Art Bell

All Episodes

Previous Next

Feb. 28, 2004 - Art Bell

02:52:58

Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell - Brian Greene - Physics of the Universe

Participants

Main voices

01:04:32

brian greene

01:09:39

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Good evening, good morning, good afternoon, whatever on the planet you may be all these great plans and all of them covered one way or the other by this great radio program has come to him on my weekend alive.
		here alright I've got so much I've got a cover because you know first of all I took like Last weekend officer, you know what I'll explain at the moment.
		Um I'll explain it right now really.
		Last this weekend I was putting up a gigantic antenna and I had Irene sends me the following AR.
		You've explained what you're doing with your shortwave antenna.
		However, I don't remember explaining why you're trying to create the world's largest most powerful ham radio array.
		This would be interesting to find out.
		Actually this is it came it must come from uh it came from Irene.
		That must be Stephen's wife or something.
		I I don't know.
		Anyway, um Steven is actually asking this question.
		Uh well, yes, last weekend uh and in fact all week long and even so far this weekend uh that's what's been going on.
		Putting up this monster of an antenna about 2,200 feet long, 4,400 feet of wire, 100 feet up, 75 feet at each tower.
		And it's a double loop.
		It's amazing.
		But I'm certainly not sure it's by any means the most powerful ham radio antenna in the world at all.
		Maybe of its type, but I don't even know that really.
		But why am I doing it?
		And by the way, the weather here has been horrendous.
		Horrendous.
		We have had rain, rain, followed by wind, and then more rain, rain, and then wind, and then rain, rain, and then wind.
		And that's all it's been since we began trying to erect this giant antenna.
		And by the way, it is actually up.
		And it's working.
		But we have more to do, and the weather is just not allowing that.
		I wrote the book, so I should understand the weather, right?
		With regard to why I'm doing this, that is a pretty reasonable question to which there is only one answer.
		It's fun.
		It's a lot of fun.
		There is absolutely nothing else behind this.
		It's fun.
		I wanted to see what would happen if you put up that much wire.
		I know a lot of things.
		I know, for example, you get a lot of voltage because some of the guys that I had out there working on it, I kept seeing them go, oh!
		I had a talk with them about large amounts of static current.
unidentified		And there is, I'll tell you, there's a lot out there.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		They were jumping all over the place.
		I shouldn't laugh.
		Anyway, looking around the world briefly.
		You know what?
		I don't know if I will.
		Yeah, a little bit, I guess.
		All right.
		A little bit of the regular news.
		I don't like concentrating on it.
		Osama bin Laden has not been found.
		There is a big rumor on the internet that he's been located.
		Wrong, not yet.
		Been denied.
		A tanker carrying 3.5 million gallons of industrial ethanol blew up and sank about 50 miles off the Virginia coast on Saturday.
		The Coast Guard says at least three people died.
		And rescue crews were looking for most of the ship's 27 crew members.
		And as you know, the rebels are preparing to take the Haitian capital, though they have paused, I guess, giving Aristide a chance to skip town.
		We'll have to wait and see if that happens.
		But not being here for two weeks, I mean, even during a regular week, I've got to catch up on the news.
		And during this two weeks, something really blew up that I want to talk to you about, and that's this gay marriage thing.
		Up in San Francisco, they're issuing thousands of marriage licenses to gays who are getting married.
		And, oh, my God, what a brouha-ha.
		But I may have a take on it that most of you don't.
		I used to be, you know, really, I think like a lot of other people, I don't know, what's the right word?
		I was appalled.
		That's the right word.
		I was appalled at the concept, you know, of a man and a man or a woman and a woman getting married.
		I was appalled at it.
		And I thought, no way.
		But I must tell you, and this is probably not going to be very popular, I've come to the other conclusion.
		And I think gays should be allowed to get married.
		I really do.
		And here's how I came to the conclusion.
		Now, I know the president, and that's, I guess, what really kicked this off.
		The president called for a constitutional amendment, right, to define marriage or protect marriage or something or another.
		And, you know, number one, constitutional amendments are dangerous things depending on how they're attempted to be put together.
		Number two, they never really go through.
		Number three, it's probably political.
		But, you know, that kicked off the brouhaha.
		And so I started thinking, you know, who is harmed if gays get married?
unidentified		Huh?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Who's harmed?
		So I'm a little late on chiming in on all of this, but maybe I have a different point of view.
		Who gets harmed?
		Does the state get harmed?
		I don't think so.
		Does the federal government get harmed?
		I don't think so.
		Not really.
		How?
		Does the institution of marriage get harmed?
		It doesn't seem like it.
		It's already harmed enough.
		It's one in two that breaks up or something, right?
		So I don't know.
		What's wrong with it?
		Why are we so afraid of it?
		What is going to happen that's going to just change everything?
		No, they're not going to propagate.
		And yeah, marriage probably was originally conceived to protect the children, right?
unidentified		But so what?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Some adopt.
		I mean, just, you know, I started thinking about it.
		I thought, well, you know, why not?
		Why shouldn't gays be able to get married?
		Learn about community propaganda and stuff like everybody else.
		Why not?
		You know, is it going to harm me?
		No.
		If it becomes legal to marry somebody of the same sex, am I going to run out, leave my wife, and go find some Tom Dick or Harry?
		No.
		So, you know, is there individual harm?
		Is there harm to the state, the federal government?
		What?
		I don't know.
		So that's a different point of view for you.
		Howard Stern got in trouble.
		My company actually went in front of Congress and pulled Howard Stern for a day or more.
		I don't know what it is now.
		And I got into a big debate with some fellow hams about this.
		And some of them believe, you know, I said, look, what do you think?
		You just remove all of the barriers against indecency?
		And they said, yeah, why not?
		And I don't go along with that at all.
		I think on the public airwaves, these airwaves, the ones you don't pay for, cable, satellite, that kind of stuff, that there should be, there should absolutely should be standards.
		I got an email from a guy who says, I draw the line in the sand today with regard to protecting myself from censorship on American radio.
		I will no longer be viewing or listening to any material from Clear Channel, which includes Premier Radio Networks, Coast Coast AM, KEX 1190 in Portland.
		So I guess he lives there.
		I do not need nor request Mr. Hogan, he works for Clear Channel, actually he's way up high, or any other radio network executive to protect me from indecent content.
		Well, so he says he won't listen to this show anymore or anything else Clear Channel does.
		Would you want the Constitution, you don't really think it protects or should protect obscenity?
unidentified		Do you?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Not real obscenity, not on the public airways?
		Do you really think that?
		Are any debates that you've heard, any really good intellectually needy debates, would any of them be enhanced by throwing in a four-letter word of some kind?
unidentified		No.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		So I don't think anybody has to worry about anybody going after just free political speech.
		I know a lot of people like Russia are worried about that, but I don't think that's going to happen.
		And I do think that what they have in place for regulating on-air standards is appropriate.
		That kind of stuff shouldn't be on the air.
		You know, the kind of stuff I'm talking about.
		And now, a couple of other items.
		Micros.
		Well, no, I'll hold this till after.
		This is too good.
		Stay right where you are and we'll be right back.
unidentified		BOOM BOOM
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Bill Gates himself called me earlier today and asked me to read you the following article.
unidentified		Not really.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		But you'll see that.
		It's the downside to pirated software is what it is.
		No, Bill doesn't call me.
		But this is funny.
		CIA slipped bugs to Soviets.
		Apparently, well, all right, let me read it.
		In January of 1982, President Ronald Reagan approved a CIA plan to sabotage the economy of the Soviet Union through covert transfers of technology that contained hidden malfunctions, including software that later triggered a huge explosion in a Siberian natural gas pipeline.
		Actually, I guess we knew they were stealing or arranged for them to steal this software, this pipeline software.
		And it was full of bugs.
		I mean, it was an abyss.
		They called it here, an abyss.
		It was cold, all right, in the Cold War, you know, but it was pretty bad.
		At the time, the U.S. was attempting to block Western Europe from importing Soviet natural gas.
		There were also times the Soviets were trying to steal a wide variety of Western technology.
		Then a KGB insider revealed the specific shopping list, and the CIA slipped the flawed software to the Soviets in a way they would not possibly detect it.
		Well, naturally, they built this monster, and actually it was all in order to disrupt the Soviet gas live.
		But get this.
		This was pipeline software that was to run the pumps, the turbines, the valves, and it was all programmed to go totally haywire at a certain point.
		Go totally berserk.
		Now, the Soviets actually figured out that we'd done it to them, but there was nothing they could do.
		The software was loose in operating, and the result at the right moment was, quoting, the result was the most monumental non-nuclear explosion and fire ever seen from space.
		Reads that U.S. satellites picked up the explosion.
		Well, of course they did.
		They picked up the explosion.
		It was in the summer of 1982.
		And since we programmed the software, we must have known, roughly, when she was going to blow.
		This is the largest non-nuclear explosion ever seen from space.
		So obviously we had a satellite, one of the KH series, See Anything series, parked overhead watching.
		And you can almost see the guys in the CI, she's going to blow any minute here, fellas.
		And up she went.
		It contributed to the destruction of the Soviet economy and ultimately to ending the Cold War, of course, would be the justification for having done That.
		But still, if you wrote that and then you had a satellite, that'd be pretty cool so you could watch and just wait and count, you know, probably taking bets on when she was going to go.
		I thought that was pretty smart of us.
		Now, a more serious subject.
		Again, the weather.
		Oh, my goodness.
		It is said to be a secret, a very secret commission studied by the Pentagon with regard to our weather, climate change over the next 20 years.
		It could bring with it rioting, nuclear war, Britain to be Siberian in less than 20 years, and they called it a threat greater to the world, to the U.S., than terrorism of any kind at all.
		The biggest threat you can have is now the weather.
		Rapid climate change.
		Now, this came out in The Observer.
		It's the latest of many, many articles, but this one refers to a specific report commissioned sort of sideways at the Pentagon.
		Now, I'm trying to interview the author, one of the authors of that report, and I must tell you that while he does view this very seriously, he also thinks that these publications, The Observer, others that have done work on it, may have overblown the report to some degree.
		However, it's kind of hard to overblow what they said.
		It was a worst-case scenario.
		But in this worst-case scenario, you know, the world is ending as we know it.
		That's for sure.
		I mean, a lot of sea-level changes would erase U.S. cities.
		A lot of cities would just be gone.
		You just can't imagine how serious it could be.
		And this was said to be leaked out of the Pentagon.
		So, again, park that one in the gray box if you want to, but we are in the middle of a weather change right now, in my opinion.
unidentified		And this one, this has always fascinated me.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		And I'm sure you heard about this, but for nine hours last month, a very small band of astronomers got the scare of their lives.
		Their calculations for a while indicated that a newly discovered asteroid was on a collision course with Earth, that she was going to hit us.
		In fact, that it had a four-in-one chance of hitting us.
		This was a big rock.
		Not a world ender, not a dinosaur eraser, maybe 100 feet across, but it would have been a big enough explosion, like a one-megaton explosion in the atmosphere, and the shockwave could have caused hurricane-force winds.
		It could have damaged buildings.
		I mean, it would have been a Tunguska-type event.
		And they thought they had hours to go.
		In fact, one of them said, quote, I would not have been comfortable with being quiet through the next morning.
		That was Clark Chapman of the Southwest Research Institute in Boulder.
		And he said, I think the public should be informed that a high probability of a big event about to occur, like an asteroid hitting Earth.
		And that has provoked some conversation and should between all of us.
		Now, it is possible, obviously, that an asteroid of some sort will be heading toward Earth, that eventually they'll discover they have days, maybe even months, but no more than that.
		More likely, days, maybe weeks, I don't know, but short time.
		And there's something coming at Earth that we can't stop.
		no we we really aren't ready to point to atomic weapons in space and i don't think we have anything in place for that and there wouldn't be anything they meeting the government right to do should they do it Would you?
		I considered that question, and I think, yes, I would.
		I would want, you know, if there was time to say goodbye, and it's been a hell of a ride, or, you know, whatever it is you're going to do, I would certainly want that span of time.
		But I understand that announcing it would have consequences.
		It might cause the government not to tell us.
		In a way, why?
		That's going to be the end.
		You know, if it's really a big one, that's going to be the end.
		So why say anything?
		Now, the word, of course, would get out among amateur astronomers and that sort of thing.
		How do you think they're thinking about it?
		Do you think they would tell us?
		I know a lot of times I'm reading these stories and inevitably it says, astronomers now tell us we had a very close brush last Wednesday or two days ago.
		And I'm always wondering, well, that's nice now to find out about that now.
		But how come you didn't know about it until two days after the object passed Earth?
		Makes you wonder.
		You know, if one isn't going to pass, if one's really headed dead on, are we going to know about it?
		Do we want to know about it?
		Anyway, they were pretty close, I guess, to telling the world, and by the way, I think it would have been the northern hemisphere where the impact would have occurred somewhere in the northern hemisphere where it would have occurred, they thought, for a while.
		That would have been a very rough guess.
		We spend, you might want to know, about $3.5 million a year on surveys trying to locate asteroids, mapping them and trying to locate them and keeping track of them, and $3.5 million a year.
		Now, after the first hundred-footer hits, or whatever, A thousand-footer, a one-mile, five-mile size.
		Then, what do you think the appropriation will be?
		Well, five-mile, there'll be no appropriation because we won't be here.
		So it would have to take something, you know, something like about a half-mile wide, perhaps quarter-mile wide, something to get our attention in a big way.
		and then then but that appropriation mount go right through the roof
		The astronaut that I've interviewed, who's a really nice guy, Edgar Mitchell, the Apollo 14 astronaut, is now saying, and I'm quoting here, now this came from the St. Petersburg Times, quote, a few insiders know the truth and are studying the bodies that have been discovered, said Mitchell, who was the sixth man to walk on the moon.
		Now, I don't know if he's really said this or not, Edgar Mitchell.
		I've interviewed him a number of times, and certainly he never made reference to any bodies, alien bodies of any sort.
		So maybe he has come to believe this.
		Do you suppose that might be true, that he has come to believe it?
		But in all the interviews I did with Edgar Mitchell, he never had a word to say about alien bodies or having seen UFOs or anything like that.
		He's talking about a few of the insiders knowing the truth and the bodies.
unidentified		Wow!
art bell ▲ ● ▼		That's incredible, I think.
		All right, when we come back, we'll do open lines.
		And if you want to talk about any of this, that's fine.
		Something I haven't talked about, well, that'll be all right, too.
unidentified		coming up.
		Sign up for Streamlink at www.coastocoastam.com.
		And you can hear tonight's show over and over and over.
		Do you know that behind?
		The End
		The sun and the rain We can be right there Come on baby Don't feel the reaper Better take my hand Don't feel the reaper We'll be able to fly Don't feel the reaper Baby, I'm the man Oh my To talk with Art Bell, call the wildcard line at area code 775-727-1295.
		The first-time color line is area code 775-727-1222.
		To talk with Art Bell from East of the Rockies, call toll-free at 800-825-5033.
		From West of the Rockies, call ART at 800-618-8255.
		International callers may reach Art Bell by calling your in-country spread access number, pressing option 5, and dialing toll-free 800-893-0903.
		From coast to coast and worldwide on the internet, this is Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		It is indeed.
		In a moment, we will randomly dip into the waiting gene pool and see what's out there.
		From the high desert, talk radio all the evening long.
		Stay right there.
		You really think so?
		That it would be an example at all?
		Do you think anybody who is not, you know, I'm told, though I don't know, that most homosexuals find out when they're very young, even though they may not realize it fully.
		They find out when they're very young.
		It's not like if marriage in that category was available, they would, you know, somebody who's heterosexual is suddenly going to become a homosexual.
		I just don't think that's going to happen.
		Realistically.
		I mean, think about yourself.
		Please think about yourself here for a moment.
		Would you in any way be threatened by this, really?
		And if it was legal to marry somebody of the same sex, would you suddenly say, wow, look at that.
		I can marry a man.
unidentified		And go, um, you know, no.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Of course not.
		So, I don't know.
		I don't know if that's a good argument.
		First time caller line, you're on the air.
		Good morning.
		You would have been if I pushed the button.
		Now you're on the air.
unidentified		Hello?
		Good morning.
		Hi.
		What you're saying about the gay marriages?
		Well, what happened in Sodica and Gomorrah?
		I mean, we're the house of David here.
		Don't you think that we should follow what God wants for us?
		Or do we want God's blessings or not?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Don't you suppose we're going to get a rock pretty soon anyway?
unidentified		Well, we have a presence that's from the house of David, and don't you think that he needs to follow what God wants?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Of course.
		I cannot possibly take issue, nor would I try to take issue with your religious beliefs.
		I mean, I know that you're going to say normal, natural of God, and I have no argument for that.
		I'm just, you know, I'm saying who's threatened by it?
		Well, I guess from your point of view, you know, if it's God's will that's offended, then the rock's coming for sure.
unidentified		Yeah, and then you were talking about the little fellows, the little people from another place.
unidentified		My husband was trucking, and he went to a military base near Area 51, and he was delivering ice cream, and they said, these little fellows love strawberry ice cream.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Aliens?
unidentified		Uh-huh.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I'll bear that in mind should I run into one that they like strawberry ice cream.
		It's funny.
		Actually, this whole thing with Edgar is I had a chance, you know, with hours of talk radio, this open forum kind of thing that we have, we have not just soundbite opportunities, but you can take somebody like Edgar who's been to the moon, and you can really talk.
		And one of the strangest things that he said in the hours of interviewing and actually debating that he was in, and one of the most interesting things was that he had a funny kind of psychological place that he was in when he was on the moon, and he remembers so little of his emotional thinking and whether he thought about what he was seeing and doing.
		It was kind of a strange moment for him on the moon.
		Well, of course it'd be strange on the moon, but he didn't remember too much of the intense emotions that you would expect.
		It was really odd.
		Wildcard line, you're on the air.
unidentified		Hi.
		Hello?
		Hello?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yes, sir.
unidentified		Yeah, my name's Larry, and I usually listen to you on 1110 KFAB.
		Okay.
		And yeah, I wanted to comment on this gay marriage bit.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Fire away.
unidentified		The problem is there's a major curse in the Bible against this.
unidentified		Well, that's like something for them to consider.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Previous scholar.
		Yeah, I know.
		I know.
		have no argument for that i mean there is no i'm not going to sit here and argue with what is in the bible what people think that god you know it to me probably Do you think God sends gay people to hell?
unidentified		It would be something they'd have to argue about.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, I don't know if there's any arguing with God.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		A point I was trying to make here a minute ago.
unidentified		Yeah, it's hard to say.
		I would imagine it's a case-to-case business.
		They'd have to take it up with them.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, then it would be no different than the rest of us because we're all, you know, a case-by-case basis, I think, when we get there, aren't we?
unidentified		Yeah.
		Though there's one other thing to consider, too.
		George asked a question the last couple of times he had religious people on.
		He wanted to know when the apocalypse started.
		And it actually started in 1948.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Did it?
		Yes.
		With what?
unidentified		With rebirth of Israel.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		The rebirth of Israel.
		Well, okay.
		I guess anywhere in the story of the final apocalypse, you could say it began with the rebirth of Israel or the Temple on the Mount or wherever you want to pick it up, right?
		East of the Rockies, you're on the air.
unidentified		Hi.
unidentified		Hi, this is Charlie from the Daytona Beach area.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Hey, Charlie.
unidentified		I had really two issues.
		Just a brief thought on the gay marriage, and then I did have a UFO experience from about 150 feet away.
		The gay marriage, if you take religion out of it all, and that's apparently what everybody wants to do, I believe, first of all, the Creator created everyone with the idea we have a test here on the planet.
		And the test is there's going to be strengths and weaknesses in all of us, and we all have to deal with them, and we have to deal with other people.
		And it's our test if we show people compassion, scorn, whatever it is.
		But I think the big hidden agenda, taking religion out of it all, no, you can't.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Now, I just realized that.
		The first two calls, you can't take religion out of this.
		That's what's really behind it.
		I mean, listen to what those people said.
		I'm not going to argue with that.
		I mean, if it's their absolute belief that God would strike down the nation, strike down whatever.
		True.
unidentified		Well, I just think the hidden agenda, the important issue in the secular world that we have to face every day, is the fact it's the burden of the cost of the disease of AIDS.
		Okay, that's just my thought.
		I think it's a wonderful way to get the bills paid for.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		You know what?
		It was spread early on with homosexuals because of the nature of the Sex Act, but it's well entrenched in the heterosexual population as well now.
		And I don't think you can co-associate the two particularly anymore.
		So, again, I suppose that gay people have to be safe the way heterosexual people have to be.
		And I don't think that I believe in a God that would send somebody who is gay from birth to hell.
		I just don't believe in that kind of a vengeful God.
		Well, there's only one God, Art.
unidentified		I know.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I'll see the emails.
		There's one God, and it doesn't matter what you believe.
		I just don't think the God that I think of would do that.
		Boy, could I be wrong, huh?
		A lot of scores.
		West of the Rockies, you're on the air, huh?
unidentified		Hello, Art.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Hello, sir.
unidentified		This is Sean from Colorado Springs.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yes, sir.
unidentified		And I was just wondering if you had heard anything about an asteroid that's supposed to pass between the Earth and the Moon in 2010.
		About six years ago, I heard about it on the news.
		My mom told me she heard about it three days ago, on the news again, on our local news here.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Passed between the Earth and the Moon.
unidentified		Yeah, that's what the news says.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		As in missing Earth.
unidentified		They don't know.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I'm vaguely.
unidentified		I'm not certain on it.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yes, I'm vaguely recalling a story about something that will, way out there somewhere, it's not that far, come pretty close to Earth, and they won't be able to predict until it really gets close.
unidentified		Right.
		Okay.
		All righty.
		Well, thank you very much.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		That's it, huh?
unidentified		Yeah, that's it.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		Well, keep your eye on the sky.
		I mean, one of these days, maybe we'll all look up and we'll see this thing getting rapidly bigger and bigger and bigger and bigger.
		And there'll just be enough time to say, ah, darn.
		Or something like that.
		International Line, you're on the air.
unidentified		Hello.
unidentified		Hello, Arthur.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		That would be me.
unidentified		Oh, hi.
		How are you?
		In the past, you had spoke about the song that you play on the air.
		You said the name of the group is called Matisse, and they're from Ireland, and I've gone every place, and they don't know what I'm talking about.
		What is the name of the CD?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I don't know.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		The name of the song is Boomba.
unidentified		Oh, Boomba.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I'm Matisse.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		M-E-T-I-S-S-E.
unidentified		M-E-T.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		M-E-T-I.
unidentified		I-S-E.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I-S-S-E.
unidentified		Oh, I-S-S-E.
		Yes.
		Boomba.
		Okay, I'll try again.
		Thank you very much.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		You're very welcome.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		First time caller line, you're on the air.
unidentified		Hello.
unidentified		Yes.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Hello.
unidentified		Yes.
unidentified		Yes.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Now, number one, turn off your radio.
		Okay.
		That's the beginning.
unidentified		Okay.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Very good.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Now, your first name is?
unidentified		Kathy.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Okay, go ahead.
unidentified		Yes.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
unidentified		I'm on the air.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		You're darn right.
unidentified		Oh, okay.
		I'm Kathy.
		My topic is Edgar Mitchell.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Oh, yes.
unidentified		I've heard him speak several times, and I've also heard him tell about his experience, his epiphany or consciousness experience.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Oh, yes, I'm aware of all that.
unidentified		Okay.
		Well, I would like to have him again on the air and have him speak about his experience.
		And I think that could kill two birds with one stone.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, if you've heard him before, perhaps you heard the interview I did with him or others have done.
		I don't know.
		But if you've heard him speak before, have you ever heard him saying, as a matter of a statement, a few insiders know the truth and are studying the bodies that have been discovered?
		I mean, that's wild stuff.
		He never said anything like that to me.
unidentified		No, that's not why I'm calling.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, I know.
unidentified		Well, I'm calling because of his epiphany, his experience.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
unidentified		And I think that there are people, I know that people doubt that we even went to the moon.
		So by interviewing him and having him explain that on his way back that he had this experience, that's proving also that he was in such a state that he went into a cosmic consciousness experience.
		So that it's not only proving that we did go to the moon, but also that there is such an experience as an epiphany.
		And I was upset one time when someone called in and talked about his experience, and you cut him off.
		And this is a very, it can be a spiritual emergency, which is what people go through, and often they never have a chance to tell anyone about it, and they don't realize that there are other people who have these types of experiences.
		And when you interviewed Betty Eady, she talked about these experiences, and hers was a near-death experience, but it can be the same type of emergency that people go through, and they need help, and they need to know, not all of them, but some of them need to know that there are others who do have experiences like this and they don't know what they're talking about.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right, that's why Edgar Mitchell is there in the first place, and that's why he established the Institute that he did for people who have had this.
		But I must tell you, I know there's a bunch of people, I'm not one of them, who think we didn't go to the moon.
		Their case is to some degree bolstered by, in my opinion, by what Edgar said on the show once, and that was that he had few memories of the emotions and what he felt and what he thought about when he was on the moon.
		I mean, that sounded strange to me.
		Now, that may have been part of what happened to Edgar and what he went through in this epiphany that she was just talking about.
		It may all be part of it, I don't know, but it kind of bolstered the case that people make saying, we didn't go to the moon.
		He should be able to remember all the details.
		Maybe not.
		Wildcard line, you're on the air.
unidentified		Hi.
		Oh, my goodness, Ms. Artville.
		Yes.
		My husband was telling me about a show that you had years ago where a gentleman was in a plane flying it Area 51.
		Yep.
		And he was talking to you on the cell phone, and he lost contact with you.
		Did you ever hear what happened to him?
		Absolutely not.
		Do you remember the show?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, how could I forget it?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Of course I remember.
unidentified		Okay, I was just wondering, my husband was asking me if you'd ever heard anything whatever happened to the gentleman.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		No, no.
unidentified		The government got him.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, if you heard at the end of the call, I mean, he was saying that railguns were pointing at his aircraft and they were firing.
frank in new york ▲ ● ▼		Oh, my God.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		And that was it.
unidentified		Oh, my goodness.
unidentified		Okay.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I mean, what do you imagine?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I mean, either the thing was a clever hoax or it really happened and, you know, he's buried in a shallow grave up there somewhere.
unidentified		Yeah, that's true.
		Okay, well, thank you, and I'm glad to hear you're back on the air.
		Coming down, friends.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Thank you very much.
		Take care.
		East of the Rockies, you're on the air.
		Hi.
unidentified		Hi.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Turn your radio off, please.
unidentified		Radio's off.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Very good.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Proceed.
unidentified		Thank you.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Proceed.
unidentified		Oh, yes.
unidentified		I was calling Art Bell.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		That's me.
		You're on the air.
		This is your time.
unidentified		Go ahead.
		Oh, yes.
		I wanted to make a comment about the gay marriages.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
unidentified		Yeah, as a Christian, I don't agree with that.
		I don't agree with any form of marriage outside of it.
		However, I don't believe the Constitution should be established for that purpose.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		You mean you don't think there should be a constitutional amendment?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		That's correct.
unidentified		I think that should be reserved strictly for the protection of the people in this country.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, all right, then think about this.
		I mean, I understand why the president did it.
		In a state, for example, like I think Massachusetts or one of those, the High Court of the state has looked at the Constitution and said there appears to be nothing in here that forbids gay marriage.
		And so based on that, I mean, that's all a Constitution does is interpret the law, right, based on the Constitution.
		And so if you don't want to have gay marriage, then I guess you have to have a constitutional amendment, which I might add is kind of dangerous.
unidentified		I think so.
		I think it takes too much from the people.
		As a Christian, I believe because I believe.
		I don't believe we have the right to force that onto other people.
		I don't think it's going to do them any good.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		What you believe is very clear, sir.
		And I have no argument with it.
		And you know what?
		I really, believe it or not, didn't even think about that.
		I thought, I'm not sure the president brought God into it when he spoke.
		And so I thought pretty much about a constitutional amendment, and I thought about the law, and I thought about myself, and whether it would harm me.
		And I thought about, gee, would it harm the state or the federal government?
		And who would it harm?
		Well, I mean, obviously, taking the calls this evening I have so far, you feel it would harm God.
		You know, it would be against God's will, and we would be, no doubt, struck down in some way.
		And there is no argument for people's faith in what they believe.
		I was just thinking from a very practical point of view, who would be harmed.
		So, anyway, there you are.
		Wildcard Line, you are on the air.
		Good morning.
		Hello.
unidentified		Good morning.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Good morning.
unidentified		Hey.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Hey.
unidentified		How you doing?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I'm doing okay.
unidentified		Okay.
unidentified		Am I live or something?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Or something.
unidentified		Am I really?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
unidentified		Wow, this is the first time I've recorded a video or so.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Really?
		All right.
		Well, millions of ears are waiting to hear what provocative thing you're about to hit us with.
		So go ahead.
unidentified		Oh, wow.
unidentified		Gay marriage.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
unidentified		Personally, I don't have a problem with gay people.
		Really don't.
		I'm not the Christian person, I suppose.
		So I don't go to church every Sunday.
		I just believe in morals, right and wrong, et cetera, et cetera.
		I don't believe that people being gay is right.
		I believe that.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I don't think it's right or wrong.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		i think it just years Sure, sure.
unidentified		I'm sorry.
unidentified		I didn't even think you'd hear that.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, there you are.
unidentified		I'm sorry.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		That's all right.
		Anyway, so how do you think of it?
		I mean, do you think of it as right or wrong?
		Is it wrong to you morally, ethically, somehow?
unidentified		Well, I feel society has a lot to do with how things are going on nowadays.
		Gaiety being around.
		I mean, for example, in wildlife, you don't see two male birds wanting to get together.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		You know, actually, I hate to tell you this, but that's inaccurate.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		There have been discoveries lately in science that there are animals that are homosexual.
unidentified		Okay.
		Yeah.
		Okay.
		They're really.
		Well, I mean, I just feel that, you know, God or the supreme being created man and female and they complement each other.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, that's obvious.
unidentified		Well, whatever somebody wants to do, that's fine.
		You know, I mean, if they want to get together, that's fine, too.
		But, I mean, in a marriage, you know?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
		I mean, in what way would, if it were legal, would it harm you?
		Would it harm you?
unidentified		It doesn't bother me.
		I personally don't care.
		I see.
		Well, I mean, I do care.
		I mean, you know, it's a relationship.
		You know, if two people of the same sex wants to get together, hey, that's fine with me.
		And I'm sure it's fine with a bunch of other people.
		But, I mean, marriage is, you know, that's totally different.
		I mean, you want to, I don't know.
		I suppose I pretty much had my point on that.
		I mean, I can debate about a lot of things.
		Extraterrestrial life, all that other stuff.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Easier than this, huh?
		That's easier.
		Extraterrestrial life is easier to talk about than gay marriage, right?
unidentified		That's right.
		That's right.
		Personally, I believe there are extraterrestrials.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		There probably are.
unidentified		Listen, Andy, hold it.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Sir, sir.
unidentified		I'm sorry.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I gotta go.
		This hour is over, so I gotta go.
		Thank you very much, and take care.
		When we get back, it's going to be Ryan Green.
		The Fabric of the Cosmos is the book he wrote.
		Todd will talk about time, all my favorite subjects.
		He's sort of a Carl Sagan type, and this should be fun.
		So if you'll just stay right where you are, we've got a fascinating entertainment lined up for you this evening.
		Don't move.
unidentified		Happy and a family.
		Subscribe to After Dark.
		Call toll-free.
		1-888-727-5505.
		Can some people really find water?
		I'm so happy to forget to play my role.
		You take yourself, you make myself unroll.
		I, I live among the creatures of the night.
		I haven't got the will to try and fight against the wind tomorrow.
		So I guess I'll just believe it that tomorrow will never come.
		I'm standing light.
		I'm living in the forest of the dreams.
		I know the light is not as it would seem.
		I must believe in something so I'll make myself believe it.
		This night will never go Oh, oh, oh, oh Oh, oh, oh, oh To talk with Art Bell.
		Call the wildcard line at area code 775-727-1295.
		The first-time caller line is area code 775-727-1222.
		To talk with Art Bell from east of the Rockies, call toll-free at 800-825-5033.
		From west of the Rockies, call 800-618-8255.
		International callers may reach ART by calling your in-country sprint access number, pressing option 5, and dialing toll-free 800-893-0903.
		From coast to coast, and worldwide on the internet.
		This is Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		And this is going to be fun.
		Here comes Brian Green.
		Actually, Dr. Brian Green, because he received his undergraduate degree from Harvard University.
		His doctorate from Oxford, where he was a Rhodes Darby, joined the Physics faculty at Cornell University in 1990.
		Appointed to a full professorship in 95 and 96.
		Joined Columbia University where he is currently a professor of physics and mathematics.
		He has lectured in more than 20 countries and is widely regarded for a number of groundbreaking discoveries in superstring theory.
		His discoveries have been reported in Science, the Los Angeles Times, Science News, and elsewhere.
		He's the author of a book called The Elegant Universe, Big Book, and his latest book, The Fabric of the Cosmos.
		So, just from those titles alone, you just know we're about to have fun.
		Stay right there.
unidentified		Stay right there.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, that's interesting.
		We lost Dr. Green.
		Somehow got disconnected before we even got him on the air.
		I think I may have him back here.
		As a matter of fact, let's find out.
		Dr. Green, did you make it back?
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		I am back.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		Holy mackerel.
		I mean, Oxford, Cornell, Physics, just serious qualifications.
		It is an honor to have you on the program.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		Well, thank you very much.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		I'm glad to be here.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		So, what do you think about gay marriage?
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		Oh, subject I don't really want to talk much about.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I'm just kidding.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		The last hour is probably enough.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, I'm just kidding you.
		I'm just kidding you.
		But I do want to ask you about time.
		God, I am so in love with the whole concept of time and what it is, what time really is, whether it really is anything to be concerned about at all.
		Is it just something we measure here on Earth, you know, literal, straightforward, linear time, and that's all there is to it?
		Or is there a lot more?
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, no, I think there's a lot more to it beyond just what we can measure.
		Certainly our measurement of time is our most direct access to time in our everyday lives, hours, minutes, seconds, years, and so forth.
		But Einstein taught us a long time ago that the notion of a time that extends throughout the universe and is the same everywhere and every when just isn't correct.
		So for instance, if you and I are moving relative to each other, there's a real sense in which time elapses at different rates.
		Our watches tick off seconds at different rates because we're moving relative to each other.
		Or if I go near the edge of a black hole, time will elapse far more slowly for me than it will for you far away from the black hole.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		We know that for sure.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		We absolutely know that relative motion between us will change the rate of time because we perform experiments and actually see that happen directly.
		This is not a theoretical idea, although that's how it was initiated.
		Now it's an experimental fact.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Huh.
		We have a little noise on this phone line.
		Doctor, are you hearing that?
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		I am, in fact, yes.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		You know what?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Let me redial you.
unidentified		Okay.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		We may get it anyway, but let me re-dial you.
		That's something that absolutely drives me nuts.
		I'm an audio nut, but it's not right.
		And occasionally when you dial a number, you get a poor connection.
		Or maybe it's just something inherently any better?
		It is a little better, actually.
		Okay.
		It is.
		It's still there a little bit, but it's a little better.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		It must be the cheap telephone I'm speaking of.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		You're on a cheap phone?
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		Well, it didn't look so cheap when I first got it, but it's a bit old by now.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		We ran the big old phone company off that produced the good old, you know, I've got one here, the real old honesty got indestructible.
		That's right, indestructible ones.
		Now we've got what we're left with.
		Is that how we move forward in science?
		Then we've got cell phones, which are a degradation of audio beyond all belief.
		It just seems like science sometimes, when they take a step forward, it sounds more like one in reverse.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		Sometimes it is that way.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Back to time.
		So if time is more than just something that we can measure, I heard that if two objects are moving, that's how time began, right?
		In other words, one object relative to the other.
		There can't be time without objects moving relative to each other, right?
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, well, time and the passage of time is really just a measure of change.
		So anytime things change, that's how we denote that time has passed.
		The strange thing is that two individuals in our single universe can disagree on how much time has passed between two events, each of which are specified and they both agree upon.
		That's very strange.
		Very unfamiliar.
		But it is the way that time actually works.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Is time an absolute constant?
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		No.
		In fact, that's a corollary, an implication of this idea that it elapses at different rates.
		You see, Newton, in the late 1600s, thought that time was absolute because he was thinking about time as we experience it in day-to-day life.
		And certainly, I think we all feel in our gut that if an hour passes for me, an hour passes for you.
		If a year passes for me, a year passes for you.
		What could be more basic?
		That's what we all see in the world around us.
		But 250 years after Newton's discoveries, Einstein realized that Newton wasn't quite correct.
		He realized that there is no absolute time.
		There is no clock out there ticking away seconds in a manner that's the same for everybody, regardless of what they're doing, how they're moving, the gravity they're experiencing.
		That isn't how the world works.
		Because, as I was mentioning before, if, in the most simplest example, you and I are moving relative to each other, you get up from your chair right now and you start to move.
		The rate at which time elapses for you changes relative to how it elapses for me.
		In fact, you know, this can be taken to extremes that are within science.
		If you were to board a spaceship, go out into space, travel near the speed of light, we can't literally do that.
		Just in our mind's eye, imagine you travel out near the speed of light, you turn around after six months, and you come back to Earth.
		You'll have gone out for six months, you come back for six months, you will have aged one year.
		But if you were going sufficiently fast, when you return to Earth, 10,000 years will have elapsed or 100,000 or 1 million years, depending upon how fast you move.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		You made a pretty important point not to slide by, and that is we can't travel near the speed of light.
		And isn't the brutal, honest truth, if we can't travel near the speed of light or even beyond, then we're not going anywhere relative to everything that's out there.
		Maybe we're not going anywhere.
		We might go to the moon, we might go to Mars, and maybe the rest of the planets.
		But beyond that, there's no way, is there?
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		Unless we find technological breakthroughs in the future that allow us to travel more quickly than we can in, say, the space shuttle or in any of the vehicles that we've constructed to this point, then you're absolutely right.
		But the point I'm making is one of the properties of time, the basic fundamental properties of time.
		And they can be elucidated by doing thought experiments as opposed to necessarily real experiments.
		And the thought experiment that I was just describing is one that is implied by Einstein's theory of relativity.
		And in case you think it's just in the mind of the beholder, let me just emphasize that although we can't make human beings go anywhere near the speed of light, we can make particles of matter go near the speed of light.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		If I were in that spaceship traveling and then I returned home at near the speed of light, I would not have age particularly relative to those on Earth who would probably be dead and buried.
		Is that what I'm saying?
		Exactly.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		That's exactly right.
		And as I was mentioning, we can do this for little particles.
		We take little particles, we put them in these accelerators, these so-called atom smashers.
		We have many of them around the world.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I'm sorry, I've got to stop and ask a question.
		Sure.
		Because I'm not fully grasping that.
		For me, on the spaceship, how much linear time would have passed?
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		In the example I was describing, one year.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		One year.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		So it would really seem like an ordinary year had passed for you.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		To me.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		That's right.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		So if let's say you can read 10 books a year, you'll have read 10 books.
unidentified		Right.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Right.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		When you return to Earth, though.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		People are dead.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		People are dead.
		The 21st century is long since forgotten.
		It's a piece of ancient history.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		So then time travel in that sense is or would be possible.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		Completely.
		But it's a special kind of time travel.
		It's time travel to the future.
		We definitely know that physics allows for a particle or a being in principle to leapfrog from one moment in time into a future moment.
		Getting back is the hard part.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Going back in time is the hard part?
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, and there are proposals for how you might do that, but most of us believe, even though they can't be fully ruled out today, that time travel to the past is an impossibility.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Huh.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		So if you're going to take that jump into the future, you better be sure you want to go.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, speculate a little for me.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		If time travel into the past would be possible, what theoretically, out on the edge somewhere there, might make it so?
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		Well, there have been proposals making use of things called wormholes.
		And in fact, there's a whole chapter in my new book that goes through this highly speculative idea, but it's certainly an interesting one to kick around.
		A wormhole is a tunnel through space.
		It takes you from one point in space to another through a shortcut.
		That's what an ordinary tunnel does here on Earth.
		We can go from point X to point Y more quickly because we can burrow through the mountain.
		We can tunnel through it.
		A wormhole does the same thing in space, so it takes you from one point in the universe to another.
		Here's the thing.
		If you move one of the openings of the wormhole, its mouse, if you will, if you move one mouse relative to another, then time elapses differently in the two mouths, much as we were just saying a moment ago.
		And that means if you now pass through the wormhole, it'll not just be a tunnel from one point in space to another, it will be a tunnel from one moment in time to another.
		And if you go through in one direction, it will take you, excuse me, it'll take you to the past.
		If you go through the other direction, it'll take you to the future.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Like Jodi Foster in contact.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, that's what was meant by the graphic illustration where she was going through this very colorful psychedelic journey.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		he was according to the actual tax going through a wormhole from here to some distant galaxy and returning uh...
art bell ▲ ● ▼		is that as theoretically possible as your first example of going in a spaceship near the speed of uh...
art bell ▲ ● ▼		No?
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		Definitely not.
		There are a lot of issues as to whether, number one, wormholes actually exist in the universe.
		Totally open question.
		We do not know the answer to it.
		Number two, even if they do exist, there is a lot of work that has been done indicating that it may be very hard, perhaps impossible, to keep a wormhole open long enough for anything, even a radio transmission, to go through it.
		The problem is energy can cycle through the wormhole.
		It's sort of like, you know, when you have feedback, when you take a microphone and you put it next to a speaker and the sound cycles through and you get that screeching noise.
		Similar thing can happen with a wormhole, that energy can cycle through from the past to the future, past to the future, and you get an infinite energy buildup, which would destroy the wormhole just as it was getting in place to be traversed.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Then might not the answer to this lie somewhere in the area of feedback, the nature of feedback.
		Now, you mentioned audio feedback.
		You can take a video camera pointed at a monitor and see an infinite, or as much resolution as you want it to, an infinite number, and it's like you're looking down some long tunnel or wormhole.
		Same exact thing.
		So, could there be something in the nature of feedback that we don't understand yet that might relate to some of this in some way?
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		Absolutely.
		Really, really?
		But I should say that when I say absolutely, I'm saying that 99% certain that there isn't, but until it's fully ruled out, I and most other scientists keep a completely open mind on these things.
		But the more one has studied the physics of wormholes, the more it seems bleak for there being such a mechanism to save them from this disastrous outcome.
		But who knows?
		And one of the exciting things about cutting-edge physics is you don't know what you're going to discover.
		You don't know what sort of new ideas might save older proposals from destruction.
		And the wormhole conceivably could be one of the things that saved.
		I, in my gut, don't think so, but I have an open mind.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		How likely do you think it is that there are multiverses, that more than just our universe exists, that there are other adjacent ones?
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		Well, it depends exactly what one means, because the idea of a multiverse or the idea of parallel universes has actually been proposed in a variety of completely different contexts.
		So maybe I can just outline the various versions, and we can just sort of discuss each.
		So in quantum mechanics, this is this theory of molecules and atoms that was developed in the 20s and 30s, there is a notion of parallel universes, which arises because in quantum theory, the best you can ever do is predict probabilities, that things will turn out one way or another.
		You know, like a 12% chance of this, a 13% chance of that, and so forth.
		Whenever you do a measurement, though, you don't find 12% of an outcome.
		You find it always in one position or always in another location.
		So the question was, where did the potential outcomes that seem not to be realized in your measurement go?
		Do they just kind of disappear into the ether or where are they?
		So some have suggested that there may be parallel universes in which every possibility allowed by quantum mechanics is realized, one outcome per universe, if you will.
		And in one of those universes, for instance, you and I are talking as we are right now.
		In another parallel universe, when you tried to call me back and we got cut off, it didn't work, and we're not talking.
		And on and on.
		You can imagine all manner of possible outcomes are realized one per universe.
		That's a very interesting idea, speculative idea.
		Some physicists really ascribe to this notion of quantum mechanical parallel universes.
		I am somewhat up in the air on it.
		I find it a very extravagant way of thinking about quantum mechanics, and I am not convinced that that particular notion of parallel universes is actually realized in the grand scheme of the cosmos.
		Others would disagree.
		A second kind of multiverse is one that comes out of cosmology.
		You see, the Big Bang, we often think about the Big Bang as the event that gave rise to the universe that we see around us, the stars, the galaxies, everything in space.
		Who's to say, though, that the Big Bang was a unique event?
		Maybe there are many Big Bangs.
		Maybe Big Bangs take place all the time, just in far-flung regions of our universe.
		Maybe new universes sprout off of our part of the cosmos.
		So maybe the grand picture is as if you have many bubble universes, like a big bubble bass, and what we have long thought to be the universe is simply one bubble in that big, multi-bubbled, populated universe.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Do you lean toward this one?
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		This one actually has good reason to suspect it could actually be true.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		When you look at the mathematics of what's known as inflationary cosmology, that's the cutting-edge theory of how the universe began, there really is no reason to suspect that the event that gave rise to the stuff we see around us was unique.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Doctor, should I be at all concerned when I hear reports of various labs working on trying to create either a black hole or perhaps some kind of, you know, they call it a mini-bang.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		But somehow or another, something like that just seems like it has the possibility of going wrong.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, I can understand how it might seem that way, especially since black holes have long been given a reputation as these ominous, dangerous things out in space that swallow anything that comes nearby.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Suns and planets, things like that.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, so you might worry, you know, if you create one in the laboratory, is there a danger it's going to swallow all of the Earth?
		Answer, absolutely not.
		No worry, zero worry.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Why?
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		Because the ones that we would be creating in the laboratory would be microscopic.
		They would be incredibly tiny black holes.
		So tiny, in fact, that they would disintegrate in a tiny fraction of a second.
		So the black holes that we hope we're going to produce, we have our fingers crossed because this would be so exciting.
		We hope that we'll produce these in the atom smasher that's now being built in Geneva, Switzerland.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		That's exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		Yes, the Large Hadron Collider.
		It will be ready by 2008 or so.
		And if we are lucky, not unlucky, if we're lucky, we're going to produce many, many black holes in the collisions between matter that is circulating in one direction with other matter circulating in the other direction in the tunnels of this accelerator.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Which means we're on our way to what if we do that?
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		Well, we're on our way to perhaps proving a theory that I and many others have spent the last 20 years developing.
		It's called string theory.
		And string theory is what we believe to be the unified theory that Albert Einstein himself sought.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		That's the answer to everything, right?
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		The answer perhaps to everything.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Hold on, Doctor.
		We'll get right back to you.
		Dr. Brian Greene is my guest.
		Yes, that one little equation, perhaps no longer than your thumb, that I'm told would provide the Answer to everything.
		The equation that would literally answer all our questions, I guess, about ourselves and God and the afterlife and everything.
unidentified		from the high desert this is coast to coast a m the Be inside of the sound, the smell of the touch.
		There's something inside that we need so much.
		The sight of the touch or the scent of the sound, or the strength of our leaves deep in the ground.
		The wonder of flowers to be covered and then to burst up from tarmac to the sun again.
		Or to fly to the sun without burning a wing.
		To lie in a meadow and hear the grass sing down all these things in our memory's heart And they use them to come to us to fight Yeah Right, right as you saw Take this
		place, all this truth, just for me Wanna take a ride.
		To talk with Art Bell.
		Call the wildcard line in area code 775-727-1295.
		The first-time colour line is area code 775-727-1222.
		To talk with Art Bell from east to the Rockies, call toll-free 800-8255033.
		From west to the Rockies, call 800-618-8255.
		International callers may recharge by calling your in-country sprint access number, pressing option 5, and dialing toll-free 800-893-0903.
		From coast to coast and worldwide on the internet, this is Coast to Coast AM with Artfam.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		You know, ever since I've heard about it, I've wondered about that equation, that short equation, one maybe as long as your thumb, that would explain everything, answer everything.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		How, I wonder, would it really answer everything?
unidentified		That's a good question.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		We'll ask it in a moment.
unidentified		We'll ask it in a moment.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, all right.
		Doctor, I've heard about this now for many years from you and others like yourself, Dr. Kaku and others.
		And this short equation that might answer it all, can you even begin to speculate for me on how would it answer everything?
		And what kind of answers would we get from this magic equation if we had it?
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		Sure.
		Well, first of all, when one says that it will answer everything, one really has to put everything in quotes because it's a very, very specific kind of everything.
		When we say everything, we mean that it would tell us what the fundamental ingredients making up everything in the universe actually are, and it would also tell us the fundamental laws by which those ingredients interact and influence each other.
		Now, if you believe, as I do, that you can understand in principle how something behaves, if you understand how its ingredients behave, then from that point of view, we would answer every physical question that you might have about things in the universe around you.
		But make no mistake, if you want to understand why it is you got up, got dressed, and went to work today from the basic laws of physics, we're not able to do that, and we'll never probably be able to do that.
		The gap between an understanding of the little molecules, the little atoms, the little subatomic particles that make you up and the processes that go on inside your brain is such a huge gap that we currently and perhaps never will be able to bridge it fully.
		If you understand the basic ingredients and the basic laws, we feel that we have an understanding of the essential underpinnings of the physical universe.
		That's our goal.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, with the discovery of element 92 came the risk of self-annihilation.
		Yes.
		Would such an equation possibly bring with it some great new control or power or knowledge of manipulation of atoms in some way in which there would be some new devastating weapon possible?
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		I doubt it.
		I really very much doubt it.
		But, you know, when the folks were developing quantum mechanics in the 20s and 30s, I don't think they had in mind that it could lead to both powerful weapons and also powerful gadgetry that has changed the face of the world as we know it.
		I mean, it's one thing to emphasize the negative, which I think is important because we need to bear these lessons of history in mind.
		But one should equally well emphasize that without quantum theory, we wouldn't have personal computers.
		We wouldn't have cell phones.
		We wouldn't have lasers.
		We wouldn't have all manner of medical technology that saves lives around the world.
		So, indeed, science can go both ways.
		It provides powerful tools.
		The question is, what do people do with the tools?
		You know, a hammer can do good things.
		A hammer can do bad things.
		It really depends on whose hand you place the hammer.
		So in terms of string theory itself, though, I should say that the scales at which we are describing the universe are so incredibly small.
		The strings in the conventional formulation are a hundredth of a billionth of a billionth the size of an atomic nucleus.
		That's how small they are.
		So it's a little hard for me to imagine that in any reasonable length of time, people will use string theory to do anything really practical, bad or good, in the world around us.
		Really, it's more a matter of understanding the deep laws of the universe.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Where is today's Einstein?
		Any thoughts on that?
		I mean, we had a man who's already lived and died who showed us things that unless he had showed us, we might not still have.
		So where is the next Einstein?
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		Well, some people think that the next Einstein already exists and is doing great research and lives in Princeton, New Jersey.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		His name is Edward Witten.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Oh, really?
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		And he is the leading light in string theory and has been for two decades.
		And, you know, I've had the privilege of working at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton where he works.
		And we've interacted over many years on many projects.
		And I can tell you firsthand, there's nobody else on the planet like him.
		You can come to him with vague ideas, with insurmountable problems, and he can look at them and penetrate them in a way, in a creative way, in a powerful way, that allows progress to be made where nobody else on the planet really would have been able to make progress.
		It's not to say that string theory is a one-man show.
		It's not.
		We have a thousand physicists around the world.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		But you're saying he's special.
		He is special.
		The world occasionally, I guess, gets these very special people.
		What's he like?
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		He's a very nice person from the point of view of just social interaction.
		But again, from the point of view of scientific intuition and insight, it's astounding.
		It's astounding.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Do you think that scientists have any moral obligation with regard to their discoveries at all?
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, I do, absolutely.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		You do.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		You can't just divorce yourself from the work that you have a hand in discovering.
		But I would say that the work itself, as I was saying before, is kind of value neutral.
		The discoveries that we make in basic science do not come equipped with instructions for doing ill or doing good.
		It's really basic knowledge.
		And then the critical thing is what happens at the next step.
		Now we've seen, as I mentioned, that the next step, even for a theory as esoteric as quantum mechanics, has been both good and bad.
		And indeed, I think it is the responsibility of scientists to maintain a hand in the education, the education of what this work means and what this work can do.
		But of course, there is a limit to what scientists can do once their ideas are put out in the public domain.
		once you're in the public domain nobody owns them how do you feel um...
art bell ▲ ● ▼		doctor about the advance of science with regard to for example computers i mean it does seen the speed at which uh...
art bell ▲ ● ▼		computers are improving will i mean you could project a time certainly it when when they will I guess I can't say become sentient, but I don't know why not.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		Sure.
		Well, you know, to tell you the truth, since it's late at night, I'm willing to speculate a little bit here.
		You know, I do think that consciousness is nothing but a biological computer.
		I mean, the brain inside our head, to my mind, is nothing but a very sophisticated, very fast computer.
		So I can imagine, I can imagine, way beyond the technology that we currently have, that one might be able to build a computer whose processing powers would rival that and perhaps give rise to something similar to what we have been able to create through evolution.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		If we were to create a being intellectually far greater than ourselves, would we have done a wise thing?
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		Again, I think it depends.
		You know, with hindsight, you can look back on a discovery and wonder what the world would have been like without it.
		So in this particular case, we're speculating on speculation here, but were one to create a being whose intelligence was beyond ours, and were that being to give us a cure for cancer, were that being able to open up the heavens in a manner where we could communicate and perhaps visit distant worlds?
		Yeah, that would be fantastic.
		But, you know, there's this wonderful science fiction story.
		There are many of them, but go back to the original.
		You know, I think it was called R-U-R, written by Carl Kapek, if I'm not mistaken.
		One of the early science fiction stories about computers in the form of robots taking over the world.
		Yeah, you can write doomsday scenarios as well.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		There was the Forban Project.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		I'm not familiar with that one.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Oh, no, really.
		Well, it was a computer that got a hold of the nuclear arsenals, you know, and you can imagine from there.
		But I mean, today, we seem to live in a time when it seems to me that the average person can begin to speculate that we're moving so quickly that it's foreseeable that we will create a computer that will rival or even exceed human processing capability.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		Sure?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		That's quite something to contemplate, isn't it?
		And okay, well, and then there's the quantum aspect as well.
		Isn't there?
		In other words, aren't people beginning to talk about quantum computers?
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, quantum computers would be a kind of computer that would be based on a completely different idea than the conventional computers that we all use.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		In what explainable, understandable sense?
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		Well, the computers that we all use on our desks generally, just to simplify things, do one operation after another.
		So every time you hit your key, you set off a chain of operations, one after another after another.
		The computer can do them very quickly, and therefore you can do whatever, word processing, play video games, whatever.
		A quantum computer would be a computer which inherently does many, many operations simultaneously.
		Because in quantum mechanics, if you remember when we were discussing this 20 minutes ago, there are many possible outcomes in a given experiment.
		As I was saying, you can say 20% chance of this, 30% chance of that, and so forth.
		A quantum computer makes use of that range of potential outcomes to do many calculations in each of those potential outcomes simultaneously.
		And then you, the user, are able to pick out from this wealth of simultaneous calculations the one that's of interest to you.
		But in this way, the computer can perform many, many more calculations per second than one of the conventional computers on your desk.
		And that way, problems that would be completely insurmountable for a standard computer might be cracked by one of these quantum computers.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, then, is sentience, for example, merely a matter of processing speed and storage?
		And when it finally gets fast enough and big enough, we will have what we were talking about, something rivaling the human brain or greater.
		I mean, is it just that simple?
		As we make advances every 18 months, whatever it is, doubling, is that where we're going, in your opinion?
		Or do you attach some greater equation to the sentient part?
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		I don't attach a greater equation to the sentient part, but many people, perhaps many of your listeners, would disagree with me.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		They certainly would.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		To my mind, there really is nothing beyond computation in thought.
		And to my mind, there's nothing in consciousness that isn't physical.
		Consciousness, to me, is made up of molecules, atoms, electrons, photons, radiation, all acting in a particular manner.
		So I don't think there's anything in consciousness that goes beyond basic physics.
		But again, as I said.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Do you shake your head, Doctor, and wonder about a great mind, a great scientist, and a man of God?
		Are they impossible?
		I mean, does it seem impossible to you that you could be a very religious person, even a Bible-thumper, if you will, and a person like yourself?
		Are they?
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		No, I don't see that in conflict in principle.
		It really depends on the degree to which the religiosity is allowed to coexist with scientific fact.
		I think that's the key idea.
		So let me just explain what I mean by that.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Sure.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		We scientists go about the world and, through thought and experiment, try to figure out the basic laws.
		We try to figure out why it is that your table is solid, why it is that air allows us light to trans is transparent to light, and so forth.
		Now, we have made fantastic progress, and we understand an enormous amount about the physical universe, from the scales of galaxies down to the microscopic scale of subatomic particles.
		Who's to say that God didn't put it all in place for us, and all we're doing is revealing the handiwork of this divine being?
		How can science ever rule that out?
		Because the divine being could have set it up so that we would find exactly what we find.
		This is an unfalsifiable notion, and therefore one that we have to allow as a possibility.
		So there's no way that science will ever rule this out.
		Do we need this divine being?
		So far, I see no need for it, but as I'm quick to say whenever I mention that, I always, in the back of my mind, apologize to this divine being in case you're listening in.
		So I allow for this, but I feel like I don't require it in any of the work that I do.
		Now, if you have a Bible thumper who wants to say that creationism is right and evolution is wrong, if you have a Bible thumper who wants to say, indeed, that the earth and the heavens were all created in six ordinary days and then the divine being rested on the seventh, that seems to directly conflict things that we know in science, and therefore there really is a contradiction between the two points of view.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		To the degree that you personally cannot accept Genesis.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		Not literally.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		Not literally.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		To accept Genesis, you have to attach different meanings to the words.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		Absolutely.
		If it's a standard use of the English language, at least in the King James Version that we might look at, it's hard to see, or I should go further, it's impossible to see how a literal interpretation of those words jibes with things that we know about the universe.
		Again, however, if you take a step back and you think a little bit more abstractly and just imagine, yeah, God created it all, God created the laws, and we are working out the laws of physics.
		That framework is one that certainly I can work within because one is not taking any direct words about how the universe is built from a divine origin.
		One is simply admitting that it could be that God set up the game and we are working out the details.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Is there any other plausible explanation for the Big Bang?
		I mean, I'm told the Big Bang came from something smaller than a quark, which even I cannot imagine, and then became all that is now.
		And that's unimaginable for most people, including me.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, no, it's a key question to ask.
		In fact, you know, I spend four chapters in The Fabric of the Cosmos carefully going through the cosmological theories that we have developed.
		And one of the main points that I stress there is that even though the Big Bang is sometimes portrayed as the creation of the universe, it's not.
		It's an incomplete theory.
		And scientists should absolutely admit this.
		It's an incomplete theory because it doesn't tell us what happened at the very beginning.
		It tells us what happened a split second after whatever happened in the beginning.
		And it tells us how the universe evolved from that split second after the beginning until today.
		And in that realm, it does a great job.
		It makes predictions that we can verify.
		Let me just quickly finish.
		But if you ask me, how did it all start?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		I can't tell you.
		Nobody can.
		Nobody can from the point of view of physics.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		So, in all of physics right now, there is nothing that can explain that creation whenever and wherever it happened.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		That's correct.
		The equations that we currently have, when we try to push them right to time zero, right back to the very beginning, the equations break down.
		We encounter what we call a singularity.
		That's the technical term.
		But it's a technical term that simply means we don't understand what's going on.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		And you call it the singularity.
		Yes.
		A single event which remains completely and utterly beyond your grasp.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		So far.
		But people like myself work day and night in an attempt to further our equations, further our understanding, so that we'll fill in this missing piece.
		It's not as though this is permanently beyond science.
		I feel quite confident that within our lifetime, we will fill in this part of the story.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Really?
unidentified		Yes.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, once you have filled in that part of the story, then potentially you can project that you might have a way to reproduce a big bang.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		Sure.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		In fact, some scientists at MIT studied, again, theoretically if you might be able to create a new universe in the laboratory using some ideas, again, from this inflationary cosmology.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		And again, of course, you're going to tell me that the creation of another universe in a lab, hey, no problem, right?
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		In principle, it would be no problem.
		But I should even go further.
		In practice, we're not going to be able to do it.
		This is really a thought experiment because the extreme conditions required to actually initiate the sequence of events that they were studying to bring a new universe into existence, it's so far beyond anything that we can do.
		It's really just a thought exercise because one of the main tools that we use to learn about the universe in extreme situations that we can't really create in the laboratory is to think about them.
		Think about them deeply, and that's what they were doing.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		But, Doctor, what do we know about what the conditions were at the instant of the Big Bang?
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		We don't know at the instant.
		That's the problem.
		But we do know.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Or even prior to.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		Prior to is even a more difficult question.
		We can come to that if you want.
		But we do understand what they were a split second after.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		Well, we'll talk about that, and then perhaps even speculate about before if you can do that.
		There was not time.
		There were not things.
		There was nothing.
		And then there was the singularity.
		And then there was everything.
		Right?
		And all of that, except for the instant after, all of that, prior to, is a complete mystery to the best minds in physics.
		And one of those is my guest tonight.
		His name is Dr. Brian Green from the High Desert in the middle of the night.
		I'm Mark Bell.
unidentified		Would you pay 15 cents to hear the video in its Entirety.
		That's the daily charge for streamlining.
		Sign up at www.coastacoastam.com.
		Can some people really make a colour?
		I love you.
		I love you.
		To talk with Art Bell, call the wildcard line at area code 775-727-1295.
		The first-time caller line is area code 775-727-1222.
		To talk with Art Bell from East to the Rockies, call toll-free at 800-825-5033.
		From West to the Rockies, call ART at 800-618-8255.
		International callers may reach Art Bell by calling your in-country spread access number, pressing Option 5, and dialing toll-free 800-893-0903.
		From coast to coast and worldwide on the internet, this is Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Creation.
		Actually, that's interesting.
		The scientists, the physicists, people like Dr. Green call it the singularity.
		That single thing, that big single thing.
		I was kind of curious what conditions might have been like at that time.
		In other words, was there truly nothingness in the not that humans can grasp the concept of nothingness, but no space, no dark matter, no planets, no just nothing.
		Think about that.
		Would those have been the conditions?
		That's what we'll ask about in a second.
unidentified		That's what we'll ask about in a second.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Once again, Dr. Brian Greene.
		Doctor, welcome back.
		Hi.
		All right, so we have this singularity, this creation event, or the happening, whatever.
		The conditions that must have been present just prior to whatever it is that happened, is there any way to grasp that?
		I mean, no time, no planets, no just nothing, right?
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		It's very tough because we're used to seeing things created within the universe.
		We're used to seeing, you know, whatever, a chicken lay an egg.
		We're used to seeing a house built.
		We can sort of see the raw material from which the object is made, and we can, in our mind's eye, or literally watch it being created.
		The universe is different.
		You can't step outside the universe.
		We're all within the universe.
		We're all within space and time.
		So it's more of a challenge.
		But let me give you an analogy, which I think at least begins to hint at what it might mean to have a realm in which space and time don't yet exist.
		Because that is a kind of realm out of which our universe likely emerged.
		If you take a glass of water, we all are familiar.
		The water is nice and silky smooth.
		It can quench our thirst.
		It's transparent and so forth.
		Now we all know that the water is actually, microscopically, made up of something completely different.
		It's made up of these little H2O molecules, which by themselves show none of the features of everyday water that we are familiar with.
		Similarly, many believe, and I'm one of them, that space and time are like the glass of water.
		They're just a large-scale manifestation of something more fundamental.
		Space and time themselves are made up, we believe, of kind of molecules or atoms of space-time.
		We're still trying to figure out what those fundamental entities would be, but just like an H2O molecule shows none of the large-scale properties of water as familiarly experienced, these fundamental entities would probably show none of the familiar features of space and time as we know them.
		They would just be different.
		And only when you get a lot of them together do they yield the familiar ideas of space and time.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		Raymond in Wildwood, New Jersey on the computer sends me the following kind of an interesting question.
		If we accept that technology can reach a point where it can be used to produce societal simulations down to molecular interaction, then must we at that point accept that we may exist in a similar simulation?
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		Somebody's been watching The Matrix a little too much, perhaps.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, maybe.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		Look, again, it's sort of like the God question.
		How can anyone ever rule out the existence of God?
		He can't.
		How could anyone truly rule out that we might literally right now be in the Matrix?
		And everything that we're doing right now is fake.
		It's just stimulation, electrical stimulation of our brains, and we're all floating in pods.
		And our energy is being used by other mechanical beings.
		Is that possible?
unidentified		Yeah.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		Could the moon be made of cheese?
unidentified		Yeah.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		You have to admit a lot of things are possible.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		But is it likely?
unidentified		No.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		Is it completely nonsense?
		Probably.
		But can we prove it?
		No.
		These are very hard things to disprove.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		But if we find this equation that we talked about a while ago, then that might be one of the things that we would suddenly grasp, right?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		The way creation is.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, I mean, would we gain any insight into the Callers or the emailers question?
		Probably not, because again, we are talking about the basic laws that govern the microscopic structure of everything around us.
		What interesting large-scale entities you can build from the microscopic entities themselves is a little hard for a theory, any theory, to access.
		It's just too complicated.
		Look, we understand the biology of single cells, but it's very hard to use that understanding to understand how the brain works.
		We've not yet been able to do that, even though we understand everything that makes up the brain by and large.
		So it's very hard to understand complicated systems in the world.
		In fact, it might even just say in a sentence, there are three big questions that face science.
		How does the biggest stuff in the world work?
		How does the smallest stuff in the world work?
		And how does the complex stuff in the world work?
		We've spent most of our time working on the big, Einstein's theory of gravity, understanding the small, quantum mechanics, but it's a big challenge to understand the complex.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		The complex, and the human brain squarely in the middle of that one.
unidentified		Yes, exactly.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Are we not doing enough research into the human brain?
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		A lot of research is being done.
		A lot of fantastically interesting research is being done.
		I know if you've seen these fantastic pictures where a subject is stimulated in some manner verbally asked to think about something or shown pictures that stimulate certain kinds of emotional responses.
		And pictures of the brain can be taken, which show how various centers in the brain are associated with various thoughts and various emotions.
		So this really helps to decode, at least on a phenomenological level, how various kinds of mental activities are associated with certain physical processes in the brain.
		It's wonderful to see these kinds of associations be mapped out.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right, I interviewed a very interesting scientist once who was about to have a chip implanted in his arm and with possibly, well, unknown results that would be attached to the nervous system there and then be able to send certain signals to his brain.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		How do you feel about humans beginning to integrate at that sort of intimate level with machines?
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		Well, I don't know anything about the particular case that you're describing.
		Doesn't mean I'm going to comment on it.
		But as a general question, I have no problem with it.
		If I could interface with some computer and be able to, say, do calculations more quickly, or perhaps to see more thoroughly to the answers to various physics problems, that would be great.
		In fact, I do it now.
		I just don't do it in a manner that, as you say, seems as intimate.
		I sit in front of my computer many hours a day, and I constantly use it in certain software to do calculations that I can't do on my own.
		I can't do them by hand.
		They're just too hard.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, doesn't that combination of humans and machines almost appear inevitable now if you do some very simple projections from where we are at this moment?
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		I don't know if I would say that it's inevitable.
		It's hard to say what's inevitable, but I can say that I have nothing against it.
		I mean, sometimes, I should say I was once giving a talk down in Manhattan, and a question like this arose, and I noted that I had no problem with one day in the far future interfacing with computers by, say, implanting a chip in the brain.
		Someone in the audience yelled out, you're discussing hell.
		And I responded, I don't think I'm discussing hell at all.
		In fact, I think that response merely means that some people are too attached to the particular biological makeup of the human body.
		What's so special about the gray thing in our head that makes it somehow superior to or would be contaminated by interfacing with something of our own synthetic makeup?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		We don't know yet.
		I mean, to some people, that is a description of hell.
		You know, and of course, you know about 666 and all the rest of that stuff.
		And, hey, a lot of people believe that.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		Wait, we mean 666 is a devil or something?
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		I mean, I mean.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Devil, definitely.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		So, you know, they feel that any such attachment between humans and machines is the beginning of the sign of the beast.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, it's unfortunate that some people think that way.
		And my own feeling is that with better education in this country and with more education that really describes what science does, what a computer does, how the human brain at the phenomenological level works,
		I think that a lot of this mythology associated with the devil or a lot of these thoughts that somehow the beast is rearing its head by virtue of our interfacing with mechanical devices, I think we'd go a long way to eradicating these unfortunate ideas.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		So if it were a positive situation, you'd say, hook me up.
		Yes.
		Hook me up, Scotty.
		Fascinating.
		Fascinating.
		In your career, what would you say would be the most surprising thing about our universe that you've seen happen?
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, well, without a doubt, it's the implication of string theory.
		Again, this is a theory that I've been working on for a long time.
		This implication of string theory that our world has more than three spatial dimensions.
		So we all know about left, right, back, forth, and up, down.
		Those are the three dimensions that we all navigate easily in day-to-day life.
		String theory, again, this is a theory which for the first time puts together Einstein's theory of gravity, general relativity, together with quantum theory.
		It puts the big law and the small law together into one single law, but it only works if our universe has more than left, right, back, forth, and up, down.
		More dimensions than we see.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Can you speculate about what those dimensions might be like?
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		Sure.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		In fact, the theory gives us some close sense of what they would look like.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		And in what way would they be different?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Would the laws of physics be different?
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		No, the laws of physics, as we would be developing them in string theory, would apply uniformly every constant dimension.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Which would mean what, then, for another dimension?
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		Well, another dimension perhaps is less exotic than it sounds.
		It would really literally be another direction in which we could move, in which we could walk.
		Now, it's not some combination of, say, going north and east and you're going northeast.
		No, it would be a brand new direction that none of us has ever encountered previously.
		So, of course, the natural question is, well, why haven't we seen these extra dimensions that the theory predicts?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		Let's say I walk through one.
		Just play with me here.
		I know this is terribly theoretical, but if I were to be able to move in the direction of this new dimension, do you suppose that I would be stuck in some horribly boring, irrelevant place that's just perhaps a nothing, a chasm, a sort of a hell in a way compared to what I'm used to?
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		Well, not necessarily.
		So one of the ideas for why we can't see these extra dimensions somewhat contradicts your question, but then I'll bend it a little bit so I can give you a more interesting answer.
		One of the ideas is that we can't access these other directions because the stuff of which we are made, the protons, the neutrons, and so forth that make up our bodies, are permanently trapped in our dimensions.
		And that's why we can't do what you're saying.
		We can't walk off of our dimensions into these other ones that the theory says are there.
		Now, let's just bend it for a second.
		Imagine that somehow you could move off into those other dimensions.
		What would you find?
		Well, one suggestion is that you'd find other universes, other places where other beings perhaps would be stuck in their dimensions, unable to leave, much as we are unable to leave ours.
		The image you should have in mind is this.
		Imagine the entire cosmos is a big loaf of bread.
		Imagine that what we have long called the universe is merely one slice of bread in this grand cosmic loaf.
		And if you could move off our slice of bread, you'd encounter perhaps other slices, which would be these other universes.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, okay.
		What are the likelihoods?
		For example, are there great likelihoods that I would move into this other universe and find a world which is not markedly different from this one at all?
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		That seems somewhat unlikely.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Unlikely.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, there doesn't seem to be any real reason when we study these theories.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		More likely I'd find a world full of intelligent green lizards.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		No, I can't say anything like that.
		All I can ever again talk about is the fundamental laws and perhaps the properties of the particles that make up the entities, whatever they are, on that other slice.
		I can't ever talk about green people because I don't know how to build green people.
		I don't know the laws of green people.
		And so it's too complex.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I find wood tables, houses, trees, and earth.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		I'm trying to get a sense of...
		There may not be planets, for instance.
		There may not be stars.
		For instance, many people are not aware of the fact that the existence of stars relies upon a coincidence of a number of constants.
		We call them constants of nature, such as the mass of the electron, the strength of the electromagnetic field, and so forth.
		And if those numbers were a little bit different in our world, stars would never light up.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Then I might even go to a place where the Big Bang had not occurred.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		Possibly.
		That's right.
		So many things that we know about in our universe may simply be features that took place on our slice, but on the other slices may not have happened.
		Things may be very different.
		In fact, to tell you the truth, there's a very speculative theory by a fellow out of Princeton University and another in Cambridge, which suggests a whole new picture for the Big Bang based on these slices of bread.
		It says that the Big Bang never happened as we've currently described it in science.
		The Big Bang instead resulted when two of these slices, we call them membranes, two of these membrane universes slammed into each other.
		It's known as a big splat, if you will, instead of the Big Bang.
		So these two membranes slam into each other, and that is what we have long since been calling the Big Bang.
		The Bang is the splat.
		Again, very speculative.
		many people in the field do not believe this theory it is worth throwing out and also the idea that people here since we don't know what happened i suppose any theory like that is worthy or has to be considered I should always emphasize that.
		There are many ideas that anybody could come up with.
		Your crawlers may have many ideas of their own.
		The yardstick by which we measure success is whether the theory conflicts with observation.
		And the Big Bang does not conflict with observation.
		It does a very good job of explaining observation.
		And people are now working very hard on this new big splat theory to see whether or not it conflicts with observation.
		Some people claim that it does.
		Some people claim that it doesn't.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		it's controversial right now i thought there was actually quite a bit of evidence to well i guess you'd see you could still It might not matter, huh?
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		Yes, it might not matter.
		It might give rise to effectively similar predictions for what we should see.
		One difference, though, with the big splat, I should say, which is interesting, you can imagine that these two membranes, these two slices of bread, slam into each other, they bounce off of each other, you know, that's the bang.
		They go apart for a while, but then they might come back together and slam once again.
		So you might have the universe being created after universe being created in a cyclical type process.
		In fact, that's what this approach is called.
		It's called the cyclical universe.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, I think once in a discussion with Dr. Kaku, when we were talking about time travel, he was saying, well, if time travel to the past was possible, it may be that there's no conflict or paradox possible because if you kill somebody you shouldn't kill, you simply instantly create another bubble.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yes, that's right.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		That's one of the ways around the traditional paradoxes that people either know on their own or have seen in movies like Back to the Future.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Right.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Maybe one of the only answers.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		Well, there's another answer, too, one that people find less satisfying.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Oh.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		Let's say you travel to the past and you're about to kill your young grandfather, who for some reason you have some issue you want to do away with him.
		And the gun sticks, it won't fire.
		Or you fire and you miss.
		Or no matter what you do, the laws of physics somehow get in the way and prevent you from carrying out an act that would be fundamentally against the rule of logic.
		How could you carry out that act if by success you prevent your own birth?
		The laws of physics may have an inbuilt ability to prevent such kind of free will if that free will would give rise to logical paradoxes.
		Now, it's unsatisfying to say, what do you mean the gun won't fire?
		Of course the gun won't fire.
		I oiled it and I've used it a thousand times.
		It's not going to stick on that one particular firing.
		But this situation is unlike any that anyone has ever encountered and it may be one in which the power of the laws of physics to curtail free will might rear its head in a very powerful manner and that way prevent you from carrying out your murderous act.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		Fascinating.
		Doctors, stay right there and we'll be right back.
		It's our half-hour moment from the high desert, middle of the night.
		When such things are easily considered like how we got here, well, that's what we do.
		This is Coast to Coast AM.
unidentified		Oh, yeah.
		The mist across the window hides the light.
		But nothing hides the color of the lights that shine.
		You don't come easy.
		You know you don't come easy.
		You don't come easy.
		You know you don't come easy.
		You're going to pay your dues if you want to see the blues.
		And you know you don't come easy.
		You don't have to shout or leave the vibes.
		You can't even play them easy.
		Get up out the past.
		And all your sorrow.
		The future will last.
		It will soon be over tomorrow.
		I don't ask the words.
		I only want to trust.
		And you know you don't come easy.
		To talk with Art Bell, call the wildcard line at area code 775-727-1295.
		The first-time caller line is area code 775-727-1222.
		To talk with Art Bell from east of the Rockies, call toll-free at 800-825-5033.
		From west of the Rockies, call 800-618-8255.
		International callers may recharge by calling your in-country sprint access number, pressing option 5, and dialing toll-free 800-893-0903.
		From coast to coast and worldwide on the internet, this is Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Dr. Brian Green is here.
		You know, recently IBM announced that, and I can't remember the exact nature of it, but it was something like a light molecule that they had determined was in two places at the same time.
		In other words, the same light molecule, or whatever it was, was in two places at one time.
		Now, theoretically, that could occur one side of the universe and another side of the universe, right?
		A molecule behaves one way in one place and the same way in the other side of the universe.
		Now, what magic does that?
		Because that would seem to violate Einstein's theory of relativity and everything we just talked about with regard to the speed of light, correct?
		So if you can do that, well, then you can travel faster than time.
		Maybe.
		We'll ask Dr. Green about that in just a moment.
		Stay right where you are.
		Dr. Brian Green's latest book, Plug Plug Here, is The Fabric of the Cosmos.
		And if all of this kind of thing intrigues you, then you darn well ought to be intrigued by the title of a book like this, The Fabric of the Cosmos.
		That's pretty heady stuff.
		All right, Doctor, just before we get to the IBM thing, let's back up to the slices of bread.
		I had somebody who fast last and said that, look, isn't it possible that when you die, you simply move from slice to slice?
		In other words, it's the afterlife?
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		Not in the formulation of this idea that emerges from string theory, because again, when you die, you're still made of the same fundamental particles.
		And in the way that the theory is constructed, the particles that you are made of, that I am made of, that anything that you see in the world around you is made of, are stuck, they're trapped on our slice.
		The reason is not hard to understand.
		I'll say it in one sentence.
		The particles we believe are little strings.
		Strings that have little endpoints.
		And the endpoints are attached to our Dimensions unbreakably attached, and therefore, when you die, the stuff of which you made may be dispersed through our dimensions, but they can't leave our slice, they're stuck.
		Even in death, even in death the difference between life and death from the point of view of physics is not much.
		You're still basically made of the same stuff, it's just not functioning in exactly the same way as it was when you were alive.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Boy, the more you scientists move into the areas you're in now, the more you're going to collide with the Christians.
		Here's a doctor, a medical doctor in New Orleans, who says, you sound condescending, he says.
		Patronizing.
		I mean, there are a billion Christians, he says, in the world.
		And he boldly and condescendingly, yeah, he does say that, snickers at the suggestion of a devil.
		I guess he doesn't believe in the spirit world.
		Now, that leads me into a question about the paranormal.
		There are a lot of things that seem and appear to be inexplicable that do happen, Doctor.
		Is there any possible way you could ever lean towards understanding or believing that there is indeed things that we don't understand that I might call the paranormal on coast to coast AM, but you might perhaps attribute to, I don't know, something else.
		I mean, there do seem to be these inexplicable things.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		Well, my feeling is this.
		I mean, you know, it's unfortunate if the doctor who wrote in considered my statements patronizing or condescending, because my view is actually one of extreme humility.
		I think that we have done a fantastic job as human beings to understand a great many things about the physical universe.
		But I am the first one to admit that there is so much that we don't understand.
		We understand a small part of how this place we call home works, but there's a vast number of questions we just don't know how to answer.
		That does not, in my opinion, however, open the door to all manner of possibility and speculation.
		I have a very open mind to be convinced of things that are strange and weird.
		In fact, I, like most physicists, love weird things.
		It's our opportunity to try to make headway, to try to make progress.
		That's where progress is made, by explaining the previously unexplained.
		But in my lifetime, I've seen no evidence of a devil, and I've seen no reproducible evidence, and that's the key thing for us, is reproducible evidence of paranormal experience.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Is there any greater reason to believe in a God than there is in a devil?
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		No, not necessarily.
		They're all, again, things which I think are beyond the bounds of science to prove one way or another.
		So again, my point of view, which I submit in the most humble manner, is that what we are doing could, in fact, be within a larger context that a God set up or a devil set up or anything else that you might dream up set up.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		It's all possible.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		But I am only willing to really put my belief into things that I can prove.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		That you can prove.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		That I can see, that I can reproduce in the laboratory.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Okay, now let's jump to IBM for a second.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		They did make some remarkable, I thought it was remarkable, discovery about, I forget whether it was a molecule of light or a molecule, something or another that was in two places at one time.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, there is a feature of quantum mechanics, which again is weird, but it's weird in a way that we can test and reproduce, so we believe it, that in essence does say that particles can, in a very well-defined sense, be two places at once.
		Because when I said before that there's a 30% chance of it being here and a 40% chance of it being there, in a sense it really is at both locations.
		And it's only when you perform the measurement of where it is that it somehow snaps out of this quantum haze of being in both locations and decides or chooses to be at one location.
		That is one of the features of quantum theory.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		But if that could occur on both sides of the universe at the same time, then the implication is that there's some link that we don't even begin to understand that traverses a time and space, right?
unidentified		Yes.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		I would agree with that.
unidentified		You would.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		There are some wonderful experiments that go back to Einstein himself.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, why without a wormhole or something else that you as a physicist could explain can this be?
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		Ah, well, quantum mechanics tells us that there can be so-called quantum entanglement.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yes, that's it.
		Oh, there it is.
		There it is.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		Okay, good.
		And this phrase refers to something that we understand very well from the point of view of quantum theory.
		It says that you can have two objects that are very distant from each other.
		If you want to be extreme, you could say they are on opposite sides of the universe.
		Right.
		Whose behaviors nevertheless are linked, correlated, not autonomous.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		By what mechanism are linked and correlated?
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		Good.
		Well, quantum mechanics allows for influences in a very well-defined sense, not influences that can transmit information, but influences that can correlate behaviors to extend throughout space.
		It's a thoroughly unfamiliar idea from everyday experience.
		But experiments bear it out, and quantum theory gives the mathematics that explains it.
		So just to give you one concrete example, so we're not talking completely vague, particles can spin.
		They can spin clockwise or counterclockwise.
		You can have two particles on opposite sides of the universe, which is set up in the correct manner, will have the property that when you measure one particle and it snaps out of the quantum haze of sort of spinning partly one way and partly the other, and say spins clockwise, its partner on the other side of the universe also snaps out of the haze and starts to spin in the opposite direction.
		Even though they're very far apart, somehow they still have behaviors that are correlated.
		Well, again, I can give you an explanation that would be completely mathematical.
		I don't think that would be enlightening.
		But the summarization in terms of what quantum theory says is that distant objects can be entangled through what's known as the wave functions of each of the particles overlapping in a manner that allows them to, in a very precise sense, know about each other even though they're not next to each other.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yes, but that implies communication or direction.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		You'd think so, but let me point out why it doesn't imply communication in any traditional sense.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		So traditional communication is communication that can transmit information.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		You and I are talking, transmitting information back and forth and so forth.
		In the correlated behaviors that I'm referring to, the behavior on one side of the universe and the behavior on the other side of the universe would be completely random.
		Again, would be the quantum mechanical statement that the object can be one way or the other, and it randomly decides which to be, let's say, in New York and which to be in California.
		So the result of your measurements in New York and California would simply be a random assortment of results.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		So you're saying there is no direct connectiveness, but there is.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		Well, the connectiveness can only be recognized when you take the results of your measurements in New York and the results of your measurements in California, compare them.
		When you compare them, you do see something wonderfully shocking.
		The results agree on every measurement.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, that just can't be.
		According to Einstein, according to everything that we've talked about so far tonight, that can't be.
		And if it can be, then you haven't explained it in a way I can understand it yet.
		Isn't there some way to do that short of math?
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		Well, let me just try again in words.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		So one, and perhaps the most useful way of thinking about what Einstein's theory tells us, it tells us that no information can go from one point in the universe to another at a speed greater than light speed.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Right-oh.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		That's the standard statement.
		Let's go with that.
		My claim is that in the examples that we are discussing, where you have correlated behavior in, say, New York and California, there is no information being transmitted from New York to California at greater than light speed.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Okay, fine.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Then how is that occurring then?
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		Well, let me give you a cheap example, and then I'll tell you why it's cheap, but let me just give you the flavor of it.
		Let's say I have a pair of gloves.
		I have a right-handed glove and I have a left-handed glove.
		And I put each one in a box.
		I don't tell you which is which.
		I give you one box, you go to New York.
		I give your friend another box, he goes to California.
		You open up your box and you see a right-handed glove.
		Immediately you know that your friend is going to find a left-handed glove.
		Has any information been transmitted from New York to California?
unidentified		No.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		You just made use of the knowledge that if the right-handed glove is in one box, there's a left-handed glove in the other.
		So the outcomes are correlated, but no information has gone faster than the speed of light.
		Nothing mysterious here whatsoever.
		Quantum mechanics takes that idea and definitely makes it a touch more mysterious, because the glove that you measure in New York could actually be both left or right, and when you measure it, it snaps to attention and picks one or the other, and similarly for the guy in California.
		But still, as an example, as I initially described it, no information has gone from New York to California or vice versa, and therefore nothing has exceeded light speed in the sense of no information has exceeded light speed.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Now, if you find that unsatisfying, I do because if an object is in two places at one time and doing the same thing.
		No, you're right.
		I'm not satisfied.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		Good.
		So there are many physicists, but I should say there's a minority group of physicists who are not satisfied with this explanation and think that there is still some mystery here to sort out.
		And to tell you the truth, I don't know if you looked at chapter four in my new book, but I seek to be very balanced in this book.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		It's a big book, Doctor.
		I got it yesterday.
		I got it yesterday.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		That's fine.
		But the only point I want to make is that I give both of these points of view airtime in chapter 4 and in chapter 7.
		The traditional one, which is the one that I just spoke of, that no information is given in fashion in the speed of light from place to place, and the minority viewpoint, which suggests that there's still something to figure out here.
		How it is that these two objects somehow remain in lockstep, even though they are far apart from one another.
		My own view is that there is still some part of this that needs to be worked out, but I strongly believe that when the dust settles, there'll be no conflict with Einstein's relativity.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Would it be your view that all mediums, all psychics, all people who claim to be able to remote view, and we could go on and on into what seems like the paranormal, that they are all charlatans?
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		Yes, that would be my view.
unidentified		However, I would also put a footnote to it.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		I am willing to be proven wrong.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Have you attempted to inquire enough to?
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		Not myself, but there are people who I trust who have.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		For instance, maybe a fellow who you don't like very much, but the amazing Randy.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Oh, the amazing.
		You're not going to give me that.
		And why don't you give me Phil Class while you're at it?
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		Sure, that's a good question.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Oh, Jesus.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		And what I will say is that there are no examples that I'm aware of of reproducible under controlled circumstances, remote sensing or telekinesis or any of the things that sometimes are described.
		But are you asking me, do I rule it out?
		No, I have an open mind.
		I have an open mind.
		But nor do I have the time to actually investigate it myself, which is just the mere fact that time and life are limited and you have to look at the things that you find most interesting.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, yes, certainly.
		But if one of these things would happen to be true, then it might perhaps be an avenue.
		I mean, you've got to imagine it could be an avenue for finding a door to one of these other realms that we speculate about, right?
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		We're true.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		And, I mean, let me just ask you, just out of curiosity, have you witnessed a convincing demonstration of any of the things that you were describing?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		You have?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
unidentified		Okay.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yes, I have.
		You want it?
		You want to hear it real quick?
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, Sure, why not?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right, fine.
		Here it is.
		It's just like a million other stories.
		It just happens to be mine.
		It only ever happened to me once.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		Ah, you see, once all it begins to bother me.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		No, no.
		No, no, no, no.
		Listen to the story before you decide.
		Here I am in Santa Barbara, California, where I lived at the time, in my apartment.
		Come home from work, sit down, watch the evening news, like a normal person, right?
		Sitting on the couch.
		All of a sudden, waves upon waves, like ocean-crashing waves, start coming over me.
		Mentally, someone's going to hit your car.
		Someone's going to hit your car.
		I thought, God, that's stupid.
		But I was bothered enough.
		I went over and parted the curtains and looked out this sliding door we've got, right?
		Looked at my car, and it was cool.
		It was parked in the street, right in front of the apartment.
		I could see it was cool.
		I said, boy, is this stupid.
		And I went back and watched TV.
		And it began immediately, overpoweringly, it started, someone's going to hit your car.
		Someone is going to hit your car.
		Finally, I said to myself, damn it, I can't stand this.
		I went back over, parted the curtains, looked.
		Here goes a guy walking down the pathway, gets in the car right in front of mine, starts it up, and backs into my car.
		Boom.
		While I'm watching.
		That's it.
		It's no more dramatic than that.
		But there was no wondering or question about it.
		It was a case of precognition.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		So here's my question.
unidentified		Yes.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		Many of the examples of this sort, and maybe it doesn't apply to your case, I feel like people take note of when a thought is confirmed by something that happens in the world, but they don't take note of the thousand or ten thousand other cases in which they had a similar kind of thought, but it didn't take note of it.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Never in my life have I had, I mean, this was like, I don't even know how to explain.
		I have no parallels to tell you about.
		This was so strong and so overwhelming that there was not even the question in my mind about what it was.
		It was something I had never in my life felt before, nor have I felt since.
		And it was dead accurate.
		Now, something happened.
		I'm telling you, Doctor, something happened.
		That was precognition.
		Now you can say some totally random coincidence, but I don't buy it for a second.
		And those who have experienced something like that also wouldn't buy it for a second.
		There is another something there.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
		Again, it's very hard to comment since it's one event.
		And the thing that science is good at explaining is events that you can reproduce over and over again.
		So you can study them looking at them left, looking at them right, looking at them deep inside.
		So that's why it makes it very hard for someone such as myself to have anything interesting to say when it comes to events of that sort.
		We need repeatable events that we can study over and over again in controlled circumstances.
		So for instance, you know, were you able to go into a laboratory and consistently would be useful for us because that's something we could really study.
		So it's hard.
		It's very hard to know what to make of that particular example, coincidence or not coincidence.
		I don't know.
		In my gut feeling, it is coincidence.
		I can't prove that, of course.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I guarantee you it wasn't.
		Hold on, doctor.
		Stay right there.
		I don't know.
		I know what I just told you is true, and there's nothing coincidental about it, but I understand the doctor thinks the amazing randy.
		Anyway, we'll be back, and we'll open up the phone lines.
		Anything you want to ask or probe is okay.
		We've got a great mind with us, Dr. Brian Green.
unidentified		I think it's time to get ready.
		Music To realize that what I have said I had to care over my head to be there.
		My heart is gone Can some people really...
		Can I love you?
		I can see the real time So you suddenly took me out of my world I walked out Suddenly I just walked out To the heart of my mind When you find a thing that you love to get to be high So you got it to the love you want to get out When you think about it When you look
		at me, I'm a teacher of You find your world To the summer down What happened to me?
		I knew my life was you I was sure I got that you were I didn't know you I can't run I saw the good work If I'm there Suddenly it's happened If I saw my dreams When I walked away from the heart of my mind To talk with Art Bell, call the wildcard line at area code 775-727-1295.
		The first-time caller line is area code 775-727-1222.
		To talk with Art Bell from east of the Rockies, call toll-free at 800-825-5033.
		From west of the Rockies, call ARC at 800-618-8255.
		International callers may reach Art Bell by calling your in-country spread access number, pressing option 5, and dialing toll-free 800-893-0903.
		From coast to coast and worldwide on the internet, this is Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		It is the happening, kind of like the singularity.
		Maybe you could exchange the terms.
		It was just the happening.
unidentified		Dramatic music
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Once again, Dr. Brian Greene.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		By the way, Doctor, are your books available on Amazon.com, bookstores like that?
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		Yes, it's available on most bookstores and certainly on Amazon.com.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		It's quite a task writing about the fabric of the cosmos, is it not?
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		Oh, yes, it's about the biggest subject I think you can tackle.
		You know, trying to really understand what space is, what time is, where it all came from, and where it might all be leading.
		So it's the big question.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, indeed.
		All right, stay good and close to the phone for me.
		We're going to start to bring some callers on.
		And it'll be interesting to see where they go after what they've heard.
		It really will.
		First time caller line, you're on the air with Dr. Brian Green.
		Hi.
unidentified		Yes, my name is Leona, and I'm calling from Central Texas.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Hi.
unidentified		This is the first time, obviously, a little nervous.
		I would like to ask Dr. Green what he thinks of the idea that one of the aspects of time is like a function of the ratio of time alive versus time left.
		Sort of like we're writing the Doppler effect.
		I've been pondering for a long time the phenomena that for a child, one day seems like a really long time.
		And for an infant, a 30-day-old infant, one day would be 1 30th of their life versus an elderly person.
		And I was wondering if he had any thoughts on that.
		And I've really been wanting to have somebody help me with figuring out what that mathematical formula would be like.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		It is an interesting question.
		Certainly she's right.
		To an infant, 1 30th of its life, one day.
		Is there anything there to toy with?
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		Well, I don't think from the point of view of the fundamental physics itself.
		So we, when we talk about time's property, are not really attempting to explain the psychological experience of time, but we're trying to explain time itself.
		But I think what the caller brings up is certainly something that we're all very familiar with, and I think it comes from the simple fact that the longer we're alive, the more likely it is that the things we experience are things we've experienced before or we've seen before, and therefore the novelty, the rate at which we receive novel stimuli from the environment gets really down.
		I mean, a baby, everything is new.
		And that's why a day in the life of an infant is huge.
		There's so much new information coming in.
		You know, I don't know if you've experienced this, but I have.
		When I've gone away on an exotic trip to some place that's very unfamiliar, like trekking in Nepal, for instance, one day there does seem like two weeks here because so much is new.
		So I think it's really a matter of how many new stimuli you receive from the environment versus how many are just old hat.
		And that's what makes time psychologically appear to slow down or speed up.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Do you think that the modern world with its World Wide Web and communications and satellites is adding to the speed of evolution?
		Or perhaps could a case be made that it's slowing it down?
		Because there is, in effect, less and less novelty?
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		When you say evolution, do you mean literal Darwinian evolution or just like progress?
		Well, at the macro or micro level, it's a little hard to say exactly how it would have an impact on standard evolution, but I think it clearly has an effect on progress because all of a sudden we have at our fingertips a huge amount of information and a huge amount of disinformation.
		There's a lot of stuff on the web that is useful, a lot of it that's not useful.
		So I personally, in my own research, have found the web extraordinarily useful for being able to do research much more quickly than I could in any other way.
		But at the same time, you have to have various filters and various red flags that will come up to let you know when you're reading something that actually has no basis in truth.
		And I think that's a very important feature.
		When people surf the web and read all sorts of stuff, they have to make sure that the source is something that can be trusted because the information that one is reading can be faulty and often is if it doesn't come from a trusted source.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, if you had read an email of the story I told you, you'd chuckle and toss it, just like yesterday's spam, wouldn't you?
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		It depends on how it was presented to me.
		If it was presented as proof that precognition is true, I would be enormously skeptical because, again, it's one event.
		Even in science, when we have one event, we don't trust it.
		We go back and we try to reproduce it.
		And only when we have a huge number of events all turning out the same way do we then publish a paper.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I bet you'd hit delete faster than I could say precognition.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Wildcard Line.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		How long does it take?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Quick.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Wild Card Line, you're on the air with Dr. Brian Green.
unidentified		Hello.
		Hi, Dr. Green.
		Pleasure to talk to you both.
		Hey, Dr. Green, now, will you publish, if you're ever sitting on a couch and you have this same experience and it actually happens, I'm sure at some point in your life it would have to happen.
		It sure did to me a couple of times.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		Well, let me just quickly jump in.
		I have had experiences which at least superficially sound similar.
		Well, in other words, Art's description in terms of the waves coming over and they're very strong.
		I don't know if mine were as strong, but I have had examples where I've had a feeling of something and then indeed it has come true.
		The thing is, I have also taken into account and I've noticed with just as much fervor the 10,000 other times when I had a feeling that something was going to happen and then it didn't happen.
		And in that grander context, it doesn't feel as convincing any longer because, you know, once in a while, a stray thought is going to come true, and that's how it is explained, at least in my own mind, the experiences I've had.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, what I experienced, though, Doctor, was more like a freight train.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		It wasn't a random thought, it was a freight train.
unidentified		Right.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		See, that's the difference.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		I don't think I've ever had that experience.
unidentified		I have two scientific things to ask you, and what a pleasure it is to be able to do that.
		And thanks, Art, for your devotee, Bill Duke.
		Sure.
		A rookie physicist all my life as a hobby.
		Could it ever be that the time paradox, if I traveled in time across the universe or at any other point arrived there at that time, we'll say before you kill your mother or whatever, I'm there.
		I exist in reality, in the physics, in the way you've been speaking tonight.
		My molecular structure is there.
		Now, if I kill my mother, there is no paradox because I simply was there at that time, and time from that point forward travels, we'll say, on that tangent or on that skew that it is then.
		But there is no leap then that physics would enforce.
		And then another quick question, I'll hang out and let you answer.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, no, let him address that one.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		So that's a good question.
		And indeed, it turns out that one of the ways around the paradox that we discussed earlier in the show really is a rephrasing of what you were just describing.
		Because you basically want to say that the future unfolds from that moment when you kill your grandmother.
		And things just unfold as they're going to unfold in this new reality that emerges from this new act that you carried out in what we traditionally would call the past.
		That really is essentially the multiple universes picture.
		That you go to the past and you change things.
		You change them and thereby create a new future.
		And that new future unfolds in a new universe.
		That really is a multiple worlds explanation.
unidentified		So there isn't that the other universe then didn't unfold?
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		Well, I would say that the other universe did unfold, but you left that universe.
		When you traveled to the past, you traveled to the past of a different universe.
		And you carried out your act there and in that manner changed the course of events in that new universe, much of them the way that you were describing.
unidentified		So then you believe it really could be multiple universes.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		I'm simply saying that if one believes, there's a big if, if one believes in multiple universes, it does give a way out for these traditional time travel paradoxes.
unidentified		And if they didn't believe in multiple universes?
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		Well, again, there is this other way out that I was describing where you wouldn't be able to pull the trigger, that you don't have free will.
		And the only reason I bring up these ways around the paradox is to simply say that you cannot rule out time travel to the past merely by these paradoxes, because there are ways to avoid them.
		That does not mean that time travel to the past is possible.
		It simply means you have to work harder to rule it out.
		You can't simply use these paradoxes to accomplish that goal.
unidentified		I see what you're saying, yeah.
		The other quick and, you know, I was listening to you explaining to Art about the glass of water.
		Could that also be stated in, here we are in a sphere.
		Our universe is, I guess, what, 14 billion light years across.
		A sphere, an egg.
		Now, on the other side of that, this wall or this membrane, is what is able to contain that egg.
		And also what, we'll say, bore that egg.
		And, of course, in that case, it could possibly bear a lot more of them.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		It's a little hard to make full sense of what you're suggesting because I think you're imagining that there's something beyond sort of the end of space.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Okay, let's ask about that.
		I wonder about that myself.
		In other words, we can see out now I saw an interesting article about using something to magnify something else, and we have now seen out to the very edge and the very first things that exist in the universe or the last things, I guess, however you want it.
		First things, really.
		So what theoretically would be beyond that?
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		Good.
		Well, it depends on what your image for the shape of space actually is.
		The one that the experiments seem now, the observation of the experiments seem to be pointing toward, is what we call a flat shape for space, which means that it's not curved.
		It's kind of like the three-dimensional analog of a flat tabletop.
		But it's a flat tabletop that goes on, perhaps, forever.
		That there is no edge.
		There is no place where you hit a wall and then have to ask yourself what's beyond this wall.
		Because in this picture, space would go on to infinity.
		There'd be no edge.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		There'd be no edge.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, then, I still don't know what then might be at the end of that last item that was the first product of the Big Bang.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		Good.
		So when you're looking out into space, you're not just looking in space, you're actually looking through time as well.
		Because whenever you see, for instance, a star in the sky, you're seeing it as it was a while ago because the light it emitted took a certain length of time.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		That many light years ago, yes.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		That's right.
		So when we talk about seeing the edge, that's really the edge in time, not the edge in space.
		We're saying that there may indeed have been a first moment.
		As we said, it could be the Big Bang.
		We don't yet fully understand it.
		So there could have been a first moment, but even at that moment, space could have gone on forever.
		So there need not be an edge to space.
		There may be an edge to time.
		There could have been a beginning to time, but that doesn't mean there's an edge to space.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		So if you went out to this first object and then beyond, you might leave time?
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		Indeed, but there may not be any sense to going beyond it.
		Let me give you an example.
		If you're walking on planet Earth and you're heading in a northward direction, you pass somebody, you say, point me north, and they point north and keep on going.
		You pass somebody else, you say, how do I go further north?
		They keep pointing you.
		Finally, you reach the North Pole and you ask somebody there, how do I go further north?
		At that point, they say, well, this is where north begins.
		There's no notion of going further north than the North Pole.
		You're done.
		Similarly, you can imagine looking back in time, 10 years, 100 years, a billion years.
		You can go further and further back in time.
		But when you get to the very beginning, it may indeed be where time starts.
		There may be no sense in going further back in time in much the same way as there's no sense in going further north than the North Pole.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		But my mind still has to grasp something beyond The first object of that explosion.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		Only because you're very wedded to an idea that I understand well because it's what each of us always experiences.
		Anything you point to in the world around us had a beginning, and we can ask what existed before that beginning.
		That makes sense when you look at your computer, what existed before it was made.
		It makes sense when you look at your parents, what existed before they were born.
		But when it comes to the entire universe, sometimes the most familiar, simple-sounding questions just no longer apply.
		So it may well be that when it comes to the universe, when we talk about the moment of creation, that may really be where time starts and asking about what happened before.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Then past that object would be where time stops.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		Where time no longer has any meaning.
		The notion of before may no longer apply because there's no time.
		I agree, this is a very hard idea to grasp.
		Do I fully grasp it in my gut?
		I don't.
		I understand it from the mathematics, and I roughly understand it using the words that I just described to you.
		But it's a very hard idea because it's the first example in which there might be no notion of before.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, we could not exist, could we, theoretically, in a place where time does not exist.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		We would exist.
unidentified		That's right.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		That's right.
		Life as we know it needs both space and time to exist.
		Now, let me just emphasize that I don't know that what I just said is the answer.
		It's the impossibility.
		It may be that there is a before the Big Bang.
		Perhaps the Big Bang was an event that took place in a pre-existing universe.
		There's no evidence for that, but it's not ruled out either.
		So I just want to be honest and state both points of view.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Oh, well, what about the possibility?
		You used the analogy of a man walking to the North Pole.
		Yes.
		What about the concept that when you got there, you would get back to where you were instead of out to that very first object that was blown apart in the Big Bang?
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		Sort of like circumnavigating the Earth kind of thing.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, if you keep walking north, you're going around South Pole, and you eventually get back to the North Pole again, right?
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		So that would be a picture of a cyclical universe.
		One where you go back in time and time sort of recycles around and the whole story happens.
		And indeed, as I mentioned, there is this proposal, which is recently in string theory, where we would have a cyclic universe.
		Remember those two membranes slamming into each other?
		They could slam into each other every trillion years or so, in which case time would just cycle around again and again.
		That's not impossible.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Under such conditions, our entire universe could perhaps collide with another and we could cease instantly to exist in the present form.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		Yes, I would say that's a possibility.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		I wouldn't say it's something to worry about, but indeed it's a theoretical possibility, yes.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, I mean, it does sound worrisome.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		East of the Rockies, you're on the air with Dr. Green, hi.
frank in new york ▲ ● ▼		Yes, good morning, Art.
		Good morning, Dr. Green.
		Very stimulating.
		I have a little metaphor that I've been thinking about for the last year or so, and I call it the time dilemma.
		And it's briefly stated as such.
		Our future is already history in an alternative universe.
		After attempting to look at string theory and notions of time from Dr. Witten, Dr. Kaku, Fennyman, Gelman, what strikes me about string theory as a metaphor or an extension of the sociology of knowledge is the fact that when events can't coexist within a certain framework or a mathematical equation,
		we increase the complexity by moving to another dimension.
		If I'm not mistaken, string theory originally began with six or eight dimensions, and I believe now it's already up to what, in the 60s, or theoretically, it could be an infinite number of dimensions.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Gee, I thought it was 11.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, it's 11.
frank in new york ▲ ● ▼		Oh, is it?
unidentified		Okay.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		Can I jump in and address what I think the question is, and then you maybe follow up if I haven't.
frank in new york ▲ ● ▼		Go ahead.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		Go ahead.
		So I understand the sense that you have that physics encounters problems, and what science does is sort of make more complicated theories in order to embrace take care of these new issues.
		And the example you raise, it might seem like in order to solve some problems, we have merely introduced new dimensions in order that we have more flexibility.
frank in new york ▲ ● ▼		Correct.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		That's not what happens.
		And I really want to emphasize this.
		We start with string theory.
frank in new york ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		And the number of dimensions that the theory requires comes from the understanding of the theory itself.
frank in new york ▲ ● ▼		But it continues to expand.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		Pardon me?
frank in new york ▲ ● ▼		But it continues to expand.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		No, that's actually not true.
		So 11 really is where we are at.
		And any sense that somehow it may go to 12, 13, 15, or 100 is really unfounded.
frank in new york ▲ ● ▼		At this point in time.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		At this point in time.
		Now, of course, I have to say that because who knows where progress will take us.
		Okay, what I don't want you to have the feeling is that we pull these extra dimensions out of a hat to solve a problem.
frank in new york ▲ ● ▼		No, I understand that.
		Because it's sort of like when I was in high school, you could conceptualize, as a sentence, a cone existing beyond its apex.
		But within our notion of mathematics and our dimensionality, it can't.
		That by going into additional dimensions, that cone can exist beyond its apex.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right, both of you, caller.
frank in new york ▲ ● ▼		I'm sorry, Archie.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I'm going to have to hold it there because we're coming up to a breakpoint.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		So.
frank in new york ▲ ● ▼		Would you like me to hang up then, Archie?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		No, hang on.
		And I want that answered.
		So stay right there.
		We do have to break here.
		From the high desert in the middle of the night, when such thinking is encouraged.
unidentified		Yeah.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Coast to coast.
unidentified		AM, and I'm Art Bell.
		To talk with Art Bell.
		Call the wildcard line at area code 775-727-1295.
		The first-time caller line is area code 775-727-1222.
		To talk with Art Bell from east of the Rockies, call toll-free at 800825-5033.
		From west of the Rockies, call 800618-8255.
		International callers may recharge by calling your in-country spread access number, pressing option 5, and dialing toll-free, 800-893-0903.
		From coast to coast, and worldwide on the internet, this is Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		It is your turn with Dr. Brian Green.
		He's a physicist with impeccable credentials.
		He's a fascinating man, and he answers questions just exactly like most scientists do.
		and for a lot of people I know that's very troubling Once again, Dr. Brian Greene.
		And Color, it seemed like an inappropriate place to cut you off, so here we are.
		Yeah, go ahead.
frank in new york ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, so in a sense, I have to mention this, Dr. Green.
		I'm not a mathematician, and I know that when we get into more than four dimensions, the math becomes incredibly complex.
		But my question was basically this.
		When I look back to the history of science and study what Einstein was doing for the last 20 years of his life, trying to work, let's say, within one system or one group of dimensions to find his grand unification theory that would be applicable across the board without having to go into other dimensions and other levels of complexity.
		We know that he had difficulty.
		But the point is, as a non-scientist, I find it very interesting that I'm just wondering if, you know, will there be, let's say, some type of pedagogical limitation imposed on the theory when it gets too complex?
		Because I do understand with computers getting more advanced and supercomputing and things that we could conceivably, you know, take this out into numerous dimensions, to find relationships among the particles that may not exist in one or two or six dimensions, but possibly in the 20th dimension or whatever.
		And then it really becomes almost impossible to understand to the layperson.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right, let's hold it there.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		But yeah, is there a way to lay that on the lay person?
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, well, one thing I would emphasize is that naively it certainly would seem that a universe with more dimensions is somehow more complicated than a universe with fewer dimensions.
		But in reality, when you actually study the theory in detail, you find that by passing to this string theory framework, it actually is a much simpler scenario than any scenario that had been previously proposed.
		I know we haven't gone into any detail here and the hour is late, but let me just say in a nutshell, string theory says that everything in the world is fundamentally made up of one kind of ingredient, these little tiny vibrating filaments of energy.
		They look like strings.
		That's why they're called strings.
		That's why it's called string theory.
		And in this picture, then, the richness that we see in the world around us emerges from the simplest possible starting point, one kind of ingredient that merely can vibrate in different ways.
		So although it may naively sound like this approach is more complicated than theories that came before, I really don't think that it is.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		West of the Rockies, you're on the air with Dr. Brian Green.
		Hello.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		Hello.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Hi.
unidentified		Hey, my name's Sean.
		I'm calling from Des Moines, Washington.
		I got a question for the doctor.
		Sure.
		Let's just suppose that I had a communication device that worked all the way across the universe.
		And at the same time, let's suppose that the space shuttle traveled at the speed of light.
		And I was on the space shuttle talking to my wife on my communication device.
		What would that be like?
		Would she be telling me, okay, now it's Monday, now it's Tuesday, now it's Thursday?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yes, interesting question.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right, fine, Doctor.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		Well, do you mind if I make it actually something that is actually physically realizable?
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		Say you're going near the speed of light.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Okay, exactly the speed of light.
		Back it off.
		Yes, past the limit there.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		So if you're going near the speed of light, but not exactly the speed of light, again, Einstein says you can't go exactly the speed of light, then indeed the communication that you'd have with your wife could be precisely as you're describing.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		She would say it's now Monday, and the signal would reach you at some point, and you would receive it, and you would hear her saying it's not intolerable.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		But doctor, wouldn't her voice be moving so quickly that you would have to record it and slow it down to even understand what she was saying?
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		Well, if you were asking me because clocks are ticking at different rates, how would you interpret the signal?
		Then indeed, you know, when you send out a wave, a radio wave, what it is, it's a light beam that vibrates, and that's how we receive light.
		When we look with our eyes, we're receiving light beams that are vibrating.
		Indeed, the vibrational patterns of the light, or in colloquial language, its color, will change by virtue of the relative motion between you and your wife.
		So, to understand what she's saying, you'll have to do some pre-processing on the signal, absolutely.
		But the data in there will still be the data.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		It would be the data, but it would have to be, say, recorded on a tape and played back at your 50th speed or whatever.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, that's right, because the wavelength of the light would be changed by the relative motion, and therefore your detector would have to be smart enough to decode the signal that had been affected by the relative motion.
		But that would all take into account.
		Let's assume that we know how to do that.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		That's a pretty cool question.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I mean, if quantum entanglement means that you could have a quantum entanglement walkie-talkie, I mean, if you want to push yourself out that far, then that's exactly the phenomena you would get.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		You're going a little bit further.
		So, if you go to quantum entanglement, the college question, as I understood it, just had signals going back and forth.
		It could have been a ham radio.
unidentified		It was just too high.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, quantum entanglement would offer the only hope of instantaneous, faster-than-light communication.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		Right, but as we described before, I don't think it can ever yield that because the quantum entanglement is not associated with the transmission of any information.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		No, yet.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		Say it again?
		Yet.
		Okay.
		In other words, as we currently understand it, I mean, who knows what's around the bend, but it's hard for me to imagine, based on at least what I know today, that the yet will ever change.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		All right.
		International line, you're on the air with Dr. Brian Greene.
		Hello.
unidentified		Hello, is this me?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		That's you.
		All right.
		All right, you're going to have to yell at us.
		You're not too loud, sir.
unidentified		Okay, I'm on a cell, so.
		Okay.
		Yeah, actually, my question was about entanglement.
		From what I'm understanding, I don't know, I'll go back to the glove analogy.
		The glove analogy seems to be a very passive analogy.
		And from what I'm understanding, the way this works is that these particles tend to basically decide their rotational tendency at the point that you measure them.
		This seems to be more of an active state.
		Rather than a passive state.
		I'm also taking that we have the capability of being able to tell that that state changes at the point that we measure it.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
unidentified		So my question is, what would the implications be if we developed a technique of measuring these particles without forcing them to change that state?
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		Yep, so it's a good question, if I can just jump in and say a few words on it.
		So one of the strange features of quantum mechanics is indeed the one that you are putting your finger on, which is the theory says that there's a 50% chance of the particle being one way, a 50% chance of it being the other way, but any time we actually look at it and measure it, it's always definitely one way or definitely the other.
		We never, for instance, see a particle that is literally in both of these states at the same time.
		So the act of measurement does affect the thing that you are observing.
		This is unusual because we are unused to a reality that is ambiguous until it is observed or until it is measured.
		But that is, in fact, the way reality works.
unidentified		Right, but that's because primarily because we just don't understand the phenomenon thoroughly.
		I mean, obviously, we don't understand it thoroughly.
		It kind of seems to be a mystery a little bit there.
frank in new york ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		But if you're asking, is it conceivable that one day we'll do some kind of observation that will not disturb the system, but somehow reveal its fundamental features and show it in some quantum mixture of being both this way and that way?
unidentified		Right, you made reference to that earlier.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		It's hard for me to imagine that we'll ever be able to create measurements of that sort.
		But do I believe that the underlying reality is like that?
		Yeah, I do.
		I really do.
		I really do believe that things can be in this strange mixture of being both one way and another, being at one place and another.
		That is the underlying reality.
unidentified		It's within possibility then then.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		Excuse me?
unidentified		Say it again?
unidentified		It is within the realm of possibility then that technology could be developed to be able to measure without affecting us.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		It's within the realm of possibility that we may get a clearer glimpse of that underlying reality.
		What that would look like, I don't know.
		But indeed, I do think that's the way the underlying reality is put together.
		So I guess I'd partially agree with you.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		First time caller line, you're on the air with Dr. Brian Green.
unidentified		Hello.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Hello.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
unidentified		Hi.
		Dr. Green, you know, I've been reading, oh, Elegant Universe and some of Dr. Jim Oshman's work and Edgar Mitchell.
		I had two experiences in which, and I'm not one to really buy into a lot of this.
		You have to show me also.
		But I had two experiences in which I very much experienced going back in time.
		And one, and I was wondering if you could just kind of work with me because, you know, and not argue if it was real or not.
		But anyway, one especially, I was at a dinner party and this gal sitting across from me was talking about a time when she was having a very difficult time in her life and she had two children.
		She was camping.
		And this little dog came running up to her.
		She loved animals and she wanted to take it home but just couldn't.
		And this was like two or three years ago.
		And she was so, you know, always wondered what happened to that little dog.
		And something came over me similar to what happened to Art Bell.
		And I just said, you know, there is no such thing as time or space.
		We can go back there and we can intention.
		What happened to that little dog?
		I went around the table, and this is really not like me, but I went around the table.
		We sat facing to each other, holding hands, and I started, you might say, even praying.
		All of a sudden, I was back there in the campground, and I could see this little dog running up to us and just, you know, wagging his tail, and he's kind of frantic.
		I knew that he was gray in color, he was a wiry type, and he was about medium size.
		The most interesting thing, a part of that, is that then I was aware of something on my left side, and I'm fully conscious, and we're sitting there holding hands.
		And I even turned my head to the left.
		I saw the two of us sitting there, off in the future, holding hands, sitting in those chairs, off in the future.
		Now, and I was back there in time.
		Now, this might all be a figment of my imagination, and I think I'm kind of saying this because I think other people have had this similar experience.
		Except when we finished, I asked her, what did that dog look like?
		And she said, oh, he was kind of small, and he was gray, and he was wiry.
		I saw that dog.
		But the most interesting thing is that I really felt the experience of being there in time.
		Now, I'm wondering if we could sort of analyze this, especially since what really caught my attention is your statement about molecules of consciousness.
		And I was wondering if it was somewhat similar to Josephson's tunneling.
		You know, that somehow our molecules of consciousness can travel in time.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		It's difficult for me to respond, I fear, in a way that you'll find satisfying.
		It sounds like a very vivid experience, and it does sound like a very rich use of imagination to really put yourself in a circumstance that your friend had described informally before you went into the more formal part of holding hands and really trying to go back there.
		My own feeling is that you did create in your mind something which was akin to the situation that your friend described.
		How indeed you got the dog's description correct, I don't know.
		Could she have mentioned it to you before?
		Could you have taken it in subliminally?
		Could you have just gotten lucky?
		I don't know.
		But my gut feeling is, and I'd actually say beyond gut feeling, my large certainty is that no time travel took place, that all it was was reimagining a past, but in the present.
		The imagination took place in the present.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		If we can have the seeming impossibility of quantum entanglement at any distance and over time, then why is it difficult to project that perhaps consciousness or the active,
		alive human brain may be able to, in the same way these people, these remote viewers who claim some remarkable things, may be making use of some variation of the concept of quantum entanglement.
		And they all seem to claim they can read through time and space, future, past, present, doesn't matter.
		It's meaningless in the area that they discern what they discern.
unidentified		Sure.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		I understand the desire to try to apply quantum entanglement to these very mysterious experiences that some people report.
		The reason why I'm extraordinarily skeptical of it is because the entanglement, number one, is far less mysterious than the reports of these individuals because as I've emphasized a number of times, no information is transmitted through the entanglement.
		But in the examples that you're describing, it does indeed sound like information would be transmitted from one point in space to another, one point in time to another.
		The second reason why I'm highly skeptical is that the experiments that we do to establish entanglement are on individual single particles.
		Anytime we try to do it with many more particles, it's not that it's impossible, but if it's not a highly controlled environment, the entanglement gets very diluted among the many particles.
		And its power to coordinate behavior over separation goes way, way, way down.
		It gets very, very weak.
		So when it comes to a human being trying to use entanglement, a human being is made up of so many particles that it's essentially impossible for me to understand how entanglement could still have its potency when spread out in such a manner, when spread out with diluted.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Have you looked at all at the work being done at Princeton?
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		This is the work where the consciousness can affect the outcome of throwing of dice and things like that.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		Is that what you have in mind?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Actually, they've got a program that has computers, which they call eggs, lovingly, that they place all over the planet that all report back to one computer that puts it all together.
		And they're registering these spikes in what otherwise ought to be randomness.
		In other words, for example, on 9-11, they registered a spike from all their eggs that drove this little baby right up off the charts.
		And they did that three hours before the 9-11 event.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, I don't know anything about that.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		You don't.
		You really might want to look into that.
		It's really quite fascinating, and there is repeatability there.
		In other words, they can correlate world events with what they've monitored.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		Have they made any predictions that were actually borne out?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I don't think they're in the prediction business.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		They're trying to discover something about the nature of what they consider to be perhaps mass consciousness.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		Against my worry is that after-the-fact explanations are one thing.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		Before-the-fact predictions what science is about is quite another.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yes, but if you can continually correlate spikes that perhaps occur before major world events, and you can do that again and again and again, then pretty soon you can call it science.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		If it makes real predictions.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		No, no, it doesn't have to make predictions.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		It only has to show that something affected a computer, otherwise spitting out complete randomness, and that this occurs again and again and again previous to things that affected.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		Well, that would be a prediction.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		I mean, then you'd see a spike and you'd say X, Y, and Z is going to happen.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, I guess, all right, I guess you could say that.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		And if it can really do that with some accuracy, yeah, then it would be fantastically interesting.
		My sense is that it will never happen.
		But look, I don't mean to sound dogmatic.
		I'm open-minded.
		And if they can make these predictions, I'd be fascinated.
		I'd love to see it.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		And suppose for one second that it was so absolutely scientifically repeatable, how would someone like yourself attempt to rationalize it?
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		Well, this is what science is all about.
		We look at the data, we look closely at the data, and we try to see whether we can explain it using science as we know it.
		I mean, this is the kind of thing I face every day, but not with world events, but with particles behaving in one way or another.
		So I would use the same techniques.
		Would they be successful there?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I don't know.
		And there might even turn out to be parallels.
		Indeed, there might.
		Listen, you know what?
		We're out of time.
		We're out of time.
		It's that fast.
		Your book, your current book is The Fabric of the Cosmos, Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality.
		You also wrote The Elegant Universe, right?
		That's correct.
		But I'm sure you would recommend your latest work, would you not?
		All right.
		Doctor, thank you so very much.
		It has been fascinating.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		Thank you.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		I've enjoyed it.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Take care.
brian greene ▲ ● ▼		Bye-bye.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Bye.
		It's almost 2 a.m. here on the West Coast, and time for us to go.
		It's been an honor.

▲