tv Richard Muller Discusses Now CSPAN April 20, 2017 9:05pm-10:11pm EDT
it's to spend more money and grow more government and not solve problems, but to create programs and take credit for those programs. many of the members of congress are here. it's the best job they've ever had. it's more important than the actual events that goes on in washington, d.c.. now is a great time for you to silence your phone and i just wanted to say as he said the
debates arthatthe debates are oe world series is over and the election isn't until next week so we have a window of time with which to hear the professor. what exactly do we mean by now, it is a character that has bedeviled philosophers, priests and modern-day physicists from augustine to feinstein to the present. they tried to call the time and illusion but the eminent guests today, richard muller, protests he says physics should explain reality not deny it.
i even understood that part. the entanglement and antimatter in the big bang which you've all been talking about. his new book has gotten wonderful reviews from people like neil degrasse tyson who says it is a master class of the plane is and why we proceeded to the way we do. it's an exciting approach to the analysis of time but now he forges a new path. there's also cartoons and the buck.
can science share light richard mueller makes his case in the wide reaching investigation of how nature may generate reading for those concerned. richard muller is the professor by all accounts a legendary popular teacher and lecturer and is also the author of physics for future presidents and energy for future presidents copies right here for his outstanding role in technology, he was awarded a 1982 macarthur genius fellowship and also as we were just saying a share of the 2015 breakthrough prize in fundamental physics for the discovery of dark energy.
[applause] >> thank you all for coming. good turnout. this was originally scheduled on the day of the last state and i thought the same people probably force themselves to watch the debate. i don't know if the world series would have watched or not, the seventh game of the world series and some i don't watch any. reading excerpts from my book lets me do that. i picked out a few. please feel free to interrupt me at any time. i taught at uc berkeley. you don't have to worry about discombobulating me or changing my flow.
interrupt me when you have a question. i'm going to begin with something i printed out. notice i have a statement in the state it isn't true bu that in a moment it will be true independence on when you read it. but here is the statement i could write. it holds now and is about to become true. anybody in the back can't see that.
how could i see the truth i don't know. this was the introduction to the quandary about time that bothered me two decades. i would teach about time in my classes. i would teach relativity. i taught half of the college football team and my goal is that there wasn't a difficult mathematically. mathematically. it is conceptually difficult and we will come to that in a moment with money reading this. i sometimes think that it's easier to teach children then it is adults. time is variable and strange but not to children because they
know time is variable and that time goes fast. we teach ourselves that clock's run at a an indefinite rate and that makes relativity difficult. it's conceptual. everything i'm talking about today is a concept of problem, not a math problem. you don't have to understand that the elaborate and highly mathematical peak regions of the general productivity to understand the basic general relativity and how that works out so with me read some excerpts. i begin the boo began the book i just showed you. here is a fact that maybe no one other than you yourself reading
this book right now in fact i could be more precise, you are reading the word now right now or if i say something you know is true that i personally didn't know you still don't know assuming you are reading this book at home and not here you are reading the word now right now and i am oblivious to that fact. now it is an extremely serious concept. you know what it means that you will finbut youwill find it dift being circular. now is the moment in time that separates the past from your future but try defining past and future without using the word now. what you meant by the term past and future is that it's constantly changing. a short time ago this was in the future but now it is already in
the past. now that entire paragraph is in the past. >> this is from the introduction that you are welcome to skip when first reading the book. sometimes the fun begins when the book begins. the elusive meaning has become a stumbling block in physics. we understand time as relativity from philosophy and gravity. people put them upstairs, put them down here and compare them sometime later. you would be running faster but it is a measurable.
even the flipping of time in the relativity theory. we understand that. these are the things i teach in my class. if one occurs on the moon and one occurs here and we say that they are simultaneously, if you were sitting on a moving object, they would no longer be simultaneously. which one comes first, this one or this one it depends what you are sitting on if it's going this way than this one woul onee first if it's going this way than this one would be first. this is absolutely a part of relativity. if it bothers you, its because you have been taught probably by your parents indicated that it spontaneity is a good thing. get there on time, everybody knows what time is. the basic drawing board of
physics is known as a space time diagram. it ignores these issues and physicists sometimes treats this absence as a strength and conclude the flow of time is an illusion that is backwards. as long as the meaning of the word now he eludes u includes un the understanding of time to the key aspect of reality can it continue to be stalled. my goal in the book is to bring together the essential physics until a clear picture of now emerges. for the process to work we have to find new rules to those that have become jammed in their own place. i remember my father-in-law doing a jigsaw puzzle and it just didn't fit than i had a
brilliant insight that may be something was place at the wrong part. i turned the piece and thought maybe this one should move there and then it all came together. the jigsaw puzzle piece in the wrong place can keep you from completing the picture. over the years that i've talked about time, there were several things that bothered me as i was convinced they were wrong. one is a standard picture if you've ever read a book about time, you've probably read why we remember the past instead of remembering the future that sounds pretty trivial but it's the sort of thing physicists worry about. the fact is if you know the future you could predict the future from classical physics anyway so why does time move forward?
they explain this and most books explain it in a mysterious way. i was convinced the theory was wrong and to convince you that it was wrong so you would understand what it was all about so i tried to do that. have you ever had the experience you turn on a light and swear that your hand is back here there is something about the mind that's very tricky and i'm wondering if it has a space time of its own because maybe i'm crazy but i amcrazy but i have g off the light. that is a well-known effect and they take advantage of it in japanese television. in japanese television they have three d. movies for kids and
so i think that could explain what you're talking about. when you try to make a conscious if it is better left unconscious, i don't know. my feeling is i want to understand everything, not to be unaware of things. here is what einstein said that this is written in a book by a physicist and he quotes einstein as saying all that can be said -- he was troubled by the concept of now. i didn't notice until i started writing the book. he was bothered by the same things that bother me over most of my life. einstein said the problem of the
now worried him seriously and he is a guy that time which was a way of describing events and said we could study time itself. to me that was a great genius. he gave physics the gift of time. before that it was like a stage on which the acting takes place. but after einstein we are studying the stage, too. he said the problem now worried him and he explained that it means something special and different from the past and the future but it cannot occur in physics. it cannot be grasped by science and that seemed to be a painful
resignation so he concluded that there is something essential about that no the now it is juse the realm of science. >> can you go over that concept one more time? >> he said the problem or read d him seriously and it meant something special for man. he didn't have an answer. he was looking for something. i'd like to -- i don't think that he had the physics known at the time. i think the advances are what makes time part of physics.
to get to the end of the book and simply say that i bring time into the realm of physics and have an experimental test my theory of time and yet the reason that now the moment is so special to us is outside of the realm of physics and i can talk more about that or you can read the book. let me go on with more quotes. >> despite its appearance, the following quote doesn't come from a children's book on telling time. the question is where does this come from and it is not from the children's section. if for instance i say the train arrives at 7:00, i mean something like this, pointing at the small hand on my watch and
the arrival of the train are simultaneous. so that sounds like maybe something to do. it appeared in the physics journal today on june 30, 1905. the article was arguably the most profound and important articles in 1687 when isaac newton jumpstarted his publication. the author of those words was a man who would later become the icon of genius, scientific productivity and named later by "time" magazine as demand of the century.
it wasn't about the small hand on the watch written by albert einstein. why is he getting back to what the teacher six-year-old? the reason was the relativity. theory is that it was conceptually. he had to get people thinking about what do they mean by simultaneous. he wrote this article. for example if i say something like this it points to the seven. that is just wonderful. everybody here can understand everything in my book. i put some equations for people who want to go further but you
don't have to look at them in fact you can jump around and go to what you want to read. most books these days have terrible indices that i put a lot of time. okay where are we. this is something original ipod in my classes many times. it is a hypothetica hypotheticae that travels faster than the speed of light. light. weights nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. that isn't a wall of physics. what it says is nothing can troubled past the speed of light unless it has zero mass. you can't have anything that moves at the speed of light and gets more than the speed of light, but this would speculate there might be something that
would travel past the speed of light in about three years ago there was a reporting from geneva at the institute and the than a year later they retracted it. so there are people that search for it knowing that it will establish a credential in physics. let me read another excerpt here that is interesting. it has a surprising role in our understanding of free will. and i point out in the book i think that it's first time. let me read this to you. the strange result and order of events can be opposite for different references remember which happened first depends which way your oxygen is going.
it leads to a new aspect of reality between causality and free will. they can be dramatized by the story of the murder. it is a hypothetical particle that travels faster than the speed of light and then i say it's relatively does not rule that out. you will make physics history yet despite the upside if i discover years ago not to bother searching binaries and borders on religious. i believe that i have free will and the existence would violate that belief. let me explain, imagine mary is standing 40 feet away from john and she has a gun moving four
times the speed of light and she fires, skipping a few words here, john is killed and mary is brought to trial and doesn't deny the facts i described that there is an unusual change in venue she says she has the right to argue the case in whatever way she chooses. it's valid as the judge knows so he allows her to proceed and that is how a lot of it was in the earlier part of the book. she chooses moving at half light speed and that is valid. they are separated by ten nanoseconds but as it shows in the frame she thanked he died before she fired so you can think of this as a paradox and most physicists would say that
isn't a paradox. she had no choice. we are the results of molecules bouncing around and we may have the illusion of free will but she couldn't decide not to fire. the events are linked together. that is his point is a valid atheist. i have a different conclusion. if it is possible to do this, then i would admit my understandinhave missed myunders wrong and she does not have free will and it is tested experimentally, it's disproved and fascinating to me. it's never been said i said that in my class many times but it
shows there is a relationship when we are thinking about time and free well the two of them are linked. so at the end of the book when i establish all the physics you don't have to read it to the end if you don't like that kind of stuff, but it is in their. >> that's what i think. there are many things. i will give you an example you will understand that could never have been discovered from physics and chemistry and any of the sciences it is an abstract truth that exists independent of the physical world and a lot of other examples.
travel in the title. it turns out that article said if we can change them so they violate the laws of maybe we can go back in time as a reference for taking time travel possible. i looked at the article and i described what it does say. in the end, but feared the time has to do with general relativity that has a description of space that seems an physical. i will give an example, the distance between us is a certain number.
if you have two black holes and they come together you increase the amount of space. i quickly worked out the numbers and it turns out nobody would ever guess that such black holes existed. they come together and the amount increases and turn out to be about a million cubic miles. a lot of new space. when it is created it would
make any predictions if you publish it before it is observ observed, the uncertainty was more than one of 2,000 so the next time we see something like this there should be an additional delay that should be observed. so i take out my phone. you're kidding you have observed a new gravity wave event and this is closer so my theory is
together can we save the earth by doing it together between us and the sun. it's expected to grow in size. i forget the exact number but like 15 or 20 billion years from now. >> well wwill we ever be in that and can we create a space between us and the sun? >> whether we can do that without distinguishing the heat of the sun is another question.
what happens when there is nothing left to measure against? >> what happens very late in the big bang when the universe has expanded so much that you're sitting there all by your self. that has gotten a lot of attention and there is no consensus on what it is going to be like. the standard is things will just get colder and colder as we radiate heat that we can't generate any more and then it was analyzed some years ago and always thinks more cleverly than these clichéd traps. what he calculated was asked to universe gets less and less
interesting, the earth with what is left over of the sun would develop more and more structure and in the time scale that would change. he went through this in great detail but the conclusion could be stated very simply. he said the universe will continue to get more and more interesting. now in dispute he says the congregations are wrong and i don't know what the status of that is the fac but the fact iss not necessarily true that as these billions of years past that life will get dole. >> what do they mean by changing the shape of the earth when you say as we get further and further away -- >> i'm not sure what you are
referring to. as the spinning turns down that will change a little bit but we also talk about the changing of the sun. i can't see that the big bang -- i don't know how to ever get around to that thing about time. we know that before the big bang there have to be time. something existed. yes, i think so. i think it is a highly physical process. >> time and space are part of the physics. let me give you an alternative which is the way that i think about it. since we don't really fully understand the big bang, let me
speculate in a way that is consistent with what we know, here is my hypothesis, it wasn't an explosion taking place in space it was an explosion of space. prior, there was no space. there was no time. it was the creation of space and time and to say what happened before is like what happened at two points closer to each other than zero. there had to be a space and time for that to occur to begin with. >> it with the between the first 1 trillion seconds and actually out to the first three minutes.
the big bang proves that there was something before a because if there wasn't, there wouldn't have been a big bang. >> that is a speculation that is not accepted by most experts. everything that we know according since then it's like something followed the other as a result of the other something has to result in the big bang. >> some physicists are trying to see if they can make it work. that says it wasn't the creation of time and space that was a special moment in time and space. that is the alternative theory. yes, in the back. >> since we are talking about the big bang, maybe i missed
this, but how is time to find? >> that is part of the problem. time cannot be defined. when i was in the ninth grade i took a wonderful course in geometry in which they started by saying we have these concepts called a poignant an point and d they are undefined terms. we explain everything in terms of this great work on geometry. it always began with these terms and that's how you begin any study. in the theory of time you could not define time because everything else was defined as the most fundamental aspect of existence other than space. those are the two most fundamental things we cannot find them.
i started by talking about how serious time is and the fact people think physicists understand time and no, i have a theory people would say we understand time a little bit better than we did before. there were recent experiments in which they discovered evidence of gravitational waves by determining a distance between the location. has also changed time relationships between those relationships or is there a way of determining that? >> it did but there is no way of determining that. it is in the metric of the observatory and all it did ever suspended so they wouldn't be migrated by earthquakes or people walking by.
i knew about that experiment when it was first proposed in the 1970s and they were trying to build it. it's been a long time to get that to work and the people that did that are true scientific scc heroes for sticking with it against my doubt. i didn't think that it would ever work and i said that publicly. i was wrong. so you mentioned the distance between them and you do that by balancing white -- balancing life back and forth and the system changes. there were two observatories, one in the u.s. and one in the south and the north and they saw the same pattern what you get when these things are going around each other. they are big masses. anytime you shake aany time youn coming to get radio waves and in the antenna is moving back and forth.
it generates those waves so then you get gravity waves that they are sbut theyare so much weakerr to see them you have to have huge masses and they did. they are also waiting and generating these waves every time they go around and that is what was observed. if we take the mass, 36 plus the 2964 times the mass of the sun, 5% of that was turned into gravity waves, fantastic that's why we see it as they were losing this energy suddenly it was all gone so you see it goes like this and then it's gone. that's what they saw.
>> what is the speed of gravity waves? >> we believe it is the same as light. according to theory we don't have a good measurement of speed, but we do know from these two events at different times the difference was small enough that it matches the fact that it gets one and then the othe the o we know it's approximately right according to all theory they move faster than the speed of light. a question here. >> a follow-up on the question if we can't find time -- i went back to your comments tha commes related to your view of now that if we are creating time, what do you mean by that? >> even though we can't define
it, einstein made some definite predictions and predicted for example if you put a clock upstairs it will run faster. come back down and you can compare so you can find differences in time even though we couldn't defined the meaning of time. i will do the same thing. i can't define time, but i will tell you this. the predictions will be mistaken if you don't take into account that more time was created. so look at the experiment done in the 1970s or 80s. what they did is take an accurate clock and put it in an airplane and flew up in the air and when they came down, the timing was off to the one on the ground by just the amount of time einstein predicted. these days we have general relativity built in to our cell
phones. it's built-in because we have gps. they tell wherthe tell where wee there are satellites, they send signals. if we didn't correct for the fact that satellite is so high we would be off by several mil miles. so we have the einstein equation built into our cell phones. if einstein had predicted this we would have discovered it as soon as we don't do gps. running a different rate and then someone come up with a general relativity but if the theory came first there was an observation that inspired the original theory of relativity but this is the case there was this unbelievable physical
my claim is now it is a new moment that is created when the space is created mostly from the big bang that sometimes locally. what makes it important is that it's the only moment in time. we are all moving forward in time on time travel >> being controlled by the psychological memory it is completely devoid of physics. it's all in our head. >> it is beyond the psychological reality and i think part of it came from the
fact that i worked for several years being fascinated by the fact that the amazing thing you dig up an old phone and you can tell when the person died. that wasn't in my memory. we can ask for the past. the fact is we can learn more about the past and i do more each day learn more about the past by reading the book. it wasn't completely in my head. there was a reality it's just an alternative reality. ..
it was not of course to me. when i got into junior high school i ask and he said of course. but what happens when it leaves the brain? the way i see it? you didn't understand what i was talking about what does blue look like when i see blue, when you see blue and i see blue are we seeing the same color? or could it be that when we see blue you are really seeing what i see when i see red. the question but mid- fifth grade. to most of my life that story was a quandary to me. it still bothers me. have the people i talk to new exactly what i meant and said yes, it has bugged me to.
the other half i said of course you see the same color, just like my third grade teacher. i cannot communicate to them what i meant by. but then i came across a wonderful article written by a guy named jackson who is a philosopher, frank jackson and in 1982 of philosopher i found compelling. he created the story of mary, brilliant scientist was raised indoors in the environment. with nothing to look at that was not black, gray, or why. so we would watch black-and-white television. by the way there's a great room that my grandmother loves. it has a monochromatic weight in which everything is a shade of yellow but there are no colors.
[inaudible] no, she was in. this is a hypothetical story. she is not colorblind. jackson's imaginary brilliant scientist in her black, white and gray home grows up normally except for the absence of colors. she reads about it in a physics book and wonders what living in the world of color would be like. she finds the siri of the rainbow. it's beautiful and the physics sense. but she quandary is, what winter rainbow actually look like. with the beauty be different from the physics beauty. i know the physic duties of a rainbow is quite beautiful. boadicea rainbow is at the same beauty? ultimately mary becomes a brilliant scientist. and anything else you might want to throw it.
she understands how the eye works, and with different sensors of the eye and how it goes from processing to different parts of the brain. she knows all about this. but she has never experienced it herself. then monday, mary opens the door and walks outside into a full color world. well what her reaction be when she finally sees a rainbow? i remember this was an experiment we weren't worried about over the years. when she looks at the sky and the grass and sun set, would she say, oh, this is exactly what i expected. from the signs i study. will she say that? or will she say, wow, i had no idea. jackson asked, will she learne d anything or not? if she does learn something,
what will it be? so i tell the story to people, and half of the people say nothing. half of the people say she will learn what blue looks like. and the inside be a very subtle, but to me, this is simply another example of a kind of knowledge that is beyond the reach of physics. physics terminology is incomplete, but i'm not depressed by that, i'm elated by that. [inaudible] >> to marry learn anything? she did, because those processes never happened in her brain before. when she went out and experienced light, something happened in her brain that had not happened before.
it's a reasonable position,. >> we don't know what it would be, we can say the same word and none of us actually mean it. >> this is a great topic to discuss. you'll find there is a great difference and yet people you cannot convince that they are wrong. did you even have a question. >> yes two things, one is, how does language, the fact that mostly, it may be thinking in language we write and then the comment i had of someone was that for long time that each of us is seen the world differently in color and even what we choose to look at, i think that is why
one possible reason why artists make art is to show what we see that we could never say, by making it a picture or offering a way of showing how we see blue to someone else. >> i agree enthusiastically what you're saying. we can explain everything through language,. >> cannot say we cannot say and how does the fact -- i don't know what your processes as you all say, contemplate time. how much of that is in language and? >> it's not in language. anybody who has written a book knows we do not have the words to express what were trying to.
the result is we use metaphor, simile, figures of speech, arts to convey those things that cannot be conveyed with words. the books we love are the ones that convey it through metaphor not by having just the right word. you learn when you write books the right word usually does not exist. and in religion, excuse me for going back and mentioning jesus, but he can only teach the parables. they would tell stories and you're supposed to get it from the story because you cannot describe in words what he was teaching. so we teach and metaphor, arts, music one of my biggest mysteries is, why do i love beethoven so much? i don't understand what it is he's saying to me when i listen to it. there are things i cannot articulate because it is outside just like great art is outside of the great verbal expression. so with that thank you for coming. i will hang around for a while. >> if anybody wants to buy a
book i will send. [inaudible] >> friday night a book tv we will bring you author, annie jacobson on in-depth. she is the author for books, area 51, operation paperclip, the pentagon sprang, most recently, phenomenon. that is at 8:00 p.m. eastern. at 11, pulitzer prize winning columnist and author of over 30 bucks, dave barry talks about his career most recent book,
best state ever. book to be in prime time, friday night on c-span2. >> saturday and sunday book tv is why from the 22nd annual los angeles times festival of books. beginning saturday at 1:30 p.m. eastern, our programming schedule includes a panel discussion on biographies. with authors blanche, lisa natalie, and susan quinn. at 3:00 p.m. eastern, a discussion on the republican party with authors hugh hewitt, corey fields, and perr peggy gr. at 4:00 p.m. jones with his book, when we rise. my life in the movement. at 5:30 p.m., rebecca sold author of the mother of all questions, further reports from the feminist revolution. at 7:00 p.m. easter, corey fields and his book "black elephants in the room".
live sunday beginning at 1:30 p.m. eastern, a discussion on the environment. with authors miriam horn, will leave vanderbilt, and steve early. author discussions continue at 4:00 p.m. with gary young in his book "another day in the death of america, a chronicle of ten short lives" watch the 22nd annual los angeles times festival of books, live this weekend starting at 1:30 p.m. eastern on c-span twos, but to be. >> welcome, good evening town hall, i am christian, i am town halls new community program curator. on behalf of town hall and our community partner books seller, it is my pleasure to welcome you to this conversation. this event is part of our science series that is made