1
00:00:00,240 --> 00:00:04,640
Speaker 1: Now here's a highlight from Coast to Coast AM on iHeartRadio.

2
00:00:05,120 --> 00:00:07,840
Speaker 2: Man, Welcome back to George NORII with Brian Keating. He's

3
00:00:07,840 --> 00:00:10,800
Speaker 2: got a couple of books, including Into the Impossible that

4
00:00:10,960 --> 00:00:13,760
Speaker 2: is one. The other is called Losing the Nobel Prize.

5
00:00:13,800 --> 00:00:15,760
Speaker 2: We talked a little bit about that in the moment,

6
00:00:16,360 --> 00:00:20,360
Speaker 2: and his website is linked up at Coast tocoastam dot com. Brian,

7
00:00:20,400 --> 00:00:23,680
Speaker 2: there are some that believe we're living in a simulated universe,

8
00:00:24,160 --> 00:00:27,680
Speaker 2: and for years I thought that was ridiculous. Now I'm

9
00:00:27,680 --> 00:00:30,040
Speaker 2: not so sure anymore. What do you think of that?

10
00:00:31,120 --> 00:00:35,639
Speaker 3: Yeah, the simulation hypothesis is actually kind of proposed by

11
00:00:35,880 --> 00:00:38,919
Speaker 3: a friend I hosted on my podcast named Nick Bostrom.

12
00:00:38,920 --> 00:00:42,559
Speaker 3: He's a philosopher, and his essential argument goes like this,

13
00:00:42,720 --> 00:00:47,879
Speaker 3: with the rapid pace of computer power, transistor number, and

14
00:00:48,040 --> 00:00:52,720
Speaker 3: eventually memory and quantum computers and then artificial intelligence, we're

15
00:00:52,920 --> 00:00:59,080
Speaker 3: now able to effectively replicate the most complex dynamics, the

16
00:00:59,080 --> 00:01:03,440
Speaker 3: physics of small oak and collisions and particles smashing together

17
00:01:03,600 --> 00:01:06,440
Speaker 3: near the speed of light in the universe as a whole.

18
00:01:06,920 --> 00:01:08,800
Speaker 3: And then the question is, well, what do we like

19
00:01:08,840 --> 00:01:12,319
Speaker 3: to simulate? Do we simulate you know, just a cup

20
00:01:12,360 --> 00:01:16,960
Speaker 3: of water sitting on a desktop for hours in thermal equilibrium. No,

21
00:01:17,160 --> 00:01:20,440
Speaker 3: that's kind of boring. But we would simulate something like

22
00:01:20,720 --> 00:01:24,360
Speaker 3: a you know, a massive explosion or collision of galaxies.

23
00:01:24,760 --> 00:01:27,840
Speaker 3: So it tends to be more interesting to simulate more

24
00:01:27,840 --> 00:01:31,800
Speaker 3: complex phenomena and more complex dynamics. In fact, you'll find

25
00:01:32,080 --> 00:01:36,600
Speaker 3: thousands of times more simulations of galaxies colliding together or

26
00:01:36,760 --> 00:01:40,800
Speaker 3: neutrinos passing through the human body than you will find

27
00:01:41,400 --> 00:01:44,080
Speaker 3: water and a mug just sitting on a table. So

28
00:01:44,440 --> 00:01:47,640
Speaker 3: if you keep extrapolating that kind of logic, it seems

29
00:01:47,640 --> 00:01:50,200
Speaker 3: to be that well, perhaps you know, in the great

30
00:01:50,280 --> 00:01:54,320
Speaker 3: distant future there will be simulations of every individual, every

31
00:01:54,360 --> 00:01:57,640
Speaker 3: human being. After all, what's more interesting and precious than

32
00:01:57,680 --> 00:01:59,800
Speaker 3: a human being and what we can do in our

33
00:02:00,080 --> 00:02:04,480
Speaker 3: a capacity for curiosity, wonder and imagination. Well, you keep

34
00:02:04,520 --> 00:02:07,000
Speaker 3: thinking like that, and you keep thinking that computing power

35
00:02:07,080 --> 00:02:10,720
Speaker 3: is just going to keep growing, artificial intelligence will keep growing,

36
00:02:11,160 --> 00:02:14,720
Speaker 3: then it may be that we are that that already happened,

37
00:02:15,440 --> 00:02:20,040
Speaker 3: and we experience these kind of the sensations and whatnot,

38
00:02:20,040 --> 00:02:23,480
Speaker 3: but they're effectively just chemical reactions and reactions to stimuli

39
00:02:24,160 --> 00:02:27,000
Speaker 3: which are passed through chemical you know, sinasids in our brain,

40
00:02:27,080 --> 00:02:31,120
Speaker 3: and there's really no distinction between the chemical process to

41
00:02:31,240 --> 00:02:35,760
Speaker 3: a physical materialist and the process itself. In other words,

42
00:02:35,760 --> 00:02:38,800
Speaker 3: there's no notion of soul or self or identity. So

43
00:02:39,680 --> 00:02:42,240
Speaker 3: according to people like this, there is no reason to

44
00:02:42,280 --> 00:02:46,919
Speaker 3: suggest that we're actually who we think we are and

45
00:02:46,960 --> 00:02:49,960
Speaker 3: not a simulation. And how would we be able to tell?

46
00:02:50,160 --> 00:02:52,440
Speaker 3: And so it's an ancient question. I mean, it goes

47
00:02:52,480 --> 00:02:56,320
Speaker 3: back to Rene des Cartes and Coke or Gosom. I

48
00:02:56,400 --> 00:02:59,800
Speaker 3: think therefore I am, and they're really not been very

49
00:03:00,080 --> 00:03:04,960
Speaker 3: any satisfactory and ways that you could test that simulation hypothesis.

50
00:03:05,280 --> 00:03:07,280
Speaker 3: And a scientist what we want to do is not

51
00:03:07,720 --> 00:03:10,919
Speaker 3: groove of a hypothesis, but we really go about disproving

52
00:03:11,320 --> 00:03:15,240
Speaker 3: everything else, and what's left via Ocom's razor will be

53
00:03:15,560 --> 00:03:18,400
Speaker 3: likely closest to the possible truth. So yes, there are

54
00:03:18,440 --> 00:03:20,720
Speaker 3: a great many people so think about this, and then

55
00:03:20,760 --> 00:03:23,919
Speaker 3: the question of ethics and morality and all sorts of

56
00:03:24,000 --> 00:03:26,560
Speaker 3: interesting things come up in that simulation hypothesis.

57
00:03:26,639 --> 00:03:28,080
Speaker 2: So you can't rule it out.

58
00:03:29,560 --> 00:03:31,560
Speaker 3: That's right, That's right. You can't really rule it out.

59
00:03:31,600 --> 00:03:34,560
Speaker 3: I mean you can say that it's implausible. You could say, well,

60
00:03:34,600 --> 00:03:38,200
Speaker 3: who's who's you know running the simulation? Is that? Is

61
00:03:38,200 --> 00:03:41,160
Speaker 3: that an entity? Is that an AI? Well who created that?

62
00:03:41,880 --> 00:03:45,640
Speaker 3: And you could make sort of logical suppositions and maybe

63
00:03:45,680 --> 00:03:49,000
Speaker 3: lead to contradictions, and you may even be able to say, well,

64
00:03:49,480 --> 00:03:51,160
Speaker 3: there are certain things that are so called, you know,

65
00:03:51,280 --> 00:03:54,880
Speaker 3: continuous variables, like an angle is you know, it has

66
00:03:55,000 --> 00:04:00,880
Speaker 3: infinite number of degrees and numbers between say zero ninety degrees.

67
00:04:00,920 --> 00:04:03,400
Speaker 3: There's an infinite number of numbers, So how could there

68
00:04:03,440 --> 00:04:06,000
Speaker 3: You would require an infinite amount of memory, for example,

69
00:04:06,240 --> 00:04:10,680
Speaker 3: to simulate every trajectory of every meteorite in the media

70
00:04:10,720 --> 00:04:14,520
Speaker 3: in the universe. So yes, that that might be overwhelmingly difficult,

71
00:04:14,560 --> 00:04:16,080
Speaker 3: and then you might have to wonder why is it

72
00:04:16,200 --> 00:04:18,040
Speaker 3: doing that? But I think you know a lot of

73
00:04:18,080 --> 00:04:20,560
Speaker 3: people point out, well, the same kid be asked of

74
00:04:20,640 --> 00:04:23,320
Speaker 3: the concept of God, and in fact a lot of

75
00:04:23,320 --> 00:04:26,839
Speaker 3: those same questions I say, morality, ethics, et cetera. Does

76
00:04:26,960 --> 00:04:30,160
Speaker 3: the master simulator of the of this program that we

77
00:04:30,240 --> 00:04:34,560
Speaker 3: call consciousness, does heich it ay whatever? Do they have

78
00:04:34,600 --> 00:04:37,719
Speaker 3: a moral obligation to us? And you know I always

79
00:04:37,720 --> 00:04:41,320
Speaker 3: answer that question, well, if it's true that we're all simulated,

80
00:04:41,360 --> 00:04:44,440
Speaker 3: why are there you know, why are there so many Kardashians, Like,

81
00:04:44,760 --> 00:04:48,839
Speaker 3: do we really need so many Kardashians? I feel like

82
00:04:48,880 --> 00:04:51,440
Speaker 3: that might be a disproof of it, But you're right,

83
00:04:51,480 --> 00:04:55,320
Speaker 3: we really can't prove it wrong or disproved falsify the

84
00:04:55,400 --> 00:04:57,240
Speaker 3: hypothesis that we are in a simulation.

85
00:04:57,560 --> 00:04:59,640
Speaker 2: Where does the multiverse theory come in?

86
00:05:00,640 --> 00:05:04,000
Speaker 3: The multiverse is a consequence. It's not really a theory,

87
00:05:04,279 --> 00:05:07,560
Speaker 3: but it's a consequence of many, many different branches of

88
00:05:07,600 --> 00:05:11,279
Speaker 3: the most interesting and cutting edge physics. One such branch

89
00:05:11,400 --> 00:05:16,000
Speaker 3: is called string theory, where we believe, according to string theory,

90
00:05:16,400 --> 00:05:18,919
Speaker 3: that just as we can divide up a chunk of

91
00:05:19,000 --> 00:05:22,880
Speaker 3: rock into smaller chunks eventually into molecules, to buy those

92
00:05:22,920 --> 00:05:26,000
Speaker 3: molecules into atoms, to buy those atoms into protons and neutrons,

93
00:05:26,320 --> 00:05:30,680
Speaker 3: divide those protons and neutrons into quarks, we believe, according

94
00:05:30,720 --> 00:05:34,680
Speaker 3: to string theory, that the quarks themselves, which were formerly

95
00:05:34,720 --> 00:05:38,240
Speaker 3: thought to be indivisible, could actually be fractionalized and broken

96
00:05:38,279 --> 00:05:42,360
Speaker 3: into even tinier things called strings or sometimes super strings.

97
00:05:43,080 --> 00:05:46,880
Speaker 3: And the question of that reductionism leads to a notion

98
00:05:47,279 --> 00:05:50,839
Speaker 3: of what's called the string theory landscape, meaning that how

99
00:05:50,839 --> 00:05:55,719
Speaker 3: many different possibilities for different particles, for different manifestations of matter.

100
00:05:56,120 --> 00:05:59,800
Speaker 3: It depends on a property of the underlying theory called

101
00:05:59,800 --> 00:06:03,719
Speaker 3: the vacuum state, and there's effectively an infinite number of

102
00:06:03,760 --> 00:06:06,239
Speaker 3: those things. So you come up with an infinite number

103
00:06:06,240 --> 00:06:09,000
Speaker 3: of possible the universes that we could live in, and

104
00:06:09,120 --> 00:06:13,279
Speaker 3: that is a form of multiverse multiverse meaning multi many verse,

105
00:06:13,360 --> 00:06:17,560
Speaker 3: meaning effectively the universe. But when we grew up, you

106
00:06:17,600 --> 00:06:19,240
Speaker 3: and I grew up, there was just one universe. We

107
00:06:19,680 --> 00:06:23,720
Speaker 3: call that the universe. But according to many cosmologists, including

108
00:06:24,080 --> 00:06:27,359
Speaker 3: as a consequence of the theory of inflation that my

109
00:06:28,080 --> 00:06:33,200
Speaker 3: experiments that aim to test, there is concomitant with that

110
00:06:33,760 --> 00:06:36,640
Speaker 3: a multiverse. In other words, you cannot have these waves

111
00:06:36,640 --> 00:06:39,840
Speaker 3: of gravity that suffuse the universe, traveling at the speed

112
00:06:39,880 --> 00:06:42,400
Speaker 3: of light, emanating from the first trillions of a trillions

113
00:06:42,400 --> 00:06:44,080
Speaker 3: of a trillionth of a second of our history in

114
00:06:44,080 --> 00:06:49,160
Speaker 3: the universe. You cannot have that unless they're so called insulation. Well,

115
00:06:49,200 --> 00:06:54,600
Speaker 3: inflation itself requires a multiverse. In other words, there cannot

116
00:06:54,640 --> 00:06:58,159
Speaker 3: be just a single universe. And therefore what we think

117
00:06:58,200 --> 00:07:00,880
Speaker 3: of as everything there is is just everything that we

118
00:07:00,920 --> 00:07:05,320
Speaker 3: could possibly see since the origin of our observable universe,

119
00:07:05,520 --> 00:07:08,640
Speaker 3: but there could literally be a universe right next door,

120
00:07:09,360 --> 00:07:13,440
Speaker 3: one light day away, and when your listeners wake up

121
00:07:13,480 --> 00:07:16,360
Speaker 3: in the morning, we could announce, well, we bumped into

122
00:07:16,400 --> 00:07:20,400
Speaker 3: that universe after waiting one more light day, after the

123
00:07:20,720 --> 00:07:23,520
Speaker 3: impending thirteen point eight billion years that led us up

124
00:07:23,520 --> 00:07:26,040
Speaker 3: to this point. So, yes, the multiverse is of core

125
00:07:26,120 --> 00:07:27,920
Speaker 3: concept in many modern models.

126
00:07:27,960 --> 00:07:30,840
Speaker 2: The physics so many things we just don't know, Brian,

127
00:07:30,960 --> 00:07:31,600
Speaker 2: isn't there.

128
00:07:32,320 --> 00:07:36,360
Speaker 3: Yes, that's what makes sience so interesting. There's everything within physics,

129
00:07:36,400 --> 00:07:38,480
Speaker 3: and I like to say physics is the most interesting

130
00:07:38,480 --> 00:07:42,200
Speaker 3: of all subjects because it literally covers everything from astronomy

131
00:07:42,240 --> 00:07:45,600
Speaker 3: to zoology. If you think about it, everything that's made

132
00:07:45,760 --> 00:07:49,200
Speaker 3: of matter is comprised of entities that are governed by

133
00:07:49,200 --> 00:07:55,080
Speaker 3: the laws of quantum mechanics, high article physics, gravity, electromagnetism.

134
00:07:55,120 --> 00:07:57,640
Speaker 3: These are all physical forces. Where it gets messy and

135
00:07:57,680 --> 00:07:59,800
Speaker 3: where I lose interest, George, is when you have this

136
00:08:00,160 --> 00:08:03,920
Speaker 3: dealing with personality, psychologies, politics. I would say I love

137
00:08:04,000 --> 00:08:06,600
Speaker 3: doing astronomy because no one wakes up in the morning

138
00:08:06,600 --> 00:08:09,800
Speaker 3: and says, oh I hate that democratic constellation. Oh man,

139
00:08:09,880 --> 00:08:13,520
Speaker 3: that republican asteroid is really no, it's politics. Free it's

140
00:08:13,520 --> 00:08:16,520
Speaker 3: a safe zone, and we need that, the species needs

141
00:08:16,560 --> 00:08:20,080
Speaker 3: to have a place of relaxation where we can contemplate

142
00:08:20,120 --> 00:08:22,600
Speaker 3: those great issues that make us uniquely human.

143
00:08:23,280 --> 00:08:26,000
Speaker 2: How close did you come, Brian, to winning a Nobel

144
00:08:26,040 --> 00:08:27,400
Speaker 2: Prize for all this work.

145
00:08:27,200 --> 00:08:32,240
Speaker 3: You've done well. In twenty fourteen, I'm Saint Patrick's Day

146
00:08:32,679 --> 00:08:37,280
Speaker 3: at Harvard University, an experiment whose predecessor, BICEP that we

147
00:08:37,320 --> 00:08:41,000
Speaker 3: spoke about, had been upgraded. Just like your iPhone or

148
00:08:41,200 --> 00:08:44,280
Speaker 3: Android gets updated every year, we update our experiments too,

149
00:08:44,760 --> 00:08:48,760
Speaker 3: and the second generation of BICEP, called BICEP two, had

150
00:08:48,840 --> 00:08:53,640
Speaker 3: detected what we thought were the exact hallmarks, the exact

151
00:08:53,679 --> 00:08:59,960
Speaker 3: imprints of inflationary gravitational weights, these leftover fragments of shrapnel

152
00:09:00,120 --> 00:09:04,160
Speaker 3: of the explosive origin of the cosmos. We claimed we

153
00:09:04,240 --> 00:09:08,160
Speaker 3: detected it at a press conference at Harvard University. It

154
00:09:08,200 --> 00:09:10,040
Speaker 3: was on the front page of the New York Times,

155
00:09:10,520 --> 00:09:14,160
Speaker 3: it was on CNN, ABC, all these different institutions saying

156
00:09:14,440 --> 00:09:17,200
Speaker 3: we had made the perhaps the greatest discovery of all time,

157
00:09:17,840 --> 00:09:20,480
Speaker 3: and that we had found not only that the universe

158
00:09:20,520 --> 00:09:24,520
Speaker 3: began with a big bang, but we found the big banger,

159
00:09:24,559 --> 00:09:27,200
Speaker 3: if you will, If you were religious, it was akin

160
00:09:27,320 --> 00:09:30,480
Speaker 3: to understanding what or who put the bang in the

161
00:09:30,480 --> 00:09:32,680
Speaker 3: Big Bang, what gave it the energy? Why did the

162
00:09:32,760 --> 00:09:35,200
Speaker 3: universe start expanding? It didn't have to. It could have

163
00:09:35,200 --> 00:09:38,000
Speaker 3: started off collapsing. They could have expanded at a very

164
00:09:38,000 --> 00:09:41,240
Speaker 3: slow rate, but no, it expanded at this ultra luminous rate.

165
00:09:41,840 --> 00:09:46,280
Speaker 3: And so we came extremely close. And the thing that

166
00:09:46,440 --> 00:09:48,760
Speaker 3: caused us to slip up, that caused me and my

167
00:09:48,840 --> 00:09:52,440
Speaker 3: colleagues and Bicep at Caltech and Harvard in Minnesota and

168
00:09:52,480 --> 00:09:55,920
Speaker 3: Stanford and elsewhere to lose. Then about prizes, as the

169
00:09:55,920 --> 00:09:58,760
Speaker 3: title of my first book was none other than the

170
00:09:58,760 --> 00:10:04,520
Speaker 3: most common substance the universe, dust, little microscopic grains of dust,

171
00:10:04,600 --> 00:10:09,000
Speaker 3: effectively micro meteorites. And I actually give away these meteorites

172
00:10:09,000 --> 00:10:11,280
Speaker 3: on my website Brian Keating dot com that your team

173
00:10:11,400 --> 00:10:14,000
Speaker 3: is linked to. I give away meteorites every month. They

174
00:10:14,040 --> 00:10:18,040
Speaker 3: are magnificent things, George, because they're actually fragments of the

175
00:10:18,080 --> 00:10:21,040
Speaker 3: earliest moments of our Solar system's history. They're older than

176
00:10:21,040 --> 00:10:25,320
Speaker 3: the Earth, and these meteorites are able to encode the

177
00:10:25,360 --> 00:10:28,600
Speaker 3: properties and the conditions of the early Solar System, and

178
00:10:28,640 --> 00:10:31,360
Speaker 3: that early Solar system was a very chaotic place. It

179
00:10:31,400 --> 00:10:34,160
Speaker 3: was filled with dust and boulders and asteroids, but it

180
00:10:34,200 --> 00:10:36,840
Speaker 3: was also filled with a lot of tiny little grains

181
00:10:36,840 --> 00:10:40,040
Speaker 3: of magnetized dust. When you get these meteorites for me,

182
00:10:40,360 --> 00:10:43,720
Speaker 3: you'll find them, and they have magnetic properties. Cout them

183
00:10:43,760 --> 00:10:46,840
Speaker 3: on a refrigerator magnet. They can attract the compass needle.

184
00:10:47,200 --> 00:10:51,199
Speaker 3: They're incredibly powerful magnets and they get aligned by magnetic fields,

185
00:10:51,240 --> 00:10:53,920
Speaker 3: I should say, And so in our Milky Way galaxy

186
00:10:54,720 --> 00:10:57,440
Speaker 3: was a magnetic field. There is a magnetic field, just

187
00:10:57,520 --> 00:10:59,520
Speaker 3: like every substance we know in the universe. We think

188
00:10:59,640 --> 00:11:03,320
Speaker 3: every rupture, from planets to people to birds, that inst

189
00:11:03,600 --> 00:11:06,920
Speaker 3: they have some degree of magnetism, and so do galaxies

190
00:11:06,960 --> 00:11:10,600
Speaker 3: and clusters of galaxies. And our Milky Way galaxy caused

191
00:11:10,600 --> 00:11:13,520
Speaker 3: an imprint exactly like the kind we would have seen

192
00:11:14,120 --> 00:11:18,520
Speaker 3: if the universe began from a multiverse in the inflationary

193
00:11:18,600 --> 00:11:23,199
Speaker 3: explosive origin. And that tricked us, George, into seeing what

194
00:11:23,240 --> 00:11:27,079
Speaker 3: we really wanted to see. It's a very common bias

195
00:11:27,240 --> 00:11:31,160
Speaker 3: in science, called the confirmation bias, when a scientist sees

196
00:11:31,200 --> 00:11:34,320
Speaker 3: what he or she wants to see. Because I always

197
00:11:34,400 --> 00:11:38,560
Speaker 3: knew creating bisept that if we were successful, we would

198
00:11:38,559 --> 00:11:41,520
Speaker 3: win Nobel Prizes. There was no doubt about it, and

199
00:11:41,559 --> 00:11:45,080
Speaker 3: in fact, the publicity that we got right afterwards is

200
00:11:45,120 --> 00:11:46,600
Speaker 3: proof of that. You don't get on the front page

201
00:11:46,600 --> 00:11:49,119
Speaker 3: of the New York Times very often for scientific discovery.

202
00:11:49,280 --> 00:11:55,040
Speaker 3: And yeah, exactly. So this we was very painful because

203
00:11:55,040 --> 00:11:59,160
Speaker 3: we had to retract the discovery and say, after working

204
00:11:59,200 --> 00:12:04,679
Speaker 3: with our competitor on a competing spacecraft called the Plank Satellite,

205
00:12:05,160 --> 00:12:08,079
Speaker 3: that we were wrong. We made a mistake. We didn't

206
00:12:08,400 --> 00:12:10,480
Speaker 3: make a blunder, you know, we didn't put our thumb

207
00:12:10,480 --> 00:12:12,959
Speaker 3: in the in the viewfinder or leave the lens cap

208
00:12:13,000 --> 00:12:16,000
Speaker 3: on the eyepiece of the telescope. No, no, no, We really

209
00:12:16,000 --> 00:12:19,840
Speaker 3: did see an astrophysical signal of dust in our galaxy,

210
00:12:19,840 --> 00:12:22,360
Speaker 3: which is cool and interesting and some people spend their

211
00:12:22,400 --> 00:12:24,640
Speaker 3: whole careers it allows you to learn about our galaxy

212
00:12:24,840 --> 00:12:27,360
Speaker 3: history and the magnetic fields within it, et cetera, and

213
00:12:27,440 --> 00:12:31,800
Speaker 3: how stars form. But it wasn't cosmological. It didn't originate

214
00:12:32,200 --> 00:12:35,760
Speaker 3: from the Big Bang's earliest birth pangs. And so the

215
00:12:35,800 --> 00:12:38,760
Speaker 3: story that I tell in my cosmic memoir called Losing

216
00:12:38,800 --> 00:12:42,200
Speaker 3: Them of All Prize is really a tale of you know,

217
00:12:42,280 --> 00:12:46,839
Speaker 3: sort of humility, but possible humiliation. We came so close.

218
00:12:46,880 --> 00:12:50,200
Speaker 3: And then right after that, George, right after that, a

219
00:12:50,240 --> 00:12:53,680
Speaker 3: couple of months later, I got a letter mailed letter,

220
00:12:53,720 --> 00:12:55,680
Speaker 3: if you can believe it, in my office that you

221
00:12:55,800 --> 00:12:58,960
Speaker 3: see San Diego. And I said, Professor Brian Keating, we

222
00:12:59,000 --> 00:13:01,560
Speaker 3: are writing you from the non Committee. My heart skipped

223
00:13:01,600 --> 00:13:04,079
Speaker 3: to beat. I was like, didn't you guys hear we

224
00:13:04,400 --> 00:13:07,880
Speaker 3: kind of had to retract this discovery. You Swedes, you

225
00:13:07,920 --> 00:13:10,240
Speaker 3: don't even remember. But I was like, maybe they've made

226
00:13:10,240 --> 00:13:12,400
Speaker 3: a mistake, maybe they'll give it to me anyway. No,

227
00:13:12,520 --> 00:13:15,640
Speaker 3: it said instead, Professor Bryan Kinney, we're giving you the

228
00:13:15,679 --> 00:13:19,760
Speaker 3: honor of selecting and nominating winners of the Nobel Prize

229
00:13:19,800 --> 00:13:22,319
Speaker 3: for next year. And George, I don't know if you

230
00:13:22,760 --> 00:13:26,480
Speaker 3: can imagine the disappointment. Imagine if you're a car dealer,

231
00:13:26,600 --> 00:13:28,000
Speaker 3: you know, and somebody calls you up, you haven't made

232
00:13:28,040 --> 00:13:30,800
Speaker 3: a sale in a while, calls you up and says, hey, George,

233
00:13:31,320 --> 00:13:34,000
Speaker 3: you know I'm looking for a great car dealer. That's great,

234
00:13:34,000 --> 00:13:36,000
Speaker 3: I'm going to sell some car. Can you tell me

235
00:13:36,080 --> 00:13:38,440
Speaker 3: your competitor's name? And you know who hadn't find it

236
00:13:38,520 --> 00:13:41,320
Speaker 3: on the internet. It was humiliating in some sense, but

237
00:13:41,360 --> 00:13:44,400
Speaker 3: I went through the process of nominating people for the

238
00:13:44,440 --> 00:13:47,680
Speaker 3: Nobel Prize in the year twenty sixteen, and that would

239
00:13:47,720 --> 00:13:50,360
Speaker 3: have been potentially the Nobel Prize that my colleagues and

240
00:13:50,400 --> 00:13:54,520
Speaker 3: I might have shared. And I found a disturbing set

241
00:13:54,720 --> 00:13:59,760
Speaker 3: of kind of un you know, forgivable sins had been

242
00:13:59,800 --> 00:14:02,720
Speaker 3: way against this great man known as Alfred Nobel, one

243
00:14:02,720 --> 00:14:07,320
Speaker 3: of the most interesting, creative and fascinating characters in all

244
00:14:07,360 --> 00:14:10,440
Speaker 3: of history, and really not well understood. People know his

245
00:14:10,559 --> 00:14:12,200
Speaker 3: name from the Nobel Prize, but I don't know what

246
00:14:12,240 --> 00:14:16,600
Speaker 3: a great man he was. He died childless, he never married,

247
00:14:17,040 --> 00:14:20,360
Speaker 3: He gave his wealth. He was like Elon Musk times ten.

248
00:14:20,720 --> 00:14:25,040
Speaker 3: He had the hundreds of patents, and he was incredibly wealthy.

249
00:14:25,200 --> 00:14:27,640
Speaker 3: They called him, you know, one of the richest men

250
00:14:27,680 --> 00:14:30,480
Speaker 3: in the world at that time, and by today's standards,

251
00:14:30,480 --> 00:14:34,160
Speaker 3: he would be like a trillionaire because he invented dynamite

252
00:14:34,720 --> 00:14:37,400
Speaker 3: and that made him incredibly wealthy. But it also made

253
00:14:37,480 --> 00:14:41,000
Speaker 3: him incredibly guilty. And that's very common thing that happens

254
00:14:41,040 --> 00:14:44,880
Speaker 3: in science. We create things of great power and great understanding,

255
00:14:45,320 --> 00:14:51,840
Speaker 3: but knowledge. The word science exactly exactly like that or Einstein.

256
00:14:52,560 --> 00:14:56,920
Speaker 3: The word science in Latin means knowledge, but it doesn't

257
00:14:56,920 --> 00:15:00,240
Speaker 3: mean wisdom, and so there's a very big difference in

258
00:15:00,280 --> 00:15:03,040
Speaker 3: my interviews. I've done interviews with twenty Nobel Prize winners

259
00:15:03,040 --> 00:15:06,720
Speaker 3: on my podcast, and I'm always trying to see, is

260
00:15:06,760 --> 00:15:09,920
Speaker 3: it possible, George, that you can have enough brilliance that

261
00:15:09,960 --> 00:15:14,320
Speaker 3: you become wise. I'm not so sure, and so part

262
00:15:14,360 --> 00:15:17,880
Speaker 3: of my investigations into the Nobel Prize's history was to

263
00:15:17,960 --> 00:15:21,320
Speaker 3: dig up what Alfred Nobel wrote in his will. He

264
00:15:21,440 --> 00:15:24,160
Speaker 3: died on December tenth, and that's every year when the

265
00:15:24,160 --> 00:15:27,000
Speaker 3: Nobel Prizes are given out, not on his birthday. It's

266
00:15:27,040 --> 00:15:29,640
Speaker 3: given you know, with flowers taken from the place of

267
00:15:29,680 --> 00:15:32,840
Speaker 3: his death or his burial. It's a very macabre kind

268
00:15:32,840 --> 00:15:36,560
Speaker 3: of ritual. You have all these incantations and rituals. You

269
00:15:36,560 --> 00:15:39,200
Speaker 3: have to bow down and get a gilded graven image

270
00:15:39,240 --> 00:15:43,360
Speaker 3: of the patron saint of science, Alfred Nobel. And it's

271
00:15:43,400 --> 00:15:47,160
Speaker 3: a wonderful thing, and it's a very difficult thing because

272
00:15:47,240 --> 00:15:51,000
Speaker 3: it challenges the way that science is actually done. We

273
00:15:51,160 --> 00:15:53,560
Speaker 3: teach students about it, but we never really teach our

274
00:15:53,600 --> 00:15:55,880
Speaker 3: students the ethics of it. What do you do when

275
00:15:55,880 --> 00:15:59,120
Speaker 3: you have to, you know, retract a discovery claim that

276
00:15:59,200 --> 00:16:00,920
Speaker 3: was on the front page of the New York Times.

277
00:16:01,280 --> 00:16:06,280
Speaker 3: That's not something that you can teach and freshman electromagnetism.

278
00:16:06,440 --> 00:16:08,240
Speaker 3: And so it's a great challenge to me. And it's

279
00:16:08,320 --> 00:16:11,840
Speaker 3: a very interesting story about how science is done by

280
00:16:12,160 --> 00:16:17,040
Speaker 3: scientists and scientists despite the stereotypes, George, we're normal human beings.

281
00:16:17,080 --> 00:16:20,120
Speaker 3: And you know, there's a there's an old trope about scientists.

282
00:16:20,160 --> 00:16:22,080
Speaker 3: You know, how do you know a scientist is outgoing

283
00:16:22,560 --> 00:16:24,720
Speaker 3: because he looks at your shoes when he talks to you.

284
00:16:25,280 --> 00:16:28,760
Speaker 3: And it's really true. We don't we don't do enough communication.

285
00:16:28,880 --> 00:16:32,680
Speaker 3: We don't share this wonderful story, this beautiful script that

286
00:16:32,720 --> 00:16:34,960
Speaker 3: we've been given by Mother Nature or God or whoever

287
00:16:35,000 --> 00:16:38,120
Speaker 3: you want to claim that is the greatest story ever told.

288
00:16:38,160 --> 00:16:41,040
Speaker 3: But we are some of the worst you know, screen uh,

289
00:16:41,280 --> 00:16:44,000
Speaker 3: you know script readers that there are. And part of

290
00:16:44,000 --> 00:16:46,800
Speaker 3: my mission on my YouTube channel and my podcast is

291
00:16:46,840 --> 00:16:49,640
Speaker 3: to show the human side of scientists and show that

292
00:16:49,720 --> 00:16:54,120
Speaker 3: we're wonderful, fascinating, childlike people with a great deal of

293
00:16:54,160 --> 00:16:55,280
Speaker 3: stories to tell.

294
00:16:55,320 --> 00:16:58,560
Speaker 1: Listen to More Coast to Coast AM every weeknight at

295
00:16:58,600 --> 00:17:01,240
Speaker 1: one a m. Eastern and go to Coast to Coasta

296
00:17:01,400 --> 00:17:02,640
Speaker 1: m dot com for more