just have to decide to do it. And the universe is there and waiting for us to decide, we want to know its secrets. But Daniel, if we build all these colliders, how do we fund our wars? I mean, how do we, we have to, we have to choose. Oh my goodness. I don't think we have to choose. Actually, I don't think we have to. I think it's not a zero-sum game. Every dollar we spend on science comes back to us twofold, tenfold, a thousandfold. It's a good investment. I believe in America, I believe in humanity. I believe in people. I believe in smarts. We should invest in ourselves by spending money on basic research. It's the best investment you can make. Honestly, and the more we learn about the universe, and I don't mean that as just as a fortune-cuck. I mean, the more we actually learn, the fewer conflicts we're going to have. Yeah, yeah. I hope so. I think I hope that's true. I mean, I'm not a politician and I'm not a sociologist. But I do think that understanding the universe is something that brings us all together. Yes. We're all curious. We all want new answers. And I've worked with people from I think 172 different countries. And we're all just people. We all just curious about the universe, right? Yep. It definitely brings us together. How much data are we talking about every 24 nanoseconds? Every 24 nanoseconds, we read out 100 million channels of data about the collision. Wow. And so it's an enormous tsunami of data. So much that we have to throw most of it away. Why do you throw it away? Because you already know what it is or because it's too much to ever analyze. Like we couldn't effectively store it to tape and and search it. And also most of it's boring. Like most of what happens when you collide protons is they bounce off each other and state protons. Yon, we've seen that a million times. So we're interested in the rare stuff. So we have a filter the very, very early stage that decides keep it or kill it. And that makes downstream analysis much more efficient because you don't have to search through all the boring stuff to find the interesting stuff. But it means also we have to be smart about what we're keeping and what we're killing. That's actually what my team works on. And I found that super fun. You have to make this super fast decision and you don't have a lot of time to do a lot of really fancy calculations. It's killer to keep it every 24 nanoseconds. Right. So high speed computing, I thought was a really fun challenge. How do you know you're not throwing out the next Nobel prize? Yeah. I mean, if we're talking I'm assuming you're using machine learning array. I have some kind. Well, the very first stage is very simple. Okay. And then it gets more complex. And we're definitely using machine learning and AI. We don't know that we're not throwing away some treasure out with the garbage. But we do have some filters that just randomly select events. Let's just keep one out of a thousand randomly. So that if there's something crazy that we didn't expect, we'll probably find it there. But we can't we just can't keep all of it. It's just too much data. We're talking about petabytes and petabytes every day. It's insane. How much data do you produce? How do you how do you train machine learning if you don't know what you're looking for? Yeah, this is a big question in machine learning and more broadly in artificial intelligence. It's a whole field called anomaly detection. Okay. How do you find something that's out of the ordinary if you don't know what you're looking for? Because that's what I want. Right. I want to find the big surprise. The thing that makes us go what is that you? And so we have techniques there. A anomaly detection says, well, let's learn to describe what's expected. And then we'll think about anything that's different from that. And so you train machine learning. You give it a bunch of examples. You say, here's the kind of thing we're expecting. Figure out how to think about that so that if we give you something you haven't seen before, you can flag it. And so what machine learning does is, for example, it takes all the things that that you don't or that you aren't interested in. And it learns to like transform that into some internal mathematical space and then transform it back. And it becomes really good at doing that for the kind of things you've been training it for. And then with something new and weird comes, then that transformation fails. It's like, well, I don't know how to transform this there and back. And so it's just just an example, but there's lots of ways that you can train machine learning to flag something unusual. But it's hard. And you never really know if there's something there that you've missed. It doesn't, it's got to bother you a little bit, right? It keeps me up at nights. And we might have thrown out the one thing we needed, but we don't know. But that's always the case, because we always have to make decisions about what kind of thing to look for. It'll give you another example. When we analyze our data, we're looking for particles that come out of the collision. And we expect particles to move in a certain way because they have electromagnetic charge and they have a magnetic field and we can use our physics to say, okay, particles always move in this particular path, a helical path. And if you look at like pictures of collisions, you see particles whizzing out in these spirals, right? So spirals are everywhere. And most of our software that looks at particles looks for spirals because we expect everything to move into spiral so is that what you're mostly analyzed. Is just the paths of the particles from the collision that's yeah exactly because the thing we're looking for like the Higgs boson or something else knew it only lasts very very briefly like 10 to the minus 23 seconds So you never see it directly you see what it turns into so we like see these spirals We see the particles and we say okay that looks like there was a Higgs boson there But it's not like I could say oh here's a Higgs or here's a handful of them or I got a bunch of them in a box Right right we can only say that they're probably were there based on the path of these particles So figuring out the path of these particles is important But we only tend to look for these spirals because That's what we know how to look for so a couple years ago my team was like well Could we look for other things could we look for things that are moving in some weird unexpected way And we've been training machine learning algorithms to do just that to look for particles that don't move as a Spiral that will move in some new weird way and it's funny because it's hard for computers to find that But if I showed you one if I like found a collision that led to something which moved in a weird way your eyes Would be like oh, that's something. What's that right that's weird our eyes are very very good at seeing patterns But I can't like print out Collisions every 24 nanoseconds and put them in front of my students be like find me the weird ones right we have to use computers That's because we need them because they're much more effective at this high-speed high-volume data analysis And so we're developing these algorithms to look for new weird non-spiral paths and we're hoping when we run them on the data that they'll They'll spit out something but hey Daniel look at this one and then we'll get to see something exciting So I'm working hard to try to sort of push the boundaries of what we can discover But you never know what you're missing right is there a mathematical model that shows that The particle could move differently? Or are you violating? Because you're you're not you're a rogue. You're a maverick. Yeah, is there a model that allows for that? There are a few models that do predict that to move that predict weird paths For example a magnetic model pole particle that has like just a north or just a south. Yes But my hope is that we find something that nobody predicted right? I want to make the discovery that violates people's assumptions That makes them go what that's impossible. That means we're gonna have to tear up everything we knew and like, yeah That's the whole idea right? So yeah, there are some predictions But I'm not a fan of any of them and I'm hoping we discover Something that doesn't match to any predictions. That would be much more fun Have you ever found anything that maybe isn't a a huge discovery but made you go whoa I didn't see that coming have you been surprised anything in the data yet We had a moment in the data about 10 years ago when we thought we had a discovery We were looking at events and we saw a bump right and a bump is how you make a discovery a little pile of collisions that all look very very similar And it was in a place we didn't expect at all and I had tingles. I was like, oh my gosh. Is this have we have we done it? And we spent six months cross checking it. Is there a mistake? Did we miss calculate something every bison ourselves somehow? And there was nothing we could do to make this bump go away and I started to believe I thought oh my gosh And you know, this is big stuff right we could be discovering something it changes our understanding of the universe Oh, yes, I start to think like wow, this is you know, we're making history here But the problem is that we look at a lot of data and so when you look at you know 10,000 Different distributions of data occasionally you're gonna see one that looks weird Just like if you try, you know flipping a coin 10 times and you do that a thousand times You're gonna get some weird ones right where you get lots and lots of heads. Mm-hmm. So we didn't know if we just like Sifted through so many examples of data that we were just picking out the weirdest one or not So we had to wait for note for more fresh data So we ran the collider a few more you know a couple more months and waited and then the bump went away Oh, it was just a random fluctuation unfortunately Now something in my gut tells me a random fluctuation is not a thing. Yeah, it's not a thing It's just you know, it's everything that happens that comes out of the collider is random and sometimes they pile up in a weird unusual way Just like sometimes, you know, you flip a coin four or five times. You get four or five heads It sure right and that's what happened this time So it was exciting, but it wasn't anything It's disappointing and you know, we haven't discovered anything of the large agent collider since the Higgs boson We saw the Higgs in 2012. We've been looking ever since But it's exploration just like when NASA lands on Mars and since a new rover they don't know are we gonna find you know Something weird under a rock or is it just gonna be dust and rubble? It's exploration. So I heard you say um Is the Higgs real when nobody's looking? I thought that was So funny. Can you retell the story and kind of tell us? Why is Higgs important? Everyone knows that God particle Higgs boson. Everyone's heard of that Good luck trying to explain it. You know, we don't know what that is or why it's important and that statement when nobody's looking That's wild. Yeah Yes, so you know Higgs boson huge advance in particle physics. We discovered in 2012 I was predicted 50 years earlier and I love this story because it shows you the power of mathematics Like this is predicted based just on mathematical symmetry You know Peter Higgs is looking at the way the forces are and he's wondering like well look electromagnetism is so similar to the weak force But also very very different like why if the structures are mathematically so similar Why is the photon have no mass it could travel at light speed? And the W and the Z boson really massive Very slow very short range. Why is there a difference here? Why is the symmetry broken? And he was looking for a way for that symmetry to break and like what would require that to happen? And he said well, you know this actually would all work out perfectly if there was one more particle out there one more field And so you add that one piece and suddenly everything makes sense And that's cool, but it's it's a math game, right? It says well look the math is nicer in this scenario But is it real was the question and it's another example of like math leading us to discoveries because it turns out it is real It is how the universe keeps the photon from getting mass and getting the W and the Z to have mass And that's incredible because it tells you that like there's real mathematics at the heart of the universe where you know It supports that argument. I can also make the other argument. We're gonna talk about it But you know, what is the Higgs boson in the end? It's the thing that that tells you that the particles we see Are are not the universe's fundamental particles like you look at an electron we measure an electron in the lab What are we interacting with what are we measuring? It's not just a pure electron. It's an electron bound up with Higgs bosons Okay, because an electron just moving through the universe would have no mass and would move at light speed just like a photon does But in a universe with the Higgs boson in it, it can't do that every step along the way There's a Higgs field that's interacting with that electron You know, it's like you you trying to walk through a crowd of people and they're all like AJ, AJ, AJ. Come stop talk to me, right The same way you know, we say that photons when they move through a material don't move at the speed of light right It's a little bit of a slate of hand because there's no time at which like there's a photon moving slower than the speed of light It's an effective description We say light is moving through the material as if it was moving slower than the speed of light What's really happening is you know, it's being absorbed and emitted and absorbed and emitted it's interacting with the material And so that changes effectively how a photon moves There's no scenario in which the photon is actually moving slow in the speed of light The same way an electron moving through the universe It would move at light speed and have no mass but it interacts with the Higgs boson And so we step back and we say well And a real electron the thing we measure in the laboratory is this thing this electron that's interacting with the Higgs is an effective description And so like a pure electron is this theoretical thing we never see the real electron is actually this like buzzing Interplay between two fields the electron field and the Higgs field which are very tightly coupled So that's why electrons that we measure have mass they don't really have mass in a pure sense But the electron we interact with that we see in the laboratory that is used to build up me and you Is this effective description and what's really happening is this an electron field and a Higgs field tightly bound together And so that explains why electrons have mass and why w's and z's have mass and that's what was important about the Higgs boson But it's part of our model. It's our explanation for what we see out there in the universe It's powerful because it describes future experiments. It describes what we see It accommodates the universe The question though is the Higgs boson real that's a different question That asks you know is it the only way to describe the universe is it there when nobody's looking? Oh What do you mean by that? I mean is this not a wave function collapse argument is it? I mean is the Higgs boson the map or is it the territory? [BLANK_AUDIO] When we describe what's going to happen out there, we use the Higgs boson. When the universe decides what to do, what's going to happen in the universe, is it using the Higgs boson? Or is there something else going on in the universe's true description of reality? Is this our effective description that works really really well? Or is it reality itself? Beyond our ability to probe it and to think about it and ask questions. And this is a hard question to grapple with because it's not a science question. The philosophy question. I mean, is the Higgs boson real beyond our ability to test it? Beyond our ability to do experiments? Because obviously the experiments match up with the theory. Sure. So scientifically, yes, it's part of our theory, it works, that's all good. I mean, is it there beyond that sense? And some deeper philosophical sense that you can't probe with experiments. But a more concrete way to ask that question is like, well, are there aliens out there doing science, building up their own explanation from the universe? Do they have a Higgs boson in their theory? Or have they found some other way to describe the same set of phenomena that they observe in their particle colliders? Is there an alien Higgs eating haggis and doing all that stuff? Or is there not? You know, are there possibly other explanations? Because if there are, that means that our explanation isn't necessarily true. It could just be a map. It's not necessarily the fundamental reality. So doesn't there have to be more because of dark matter and dark energy? So because we have no, we don't know what that is, right? That's the placeholder. Yeah. Is that does that tie into Higgs? Is that maybe it's found in there somewhere? Maybe the aliens don't know what a Higgs is, but their dark matter energy is some other field. Yeah. A lot of really fascinating ideas there. It's true that we don't know what dark matter is. And we can't explain it. We don't know if it's made out of particles and what those particles are, et cetera, et cetera. That doesn't invalidate what we've learned about the universe. Every experiment we've done about atoms are theory their works. And, you know, it might not be fundamentally true, it might be one of many options, but that doesn't make it wrong. It means it might have the wrong context. It means that, you know, the way Newton's theory worked for all the experiments they could do in their day, but, you know, it wasn't a true story of the universe in a broader context. Einstein's description is better, though who knows, Einstein is right. We may one day replace our theory of Higgs with something else, right? And that doesn't mean that Higgs was wrong. It just means that, you know, it works under these circumstances. But when you replace it with something else, you also sometimes get to replace like the backdrop, the story about what's happening. Like, think about what happens when you replace Newton with Einstein. You don't just get better predictions for mercury and details about high-speed stuff. You tell a different story about gravity. That's true. Right? What happens when somebody jumps off a building? Newton says there's an acceleration, right? Gravity is a force, there's an acceleration of the person who's coming down to earth. Einstein says, no, no, no. Person who jumps off a building experiences no acceleration. And he's kind of right because if you took a scale with you, you jumped off a building, and you put that scale under your feet, what would you measure? Nothing. Nothing. Zero. That scale is an accelerometer. Right. You would measure zero. You feel no acceleration as you jump off a building. Why does it then seem like you're accelerating? Because the earth is accelerating upwards towards you. So Einstein says, you measure an acceleration because you on the surface of the earth are in an accelerating frame. So we can dig into that more if you like. But the point is, you don't just replace Newton with Einstein. You tell a different story about reality. Because it's possible, someday in the future, we have a different theory of particles that doesn't include the Higgs. And we're telling a different story. The story I told you about electrons moving to the universe with Higgs's and whatever. Somebody on a future podcast could be telling a very different story about reality. So absolutely, and dark matter could be the key. You know, one thing we don't know about dark matter is, where does it get its mass? The electron gets its mass from the Higgs, right? But anything that gets its mass from the Higgs has to have a weak interaction, has to interact via the weak force. And so far, it seems like dark matter doesn't feel the weak force. Which means it probably does not get its mass from the Higgs. Right. Which means, is there a dark Higgs? Is there another particle that gives mass to dark matter? Maybe. And, you know, dark matter, there's more dark matter than the normal matter. So if there's a dark Higgs, then it's the dominant way you get mass in the universe. And our Higgs is just like a little bit of the story. Right. And so that could really help us understand, like, the bigger picture of how particles get mass in the whole context. So, you know, I don't want people to go away thinking, oh, our theory of the universe is wrong. It describes what we've seen, and it works really, really well. But philosophically, we have no proof that it's the only description, the unique description. And we couldn't one day replace it with something better and deeper that works in a broader context to describe experiments we haven't done yet. Can you tell me about how we can turn every cell phone on Earth into a cosmic ray detector? Yeah. This is great mystery in cosmic ray physics. Cosmic rays is fan seating for just like particles coming at the Earth. You think of space as empty, but it's actually filled with particles, right? It's very, very low density compared to like our atmosphere, but high speed particles whizzing around the sun. That's where the government gets to zero point energy. The sun is making also particles black holes and mid particles, all sorts of stuff out there in space. And the amazing thing is that there are particles out there with such crazy high energy that nobody can explain it. How high? The Large Hadron Collider can make collisions up to 10 to the 12 electron volts. 10 to the 12. Yeah. 10 to the 12 electron volts. So that's like 10 to the 12. So that's like a trillion times the mass of a proton. I'm trying to do it too. I have to let the physicist, he'll be faster. So that's like a thousand times the mass of a proton. And that's pretty impressive. But there are particles we've seen from space that are like 10 to the 9 times more energetic, right? So like a billion times more energy. And that's amazing. The universe has an accelerator that way, way outputs hours, right? It puts ours to shame. What fraction of the speed of light would those be? Oh, wow. They are really redlining it. Where are they coming from? So some of them come from like the centers of galaxies or from really big stars or other stuff. But some of these things we cannot explain it. Like there's nothing out there in the universe. You ask an astrophysicist, like, give me a particle of this energy. How do you do it? They're like, we don't know. Start from a supernova, whizz it around a black hole. Nobody knows how to get particles at this high energy. Especially because the universe turns out to be opaque to these kinds of particles. Meaning it likes to absorb them. So you shoot a particle out of this high energy. It shouldn't go very far. It interacts with the cosmic microwave background radiation. And it loses its energy. So not only is there something new out there that nobody understands capable of making particles a super high energy. It's not very far away. And nobody knows what it is. It's not very far away because these particles cannot go very far through the universe. So if we're seeing them here on Earth and we're seeing them, then they can't come from like all the way across the universe. They have to be coming from our galaxy or one of the neighboring galaxies. They can't go any further than that. So they're in our cosmic neighborhood. The challenge is they're rare. We've seen like, in decades of looking, we've seen a handful of these. So we can't even like, say, where are they coming from in this guy? Are they all coming from the center of the galaxy? Are they all coming from this one planet that's orbiting that star? And this is like aliens shooting a message at us? We can't even do that kind of pointing because we have a handful of them. And the reason is that they're very hard to spot. They hit the top of the atmosphere and they create a big shower of particles. So one energetic particle turns into two with less energy, which turns into four, which eventually by the time it hits the ground is like a trillion particles. A trillion. Oh, a trillion is absolutely. Wow. And so you get this like wash of particles over the surface of the earth. Like super-high energy particle hits the atmosphere, then you get a big flash across the surface of the earth. And so to see more of these things, you either need to build like really big detectors. They have these dedicated detectors that build like in South America and in a desert in Utah to see these things. But they cost like a hundred million dollars. So you can make those bigger if you had billions of dollars Elon call us. Or my idea was, look, why don't we piggyback on existing technology instead of spending money to build dedicated scientific instruments? Is there something that's already out there that we're spending a lot of money on that could see these things? And so your phone is effectively a- particle detector. How does that work? Well, it has a camera in it. Sure. And what is a camera other than a particle detector? And these days, cameras are little CMOS chips. There are these little piece of silicon. And when a photon comes through, it liberates a bunch of particles, then it gets read out. Yep. If a muon goes through, same thing happens. It does. Absolutely. In fact, we use the same technology to detect particles at the large hajorn collider. Same silicon technology is used at the heart of every detector at the large hajorn collider. Is that something that you would see in the photo on your phone? Absolutely. Oh, wow. I got a lot of mods today. If a muon goes through, it'll leave like a little white spot. Or if it comes through at an angle, it'll leave like a little track across a few particles. Across a few pixels. And so, yes, you can absolutely see it. Mostly, it's washed out because you have a lot of light. But if you put your, if you put your phone down on the table so the camera's face down, not getting any photons, but if the muon goes through, it'll pick it up. So we have this idea a few years ago, about 10 years ago now. And I thought, hmm, I wonder if I can write an app which can scan the camera to look for muons while it's like on my table at night and see these things. So I spent Christmas writing my first app. And then it'll see if I can get this thing to work. Learning Lula. Yeah, exactly. It was actually on the Android. It was mostly in Java. Nice. And it works. You can see muons. So I thought, whoa, my phone. You saw some? Yes, I saw some. How did that feel? It was, it was amazing, you know, to see a signal emerge from the noise. Did you, he had to hold a family meeting because your wife is a scientist, right? Molecular biology. Yeah, she does microbiome research. She understands like how the gut works and all the microbes in it. Do you guys ever fight about like whose science is more fundamental? Just to let her win. You know, her science is definitely more useful. Yeah, that's for now. So it, so it worked. That's crazy today. So it works. And that's amazing because there are billions of phones out there. And each one is connected to the internet and has power and has a person taking care of it. And at night, they mostly just sit there. Imagine if you could take all those phones and turn them, connect them in a big network. They're spread out across the whole planet. And we thought how many phones do we need in order to build a cosmic rate telescope, the size of the earth that can do science at the level of these like hundred million dollar observatories? The answer is like, only five or 10 million phones. That's it. That's it. You get enough of those and we can see these super high and super high energy cosmic rays at the same rate of these big observatories. But there's no limit. There's no like upper edge there. You have 50 million phones. You have 100 million phones. You have a billion phones. Sure. You could do cosmic physics the way nobody has ever done before. You could see these things at a higher rate. You could figure out where they're coming from in the sky. So that's the excitement of it. And so that's the project we're working on is to figure out like does this actually work? If you have a bunch of phones, can you really reconstruct where this thing came from? So we have an app and it runs on our phones and we got a recently we got a grant from the Julian Schringer Foundation, which is a foundation that likes to fund proposals that have been rejected by the NSF. And I love it. It's like, hey, less invest in the crazy stuff. Love it. Right? Out of the box thinking. And we pitched this to the National Science Foundation like 10 years ago and they were like, we love your idea. But first build it, prove that it works, then we'll consider funding it. Which on one hand is like, that sucks. And they're like, I get it. You know, they either have to give their money to us and like, our idea is not proven or to like some existing experiment that they know is going to yield solid science. And that's the frustration, right? If you're at the NSF, you have to say no to lots of good ideas you'd love to fund. Why? Because they just don't get enough money. The NSF has intelligent people pitching them great ideas all the time. And they have to say no to most of them because there's just not enough money to go around. So they got to be conservative. I get it. But we pitched this to the Schringer Foundation. We said, give us enough money to build a small version of this so we can test and improve it. And then maybe we can go global. So that's the idea. And it's a lot of fun. And you know, potentially one day we'll have an app that can run an everybody's phone. Well, you know, at night, while they're not using it or everybody's got an old phone. They're not using. Of course, lugging into the wall and turning into a cosmic ray detector. So if you're at work, does that something that we can beta right now? Or it works. But the problem is that if everybody runs it, it's going to cost me a lot of money because you got to upload all that data to the cloud. That's right. We've got to figure out a way to make it cheap and scalable and get real institutional support. So we don't have the funds to support a global network right now. Even if the phones exist already and they're already paid for, the infrastructure to gather that is expensive. How much data are we talking about? They get pushed. Not a whole lot of data. Like we've really shrunk it so that it runs really slim on your phone. It doesn't heat it up. It doesn't need a lot of battery. It doesn't upload a lot of data. Also, we don't want to be uploading photographs from inside people's bedrooms at night. So a lot of players there are privacy only under upload individual pixels when we think there was a mu on there. So not a lot of data, but scale that to 10 million people, 100 million people. It's a lot of bites and cloud storage and cloud compute is expensive, especially these days when we're competing with AI companies. That's the hurdle is can we prove that this thing works and then can we figure out a way to scale it so that it doesn't blow the bank to do the cloud computation? This idea is brilliant. Are there other applications for our cell phones that we're missing out on? Because it seems like it's a pretty complex device with capabilities. There's a lot of citizen science you can do with your phone. Absolutely. Fones can detect earthquakes because they have a little accelerometer. If you take hikes, you can see the birds there. You can take pictures of them, contribute to all sorts of stuff. They're very powerful devices. Think about the scale of our investment in our phones versus how much we spend on science. It's dwarfed. It's absolutely dwarfed. It looks nothing. How much money do we spend as a society on phones? It's big compared to science. On one hand, that frustrates me. Why don't we spend more time? On the other hand, it's an opportunity. Look, we have these things. We've invested in them. Let's figure out a way to use that investment to do some science. Because you know, you got to operate in the real world. Okay, so we get the funding, the app's work, the data comes to you. What does it mean? What do you do with that? Yeah, so that's when you get to start asking questions. Yeah. Okay, so we see the showers are all coming from the center of the galaxy. Okay, what does that mean? I mean, there's something in the center of the galaxy capable of creating these super-hinerary particles. What could it be? Now, we can start training other kinds of telescopes there, optical telescopes and for red telescopes, ultraviolet telescopes. This is multi-messenger astronomy to understand the universe in several layers. You can get trajectory information from that. Absolutely. You can get directions, right? That sounds important. Yes, absolutely. That's the goal. It's like, figure out where in the world, where are the universe are these high-energy particles coming from? We can make a map of the sky of the galaxies. They where are they coming from? And we can't do that because it's only like a handful of examples. So if we could get 10 times, a thousand times as many, we could start to see the universe in this new way, right? And we know that the universe is emitting particles of this high-energy using something that's new to us. Something that bothers me about aliens being here is I can't get my mind around the distances. So you're aware of some theories of albuqueries warp drive and all of that. How practical is that? How feasible is that? Can you explain that? How that works? Yes. So this is a solution to Albert Einstein's equations of gravity, which regard gravity as curvature of spacetime. So the way to think of this, we know the Earth moves around the Sun. And we tend to think that there is a force gravity connecting the Earth to the Sun. However, another way to think of it, which was Einstein's insight, was to think about a marble moving on the surface of a trampoline, the rubber surface, which is curved as a result of putting a heavy object in the middle. And so like a bowling ball. You put it in the middle and then if you give the marble the right speed, it will move on this curve the rubber in a circle. Just like the Earth moves around the Sun. And it's simply because of the curvature of spacetime that the Earth is trying to go along a straight line, but the spacetime is curved and therefore it moves in a circle. And if you were to remove the Sun, the source of gravity, the Earth would leave the solar system on a straight line in the same way that if you remove the bowling ball from the trampoline, the marble will continue to to move on a straight line on the flat surface of the trampoline. So that's the way Einstein thought about it. Now you can imagine a solution to Einstein's equations that involves curved spacetime. And indeed there is this solution where it's curved in a very unusual way such that it can propel an object in at a constant speed. So because light speed is the limit. So this is a way around the light speed limit. As long as you can reach the configuration that this solution embodies. And it requires some form of energy that produces negative gravity which we don't have. We never engineered it. The universe accelerates. So there is some repulsive gravity acting on the expansion of the universe. But the substance that causes that expansion dark energy, you know, you would need to somehow engineer it in a different way because it fills uniformly the universe just as if it's the vacuum energy density. But the question is, is there any anti-gravity source that we can shape and have quantum gravity engineers design an object like that? The object itself is a solution to a steady state where this object is moving. But we don't know how to produce it. What ingredients you need to put? I mean, you can imagine a cake that is extremely tasty, but you just don't have the ingredients to make that cake. Or you don't have the oven to make that cake. So that's the way you should think about it. I can give you another example of a situation where you don't need rocket fuel to propel yourself. Just imagine we had access to a negative mass. You know, all the masses that we know about are positive. And that's why gravity is attractive. But in electromagnetism, we have positive and negative charges. So imagine that just like electromagnetism, we would have negative masses. And they would repel an object close to them. So now I take the negative mass, put next to it a positive mass of the same value. And the total mass of this system would be zero. And that means that if I put it here in the middle of this room, it would float. Gravity will not bring it down. If Newton's apple was made of a negative mass, half of it, negative mass, half of it, positive mass, it would, the apple would never fall on Newton's head, you know, like, right. And if I were to make it negative, you know, in principle, next to a negative mass, you can produce repulsive gravity that would propel objects away. Now, the point is this zero mass object, which with positive and negative, it's like a dipole, that you can just give a nudge and it will escape the pool of the earth. And just think how much energy we invest in lifting a payload away from the earth. Most of the size of starship, the rocket that Elon Musk is working on, the biggest rocket we ever produced. Most of the mass of it is the fuel reservoir. And getting rid of that and just taking the payload, putting next to it a payload of negative mass of the same value, you can just nudge it. A kid, it will just float like a balloon and escape the pool of the earth. No investment of all these rocket fuel in lifting it out. And such an object, you know, would be an ideal vehicle, because you can accelerate or decelerate by pushing the negative mass relative to the positive mass or vice versa. So we just, the only problem is we don't have access to negative mass. We don't know how to produce it. Do we have to solve the super symmetry problem, the hierarchy problem first? We have to understand how to unify quantum mechanics and gravity. And the most popular idea in this direction is string theory that we discuss. But at the moment, they don't make any predictions not to speak about engineering prospects for doing something with quantum gravity. So we are sort of lost. But if we do detect an object manufactured by another civilization that maneuvers in ways that are very different than the rocketry and accelerates to very high speeds. Perhaps they mastered this technology. So we cannot say that it's impossible. By the way, if we had access to negative mass, we could build a time machine. You could go back. You're going through my whole whole list right here. That's great. No, because if you control gravity control time, it's there. Yes, it's the same. Yeah, you can get back in time. And then the question is, well, if you are to meet your grandparents and convince them not to get married, how can you actually exist? The grandfather paradox. Yeah. So most physicists, if you were to ask them would argue, it's not possible because you get into logical inconsistencies. But maybe it's possible with some caveats, like any legal document has caveats. So maybe you can never speak to your grandparents in a way that will convince them not to get married because you won't be able to say that. Or you won't remember that your brain, the memory is dependent on the era of time. So maybe you won't be able to design a system that will go back and do a task for you because as you go back in time, the system would change. There's a somewhat recent theory about time travel regarding block universe theory where you can't go back and kill your grandfather because you didn't. Well, how do you know I didn't, because you because you're here. So you didn't. So that's kind of solves a paradox. One way that I phrase it is that no Jew, no Jewish person, had access to a time machine in the future. Why do I know that? Because they would go back in time and kill Hitler. Sure. And avoid the loss of six million Jews. And the fact that still the history books and all the evidence we have is that Hitler existed means that no Jew had access to a time machine. Called it a parallel universe intersection of P UI, you know, and I find a lot of other people using the term now, which is cool because I do think we need to research this. Yes. I'm not saying it's actual. I'm not saying it's real. I'm not saying that what happened to me isn't some strange confluence of crazy, I don't even see anyone know what the word to put for that. Until we know why the wave function collapses, I think everything's on the table. It's all there. And you're absolutely right. So until we know what's really going on in the quantum world, we're not going to find out what this stuff all means. So this also gave me another revelation and that was maybe people to see ghosts and people that think in this parallel universe is maybe they work together. Maybe two things can be right at once. And maybe there are ghosts. And maybe there are multi-dimensional beings seeing across universes. And maybe they just appear in our four-dimensional universe in the same way. So maybe they both exist. So I can see Aunt Mabel. Okay. And it's really Aunt Mabel. It's really her. Yeah. It could potentially be. And but maybe I'm seeing a lady in a long dress way. Don't even know who she is. And she's a parallel universe interloper who's just as surprised to see me as I am to see her. Right. That's what's interesting is these these worlds collide but they're aware of each other. It's not like you're just observing. Yeah. Yeah. Think about that. Stepping on this thing and having a yank by leg off from under me, that constitutes rudimentary communication across some golf. Yes. And that's what is that golf parallel universe? I don't know. The ghostly realm. Maybe. See, our terms are not our terms are not sufficient to describe what's actually happening here. So and I've said this before, today's paranormal could be tomorrow's science. We don't know. We don't know. We don't know. But today's paranormal could be tomorrow's science. And maybe this is an example of that happening. I don't know. Think about that. Isn't that crazy? It is. I didn't expect this story. Yeah. Well, I'm not crazy. Okay. I know that. I'm very firmly grounded. Okay. But when things happen, I'm open-minded enough to say we should explore this. And I think this is one of the things we should explore. So let's see if we can explain how that fifth dimension would work. Okay. Let's talk about in terms of propulsion. And when I say this, it's going to sound crazy until I explain, you if those don't need engines in my view, they don't need them. They just need the ability to translate from one dimension to another. How do they do that? Well, we have to go down to the fundamental forces to see that. We have a strong force, a weak force, electromagnetism, and gravity, right? Right. And gravity's the weirdo. Yep. Physics. Physics hate that one. That's right. They do. And the reason is because the other forces we can define as function, as a wave function, we can describe as within equation. Yep. Or as a particle. Their duality, right? Light is a photon. It's a wave. Okay. And electron is a wave. Okay. And it's a particle, right? We can define it as a probability equation, right? Yep. Or as a particle. That happens with all the quantum particles, except gravity, which is 10 to the what, 30 seconds power weaker than electromagnetism. Yes. And nobody knows why. The hierarchy problem. That's right. And so, Exactly why is it why is it yeah exactly why is that even why is that hierarchy problem even there? We don't know but we have a clue right we have a clue and that clue is because you're not seeing all of it Okay, why is it why is it we're not seeing all of it because we're in four dimensions What if there's more? What if there's another dimension? What if it's a fifth dimension. Well, how do we even what's that mean? What does a fifth dimension mean? Okay? Well, we have to change our physics to understand that Because as I said before everything we have done is in four dimensions We've gone in four dimensions to go everywhere we've ever done everything is four dimensions As such we only know four percent of the universe The rest is dark matter dark energy and whatever that means whatever that means dark means we don't know doesn't mean black Okay, so dark matter dark energy who knows, but I'll tell you this if we talk about um The four dimensions, okay, and a fifth dimension we Want to talk about it in terms that give us some kind of grab hold in into the other dimensions Yes, so we have a new construct and a construct partly is a string theory string theory is not proven We don't know that it's real, right? Okay. We have no idea But if we can employ let's Let's hypothesize for a bit if we can have a fourth-dimensional space with a fifth-dimensional space too That actually corresponds to one particular variant of string theory called Randall syndrome one rs1 Okay Well Randall's under one states that there's four dimensions and a fifth dimension If we can access that fifth dimension, there's something that's a quality of that fifth dimension I use my thumb for which is very really really really strange The farther in you go into that fifth dimension, it's exponential. It's exponential farther you go in the smaller the universe gets around you So imagine this you travel 12 inches out here you go 12 measured inches on the ruler Go into the fifth dimension Some distance you traveled at same 12 inches from your personal measurement on your ship You're actually traveling a much bigger distance because when you come out that expands to the size That you actually went right, okay, so that means you could be at the moon Oh wait, don't you travel all the distance from here to the moon? It took us like two and a half days to get there All right Well, no because you're utilizing this other dimension So what happens is you translate to the fifth dimension all right from this and just exit point in your four-dimensional space Let's say your orbit you go into the fifth dimension And you translate to a new four-dimensional point over at the moon and you can do that because the space is I think Climb called to compactified exponentially, so you so you're really just hopping out and back in you're punching out and punching in right That's right now think about that. Okay. It makes no sense before you go on with that. Yeah If if if if RS1 and for people listening this is a published paper from from I think late 90s if gravity originates deep within the bulk And it's compactified exponentially then that would Unify the theory because gravity would just be leaking back to our dimension And it's exhausted by the time it reaches and hierarchy is solved. You don't need me You got it Well, so that's how that works. Yeah. Yeah. Now how do we travel in that? Okay. Well, that's because that's that happens at subatomic level How do you how do you bro how do you blow that up? Well, see that's the problem We don't actually know how to access it that way We don't we don't know no one does okay, but we actually have um, okay here is the nature of this this process Back in the 20s collusion incline right theorize that there were clues to climb particles, okay Uh, and they theorize that these particles could potentially have uses and characteristics that might be advantageous to us, right But back then they didn't know anything, right? Well go to stern now and there's a detector on that large Hadron collider that was built some years back called atlas ATLAS very different from three eye Atlas. Okay. It's a different detector What's it do? Well, in part it was built to do what detect collusion climb particles why They're only theoretical because if we can detect them These are particles that are very very interesting. Why is that mark? Because they allow us to take Gravity and actually quantify in a way that will allow us to actually utilize it. Is this the elusive graviton? Yes This takes us to you knew that I know you knew that and Einstein read this paper I think the first paper from callusa held it for two years. He couldn't he couldn't break it. He couldn't break the math Yeah, because it actually made sense. Yes. Yeah, it's difficult when you're looking at things that that Don't make sense when you think they they or that that do make sense when you think they shouldn't And then you're gonna sit on it like he did you sit on it for a long time Right, but the point being let's let's Let's draw a picture Okay, you have a UFO and you asked me why they're circular and I never answered that question purposely because I wanted to get to this to answer that okay When you talk about how we generate those particles we're trying to generate them by speeding protons into a circular Channel and curving them with magnetic fields right well when you take a charge part of it like a proton the plus one charge Okay, made of three quarks. Okay, when we do that we put them into a ring like that To make him go in a circuit we have to use the magnetic field and contain it Every time you do that protons want to go in a straight direction So when you curve them they generate another form of radiation, which you probably know it's called synchrotron radiation Yes, that's very dangerous. We don't want that. Okay That's why it's turned you know on Chandron colliders hundreds of feet on the ground blah blah blah. Okay, the ground protects so the problem is that That is the way that we're generating particles to look at and we're doing it crude. It's rudimentary We don't have an efficient way to generate particles. We just look at how they splash together at the end of the channel Right, and we based look at the base on the basis of that beautiful Collision we can follow the trails and build digital paths that they take and say oh look. That's a quark You know this one has charm. Okay, I mean and figure stuff out that way but we're also doing that to try and find Closocline Articles Notice I didn't see gravitons yet. Okay, because the elusive graviton would would basically theoretically come from the fact that all the quantum particles are dual their dual have a wave and we have a particle nature So we now know that gravity has waves Where is the particle right? It's got to exist We just can't see can't see it and the reason we can't It's not in our four dimensions. It's originating outside in the fifth dimension. Ah So this means that when we when we are subject to gravity we can measure it we can calculate its effects We can send we can send probes outside our solar system on exacting paths using gravity and propulsion But we aren't actually controlling gravity. We're subject to it Because RS1 has three provable Experiments that should prove that those gravitons are there and we can't buy none of them work It's no that's three we're over three our technology is is not to the point where we can possibly do it I would like to get more information And like to see that we can prove we have to prove string theory We have to actually be able to live within RS1 for a some period of time Will do this. Yeah, I don't think we're there yet But I do think that this is the way they operate and Let me paint another picture when we talk about the large Hadron collider. It's a big ring Right and we're primitive. We have a 22 mile ring that we're trying to Make these particles collide and takes us that much time you know in size to actually speed these things up the near-light speed to collide etc etc Alien creatures Probably being say a thousand years ahead of us would have figured out how to shrink their their Accelerators the generate particles that they could then use for their purposes, all right? So when you talk about UFOs being round I Think they're round especially the 30-foot sport model as it was our calls it right the coupe Whatever that is okay the 30 the 30-foot diameter size I think that they're round like that because the outer ring is an accelerator These are particle accelerators and they're generating particles that surround the craft and close the loop with gravity They generate these fifth-dimensional particles from their accelerators and because they have Generated these particles. They're pulled into the fifth dimension because that's where they're going Said I'll call this way going home to okay, and they pull every craft in they pull anything within them into this fifth dimension Now that's very dangerous Especially in a compressed universe if anything goes wrong in there they're toast right figuratively and accurately okay however If they can pull it off if they can get in there and they can go in a certain distance All right, and what they do is they now can punch in at a new point From within there, but based on how far and they go That point they go to will be expanded to a much bigger distance So theoretically you can go from here to Alpha Centaurian a Stanford physicist figure this out last I checked He calculated that using a clues decline gravitons if they exist they're about 10 to the 16 times stronger than than the gravitons holding us to our chairs today. - Right, okay. - He said, if we can do that, and use these particles like that, we can actually get to Alpha Centauri in about 20 minutes using this technology. - Which is what, four light years, four in change? - 4.23. - Wow, and 20 minutes. - Yeah, and we're not traveling for light years. We're not violating the speed of light, 'cause we're not using it. - You just hop into the fifth dimension. - And pop in, and it's probably gonna be like this, like zigzagging through space between here and Alpha Centauri. - Why would you bounce in and out? - Because we can't probably go the whole way. We probably can't generate the energy at all. It's so far in that we can make the massive jump. We can't, and maybe when we get the technology, we're gonna take a bottle-sized spacecraft and send it to the moon in two and a half seconds. Well, look at what we did, and then bring it back, okay? So, but the fact is, if we can't, if we do that, we're gonna probably oscillate in and out, okay? And this is key, because if you oscillate in and out from the fifth dimension to our fourth dimensions, if you do it fast enough, well now it's like a frequency, right? And if you can do it fast enough, you're not here, you're not there. You're sort of in between, kind of in that little in-between path at all times. So guess what? You can be in the deep ocean for as long as you want and not feel any force of pressure. No problem. You can live down there. You can hide from us. You can actually have your UFOs sitting on the bottom. You can have your ship on the bottom and just sit there. - How does that accelerator protect the occupants? - Ah, we'll see, that's the thing. The accelerator, okay, the central core, all right, is gonna be subject to synchrotron radiation as well. Probably very intense. - But not as much as the outside, no? - Well, it could, it's radial in all directions. About the fact being, in the interior, you can shield that. We can shield the craft to prevent that. - Okay. - But that's a, that's a torus. - How do you protect above and below the plane of the accelerator? - You don't. - You don't, you don't have to? - You don't have to, because the occupants are inside in the middle and they're protected, okay? They have shielding. So that stuff is gonna surround the whole ship. - Metamaterial would be useful there. - No kidding, right, maybe. - Maybe. - Maybe we've got it. - There's another wrinkle I haven't talked about. That's micro black holes. - There's a few wrinkles here, but- - There's a few, but I love it. - There's so many wrinkles that it's like, is it even worth talking about, but yes it is. - Yes it is. - Because I believe that this is the way that it may actually work. - I think you, I think you're right. - I think so. And I think Schroeder was right, too, when he wrote that book. - So micro black holes? - Yeah, the micro black holes, okay, here's what they do. Okay, with a tiny particle, all right, that's 10 to the 16 times more powerful than the gravitons holding us down, it's gonna generate a certain percentage of micro black holes, theoretical construct. We don't see them all the time, right? Obviously, so if you do that, what are they gonna do? They only live a few nanoseconds, a few billions of a second. But if you keep a flow, round your ship at all times, you have a certain net number. If you're seeing a ship using them, what are you gonna see? You're gonna see the ship shimmer, right? You see a change color, wobble, you might see it wobble, you might see it vanish. And once you're gonna eat, it's gonna eat some atmosphere, it's gonna eat some light. And it's gonna eat the gravitons coming from the earth. - That's right. - And it's gonna prevent the earth's gravity from reaching it. - So what is the block universe? So when Einstein published his first paper on special relativity in 1905, I think, he wasn't thinking cosmologically, whatever. He was just, he was dealing with questions of light and how light works and how reference frames work. But his math teacher, Hermann Minkowski, saw the implications of what he was saying that if this is true, which it seems to be, then-- - Of what's true, connecting-- - If relativity, special relativity is true. If there's no objective reference frame, then there is a point of view on any moment that feels open-ended, that from which it's actually in the past, and it's already happened. So you and I sitting here talking right now, we feel like we're moving through a timeline and it's open-ended and we have no idea what's gonna happen next and you could say fuck in the 10 seconds, I wouldn't predict it, whatever. But there's a point of view on which all of this has already happened, so it's so, so just as we think of the past as solid and fixed, the future is also solid and fixed. And what he called this was the space-time continuum, and he put a hyphen in there, space-time continuum. And it's come to be called the block universe because you can sort of visualize it as a big block in which there's one of the dimensions is time. And so we're all blowing, we're all, we may think we're just bodies moving through the universe, but from that four-dimensional perspective, we're worms, we're snakes, we're just sneaking through that four-dimensional block. And the present moment is a cross-section. It's a three-dimensional cross-section of that four-dimensional reality. And that, again, that future already exists. And theoretically, can interact with the past in different ways. You can have things like what we call wormholes now, which were theorized actually pretty early. And-- By Einstein. By Einstein or Rosen, yeah? Oh, yeah, but before that, I think it was Gertel, who solved Einstein's field equations in a way to show that you could have a path through space-time that actually wound up in your own past. Yes. And Einstein was not thinking in these terms. And in fact, he was initially just as alarmed by the idea of time travel as pretty much anyone is because the first thing you think was like, wait, wait, no, no, that can't happen. And I would lead to paradox and blah, blah, blah. He thought that too. But then he came around because his colleagues showing him, no, no, no, no, the math shows that this is possible. And then we have things like wormholes where you could create a passage through space. But if you take one of those, one of the mouths of the wormhole and you move it in near the surface of a black hole and then move it back out, then they're out of sync with each other. And you can have time travel. Right. So yeah, and then there's other possibilities, the warp drives, alkoobier warp drives, and so on, which are time machines as well as space machines. So the block universe, yeah, it's sort of the basic premise that makes all of this possible. And it's still not really questioned among most physicists. So this kind of throws away the many worlds interpretation, yes? Yeah, as far as I'm concerned, it does. So can you explain because this was mind blowing to me, as I told you earlier, I did an episode on synchronicities based on youngs, famous scarab story. And part of my research was time storms. And I was half way through the episode and I went, well, shit, I'm wrong about all of this. And it doesn't happen a lot where someone just changes my whole point of view on a specific topic. But you did because I think you solved the grandfather paradox. Well, do you want to talk about the scarab story? We could do that, yeah. Yeah, well, I mean, honestly, this is my favorite example of a time loop, but it really is the best illustration of what I mean by a time loop. OK, so for people who don't know, this patient came into Jung's office one morning, let's say, and she told him a dream that she had had the night before, that someone gave to her this piece of jewelry in the shape of a Egyptian scarab beetle. And right as she's telling him this dream, he hears a tap on the window behind him, and he turns around. And there's a rose chaffer beetle, which was sort of the European equivalent of the Dung beetle or the scarab. And he opens the-- he knew he was a-- whatever y'all say about Jung, he was a brilliant shaman. And he opened his window, took the beetle, handed it to her, said, here's your scarab. And it was like this mind-blowing moment for both of them. Yes. And he said that it was the moment that opened his patient up to mysteries and so on. It was really a decisive turning point in her treatment. Now, he sort of described this. And he used the term synchronicity to sort of collapse this sort of time dimension. A time doesn't matter here. This was-- she's telling the story about a scarab and then a scarab shows up. But really, what was happening, she had a pre-cognitive dream. This was not synchronicity. This was something unfolding in time in the wrong direction. This woman had a pre-cognitive dream about being handed a scarab beetle. And lo and behold, the next morning, it happens. And well, anyone who keeps a dream journal and is aware of pre-cognition, like, yep, that's what happens. but in this case, what makes it, what makes that That's so hard for people to grasp is that, wait, it was her telling him her dream that got him to open the window and give in the scarab, like, without that element, you know, this would not have happened. So they think there is not a paradox, but it's not a paradox. It's actually a loop. It's a topology because her dream caused her to tell her doctor the dream, which caused the doctor to turn around and see a scarab beetle and give her the beetle, which is what caused her dream in the first place. So it is a loop. It is a causal loop. It's what blew my mind was. She wasn't seeing the future. She was remembering it. She was remembering the future. Yeah. She was remembering it in a way or pre-membring. So sending information back to her younger self. So she didn't really have to do anything. Right. It was going to happen. She remembered it happened. Yes. That's what's kind of, once you get your mind around it, which isn't that hard, if you just, if you just let everything else go, many worlds all that, she's just, it's just unfolded. Right. I think you call it the backstory. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. So that her dream was part of the backstory of that event happening in the office. But you can't, you know, when you tell a story like this, as the problem I always have with my books is like, how do you tell these, these anecdotes? Because really cause, cause, if causation is circular like that, you could start the story anywhere. You know, you could start the story with the Beatles showing up at the window or you could start the story anywhere in that, in that, in that narrative. It's all sort of equally causal. And that throws us off because we're used to linear stories. We're used to stories being linear. And so it's very, it's hard to wrap our heads around that, but that's, it's the opposite of a paradox. A paradox is something that can't happen. Right. The topology is something that must happen and therefore is not interesting in a way or not interesting to a logician because, you know, like, you know, it's not fair to defend an argument by its antecedents, is it? Yes. But, but it's the way the world works, I think. So, in a time travel universe, in any universe where time travel or time traveling information is allowed, then everything on some level is total logical. You said it must happen. That sounds like teleology to me. That sounds like a play to an Aristotle. This is, it's teleology. This is the whole reason why people reject this is because in the time of Francis Bacon, and Francis Bacon is the, is the one who, who rejected teleology from the story of science. Well, let's explain teleology. Yeah. So, teleology is one, so Aristotle codified these, I think, four different kinds of causation. And one of them, one of them was efficient causation. That's what we understand as causation, we have one thing leading to another, like, go your balls. But one of them was teleological causation, that is to say the end, you know, telos, meaning the end, you know, in some sense, causing what happened before it. Now, this was a part of the Aristotelian framework for centuries. But then in the 1500s, Francis Bacon, sort of one of the first real thinkers about trying to create what we now think of as the sciences. He wrote, and I'm blanking on the name of his book, but he wrote this book in which he, you know, basically laid out what causation was and banned teleological causations. Say, we can't, you know, we can't accept, you know, causation from the future. And but the reason was that teleology, at that time, the only teleology people could, could imagine, was God's divine plan, okay? And the idea was getting rid of taking God out of the equation, taking God out of the scientific equation. So what they did was throw the baby out with the bathwater, really, they threw out teleology. And ever since then, it has been rural, numero, you know, in science that causes travel in a single direction, and, you know, you can't have anything that defies that unilinear causal story. But your future is pulling you toward this result? Yes, that's what I'm, that's what I'm arguing a lot. What more and more physicists are arguing is that no, no retro causation, that's the new word for teleology, sort of a non-divine teleology. Terrell Bums, a really interesting guy, he, he's a psychologist at Cornell, he's emeritus, you know, but he, so his story is interesting. He got interested in, he was never interested in, in parapsychology, really, until the 90s, I think the early 90s, when a colleague of his, I guess a colleague or another psychologist, a way named Charles Honerton, who was a parapsychologist and doing parapsychology research, wanted, he wanted someone who had training as a mentalist to be part of his experiments, because that's a good control, you know, to make sure that there's no cheating and that, and so on. And Darrell Bums is a trained mentalist. He didn't necessarily have an interest in ESP or whatever, but he didn't, he wasn't a knee jerk, you know, he didn't, he just didn't know anything about it, but he was game to sort of be part of these experiments, to sort of ensure that everything was, was kosher. And Honerton got, you know, very, you know, positive results in these, I think they were tell up the experiments, if I'm not mistaken, or maybe they were remote appearing, I'm not sure, but anyway, Darrell Bums realized, you know, there's something to this, you know, he's getting results and, and so anyway, in the, in the first decade of this century, he, you know, he already had a very successful career as a, on personality and various, various topics, you know, he was a very, very respected psychologist. But anyway, he did this large series of experiments, in which he reversed cause and effect in basic psychology paradigms. One of them being like priming, like you're, you know, a typical priming experiment, you'd be subliminally shown some picture or whatever and then see how it affects your behavior afterwards. Right. Well, he would do an experiment in which people perform on some test and then are showing something subliminal afterwards. Okay. So this kind of like reversal of cause and effect. Anyway, he got significant results in like eight of nine experiments that he did. Can we explain the, the curtain test? Yes, photos. Yeah, like those, this is the most famous one. He, so he had, these were very large experiments with large groups of undergraduates. But he had undergraduates sit at a computer and choose which of two curtains on a screen had a picture behind it. Okay. Now I'll add, there wasn't actually already a picture behind these curtains. He was generated, it was generated randomly after the mouse click. So, okay. Anyway, so they make a mouse click and then it shows if they're right or wrong and they did, they performed at chance, 50% correct, as you would expect. 50% was when, when the picture to be revealed was boring. Okay. Right. Like a beach scene or something like that. But when the picture to be revealed was erotic. Yep. Emotional. Adults engaged in consensual sexual acts or no. Yeah. They did better than chance. I think 70% something like that. No, it wasn't that high. I mean, the effect size is still small in these experiments. But, but statistically because he had so many participants and so many trials, it reached statistical significance. Okay. And then there's another series of experiments that sort of reversed the typical order of a memory experiment. So a typical memory task you might like be shown a word list. And then you engage in some seemingly unrelated task that reminds you of certain words on that list. And then you take a test on the word list and you'll be expected to perform better on the words that were, you were reminded of. Okay. Well, in his version, he showed, had, had kids look at a word list, then he tested them on the list. And then after the test, he had them engage in a task which subliminally reminded them of certain words on the list. And guess what? They did better on the words that they were subsequently reminded of. Just let that land for a second. Let that land. Yeah. They were reminded of certain words later. And those happened to be the words they did better on from the list. Yes. Retroactive facilitation of recall. What he called this. Just to be fair, the skeptics 2023, there was a replication issue right with Ben's research. Okay, there's a lot of controversy about there is immediately the skeptics jumped on this in this, this came out in 2011. Right. Immediately skeptics were in rage. I mean, my colleagues at one of the psychology organizations were outraged anyway. And then skeptics said, no, this can't be replicated. And here we try to replicate it. And we couldn't, but a lot of teams around the world did replicate it successfully. And yeah, does don't get on Wikipedia because you'll, you will see it completely bias. Of course, version of this. But I think something like 80 independent, 83 independent replications. I think something like that. So, yeah, fascinating, fascinating evidence for something like pre-cognition. What he would call it pre-sentiment, feeling the future. And that's what he called the art, the, what he called it in his original article on this. So for the skeptics of Ben's work, I think we have in the late 80s physicist, Aaronov's split laser test as a hold might be here, right, that story. Well, yeah, this was an Aaronov. This was-- oh, I'm howl and Dixon, I believe. This is also at Cornell, I think, where they took a laser beam. They put it through a beam splitter to create two identical beams. And essentially, they don't, that's not-- the terms they use in physics are different. But they're essentially creating an experiment group and a control group like you'd have in a psychology experiment. And they did what was called a weak measurement on both of these beams, which is measuring the amplitude of the beam without interfering too much with the, with the beam. And this is a challenge that we can talk about with these kinds of experiments. And this is-- every time you, you, you measure something, you're interfering with it in some way. Right, that's the collapse of it. And the challenge, yeah. And the challenge is to try and find ways of measuring things that don't interfere too much so that you can tell if a subsequent interaction is having a retro effect. Well, in any event, they split the beams weekly measured both of the beams. And then did a strong measurement on one of the two beams. And lo and behold, the beam that got the strong later measurement was amplified like 10 times compared to the-- previously, compared to the other beam, which suggests retrocosation. Now, you'll get controversies and physicists will debate the significant-- what this means and so on. But that seems to be evidence for retrocosation. And Wheeler's delayed choice, certainly. That would be another example. Yeah, there's-- so this is an active area of research. And multiple experiments have been conducted like that that I just described, which seem to show retrocosation. Then you also have the field of quantum computing, which is showing that you can have indeterminate temporal ordering of computations in a quantum computer circuit. And I admit, I am not a physicist. I'm not a computing researcher. So this is all above my pay grade. But there's so many articles have come out in the last several years showing that you can invert causal order in a quantum computing circuit. Yeah, and Cambridge, they're solving problems with information from the future. Yeah. Yeah. Can we explain just a little bit about delayed choice? What's happening there? How it connects to time? The photons going back to the source, changing their state, that sort of thing, just to remind folks. Yeah, so OK, so there's-- let me take the example of this. Or if you have a different favorite. Well, one of the experiments that I think excited John Wheeler, I say his idea was that you could take light from a distant quasar, say. And choose to measure it a certain way. And it would show that how your choice of how to measure it had influenced the light from that distant quasar. Well, a blanking on his name Ali, I think, an astrophysicist. I forget which university, but he heard Wheeler speak and had an idea for actually testing this using mirrors placed on the moon by the Apollo astronauts. Because they placed mirrors on the moon to bounce laser light back to sort of measure the very minute like changes in distance between earth and moon in different phases of its orbit. Well, they shot a laser at the moon, and it takes like what, I think, a second for light to get to the moon and back. So that's enough time to change the parameters of experiment. Unless you're Nixon on the phone, then it's instant. Right, yeah. And it showed, indeed, that you can change how you're going to measure light. And the light somehow seems to know-- It seems to know. --teams to know how it's being measured. Yeah. Well, you know, seeming to know something that you shouldn't be able to know, that seems like telepathy. But another way of looking at telepathy is that it's really pre-cognition. That the light was influenced by that subsequent measurement, and that information, essentially, from the future traveled back in time along the world line of that photon. Right. It fulfilled its destiny. It fulfilled its destiny, yeah. So yeah, there's all kinds of reasons to think that, yes, retro causation is a real thing. At the smallest scales in nature, that quantum realm, where we're talking about individual particles behaving in seemingly impossible ways. But there are certain circumstances where you can scale up that quantum magic. And that's when this topic of entanglement comes in. When you entangle particles together, you can create a larger and larger object that enters the realm of objects that we're used to interacting with. And you can demonstrate that quantum magic at a large scale. That could be the strong force measurement, just the entanglement of the equipment. Or a quantum computer. A quantum computer is a bunch of particles that are entangled together to create essentially an object that performs computations. And in those settings, you can-- again, we talked about quantum computers reversing cause and effecture. You can have a material thing that is responding to its future. OK, then set aside those ideas and into the realm of biology where more and more people are thinking that the brain could be a quantum computer or have quantum computing properties. And if that's the case, add all these up and you get the idea that the brain could be a four-dimensional information processor that is pre-spawning to its future as well as responding to its past. So on the show, I've covered quantum biology with the cryptochromes in the bird's eye, which has been proven that they're entangling with the magnetic field quantum processes and plants where they're finding the photosynthesis is a quantum process. They're checking all the paths simultaneously. It's superposition in real time on leaves. So clearly the quantum state can be held in a wet hot place. Right. And that's always been the point of skepticism. Well, you can't have entanglement occurring in a warm, wet environment like the brain, but it's increasingly being shown that actually you can and that living-- that life is scaling up these quantum effects. I want to ask you about microtubules in a second before we move to that. What did Niels Bohr? How did he address retro causality? I know he didn't like any of this. No, he did not. And he-- yeah, Niels Bohr is a really important figure in the sort of, I'd say, century-long denial or refusal to look at retro causation. Because ever since the 1920s, there has been this idea that retro causation could explain a lot of this spooky quantum stuff. But the idea just keeps getting shoved aside partly because of Niels Bohr's personality. I mean, he was just a very forceful personality. And he sort of got the whole field of physics to just basically agree to not interpret what was going on at a quantum level and just say it's random. And just accept that the world is random on a fundamental level. And and that's the answer and you just have to wrap your head around that Well a lot of people have not wanted to wrap their head around it They don't have not been satisfied with that answer Einstein famously said God does not play dice that's right and But Niels Bohr basically dominated the field until really the last couple of decades when what's called the Copenhagen interpretation and he was from Denmark So it's called the Copenhagen interpretation when it's kind of broken down and and now you have these this kind of flurry of rival theories going on in the field so you've got besides the Copenhagen interpretation you have you know many worlds theory that we talked about you've got Bomes pilot wave theory you've got Multiple rival theories, but retro causation or some version of retro causation and not all physicists call it retro causation The problem is they use different terms sometimes to mean the same thing like what what do we look at well They'll tell you that to be really precise you can't talk in terms of causation anymore And you do talk in terms of constraints and like they'll they'll use different language because they don't want to give this Impression that somehow energy is traveling from the future of the past and stuff like that To be there's a there's a team that wrote a book relatively recently called beyond the dynamical universe Which is basically making this same argument that I'm talking about but they don't use the term retro causation and they and they take pains to Distinguish themselves from from other physicists who use the term retro causation But they're basically talking about the same thing which is that that something happening in the future is Constraining what's happening now and thus that's a kind of information traveling backward in time You know for us us ordinary humans who need need to be able to grasp this somehow we need we need these clumsy Expressions like influence or information traveling backward in time We need to be able to put it that way so that we can wrap our heads around it But that's you know a physicist will have a more precise way of talking about it But the basic idea is that what happens in the future influences? What's happening now and what's happening now influenced what happened in the past it's so elegant I don't know why there's such resistance to is so elegant well it takes away free will Or it seems to it it does that's that's something kind of stressful about your theories is determinism and free will so if Everything that's going to happen is going to happen regardless because we're on this timeline. Then why does anything matter? Well, right that's that's where people's heads go, right, but the more you sit with it You get to another place that's that I think That's a devil's that get rid of this I'm on board. Yeah That's that's what hangs people that's people's hang up. It is a literal hang up people get hung up on this on this question of free will and they think Oh well, then if it's going to happen anyway What's the point but you know just think about that for a second You can't know The future that that's the thing. This is the pair. This is the why call the pre-cognition paradox you cannot know the future right so you cannot know the future and You don't know how any you know how the future is going to unfold based on your actions and just laying in bed in the morning And not getting up and putting on your pants and going to work Yeah, that's that's an action just as much as as getting up and putting on your pants and going to work So it's like it doesn't make any you know that you got to do something and When so I'm a zen guy all right and really yes and and when you sit with this when you sit with the blocky universe as a Cone It's a kind of you know Cone you reach a point where you go holy shit That's it's beautiful and it's like it's liberating it's liberating to Get rid of the baggage of free will determine it like who fucking cares. It's not it's just easy for you to say well You know, but it's honestly this is a point you can get to when you treat this as a Cone as a as a you know as a riddle To be solved and don't just like turn away from it But that's unfortunately what's what generations of physicists have done They've turned away from it because this this trespasses on some philosophical idea that's really important for us as Westerners true um, and And it's distorted their interpretation of the science which is that's not scientific either you know We've talked about ways people ways which scientists don't behave scientifically well Generations of physicists have avoided a Very obvious and elegant conclusion or a very obvious and elegant hypothesis about nature Simply because it is philosophically and culturally kind of uncomfortable And that's not behaving scientifically either. No, it's not Fortunately, they all haven't so eventually the evidence is just gonna stack up Yeah, but it's the you know, it is acquiring that evidence is tough because of this because of this problem of distinguishing between You know when you when you measure something you're interfering with it So how is your measurement, you know, is it is it simply changing? The future or is it changing? It's it's it is very hard to test this Experimentally and for exactly the same reasons why it is hard to prove that my dream about Two buildings with corrugated facades that were mosques on the morning for 9/11 wasn't a coincidence I mean, it's you know of course you can't prove that that will always be the counter the uncertainty principle So that uncertainty principle is right there at the heart of the topic of recognition So before we talk about penrose and hammer off which everybody listing knows Let me pull another story out of you because I love the bootstrap paradox by the bootstrap paradox is my favorite I mean, it's it's another way of putting a time loop basically It's The idea so say you have a Here's an example that David Deutsch the physicist and quantum computing pioneer uses it in a paper that he wrote in the 1990s. He says, okay, you have a a Nobel Prize winning physicist I'm sorry, Nobel Prize winning mathematician And he has access to a time machine and he goes back in time and finds himself his younger self You know studying in the library and gives him the proof That he later won the Nobel Prize for solving And so the the he basically just gave it to himself in the future and there's nowhere in that causal loop Where anybody actually did the work rights of solving that math problem? Okay, well, that's what makes steam shoots out shoot out people's ears You know, it's like it's bothered me since Star Trek for the voyage home exactly exactly. How do we know you did invent the thing exactly? It's it's it's there at the at the heart of any time loop is this bootstrap paradox But again, it's we're not it's not really a paradox bootstrap paradox is a misnomer. It's a totology. It's not a paradox In fact, I think that that everything is bootstrapping Wow, I think it goes all the way down that that it in a time travel universe in a universe that at at allows time travel at all Ultimately, everything is bootstrapped everything's a bootstrap. I guess it has to be and this is and this is why I love the topic This is why I wrote my last book Where was it before the dream because it? It is an answer to that question of you know You know where does a new idea come from? Well, it's literally like that proof That is given to the younger self by the older self and it doesn't come from any it literally comes from nowhere in the sense that There is nowhere in the history of an idea where somebody like actually did the work of solving a problem It just literally is given to your younger self by the older self and that's plagiarism of the future So this is this is this is the time loop at the heart of creativity I think and it's create and it's literally creation next nilo. So it's literally were gods Okay, creators are gods because they're creating from literally nothing. There is literally nowhere in the history of an idea That some that that some little imp is putting it hammering it together or putting it together nowhere that you're that your brain is piecing together Things and creating a new thing. It's it's receiving it as a gift from its future self. You are the muse. Yeah of yourself Yeah, I when I when I'm having good ideas now. I find myself thanking my future self. Yeah, I appreciate that's that's great That's good idea. Yeah. Yeah Is that driving some of your work? Yeah, totally. Yeah Yeah, yeah, it's it's I think it's an inspiring way of thinking about about about art and creativity, but about you know, just creative solutions in general. I you know, I think that's I think that's what's happening It's easy to show it's easier to show with art because Because you know, you have an artwork that Then is something like a dream journal that you could then compare to a later of that or whatever in a person's life, it's a little harder with things like inventions and scientific theories and stuff like that. They are not as amenable to that kind of confirmation process and that kind of comparing with a person's biography. But I think that that's what innovation really is, is bootstrapping. What do you think is happening with flow state and sort of unconscious behavior? Yeah, that's a flow state is when you were cooking in terms of that bootstrapping. That's your future self just kind of giving flowing into the, yes, flowing unimpeded. Yeah, I mean, anyone who, and it goes beyond creativity, like anyone who's doing some skilled activity, a martial artist or a jet fighter pilot or a brain surgeon, they're in a zone. They are not thinking about their free will. This is another reason I tell people stop working about free will. You know, your best self always comes out when you're not thinking deliberately about your will every time, exerting your will. Your best self is that in the zone when you are a machine, you're part of a machine and you're part of what I think of as a sort of four dimensional machine that's cycling through time as well as space. It's a, you know, it's a zen thing. The zen masters are all about finding that state where you are not freely willed. You are doing what must be done. And this, I'm going to go off script a little bit because something just occurred to me as you're saying this is, as a martial artist, as a performer and sitting here in this room, when things are moving well, it's, it's very automatic, but I will find myself with a second dialogue, almost observing. It's happened here a couple of times today where, where I'm just sort of observing. Oh, that was a great question. Oh, this is really interesting. It's going well. That sort of thing. Or if you're performing, you're doing stand up. You're like, oh, the audience is kind of rough of tonight. Let's, let's try this material. What, what do you think is going on in the mind? But we've got the split monologues. Yeah, it's a great question. You know, I come back to, it's an idea that I talk about in time loops a bit called Liebitt's Gollum. If Benjamin Liebitt was a neuroscience, terrifying, terrifying research, terrifying research about how, you know, we're out of sync with, with reality. We may have to describe experiments. But yeah, well, that would be fine. But the thing is the, the upshot I think of his research is that we are actually, we are actually pulling our meat puppet strings from the future. And that those moments that you're describing, you know, like, like, I'm a martial artist too, you know, you have those moments where you kind of mentally replay something really great that you just did. Well, what if that's your freely willed self pulling your meat puppet strings in the past? You know, what if that's where your free will is being exerted is on your past behavior. That's, you know, again, how do we prove that? I don't know. But, but, but it is, but it's a real, it exists. Whether we want to prove it or not, it happens to people in flow state, even when you're sinking a bunch of baskets. Yeah, you're on something's going on. Yeah, yeah, totally. And you talk to psychics, remote viewers go into at state to when they're, you know, when they're cooking. What do you think remote viewers, are they, are they remembering the future is real? This is a big debate. There's a big debate the field. I mean, I, I think that's a hypothesis that needs to be tested and no one's testing it. I saw you criticize Pat Price, well, I'm a huge Pat Price fan. And when you kind of described what Pat was doing, it made a lot of sense to me because he was, because Romeo fear is a wrong, more than they're right. But when they're right, they're definitely right. Yeah. So they're just remembering they were right. That's, that's the hypothesis that needs to be falsified. Right. Before we assume that remote viewing is actually, you know, sending your consciousness across space to some other location or to some target, it needs to be falsified that you're not previewing or pre-remember, pre-membring the feedback you're going to get. Afterwards. True. And, and this is, you know, some very small experiments have been done to try and test this, but not not on any scale. And I, I, I always tell Romeo that you've got, I'm unfortunately, I'm not an experimental, you know, parapsychologist. I don't, I don't have the set up to, to study this myself. But I think someone who has the, the, the means should set up experiments where they, you, you, and unfortunately, these kinds of experiments are the kinds that would be done at any psychology laboratory where you have to deceive your subjects. And I think that's why it does, these experiments don't happen because. Well, they're happening. They're happening. We're just, you know, stargate never made it. I don't think. Right. But are they, but are these experiments that would falsify the pre-cognition hypothesis? They're probably not happening. Probably not, probably not. I don't know. Did you remote view your wife's shoes? I did not remote view my wife's shoes. I pre-cognized being on a floor hunting for an advil that had dropped among wife's shoes. Yeah. So remote viewing. But it's, I, I'm saying it's an open question. Sure. I, I put it out there because I, no one else is voicing it. And I think it's really something that, that, that, the field needs to address. Well, that's why I asked you, because when I read your work, I put it down and, and I just, like, oh, shit, I hadn't considered. That's why I ask you these, I'm asking you questions. Maybe it's not even your field, but you're here. So might as well pick the brain. Yeah. But it's, you know, remote viewers will get, I understandably touchy about it, because I, it's, it's important. You know, it feels, it's validating of a certain belief system that about consciousness and so on, that it leaves the body and so on. And, and, and I get it. I, you know, people don't want cold water thrown on that. And I'm, I'm just, I'm saying, look, this is you, if you're going to really believe that, you need to test it. You know, you, that's the point of being a materialist scientist, which is, you know, really testing rigorously and taking the most reductive, a, you know, version of, of a story and seeing if that reductive version can explain the results. And maybe it can't, you know, I'm, I'm open that maybe, maybe there is, you know, more remote viewing than peak cognition. I, I certainly talk to people who are, we're very convinced that that's the case. But it's, it needs to be done in the context of, of studies that are published, or you can look at the evidence. And hard to get that published. It's hard to, yeah, it is. Probably not an accident that Jacques Foulet was hanging around SRI in the 70s. No, probably not an accident. Probably not an accident. And he, and he was like the first, one of the first people to raise this possibility, by the way. I mean, it's in his journals. Like he's, you know, he had lunch. This was 1978, I think, with the SRI guys. I said, like, how do you guys know this isn't peak cognition? You know, you're treating this all like this is clairvoyance. And this could be all pre-cognition. And he was, he was very early on that kind of bandwagon, that this may be pre-cognition. Has Valle addressed the microtubules and, and he was hammer of work yet? Not that I'm aware of. Where do you stand on, on that quantum process? I mean, very much in favor of hammer offs work. The anesthesiologist. Yeah, like a microtubules. I think microtubules could be the answer. I don't, I am not personally that interested in the question of consciousness. You're not. No, I think it's a red herring. I think, I think, if something's going to come out of this search for consciousness, it's going to be, it's, it's going to be a sort of serendipitous discovery of the mechanisms underlying pre-cognition. And I think that's where that's where the significance of microtubules is. So, so we were talking about memories being consolidated. Yeah. Okay. So guess what it is in neurons that reshape the synapses every night when you're dreaming and creating your memories. Microtubules. Yes. So, if these microtubules are the little quantum computers that are presponding to their own future states, it makes perfect sense. You know, it really creates a perfect little hypothesis for how pre-cognition works. Would your model track with that being reducing entropy? If you make those good memories. Exactly. You make those choices. You reduce your entropy. Every reality frame that you get in, whether it's a night dream, a day dream, you go to some other reality frame, which is what we were going to talk about. All of them give you choices in which you can devolve or evolve. If you make choices at a caring, you make it on the love side, then you evolve. You make it on the side you devolve. So you're just there trying to make choices. And the choice you make in a dream will level you up or level you down just as much as the choice you make here awake. Sure. They're all the same. It's just different environment. So you get different choices to be on the third floor of a five-story apartment building and so on fire. Isn't the kind of choice you want to duplicate here because it's going to affect a lot of people. Sure. Really badly. It's a terrible thing to have happen. So you're not going to do that, but in a dream or an out of body. Oh yeah. Now that gives you a set of experiences that you can't get or you could You wouldn't get easily here without doing a lot of damage and hurting a lot of people that's collateral damage to your lesson, and that's not good. So in these other realities, when you go out of body, that's what you're getting. You're getting in an opportunity to show who you are. And so free will is required then, right? Free will is required. Consciousness is awareness, free will, with a choice, I just say a choice, but that means you have free will, absolutely required. So that's how the reality works, so an out of body isn't such a big deal. You're already out of your body. You're a piece of consciousness. This body's an avatar, it's being rendered, and it's rendered according to the rule set. The rule sets, what we call physics, biology, chemistry, those are the rules. That's what scientists do. They figure out what the rules are. And to the level at which this is rendered, then you interact with it. And you have choices. But because of this being a multiplayer game, the choices you make affect others, just like they do in World of Warcraft. If you decide to run away and let your buddies fight the demon, well, that's a choice, and now they have to deal with that. They got one less person, to help them fight that demon. So the choices you make affect others. If you're not very good about dueling with demons, then you're not that big of help. So if you're a level 40 or a level whatever they are now, then you're very welcome on their mission. But if you're only a level 3, then you can stay home because you're only not going to help us very much anyway. That's Leverai Jenkins for everybody. Yeah, so that's the game. This is a virtual reality game. So what happens when my avatar dies? When your avatar dies, the consciousness doesn't die. It's just a piece of consciousness playing that avatar. When your barbarian dies, you don't die. In World of Warcraft, I think you have to run back to the graveyard and get all your stuff. Get your stuff. Get your stuff, or something. But of course, if that was the end, if you got to play once and your character dies, you're out of the game. Well, nobody would play the game. That wouldn't be much fun. No. And then you wouldn't learn. I mean, the whole thing in World of Warcraft is you have to learn. You learn how to use your tools. You learn how to use your spells. You learn how to use your equipment. You get smarter and more capable as you go. Well, that's like that here. And you can't do that in one turn. So you have multiple turns. They call that reincarnation. I call it in my book an experience packet. So you get an experience packet because what you're trying to do is make better choices. Lower the entropy of your consciousness, which lowers the entropy. The whole system's consciousness because you're a part of the system. So anyway, that's the name of the game. You have to do multiple things. So what happens is that when you die, that avatar is gone. Now it's dead flesh. And you find yourself aware somewhere else. Am I still my individual self? You're still your individual self, but your memory of what you just experienced, your memory of that life that you just exited, starts to fade. Just like dreams fade. You know, you wake up with a dream and the instant you wake up, ah, it's really clear. A minute later, it's a little fuzzier. 10 minutes later, you barely remember the strong points and after that, you really don't remember the dream other than that you had it and that it was nice or something. So that's the same way. Once you die, you start forgetting all the stuff that you were just involved in in that past life, like a dream. Where does the consciousness go? Consciousness just exists now. You're not in this virtual, you're not getting a data stream anymore, okay? So there is no places within, you know, in this physical world, we think there's places, you know, there's Chicago and that's different than Las Vegas. And there are different places. And if you go to Chicago, you can go to their planetarium and look at, because they have one there. And if you go here, you know, you can go to Las Vegas. But these places are information, there are no places in consciousness. There's just a simulation of places. Right. That's all. There's a simulation place. So where do they go? Isn't even a good question. There is no place to go. You're just suddenly now an awareness that is not getting a data stream other than I'm here. Where am I? And some people will see a tunnel because a tunnel then allows you to move. You can't move unless you see space. You know, see something going by you on the other side, you're not moving. You see, so that's why you have tunnel. The tunnel is there to give you the sense that you're making progress in your moving. To ward the light, say, or towards something else or toward some other beings. And the whole process is one that just gets you to let go. The dream is fading. You had a lot of worries. You let three kids behind and you have all this stuff going on, but that just starts to fade. And you relax, but it takes a little time. And if you were really obsessed with something, that something may hang on there longer because you were obsessed with it. And that may take you a little longer than the process through. But if you're not really obsessed, then it all falls away like a dream and then you just kind of see, well, what's that over there and somebody's going like this? You know, and you move toward that with an intention and then you get the tunnel effect because you need to see the stuff going backwards as you move forward, otherwise you don't feel like you're going anywhere. And so you get there and there's somebody there that's very friendly. You know, I make a joke. I say, it's like a Walmart greeter, you know, you're walking to Walmart and somebody says, "Hi, welcome to Walmart." You know, come on in. And that's about all they say, you know, but they just welcome people, you know, or a Walmart greeter. Where's Bob now? Where's Bob? I kind of went and see him a couple of times, right after he died. Yeah, but I didn't really, you know, Bob's doing whatever Bob does. Now, Bob was a, was a, got another plant. He was here to do what he did. That out of body happened to him because he was supposed to write the book and a hundred million people were supposed to read the book and have their minds open to a bigger reality. That's what he was all about. That's why he had to write it even though as a business executive. If that wasn't necessarily a clever thing to do, he knew that he needed to do that. So he kept the diary. His books is basically the diary he kept on what happened to him. So I looked at his, once I would been around for a while, I was able to see ors and do all those kinds of things, all the paranormal things, you know, we learned to do and we learned to do them precisely. So I looked at Bob one day and looked at his or her and he was a very developed human being. And this was what he was here to do. No question. He was going to introduce that to all these people and that was his thing. That's what he did. He did a good job of it. Now, all the things he said in his books were his experiences. It's like an out of body. You know, I go out of body, that's my experience. And he didn't always, you know, it's your interpretation of the data that becomes your reality. He didn't always interpret things correctly. He mostly did. He told you what he saw very well, and he was good about that. And he remembered well, but sometimes he got information and he didn't get it right. Because his own background, his own kind of history and the way he put things together in his mind, put it together in a way that wasn't what was intended. That's what happened with this big loose thing, I don't know if you know about that, but Bob, when he had that out of body the next day, he came down and says, I want to share something with you. I just had this out of body yesterday and it's very disturbing. He was very disturbed by it. And he said, I found out that we humans are what did he say? We create a thing called loose. And when we create it, there's other beings that are kind of above us in this hierarchy that need loose. So we're like farm animals. We're here in this reality, creating loose and we're created here to do that. And it's really, we're being farmed, you know, we're like cattle. And they're taking the loose that we create and that's what they need, they need to loose. So he got that, that was his own interpretation. What he had asked is what's the bigger picture, what's going on here in the bigger picture. And that's what he got. He came from a farm family in the Midwest. That's the way he interpreted. What they were trying to tell him is that there is a bigger picture, the larger consciousness system. And as we evolve and as we grow up and make our choices, it grows up too. So we're part of its evolution. So we're growing and as we create love, not loose, as we create love and caring, the whole system grows. And that's what this was all about. This was made to help us, you know, evolve ourselves and evolve the whole system. So they're trying to tell him the big picture and he turned that into, we were here doing the things we did because it served this other thing. Well, yes, it serves a little bit. kind of system that serves us too, but in his farm boy mentality, we were cattle, and these were the other people in the system, and we were just being, we were the herd of cattle who were making loose for those people. He missed the point, and he did it differently. And at the time he told me, he was kind of upset. He just found out that he was a cow in a cattle, and we were creating loose for some other race of people. What did you tell him about that? Well, he said, after he told it to me, he says, "What do you think about that?" And I was probably 30, maybe then, early 30s, late 20s, and I said, "Yeah, that's okay with me." I said, "I don't see the problem." I don't see as a really big problem. He says, "You don't, you're a livestock, and you're feeding this other bunch of people with the things you do, with the motions you have." He said, "A motion." He said, "Well, it's a motion. If your motions are anger or your motion are love, that feeds it." And I said, "Well, there's nothing I can do about that. And if there's nothing I can do about that, if that's the way it is, then I'm not going to worry over things that I have no control over. If that's it, that's it. I'll go about doing my life and living it the best way I can. And somebody else benefits from that. It's not a problem, but Bob was really upset. He was bothered by it, and he put it in his book with the Lucian so on, and now you see all over the place. Bob says, "Lush, there's evil beings waiting for you. Don't go to the light, and this is the prison planet, and you go to all this stuff, all this fear junk." A lot of sci-fi is spun off of his idea. So, when you have fearful people, they see and hear fearful things. That's the nature of the way people are. So if you're fearful, he was not generally fearful. He just misinterpreted that because he was a farm boy. And when he got the, there's others up there that are benefiting from the things we do down here, he could see that, the farmer and the cattle. There's some else up there. It's the large, kind of, assistance up there. It's evolving because we're part of it. As we evolve, it evolves because we're pieces of it. That's with two abstract. And he didn't get that abstraction instead. He turned it into a farm metaphor rather than that abstraction. And that's what's been feeding the prison planet and never go to the light and all the rest of that stuff ever since. It's been feeding off of Bob's story about the loose. So, Bob was good, and Jane Roberts was good. She was good, but she didn't always get things right either because it's your interpretation of the data that you get. And Jane said a few things. It was just wrong, but she was trying her best to do. Bob tried his best to do it, but you have personalities, and you have backgrounds, and you have things the way you interpret the data. And it just gets lost. And one of the things that Jane said as Seth was that there is no time. The present and the past and the future all happen together. It's all one thing. Well, that's because that people made some errors in interpreting relativity with speed of light being constant and so on. And it comes of light and everything was contained within the cone. And so the future was already there, contained in the cone. And that's not the way it worked. That was just them making up a story to try to explain some idea that they thought they had. But it was all the rage. Everybody was talking about how there was no future. There was no past. And since everybody was talking about that, and the physicist, the high priest of Western culture, because they said it then it was the truth. So now when she was getting this stuff from, you know, from her, from Seth, it had to come out that way because that's what the physicist said already said. And she wasn't going to book the physicist because they're the high priest and they tell everybody what's true. So she knew that had to be the answer because that's we had already discovered that they're all the same and whatever. So when she asked Seth about that, that's exactly what came out was exactly the way she heard it and knew that it was. And she repeated all of that too. But that's not because that's what Seth told her. That's because that's what she interpreted it to be because she already knew the right answer. If you already know the right answer, then you tend to take things and turn it into the right answer that you already know. That's just the way people are. Sure. Once you believe something, it's hard to change. Yeah. So anyway, so you look at these books. And mostly the Seth speaks was very good and very informal with their bits and pieces of it that weren't saying with Bob's books. Mostly he did a very good job, but their bits and pieces of it was his, his own interpretation of the data he received. You know, he had these circles of people who were stuck between moving on and whatever because they were religious and that religion kept them. It's not like that. That's not the way it is. But that was his idea. Religious people are stuck in their beliefs. It's not about the bigger reality or understanding. They're just stuck in beliefs. Well, in that case, they're not going to go on very far because they're stuck in their beliefs. So he imagined this circle of people who were stuck in their beliefs. And for him, it turned into geometry of a big circle around the earth. And so that was just his best interpretation with things that he knew. And he felt, you know, it wasn't that that's actually the way it is. It's not the way it is. It's not like that. It's a virtual reality. And you don't have circles of people who are stuck. And it's here for people to grow in a system. It tries to help you grow because if you succeed, it succeeds. The other popular interpretation of quantum mechanics with physicists is now they didn't like this idea that you needed an observer, right? No, they didn't. Especially conscious observer. And so they're like, okay, we find an alternative. So, you know, one of my favorite physicists from the 20th century is a guy named John Wheeler. Mine too. Yeah, he was a great delayed choice. Yes, delayed choice. And so he not only was at Princeton down the hall from Einstein, but he was also the supervisor, Ph.D. Supervisor for Richard Feynman. Yep. There's a Nobel Prize winning. This is just a Caltech. And many people know about him from the Challenger explosion. Was that the Challenger Columbia Challenger in 1986 when he like took the little old rings and put them in ice water and said, like, let's look at what happened. That's right. Yeah. Yeah. And this is much later in his career. He also wrote the paper. This is an interesting story here about how quantum computers came about. But we'll come to that later for a time. And so Wheeler was a supervisor for him, but also he was a supervisor for a guy named Hugh Everett, who was looking for an alternative. And he basically said that all these wave functions get separated. And that would kind of mean that there's multiple worlds where each of these things happen. So that became known as the multiverse, or the many worlds interpretation. Right. Is the more formal representation of that. And Einstein didn't like it. No, no. And Boer, Neil's Boer, who was, you know, the other kind of really big giant at the time, didn't like it either. And so Wheeler said, take out this stuff about there being multiple physical worlds. Just stick to the math. And so Hugh Everett needed a job and he's like, okay, fine, I'm just going to finish this dissertation and go off and get a job in industry. But that became the basis for, you know, a lot of great science fiction today. Why do you think Neil's Boer and Einstein didn't like, I know that they didn't really like quantum mechanics, but they accepted it. Why didn't they like many worlds interpretation? Because you can still have your block universe theory just in a different universe. I think Einstein just didn't want to go there for the implications, because you know, he had his, the universe, God does not play dice. That's right. That's true. With the universe. And that became, you know, it wasn't so much that he didn't like, he didn't, it wasn't that he disagreed with the math that was in the dissertation. And he tried to disprove, and he couldn't. Yeah, he couldn't. And then he didn't want to get into this, the interpretation element of it. And then Boer didn't like it because it was different than his Copenhagen. In fact, it's called the Copenhagen interpretation because Boer was in Copenhagen and he had his group of people around him. And a bit of ego. And of course, yeah. That happens a lot in science. And so that's the other big interpretation of quantum mechanics. Where do you land? So this is what's interesting is when I looked at both of those, and I said, okay, what are the problems? The first one, you know, they don't like that they need a conscious observer. There's no way to define what this collapse is. That's the real mathematical problem is it's like, it goes from all these possibilities to this one. And nobody really knows how it works. It's like magic. It's like magic. There's this old cartoon comic where it's got a professor on the board writing a whole bunch of equations, step one. And then over here, step two, and then step three, he's got the answer. And his professor or the other professor is sitting there saying, can you tell me more about step two? And step two says, then a miracle occurs. That's what happens. That's what happens, right? But if it's a video game, well, then we have a mechanism for that observation. We have a player. We have an actual conscious entity that exists, that causes the collapse to happen based upon the choices and what they're seeing. And so that's where it ties to the video game. Now, the big problem, I mean, there's great, you know, superhero movies. You've probably seen the Spider-Man meme where you've got like the-- - Sure, sure. - The three Spider-Man's Andrew Garfield, Tom Holland, and who's the third one? Toby McGarr. - Yeah, they're all pointing at each other. Well, you know, they're coming from a different branch of the multiverse. That's what we're told. That's how we can have all these different stories. But the problem from a science point of view is they say it's not parsimonious. And what that means is it requires too much faith. - You're creating a new world, okay, not just every day, not just every hour, not just every second, but at each quantum determinacy point and each choice. - Which would be at the Planck scale. - At the Planck scale and maybe even at the Planck time. - At the Planck time. Which, you know, by the way, the Planck scale is another reason why, I think, you know-- - Same. - Physics is showing us that we have pixels in the-- - Sounds like pixels. - It's the smallest measurable distance. - And Planck time sounds like framerate. - Exactly, a clock speed or framerate. - Yep. - Which is, and now we, we do know that universe is probably quantized. Scientists don't agree on what their time is quantized, but it might be. And that would make sense if it was inside a simulation. Most people have bought like, you know, a MacBook or that's like, X megahertz or gigahertz. They don't know what that means. What it means is hertz is instructions per second or cycles per second. And so you can only do so many and you can't really do anything in between that minimum time. - Right. - And that's what the Planck time is like the amount of time it takes speed of light to get through the Planck length. - Basically. And so if we have a minimum pixel and we have a minimum framerate or a minimum clock speed of the processor of the universe, then everything is a multiple of those. And it's more likely we live in a pixelated type of reality which is like a computer program. - That's a lot of universes. So it's not a person moment is and you have to create all these universes. - Right. - But there was a physicist named Amit Goswami. He wrote, what did he write? It was the conscious universe. I forget his book, but he wrote a few really. He's a physicist who writes about consciousness as well. And I was listening to one of his talks. And somebody says something that you kind of store away and you don't think about it till later. And he said, look, those probabilities aren't really probabilities in the sense that we think of them. He goes, it's what would happen if you did it again. If you kept doing it a bunch of times, right? Then it's a probability. - Yes. - Right, so where does probability come from, by the way? There was a mathematician, I don't know if it was Pascal. It was one of these French mathematicians to be able to pee. And some guy was rolling dice. He was playing dice and he asked him, hey, can you quantify how I can win at dice? So he came up with this idea. He said, if you have one die, a single dice at die has six possibilities. He called them six possible futures. I mean, literally use that term. And he said, so your chances of getting one of those futures if it's evenly weighted, you know, we're in Vegas, so he's a gambling analogy. If it's properly weighted, it is one out of six. But you can't really have a probability until you've tried something multiple times. And like, you know, you could try the coin flip once, but you're not gonna get real probability unless you flip it a bunch of times. - Right. - And so a lot of times, you need to get up to a certain number. And then it got me thinking, well, if it was a simulated universe, you could actually run as many times as you wanted. You also didn't have to infinitely run every single possibility. Okay, why? Because you would basically, if you think of it as a big tree that just keeps expanding, this is the problem with it being infinite, you could prune large parts of the tree, like the universe has something called fine tuning, which is if a certain number of constants like the gravitational constant or these other constants were slightly off by like 1%, the planets would fly apart. The galaxies wouldn't stay together. And there's like so many of these, so people could look them up. There's at least 12, and there's probably more than that. - Sure. - But it looks like the universe is fine tuned. And well, if you were running a simulation, you would run it multiple times. And then you would basically prune the tree for all the versions which don't have life. So there's no need to go down that tree. - That's right. - Again, thinking like a computer scientist, you're not gonna want to run all your processors on everything. But that's not interesting to the simulation. So let's just focus on this subset of possible. - Right. - So you tune Avogadro's number until it's just about right. - Yeah. - Or most constant or speed of light. - Yeah. - It's like this is what works. - Right. - Throw that stuff out. - Right, exactly. And you tune that stuff. And that leads to what I like to call a simulated multiverse. So this is why I ended up writing the second book on simulation, which is now the older book because I have the second edition. And also I interviewed Philip K. Dix-Y. - Tested Dix. - Tested Dix, yeah. - Wow. What was that like? - It was really interesting. I mean, it was over the phone. But she had so many stories, you know? - Oh, wow. - She's still around. And you know, she would tell me these stories. And I interviewed her because the Wachowskis who made the Matrix were inspired by Philip K. Dix. Of course. In fact, I asked her what would Philip think of the Matrix? And she said, well, first he would like it. That's the first reaction would be, this is awesome because it's very similar to his ideas. And his second reaction was he'd call his agent to see if he can see these guys and get some of the money. - Probably good. - Or using his ideas. - I think their deja vu explanation came from his talk in Metz in '77. - Yeah. - And so she encouraged me to go watch that whole talk. And there's a written version. - Everyone should, it's amazing. - And there's a famous line from it where he says, we are living in a computer programmed reality. And the only clue we have to it is when some variable has changed. Some alteration occurs in our reality. And so when I originally I was just interested in the first part of that, which is we are living in a computer programmed reality. And if you see that video, the camera pans away from him and looks at the audience and everyone's like, what? - I love it. They think they're going to see a sci-fi author talk and they're getting this philosophical, it's so important that talk. - It really is. And in fact, they show this woman who's like, turns out her name is Joan Simpson. She was his friend. She went with him to the conference. She had no idea. And if you look at the written version of that speech, the rest of the speech is there, but that line is not in the written essay, so he must have added it in. We just know it's going to be this line over there. And, but if you read the rest of the speech, what the next line is, we would have a sense of reliving the same moments of deja vu that such an impression is a clue that at some point in the past, a variable was changed and reality was rerun. And so he claimed to remember a different alternate path. And his most famous book while he was alive was actually the man in the high castle. It won all these awards back in 1960. And for those who don't know, some of you may have seen the Amazon series, which is a really good series. By the way, I talked to his wife. She said he would have loved that adaptation. But in that, Germany and Japan have won World War II. And they end up splitting America between them and you have kind of a police state on both sides. And he came to believe that that was a real timeline that actually happened, where the Axis powers won the war. And now we're on a different timeline. And he said at some point, all the memories came flooding back to him. He was writing a sequel to the book, too, by the way. That's what Tessa told me. And she said, but once he got all the memories, he didn't want to go there because there were such bleak memories in that time. Yeah, he said that he saw it. He said this happened. But yeah, but somewhere it's the variable was changed. Exactly, you changed it. You called it the programmer and counter programmer. And so he used this idea of orthogonal time, which he compared it to a bunch of suits in the closet. You can try on one suit. You can try on the other suit. But what he also said, So Tessa encouraged me to read his speech. And I looked at that speech and I said, this is really about rerunning the simulation and changing variables each time. He also said we would need to find a group of people like him who remember an alternate time. And of course, back then it was hard to do that. But now we have this thing called the Mandela effect. And whether you believe in the Mandela effect or not, it's a great way to talk about this idea that maybe we are having multiple possible history. Well, let's talk about that because people love it. Mandela effect never worked on me until there is one that got me. Otherwise that Bernstein bears all that fruit of the-- Well, you tell the story. Yeah, looks at Mandela. So the Mandela effect is when some subset of the population remembers a different version of some past event or some object in the past. And it's named after Nelson Mandela because some people remember him dying in prison back in the '80s. And of course, he didn't in our timeline, right? He actually was released from prison. He became prison himself. Sure. Africa, when the Nobel Peace Prize and died, I think it like 2013 or so. They remember his funeral on TV. Yeah, they remember details. Yes. Winnie his wife taking over the SC. They remember all of these. And then Fiona Brum was the blogger who coined this term. She was actually at a Stark Trek, a Comic Con convention in Atlanta. like Dragon Con. And it was a Star Trek panel. And the panelists were like actors from the original Star Trek series. And if you know your trekkies, you know, they know their, they know their stuff. They know their stuff. And people in the audience were like, don't you remember the episode where Captain Kirk did this? Mr. Spock did that and maybe Mr. Sulu did that. They're like, no, we never saw a shot such an episode. And multiple people in the audience who remembered this. And so she started to think, is it possible that there are other ones? So she set up a website and started to explore. She used to find all these different Mandela effects. Now someone came to me and I always thought it was just faulty memory, by the way. Same. If you asked me what it was, I mean, fine, a letter changed here, a word changed there. But a friend of mine from MIT, who typically, you know, a lot of my MIT friends don't get into this stuff. They're very kind of left-brained about these things. He said, you know, if you go down that rabbit hole, your simulation theory ideas are a pretty good way in which this could actually happen. And so these, you know, between Tesla talking about it, Philip K. Dick talking about it and him talking about it. I couldn't get this out of my mind that if you reran the simulation, you would actually end up with slightly different versions. You could have small changes, like little things changing or you could have big versions. And then if you try to merge these multiple timelines, some people may have the memories from one of the other timelines. And so I categorized these into different categories. You know, things like letter changes as one, then there's things like movies as another category, the events. The moonbreaker one is the one that got me. Oh, yeah. So yeah, the moonbreaker one that she doesn't have braces, but I remember the braces. Right. It was jaws who had the steel teeth. Right. He meets, was there named Dolly? Dolly meets Dolly. And I remember that too. You remember the braces? I remember the braces too. I mean, that was the whole point. That one got me. Yeah. And so there's a few like that that really got me. And most people know the Bernstein Bears one. And what I like to say is if someone has proximity or significance to it and they remember it differently, that's more interesting to me than just some random guy remembering different things. So there was actually a blogger online. I'm forgetting her name now, but people couldn't find it in the simulated multiverse book where she was a journalism student and she flew to South Africa to interview Nelson Mandela. And he was too sick to be interviewed. So she went all the way there and she came all the way back. Then she graduated probably back in the 80s now and was working for NPR. So again, she was in the news industry. And she heard that Nelson Mandela had died. And now you're not going to get that wrong if you went there to meet the guy. No. You're not going to say, Oh, that was the other black guy, Steven Viko. Which is what the standard explanation. Most people remembering him wrong, I can understand it. And so if there's more significance, and each time I look at these events, I find people who have more significance. So one of my favorite ones is Tiananmen Square. Remember that? The tank boy. Yep. And the tank what do you remember? I remember it the way it happened that the tank went around him. That's how I remember it as well. But I started asking people about this and there's always a certain percentage that remember the tank running over the guy. And they remember it as one of the bloodiest things they saw on on the news. Like they were shocked. They were actually showing that. And so usually it's like 10 to 20 percent in a group. I was on a panel once that kind of decked in the desert Paul Heineck. And a few other people around it would be two of the people were like, what? I absolutely remember him being run over. So I asked at a recent conference. And I always do say does anyone remember tank boy being run over? Nobody raised their hand. So I thought, okay, this audience doesn't have this Chinese woman comes up to me afterwards. And she said she lived in Beijing at the time. And she remembers him being run over there. She didn't raise her head and didn't want to say it. So that's the first time I met someone who had more proximity to that specific one. And similarly, there are people who are Jewish who remember asking why are the Vernestein? Like why are they Jewish bears to their parents? Now they're not going to get that wrong. No. The rest of us might get it wrong. Sure. And so and then there's the Bible verses. Have you heard of Isaiah with the lion and the lamb? Do you remember that? Yes. I know the verse. So there's a verse about the lion with the lamb. Yeah, that's not the verse. It's not the verse. But that's how a lot of people remember that. The lion lays with the kid, the leopard lays with the kid. The wolf lays with the lion, the leopard with the kid. Yeah. So that's a Mandela effect. That's a Mandela effect because people remember the lion and the lamb. Oh. And there are even like, you know, people with wall calendars that show a lion and a lamb and say Isaiah. Yeah, that's not it. 111. And again, it's one of those things that people take a little more seriously with their scripture. Right? Because they remember. So and I thought, okay, well, maybe they're looking at two different translations of the Bible. They're looking at, you know, one that happened to translate it. But there people are telling me, no, in their King James Bible, it used to be the lion with the lamb. And the physical object has changed. So recently I met someone who's actually another blogger and podcaster named Alexis Brooks and she said, she went to her Catholic priest. And she said, do you remember the lion, the verse with the lion? He goes, yeah, the lion will lay with the lamb. And she's like, okay, now go look it up. And she looked it up. And he's like, what? So you have a Catholic priest? Again, somebody who's closer to it. The quality of research institute, probably the most important group on the planet now who's really studying the mathematics of the DMT state and the topology and the dimensional structure and all of that stuff. He describes entities doing things that a human can't do mathematically, like painting surfaces with certain colors. So there's something called the four-color theorem, which states that whenever you have a surface that's got different shapes all perfectly tesolated, like a map, you can color every shape with four colors so that no two shapes are but with the same color. So comes back to the idea of coloring a map of all the countries. You only need four colors to paint every country with a different color. So no two countries have the same color kind of butting up against each other. It's called the four-color theorem. You can do it with any kind of map. But the more complex the map becomes, the more cognitively demanding it becomes. Eventually it becomes impossible for a human to actually color these surfaces. But what he noticed these entities doing was having these quizzically complex, often higher dimensional surfaces with strange topological structures. And these entities painting these surfaces with four colors just perfectly as if demonstrating their abilities. And he said, "I couldn't do this. It would take me hours or longer to do what they were doing in a fraction of a second." And repeatedly they paint the surface and then they would reset it and then paint it again and then do it again repeatedly. And most people if they saw that they would go, "That was crazy or that was weird or that was beautiful." But they wouldn't understand what they were actually looking at. I wouldn't know. No, I wouldn't know the word "I." Know the word "I." You knew I'd "I." Know the word "I." I was surprised by all the math in Traces of Other and in Halfman's series. There's a lot of math in it. There's a lot of math and I think you need the math to, so we say maths in the UK. I can't bring myself to say math. You need the mathematics to really kind of understand the DMT state because it is entirely different. It's not the simple three plus one dimensional world that we live in. It's very, very different and being able to go in there and say, "How it's different? Why it's different? What's going on?" And this is why I said earlier, you send in specialists into the DMT state. You send in people like Andras who can say, "Look, what these entities are doing is not just beautiful or strange. It's impossible for a human brain to do." Or far beyond normal human cognitive capacities, even in the most intelligent of people like Andras. And so those are the kind of things, you see, where the entities are actually betray their intelligence, displaying it. They're not giving you numbers or giving you blueprints for the time machine. I don't think it works like that. But they're doing things that you just have to recognise are beyond human capabilities. And in that way, you add to another piece of evidence that we're dealing with something that is beyond the human brain. That's very interesting. Can you give us just a simple example of how the maths apply to this work? Yeah, well, so I'm just trying to get a foundation before we get into Don Hoffman. Okay. Yeah. Well, we can get into Don Hoffman because the mathematics definitely applies thus. So I've been kind of following Don Hoffman, Donald Hoffman, Professor, Cognitive Scientist, University of California at Irvine for decades. And he has this mathematical model that he calls conscious agent theory. It's what he calls conscious realism, which posits that consciousness is fundamental, and that reality consists of and only of conscious agents interacting. So everything we see and perceive is the result of the interaction of these conscious agents. And he has this precise mathematical model on which he can kind of boot up physical realities, so rather than this failed program. of assuming that matter is fundamental and trying to boot up consciousness from dead in a physical matter, he's going in the opposite direction, which I think is the correct one. Assume that consciousness is fundamental, try to get the appearance of the physical world from consciousness and from the interaction of conscious agent. We start with a conscious agent which is very as math to work through game theory. Like the math is legitimately works. The mathematics legitimately works and it's incredible really that he starts with a very simple kind of minimal assumption model of a conscious agent. A conscious agent is an agent that can do basically three things. It can perceive other conscious agents. It can make decisions based upon what it perceives and it can perform actions which affect other conscious agents. You have this kind of network emerges of conscious agents who are all interacting via perception. What we see and what we observe is this interface. We never perceive the conscious agent network directly because it's far too complex, effectively this infinite network of conscious agents. What we see is this interface that allows us to interact in adaptive ways with the environment. Everything's an icon. Everything's an icon, right? This is the fitness before truth method. This is fitness before truth. That was his original idea that he's been developing and testing various ways over the last few decades. Most recently he started, he came up with this what's called the trace logic. The mathematics are a little bit sophisticated. I don't want to get too much into that because I get out of my depth pretty quickly as well. But what he found is that using this new model, he could actually kind of boot up not just the world as it appears to us, but he could also boot up relativity so he could explain within this conscious agent theory, trace logic model, why time dilation and contraction of high speeds and all this kind of stuff that comes from relativity, which we thought was kind of fundamental to the way space time works. Actually, he can get it from just the interactions of conscious agents. He can derive the Schrodinger equation. I mean, it's incredible stuff. It's from basic conscious agents. And so just a few months ago, actually, I got an email from a guy called Gaspard, who's working with Don. He's kind of built this thing called the trace institute based upon Don Hoffman's work to kind of start to build Don's legacy because Don Hoffman's kind of disorganized in some ways and there's got all this stuff that floating around in papers and interviews and other stuff. There's no kind of, kind of properly organized archive and an institute to actually follow on to his work and kind of pick up the mantle so to speak. So Gaspard, who's also been following my work, said to Don, you should read this guy, Andrew Gallimoy, you know, read his book Death by Astonishment because a lot of the ideas in here. I talk about an intelligent agent in a very neutral way. I don't talk so much about aliens or spirits or that kind of thing. I'd say we're dealing with some kind of intelligent agent in the DMT state. Don Hoffman talks about conscious agents. So Gaspard, quite rightly noted that there seemed to be some overlap here. There is perhaps some cross fertilization between our different ways of looking at reality. There is, but there's some conflict as well. There might be some conflicts we can get into, but Gaspard said, you know, would you like to meet Don Hoffman? Don would like to meet you. We can have a discussion and see where there is that overlap. So we met online and straight away I said, should we write a paper on this and see if we can see where the connection is. It was honestly, and I don't say this lightly, it was one of the most profound few months of my life. And this was a preprint just last month I think, right? We published just last month and it was, I kind of had this working model of what DMT was doing, that it was kind of gating access to some other source of sensory information. But I never, within the physicalist framework, there was no way for me to explain how does information come from somewhere else. It's not coming through the normal sensory organs. Where's that information coming from? I didn't have an answer to it until I started working with Don's model. So in my second book, which we just spoke about reality switch technologies, I developed this concept called the world space. So remember that your brain is always constructing the world. And so there's kind of a vast state space of all possible worlds that your brain can construct, right? Normally we sit within this very small region of what I call the world space. I call this the consensus reality space. But there are all these other worlds world moments. A world is just everything you're experiencing at a particular moment. And your brain is constantly moving between these states. So if you take this vast landscape, all possible world moments, I call that the world space. And normally we sit within this very narrow region, it's like a well and attract a basin within this world space, the consensus reality space. And that's the normal waking world. Those are the states that represent the structure, the content and dynamics of the normal waking world. What DMT does, as I postulate in reality switch technologies, is it perturbs the brain and it pushes it into a different region of this world space landscape. And this is where the DMT worlds are represented. But what I didn't have in that model was how information comes in to actually kind of modulate that, you know, modulate that experience. It was just how does the brain go from building the normal waking world to the DMT world. So when I started working with Don's model, and a mathematician called Nifer Hermannson, who was absolutely pivotal in making this all the mathematics work. And we basically, we probed the model. We said, okay, if normally we only sit within a narrow, very small region of what Don Hoffman calls the experience space. It's the same idea. A conscious agent has this vast set of states, vast numbers of different experiences. And we sit within this very narrow region of this experience space, which is the same idea as the world space. But what Don Hoffman's work has is kind of the experience base is simply a set of states, all possible states that a conscious agent could have, all possible experiences. But what sits on top is this mathematical structure called a Markov kernel, which is called the Kuala kernel. What that does is it gives dynamical structure to the experience space. So what that means is, you're in this state now, what are the probability that you'll move to this state or this state or this state. So it gives that dynamics. It determines the dynamics of how you move through around the experience space. And as I said, you normally, we will sit within this very small region of the total experience space, which is the adaptive region where we experience the normal waking world. It's very thin, very, very small location within the experience space. And that's determined by the Kuala kernel, which is involved within that region of the experience space to create the world that we experience. However, if you can perturb the brain, perturb the conscious agent, you can knock it out of this region of the experience space into an entirely different region where the normal rules that are basically applied by this Kuala kernel, they no longer apply. So you enter a type of experience, a type of being within the world that is completely different, right? This is purely abstract at the moment. We're not thinking about DMT. You enter in a region of the experience space where the dynamics are completely different, the Markovian rules, the Markovian dynamics that determine how you experience the world within this region of the experience space. They're completely different. Now, the Kuala kernel that sits, as I said, that's determining these dynamics is actually composed of three different kernels, the perception, the decision and the action kernels. So there's three parts. So together, they determine not just what is your experience like within this region of the experience space, but how are you interacting with the larger, the broader conscious agent network? What kinds of other conscious agents can you interact with? Can you perceive? Because in this region, the consensus reality space, you only can only interact with the very, very limited number of conscious agents. But in this region of the experience space we proposed, you might be able to interact with agents that are normally completely imperceptible. So that's a look at where modern physics ends and the unknown begins. Some of what you heard today is settled science. Some of it is still just a hypothesis, waiting for evidence. If any of these conversations grab your attention, go check out the full episodes. Links are in the description. Every guest you heard today when a lot deeper than these grips. Until next time, be safe, be kind. And don't forget to like, comment, and subscribe. that you are appreciate. I'm a bon as well as me, Rosé. I'm so sang in the like I should. But then another conspiracy theory becomes the truth. My friends and it never ends. I know it never ends. I feel the crack at it. And I got stuck inside my old home. With them chaos struck. I've been only two hours. Do you stand like you've regained the moon landing alone? On a film set, I wore the shadow people there. The raspberry is just for the smiling man. And I'm told, and his name was Cole. I can't believe I'm casted with the fidget. And the fish are Thursday nights with age 8-2. And when I'm happy, I'll do the night. Oh, I ever wanted what you can see the truth. So the one falls on your feet all through the light. The mouth man's side and the solar storm still come. To a god the stupid city underground. Mysterious number stations, planets are pulled to. Brought to stockade and where the dark watchers found. In a simulation, don't you? Where the dark watchers found. In a simulation, don't you worry though. The black nights that I lighted told me so I can't believe. I'm casted with the fidget. And when I'm happy, I'll do the night.