Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Sept. 24, 1997 - Art Bell

02:45:29

Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell - Michio Kaku - Theoretical Physics

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Welcome to Art Bell, Somewhere in Time.
	Tonight featuring Coast to Coast AM from September 24th, 1997.
	From the high desert and the great American Southwest, where we are currently bracing for Hurricane Nora.
	That's right, a hurricane headed straight for Nevada.
	Great, huh?
	From the Hawaiian Islands, the Tahitian island chains, eastward over flyover country, To the Caribbean and the U.S.
	Virgin Islands.
	South into South America.
	North to the Poland.
	Worldwide on the Internet.
	This is Coast to Coast AM.
	I'm Art Bell and you're in for a wild ride tonight.
	Because we have the man who probably is on his way to replacing Carl Sagan.
	If anybody ever can replace Carl Sagan as the nation's science spokesman.
	He is Dr. Michio, Professor Michio Kaku.
	A professor of theoretical physicists, uh, physics rather, at New York University.
	And he'll be up in a moment.
	It will be, I guarantee, a wild ride.
	Now we take you back to the night of September 24th, 1997, on Arkbell, Somewhere in Time.
	Now, we take you back to the night of September 24th, 1997, on Arkbell, Somewhere in Time.
	Now, I believe it's Kirkus Reviews said, regarding visions, Dr. Kaku's book, with this fascinating volume, Kaku positions himself as a worthy successor to the late Carl Sagan as a spokesman for the potential of science to revolutionize our lives.
	Dr. Michio Kaku is an authority on relativity theory and quantum physics.
	He is a professor of theoretical physics at New York City University, or at the City University of New York, I'll get that straight.
	He is also the author of the widely acclaimed bestseller, Hyperspace, which both the New York Times and the Washington Post selected as one of the top science books of the entire year.
	That's good.
	He is also the author of Beyond Einstein and Quantum Field Theory, a modern introduction.
	Dr. Kaku graduated summa cum laude from Harvard in 1968, received his PhD from Berkeley, and has been a professor at CCNY for the past 25 years.
	Co-founder of the String Field Theory, and author of nine books and over 70 scientific articles, Dr. Kaku is currently working on completing Einstein's dream of a theory of everything.
	A theory of everything?
	A single theory to describe everything from protons, neutrons, and even DNA.
	Voted one of the 100 smartest New Yorkers by New York Magazine, He, in fact, hosts a national science radio talk program himself that airs on WBAI in New York, KPFA in Berkeley, KCMU in Seattle, and WWUH in West Hartford.
	His scientific commentaries can be heard on Pacifica Radio on over 60 radio stations.
	He's appeared on Nightline, Nova, Larry King, BBC, The Learning Channel.
	He's about to appear, I think, I think possibly next week on 60 Minutes and the six-part PBS special, Stephen Hawking's Universe.
	Here is Professor Kaku.
	Hi there, Professor.
	Hi.
	Glad to be on, Art.
	Glad to have you.
	Welcome back to the program.
	Your last show really had a lot of comment.
	From the listeners, so here you are, returned.
	In fact, I got 200 emails from the last appearance on your show.
	I was overwhelmed.
	Yes, well, good.
	We have many, many, many things to talk of, but I thought we might begin with, since your book is called Visions, and you are obviously a visionary, a scientific visionary of sorts, where do you think we are going to go, assuming we We make it in the next hundred years.
	By the way, when I say I assuming we're going to make it, we sit here this very evening awaiting a hurricane in Nevada.
	Dr. Hurricane Nora is streaming north, and it looks like we're going to have a dead center hit here with a hurricane.
	And they're forecasting five inches of rain in desert areas that really can't stand another inch at this point.
	So, we're a little concerned out here.
	Things are getting a little strange weather-wise around the globe right now.
	And there are some pretty strange environmental things going on.
	So, assuming that we make it past all of this craziness, where are we then headed in the next hundred years?
	What do we have to look forward to?
	Okay.
	Well, first of all, I've always been fascinated by the future, ever since I was a child watching science fiction movies.
	And now that I'm a professor of physics, I decided to interview 150 top scientists.
	These are Nobel Prize laureates, six Nobel Prize winners, several Pulitzer Prize winners, and about 20 directors of major laboratories in the United States.
	Laboratories of computer science, robotics, genetic engineering and cloning, nanotechnology, lasers, fusion.
	And what I got was an exhilarating picture of the fact that in the next 100 years, we're going to be able to stop being simply observers of nature, you know, stop simply being gawkers of nature and wondering, what is life?
	What is intelligence?
	What is matter?
	To becoming master choreographers, to be able to manipulate life almost at will, to be able to create new substances almost on demand, And to be able to create intelligence, practically everywhere in the universe.
	Well, that's already a big handful.
	Let us begin with manipulate life.
	Do you believe that the unraveling of the human genome and nanotechnology may lead to a virtual, well, I guess I don't want to say that we would live forever, but a great life extension?
	I think there is a definite possibility.
	Last month there was this tremendous announcement made that scientists have isolated two genes which are extremely important to understanding why cells age and why we grow old.
	The first gene was for progeria, which is this bizarre disease that makes children age right before your eyes.
	Children just barely out of Diapers and going to elementary school, dying of old age.
	I have seen it.
	I've seen the phenomena.
	I've seen pictures.
	It's incredible.
	It's incredible.
	And the gene was isolated last month.
	And they actually inserted this gene, the counterpart into yeast, and actually made yeast age prematurely.
	So the gene is now isolated.
	Also for something called telomerase.
	Now telomerase is not something that your listeners have heard about probably, but it will be on the lips of perhaps millions of people.
	Because telomerase, in some sense, controls the aging of the cell.
	Can you spell that for me?
	Yeah, T-E-L-O-M-E-R-A-S-E.
	And some people are hailing this as perhaps the first of the human age genes.
	That is, genes which actually control the aging process at the cellular level.
	Now, this was isolated at MIT and another laboratory.
	And if you think of the chromosome of a cell, sort of like a shoestring, like you put on your shoe, and the tips of it, you know those plastic tips that prevent the fraying of your shoestring?
	Yes.
	That's your telomeres.
	And when your plastic tips get shorter and shorter, then it's like a fuse of a time bomb.
	The cell disintegrates and dies when that plastic tip of the chromosome disappears.
	You see, telomerase allows you to control the age.
	Instead of dying when the fuse gets too small, like a time bomb, you can make the fuse get bigger.
	For example, cancer cells have the capability of doing this.
	Now, this has enormous implications, because we can now delay the death of a cell.
	Cells usually divide about 60, 70 times, and then they go kaput.
	They just die on you, right?
	Yes.
	That's one reason why we age.
	And that gene was isolated last month, you see?
	So I'm not saying that we found the cure for aging.
	All I'm saying is that we've now found several genes that are linked directly to human aging.
	Professor, is this telomerase?
	Is the discovery of this the result of the premature aging syndrome?
	Well, it turns out that in cells, if cells have mutated telomeres, then they will die prematurely.
	Or if they have mutated telomeres in the other direction, then they live forever.
	In other words, they actually become cancerous.
	They keep on dividing and forming from a tumor.
	So then the study of one, what I'm asking is the study of one produced the second discovery.
	That's right.
	Uh-huh.
	That's right, you got it.
	That will change, well, what would that conceivably do if fully developed?
	What could we expect from that?
	Well, I interviewed a Nobel Prize laureate, Walter Gilbert, and many directors of laboratory about this, and they're very cautious, because they don't want to excite the public and then be let down later, right?
	But what they say is this is the beginning, the beginning of isolating genes that control why cells get old, and why they eventually die.
	Previously, it was a mechanism that was unknown.
	But now we know that every cell has this, a fuse, like a time bomb, and when the fuse gets smaller, These tips of the shoelace get smaller and smaller until they're no more, then the cell simply dies.
	And before it dies, it actually becomes senescent.
	It becomes rickety, old, decrepit, and then it dies.
	And you can actually delay that process now.
	The process can, in fact, be delayed.
	And that, of course, gives us the ability to control cell aging.
	What are the best guesses?
	I mean, if you were to go out on a limb and say it might produce another 20, 30, 40, 50, 100 years of life.
	What might it do?
	Oh, first of all, I think within 20 years we'll have most of these age genes isolated.
	We'll be able to control the age of a cell almost at will at the genetic level.
	Within 20 years, we'll have almost all of them mapped out.
	Within five years, of course, we'll have most of the human genome mapped out, right?
	And then we'll be able to manipulate them.
	You know, I interviewed the director of gene therapy at the University of Southern California.
	And he predicts that we'll be able to go to the doctor's office in 20 years and get a shot, just like getting a polio shot.
	Yes.
	Except that shot will alter your genes, alter the human genome.
	So if you have, for example, Tay-Sachs, because you have a Jewish background, or you have sickle cell anemia because you're African-American, or you have cystic fibrosis because you're Caucasian, you'll be able to have this shot.
	This shot will consist of a small virus.
	It'll make you perhaps sick for a day or so.
	This virus will then inject the correct gene for Tay-Sachs and sickle cell anemia and cystic fibrosis.
	In other words, they use something like the cold or flu virus as a vector to get it in there.
	That's right, exactly.
	You got it.
	Okay, so in other words, you take an ordinary flu virus, for example, disarm it so it doesn't cause the flu, inject the correct gene into it, and then inject it into your body, and it becomes like a Trojan horse.
	A Trojan horse, it works its way into your cells and injects the correct gene And repairs the incorrect gene.
	Now, of course, this has enormous implications, because, of course, parents would like to meddle with the heritage of their children.
	They give them violin lessons, they give them sports lessons, and think of what you could do if you could manipulate the genome of your kids a bit.
	Make them taller, perhaps a little bit handsomer.
	Order up a basketball player, a musician, a physicist.
	Or maybe even a physicist, right?
	If that's your inclination.
	So, I'm not saying that we're going to have it.
	All I'm saying is that I've interviewed the top directors of these laboratories, and they're confident that in about 20 years or so, this will become commonplace.
	It'll be something that is part of going to the doctor's office.
	Well, let me ask you a very selfish question.
	Now, I'm 52 years old.
	In another 20 years, I'll be 72.
	So what might I look forward to at 72?
	Arresting my continuing aging?
	Or is it even possible that within 20 years, everybody's ears are going to perk up at this one, we could begin to even reverse the aging process?
	I think, and this is again backed up by scores of scientists who've looked at this thing, that this could be one of the big breakthroughs in aging research on two levels now.
	First of all, if your organs begin to peter out, and your organs begin to fail, we'll be able to grow new ones.
	And again, this statement comes from a Nobel Prize winner.
	We can already grow unlimited amounts of skin.
	You just take a little bit of skin, and we can grow about a football field's worth of skin from a few skin cells.
	Heart valves cannot be grown.
	However, within 20 years, we'll be able to grow artificial livers and kidneys now.
	Organs that are not so complicated, like the liver, not so complicated, will be able to grow them, and kidneys even.
	And within about 40 years, even the hand and the leg could be grown.
	And in fact, in Scientific American, there was even a blueprint published as to how to build an artificial, I mean a real living hand, by building a plastic scaffolding.
	Injecting cells that then grow into this plastic scaffolding like children taking to a jungle gym, and then creating an artificial limb.
	Seriously now, not the stuff of science fiction, but they're getting prototypes of this stuff, right?
	And that means that even as we get older, and our limbs begin to break down, they could be replaced.
	That's right.
	Now within about 30, 40 years now, I had one Nobel Prize winner predict that almost every organ of the body, except the brain, that's one thing that's going to be hard to replace, every organ except the brain will have some sort of cellular regeneration mechanism.
	Well, let me ask this.
	Let us assume, for the sake of the discussion, that we could regenerate any organ save the brain.
	And that physically we could go on and on.
	What would the condition of the brain be?
	What do we know about that?
	In other words, now people in their 60s, 70s, sometimes even earlier, begin to get Alzheimer's.
	The longer we live, the more Alzheimer's we're seeing.
	Would the brain be able to keep up with it?
	Well, you know, there have been several tantalizing genetic clues to Alzheimer's.
	The APO gene, it's not certified yet, but a certain fraction of people who come down with Alzheimer's do have a very specific genetic mutation.
	And again, if we have gene therapy, we'll be able to take a shot, according to Dr. French Anderson at the University of Southern California, and correct some of these genes.
	But not all Alzheimer's is caused by this defect in this one particular gene.
	Okay.
	So, also, we were beginning to figure out how brain cells can regenerate.
	You know that as a child, your brain is growing rapidly and brain cells are multiplying, but then it stops.
	And then brain cells just don't regenerate anymore.
	Look at Christopher Reeve, right?
	That horrible accident that he had with the horse.
	His spinal cord was severed at a certain point.
	And there's no way known today to regenerate it.
	But you see, now that we know the DNA of brain cells, And we can tease that apart.
	We'll eventually find the genes that will kick in cell regeneration.
	And already in mice now, we can actually make certain cells in mice regenerate, even if their spinal cords are cut.
	Now this is hopeful, because one of these days, once we understand how nerve cells stop reproducing, we'll be able to simply inject baby brain cells that are growing, just like in a child.
	Into an aging person, and they'll simply regenerate the brain again.
	Well, I believe they've already attempted, at some level, that kind of therapy with regards to Alzheimer's, have they not?
	Some preliminary attempts have been made, right?
	Fetal tissue, fetal brain tissue.
	Right, but so far, mixed results.
	No one is claiming a victory over that horrible disease, right?
	But all I'm saying is that the top people in the laboratories that I've interviewed are very hopeful That at the cellular level, we'll be able to understand this, again, within 20 years now.
	We're not talking about 100, 150 years.
	We're not talking tomorrow either.
	What we are talking about within about 20 years, we'll be able to understand the mechanism by which this amyloid protein gums up the brain, how we can then regenerate brain cells, and how we can delay the aging process and grow body organs.
	Do you stick your neck out at all and say delay by how much?
	Well, we're talking about the potential, you know, most people say the humans can live to be about 120 maximum.
	Right, right.
	We're talking about doubling it, going into 200.
	200, oh my!
	Doubling the human lifespan.
	Now again, this is speculative, and again, you know, there are some doctors going on in the limb, but I have them on record now.
	Alright, well, when we come back, I want to ask you about some of the social implications of 240-year-olds wandering around.
	Professor Michio Kaku is my guest.
	We've got a lot of ground to cover, so stay right where you are and buckle in.
	You're listening to Art Bell's Somewhere in Time on Premier Radio Networks.
	Tonight, an encore presentation of Coast to Coast AM from September 24th, 1997.
	There's only half of what I am.
	It's all clear to me now.
	My heart is on fire.
	My soul's like a wheel that's turning.
	My love is alive.
	My love is alive.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	Oh, I'm a gal, I know.
	I may have told you, but then your wife seemed to think you'd lose your sanity.
	Oh, calamity, is there no way out?
	Oh, yes.
	You're listening to Art Bell, somewhere in time.
	The night featuring a replay of Coast to Coast AM from September 24th, 1997.
	Actually, with Art Bell and Professor Michio Kaku, and we'll get back to him in just a moment, we're going to talk about 240-year-olds.
	Also in advisory, there are flash flood warnings for a lot of areas of the southwest through Arizona, through my area here in Nevada, and parts of California.
	Hurricane Nora, with winds to 85 miles an hour, gusting higher at times, is moving north at 17 miles per hour.
	Presently located at 26.5 degrees north and 114.8 west, is midway up through the Baja Peninsula.
	So here we go, folks.
	Hurricanes in the Great American Southwest.
	What's next?
	Locusts.
	Now we take you back to the night of September 24th, 1997 on Arkbell Somewhere in Time.
	Now we take you back to the night of September 24th, 1997 Now, back to Professor Kaku.
	Professor, I'm trying to sit here and imagine 240 year olds.
	At the 240 year old point, What would then occur?
	The limbs, the organs are still in pretty good shape, or maybe not, or do you get to 240 and speed rot?
	Well, you ask a very good question, because when I interviewed these top scientists in aging research, they evoked this image that is actually incorrect.
	A nation of nursing home patients, a nation of people that are just barely one foot in the grave, all their organs petering out, but they happen to be 240 years old.
	What about Medicare?
	And what about the strain on the economy?
	And they laughed at that image for two possible reasons.
	First of all, the organs can be replaced, because we will be able to grow organs in that period of time, so we'll be healthy.
	And polymerase, as I pointed out, is implicated not only for the death of cells, but also for the senescence and cells becoming decrepit, and before they die, they start to lose cellular function.
	So we can extend cellular function so that the cells still are supple, they still are functioning, they're active, and you can start to reverse some of the damage from oxidation, for example, in what I call the mitochondria.
	The point here is that, first of all, we'll be able to keep people relatively vigorous, so that they're not decrepit.
	Second of all, we'll have artificial intelligence.
	Now, let me explain.
	We'll be able to have robot nurses, and robot helpers, and robot doctors.
	Now, we've all seen science fiction movies, and we've always laughed at how clunky those robots are, and all the predictions that we're going to have robots never panned out, right?
	But let me tell you right now that I went to MIT, and I interviewed the people, the directors at the Robotics Laboratory.
	I went to Silicon Valley, and I interviewed the top people at Apple and IBM, and they gave me a totally different hook on the future of computers.
	If you see a science fiction movie, you see this huge gigantic brain of a machine, and you think that scientists of the future will have these big gigantic brains, and aliens from outer space will have big computers, That's not the future of computers and artificial intelligence at all.
	It's going to be the opposite.
	Computers are going to become invisible in the next century.
	They're going to become so tiny, you can fit them in your tie clasp.
	You'll have the power of a supercomputer in your jewelry, in your eyeglasses.
	The walls, the furniture, the tables, everything will become smart.
	Now take a look at electricity, right?
	When electricity first came along, people thought it was magic.
	There was one light bulb in the house when you went home.
	Now, electricity is in the walls.
	We have batteries that place it in the car.
	It's everywhere.
	You have about 50 motors in your car, for example.
	You don't even think about your windshield.
	You know that your car is electrified.
	Your house is electrified.
	You walk into a room and you look for the switch, right?
	Yes.
	In the future, you will look for intelligence in the walls, intelligence in the windows, intelligence in the chairs, the glasses.
	You will assume automatically that when you walk into a room, everything has a certain amount of primitive intelligence.
	Yes, the question is whether that intelligence will become greater than the one sitting on the couch.
	Now, that will take time.
	Now, here's the time frame, because these people are very clear about when things are going to kick in.
	This is not simply a gee-whiz science.
	We're talking about timetables now.
	Within 20 years, because of what is called Moore's Law, with computer power doubling every 18 months, within about 20 years, intelligence will become as common as electricity.
	We'll go to the supermarket, we'll pick up a six-pack of batteries, and we'll pick up a six-pack of computers.
	These computers will be the size of a tiny little diamond on a diamond ring.
	They'll be in your tie clasp, your jewelry, your eye frame, your glasses.
	And they'll help you.
	You'll be able to access the internet wherever you are.
	You'll have smart clothing.
	The walls will have a screen.
	You just talk to the walls and the walls talk back to you.
	The internet, which of course is this horrible, horrible thing where you can get lost so easily, in the future you just talk to it and you simply ask it a question and it'll respond just like in a fairy tale.
	Some people think that the future might look like a Disney movie when you talk to the teapot, right?
	Mrs. Teapot and Beauty and the Beast?
	Well, doesn't that create a real possibility of sort of a collective consciousness?
	Yeah, these appliances will talk to each other for the most part.
	They will anticipate your needs.
	They're not going to conspire against you like in some movies.
	No, I understand.
	When I said collective consciousness, though, we may have talked about this last time, I'm not sure, but Michael Crichton, who I refer to frequently, has a theory that as we become more and more interconnected, and even with the Internet at its current stages, it will actually begin to slow the process of evolution.
	There will be 10 major ideas worldwide.
	There will be the same thought patterns, the same things discussed worldwide.
	Innovation will slow, and actually our progress as a race, the human race, will begin to slow.
	Evolution will slow, not speed up, because of this interconnectivity.
	Well, I think it could go the opposite direction, too.
	Right now, if you're a genius in India, for example, you may simply die of starvation and never communicate with the rest of the world, like this guy Ramanujan, one of the greatest mathematicians of the 20th century.
	He was an obscure Indian, and never got anywhere until he went to Cambridge University, and then overturned all of mathematics.
	Here we have a situation where the Internet is going to be like a magic mirror, a companion, a friend, To, you know, five billion people on the planet Earth, so that anyone will be able to harness their creative energy, their ideas, their vitality by talking to this magic mirror on the wall.
	The magic mirror will talk back to you.
	It'll have intelligence.
	Well, in that sense, it will free up the creativity of billions of people.
	What you're saying is not at all far out.
	Day before yesterday, IBM announced a new chip that will run at five times The present speed of the best chip available.
	I have on my wall an interesting item sent to me from a company in Texas with a couple of flaws in it.
	These are discs.
	I would say they're about the size of a CD.
	And they have layers of billions, literally billions of transistors on a single disc.
	I've got two of them here.
	They're absolutely beautiful.
	That's where we're headed.
	In my book, Visions, I lay out the timetable that within 20 years we'll have invisible computers everywhere.
	they sent them off to me as souvenirs and that's where we're headed isn't it?
	That's where we're headed and you know in my book Visions I lay out the
	timetable that within 20 years we'll have invisible computers everywhere you
	know smart rooms, smart tables, smart furniture, smart toasters.
	Our toasters will toast bread by themselves.
	They'll turn on the tape recorders.
	They'll turn on music when you wake up in the morning.
	Things will be done for you.
	You'll cyber shop on wall screens that are the size of your wall.
	TV sets, of course, will disappear.
	PCs will disappear.
	There'll be PCs, of course, everywhere in your environment.
	And then within 50 years now, okay, because, you know, we don't see it happening before 50 years, human-like intelligence will begin to emerge.
	Machines that have common sense, Now, believe it or not, many people have a hard time believing this, but the reason why we don't have robots, and the reason why we don't have those clunky things you see in science fiction movies, is because of things we take for granted.
	We take for granted vision, and we take for granted common sense.
	Everybody knows that a child is younger than the mother.
	Everybody knows that when it rains, you get wet.
	Everybody knows that animals don't like pain, that people don't like to die.
	But computers don't know that.
	You have to tell the computer millions and millions of lines of common sense that when it rains, you do get wet, that twins age at the same rate.
	There are about a hundred million lines of computer code you have to input into a computer to give it common sense that a ten-year-old understands instinctively.
	Ten-year-olds know that animals don't like pain, right?
	Computers don't know that.
	You have to tell the computer that, right?
	Alright, question for you.
	When is it possible, or will it be possible, that a computer, as speed and storage increase, will at some point, with enough knowledge, achieve self-awareness?
	Okay, now we're getting into a murky area, where beyond now 50 years, within 50 years, we'll have a software program you put into your computer, and your computer will talk back to you.
	You can joke with it, you can talk to it, it'll plan your schedule for you, it'll ward
	off people you don't particularly like, it'll set up appointments and so on and so forth.
	But then at one point, will it have a will of its own?
	At what point will it start to say, well, why should I obey this person?
	I'm smarter than he is.
	Why don't I start to take over?
	Consciousness.
	Consciousness, right.
	Now, let me be very clear about this, okay?
	Most computer scientists believe that consciousness will emerge gradually.
	It's not going to be one day a computer becomes sentient and says, why should I be the slave?
	I can be the master, right?
	Yes.
	But now within 50 to 100 years, once we have machines that can begin to reason with us and joke with us, right?
	There is a possible danger that they will have goals.
	Goals which you put into them, of course, but eventually goals which may diverge from your goals.
	Or which may be modified.
	Or which may be modified, exactly.
	And at that point we are going to have to put in something similar to Isaac Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics, that you cannot hurt people, you cannot hurt other robots.
	And that you can't do harm, okay?
	That has to be programmed in, because look at the movie 2001, right?
	2001 gave us the future of space travel.
	That we will have a spaceship that is intelligent.
	The spaceship itself has intelligence, called L-9000.
	Yes.
	But then, L-9000 was given a command that it could not carry out.
	And the only way it could carry out its command by a human, which was contradictory, was to eliminate the humans.
	Because it went berserk.
	It went outside its domain of expertise.
	This is called the MESA effect.
	You know what a MESA is?
	It's like a table.
	You fall off the table.
	When you give a computer like this a command that is outside its logical capabilities, it simply keeps on going.
	Well, couldn't that, professor, be the trip for consciousness?
	In other words, that the computer would be, at some point, presented with something it could not resolve, which would force it to resolve it.
	Uh, and that process, that very process itself, would birth the beginning of artificial intelligence, true, or consciousness?
	Uh, it could be, yeah.
	This is called the Mesa Effect, and it's also called negative feedback, so that The things get worse and worse.
	The computer goes off the deep end and goes mad.
	Literally goes mad looking for an answer for which there is no answer.
	Yes.
	And executing commands that it shouldn't execute.
	For example, killing humans and creating havoc like what HAL 9000 did in the movie 2001.
	But you see, that I think is going to be where computers are going to go.
	We're going to have living spaceships.
	Spaceships which are living.
	The walls will have a limited intelligence in it.
	You will talk to the spaceship.
	That's the most economical way to run a spaceship.
	Sure.
	But you have to be careful that you have some kind of shut-off mechanism so the MESA effect doesn't get out of control and the computer blindly carries out a command that cannot be carried out unless, of course, you kill humans who gave you the order.
	So there's a definite shut-off mechanism that has to be put in by hand.
	All right.
	Well, that brings me back then to what we discussed at first.
	Let us assume we get 240-year-olds.
	Let us also assume that present social trends don't change drastically, that each pope who comes along continues to suggest birth control is all wrong, and our numbers continue to multiply.
	What are we, five or six billion?
	Five and a half billion right now.
	All right, there we are.
	And then quickly, if we're not already out of control as a result of Well, that's a definite possibility.
	certainly be then that way out of control and it would it not be true that some computer
	forced to deal with this problem would certainly conclude there need to be
	fewer humans well that uh... that's a definite possibility uh... i
	interviewed some of the u n officials in charge of population because of course
	it's both take this into the next hundred years
	and the thinking there is that the world population is going to level off at
	about uh... double what it is now at about eleven billion Now, that's not too comforting for some people.
	No, it's not.
	But the reason why it's going to level off is that if people get more prosperous, they have fewer kids.
	I mean, people have kids because they're poor, they want insurance policy when they're old, and most kids die in infancy in poor countries.
	So you have lots and lots of kids, of which only a small portion will survive, and they'll support you in old age.
	Well, when you become middle class, you want to have radio, television.
	You want to listen to Art Bell.
	You want to have all the luxuries.
	You don't want to have to be straddled with ten kids.
	You want to have two kids.
	So as nations become developed, that's when they automatically limit their population.
	That's happened to every country so far.
	All of Europe, Japan has already seen it.
	The population is going backwards, in fact.
	China is now seeing it as peasants become more middle class.
	And so the population will probably rise and double and then seal off at around 11 billion or so, okay?
	And of course that's going to put a tremendous strain on resources.
	We have to have genetic engineering to give us better crops and so on and so forth, and we're going to have to be very careful because, you know, pesticides could get out of control.
	So, it is going to be a strain on the world, and by then we'll hopefully have computers that we can communicate with and hopefully have a shut-off mechanism so that they don't get out of control and carry out commands that are not good for us.
	As in fewer people now.
	As in fewer people now, right.
	Now, I mention this, by the way, because the obvious question is, if this book that I've written projects us to a hundred years, And if there's intelligent life in outer space, they could be a thousand years ahead of us, right?
	Then, if we were to make contact at some point with alien life in outer space that are, let's say, a thousand years ahead of us, we can begin to see the outlines of what this civilization looks like.
	You know, we're not so primitive anymore on the Earth.
	You know, we do have supercomputers.
	You know, we've tinkered with DNA a bit now.
	We have inklings of what molecules are all about.
	We can begin to see sort of what an encounter with an alien civilization would be like.
	For example, if a spaceship from outer space were to land with computer technology many, many centuries from now, we would expect it to be along this track.
	That is, its shell would be intelligent.
	The spaceship is not going to be inert.
	It's not going to be just a bunch of bolts.
	It's going to be a living object that you can talk to, and it'll talk back to you.
	And that there will be objects that have artificial intelligence, and for the most part, flying saucers and whatever will probably be robotic.
	It's a waste of resources to send humans or aliens on these robotic missions when you can send robots.
	Alright, let us talk for a second about the possibility of contact.
	People like yourself, Professor Kaku and others, would be of course in the forefront of that kind of contact.
	If this ship, I guarantee you, Professor, came down in the wrong place, and there are plenty of wrong places, whatever walked down the little ramp would be so full of lead that it would never make it to the bottom of the ramp, because there are still so many in our society who would consider these to be devils, manifestations of the devil and evil and all the rest of it, and they'd fill them full of lead, I guarantee it, Doctor.
	Well, of course, these civilizations in space, if they are advanced enough, probably know that that's going to happen.
	If we were to journey into some uncharted area, we may find spears hurled at us, right?
	By people who think of us as emissaries of the devil.
	That's right.
	So, physicists have looked at the question of how do you explore outer space if you are an advanced civilization, right?
	And the verdict is, from every physicist that I've interviewed on this question, the verdict is because there's so many planets out there, and because some of them are potentially dangerous, right, as you point out.
	Sure.
	The way to do it is to send what are called von Neumann probes.
	Now, let me go into this.
	Von Neumann was one of the great mathematicians of the 20th century.
	He gave us game theory, for example, that allows us to analyze chess and checkers and even business, business dealings on Wall Street, for example.
	So he's responsible for Kasparov nearly going off in tears.
	That's right.
	It was Von Neumann who helped to set that into motion.
	And he also proved that computers, or what we call Turing machines, that's a scientific term for digital computers, Turing machines can reproduce themselves.
	Now, this is quite an achievement.
	It's one of his great scientific proofs in mathematics.
	Using pure mathematics, he was able to prove that digital computers, you can program them to build copies of themselves.
	Ah, yes.
	Now, this is amazing, because if Turing machines are self-replicating, and you create one such machine on a distant factory located on a moon someplace, Then, according to this great mathematician, you can create unlimited copies of these things.
	All right.
	Hold it right there, and that's what we will pick up on when we get back.
	My guest is Professor Michio Kaku from New York University, and he will be back shortly.
	We're talking about the future.
	And frankly, in a lot of cases, folks, not the far distant future, but a future that may occur within your lifetimes.
	I'm Art Bell, and this is Coast to Coast AM.
	You're listening to Art Bell, Somewhere in Time.
	Tonight featuring a replay of Coast to Coast AM from September 24th, 1997.
	I can't survive.
	1997.
	I'm going to play a little bit of this song.
	You're listening to Artful.
	somewhere in time. The night featuring a replay of Costa Costean from September 24, 1997.
	My guest is an amazing man, Dr. Michio Kaku. He is an authority on relativity theory and quantum physics.
	He is a professor of theoretical physics at the City University of New York.
	He is also the author of the widely acclaimed bestseller, Hyperspace, which both the New York Times and Washington Post selected as one of the top science books of the entire year.
	He's also the author of Beyond Einstein and Quantum Field Theory, a Modern Introduction.
	And he's got a new book called Visions, which looks at the next hundred years, and you can get Visions in nearly any bookstore across the country.
	Dr. Konku graduated summa cum laude from Harvard in 1968, received his Ph.D.
	from Berkeley, has been a professor at CCNY for the past twenty Five years.
	Co-founder of Stringfield Theory, author of nine books and over 70 scientific articles, Dr. Kaku is currently working on completing Einstein's dream of a theory of everything.
	A single theory which describes everything from protons, neutrons, to DNA.
	And we're going to ask him in a moment about the theory of everything.
	Sound of thunder Now we take you back to the night of September 24th, 1997
	on Arkbell Somewhere in Time.
	Music For the most part of human history, we could only watch, like bystanders, the beautiful dance of nature.
	But today, we are on the cusp Of an epic-making transition from being passive observers of nature to being active choreographers of nature.
	Michio Kaku, Ph.D.
	And my guest, Doctor, welcome back.
	Glad to be on.
	Well, the Neumann probe, so if we were to initiate contact or try to make contact, we did send out, you'll recall, a little spacecraft with all kinds of information about our civilization.
	In that spacecraft, tell them, too doggone much?
	I think so.
	I think we should not advertise our existence until we know what's really out there, because after all, look what happened to Montezuma.
	When Montezuma met Cortez, the great Aztec Empire, 5,000 years of civilization, was dissolved within a matter of months, right?
	So one could make a mistake.
	That's right.
	But let me, first of all, just set the framework like before.
	Let me give you the categorizations of what civilizations we're talking about.
	The great Russian astrophysicist Nikolai Kardashev ranks civilizations into three basic types, and then we can talk about encounters with the various types.
	All right.
	A Type I civilization is a planetary civilization.
	It gets energy from the entire planet.
	It can, for example, control the weather, so we wouldn't have an El Nino problem.
	It can mine the ocean.
	It gets its energy from inside the Earth.
	A total planetary energy is what a Type 1 civilization is.
	A Type 2 civilization exhausts the power of a planet.
	They have to go to a star.
	And they control and manipulate stellar energy.
	This is not just getting a sun tan at the beach via the sun.
	This is having, you know, starships, so that you just grab a chunk of the sun and put it into your gas tank and take off.
	So when Junior borrows the starship, Junior borrows a few white dwarfs and puts them in his gas tank, right?
	That's a Type II.
	A Type III civilization exhausts the power of a star.
	Even a star is not big enough for them.
	They have colonized many, many star systems, and they're galactic.
	They get their energy from galaxies.
	That's a Type III civilization.
	Now, on this scale, you can see that we are Type 0.
	We're nothing on this scale.
	We get our energy from dead plants.
	In other words, coal and oil.
	However, we can see that within about 200 years, we can see the beginning of a Type 1 civilization.
	And that's how I end my book, Visions, by the way, by saying that the great romance of science and technology, unless we really blow it, Will take us within a hundred, two hundred years to a Type One civilization.
	There is a... but one moment, please.
	And that is, I'm recalling our previous conversation, and you said, I think I asked you, what, being absolutely frankly honest, are the odds of our achieving Type One?
	One might imagine that there are many, many Type Zeros that get blown away before they get anywhere near Type 1, or maybe when they get near Type 1.
	And I asked you what are the chances we'll make it to Type 1.
	You said not very good.
	Not very good, right.
	The reason being as follows.
	Type 0 civilizations in our galaxy is probably a dime a dozen.
	There are probably thousands of Type 0 civilizations that rise from the swamp.
	The problem is, eventually they discover chemicals, and they discover element 1, element 2, element 3.
	They just go up the chart.
	It's inevitable, until they hit element 92, which is uranium.
	And with uranium comes the ability to blow themselves apart, and with a hydrocarbon chemistry and plastics, as Dustin Hoffman discovered in the movie The Graduate, with plastics, you get pollution.
	And either they can pollute themselves to death, or they can blow themselves apart by settling old racial, sectarian, nationalist, fundamentalist scores with nuclear weapons.
	So Type 0 civilizations are very cheap.
	There are probably a lot of them out there, just like us, who are then entering this danger period, this transition to Type 1, when we do have nuclear weapons, when we do have pollution.
	So the generation alive right now is perhaps the most important generation that's ever walked the surface of the earth, because they are the ones that will determine whether or not we make this great transition to Type 1 status without blowing ourselves up.
	This is an obvious question that'll probably get you in lots of trouble, but I've got to ask it.
	It's from Mark in Santa Monica, California, and he asks, Would you please, Art, tell Dr. Kaku that a theory of everything, including protons, neutrons, and DNA, already exists.
	It's called God.
	Okay, let me try that one, okay?
	Sure.
	Einstein himself believed that what he was doing was reading the mind of God, that there are mysterious laws that were given to us at the instant of creation, And that his job was to read these laws and to find out what the thinking was that went into creating the universe.
	So Einstein believed in God.
	He did not believe in the God of intervention, the God that answers prayers, the God of Isaac, Jacob, and Moses, that performs miracles.
	However, he believed in the God of harmony, the God of beauty, the God of simplicity, And he felt so deeply about this that he was chasing after the fundamental theory that would give everything and explain how God created the universe and the cosmos and the simplicity of it all.
	Now, so far, scientists have been able to get the basic laws down to the quantum theory and relativity.
	However, these two great formalisms, relativity, which gives us black holes and the Big Bang, and the quantum theory, which gives us the atomic bomb and transistors and atomic physics, They don't like each other.
	We have two polar opposites.
	The theory of the very big and the theory of the very small.
	It's as if nature had a left hand and a right hand and the two hands didn't communicate.
	Yes.
	Why would God have two hands?
	A God that has a right hand that talks about black holes and quasars and galaxies.
	And a left hand that governs atoms and molecules.
	And the two hands don't coordinate with each other.
	That was Einstein's dream.
	And today we think we have it.
	We have, we think we can read the mind of God now.
	But, to do that, you have to go into hyperspace.
	And that was a subject of my earlier book.
	We have to go to ten-dimensional hyperspace, which I think is fantastic.
	But, you know, we do have to go to higher dimensions.
	There's not enough room in the three dimensions that we're familiar with to accommodate all the forces of nature.
	Alright, well then, this should be a good follow-up.
	Dear Art, Michio Kaku is one of the world's greatest theoretical nuclear physicists.
	I have a thousand questions, but I'll limit it to two.
	The theory of parallel universes is an intense area of research in contemporary theoretical physics.
	Ask the professor, in simpler terms of course, and I don't know that I can do that, of the idea that the sum of the wave functions of these other shadow universes might be related to dark matter present, not only in our universe, but in other universes as well.
	Well, that's a pretty advanced question.
	When we were in high school, we learned that all the chemicals in the universe are made out of atoms, and there are only about a hundred different types of atoms, and we were very smug about that, right?
	You had to recite that on your high school exam.
	Well, that's wrong!
	You can go back to your high school teacher and tell them that most of the universe, 90% of it in fact, is made out of dark matter, matter which is invisible, but it has weight.
	In other words, if I were to hold dark matter in front of you, it would be invisible, you would have a handful of nothing, but if I dropped it on your foot, you'd say, ouch!
	You'd feel it!
	Now we know that our galaxy, the Hubble Space Telescope confirmed this, by the way, our own galaxy, and galaxies we see in outer space are surrounded by a halo.
	We didn't know this before, by the way.
	A halo, 90% of the mass is concentrated in this large halo surrounding galaxies, And galaxies we now know are much bigger than what you see.
	What you see is a tiny little saucer, but surrounding it is something ten times bigger, which is the dark matter.
	And the Hubble Space Telescope has now actually seen deflections of sunlight and starlight through this sphere surrounding the galaxy.
	That's called dark matter.
	Right, okay.
	Now, so we know that the universe is full of dark matter, and that may eventually determine whether our universe dies in a big crunch, A fiery big crunch, or the big chill?
	That is, we all freeze to death billions of years from now.
	You know, the poets have always asked, will the universe end in fire or ice?
	Well, we physicists don't know.
	If it ends in fire, that's called the big crunch, when all the stars collapse.
	It's called the big chill if the universe expands and expands forever, and the stars blink out, and it gets very cold out there.
	But dark matter may solve the mystery.
	If there's enough dark matter, we will have a big crunch.
	If there's not much dark matter, we will have the big chill.
	So what happens to the universe may in turn be determined by dark matter.
	Now about parallel universes, that takes us into another realm.
	Our universe is apparently a bubble.
	In the same way that Columbus showed that the Earth was round,
	people thought the Earth was infinite in those days.
	Right, sure.
	Columbus showed the Earth was really a bubble.
	If you went in one direction, pretty soon you came back and met yourself, I mean, met Spain in the other direction, right?
	Sure.
	You fire a bullet, it eventually comes back and hits you in the back of your head.
	Mm-hmm.
	Einstein comes along and says, the universe is a bubble.
	You fire a flashlight in one direction, and the flashlight hits you in the back of your head.
	So the farthest star in the universe is our sun, and the farthest object in the universe is the back of your head.
	Huh.
	The light goes completely around the universe like a bubble, just like what Columbus said.
	Einstein said that light can now go around the bubble and hit you in the back of your head.
	Now the question is, are there other bubbles out there?
	Okay?
	Now, of course, historically we said no, but now a majority of cosmologists say yes.
	Alright, another bubble equating to another or a parallel universe.
	That's right.
	This is called the multiverse now.
	This is now the majority opinion within cosmology.
	You're talking about people like Alan Guth, Sir Martin Rees, Stephen Hawking has written a whole book about parallel universes.
	Indeed.
	Right.
	This is the dominant position now within cosmology that what happened before the Big Bang, before God said, let there be light, right?
	Before that instant, there were other bubbles frothing out of nothing.
	Little bubbles coming out of the vacuum like boiling water.
	Think of water boiling, right?
	With universes being created all the time, just springing out of nothing.
	So God might have said, let there be light in number 10.
	That's right.
	Or in the multiverse.
	Yes.
	The universe of universes.
	Uni means one.
	Now we're talking about a multiverse of universes, right?
	So I end my book, Visions, speculating now about the far future, now 500 years from now, when we may have enough energy to perhaps leave our bubble.
	Alright, but before we leave our bubble, let me get to question two of this factor, which is a good one, fits right in here.
	We're talking about transportation.
	Stephen Hawking once hinted at a type of communication between universes.
	If this is true, by what process did he allude to, or for this matter, what are your thoughts on interdimensional communication, prior to transportation, communication?
	Well, I think this person understands the sheer difficulty of opening up holes in space.
	In Alice in Wonderland, we had this magic looking glass that connected Oxford with Wonderland, and you walked through the frame of the looking glass to an alternate universe, right?
	Yes.
	Today, we physicists believe that you can open up holes in space the same way that Alice had this looking glass, except that it's the frame of the looking glass that's the key.
	The simplest example would be a black hole.
	In the older days, we thought that a star would die and collapse to a dot, and that's the end of that.
	You fall into that dot and you're crushed.
	That's the old picture.
	We don't believe that anymore.
	Because stars spin.
	Galaxies spin very rapidly.
	And we've now photographed 12 black holes in outer space, 12 of them, and beautiful pictures from the Hubble Space Telescope of M87, by the way.
	Gorgeous photographs.
	And they are spinning rings.
	Rings.
	We think that at the middle of this spinning disk, there is this frame of the looking glass, such that if you fall through it, you don't fall through a dot, you fall through a ring.
	It's a ring of neutrons that's rotating very rapidly.
	Centrifugal force, by the way, prevents it from collapsing, because it rotates very rapidly.
	If you were to fall through it, you'd wind up in another dimension, wind up on another part of the universe.
	Now that was Jodie Foster's machine in the movie Contact.
	You bet!
	Okay, now I know that because Carl Sagan, who was a friend of mine, asked us in his book, you know, he was stuck, you know, he was writing this science fiction novel about Contact and he had a problem.
	How do you go across millions of light years or thousands of light years without having to wait thousands of years and millions of years?
	And we told him it's very simple.
	You would have to access the power of a star and open up a wormhole.
	However, we were also very careful to tell him that the energy necessary to open up this wormhole is not to be found on the earth.
	Don't believe any inventor who says, I found a wormhole in my basement.
	The energy is beyond anything on the earth.
	But again, the question was, rather than traveling through a wormhole, what are the possibilities of On, and I'm just reaching now, some sort of communication that would, in effect, be thrust through that hole, allowing communication prior to transportation.
	Yes, before we put any humans through one of these things, right, we're going to have to test it.
	Mainly test it first by sending subatomic particles through.
	You know, very, very simple radiation through such an instability, and to see what happens at the other end.
	Because, of course, these things could be unstable.
	That's one of the sources of controversy among scientists right now.
	How long will this hole stay open?
	Some physicists have claimed that when you walk through this hole, it'll collapse on you.
	And of course, that's horrible.
	If you send, you know, a test pilot through this wormhole and it collapsed on them, they can't come back.
	Right.
	So, the recommendation has always been, send subatomic particles first.
	That's almost for free.
	That's very easy to do.
	Okay?
	And to see whether or not the wormhole stays open when you send things like that.
	Then later you can send instruments and see whether you can come back.
	How far away is M80?
	Well, M87 is the galaxy that we have photographed and it's very far away.
	It's about 30, 40, 50 million light years away.
	So traveling like a flashlight would take you about 50 million years to get there.
	But we think that black holes could be quite close to us.
	The center of our own galaxy, by the way, which is only about 30,000 light years away.
	The center of our galaxy is probably a black hole.
	We have one right in our backyard.
	So we're beginning to realize that black holes could be quite common in the universe.
	And that's one way to do it.
	Another way to do it, which was proposed recently by the physicists at Caltech, is to use something called exotic matter, which would have anti-gravity.
	It falls up rather than falling down.
	I'll be very frank.
	I've never seen anything fall up.
	I've only seen things fall down ever since I was a child, right?
	Right.
	But in principle, if you could find exotic matters somewhere deep in the earth, for example, you could build a stargate with it.
	The mathematics is quite straightforward on this, and you could perhaps build a stargate out of exotic matter.
	All right.
	We'll get back to that in a second.
	With regard to black holes, Um, which you say are rings, rotating rings, which makes sense and sure sounds like contact.
	If you were to go through a black hole, would you be engaging in a sort of a dimensional crap shoot?
	In other words, there would be no predetermined way of knowing where you'd end up, would there?
	There is.
	If you solve the equations very carefully for Einstein's theory, you can actually show where you wind up on the other end.
	So it's not totally, you know, holding your nose and closing your eyes and jumping it and saying, Geronimo, right?
	Yes.
	It's not quite like that.
	However, you have to know everything about the black hole.
	You have to know how it's formed.
	You have to know its weight.
	You have to know how fast it's spinning.
	And that you may not know.
	You may not know these things, right?
	In which case, it is a crapshoot.
	don't know what's on the other end of this thing however in that famous episode of star trek in uh... the
	city on the edge of forever
	yes uh... captain kirk leaped into the wormhole and found uh... you know uh...
	world before world war two and he met joan collins on the other end of the wormhole
	so in some sense we do know what's on the other end of at least one wormhole
	and that is joan collins in the series star trek
	Well, is it not possible, though, that the properties in some other dimension would be so dissimilar that we virtually could not exist in that continuum?
	Yes and no.
	If the wormhole connects our universe with itself, like a handle, you know, think of a donut, right, where you wind up, you know, you go back into the universe, back to itself again.
	So, you would simply go from point A to point B in the same universe and laws of physics are the same.
	I understand.
	All right.
	Stay right where you are.
	Hold on.
	We're at the bottom of the hour.
	We have to break here.
	The clock says we have to break.
	Sorry.
	Dr. Michio Kaku is my guest.
	I'm Art Bell from the high desert.
	This is Coast to Coast AM with a hurricane approaching.
	You're listening to Art Bell's Somewhere in Time on Premier Radio Networks.
	Tonight, an encore presentation of Coast to Coast AM from September 24th, 1997.
	This is a presentation of the Coast to Coast AM concert band.
	Right back where it started.
	started wrong. Love is good, love can be strong. We gotta get right back to where we started wrong.
	Oh, oh, oh.
	You remember that day, sure do you remember that day, when you first came my way. I said no one could take your place.
	Premier Radio Networks presents Art Bell's Somewhere in Time. Tonight's program originally aired September 24th,
	1997.
	And my guest is one of our nation's premier theoretical physicists, Dr. Michio Kaku.
	We'll get back to him in a moment.
	Now we take you back to the night of September 24th, 1997 on Ark Bell, Somewhere in Time.
	Ark Bell, Somewhere in Time.
	Alright, we were discussing what might occur if you were to pop out of a black hole into another dimension where everything is virtually different, where all the laws of physics are virtually different.
	That wouldn't be such a good idea, would it, Doctor?
	No, that wouldn't be a good idea, because the atoms of your body may not be stable, in which case the atoms will fall apart.
	Now, within our universe, the universe of our bubble that we see around us, the laws of physics are pretty much the same.
	We don't see any big difference going from one part of the universe to another with our telescopes.
	However, if you go between bubbles now, it is possible to open up a wormhole to go between bubbles, which is still quite controversial.
	Then, of course, the laws of physics could change dramatically.
	You go to what is called a false vacuum.
	A new vacuum state emerges.
	In which case, atoms will dissolve and reform.
	And quarks, for example, may not be stable.
	In which case, new forms of matter could exist.
	So that, of course, is a real wild card.
	Not just going into a black hole and winding up in some part of the universe where you don't know where.
	Winding up in a universe where your atoms may not be stable and may reconfigure into a new thing, or for that matter, new laws of science opening up, in which case you've got to be very careful.
	Now, I'm also careful in all my books to state that the civilization that could do this kind of fantastic maneuvering between dimensions would probably be like a Type II or a Type III civilization.
	Even a Type I civilization would be quite hard-pressed to manipulate stars and to combine them and to reform them, to open up these wormholes.
	But for a Type II civilization that already has mastered the power of a star, this would be child's play with them.
	Alright, well then, a good question is, if there are Type II and Type III civilizations, why have they not yet visited us?
	Well, quite a few physicists believe that they already have.
	And they have probably visited our moon.
	Now, let me explain.
	Alright.
	If you are a type 2 or type 3, looking at all the stars and billions and billions of possible worlds to look at, you would send robots to these things, and you would use nanotechnology to build things perhaps no bigger than the palm of your hand.
	Sure.
	Land on a moon, because a moon has low escape velocity.
	It's very easy to leave and enter.
	And plus, it doesn't rain on the moon, so that you're not going to have rust, you're not going to have degradation and erosion.
	So you land on a moon that then monitors that whole solar system, you see.
	And then, of course, this little robot then makes copies of itself.
	It makes a little factory, and it makes copies of itself, and then they fly off to other moons and other solar systems.
	That's the most efficient way to look for a new planet, because most planets are probably dead.
	Most planets are probably too far from the sun, too close to the sun, where there's no liquid water.
	You only want to have solar systems that have liquid water on them, because liquid water is a universal solvent that dissolves hydrocarbons that make DNA possible.
	So you've got self-replicating probes, in effect.
	That's right.
	Landing on the moon.
	Now, there is some debate among scientists.
	I've interviewed quite a few physicists that believe that on our own moon, There may be such a self-replicating probe.
	2001, here we are again.
	I've just been sitting there for thousands of years, monitoring our solar system, and there would be an alarm clock on this device, which signals the transition between Type 0 to Type 1.
	The Type 0 civilization is not that interesting.
	They're like barbarians, like we are, right?
	Not much energy to speak of.
	But a Type 1 is quite interesting.
	A Type 1 civilization is planetary, quite mature, has planetary energy, and could have space probes go around the solar system.
	So, that's the trigger.
	This alarm clock on the moon would trigger when the natives are smart enough to reach the moon.
	You see?
	And that, of course, is what happens in the movie 2001 when they touch the monolith.
	The monolith is, in fact, this von Neumann probe.
	So, that's the most efficient way to explore the system, with robotic, self-replicating probes that land on the moon, and when the natives are smart enough to reach the moon and make contact with the probe, the probe sends a signal to the mother planet saying the natives have now made the transition from Type 0 to Type 1, so let's talk to these people.
	These people are now very interesting.
	We can learn from them and have a dialogue with them, you see?
	And so that's why there's some debate.
	I've interviewed several physicists that believe that when we colonize the Moon, we may pick up remnants of previous visitations.
	And again, it's the simplest thing to do because it's easy to land, easy to leave.
	The Earth has higher gravity, it'd be harder to leave the Earth, plus there's erosion.
	You leave a probe on the Earth, it rusts after a while, right?
	And over a million years, even the crust of the Earth begins to change.
	But the Moon is quite stable, you know?
	And that's why lunar probes are probably the way in which these Type II civilizations actually probe most of the galaxy.
	How would we, as a matter of interest, discern the difference between a probe found on the moon and an artifact that might have been left over in some way from whatever the moon once was?
	Well, this device would be based on nanotechnology, right?
	Because we're talking about a very lightweight probe and millions of them just being scattered throughout the heavens to search for liquid water in different solar systems.
	So if we stumbled across one of these things, they may not be very big.
	They may be as big as your hand on one hand, or maybe as big as the monolith in the movie 2001, right?
	But you would see regularity in patterns.
	You see that there's tremendous complexity in this machine, that even at the molecular level, there's circuits at the molecular level in this device, a very complicated device that scans the entire solar system.
	Now, our satellites today are gradually attaining that capability.
	We are scanning the Earth with our satellites.
	We're getting very good at it.
	Satellites are getting very small.
	But you can imagine that in a few hundred years from now, we'll be able to scan solar systems with devices that are no bigger than a basketball.
	And that's what we think may be on our moon.
	Again, this is speculation.
	No one can prove it.
	All right, here's somebody with a criticism for you.
	Yeah.
	Quote, I find, it's from Tim in Orlando, I find the good doctor's scientific egocentrism rather appalling.
	How can we make such predictions about other possible civilizations?
	It assumes that all life is based on carbon and evolves the same way as man.
	Is it not more likely that life is very much more diverse and evolves very much unlike humans have evolved on Earth?
	Yes, I think he raises a valid point.
	But you see, I'm talking about energy.
	Now forget carbon for the moment.
	Energy has to come from someplace.
	It comes from a planet, it comes from a star, it comes from a galaxy.
	There's no other choice.
	That's all there is.
	So even if you forget carbon, you're talking about type 1, Type 2 and type 3, because that's the only energy source available.
	No matter what it would be based on.
	That's right.
	Now, carbon is special because it has four bonds.
	And because it has four bonds, like tinker toys you played with when you were a child, you can make all sorts of erector sets and carnival-like devices and boats and cars with it.
	Because it has four bonds.
	Silicon has four bonds.
	So it's conceivable that other chemicals based on four bonds can also create elaborate molecules.
	But to create self-replicating molecules like DNA does require something like carbon or something like silicon.
	So I'm not going to say they're going to look like us.
	That would be, of course, egocentric, anthropomorphic.
	They may not look anything like us.
	But the point is that they're eventually going to come up with energy requirements.
	They have to have energy for their engines.
	That means planetary energy, stellar energy, or galactic energy, which is type 1, type 2, and type 3.
	There's no other choice.
	All right.
	Let's go back to exotic matter, which you mentioned.
	Here's Bob up in the state of Washington who says, Hey Art, relating to exotic matter, please ask Dr. Kaku about the cloud of antimatter just found in our own galaxy.
	What does that do to his string theory?
	Okay, as we know from astronomical observations, there's a beautiful fountain of antimatter that is streaming slightly off-center from the center of our galaxy.
	Now, we think that this could be caused by a black hole.
	A black hole has whipped particles, like a slingshot effect again, at tremendous velocities, and that'll in turn cause collisions.
	Now, these collisions could have antimatter, but that's just a theory.
	So we now know that antimatter is not so rare in the universe.
	But you see, the string theory very easily accommodates this, because they're anti-strings.
	You know, strings can vibrate, and if you just change the frequency... Can you give everybody a basic 101 on string theory?
	Okay, very simple.
	2,000 years ago, the Greeks looked at violin strings, and they were marveling at that with mathematics.
	They could look at harmonies.
	They were the first ones to figure out octaves, What A, B, C correspond to in terms of frequencies, right?
	Well, the Greeks wanted to explain the universe this way.
	They thought that it was so beautiful, these strings, that the universe could be explained as vibrating strings.
	Yes.
	They never got anywhere, because they didn't understand light, they didn't understand gravity, they didn't understand the nuclear force.
	Well, today we think that these little strings vibrating in hyperspace, ten-dimensional hyperspace, can explain everything, because one frequency corresponds to an electron.
	Another frequency corresponds to a quark.
	And of course, how many frequencies are there?
	An infinite number of them, right?
	And that explains the infinite number of particles that we see in the universe.
	We have so many damn particles, right?
	Protons, neutrons, quarks, time mesons, and Oppenheimer, the great scientist, once said that we should give the Nobel Prize to the physicist who does not discover a new particle that year.
	Well, now we have a simple explanation of why there are so many damn particles.
	They're nothing but notes on a super string, a very tiny string.
	And it's a marvelous idea.
	People are kicking themselves saying, why didn't I think of that?
	But there's a price you pay, and the price you pay is that it only vibrates in hyperspace.
	It cannot vibrate in four dimensions.
	It only vibrates in ten-dimensional hyperspace.
	Let me quickly interrupt you here and pass on a message.
	light and gravity and the nuclear force. The forces now are accommodated because we have
	more dimensions. And when these higher dimensions vibrate, you get forces.
	All right. Let me quickly interrupt you here and pass on a message. Last night my guest
	was Boris Zaid. Boris Zaid wanted to pass on greetings to you, said he knows you.
	That's right, I know Boris.
	And Boris has been doing a lot of work with the pyramids.
	That's right.
	And with acoustics in the pyramids.
	And it would seem that the vibrational level, or frequency, in the pyramids is very close to that of our Earth.
	In the low Hertz areas, 7, 8, 9 Hertz, somewhere in there.
	Does that fit in with what you're discussing right now in any way?
	It does, in the sense that these strings, when they vibrate, create matter, and matter itself vibrates.
	So, all vibrations can ultimately be reduced down to the vibrations of these superstrings.
	So, all the harmonies, all the symphony that we see around us, called the universe, right, is much simpler than we were ever led to believe, including the harmonies of the Earth, the harmonies we see in space, They can all be reduced to elemental harmonies, going back to the Greeks.
	The Pythagoreans, they were called.
	And the Pythagoreans were onto something.
	And that is that the vibrations of these tiny strings can, in fact, explain quarks.
	In fact, Murray Gell-Mann is the founder of the quark model.
	He's the man who coined the word quark.
	And I talked to him.
	He's a friend of mine.
	And I said, Murray, do you think that the quark model is the ultimate theory of everything?
	And he said, well, of course not.
	We all know that quarks are an approximation and they're very good, but ultimately, it's strings.
	Ultimately, it's strings vibrating in hyperspace.
	So, many Nobel laureates have already said that this is the simplest explanation for why we have matter.
	Matter which vibrates.
	Matter which resonates.
	And that's why we have this symphony called the universe.
	It's possible, and I know I'm reaching, that a type of time travel or a type of travel might be achieved, and I'm reaching now toward the original reason for the pyramids.
	Boris Said and many others believe the pyramids are not burial places at all, but rather specific resonators at very important points on the earth with a purpose that we have not yet discerned.
	Okay, let me say this.
	The pyramids have fascinated physicists.
	Walter Alvarez, winner of the Nobel Prize, even brought a particle detector into the main pyramid of Giza, and detected cosmic rays, because if there are hidden chambers, if there are hidden chambers in a certain direction, there are going to be more cosmic rays, because of course it's air, not solid limestone, right?
	And so by looking at the fact that cosmic rays came in at different angles at different intensities, He could figure out where all the hidden chambers were, okay?
	And by putting several of these spark chambers, he was able to triangulate all the hidden chambers of the pyramids.
	Unfortunately, he did not find any new ones.
	He wanted to find a new chamber that would maybe be called the Alvarez Chamber, right?
	Yes.
	But unfortunately, he just found the known chambers this way, okay?
	Now, about time travel, okay?
	We physicists historically would laugh at the idea of time travel.
	That's right.
	But I'll be very frank, Einstein's equations allow for time travel.
	Now, if you don't believe me, read Einstein's memoirs.
	He states flatly in his memoirs, I am disturbed, he said, that there are solutions found by Gödel, Kurt Gödel, the greatest mathematical logician in the last 1,000 years.
	Kurt Gödel found the first time travel solution of Einstein's equations, so it bothered him.
	But he died thinking that they weren't practical, you couldn't do anything with them, so why bother?
	Since then, we've found hundreds of other solutions which allow for time travel.
	And again, we're talking about a Type II civilization.
	No one's talking about an adventurer announcing a time machine tomorrow in his basement.
	We're talking about maybe our descendants, many, many generations from now, wanting to visit old grandpa, many times removed, Ardell, to find out what it was like to live in the end of the 20th century, right?
	Or maybe aliens in outer space, specifically type 2 and type 3, with the capability of opening up holes in space and time.
	So this is no longer conjectural.
	Well, it is conjectural, but we now have blueprints.
	We now have equations.
	We now have proposals.
	What we don't have is power.
	That's right.
	The fundamental problem is gasoline.
	It takes energy to power the machine.
	So even if you build a time machine, there's a problem.
	You have to have an engine.
	You have to have gasoline for it.
	And the gasoline, like I said before, is either going to be a star or it's going to be this new form of matter.
	It's called exotic matter, negative matter.
	It goes by different names.
	But basically it's matter which falls up rather than down.
	It's antimatter.
	And so far I've never seen any.
	But these are the engines, the gasoline that would power the engine of such a time machine.
	Yes, but not very long ago, just years ago, we started with a spark transmitter, then we used vacuum tubes, which required immense amounts of energy to achieve what we can now achieve with, you know, 100 or 200 milliamps with solid-state devices.
	So, could there not be a quantum leap that would allow what you're thinking would require a great amount of energy with a much smaller amount of energy?
	That's right.
	There's some speculation about this.
	You know, we physicists wanted to build the Super Collider outside Dallas, Texas.
	I recall.
	And Ronald Reagan really pushed hard for it, but it was cancelled.
	Yes.
	A beautiful $11 billion machine was cancelled outside Dallas, Texas.
	What could we have done with it?
	Well, we would have been able to open up a window to creation.
	We would have been able to open up the conditions of the Big Bang, you know, and this is the closest we would have come to creation that we can do on the planet Earth.
	Now, that machine still cannot access this other dimension.
	That would require 10 to the 19 billion electron volts.
	That's one with 19 zeros after it, by the way, if you want to write it out.
	No, thank you.
	That's a lot of energy, right?
	Now, on the other hand, there have been proposals to build new kinds of accelerators based on laser beams and plasmas.
	I've looked at the designs, I went through the equations, and I'm not convinced.
	But there are some people who claim that maybe high-powered lasers can take us near these fabulous kinds of energies, right?
	My attitude is that, hey, you know, in outer space, it's probably there, you know, type 2 civilizations and type 3 civilizations, Use this all the time, probably.
	They have this kind of energy.
	For us, it's inconceivable.
	Let me give you another example.
	Isaac Newton, hundreds of years ago, was the first man who could calculate what it would take to jump to the moon.
	Believe it or not, cows cannot jump to the moon, but if you travel 25,000 miles per hour, you can go to the moon.
	Newton was the first human who could calculate that number.
	But what did he have in merry old England of 1640?
	Horses.
	Carriages.
	Right?
	Well, that's what I feel like.
	I can calculate the energy necessary to open up a hole in space and perhaps access the 10th dimension.
	But what do we have today?
	Horses, called hydrogen bombs.
	Horses, called Saturn rockets.
	That's all we have, is horses.
	So we physicists can dream, but hey, you know, we live on the Earth, there are limited resources on the Earth, our machine was cancelled, so we're going to be, unfortunately, theorizing about these things rather than building any machines for many a year.
	All right, some time ago you said they didn't understand gravity.
	I'm not sure I understand gravity, the implication being we now understand gravity.
	What is, Professor, what is gravity?
	Very simply, if I take a sheet of paper and crumple it up, right, and put an ant on it, Yes.
	The ant would walk on the sheet of paper saying there's a force tugging on me.
	Every time I go over a fold, I get tugged to the left, I get tugged to the right.
	There's this force.
	I can't walk in a straight line.
	I walk like a drunk, right?
	Now, we laugh at the ant.
	There's no force at all.
	It's space that's curved.
	It's space that's stretched, wrinkled, We laugh at the ant, because the ant only has two-dimensional eyes.
	Eyes that can only see on a sheet of paper.
	All right, I'll tell you what.
	We're entering an area that I really want to talk about, and we're at the top of the hour, and we're going to start to take calls, but I want to finish this up with you, so hang tight.
	Good long break here, and we'll be right back to you, Doctor.
	Dr. Michio Kaku, Professor Kaku, is my guest.
	He is a theoretical physicist.
	And we've been all over the place, but oh my, what a ride, huh?
	So when we come back, we'll talk a bit about gravity, and then I'll get the phone lines open and let you all ask questions.
	And by now, you should have quite a few.
	From the high desert, threatened, now, with a hurricane, a hurricane!
	This is Coast to Coast AM.
	You're listening to ArcBell, somewhere in time.
	tonight featuring a replay of coast to coast am from september 24th 1997.org
	oh yes
	Premier Radio Networks presents Art Bell, Somewhere in Time.
	Tonight's program originally aired September 24th, 1997.
	Here I am once again.
	Again, those of you in the American Southwest where I am, I know, it's weird, but it's happening.
	Hurricane Nora, winds 85 miles an hour, gusting higher, headed north now at 17 miles per hour, and expected probably midway up the Baja Peninsula, expected to come slamming into Arizona, parts of California, and Nevada, and Utah.
	Just what we needed, huh folks?
	uh... hurricane you're listening to work bills somewhere in time on premier
	radio networks Tonight, an encore presentation of Coast to Coast AM from
	September 24th, 1997.
	Alright, here once again is Dr. Kaku from New York.
	Doctor, we were talking about an ant crawling around a crumpled piece of paper, discerning that he's having a hard time.
	Right.
	When people think of Einstein, they kind of blink out and say, wow, I'll never be able to understand that.
	But it's actually quite simple what he was trying to get across.
	Now, if you're an ant, think of yourself as an ant.
	You have two-dimensional eyes.
	You can only see in a plane.
	And if you're walking on a crumpled sheet of paper, you're tugged to the left and you're tugged to the right, and you cannot walk in a straight line.
	Well, the ant would say, there's a force.
	There's a mysterious thing called force, which is yanking me to the left and yanking me to the right.
	But we, with three-dimensional eyes, looking down on the ant, you know, we laugh.
	And we say, well, look, there's no force at all.
	It's just the curving of the paper.
	That's all it is.
	Yes.
	So what Einstein said is that it's the curving of space that causes objects to move.
	Now, you see, objects move when they're touched.
	When you touch something, it moves, right?
	Everybody knows that objects move when you touch it.
	Right.
	But gravity is different.
	You know, things move without being touched.
	And Newton himself realized that that was a defect in his theory.
	The Earth moves without being touched, and balls drop to the floor without being touched.
	But here comes Einstein saying, no, there is something touching the Earth.
	There is something touching the ball.
	And that is space itself.
	It's invisible, that's why you can't see it.
	But it's space itself that's curved, that's causing the object to fall to the ground.
	You see?
	You're implying that gravity is a push?
	Caused by the bending of space.
	Not a pull, as we conventionally thought.
	That's right, it's a push.
	Objects move when they're pushed, and it's actually the bending of space which is pushing the object, and that's why if an ant tries to walk on a crumpled sheet of paper, it's impossible, right?
	And that's because it's being jostled by space itself, that is, the sheet of paper.
	Now, we can't see it, because our eyeballs, okay, our eyeballs are also three-dimensional, and it's three dimensions that's being curved.
	If you had four-dimensional eyes, You could then see very clearly that its space is being curved.
	But unfortunately, we don't have four-dimensional eyes, and we can't see it.
	So, for the most part, it's invisible.
	All right.
	From London, Ontario, Canada, this question.
	What about the speed of light?
	With a ten-dimensional multi-universe, is then our speed of light just a maximum Well, I know what he's getting at.
	I know he would like to say that we can go faster than the speed of light in other dimensions.
	Yes.
	But at least in the string theory, at least in this theory, which is the leading and, in fact, only theory to explain all of Einstein's theory, light travels at the speed of light in all dimensions.
	So, you cannot whiz your way through faster than the speed of light in higher dimensions.
	What you can do is take a shortcut through higher dimensions.
	Take the same sheet of paper and fold it in half.
	Then, of course, you can leap across the fold, you see?
	That way, you actually apparently went faster than the speed of light without violating any principles.
	You didn't really, though.
	You didn't really, that's right.
	You punched a hole in the sheet of paper and hopped across, rather than taking the long way, which is to go across the sheet of paper tediously.
	And that's how space works.
	People will constantly call me up and taunt me with this, and then we'll go to phones.
	They will say, if you're traveling very near the speed of light, or just about right up at the speed of light, and you're in, effectively, a car or a spaceship, and flip on your headlights, what happens?
	OK, the headlight in front of you also travels at the speed of light.
	OK?
	Now, of course, you may say to yourself, well, that's impossible, because I'm going near the speed of light myself.
	I should see this thing going very slow.
	The problem is, your brain also slows down.
	And because your brain slows down, okay, light then travels at the speed of light no matter where you're from.
	Because whenever you try to catch up to a speed of light, catch up to a light beam, your brain slows down.
	So it always seems to move away from you at the speed of light.
	And that was the key observation, by the way, that Einstein made.
	Up to that point, people didn't want to play with space, I mean, time.
	They thought that time was beat uniformly throughout the universe.
	You know, a second on the moon is a second on the Earth is a second on Mars.
	Einstein disproved that.
	And we can actually measure it, by the way.
	A clock on the moon beats faster than a clock on the Earth.
	And a clock in space beats a little bit faster than a clock on the Earth, depending on its velocity.
	We've measured these things now.
	So it's no longer speculation.
	We do know that time does slow down.
	That explains the paradox of how light can go at the same speed no matter what speed you are moving.
	Suppose I'm able to travel at or near, just near the speed of light for 10 or 20 years and then do the same thing and return to Earth with a total travel time of 40 years or covering nearly 40 light years.
	When I get back to Earth, what will have occurred?
	Well, the Earth may have aged millions of years, depending upon how long you were in flight.
	Your clock on your spaceship may only average a very brief amount of time.
	Let's say you want to go to the nearest star that's four light years away.
	Yes.
	And you travel near the speed of light.
	Yes.
	Again, your brain slows down, your clock slows down.
	And for you, it may be one second.
	It may take one second to go to the nearest star.
	But on the Earth, we clock it at four years.
	So a return trip would be eight years.
	But for the guy in the rocket ship, it may only be two seconds.
	And so if we had a telescope and looked at him, we would see him frozen.
	He would be frozen for four years.
	And when he comes back, he's frozen for another four years.
	And when he lands, he speeds up, and we say, well, what happened during those eight years?
	And he says, what eight years?
	It was just two seconds to me.
	I just walked in the spaceship and walked out again.
	All right.
	I can't resist asking you this.
	I have seen one extremely close-up UFO.
	Alright?
	This was an object that came up from behind our automobile close to where I live here in Pahrump, Nevada.
	It was a precise triangle.
	It was just like in the movies, or very close.
	The moon went away, which was nearly full.
	The stars went away.
	I got out of my car along with my wife.
	We both looked up at it.
	It passed directly over our head.
	This object was not flying, as in aerodynamic flight.
	It made zero noise.
	I could hear a cricket at a quarter mile away, and I watched it float out across the valley.
	Now, this object was defying gravity, Doctor.
	It was not flying.
	Is it possible that we have craft, or will have craft, and I say have craft because of what I saw, that can, in effect, defy gravity?
	Okay, magnetism.
	It has been thought of as a propulsion method, which would be silent.
	Many people have seen flying saucers that zigzag, that are silent, that knock out cars, for example.
	Yes, so is.
	Now, magnetism may do it.
	However, the Earth's magnetic field is extremely weak.
	It's about half a gauss, as we call it.
	And it's very weak.
	And to ride magnetism, like you ride on a sail, would require a tremendous amount of power.
	And would require something called monopoles.
	Now, a monopole is just a North Pole.
	Everybody knows if you take a magnet and crack it in half, you get two baby magnets.
	Correct.
	You crack them, you get four baby magnets.
	Right.
	No one has ever seen a North Pole by itself.
	That's called a monopole.
	Monopole, right?
	But if you could create monopoles, then conceivably you could surf on the Earth's magnetic field.
	Silently.
	Because, of course, there's no engines, right?
	You just silently surf on the Earth's magnetic field.
	But an ordinary magnet can't do it.
	And any Boy Scout or Girl Scout knows that if you have a magnet in the Earth's magnetic field, it simply spins, right?
	It's called a compass.
	Yes.
	So if you have a big magnet with a North and a South Pole, your flying saucer is going to tip over and simply spin and point toward North.
	Well, Doctor, I saw something that did it.
	Well, in which case, Consistent with the laws of physics, okay, it's probably some kind of magnetic device using monopoles rather than anti-gravity, because so far we've never seen any form of anti-gravity.
	Exotic matter would have anti-gravity, but we've never seen exotic matter.
	Well, you are connected to some of the nation's leading researchers.
	That's right.
	Are they doing any work in this area?
	Well, at Stanford University, there was one professor who claimed to have seen a monopole, and he actually photographed it, a track.
	But it's not reproducible.
	He's the only one on Earth who has ever photographed a track of a monopole, and some people think it was dust in his machine, but he still claims that it was a real monopole.
	Many theories of the Big Bang show that the Big Bang must have created lots of monopoles.
	In fact, the leading theory of cosmology predicts lots of monopoles.
	If there are what are called relic monopoles, monopoles left over from the Big Bang, and a Type II civilization could harvest them in outer space, Then conceivably they could sail in the magnetism of the galaxy and the magnetism of the Earth, which is quite small.
	But if you have powerful enough monopoles, you'd be able to sail silently without an exhaust.
	You would not use Newton's third law of motion, which of course requires big engines and booster rockets.
	You would coast using the laws of Faraday, instead of the laws of Newton.
	And of course, you know, in the labs of today, we have not seen monopoles other than one registered at Stanford University.
	How much work, black work, is going on with your colleagues, without getting specific, because I suppose even if you knew, you couldn't talk.
	My question is really, how much Really, black work is being done.
	I mean, this is constantly going on, with respect to our government, and they take people like yourself, and they can get their hands on them, and generally give them nice little places to live and work, and labs, and all they need and want, and aim them at a project.
	Right, yeah.
	More black work takes place than you suspect.
	A lot of it takes place.
	in my field like like nuclear physics for example fifty percent of the funding
	in one way or another comes from from the military
	and we now know in fact that uh... the military was trying to hide stealth
	fighters and stealth bombers yes uh... by claiming that uh...
	they're just natural phenomenon mirages, marsh gas, whatever, whatever
	when actually they were stealth fighter jets and stealth bombers with very
	peculiar shapes But all that's now out in the open.
	It's in the open now.
	But we know that for years this went on.
	It took, you know, decades to develop the Stealth Bomber, right?
	So my imagination says we have not stopped with these projects.
	We're now how many generations from the Stealth Bomber?
	Oh yeah.
	We have, you know, the Skunk Works of Lockheed.
	New generations of these things coming out.
	Because the Stealth Bomber technology is 20 years old.
	Yeah, indeed.
	Only now is the public seeing these things.
	And you can actually buy kits now in And hobby shops and design and build stealth bombers on your tabletop.
	Oh, you can get a tester kit of the Aurora.
	But the question is, how much further might we be, and might we already be, into the kind of areas that we just talked about?
	Well, there's always speculation, right?
	Stealth technology dominated the black box stuff, I mean the black work stuff, for 20 years.
	However, the new stuff is stuff with electronic warfare, you know?
	Laser beams that can blind an enemy.
	As a matter of fact, better than that, I believe the Defense Department just requested permission to blast a satellite out of orbit.
	That's right.
	The Miracle Laser.
	It's a $800 million laser that will blast a $30 million communication satellite right out of the sky.
	That, of course, was hush-hush for a long time.
	The fact that we have super lasers That can conceivably knock out satellites out of the sky.
	Now, of course, there's a drawback to that, because what country is most dependent on satellites?
	We are.
	Not Iraq.
	Iraq has no satellites.
	That's right.
	We are.
	We are most dependent.
	You bet.
	The danger is that we may shoot ourselves in the foot, or pick up a rock and drop it on our own feet.
	We've got to be very careful about this, because lasers are rather easy to build.
	Iraq can build lasers.
	Hey, who has satellites?
	How are we able to build a laser strong enough to overcome the limiting effects of the lower part of the atmosphere?
	I understand they were quite successful with lasers at high altitudes where the atmosphere is very thin, but now we're talking about ground-based lasers.
	That's right.
	That's quite difficult.
	90% of the energy is absorbed by the air, as you correctly point out.
	Therefore, you have to have super lasers that can afford to waste 90% heating up the air as they go through the air to knock out a satellite, which is like 200 miles above the Earth's surface, right?
	So personally, I think it's not the way to go because, you know, we are the most vulnerable to this kind of technology.
	And even countries that cannot send satellites into space, they can build lasers.
	You know, it's not that hard.
	The instructions are published in many books.
	But yeah, you're right.
	You have to have a powerful laser that can overcome the fact that 90% of the energy goes into heating up the atmosphere rather than shooting down a satellite from space.
	Now, by the way, one thing that is not going to come out of these black works is a ray gun, okay?
	You're not going to get a handheld portable ray gun coming out because of the power problem.
	You need a portable power pack to do that.
	We have lasers that are every bit as powerful as what you see in science fiction movies.
	That's no problem.
	With a nuclear power plant, you can energize a laser beam.
	But you can't carry a nuclear power plant in your pocket.
	You can't carry a nuclear power plant everywhere you go.
	And that's one reason why ray guns were eventually abandoned by the military.
	They can be used for blinding, but the blast requires a big power source.
	And a portable power pack is not feasible.
	Is it feasible, last question, we're at the bottom of the hour and I ignore the audience and we're going to go to the phones, I promise, when we come back.
	Is it feasible to collect power from the Sun in space and bring it to Earth via microwave?
	Yes, that's being looked at.
	Now we're talking maybe 50 years into the future.
	There are some drawbacks.
	You know, satellites move and therefore, you know, if you have like a magnifying glass magnifying all that solar energy to a point, that point moves We're in trouble.
	We're in trouble.
	They can knock out a city.
	There was a movie, actually a book written called Sunstroke about that.
	You've got to be careful.
	And if the satellites are very far away, so they're stationary, that's 20,000 miles away, then you can't get much of a magnification effect.
	So either they're close up, dangerous, and they move, or they're far away, stationary, and you don't get much energy coming out.
	Hopefully stationary.
	The satellite I'm using, GE-1, Um, interestingly, a couple of weeks ago, Doctor, um, suddenly lost earth lock, is what, uh, GE Americom said, and we went off the air.
	It was quite an incident.
	That's right.
	Oh, that is right, yes.
	Doctors, stay, uh, right where you are, and we'll be right back.
	This is Coast to Coast AM.
	You're listening to Art Bell, somewhere in time, on Premier Radio Networks.
	Tonight, an encore presentation of Coast to Coast AM from September 24th, 1997.
	What you doing to me? You got me burning up! Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh!
	I need to get to you, I've got to give it up! Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh! Now! Baby, I'm so excited!
	Watching every motion in my foolish love's game. On this earth's ocean, finding love is no shame.
	Trying every time to see the face in sight. Watching in slow motion as you turn around and say,
	Take my breath away! Take my breath away!
	Watching and I keep waiting, till I see the face in sight.
	listening to Art Bell somewhere in time.
	Tonight featuring a replay of Coast to Coast AM from September 24th, 1997.
	My guest is Dr. Michio Kaku, one of the nation's premier theoretical physicists.
	He'll be back in a moment.
	Art, I've got to tell you, this is from Daryl, I was in the process of making an ice cream sundae, imagine this folks, for Bobby, and put a full half gallon in the microwave to soften it up.
	At the same time, I was so absorbed in this discussion that I misset the timer and roamed around the kitchen until I realized I forgot something.
	Long and short of it is that I got inundated in a Ben and Jerry's tsunami.
	Goes to show me that even with a basic understanding of physics, thought, and consciousness, in this case unconsciousness, seems to enter into the equation now How about on a subatomic level, does not the observer influence that which he observes?
	Heh, heh, that's an interesting question.
	Now we take you back to the night of September 24th, 1997, on Arkbell Somewhere in Time.
	Thanks for watching!
	Well, all right.
	Here we go.
	Dr. Kaku, are you there?
	Yes, I'm right here.
	If we don't go to the phones, they'll lynch me.
	So, here we go.
	Wildcard Line, you're on the air with Dr. Kaku.
	Where are you calling from, please?
	Hello there.
	Am I on the line?
	You're on the line, yes.
	Okay, great.
	Well, I'm calling from San Diego.
	All right.
	And I want to just say that I think you guys are doing a fantastic job of informing the public about something really interesting.
	I invented the force isolator scroll.
	Or labyrinth, if you like, for allowing for recoil propulsion, which theoretically could even be warp drive.
	And right now NASA are looking into that with great interest.
	When you go out to do your vacation and check out all these ancient places, are you going to be looking into the possibilities of evidence of this technology being ancient?
	Well, I'm probably going to be drinking a lot of silly little drinks with umbrellas in them.
	But, Doctor, would you care to comment on what he just said?
	Okay, well, let me lay out the next 50 to 100 years with propulsion systems being worked at by NASA.
	And again, it's all in my book, Visions.
	The next generation of rocket propulsions are going to be ionic drives.
	Prototypes are now being built.
	They will probably have long-haul missions between planets done by ion engines.
	Ion engines are like the electron gun in your TV set.
	You shoot out electrons at one end, and it propels the device in the other direction.
	They're not very spectacular, but they're very steady, and they operate for years at a time, while booster rockets, of course, only work for about four minutes.
	So it's a steady build-up of propulsion.
	That's right.
	The tortoise wins over the hare.
	The hair is the booster rocket that flames out in four minutes, but once you're in space, you don't need booster rockets.
	The ion drive will give you a steady stream of energy for years at a time, and the ion engine is going to be used for long-haul missions between star systems.
	And what about the concept of a sail?
	Then we go to the next generation beyond that, which uses light.
	There are several versions being proposed.
	One is the laser sail, where you shoot a laser beam from a moon to a sail, and the sail captures the laser beam and then floats and is pushed by the pressure of light.
	That has been looked very seriously now, for perhaps the first probes to the nearby stars may use laser-inflated sails.
	My favorite is the Ramjet fusion engine.
	Which, of course, has a lot of technical problems.
	We haven't attained fusion yet.
	But once fusion is in the bag, then we may be able to use a scoop to scoop hydrogen gas in the forward direction, fuse it in this chamber, and then blast your way to the nearby stars.
	So, the ramjet fusion engine, I think, is perhaps the best bet once we start, now to talk, 50 years in the future, when we have a better handle on fusion power, which, of course, is still a pie in the sky.
	So again, the three leading contenders are ion engines, which is actually, we have them already.
	The next after that are the photon engines, based on laser beams.
	And the one that is perhaps the dark horse is the ramjet fusion propulsion device, which probably will take us to the nearby stars.
	Again, it'll take us many decades to reach.
	That would be some very serious propulsion in space.
	Right.
	And then talking further than that now, okay, is the possibility, of course, of warp drive.
	But, as I clearly point out, warp drive requires a lot of energy.
	You know, Planck energy is 10 to the 19 billion electron volts.
	And that would, of course, open up a hole in space by which you could simply hop through.
	But, unfortunately, I think that's really for Type II civilizations who have already mastered that kind of technology.
	All right.
	Not for us yet.
	East of the Rockies, you're on the air with Dr. Kakuo.
	Good morning.
	Good morning.
	It's an honor to talk with you both.
	This is Eric in Austin, Texas.
	Yes, Eric.
	First of all, I've got a comment regarding the observation quote that you read at the beginning of the segment.
	I kind of have a compliment to that in that my vibrational field is sufficient enough to affect reality before that.
	Mr. Kaku, I wanted to ask you kind of a segway to that.
	Regarding paranormal activities, ESP, ghosts, telepathy, etc., could this be energetic manifestations from higher dimensions?
	Well, I'll be very frank about this.
	A hundred years ago, when mysticism was quite popular in England, several future Nobel Prize laureates in physics looked at this question.
	And said that, if you could access the fourth dimension, you could then go through walls, you could disappear into hyperspace and come back, you could unravel knots, you could turn right-handed seashells into left-handed seashells, you could do all those tricks, you could access a higher dimension.
	Now today, of course, we realize that it takes energy, raw energy, to access the fourth and fifth and sixth dimensions.
	However, if someone could do that, then of course it would be child's play, literally child's
	play to make things disappear and reappear, unravel knots,
	turn seashells around to opposite orientation, and reach into walls, break into safes without breaking
	open the metal.
	It would be child's play.
	But of course, my personal point of view is that this is for a type 2 civilization,
	which is far beyond anything that we can conceive of today.
	So we're talking about a couple thousand years down the road, then?
	Well, maybe a thousand years down the road.
	Now, about ESP, it is possible to radio-enhance ESP.
	This has already been done, by the way, at the University of Michigan.
	Really?
	Paraplegics, right, can look at an oscilloscope screen of their own brainwaves.
	Okay, you are now looking at the oscilloscope screen of your own brainwaves, and then when you think a certain thought, it creates a certain blip.
	By training yourself, you can then modify the blips on the screen at will.
	At will.
	That kind of sounds like modified biofeedback.
	Absolutely.
	I know a man, Daniel Brinkley, my good friend, recovering well now, by the way, who can regulate his own pulse rate.
	And if you can regulate your own brainwaves, Then, of course, you can begin to type letters on a typewriter by thinking about it.
	And, again, this is not science fiction.
	It's already been done.
	I've actually seen people do this.
	And, again, people are trained by biofeedback to recognize patterns on an oscilloscope screen, like the letter A, for example, corresponds to a certain blip on the screen.
	You move your right hand and A pops up.
	That can then be used to drive a typewriter.
	And then you can actually drive cars by thinking about it.
	You can put this helmet on and communicate by radio and drive a car remote control.
	This is already being done for people who are paraplegic, who have a hard time moving their body.
	Oh, that is remarkable.
	Radio-enhanced telepathy, biofeedback to regulate telepathy.
	All right, and I suppose, thank you very much, Carl.
	That's a good question.
	I suppose that That it could be expanded.
	In other words, we're at the very threshold, the very beginning of learning what we can do with all that.
	Right.
	You know, we're children when it comes to the brain.
	You know, we haven't the foggiest clue as to how the brain works.
	And biofeedback is the crudest way in which we can manipulate thoughts and thereby make specific patterns on an oscilloscope screen dance.
	And by controlling the dance on the oscilloscope screen, we can actually send thoughts via radio across thousands of miles.
	All right, here's a beauty for you.
	Doctor, if the Big Bang Theory is correct, that all matter was infinitesimally small until the Big Bang, and that now our universe is expanding, and all matter is moving away from us due to the expansion Does that mean that we too are expanding and just can't tell it because all of our instruments that would measure it are also expanding?
	Okay.
	That's a famous paradox.
	If everything expands, if our brain expands, if the room expands, if everything expands, then you would never know it.
	Right.
	Therefore, the universe would look constant.
	Right.
	Well, it turns out if you look at the equations, it turns out that space between galaxies and space between stars expands.
	But if you take a look at the atomic theory, you know, the atoms don't expand.
	So it is the space between the galaxies that expands, not the atoms themselves.
	OK.
	All right.
	So the instruments then are not expanding.
	That's right.
	All right.
	That's comforting, actually.
	West of the Rockies, you're on the air with Professor Kaku.
	Hi.
	Hi, Eric.
	This is David in Colorado.
	Yes, sir.
	I have a question for the doctor.
	Have you seen or heard of a movie called Event Horizon?
	I've seen advertisers for the Van Horizons.
	It sounds almost identical to what you are speaking of.
	In fact, your comment about folding a piece of paper and punching a hole through it was almost the exact quote from the movie.
	Oh, is that right?
	Yeah.
	You know, many filmmakers give me telephone calls, and they want to know how to factually represent certain things in the movies, because otherwise they make real bloopers, right?
	They make some outrageous mistakes, like Star Wars has many mistakes in it, right?
	So a lot of filmmakers are actually calling me on the telephone now and asking to clarify certain obscure aspects of Einstein's theory or simple physics of outer space travel, right?
	Were you consulted at all about contact?
	No, but Carl Sagan called Kip Thorne at Caltech, and of course, he's a relativist like we are, and then he explained to Carl Sagan how you would In fact, leap across light years of space without the long way, the old-fashioned way, which is by rocket ship.
	So, for the people on the planet Vega, they would at least be Type II.
	And for them, warping space would be child's play.
	So, for them, of course, we would give them the right to then open up holes in space by which they can grab Jodie Foster and have a decent conversation with her on the planet Vega.
	First time on our line, you're on the air with Professor Kaku.
	Good morning.
	Good morning.
	Where are you, sir?
	Vancouver, B.C.
	Alright.
	I have a question.
	Actually, it's two quick questions, please.
	One is, there is a ratio between the mass and the fuel that you need to push a rocket.
	And as you approach the speed of light, you increase your mass.
	At the same time, you're increasing the the mass of the fuel that you're carrying.
	So once you approach the speed of light, your mass becomes infinite,
	but at the same time the ratio remains equal.
	So would you please explain that, would that be possible?
	And the other thing is regarding the quarks, that if we ever get the technology
	to actually manipulate quarks, can we create different types of matter
	that does not conform to the periodic table?
	Thank you very much.
	All right.
	Okay, yeah, you asked two very interesting questions.
	You're correct.
	As you approach the speed of light, you get heavy, and heavy, and heavier, until you're almost at the speed of light, you have almost infinite mass, and that's yet another reason why you cannot go faster than the speed of light, because then your mass would be bigger than that of the universe.
	Except you pointed out that the fuel would also be increasing.
	Right, but the energy you extract from the fuel does not increase like that.
	So even though you are heavier and heavier, you're not going to be able to get that extra oomph, because the energy you get from the fuel cannot carry you faster than the speed of light.
	So the extra energy simply takes you one more decimal place closer to the speed of light, but you cannot leap beyond the speed of light.
	You don't have enough energy to do it.
	All right, and on quarks?
	Yeah.
	So at the present time, we do not have enough energy to rip apart the quarks.
	We have atom smashers that have smashed atoms apart.
	But we have not been able to rip quarks away from each other so far.
	Now in stars, there should be enough energy to do that, and they're called quark stars, just like we have neutron stars.
	And we are trying to see whether or not quark stars may in fact exist, just like neutron stars were once thought to be science fiction.
	And now we see them in outer space.
	We see several hundred neutron stars, otherwise known as pulsars, blinking at us from outer space.
	So, at the present time, we cannot do this.
	We cannot rip apart quarks.
	We cannot create new states of matter.
	However, for stars, that should be commonplace.
	So, we are looking now for outer space to see whether or not new states of matter might exist.
	All right.
	Here's a far-out question for you.
	You mentioned that as you move up in the type of civilizations, you're utilizing energy in a very different way.
	That's right.
	Now, is it not possible that somebody would come zooming along Yeah, I thought about that.
	That is possible.
	refuel virtually dousing our Sun and just keep going and not even know what
	they did to us? Yeah I thought about that. That is possible.
	A type 2 civilization uses the energy outputs of entire stars. Okay, in fact the
	Dyson sphere is one proposal by which you could extract total energy from a
	star by simply putting a sphere around it.
	Thinking about it as much as we might when we step on an anthill.
	That's right.
	So what happens is that civilization has to refuel and it refuels by sucking off a tremendous amount of energy from our star and our star blinks out, right?
	That would not be very good.
	No.
	So far, we have not seen anything like that.
	So far, stars are born, stars die.
	We haven't seen any stars accelerate their death.
	However, if you have Dyson Spheres, then, of course, these stars are invisible.
	They're covered completely, and the civilization simply soaks up all the energy of the star, and you wouldn't even know it.
	So far, we have not seen that, and hopefully, I hope that our sun is not a gas station for some I have a question with regards to propulsion, magnetic, gravity, and static.
	most of its energy so it can propel itself to the next star system.
	Exactly. East of the Rockies, you're on the air with Dr.
	Kakula. Good morning.
	I have a question with regards to propulsion, magnetic, gravity, and static.
	For instance, I work in a polymer lab, and I can take a bag with, say, 30 pounds of resin and it pellets.
	Right.
	I can turn that bag upside down, and by the force of gravity, if that 30 pound bag, the pellets will fall out onto a tray.
	Right.
	But through static, maybe 15 to 20 grams will adhere to the bag while it's upside down.
	Right.
	I can then take that bag and shake it, and those bags, and those, there will be a handful of pellets that will dance inside of that bag.
	Well, people have tried to produce what are called rail guns.
	that that it claims yet but
	i can't take the bag up and down continuously and the powerful dance
	inside the bag is right with their be awake to produce propulsion from static electricity
	policy uh... well people have tried to produce what are called
	railgun the military is very much interested in this using
	electricity instead of chemicals
	You see, if you have a chemical gun, you're limited by the speed of sound.
	Shockwaves don't go much faster than the speed of sound, which is about 700 miles an hour.
	So bullets don't go much more than maybe a thousand or so miles per hour, because they're based on chemical shockwaves.
	Electricity travels at the speed of light.
	So if you could have a rail gun, a gun that looks like a rail, and send electricity along the rail, and then that electricity then drags a piece of metal along with it, Then you could conceivably launch an object that will go tens of thousands of miles per hour and into orbit.
	Stand by.
	We'll be right back to you, Doctor.
	I'm Art Bell, and this is Coast to Coast AM from the high desert where a hurricane is bound.
	you're listening to art bells somewhere in time tonight featuring a replay of
	Costa Costa and from September 24th 1997 Oh
	me Oh
	Oh Oh
	Premier radio networks presents art bells somewhere in time tonight's program originally aired September 24th
	1997 well my webmaster ever fast on the draw if you will go to the
	guest section of my website at Www.artbell.com besides being able to go and buy art Bell
	stock if you go to the world market you will now see by dr. Kaku's name a
	link And boy, you ought to see what's on his website.
	I'm sitting there now looking at nuclear power, both sides.
	To win a nuclear war, the Pentagon's secret war plans.
	Beyond Einstein, a cosmic quest for the theory of the universe.
	Introduction to super strings.
	Strings.
	Conformal fields and topology.
	Quarks and strings.
	Quantum field theory, a modern introduction.
	I could go on down the page.
	There's an awful lot here.
	So if you would like to see a link to the Good Doctor's website, it is up there right now.
	It says, uh, Michio Kaku Explorations in Science.
	Just click on that and you'll go over to his website.
	remarkable, remarkable stuff.
	Now we take you back to the night of September 24th, 1997 on Ark Bell, Somewhere in Time.
	Ark Bell, Somewhere in Time.
	All right, Dr. Kaku, you'll be interested in this.
	This is a Reuters report.
	As of now, as of right now, just came in, U.S.
	government space scientists have launched a miniature rocket using a ground-based laser beam for propulsion, according to the Advanced Space Transportation Program, or ASTP, on Tuesday.
	So, they just did it.
	They launched a rocket with a laser.
	Well, like I said, the photon engine is an engine that has been seriously looked at for even interplanetary travel and interstellar travel because light has pressure.
	Now, on the Earth, the pressure is very minimal.
	That's why we prefer to use chemical rockets.
	But in space, you know, you can push against the pressure of light beams and have sails, in fact, to use this.
	So, some people have advocated using laser beams in space, based on the moon, for example.
	Right.
	You couldn't base it on, for example, a space platform, because there would be an opposite-equal reaction, right?
	That's right.
	It would be very difficult because of Newton's Third Law of Motion.
	Anyone who's ever jumped out of a rowboat knows that the robot tends to go in one direction, and you go in the other, and you fall in the water, right?
	So, you would have to base it on the moon, for example, where there's no air to absorb the laser light, so you can have tremendous power on a laser beam, and that's been seriously looked at.
	The calculations have been done by NASA, and of course this is far in the future, but one of these days we may use photon engines to take the probes to the nearby stars.
	The first probe to Alpha Centauri may in fact be done on a photon engine.
	Ramjet fusion engines are still a pie in the sky.
	So the first interstellar probe within 50 years may actually be a photon probe.
	Well, it really is rather annoying to have such a short lifespan so that we cannot see all of this manifest, isn't it?
	Yes, and that's why it would be nice to lengthen the lifespan a bit so that we could see some of the fantastic technologies that await us in the next several decades.
	I'm all for that.
	All right, Wild Card Line, you're on the air with Dr. Kaku.
	Good morning.
	Hello.
	Hello.
	Yes, sir.
	Where are you?
	I'm in Berkeley, California.
	Berkeley, all right.
	Yeah, and Dr. Kaku, the critics of superstring theory sometimes say that it's got to be missing a major piece, because even though it claims to unify a lot of the forces of nature, it doesn't make any new predictions.
	Can you comment on this, please?
	Well, the major criticism of superstring theory is that you can't test it, because it's a theory of everything, and it's a theory of the Big Bang, and therefore you have to recreate a Big Bang.
	In order to actually test the whole theory, I tend to think that if we solve the theory completely, mathematically, it'll give us the mass of the quarks, it'll give us the properties of atoms, DNA, and in that sense explain the universe that actually exists.
	And then, to answer your criticism, it'll actually explain the world of super-high energies, the energies found, let's say, inside a supernova.
	It'll go beyond ordinary technology and ordinary physics.
	So, superstring theory, the theory of these higher dimensions and little strings vibrating in them, will hopefully explain not only atoms and molecules and DNA, but will also explain what's happening at the center of a supernova, and what's happening at the center of the Big Bang, and that'll give us new information.
	No theory at present can take us beyond the instant of the Big Bang, except superstring theory, because it's a theory of the quantum theory, married to Einstein's theory.
	So we will get new physics from this.
	We won't simply regurgitate the old-fashioned stuff.
	We'll get what happened before the Big Bang, which will be very interesting.
	It takes us one step closer to God, by whatever name you call him or her.
	Indeed it does.
	East of the Rockies, you're on the air with Dr. Kaku.
	Good morning.
	Yeah, good morning.
	I'm Jim in St.
	Louis.
	And Dr. Kaku, I had read a book one time, or part of a book, by Stephen Hawking.
	He brought up the subject while he was discussing how energy could possibly leak out of a black hole somehow.
	That's right.
	That vacuum, what a layman might think of as a vacuum, could really be composed of particles that are constantly coming into existence with their antipairs and annihilating each other somehow.
	That's right.
	And it all adds up to the same thing as a vacuum.
	What I want to ask you is this.
	Well, I've got several questions.
	First of all, are these things all around me right now doing this?
	That's right, they are.
	Have they been observed?
	Yes.
	What he's trying to say is that even the vacuum of outer space is frothing with virtual particles, particles that dance in and out of the vacuum.
	And we've measured this.
	In fact, Richard Feynman won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1965 for this theory, along with two other physicists.
	Okay, let me ask you this then.
	Would there ever be any way you could think of to cause these little guys to wait a minute before they, well not a minute, but some finite amount of time, before they annihilated each other and went back to nothing, and to take some from one side of us and put them on the other side of us so that essentially, since they are what we call space, it would be shrinking in one direction And becoming larger and backless.
	Wouldn't that push you around?
	Well, that's what Stephen Hawking was trying to get at.
	These virtual particles which dance in and out of the vacuum amount to nothing because it's still the vacuum.
	But if you have a tremendous gravitational field, you can push, as you point out, them in one direction and thereby you can get net radiation coming out of this.
	Well, that wasn't what I was talking about.
	I was talking about taking the paired particles from one side of you but before they would annihilate and putting them on the other side of you so that one side of you space would be expanding.
	In other words, you'd like to make a little section of the gravity around that.
	In other words, didn't Einstein say that you couldn't really tell the difference between acceleration and gravity?
	That's the equivalence principle.
	And well, so wouldn't it be equivalent if you took some of these particles, these particle pairs, from one side of you and got them to wait just long enough to move them to the other side of you before they did their little thing, kind of concentrated them on one side and made less of them on the other?
	Wouldn't that actually be taking something away from space and making space smaller on one side of you and larger... Uh, no.
	Creating propulsion of a sort, you mean?
	Well, you see, there is a propulsion effect associated with it, as you point out, but you see, the propulsion is even in all directions.
	So if I have a black hole, which is a spherical disk, right?
	The black hole leaks this radiation, as you correctly point out.
	These things pop out of the vacuum, one side goes one way, one side goes the other, but it's uniform, you see, so it all cancels out.
	So the black hole does not propel itself in one direction, it cancels one to the left, And on the other side of the black hole, one to the right.
	Well, I understood that, but I wasn't talking about that.
	I guess I'm not making myself clear.
	But a net propulsion, I've never seen a device that gives you net propulsion.
	Hawking's idea was everything cancels out so the black hole doesn't move.
	Everything would be canceling out in this idea, too.
	It's just where they would be when they did that.
	I assume that they're uniform in, quote, empty space all over the place.
	That's right.
	They're in your body, they're in the vacuum, they're everywhere.
	They're in pretty much uniform and random.
	That's right.
	It's called the Casimir Effect.
	Uh-huh.
	Well, what I'm talking about is somehow, and I have no idea what kind of mechanism this would take, it would probably be prohibitive in energy or technology, but just theoretically, if you could, since the space consists of these things, If you could take some of them from one region of space before they went back and did their thing and put them, concentrate them in another region of space, it would seem that since space is these things, you would be making space smaller.
	In other words, kind of creating a gravity well that would just be like one little section right local there.
	uh... kind of pointing in one from one direction to another direction to use
	this as a form of propulsion
	yet in principle it sounds like a good idea in practice you have to worry that
	the effect is going to cancel out i'll let you inside a car and you push the car to the left
	despite putting your shoulder to the left
	your car temporarily moves to the left but then it walks back to the right
	again right The center of gravity of the car is still the same.
	So you could rock back and forth in a stationary car, temporarily go to the left, but then you'd jostle back to the right again.
	So the trick is to go only to the left and stay there without bouncing back.
	And so far, all the calculations that Hawking and I have done, and so on and so forth, show that this effect is real.
	You can measure it.
	It's measured in the laboratory now.
	But that it's uniform.
	It cancels out, and so you cannot make a propulsion system out of it.
	Though it would make a neat idea, you know, propulsion from nothing would make a great idea.
	I saw what he was driving at.
	I'm not sure I should have, but I sort of vaguely understood what he meant in creating a well in which you would move forward, and it made some sense.
	Right.
	First time, I'm sorry, But the thing is, the well is created evenly in both directions so that it all cancels out.
	So you'd sit there and vibrate?
	That's right.
	You'd rock back and forth.
	All right.
	First time caller on the line, you're on the air with Dr. Kaku.
	Hi.
	Yes.
	Good morning, Art.
	Good morning, Dr. Kaku.
	This is Mark calling from Honolulu.
	Yes.
	I was wondering, have you seen the movie Event Horizon?
	No, but the previous caller referred to it.
	Sounds like a great movie.
	Yes.
	Basically, the idea of the ship was to create a wormhole through space using A compartment.
	I guess what they did was they managed to artificially generate a black hole.
	You meant gravitational field to move between there and the Alpha Centauri?
	That's right.
	But apparently what went wrong was what was in between there and Alpha Centauri.
	A monster of some sort, huh?
	Kind of, sort of, but I wouldn't want to give it away for you because it was a very good movie.
	Thank you.
	But in line with that, there was also this Japanese manga artist, Yukinobu Hoshino.
	He did this book called 2001 Nights, and his theory about it was creating a controlled antimatter reaction to create a micro black hole, and then they encased it in a permanently generated magnetic field.
	And what they would do is, I guess, I believe the term is they created a gravitational field mirror, and they used that to open up a wormhole.
	Right.
	I understand what they're driving at.
	Anti-matter exists.
	In fact, when I was in high school, I won the National Science Fair Award for photographing anti-matter.
	It exists.
	We actually see it coming from the center of our galaxy.
	The problem is, We see very little of it.
	There's very little antimatter around, not sufficient to cause any great engine to be created like in Star Trek.
	Now, antimatter has positive energy, okay?
	So that the total amount of energy of matter and antimatter is still pretty small.
	It's not that much energy.
	So you still cannot open a black hole with antimatter.
	You would have to have lots of antimatter to do this.
	And that, of course, we're talking about the technology of a Type II civilization.
	So, in principle, you could do it, yes.
	You could open up holes with either matter or antimatter.
	You have a choice.
	The problem is that you need enormous quantities of it, and that is beyond anything that we can attain on the Earth.
	And you're correct, by the way, that magnetism is the way to contain antimatter, because, of course, if you touch antimatter, you blow up.
	It's like a bomb.
	You have to be very careful.
	Well, is that not the first, most likely use they would make of antimatter, Doctor?
	Yes.
	Many years ago, Congress was worried about antimatter bombs, and there was an antimatter gap, in fact.
	They thought the Russians had an antimatter bomb, and we had to get our scientists to work on antimatter, too.
	Well, you know, you can build antimatter machines, except they're extremely expensive.
	You know, it takes a few billion dollars just to get a few microamps.
	of uh... being of energy and you know we do it at different adam smashes around the
	country like for me lab outside chicago
	uh... the point is that it's billions of dollars for the tiniest little frail
	current coming out of the machine so it's not a practical device to be used as a weapon so
	congress did not have to worry about an anti-matter gap with any other
	country Unfortunately, we're much more likely to get funding if antimatter ever gets to be practical in order to create a bomb than we are to get funding to do anything really practical with it.
	Yeah, but that's very unfortunate, right?
	That Congress would first reach for the bomb and then, as an afterthought, think of Of commercial and consumer applications to the technology.
	Did you refuse to work on atomic hydrogen bombs and so forth on principle, or simply because you preferred a different route for your science?
	Well, you ask a good question, because, you know, I was offered a job at the Livermore National Laboratory to design these hydrogen bombs, and at first it was more a question that I would rather work on Einstein's theory and complete the biggest bomb of all, which was the Big Bang, But later I began to realize that these bombs kill people, and they can destroy the Earth.
	And now that I understand that we are headed toward a Type 1 civilization, that the main danger preventing us from flourishing as a Type 1 civilization is self-annihilation.
	So now it's become ideological.
	Now I believe that this is really a test, that every Type 0 civilization in our galaxy, and there are probably hundreds of them, are being tested to see whether they're mature enough and
	have enough wisdom to handle this powerful technology and unfortunately a lot
	of them never made the grade I'm sure
	well then aren't your colleagues working on refining these which they still
	continue to do enemies of civilization uh... yeah unfortunately now they're working on what is
	called the third You know, the first and the second generation of bombs was not enough.
	Now they're working on what are called third generation bombs, or designer hydrogen bombs.
	First generation hydrogen bombs are very big, the size of a house, and could blow up a city, right?
	But second generation hydrogen bombs are very tiny, like MIRVs.
	You could put ten of them in the nose cone of an MX missile.
	Third generation hydrogen bombs are designer hydrogen bombs.
	They can be used for specific tasks like Star Wars, like bunker busters, like silo busters, like earth penetrators.
	They could be used in the desert, in the jungle, in outer space, in the ocean.
	So these designer hydrogen bombs is what they're working on now.
	And I personally don't see any use for designer hydrogen bombs because it makes war more tempting.
	A general will feel much more comfortable Using a small bunker buster than using these huge hydrogen warheads, and that will get us into a lot of trouble.
	Do you see any way that there could be use by a national entity of a nuclear device that would not eventually lead to a fuller, more complete nuclear exchange?
	Well, I think that's one of the great problems is that, well, you know, like I said, I was in Russia a year and a half ago, and I met my counterparts in the Russian Academy of Sciences, and they've seen that nuclear weapons helped to bankrupt their country.
	You know, they spent their national wealth building these things, and it broke the bank.
	It broke their country.
	Their country fell apart as a consequence.
	And now their lakes are polluted.
	Sverdlovsk is polluted with nuclear reactors.
	Semipalatinsk is polluted.
	Huge areas of Siberia are polluted with nuclear radiation.
	Much worse than in the United States.
	And that's the price you pay for reaching for this kind of power, right?
	And now, as I mentioned before, we have some of it missing.
	Which, of course, is another cause for concern.
	So when you mix nationalism with nuclear weapons, Get into big truffles!
	Yes, you do.
	All right, Doctor, hold on.
	We've got only one more segment to go.
	You've really done very, very well.
	You're listening to ArcBell, somewhere in time on Premier Radio Networks.
	Tonight, an encore presentation of Coast to Coast AM from September 24th, 1997.
	The Coast to Coast AM concert, performed by the Coast to Coast Amphitheatre, was a concert of the Coast to Coast Amphitheatre.
	The concert was performed by the Coast to Coast Amphitheatre.
	back up
	do do
	do you want to go somewhere in time on premier radio networks
	Tonight, an encore presentation of Coast to Coast AM from September 24th, 1997.
	Good morning.
	Dr. Michio Kaku is my guest from New York.
	He's a theoretical physicist, one of our nation's premier.
	And because we've got to call her long distance, I think all the way from Mexico, I'm going to go ahead and take a call before we do a commercial break.
	Dr. Kaku, are you there?
	Yes, I'm here.
	I believe we've got somebody from Mexico.
	Let's see if we do.
	Hello.
	First time caller line.
	You're on the air.
	Where are you calling from?
	In Puebla, near the Popocatépetl volcano out.
	In Mexico?
	Yes.
	How's the volcano down there?
	It calms down completely.
	That's good to hear.
	Well, anyway, do you have a question?
	Yes, for Mr. Okaku, for Dr. Okaku.
	I know that in the center of our galaxy there is a black hole from Scientific American.
	I read it.
	That is true.
	How is the truth?
	Thank you very much, Art.
	All right.
	He's saying, is it true first there is a black hole in the center of our galaxy?
	There is great evidence that there is.
	The Hubble Space Telescope has now peered into the center of our galaxy.
	And we find gases swirling in a circle.
	Now, by calculating the velocity of the gas, we can calculate how much mass there is at the center, and it does obey the equation for a black hole.
	The equation for a black hole says the escape velocity is the speed of light.
	Therefore, we have indirect evidence that even in our own backyard, just 30,000 light years away or so, at the center of our galaxy, there is, in fact, a black hole.
	So there is good evidence.
	It's not 100% yet.
	People are not crowing about it yet that they bagged a black hole in the Milky Way Galaxy.
	But the Hubble Space Telescope gives us a lot of independent checks now that there is, in fact, a black hole right in our own backyard.
	You don't have to go 50 million light years to M87 or NGC 4268.
	Right in our own backyard, we seem to have one of these things.
	All right.
	Alright, I've got a wonderful question for you about black holes when we get back in a second.
	Sound of a black hole exploding.
	Now we take you back to the night of September 24th, 1997 on Art Bell, Somewhere in Time.
	Music.
	Now, Dr. Kaku, it has been speculated for a long time That there may be such a thing as a miniature black hole.
	Even a little tiny, tiny black hole.
	That's right.
	Now, if such a thing were to pass across Earth's orbit, virtually cutting itself through the Earth, what would occur?
	Okay, these are called evaporating mini black holes.
	As pointed out by a previous scholar, Black holes will ooze away some of their energy.
	There is this energy of the vacuum, and you have what are called virtual particles.
	Some of these virtual particles become real particles, and so the black hole essentially evaporates with time.
	So, it's conceivable now that some of these are drifting in outer space, and perhaps even drifting to the solar system.
	However, their mass gradually evaporates.
	At a certain point, they can't hold on together, and then they explode.
	So, we tend to think that they're pretty rare.
	We tend to think that they will explode before they become so numerous that we're going to bump into one of these things.
	But again, if you want more information about black holes, I have a whole chapter in my book, Visions, How Science Will Revolutionize the 21st Century, about looking farther ahead, beyond 100 years, when we may make contact with some of these black holes, and perhaps maybe even harness The power of some of these black holes.
	But that, of course, is now hundreds of years into the future.
	But if a drifting mini black hole were to come by our solar system, some people think that could be a very convenient power source.
	We would essentially have the power of a mini star right in our own backyard.
	But that's still speculation.
	We have never seen a mini black hole.
	We've only seen these big galactic ones so far.
	But perhaps it's only a matter of time before we see smaller ones, perhaps even drifting near the solar system.
	Would it be possible with immense amounts of energy to create a miniature black hole?
	Yes, and that is what all the speculation is about.
	In fact, I have a friend at MIT who even claims that in your basement, if you could concentrate enough energy in your basement, and of course this is not for us, this is for Type II civilizations, you could create a mini black hole in your basement and a small bubble would form, and this bubble would be a baby universe.
	So I asked him, well, is that dangerous to create a mini universe in your basement?
	And he admitted, well, the shockwave would be about a hydrogen bombs worth.
	But other than that, it's not going to destroy our universe.
	Other than that?
	Other than that, right.
	Other than New York City or Los Angeles disappearing suddenly.
	That's right.
	Other than that, no problem.
	That's right.
	So I told him that maybe it's not such a good idea to bake a black hole in your basement.
	But the calculations are doable.
	I went over them myself, right?
	And there it is.
	It's conceivable that, again, for a Type II civilization that can manipulate stellar energy, they can cook a small black hole in a laboratory with a very small event horizon, an event horizon perhaps only maybe 10 feet across, and open up the looking glass.
	We're really going to have an interesting future, aren't we?
	Yes, and that's why I would hope to live to see some of that.
	I would hope that at least our children would have the capability of seeing some of the wonders that await us if we can make the transition from a Type 0 to Type 1 without blowing ourselves up or polluting our environment.
	But such an if, if you were to project our chances based on present trends, Yeah, it's not too good.
	You know, as you point out, we're messing with El Nino.
	You know, even the weather is beginning to get affected.
	Some people think that global warming is affecting El Nino.
	We're not positive about that, but that's one theory.
	Well, they argue about it.
	You know, the people who look at the ocean say it's the atmospheric problem.
	The atmospheric people say it's the ocean.
	They all argue, but they don't really seem to know for sure, and that worries me.
	But if there is global warming, we're going to see a lot of hurricanes.
	You know, hurricanes, just like the Greek god Antaeus that had power, but when he stood on the earth and could be defeated when he was lifted off the earth, hurricanes derive their power from ocean water, hot ocean water.
	Oh, yes they do.
	And the global warming will create more hot ocean water.
	And that means more hurricanes.
	You know, the insurance companies are deathly afraid that global warming is going to put them out of business.
	I don't blame them.
	I mean, here I am in the middle of the desert.
	We have cactus here.
	Cactus!
	I'm in serious desert.
	I'm near Death Valley.
	And this morning I'm facing news of a hurricane churning toward me.
	Well, we're going to hear more about that.
	Because, according to one theory, global warming is affecting nodal points.
	You know, and one of these nodal points happens to be El Nino.
	And El Nino happens to control most of the weather of North America.
	All right, Wild Card Line, you're on the air with Dr. Kaku.
	Good morning, where are you?
	Good morning, I'm calling from Alaska.
	Where in Alaska?
	El Nino has definitely affected us.
	It's raining so hard here, it's raining up.
	However, I did have a question for the doctor.
	All right, what part of Alaska are you in?
	Prince William Sound.
	Oh, all right.
	Go ahead.
	Cordova, Alaska.
	My question is, as a faithful listener to Art Bell, I have heard the Area 51 tapes.
	I heard the reverse speech last night.
	I'm thinking through theoretical physics, how on earth can we explain people walking through other dimensions into our positions now?
	Oh, well that's quite easily explained.
	I would expect, if you've been listening, if there are type 2 or type 3 civilizations, They may indeed have come strolling through and taken a look-see at us.
	Correct, Doctor?
	That's right.
	Again, this is a technology that is far beyond anything that we puny people in a Type 0 civilization can conceive of.
	But if you have enough energy and concentrate it into a point, you can open up a hole in space, perhaps, and then perhaps walk through it.
	And again, this is the energy content of a star, but Type 2 civilizations, by definition, handle that kind of energy.
	In which case, they can play with stars and create mini stars in their basements and open up such portals which allow them to walk through dimensions.
	Okay?
	So, it would be child's play for a Type II or a Type III civilization to perhaps harness these things.
	Now, there is some debate about stability.
	You know, there are some physicists who claim that they're not very stable.
	But assuming you can stabilize these holes so they don't, you know, swallow you up and don't close after you go into them, Assuming you can stabilize them, then of course you can use them as gateways to other spaces and other times.
	East of the Rockies, you're on the air with Dr. Kaku.
	Good morning.
	Did you say east?
	Yes, yes, yes.
	Oh, goody.
	Good morning, Art.
	Good morning, where are you?
	I'm in Memphis, Tennessee.
	Memphis, alright.
	Yeah, and I talked to you once before because I told you that I used one of Richard Hoagland's ideas that he had talked about for my son's Oh, yes, I recall.
	You recall that?
	Yes.
	Well, I've been listening to the doctor since the first of this interview, doctor, and I am no brain, no nuclear... I'm smart, but I'm not one of these scientist people like you're talking about, but a lot of the ideas sound like something, if I researched it even further, it might be something that my son could do this year, because we're starting early this year.
	As a science project.
	Yeah, like Richard was talking about, how things might grow on Europa and how crop circles may
	have been made.
	He told me how to do it and we did it.
	It turned out, but the only documentation I had was Art Bell and Richard Hoagland at 3.30 in the morning.
	So I thought maybe the doctor might have something little that we could duplicate.
	Yes, what a high school kid could do for a science project is, for example, photograph antimatter.
	Now, this is not as outrageous as it sounds.
	When I was in high school, I sent away for a little piece of sodium-22, which is slightly radioactive, and it emits antimatter by itself, anti-electrons, called positrons.
	You put that in a cloud chamber, you know, a little chamber that's cold on the bottom and wet on top with alcohol.
	And you put glass on top of it, and then you shine light in it, and you can actually see beams of antimatter coming out of sodium-22.
	Then I built a magnet to bend the antimatter to prove that it was positively charged.
	Everyone knows electrons are negatively charged.
	But I could prove that this was antimatter by building magnets.
	So with relatively, you know, it only cost me 20 bucks to build this thing, and it got me to the National Science Fair.
	And it impressed a lot of the judges.
	One of them was Edward Teller.
	That's how I got to know Edward Teller, through my science project, because he instinctively knew what I was doing.
	I didn't have to explain to him what I was doing.
	He immediately knew what I was doing.
	Did Edward Teller ever discuss with you how he rationalized the kind of work he was doing?
	He never did, but I went to school with his daughter, Wendy.
	We used to go on the airplane together, and late at night she would complain that sometimes she would bring a date home, and the father, of course, wants to know what you do for a living, right?
	Well, Edward Teller wanted to know what the date position on communism was before he would allow her to date him.
	Well, that may answer the question.
	So he had a one-track mind.
	He had this tremendous vision, a dark vision, I suppose, that nuclear weapons would, in some sense, be part of this cosmic battle with communism.
	For me, it was very scary, because I was just in high school when I met up with him.
	But that propelled him throughout most of his adult life.
	We are all relaxed in thinking that the Cold War is over.
	That the large nuclear weapons are being destroyed.
	But the truth of the matter is, Doctor, the really dangerous ones, the MIRV weapons, they're all still there.
	They can be retargeted in minutes and we're not in any way out from under just yet.
	And should there be a large social disturbance or revolution in Russia, for example, The possibility of the danger of a nuclear exchange is still very much there, isn't it?
	That's right.
	The older bombs are being dismantled.
	They're being taken apart at Amarillo, Texas.
	And the pits, you can actually see some of the pits in Albuquerque, New Mexico.
	So the older bombs are being taken apart.
	But as you correctly pointed out, the newer bombs are still intact.
	And at Livermore, the reason tinkering with these third generation bombs And a lot of the generals in Russia, they're not fools, right?
	They're saying, why should we destroy our bombs when the American skis are building third generation hydrogen bombs, right?
	So there's a danger that some of the generals in Russia, seeing that we're not really dismantling our arsenal, will stop dismantling the Russian arsenal.
	and as you pointed out with all this instability bomb material could be lost
	uh... generals could perhaps he's control of part of the arsenal or there
	could be instability in russia so i think we have a golden opportunity now if clinton
	would be brave enough to stabilize the situation
	not go for new generations of hydrogen warheads and in good faith
	you know start to uh... dismantle ours and give money to rush out to
	stabilize a nuclear scientists who are of course starving to death.
	And they, in turn, could leave and go to hot spots around the world, which would make things a lot worse.
	So we have this golden opportunity now, but I see it kind of frittering away.
	I don't see the President taking big initiatives with regards to closing down Livermore or Los Alamos National Laboratory, and resurrecting them as laboratories for life, to work on the greenhouse problem, to work on ozone depletion, the electric car, and all the things that we need In the 21st century.
	Don't we have enough bombs?
	Yes, we had, at one point, 30,000 hydrogen and atomic warheads.
	30,000, right?
	30,000.
	Yeah.
	And the Russians, of course, had an equal number.
	So at one point during the Cold War, there were 60,000 atomic and hydrogen bombs.
	Even with the remaining stockpiles, if there was a full exchange, what would the result be?
	Oh, it only takes a few hundred megatons to set off nuclear winter, as Carl Sagan pointed out.
	Cities would burn, and they would burn for weeks at a time, and the soot from all these burning cities would then blanket the Earth, and we would die the way the dinosaurs died, right?
	They died because they got cold, because a comet also set up soot into the air.
	And so even if we had a fraction of our current arsenal, that would be sufficient to set off nuclear winter, or nuclear autumn, And create temperatures so low that we couldn't grow crops anymore, and a lot of people would freeze to death as a consequence.
	So that's why we have all these threats to prevent us from attaining Type I status, because we have the pull, the pull of the old world, which says we have to have lots of bombs, and lots of laboratories to produce them, and lots of nuclear scientists to produce more bombs, right?
	My attitude is we have enough problems.
	We should take these tough scientists and have them solve the greenhouse effect.
	Hasn't solved global warming.
	Is there any chance that a bunch of scientists like yourself can get together and petition the President?
	Well, it would be worth a try, I suppose.
	You know, the President just allocated $40 billion to modernize our nuclear arsenal.
	It's called the Nuclear Stockpile Stewardship Program.
	He wanted to build a laser that is two football fields across.
	A laser beam that could be used to set off a hydrogen bomb.
	Now, if you're a Russian general and you just learned that President Clinton allocated $40 billion to modernize America's nuclear weapons, you're going to say, but that's not in good faith.
	We're dismantling our bombs.
	Our bombs are falling apart.
	We can barely count our bombs.
	And here you are building laser beams through football fields across to design third generation hydrogen bombs.
	So at some point, some general in Russia is going to say, I've had enough.
	That's what I'm worried about.
	Well, I think we should all enjoy what type zero time we have left.
	I know it sounds somewhat negative.
	It has been a pleasure having you on the air and I hope that we can again do it sometime.
	Okay, it's been a real pleasure.
	Doctor, take care and good night.
	Okay, good night.
	Alright, that's Dr. Michio Kaku, everybody, and what a night, huh?
	Tomorrow night we're going to do a couple of things.
	We are going to interview A guy, Finley, who's going to be talking about quickening-type subjects.
	Us, frankly.
	And then Ramona will come on and give those of you who are coming on the Egyptian trip and more some helpful hints on hacking and what we'll do when we get there.
	From the high desert, threatened by a hurricane, goodnight!

▲