Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

May 16, 2004 - Art Bell

02:51:24

Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell - Dr. Michio Kaku - Life of Einstein

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	This is an encore presentation of Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell.
	From the high desert in the great American Southwest, I bid you all good evening, good morning, good afternoon, whatever the case may be and whatever time zone you reside in.
	We cover them all, one way or the other.
	This, of course, is Coast to Coast AM, and I'm the Weekend Guy, Art Bell.
	Happy to be here, honored to be here with you.
	We are going to jointly explore one of the greatest minds in the world tonight, Dr. Michio Kaku, one of the greatest theoretical physicists in the world, a man whose textbooks are read by all physics students, A co-founder of the String Theory, a really bright guy.
	At this hour, we're going to do open lines and talk about anything that your heart desires.
	Unscreened.
	Unprepared.
	Just rip him, tear him, punch him, and do it.
	That kind of deal.
	Listen, again reminding you, Eugene, Dr. Eugene Malov, is dead.
	Tonight, we have a, he's been murdered.
	He was bludgeoned to death as he was in Connecticut taking care of a property.
	He was bludgeoned to death.
	They say during a robbery or I would add I guess what appeared to be a robbery.
	There's no way to really know yet.
	I'd like to make a programming note here if I can and that is that next week I won't be here.
	I will be instead in New York with my beautiful bride, Ramona, going to the opening of The Day After Tomorrow, the premiere.
	So that's where I'll be.
	Next week, I've not been abducted.
	Nothing untoward has happened to me.
	The cabal that runs the guys who we think we elected, well, they didn't do it.
	I'm just going to a movie.
	What a big one.
	It's going to be really exciting.
	Well, I'll talk more about the movie here in a little bit, because it's in the news.
	I haven't had an opportunity to say anything about the murder of Nick Berg.
	And I want to.
	Tonight's headlines, two months before pictures of Iraqi prisoner abuse became public, the family of one accused soldier wrote to 14 members of Congress, it seems.
	Said that something went wrong involving mistreatment of POWs.
	Separately, a suspended Army officer in Iraq apparently wrote to Republican Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania that he was being unfairly punished after, quote, pictures of naked prisoners, end quote, were discovered.
	He sent the letter six weeks before the CBS program 60 Minutes 2 first broadcast photographs of the prisoners, April 28th.
	I guess I join in the administration in being shocked that the Islamic world didn't express more, I don't know, outrage, I guess, at the beheading of Nick Berg.
	Why not?
	They continue to express their outrage.
	I read you the first story in the news, the lead story in the news just now, and the outrage over what we seemingly did in those photographs.
	It continues to be at the top of our news, and I guess the top of the Islamic news.
	Had some embarrassing photographs taken, and no, I'm not saying torture is appropriate.
	On the other hand, if you look at a man who has probably killed and tried to kill many Americans in that prison with a pair of panties on his head or whatever embarrassment they subjected them to, and you compare that to the beheading You know, there's a number of things I don't understand about this.
	For one thing, they kind of had the U.S.
	on the run, you know, from a PR point of view.
	I mean, all of a sudden we were the dirty dogs who did these terrible things to prisoners, and that's the way the world... And then all of a sudden along comes a beheading, along with video and audio that I did not partake of, thank you very much.
	I can imagine how horrible it was.
	And I don't need to see it, and I don't need to hear it.
	But I do wonder, when they had us, from a PR point of view, on the run, why they would do something that should be horrifying the world equally with or certainly to a greater extent than, you know, what I've seen so far in the photographs.
	I don't know about you.
	I don't think the photographs ever should have gotten out.
	Now, they're trying to say that Rumsfeld ordered all of this.
	Rumsfeld and company are denying it.
	And I catch a lot of nasty email about this, but you know, I really want to say that in that prison, for the most part, are people who have either killed or tried to kill or planned to kill Americans.
	They're trying to kill us.
	You know, like the ones who ran the planes into the building.
	Same motivation.
	They want us dead.
	And we are at war.
	W-A-R war.
	And terrible as it was, what may have been done to them to embarrass them, to get them to talk, if that was going to save American lives, then I guess I don't shrink away from saying it's part of war.
	Yes, I know the Geneva Convention says it's not part of war, and I know that publicly the U.S.
	administration has to say hands off, have plausible deniability in place, whatever May be the case, but I'm not surprised if there was an order from the White House at any level to try and get information from these guys through these kinds of means.
	I don't necessarily... I don't misunderstand that order.
	Let's put it that way.
	And again, I am rather shocked at the lack of What's the right word?
	Remorse?
	Horror?
	At least being chagrined that, you know, followers of whoever it is over there that did this would find any words in the Quran or anywhere else that would justify the beheading of somebody.
	So it's kind of like they're in different categories and I'm sort of surprised at the reaction.
	we will be right back incidentally this very interesting late breaking article on
	the drudge site tonight about america and britain
	both taking their exit quite rapidly from iraq I find that rather surprising, and I don't know that I buy it.
	From what I've seen, our exit from Iraq is not going to be rapid at all.
	We have a lot of work to do there, and we have to figure out a way to win.
	As I've told you again and again, I preached heavily against this involvement in the first place, but realistically, we're there now, and we need to win.
	And we need to kill them before they kill us.
	It's kind of a two-edged sword, what's going on over there.
	In other words, every radical Islamic in the world is trying to make their way into Iraq to have at us.
	So in a way, we've got them all in one place.
	I guess we need to kill them, because they certainly are intent on killing us, whether it would be by poisoning our cities, perhaps reservoirs, or setting off dirty atomic weapons.
	That doesn't take a great deal of anything but getting hold of the dirty materials and a few sticks of dynamite or whatever.
	They want to kill us, and they'll take every opportunity to kill us.
	It's called war.
	We're at war, and a lot of stuff you don't like happens when you're at war.
	That's why you have to think about war very hard before you decide you're going to have it.
	Very hard.
	So I guess that's all I have to say about that, but of course I wanted to mention the Berg thing.
	Let's see.
	Like fans anxious for concert tickets, same-sex couples waited in line for hours Sunday outside Cambridge City Hall for an event that they once thought, well, they'd never get to experience, marriage.
	Marcia Hams, 56, and her partner Susan Shepard at this hour, ladies and gentlemen.
	Susan is 52, of Cambridge, showed up at midnight and they're standing there now waiting a full 24 hours ahead of time to stake out the first spot in line where the city clerk was to hand out the nation's first state-sanctioned gay marriage application and I heard earlier in the evening on CNN, I believe, that New York State intends to honor the marriage certificates issued there.
	All right.
	This movie, the day after tomorrow, which I can assure you of one thing.
	This is going to be the biggest disaster movie ever made.
	Period.
	It's just going to be the biggest disaster movie ever made.
	This will make 10.5 look like a picnic.
	It's very brutal, indeed.
	You know, it's a movie about climate change that occurs literally in hours.
	Now, bear in mind it's a movie and a science fiction movie at that.
	I keep trying to tell people, ladies and gentlemen, it is a science fiction movie.
	Though there may be elements of it that brush on the edge of science, certainly, it's still a science fiction movie.
	Not to be taken literally, necessarily, nor should you deny the fact that it could occur.
	Because there is plenty of archaeological evidence to indicate it did occur, and what can happen once or twice can happen three times.
	Anyway, everybody's sending me stories.
	Here's one called Global warming ignites tempers, even in a movie!
	Los Angeles, any studio that makes a 125 million dollar movie about global warming is courting controversy, but 20th Century Fox does not seem to have fully anticipated the political firestorm being whipped up by its film, The Day After Tomorrow.
	Environmental advocates are using the film's release, of course they are, scheduled for May 28th, as an opening to slam the Bush administration, whose global warming policies they oppose.
	Industry groups in Washington are lobbying on Capitol Hill to make sure the film does not help passage of a bill limiting carbon dioxide emissions, which may, many scientists now say, contribute to global warming.
	Meanwhile, on Tuesday, Fox sparred with celebrity advocates who complained that they had been dis-invited to the movie's premiere, only then to be invited, re-invited later in the day.
	Or this clashing climate constructivists.
	I guess it is.
	Catastrophists.
	That's it.
	Catastrophists.
	Cinephiles may sneer at the climate disaster movie that is opening at the end of this month, the day after tomorrow, in which cities are inundated by tidal waves and snowdrifts halfway up Manhattan's skyscrapers, but Those snickering don't include strategic visionaries at the U.S.
	Department of Defense.
	There, perhaps the most legendary strategist of them all, Andrew W. Marshall, head of the Pentagon's Office of Net Assessment and longtime confidant of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, has been mulling over a report that he commissioned on the possibility of abrupt, catastrophic climate change.
	Leaked to Fortune magazine in February, The study is now being publicized in general interest newspapers and magazines.
	It is widely seen as sounding an ironic counterpoint to the Bush administration's downplaying of concerns about climate change as overly alarmist.
	Or this by Steve Connor.
	The Hollywood blockbuster that depicts a sudden ice age brought about by climate change is Remarkably realistic, in quotes, in part, says the government's chief scientist.
	This is in Great Britain now, sir.
	David King said the day after tomorrow, which he watched yesterday at a private screening in London, will increase the public's awareness of a threat that he once described as worse than terrorism.
	But he added that it plays fast and loose with some of the science of climate change.
	He said, quote, I welcome the movie in the sense that it raises the profile of governments to take action now.
	End quote.
	And it goes on and on.
	Might I repeat for hopefully some effect, ladies and gentlemen, this is a science fiction movie.
	It may be so close to what people are concerned about and beginning to learn about regarding the possibility of very quick climate change, that for that reason it's being taken more seriously, I don't know, but it is a movie after all.
	Again, I'm going to read you what this one person sent me yesterday, and he's got it right on the money about the movie.
	He said, alright, I read the book, I loved it.
	He refers to the dafted Marans fans now, also looking forward to seeing the movie.
	However, Both the left and the right wings of this country are misrepresenting your book and this movie, unless I misread it.
	It was not an indictment on global warming.
	It was a description of natural geologic processes which may or may not have been pushed along by the hand of man.
	Or pollution.
	In your book, to me, you pointed out that this geological process happens about every 12 million years or so.
	Well, yes, every... In other words, it could easily be... Here's another one, the BBC News.
	Climate film, flawed but useful.
	The blockbuster climate disaster movie, The Day After Tomorrow, contains badly flawed science and ignores the laws of physics, according to a leading UK scientist.
	Well, these are some other ones.
	But many of them have nevertheless welcomed the film as a dramatic and popular way to raise the people's awareness of climate change.
	So, I'm just getting inundated with stories about this.
	It is wild, no question about it.
	And as I mentioned to you a little while ago, I will be at the premiere of that movie in New York City next week at this time.
	So, if you're expecting me then, I will not be here.
	I believe they have planned one The best of replay and one night of Barbara Simpson is what I think is in the offing.
	New York Times, May 13th.
	In the second half of the 20th century, the world became quite literally a darker place.
	In the second half of the 20th century, the world became quite literally darker, defying expectation and easy explanation, hundreds of instruments around the world Recorded, get this, a drop in sunshine reaching the surface of Earth as much as 10% from the late 1950s to the early 1990s, or 2%, 3% a decade.
	In some regions, like Asia, the United States, and Europe, the drop was even steeper.
	In Hong Kong, sunlight decreased 37%.
	37%!
	Well, if you've ever been to Hong Kong and seen their air, you know why.
	No one is predicting that it may soon be night all day.
	They're not saying that.
	And some scientists theorize the skies have brightened in the last decade as the suspected cause of global dimming air pollution clears up in some parts of the world.
	Yet, the dimming trend noticed by a handful of scientists twenty years ago but
	dismissed then as unbelievable
	uh... uh... uh... uh...
	that you people
	i'm sorry that gets me about science I swear it does.
	I love scientists.
	And I love people who are on the other end.
	You know, on the metaphysical end, totally.
	And they never look at science.
	And the science people never look at the metaphysical end.
	And it's, for example, this brilliant mind we're going to have on tonight, Dr. Michio Kaku.
	I could ask him about out-of-body experiences, or UFOs, or things like that, and he'd go, huh?
	But then on the other hand, the metaphysical people, for the most part, don't look either at the science.
	So you can ask them, Uh, about what happens with the brain, and they go, huh?
	It's just they don't talk to each other, and I just love, I really love lines like this.
	Scientists noticed it 20 years ago, but dismissed the whole thing then as unbelievable.
	It can't be getting dimmer out there!
	It just can't!
	It's unbelievable!
	Throw it away!
	We won't deal with this!
	By God, the sun can't be getting dimmer!
	Well, it is.
	Apparently.
	Have any of you out there noticed the sun seeming, well I don't know, somewhat dimmer?
	Huh?
	It's just, it's science.
	Looking at the way science does things.
	If they find something that does not agree, Like a big old woolly mammoth with something frozen in its mouth that appears to be greenery.
	They go, oh, this isn't possible!
	And they dismiss it if they find a plant frozen down in South America, and that it's been frozen for 9,000 years.
	They go, this isn't possible!
	Throw it away.
	So things that science cannot explain, It's kind of egotistical, I guess, in a way.
	You know, like, if it doesn't fit in my paradigm, then it can't be.
	It just can't be.
	And then later, of course, they're frequently required to correct themselves in subsequent stories, saying scientists now have found out, but there's a lot of grunting and groaning before a story like that is finally issued by any scientist, a truly distressed At what he has believed and has written about and his career to some degree depends on not being true.
	So, it's fun really to talk to both groups of these people.
	And that's what you really need to do to get the entire picture.
	You need to have on the metaphysical side of things and then occasionally you need to have a brain like the one we have coming on tonight in the person of Dr. Michio Kaku.
	And then, when your own brain mixes the information together, taking in the obvious biases for both sides, then, and only then, might you have something approaching the truth.
	And that is why what we do here on this program is what we do, to bring you all sides and let you, an adult person, decide for yourself.
	So that's what we're going to be up to.
	Open lines coming up after the break, and then, as I mentioned, top of the hour, Dr. Michio Kaku from the high desert.
	I'm Art Bell.
	You're listening to the best of Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell.
	I'm Art Bell.
	I'm Art Bell.
	You're listening to the best of Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell.
	I'm Art Bell.
	You're listening to the best of Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell.
	I'm Art Bell.
	You're listening to the best of Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell.
	I'm Art Bell.
	You're listening to the best of Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell.
	I'm Art Bell.
	You're listening to the best of Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell.
	I'm Art Bell.
	You're listening to the best of Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell.
	I'm Art Bell.
	You're listening to the best of Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell.
	I'm Art Bell.
	You're listening to the best of Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell.
	I'm Art Bell.
	You're listening to the best of Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell.
	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 800-825-5033.
	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 Sprint Access
	number, pressing Option 5, and dialing toll-free 800-893-0903. From coast to coast and
	worldwide on the Internet, Art Bell.
	This is Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell.
	In case you didn't know, regarding once again the murder of Dr. Eugene Maloft, we've got
	a tribute to him on the website, including...
	Some excerpts from the last program that he did with George.
	He's been a frequent guest on Coast to Coast AM over the years, so you might want to, just in case you don't know who he was, you might want to take a listen and educate yourself.
	is right up on the front page, coastcoastam.com.
	By the way, I certainly will at least read this one for Dr.
	Kaku tonight.
	I can't resist.
	Old news to you, I'm sure, but as you're well aware, the Mexican Air Force released footage of what a UFO expert said were 11 invisible, unidentified flying objects seen on CNN and just about everywhere else, picked up by an infrared camera, As they whizzed about a surveillance plane, a long-time believer in flying saucers, journalist Jamie Masson told a news conference on Tuesday the objects were real and seemed, in quotes, intelligent, after they at one point changed direction and surrounded the plane that was chasing them.
	And this footage was on, as I mentioned, CNN, everywhere else, I'm sure that you all have seen it.
	It was on the website.
	The Mexican government at first virtually said they're real.
	They had radar cross-sections.
	They were tracked.
	They were seen in infrared.
	They were there.
	Now that's pretty heavy stuff in the world of ufology, honestly.
	It's a big one.
	We're having a lot of UFO sightings.
	CNN ran a short segment of the video of a saucer over Tehran in Iran.
	Which showed up the last week of last month.
	And now that one I missed, I didn't see it on CNN, and apparently it only ran for a very short time, but was a saucer-like something that they got video of.
	Nevertheless, the Mexico sightings are big.
	They're important.
	They mean these things really are happening.
	Whether or not they're visitors, I wouldn't have the slightest idea.
	Maybe it's American secret stuff.
	Who knows?
	But they're out there.
	There's no question about that.
	First time caller line, you are on the air.
	Hello.
	Hey, Art.
	Hey.
	This is Rio Collins from Santa Quinn, Utah.
	Where?
	Santa Quinn, Utah.
	OK.
	I just want to say how awesome you and George are.
	Thanks for doing what you do.
	You're very welcome.
	You give a lot of good information.
	And some of it bogus.
	In other words, look, in the world we deal in, you're going to get some real stuff and you're going to get some BS, and it's up to you to kind of decide which it is.
	We just bring you the out-on-the-edge stuff, but I'll tell you what.
	I've noticed that over half the time, this so-called out-on-the-edge stuff, when we read about it, two months later it's in the major media as the real thing.
	Um, I got two things I'd like to tell you about.
	Um, first, about a week ago, I think it was George had somebody on about, and they were talking about military aircraft that could just go invisible.
	How you were just saying, and, uh, me and my wife were, we'd just picked up my son from school and we were heading back home and All of a sudden, a plane came over the mountain.
	I mean, like, really close, over the mountain.
	You mean you heard it, right?
	Oh, no, we saw it coming over the mountain.
	You saw it getting shot, yes.
	It was maybe two miles in front of us.
	And then?
	And then it dropped down into the valley.
	Yes.
	I mean, like, really low.
	I thought it was going to crash.
	Yes.
	And it turned and started heading away from us.
	Yes.
	And then it disappeared.
	Ah ha ha, yes, well.
	Right.
	Okay, so we're working on that technology.
	Invisibility.
	Probably on several levels.
	We're already working on, of course, we've achieved radar invisibility effectively for the right plane.
	For example, the F-117 certainly has not got very much radar cross-section at all.
	And they're also working on optical invisibility, certainly in putting panels on the plane so that you virtually see whatever's behind the plane.
	Blue sky, you see blue sky.
	You don't see a plane.
	So, if you hear an airplane roaring over you, a jet at altitude, and you don't see it, even though you should be seeing it, you may be seeing one of our new relatively invisible airplanes.
	Or, and there's also a rumor out there, that they're working on a more serious way to achieve invisibility involving some sort of plasma shield.
	You didn't hear that from me.
	Wow, Cardline, you're on the air.
	Hello.
	What a fantastic show last night.
	This has got to be, I'm telling you, between last night and tonight with the professor, it's got to be like the world's best weekend and only second to the movie that's not even out yet.
	I'm serious.
	With Richard last night and Dr. Kaku tonight.
	Yes.
	But when you get Dr. Ron, ask him about what they talked about as far as using the pyramids.
	As a surge protector, do you think that's possible?
	And also ask him about the planetary increased luminescence that they were talking about.
	Actually, it was decreased luminescence.
	In other words, dimmer.
	I thought they said that Venus had increased by like... Oh no, you mean my guess.
	That was my guess last night, and they were talking about energy manifestations on other planets, and I will ask him about that.
	That's a good idea.
	Yeah.
	Art, just may I keep trucking?
	This is like the best yet.
	All right, my friend.
	Take care.
	Thank you.
	East of the Rockies, you're on the air.
	Cheerio.
	Good evening, Art.
	Good evening.
	Thank you for having me on.
	You're welcome.
	I'd like to do some time traveling right now.
	You would like to do some time traveling right now?
	Yes.
	Let's go back to 1974.
	Okay.
	Oh, wait now.
	Hmm.
	I see myself.
	I'm standing in a line.
	Yeah.
	Oh, I'm standing in a line.
	Yes, and there.
	Oh, I can see it in the distance.
	That gas station I'm trying to get to.
	Yeah, and it's taking forever to get there.
	Yeah, and there's fistfights breaking out, too.
	You know, that's something a lot of Americans don't remember.
	Tempers were really short.
	People got in fistfights over gasoline.
	It was pretty bad for a while.
	That gasoline didn't magically get into the ground.
	You know, there were transport truckers, and I was one of them, that had to make the runs.
	You carried gas at that time?
	At that time, I did.
	You must have been a very popular guy.
	Well, not popular, it was very dangerous, because we ran all the risk of something happening to us, especially hijacking.
	Yeah, I'm sure that's right.
	So when the people complain about a few extra pennies, maybe a little bit more at the gas pump, I like to think about them wanting to think about the transport trucker that's hauling 78 to 8,000 gallons of gasoline that's putting you in the ground for them.
	Well, I'll tell you something, my friend.
	If you think that was something, and I surely remember it as if it were yesterday, what we're headed toward right now may make that look like a picnic.
	I don't know how you feel about the concept of peak oil, and that really means that we've already reached maximum production.
	It's going to be downhill from here.
	Well, if it is downhill from here, what that's going to mean at the pump is increasing ever Increasing prices.
	You may have seen the last of the cheap gasoline.
	Peak oil means that we are at top production.
	So as capacity is, intake capacity is required and the Chinese are beginning to drive cars like there's no tomorrow, gasoline is going to be more and more of a premium and eventually we're going to have a crisis.
	It's going to make the The 70s gas crisis look like a picnic.
	Assuming something else doesn't happen to make it moot.
	West of the Rockies, you're on the air.
	Hi.
	This is Olin in Culver City, California.
	Howdy, Olin.
	Hi there.
	Last night, Richard Hoagland was griping again about NASA inaction and obstruction of scientific advancement.
	I think that the owls are the liberals watching and stalling American scientific, economic, and military development for world peace.
	First, the representative forms of government must be suppressed and destroyed from within.
	What are you reading?
	Some notes that I've been scratching real quick.
	Okay.
	Well, it sounds much better if you just say it.
	Right.
	Well, the Russian Infiltrated United Nations is going to take over and start the New World Order.
	The Russian Infiltrated United Nations?
	Yes.
	They were instrumental in establishing it with the writing of the Charter.
	Well, I don't know what makes you think the UN is going to take over anything.
	They went scurrying out of Iraq pretty quickly recently.
	Frankly, where the UN has gone, not much good has happened.
	So I know the line and the road that you're going down.
	The New World Order.
	You know, the UN can't get anything right.
	What makes you think they could run the whole world?
	They can barely take care of that building in New York.
	No, the UN isn't going to run the world.
	If anybody was going to run the world, it'd be us, as in the U.S.
	We are the most powerful.
	It's simply that we don't have the will to run the world.
	At least, I hope we don't.
	We might be the most capable, but the U.N.?
	Oh, no.
	International Line, you're on the air.
	Hello?
	Hello?
	Hark?
	Yes, yes.
	Mimi?
	I've been on for a while.
	Should I hang up?
	I beg your pardon?
	I've been on from Indiana for a while.
	Should I hang up?
	Oh, Indiana.
	Yes, you're on my international line.
	So, technically, yes, you should, however.
	Go ahead.
	Okay, I'm going to change subjects.
	I'm not a believer of the Big Bang philosophy.
	You don't think so?
	What do you think happened?
	I think we have a supreme creator who Probably will preserve the Earth in spite of what we do.
	I don't think we should intentionally abuse the Earth, but I think he's powerful enough to take care of that.
	Boy, do I disagree with you.
	In other words, I think we could blow ourselves to smithereens.
	Pardon me?
	I said, I think we're fully capable of blowing ourselves to smithereens.
	Oh.
	I really do believe that.
	Well, I guess I'm not going to lay awake at night over that because there's nothing I can do about it.
	Well, that's true.
	Yeah.
	And you're right.
	I mean, if we do destroy ourselves individually, there's not a whole lot we can do, right?
	But yeah, I think it could happen, sure.
	Okay.
	My other thing I wanted to talk about was, and very brief, if the terrorists, people seem to have forgotten what started all this thing over in the Middle East.
	And I think it's time that we stop the terrorists there.
	If we don't, they'll be here for us to stop on our own homeland.
	I think people have forgotten.
	I think that's a reasonable conclusion.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, either we kill them there or they're going to come here and kill us.
	Look, that's what's going on!
	9-11 was the wake-up call.
	Their intentions are absolutely clear and we have to kill them before they kill us.
	It's war.
	And I don't see how we could not be at it.
	Do any of you really?
	I didn't think that the approach of invading Iraq was necessarily the right way to conduct the war.
	But at war with terrorism, absolutely.
	Absolutely.
	And we have got to go take care of them before they take care of us.
	It's really that simple.
	Kill or be killed.
	First time caller line, you're on the air.
	Hello?
	Hello?
	Yes, sir.
	Is this Oregon?
	Yes, it is.
	You're on a cell phone somewhere, right?
	Yes, sir.
	Uh-huh.
	West Virginia.
	West Virginia.
	Okay, what's up?
	Okay, Paul, hold on.
	Slow down, Paul.
	You're on the air, so whatever you wanted to say, go ahead.
	Yeah, I was just wondering if you ever read a book called Beyond the Paradigm from Troy Frank Styler.
	No, I think you did call earlier before the show and I told you I had not read that.
	Yes, sir.
	Well, it's kind of interesting because I had an experience similar to I don't know what the book entails since I haven't read it.
	Well, I don't want to ruin the book for you, but... Well, don't ruin the book for me.
	Just tell me about your experience.
	What happened to you?
	Well, I was sleeping on my couch one night, and I had this really amazing dream.
	And when I woke up from the dream, I saw something Come away from me and go into the corner of the room.
	And it was really kind of like a, it was a frightening experience for me.
	And you're sure you were awake at that point?
	Yes, sir.
	Well, perhaps it was a shadow being.
	I think it was, it seemed like it was more like several different kinds of beings.
	Like, I remember hearing all kinds of different voices, like, different kind of languages and things, and it didn't, you know, I was frightened, but it didn't seem like it was threatening.
	It was the funny part, because it was, uh, it just kind of moved towards the corner of the room, and then it was gone, and then I heard this hum outside of my apartment building, because I live on the third floor.
	And then I thought maybe it was kind of like a close encounter of some kind.
	Well, you heard multiple languages, huh?
	Maybe it was the New World Order gathering from the UN and they were observing your sleep cycle or something.
	East of the Rockies, you're on the air.
	Hello.
	Going once.
	Going twice.
	Gone.
	West of the Rockies, you're on the air.
	Hi.
	Hi, good evening, Art.
	Good evening.
	Louie in Seattle.
	Hey.
	Yeah, you know, I do remember when I was a kid that the sun was more yellower than it is today.
	I've had many people say that to me, but you would think if the scientists here are right about the dimming, that it would appear more yellow than it would white.
	I understand if you're in space and look at the sun, it would be pure white.
	You'd also then be blind, so you shouldn't do that.
	It's whiter, and the more diffused it would be, it would be a lighter color, right?
	Well, now, that is true.
	You know, you do have a point there.
	Although, well, it could be like corn.
	Some corns are lighter than the other corns, and the atmosphere, and the air pollution, and la-di-da-da.
	But anyway, let me run this one by you.
	What if people like Nostradamus, who look into a brass bowl and see the future, Yes, you think, and then devised some of what they did based on the observed technology?
	Well, to them it looked real, so that must have been, to them, how things were going to be.
	But then also, too, you could maybe even surmise that Well, here's something to think about.
	and note that i'm a says in your two thousand something that
	you know the world and well that movie came out then and uh...
	maybe perhaps it does and even though maybe not in the movies but
	but in another way well here's something to think about all of our television
	programs at the speed of light or zooming into space at some point
	some alien civilization out there is going to begin receiving
	american television Milton Berle is going to be on their screens.
	I Love Lucy is going to be scorching across their little alien screens, and you just got to wonder, and as time goes on, and they observe our society through the eyes only of television, what do you suppose they would conclude about us?
	Oh my God.
	Well, yeah.
	Poor society, all they have is primitive Uh, antennas and staging, and they don't even know how to live, and they must be living their lives through this box.
	They would conclude, sir, that we kill each other at an astounding rate.
	I mean, how many people are killed on TV?
	Oh my God.
	Yeah.
	Thousands.
	Millions.
	Genocide.
	That's right.
	They'd look at that and they'd say, look at what those people do to each other.
	Oh my God.
	We've got to wipe this out.
	This Petri dish has got to be clean.
	And listen, I've got to go.
	Okay.
	All right.
	Thank you.
	You too.
	Take care.
	All right.
	Coming up in the next hour, Dr. Michio Kaku, truly one of the greatest theoretical physicists in the world.
	It will be quite a treat.
	Believe me.
	I'm Art Bell from the high desert.
	This is Coast to Coast AF.
	Subscribe to After Dark.
	Call toll free 1-888-727-5505.
	Subscribe to After Dark.
	Call toll free 1-888-727-5505.
	Subscribe to After Dark.
	Call toll free 1-888-727-5505.
	Subscribe to After Dark.
	Some velvet morning when I'm straight I'm gonna open up your gate And maybe tell you about the faith drug
	And how she gave me life And how she made it in
	Some velvet mornin' when I'm straight Flowers growin' on a hill
	Dragonflies and daffodils Learn from us very much
	Look at us but do not touch Phedra is my name
	You're listening to the best of Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell.
	To talk with Art Bell, call the wildcard line at area code 775-727-1295.
	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.
	Oh, what a treat you're in for.
	Here comes Dr. Michio Kaku.
	He is an internationally recognized authority in theoretical physics and the environment.
	He holds the Henry Summitt Professorship in Theoretical Physics at City College, that's of New York, and the Graduate Center in the City University of New York.
	He has lectured around the world, and his PhD-level textbooks are required reading At many of the top physics laboratories in the world, Dr. Kaku graduated from Harvard in 1968, summa cum laude, and number one in his physics class.
	Number one!
	I remember those kids.
	He received his Ph.D.
	from the University of California at Berkeley Radiation Laboratory in 1972, and then shortly thereafter actually turned down the opportunity to Go to work making bigger, better bombs.
	Held a lectureship at Princeton University in 1973.
	Joined the faculty at the City University of New York, where he has been a professor of theoretical physics for 25 years.
	His goal is to help complete Einstein's dream of a theory of everything, a single equation perhaps, no Longer than one inch, which will unify all the fundamental forces in the universe.
	Dr. Kaku coming right up.
	Ladies and gentlemen, Dr. Michio Kaku.
	Dr. Kaku, welcome back to the program.
	Art, glad to be on again.
	Ah, it's always so good to hear your voice.
	It really is.
	I'm going to be in your fair city next week.
	Oh, is that right?
	New York City?
	Yes, sir.
	New York City.
	The Big Apple.
	The Big Apple.
	Recluse Me is going to break away and go all the way to New York City for the premiere of The Day After Tomorrow, that movie.
	And congratulations.
	You know, it's not every time that somebody has a big Hollywood blockbuster.
	Not every day.
	Based on a book they wrote.
	Yeah, not every day, huh?
	Well, based in part on the book we wrote anyway, and of course Roland Emmerich has added his magic touch to it, and it sure has.
	Holy mackerel!
	I have a pile of stories here.
	Some scientists in Britain are saying, ha ha, yes, here it comes.
	Others are saying, rubbish.
	And it's a big, giant controversy.
	And I keep trying to say, it's a science fiction movie.
	But the administrations are worried.
	NASA, oh gosh, NASA, first they came out, I was on the air.
	And NASA said, our scientists will not comment on this movie.
	They will not say a word.
	And then by the time I'd gone to finish the first hour, all of a sudden there was a reversal from NASA, and they said to their scientists, well, okay, they can comment on it.
	So what a mess!
	It's a movie!
	I think scientists are like ducking for cover, especially NASA scientists and government scientists.
	You think so?
	But I think your movie's going to be a real seat of your pants movie that's going to open a lot of people's eyes.
	Yes, well...
	If one looks at the archaeological evidence, and there is some which many scientists choose to ignore, there have been rather fast climate shifts apparently in our past.
	That's right.
	8,000 years ago and 12,000 years ago.
	And many ice ages have taken place because when you tinker with Mother Nature and you tinker with the Gulf Stream, you tinker with the collapse of the atmosphere itself.
	Yes.
	Are you aware of the measurements taken by Woods Hole and others, you know, very reputable scientific organizations that say the Gulf Stream is beginning to slow?
	Yeah, you know, as the North Pole melts, fresh water begins to pour into the North Atlantic, and that's what we're worried about.
	The salinity of the North Atlantic is changing now, and that could be the tipping point, the butterfly effect.
	That could tip it over.
	And like, you know, like we physicists say, even a butterfly at a certain tipping point can create a thunderstorm.
	The injection of large quantities of fresh water from the melting North Pole could be a tipping point for the North Atlantic Gulf Stream.
	In which case, hold on to your pants!
	Oh, I know.
	Europe, indeed, could freeze.
	Western Europe could freeze.
	It would be a disaster.
	And I think that's why there's such a mess, Doctor, over this movie.
	Because, to me, the best science fiction has always been that based in possible or even probable reality.
	That's right.
	And then you scare the hell out of people about that.
	I mean, that's good science fiction to me, my kind of science fiction.
	I don't like the fantasy science fiction.
	I like something that's based on, well, like, contact.
	For example, I thought it was superb.
	There's a lot of movies I really love, but most of them are based on at least possible reality.
	Maybe we got a little close with this.
	That's right.
	There's a difference between Lord of the Rings and Jurassic Park.
	Indeed.
	Lord of the Rings is just pure fantasy.
	No one thinks there's a kernel of truth in Lord of the Rings.
	Right.
	But Jurassic Park, I mean, there's a kernel of truth there, you know?
	So it's something that you really have to think twice about when you see the movie Jurassic Park.
	And I think in situations like this, it's another situation where you really have to think twice.
	Is there a tipping point for the North Atlantic Gulf Stream?
	And we have one big science experiment.
	One big science experiment.
	The planet Earth, basically, we're tinkering with.
	Alright, let's move away from that.
	Enough plugging of the movie, even though it is fascinating and the debate is fascinating going on over it.
	Somebody asked me a few weeks ago a question that I haven't been able to yet answer.
	What is the speed of gravity?
	The speed of gravity, we think, is the speed of light.
	We think or we know?
	Well, that's one of the reasons why NASA sent a $700 million gravity probe B into outer space just last month.
	It's one of the most expensive space probes that NASA has ever sent, a robotic space probe, into outer space.
	And it will try to test, once and for all, Einstein's theory of general relativity, the foundation of modern cosmology, the foundation of black hole research.
	We want to nail it to the wall.
	And this is big business now, you know, trying to confirm Einstein's theory.
	Okay, well, little old talk show me thought about it when the caller asked, and I thought, well, maybe you can't measure it because gravity is related to mass, correct?
	That's correct.
	Okay, and if the mass is already in existence, short of being able to create sudden mass, I'm not sure how you would measure it.
	How do they plan to do it?
	Well, if you were to wiggle the mass, vibrate the mass, you would create waves.
	Waves of gravity emanating in all directions.
	And these waves, like a fabric, travel at a very definite velocity.
	And that velocity, we think, is the speed of light.
	Because space is not empty.
	We think space is like a fabric.
	A fabric that can flap and bend and stretch.
	And we think that waves can move along this fabric.
	Like if the sun were to disappear.
	If the sun were to disappear right now, it would take you eight minutes.
	Disappointing.
	We wouldn't have any warning at all.
	Well, maybe we would.
	just disappeared. Right. And then eight minutes later, the gravitational pull of the sun would
	disappear and we'd be flung into outer space. Now, of course, we've never done that experiment,
	but we do believe that if the sun were to disappear, it would take eight minutes for
	the earth to fly into outer space. Disappointing. We wouldn't have any warning at all. Well,
	maybe we would. We've got that satellite out a million miles, right? Well, we had the gravity
	probe be out there and it's supposed to measure what is called the missing inch.
	No, I meant there's, at about a million miles, I believe we've got a satellite that observes the sun.
	Oh, yes, right.
	There are satellites that observe the sun.
	Oh, but wait!
	No, the signal coming from that satellite would be coming at roughly the same speed, so we wouldn't get any notice at all.
	That's right.
	Light and gravity, both, would take eight minutes to arrive at the satellite.
	We're going to talk a fair amount tonight, I guess, about Einstein.
	Your book is about Einstein.
	That's right.
	Einstein's Cosmos.
	What inspired you?
	I'm in no time for that.
	Alright, we're going to talk a fair amount tonight, I guess, about Einstein.
	Your book is about Einstein.
	That's right, Einstein's Cosmos.
	And what inspired you?
	Why did you want to write about Einstein?
	Well, you know, next year is the 100th anniversary of relativity and E equals MC squared.
	And there's going to be a lot of hoopla next year.
	Next year is called the World Year of Physics, as we celebrate 100 years of relativity.
	And this means conferences, this means TV specials.
	I just taped a TV special with National Geographic Television.
	Oh, really?
	Quite a few different channels are going to be doing Einstein specials.
	And I just finished writing an eight-page spread for Discover Magazine for their September issue.
	So there are going to be a lot of specials heating up later this year and into next year.
	You do very well on television.
	Oh, well, thank you very much.
	You really do.
	How do you manage to handle it?
	TV is so very different than, for example, what we're doing right now.
	It's a totally different world.
	Well, I just try to think like I'm talking to students, or talking to a young person.
	And then you don't want to impress them with big, big-sounding words.
	Einstein once said that unless the theory can be explained to a child, the theory is probably worthless.
	Pictures, physical pictures, is what motivated Einstein.
	And we now realize that these children's pictures are what motivates the universe.
	Pictures that children can understand.
	So when I'm on TV, I simply say to myself that I'm talking to a young person.
	Well, I must say, it works very well.
	And I remember seeing you on a, what was it?
	I mentioned it to you.
	It was a kind of an odd channel that I caught you on doing an interview.
	And I thought, what's he doing on that channel?
	But boy, was it ever a good interview.
	And I thought, there is the next Carl Sagan.
	And I guess you are the next Carl Sagan.
	Well, thank you.
	I try to reach people.
	You do.
	You do.
	That's a very unique talent, particularly in a very short amount of time, to be able to impart, understandably, such complex issues.
	The nation has to have people like yourself.
	So, I hope that's a job that you sort of would welcome.
	It seems like you are.
	Yeah.
	That's not my main thrust.
	My main thrust, of course, is trying to complete Einstein's dream.
	Yeah.
	But it's always good to tell the public why.
	Why are we spending so much effort and billions of dollars to try to complete Einstein's dream?
	How old are you now, Doctor?
	Oh, I'm getting on.
	I'm 57 now.
	57.
	At 57, there are some who would suggest That you're past your brilliant time, and there's a sort of a thing in science, is there not, that suggests only the young, the brilliant will come up with Einstein-like insights?
	Well, there is a tradition in math and physics that says that the greatest geniuses, the supernova ideas that change everything, take place when you're very, very young.
	Is that true, sir?
	However, you know, other physicists and mathematicians have been productive into the 70s.
	Einstein?
	Einstein was productive into his 70s.
	Even a lot of biographers, you know, I think totally misread his latest work.
	A lot of controversy about that, right?
	That's right.
	A lot of people thought that he was over the hill after age 40 or so.
	And, you know, now we have space satellites, laser beams, gravity wave detectors, high-speed computers.
	That can test many of the predictions that Einstein made later in life that people laughed at because, you know, there was no way to test some of his later predictions.
	And so that's why, you know, that's one of the reasons why I wrote Einstein's Cosmos, to correct this mistaken opinion of biographers that he was over the hill.
	And how were you able to assess, in your mind, for writing the book, that in fact he was not over the hill, that some of his greatest insights came later?
	Because he was pushing the boundaries of relativity theory.
	He was getting into wormholes.
	He was getting into higher dimensions.
	He was getting into all sorts of research that took him in directions that were totally untestable in his time.
	Realized the Nobel Prize Committee couldn't give Einstein the Nobel Prize for Relativity.
	They gave the Nobel Prize to him for the photoelectric effect, which is the basis of modern television, for example.
	Television owes its existence to Einstein's theory.
	Because they couldn't get their mind around relativity.
	It was very difficult to test in his time, and it really wasn't until the atomic bomb was created that a lot of naysayers finally said, oh my God, Einstein was right, E equals MC squared.
	Yes.
	How do you feel about the fact that he made the atomic bomb possible?
	And for a second, if Mr. Einstein had never lived, What, how far, how much farther along in history do you think the atomic bomb would have dawned on the world?
	Well, many people in 1905, almost a hundred years ago, were close to relativity, but they just couldn't make the final leap.
	I think in another five, ten years, people would have finally completed the last missing piece of the jigsaw puzzle and said E equals MC squared.
	but general activity which gives us black holes curved space the possibility
	maybe of time travel uh... that would maybe fifty years ahead of time
	and so forth for one man to get two of the greatest theories
	of all time is is astonishing is
	It is.
	But five years is not a long time, and do you think that's generally true of science, that a discovery is going to be made in a very narrow window by possibly quite a number of people, no matter what?
	I mean, we just stumble forth?
	Yeah, well, great breakthroughs are made when there's a contradiction between the reigning paradigms, and quite a few people were saying that there was a Contradiction between Newton's common sense laws of motion and the theory of light, Maxwell's theory of light.
	But no one could put the whole picture together.
	Poincaré, Lorenz, Fitzgerald, a lot of them had pieces of it.
	But no one saw the big picture, that space itself could shrink, that time could slow down.
	I mean, who would have thought that time itself is not an absolute?
	That's embedded into our conscious mind.
	It is.
	You know, if it's 12 o'clock on Earth, it's 12 o'clock on Mars.
	One second on Earth is one second on Pluto.
	But that's wrong.
	So it took somebody like Einstein to make that leap and to say that a second and a meter stick are not the same throughout the universe.
	Einstein used to joke that he put a clock everywhere in the universe, each beating a different rate.
	But in his own life, he was so poor, he could not afford to buy a clock for his own office.
	That always is going to lead me to my favorite topic, which is time travel.
	I guess it's a matter of power, but you don't see time travel, particularly to the future, as an impossibility at all, do you?
	Well, you know, Einstein was grappling with time travel in his later years.
	His office mate down the hall was Kurt Gödel, perhaps the greatest mathematical logician of the last 1,000 years.
	He disproved the dream of the Greeks concerning the foundations of mathematics.
	But Gödel then created the first time travel solution, that if the universe rotated, time travel would be commonplace.
	And so Einstein was really shook up, and in his memoirs, he mentions this.
	He mentions the fact that time travel was always in the back of his mind when he formulated general relativity, and he wanted to find some way to eliminate it.
	But here was his office mate, already finding solutions that allowed for time travel.
	Very disturbing.
	Why would he take the tack of trying to eliminate it?
	It was too much, even for Einstein.
	Here was Einstein, who gave us matter, energy, the secret of the stars, black holes, space Time travel even boggled his mind.
	But here was his office mate, Don Bahal, who was finding a solution to Einstein's theory for rotating universes that allow for time travel.
	And since then, by the way, hundreds of solutions have now been found of Einstein's equations which allow for time travel.
	None of them, of course, are practical, but we physicists are goggle-eyed, realizing that it is a possibility allowed within Einstein's theory.
	It's something that we cannot dismiss, in other words.
	We can't laugh at it.
	No.
	I suppose if time travel is possible to the future, then the old question of where are the time travelers is therefore answered, because you can't travel in the past, and we'll be around if it's announced, oh, we've managed to get time travel into the future, we'll be there for that.
	Yeah, time travel into the future is allowed by Einstein's theory of 1905, so that's well established.
	With our space probes.
	Our astronauts, by the way.
	Every time we send an astronaut into outer space, we actually send them into the future a little bit.
	Not by much, of course.
	A fraction of a second.
	But every time an astronaut goes up into outer space, time slows down for him.
	So in other words, he is shot into the future.
	So in the future, when we get space probes that can reach stars and reach near the speed of light, we'll actually be sending them into the future.
	So future travel is a reality.
	You know, the GPS system that a lot of people use to locate their position on the planet Earth?
	Sure.
	The GPS system would fail without relativity.
	Pentagon generals have to be briefed on Einstein's theory of general and special relativity, because it is so essential for very accurate timekeeping on the planet Earth.
	All right, hold it right there, Professor.
	We've got a break here at the bottom of the hour.
	We'll be right back.
	Professor Michio Kaku is my guest.
	I'm going to be your host for this week.
	Buh-bye.
	Peace.
	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.
	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 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.
	Hope you're having a wonderful weekend, everybody.
	Spooky from Enterprise, Alabama, right, say Art?
	If every time we send someone into space, they travel a little bit into the future, well then, how come we can still see them when they come back?
	And I thought, silly question.
	Then I thought, no it's not.
	That's actually pretty good.
	We'll a- A quick note about fast blasting.
	And that's the ability to go to the website at www.coasttocoastam.com, hit fast blast, and then type in a message to me, which will then appear on my computer screen at the speed of light.
	Well, maybe not.
	But pretty quickly.
	And the best thing for you to do, and the best way for you to get one of your fast blasts on the air is to ask a You know, a relevant question of some sort of Dr. Kaku.
	And when I'm looking at Fast Blast during the course of a show like this, I'm kind of looking for that sort of thing.
	So if that helps you decide what to type out and blast away at me, then so be it.
	Dr. Kaku, it's kind of a dumb question, but it's not.
	I mean, if that astronaut has proceeded a second or two into the future, then how are we able to view him when he returns?
	Well, we have the science fiction impression that when you go into the future, you disappear and then you reappear someplace else.
	It's actually more mundane than that.
	If I take an alarm clock and I throw it into outer space, the alarm clock simply slows down.
	That's the way we've always measured it with our instruments, that clocks slow down when they go into outer space.
	You can see the clock, you know, it's visible by telescope, but it simply beats slower.
	So when the clock comes to rest, when the clock comes to rest, And you ask, you know, look at the clock's frame, you find that it's backwards compared to your clock.
	So if you were on the clock, you basically went into the future.
	So the clock looks like it's in the past, which means that from the clock's point of view, everything else is in the future.
	It's like suspended animation.
	If you were to send astronauts into outer space under suspended animation, right, and you woke them up, they would wake up in the future.
	But all you've done really is slow down their time.
	You slow down their biological processes by putting them to sleep in suspended animation.
	So that going forward into the future is the same as having your clock slow down.
	And this has been measured with our space satellites.
	The GPS system depends upon it.
	In fact, all our satellites would be out of whack unless we compensate for the fact
	that when we send satellites into outer space, we actually send them into the future slightly.
	But if we could devise a method with all the power we needed, the planet of us,
	the power of the sun or whatever, and we could toss somebody forward into 2012,
	they couldn't be here and in 2012 simultaneously, could they?
	Well, if you look at them, they would look frozen.
	Really?
	Yeah.
	So, again, if you throw an alarm clock into outer space and you look at it from the telescope, And the alarm clock is moving very close to speed of light.
	It looks frozen.
	So in other words, if there really was a time machine, and I blasted forth to 2012, you would see me as a frozen figure sitting in the time machine.
	For that period of time.
	That's future travel.
	Now, past travel, It's much more difficult, and that requires the general theory of relativity.
	That actually requires warping the fabric and ripping the fabric of space and time.
	But to go forward in time is well-established.
	Oh, that's so fascinating!
	Not one science fiction movie has ever depicted it as they should have then.
	That's right.
	You are, from here to now, from here to the future, you're frozen So you look like you are stationary, frozen in time, like suspended animation.
	So when you wake up, you essentially wake up far into the future.
	Question.
	Would that frozen figure, if observed over a period of time with a time lapse or something, actually in reality not be totally frozen?
	That's right.
	The person would actually be moving very slowly because the clock, his clock, is slower compared to my clock.
	Gotcha.
	So we can see his clock at any time.
	At any time we can even touch his clock and see his clock.
	It's just that his clock runs slow compared to our clocks.
	So when he finally comes to rest, when he finally comes to rest, he's way in the future.
	So that if we send a starship to the nearest star, four light years is what it, you know, what the distance is normally, It would take four years for a starship to reach Alpha Centauri, but for the Starman, for the star person in the rocket ship, it may take him just like a minute, a second, to go to the nearest star.
	And if we look at him with a telescope, he looks frozen throughout his journey, moving very slowly.
	So by the time he gets to the nearest star, we measure four years, he says it's only been four seconds.
	Alright, you said time travel to the past, a very difficult, much more difficult... That's much more difficult, right.
	But, you didn't say impossible, or do you want to say impossible?
	No, not impossible at all.
	In fact, in the pages of Physical Review Magazine, there are all sorts of proposals and blueprints being proposed by physicists to go backwards in time.
	These are solutions that are consistent with the laws of physics.
	However, I should point out that the main problem with these blueprints is the gasoline.
	The gasoline, if it were to take you backwards in time, would be comparable to an exploding star, a black hole.
	But in principle, yes, Einstein's theory of general relativity has hundreds of solutions which allow for various forms of time travel.
	Not just the Gödel solution, but we have the Tipler solution, we have Neumann-Onti-Tamburini solutions, we have a whole A whole book of solutions that allow for time travel.
	Well, that's pretty spiffy, but that really does then bring on the question, then, where the hell are they?
	Well, my point of view is, if you watch a dinosaur have lunch, the first time you do it, it's quite dramatic.
	But after you see a dinosaur have lunch a million times, you sort of like, you know, lose interest.
	I think pretty much that they've lost interest in us.
	We're not that unique.
	We're not that interesting to them.
	I mean, after all, if you see a bunch of ants on the floor, do you want to, like, you know, communicate with the ants and videotape the ants?
	I don't think so.
	Well, there have been times, actually, where I have laid down on the floor and watched ants for a while.
	It's rather intriguing.
	And then you get bored.
	You do, you get bored.
	But they do march along, just in single file.
	It's quite remarkable.
	So I think they've probably visited us a few times, and after that they say, eh, you know.
	So you really think we've had visitors?
	It's conceivable.
	I mean, if somebody knocks on your door and claims to be a great-great-great-great-great-great-great-granddaughter in the future, don't slam the door!
	It's conceivable that our own descendants, our own descendants, far in the future, may eventually harness what is called the Planck energy and, you know, exploit a hole in space and time and visit you.
	Again, this is still controversial, but there are physicists who claim that, yes, we can visit our parents before we're born.
	And the age-old question, of course, of doing harm to one of your parents.
	Your answer, as I recall it, is that we create, at that instant, an impossibility that causes a new bubble, a new universe, in which things unfold in a different way?
	Yeah, the timeline, the river of time forks into two rivers.
	So, originally I have one river, and then it forks into two rivers.
	Now, some scientists believe that you get a whirlpool instead of a fork.
	If you get a whirlpool, then you go backwards in time and simply fulfill the past.
	So it was written, it was written that a time traveler would enter your time frame in the past.
	I don't think so, because then you have all sorts of paradoxes if you have free will like a monkey with the past, right?
	More and more physicists believe that the river of time simply forks into two rivers, two quantum rivers, basically.
	Not to be confused with other dimensions?
	This is the many worlds theory, and quite a few Nobel laureates now are now swinging over to the many worlds theory.
	Not to be confused with other dimensions?
	Yeah, this is ordinary garden variety, three-dimensional, Twilight Zone type episodes.
	Remember that episode of Twilight Zone where a man wakes up and finds out that no one recognizes him because he was
	never born?
	Yes.
	Well, that's conceivable because one quantum event could cause a miscarriage in your mother.
	One cosmic ray could cause your mother to have a miscarriage, in which case you were never born.
	So, one quantum event separates two universes.
	One universe where you were born, and another universe where you were not born because your mother miscarried.
	One quantum event, one cosmic ray, can separate two universes.
	And you know, for those of us who believe in the Many Worlds Theory, it means that there are many quantum worlds that we exist with simultaneously.
	Okay, I'm a little confused here.
	In other words, I understand the concept of 11 dimensions, let's say.
	Are you suggesting that going back and doing something awful would put you into another dimension, or would put you into a Something else that is not one of the identified, or not yet identified, 11 dimensions?
	Well, these 11 dimensions are dimensions of space.
	They're dimensions that are beyond human ken.
	And again, you know, many physicists believe in these things.
	The dominant physics laboratories of the world work on string theory and 10 and 11 dimensions.
	Okay?
	Right.
	Here we're talking about quantum universes.
	You don't really know where the electron is, right?
	We learned that in chemistry class.
	That's why electrons are in orbitals around the atom.
	Right.
	All of us had to struggle with these darn orbitals when we were in high school.
	These orbitals are nothing but parallel states of the electron.
	The electron is in two places at the same time.
	Now, that's not possible for big people.
	We don't do that all the time.
	It's called electronics.
	Laser beings are based on this principle, that you don't really know where the electron is at any given time.
	It's the uncertainty principle.
	Now, we think that universes, also obey this principle. And so if electrons can exist in
	multiple states, called orbitals, which is the basis of all chemistry, all
	chemistry is based on uncertainty,
	this means that the universe is probably also uncertain, and that the universe could exist in parallel states. And
	there are universes where perhaps, you know, you were not born, or perhaps you
	had an older brother that you never knew existed.
	But still part of this considered 11 No, this would be ordinary three-dimensional universes.
	Even Einstein, back in 1925, had to grapple with this fact that there could be multiple quantum universes existing with us simultaneously.
	Stephen Weinberg, Nobel laureate, likes to look at it this way.
	Think of your room, where many radio signals are coming in from many radio stations at any given time.
	One of them carrying, of course, the Art Bell Show.
	You exist simultaneously with many frequencies.
	All these frequencies have decoupled.
	Now, we believe that the universe is a wave.
	That you exist simultaneously with many waves.
	So that in your own room, there are dinosaurs.
	There are the wave functions of aliens, UFOs, dinosaurs, alternate universes, right in your room.
	But they have decoupled from our frequency.
	They're at a frequency that we cannot measure.
	This is called the Many Worlds Theory.
	And we physicists are gradually leaning toward the resolution of the paradoxes of the quantum theory via the mini-world theory.
	So in your room, there could very well be the wave functions of dinosaurs that were never wiped out 65 million years ago that still exist because they split off from our universe.
	Professor, is there ever, is there theoretically a way that man may ever view these parallel concurrent worlds?
	Well, at Oxford University, Professor Deutsch has been pushing forward quantum computers.
	Quantum computers will replace ordinary computers perhaps in a 50 year time frame.
	Ordinary computers will basically cease to become very powerful after about 20 years.
	Well, they do that now on a regular basis about six months.
	Yeah, but that law is going to collapse.
	Moore's Law.
	How close are we getting to that?
	We're getting very close.
	In 2020, Moore's Law should collapse, and Silicon Valley could become a rust belt.
	Mass unemployment in Silicon Valley in 20 years.
	Well, yes, but then they'll be building the quantum computers, and where will they build those?
	Well, unless Silicon Valley gets up its butt and starts to do research on quantum computers and DNA computers and exotic forms of technology, they could be left in the dust.
	There could be a new Silicon Valley forming in 15-20 years.
	Why is DNA considered basis for computation?
	Well, think of computer tape.
	Computer tape consists of zeros and ones, right?
	Right.
	DNA is computer tape.
	Right.
	Instead of 0's and 1's, it is A-T-C-G.
	Right.
	A-T-C-G are four letters that correspond to four amino acids.
	And so the computer tape would read, instead of 0-0-0-1-1-1-1, it would read A-A-A-T-T-T-G-G-G.
	But what is so elegant about the DNA configuration that you would see it as the basis for a computational system?
	Oh, because these zeros and ones represent numbers as well as instructions.
	And you can take DNA and let certain segments of DNA equal zero.
	Other segments equal one.
	So this computer tape of ATCG, ATCG can be transformed into 0011, 0011.
	And so this is how we take DNA, treat it as computer tape, cut it up, reformulate it, And allow it to make calculations.
	Isn't there a little bit of possible danger in doing that?
	In other words, if you actually created a computer based on DNA, wouldn't you be potentially simulating life itself?
	Not really, because these are not self-replicating things.
	Now, however, there are some scientists who would like to create new forms of life based on a truncated DNA.
	And potentially, that could be very dangerous, because they would self-replicate.
	They would actually, like a virus, they would actually replicate, and it would not be quite DNA, it would be a quasi-DNA, and it would replicate, you know, in principle, without limit.
	So, like a virus.
	So, that is potentially very dangerous.
	The infamous Grey Goo.
	Yeah, and this is natural now.
	We're not talking about artificial... Again, I wasn't thinking so much of that aspect of it.
	As scary as the Greg Guth thing is, I was thinking about, you know, it's the blueprint of life.
	Isn't it?
	That's correct.
	And so, when you put together a computational machine based upon that, or even a variant of it, then you're toying with Being a god, as it seems like.
	Yeah, well, you would be playing a god if you could make it self-replicate.
	That is, reproduce itself any number of times.
	In a DNA computer, it does self-replicate, but then it stops.
	So, at the end of the process, you simply have a flask of liquid, and then you simply read the DNA in the liquid.
	It's not replicating anymore.
	The danger is, if you create artificial life, and it simply keeps on going, it doesn't stop, that could be very dangerous.
	And remember, you know, Greek gods often lost control of their own creations.
	Greek mythology is full of folly and jealousy and all sorts of the whims of Greek gods who are not very moral.
	I interviewed a scientist, and I can't recall his name, along the last six months, who suggested to me that he thought that was going to be the next evolutionary leap.
	That we were, in fact, designed to become gods and create that which would replace us.
	Well, in principle, but remember the Greek gods were full of folly and full of mischief.
	And were not?
	And they were not very wise at all.
	If you read Greek mythology, Zeus and Mars and those gods created all sorts of mischief.
	So I would hope that when we become homo superior, When we make the next leap in our evolution, that we also take with us a dose of wisdom as well, so that we don't get carried away with our own arrogance.
	Well, do you think, Professor, that wisdom has a linear movement with evolution?
	I mean, as we increase our knowledge technologically do you think that you could chart wisdom going up in a linear way with with this technological ability or would you say that line would be far further down well i think that with them comes from democracy and democratic debate i think that the more people debate on the internet and you know via the media and the election the more the public is educated
	And then uses that education to vote democratically, the better control we will have over technologies that could spiral out of control.
	So I think that the main thing is first, people have to be educated about these things.
	And second, once they are educated, they can make wise democratic decisions at the polling booth.
	And so I think that's where wisdom comes from.
	It's very messy.
	It goes backwards and forwards.
	Democracy is quite messy.
	But I think that's the way to do it, rather than to rely upon a benevolent dictator who, we hope, will make the right decisions, but nine times out of ten does not.
	So you are satisfied, then, that our wisdom is increasing as quickly as our technological capability?
	As long as people are educated and participate in the marketplace of ideas.
	Unfortunately, many people are not educated about these things.
	Alright, Professor, hold on, stay right there.
	One of the greatest minds in the world, Dr. Michio Kaku, he's incredible, absolutely incredible, and he is the next Carl Sagan.
	He absolutely is.
	A man who can explain things that others would certainly confuse you with rhetoric.
	He doesn't.
	He's just a little bit too much.
	I'm not sure if I'm going to be able to get him to talk.
	Left its seeds while I was sleeping and the vision that was planted in my brain still remains within the sound of silence.
	This is an encore presentation of Coast to Coast Day Out with Art Bell.
	Out on the streets of Cobblestone Near the hill of Haystreetland
	I turned my collar to the coal and dam When my eyes were stared by the flash of a neon light
	Kiss with the night, and touch the sound of silence.
	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.
	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.
	Isn't it interesting, this song?
	Have you ever really listened to the words?
	According to those who wrote it, it's a complete enigma.
	In other words, it doesn't mean a thing.
	And yet, when you listen to it, listen to the words, it seems to have deep meaning.
	of some kind.
	Once again ladies and gentlemen, Professor Michio Kaku.
	Dr. Kaku, I would like to read you a couple of quick stories, both from really good sources, and I've got a complaint about Science, and this will illustrate it.
	This one is from the New York Times, May 13, 2004.
	In part reads, In the second half of the 20th century, the world became quite literally a darker place.
	Defying expectation and easy explanation, hundreds of instruments around the world recorded a drop in sunshine reaching the surface of the earth.
	As much as 10% from the late 1950s to the early 90s, or 2%, 3% a decade.
	In some regions like Asia, the US and Europe, the drop was even steeper.
	In Hong Kong, sunlight decreased 37%.
	No one is predicting that it may soon be all night and no day, and some scientists theorize that the skies have brightened in the last decade as the suspected cause of global dimming, air pollution, clears up in many parts of the world.
	Yet the dimming trend, noticed by a handful of scientists 20 years ago, this is the important part, was dismissed as unbelievable.
	In other words, they had the statistics, they had the science in front of them 20 years ago, and they saw it and said, rubbish!
	This can't be true!
	And so they threw it out.
	That's my complaint about science.
	Occasionally, A blazing truth is placed in front of a scientist who is invested in some sort of, I don't know, his way of believing what goes on in the world, and these stats don't fit, so they just throw it out!
	Is that a fair complaint about some science?
	Well, I think so.
	When Einstein came out with relativity, he was met with stunning silence.
	It took many years for the Scientific Committee to come around I believe in relativity, and I saw that article that you mentioned, and I was rather surprised myself seeing that.
	Satellites, for example, above the clouds see no change in the sunlight coming from the sun.
	However, there's something very drastic happening with the atmosphere of the Earth, and we're beginning to realize that the atmosphere is a lot more quirky than we previously realized.
	You know, chaos theory basically tells us that you cannot predict accurately The weather man only gives you the weather to within a day or so.
	Everything beyond that is pretty much science fiction.
	So I think it really shows you that we have to be humble when it comes to the weather.
	The weather has all sorts of surprises, things that we never suspected because we only live for a human lifetime and we assume that things are going to be constant throughout that lifetime.
	Well, if you look at the geological record, you know, ice cores from the North Pole, for example, you find there's been all sorts of havoc, all sorts of catastrophes and changes, like a roller coaster, the temperature of the planet Earth.
	And we're just beginning to appreciate that now, that the Earth is a very dynamic place, with all sorts of shifts that we really don't know what causes them.
	Okay.
	Well, that's a complaint about science.
	Now, I also interview many people on this program that deal in the metaphysical or ufology.
	And here, for example, is a story from Mexico City, and I just bet you probably saw the video, but the Mexican Air Force released footage of what a UFO experts said were 11 invisible unidentified flying objects picked up by an infrared camera as they whizzed around a surveillance plane in Mexico.
	A longtime believer in flying saucers told a news conference Tuesday the objects were real, seemed intelligent, in quotes, after at one point they changed direction and surrounded the plane that was chasing them.
	Now they appeared on radar And, in fact, the Mexican Air Force virtually said, UFOs, we hereby give you this video.
	They're real.
	They were pretty shaken up down there.
	This really occurred.
	It was on everybody's radar.
	And, in fact, I saw the video.
	It ran on CNN.
	It was pretty shocking stuff.
	And I understand that talking about UFOs to somebody like yourself is Probably not the thing I ought to be doing, but this is an important story, Professor, and maybe there are visitors here.
	Is it within the realm?
	Well, I saw the video too, and it's enough to have, you know, the hairs on your head start to rise up a bit.
	You see, I would say that 95 to 98 percent of UFO sightings could in fact be explained by, for example, radar echoes.
	Sure.
	Or swamp gas.
	Yes.
	Meteors.
	Sure.
	Even Venus, the planet Venus, has been known to set off UFO alarms.
	Sure.
	And every time a meteor hits the atmosphere, lots of people say that they saw a UFO.
	Sure.
	However, the stories that are credible are the ones that involve multiple sightings by multiple methods.
	In other words, not just one person saying, I saw a flying saucer by eyesight.
	But multiple individuals saying that they sighted something by radar, by visual method simultaneously, and there was the famous JAL flight that we physicists are still looking at because, again, it satisfied all the criterion I mentioned.
	Multiple sightings by multiple means.
	This episode in Mexico also satisfies that.
	This is one of the few percent sightings for which we physicists are kind of like dumbfounded.
	We think we have a pretty good grasp on 95-98% of UFO sightings, but it's that last 2-3% that really shakes you up.
	And this is one of them, because again, it was multiple individuals stating that they viewed this thing by radar, by infrared, and visually.
	So there were more than one ways in which they saw this thing.
	Oh, yeah.
	And this thing, of course, was executing maneuvers that simply defy the normal laws of aerodynamics.
	Certainly was.
	A radar echo, by the way.
	A radar echo will also seem to zigzag and speed much faster than any airplane, because it's just nothing but a reflection off a mountain or something.
	What would Occam's Razor say about this category of sighting?
	Well, I think that it's a category of sightings that we physicists have to take seriously.
	You know, there are physicists that are friends of mine who take these seriously.
	They, of course, have to worry about the giggle factor.
	That is, that their friends will giggle.
	But they do take these things seriously, believe it or not.
	And they've looked at hundreds of these sightings.
	And, again, 95 to 98 percent you can dismiss as being radar echoes, swamp gas, what have you.
	But a few of them really make you wonder, you know.
	Now, unfortunately, science is based on reproducibility, so that unless it happens again in a similar way, we can't really say for sure, right?
	Science is based on reproducible experiments.
	That's the foundation of science.
	Yes.
	That's why it's so reliable, because it's reproducible.
	UFO sightings are not reproducible.
	Therefore, it's quite difficult for us physicists to get a handle on this.
	However, there have been sightings of UFOs that have left, you know, pieces of metal.
	Well, let's try this.
	For what you just heard, and what you know about this story, I didn't have to read it to you, I know you heard about it and saw it, what would be, if you were pushed, the most logical explanation for what that was?
	Well, this sighting does not fit into the usual categories that we scientists have very carefully isolated over the last several decades, starting with the Blue Book Project and things like that.
	It's something that, again, is something that is beyond what we have a rational explanation for.
	Now, most physicists would say that the stars are so far away that it's very difficult for an alien to reach the Earth.
	They're thousands of light years away, and galaxies are millions of light years away.
	However, like I said before, if you are very advanced, at the level of Type III galactic civilization, With energies that are galactic, not just planetary, then it becomes possible that you can begin to use Einstein's theory as a playground, and really take some of the more far-out conclusions of Einstein, and begin to, you know, fold space, begin to create wormholes perhaps, and in which case, you wouldn't really even need a flying saucer at all.
	You would simply need a stargate, basically an entrance, basically what we call a kermetric In order to open a hole between a distant star and us.
	So that would get around the argument used by most physicists that the stars are thousands of light years away and galaxies are millions of light years away and therefore they're simply too far for alien life to reach the Earth.
	But doesn't all of this begin to rise to the level of legitimate scientists saying, well you know what?
	Maybe we better take this class of sighting and pour some money or some research into what the heck's going on.
	I mean, it really is something.
	That's right.
	I think this is something.
	And I think the government should set aside, you know, a few million bucks is nothing.
	The government spends a few million bucks every second.
	So it wouldn't take much time from the government to set up a blue-ribbon panel of scientists to look at these things, to offer an explanation, not to squirm, But to offer a explanation, whether it's solid signs that there is a way to explain this as swamp gas or radar echoes, or whether this is really something that is beyond the pale.
	Certainly it is insufficient to conclude with a gavel at the end of Blue Book way back when, isn't it?
	Yeah, I think the Project Blue Book was very political in the sense that the government had an axe to grind.
	You know, we now know that the government uh... was experimenting with uh... aircraft that were super secret felt aircraft for example and uh... they they wanted the public to not investigate these super black uh... black box aircraft probably still true today uh... that's right the military of course uh... does have it uh... you know black art and uh... they have darpa and uh... you know the uh... did the military does have aircraft that is
	...being experimented with that all have different kinds of shapes.
	Some of them, by the way, even look like flying saucers.
	I've seen some declassified designs created by the Pentagon.
	Some of them even look like flying saucers.
	Hearing a lot about invisibility these days.
	Yeah, well, invisibility is something that we physicists don't have much of a handle for.
	Radar invisibility, we already have.
	That's stealth.
	Right.
	But stealth is nothing but a hodgepodge of little tricks.
	Little tricks to disperse the radar.
	The radar bounces off an aircraft and disperses, so it doesn't come back.
	I meant optical.
	Yeah, optical invisibility is beyond physics.
	It would require a new level of physics to become invisible.
	We do believe that dark matter and dark energy are invisible, that most of the universe is invisible.
	But we physicists don't know how to manipulate dark matter.
	We don't even know what dark matter is, other than the fact that we can reproduce it with the Hubble Space Telescope, because dark matter distorts light beams.
	So most of the universe is invisible, is dark.
	But we physicists don't know what it's made out of.
	So an advanced civilization that could handle and manipulate dark matter could create invisible matter basically matter that has
	weight but is invisible that would be quite fantastic indeed
	up Jeremy in Phoenix Arizona I'm asks what current scientific project
	are you currently watching most closely well
	my specialization is string theory and theory and m theory goes through
	I'm every 10 years goes to a revolutionary change which change the whole landscape up
	But we're getting closer and closer to that one-inch equation.
	So I scanned the literature to see whether anyone has a handle on being able to, you know, summarize the power of this theory.
	This theory was discovered by accident.
	You know, we were not supposed to see this theory for another 100 years.
	We got a sneak preview of this, of the theory of the future, because it was discovered quite by accident.
	And so I scanned the literature to see whether there were any breakthroughs in this field.
	I also scanned the literature to see whether there were any breakthroughs in nanotechnology.
	However, I personally believe that Prince Charles and other individuals have exaggerated the threat of nanotechnology.
	We're nowhere near getting a grey goo that could, you know, swamp the whole universe.
	But it's always good to keep up with what's happening with nanotechnology, because, you know, that will be the future.
	There will be atomic machines.
	There will be machines that are, you know, smaller than a cell.
	And this could, in the future, you know, decades away, not tomorrow, but decades away, it could create a second industrial revolution.
	Well, you said that quantum computing wasn't that far away.
	When we get quantum computing, Professor, what will it bring with it?
	Well, the CIA has looked very carefully at quantum computers, because they could crack any computer code, any encrypted code, much faster than did any known computer.
	So, however, I should point out that the most advanced quantum computer could only compute on about 7 atoms.
	It multiplied 3 times 5 is 15 last year.
	That's the world's record, by the way.
	Kids know that 3 times 5 is 15.
	But a quantum computer did that last year.
	That's how primitive the technology is.
	And instead of seven atoms, you want to calculate on perhaps, you know, a few thousand to a million atoms.
	So you see how far we have to go.
	Sure, but you're still saying we're going, even if it's decades, that's not that far.
	But when we get a fully functional downtown type Developed quantum computer.
	What would we be able to do with it, potentially?
	Well, one potential is to reproduce human thought.
	The brain is not a digital computer.
	There's no Microsoft Windows for the brain.
	The brain has no CPU.
	It has no Pentium chip.
	You can lose half your brain if the brain still functions.
	The brain is a neural network.
	The brain is a learning machine.
	It is not a computing machine.
	It is a learning machine.
	Learning machines rewire themselves constantly, and quantum computing may eventually give us the ability to duplicate the fantastic capabilities of the human brain.
	And speaking of brains, by the way, you know that Einstein's brain, to get back to the subject of my book, Einstein's Cosmos, Einstein's brain is back at Princeton now, where it belongs.
	And so it's now at a place where scientists can really study it.
	Have we yet found anything abnormal about Einstein's brain?
	Or does it appear... Is it larger?
	Is there anything about it that we've discovered yet that places it in a different category?
	Yes, there is something unusual about Einstein's brain.
	First of all, the person who performed the autopsy went against the wishes of the family.
	He wanted to be cremated.
	And he basically stole Einstein's brain and kept it.
	Kept it in his office for many, many years.
	And it's been floating around the United States for many years.
	Really?
	And now it finally is back at Princeton, where it belongs.
	It's in several pieces.
	Much of it is sliced up into view graphs that can be seen by microscope, and other parts of it are in chunks.
	There is one part that is unusual.
	The brain looks very normal, but there's one part that is actually not normal.
	It's the part of the brain that involves abstract thought.
	It is much thicker.
	than in the normal brain.
	Now, my personal point of view is that this means that genius is probably not born.
	Genius is probably made.
	If you get mice brains, for example, you train mice to do certain tasks, and then you analyze the brain, you see that the brain has slightly changed.
	The brain actually rewires itself, grows in certain directions to consolidate certain new tasks that it has just learned.
	You're saying geniuses are made, not born?
	Probably.
	In other words, Einstein was not a child prodigy.
	There's no instance where he dazzled his parents with mathematical ability as a child.
	He was actually kind of a slow learner for much of his early life.
	But he had the ability to think in terms of simple pictures that grasped the essence of phenomena.
	And he could stay with these children's questions for like ten years at a time.
	Like, what is light?
	What is space?
	He would stick with these questions for ten years before he could finally crack them.
	And so I personally think that composers, musicians, mathematicians, people involved in abstract thought, that part of the brain is going to be accentuated, just because the brain rewires itself after you learn certain tasks.
	Now most of us never do that.
	Most of us never ask children's questions and then spend ten years Trying to answer them.
	Do we have any idea what in Einstein's life made him what he was?
	Well, we have instances where clues.
	When I was writing Einstein's Cosmos, my latest biography of Einstein, I realized that a compass needle, when he was around 10 or so, fascinated him.
	And when I interview other scientists, they all say the same thing.
	At around 10, 11, 12, those are the magic years before they hit puberty, 13, 14, and then they're lost, right?
	But while there's still 10, 11, 12, those are the magic years when they realize that the world is much bigger than mommy and daddy.
	The world consists of a universe.
	The magic years are, I think.
	Hold it right there.
	We're at the bottom of the hour.
	Let's pick up on that.
	The magic years.
	I wonder what happened to Albert Einstein during the magic years.
	What was the trigger?
	If it really was environmental and he wasn't born that way, then what environmental trigger turned Albert Einstein into the man he was?
	I guess that's the big question.
	Be made this way.
	I can't survive.
	I can't stay alive.
	I can't survive.
	I can't stay alive.
	You're listening to the best of Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell.
	Bell.
	This is the best of Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell.
	This is the best of Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell.
	It may still have time, but it still gets by.
	You're listening to the best of Coast to Coast AM with Art You're listening to the best of Coast to Coast AM with Art
	Every time I think about it I want to cry.
	With bombs in the air, the bombs that our kids keep coming.
	The way they make it easy, no time to be young.
	To talk with Art Bell, call the wildcard line at area code 7.
	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.
	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 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.
	It is, and my guest, of course, Professor Michio Kaku.
	The Magic Years.
	How about you?
	Do you remember what you were doing in your magic years?
	Some environmental trigger, then, changed Einstein from the normal little ten-year-old to one who begins to think of things that the rest of us simply don't.
	I have vague memories of what I was doing around 10 and I won't embarrass myself by
	telling you about it.
	We're right in there.
	Well, all right, fine, Professor.
	So you believe an Einstein is environmentally launched as opposed to born that way.
	What kind of environmental trigger can you imagine?
	And I know you've looked into it.
	With that theory, you would have had to have looked into it.
	What was his life like?
	What might have done the trick?
	Okay, I think there are two basic ingredients that create these supernovas, like Albert Einstein.
	They just light up the universe.
	The first is, during these magic years, 10, 11, 12, 13, before they enter puberty in junior high school and the conformity that we see in junior high school, There's an existential shock that they feel, seeing that there's a universe beyond Mommy and Daddy.
	With Einstein, it was a compass needle, realizing that there was unseen forces that were invisible that was guiding the compass needle.
	For Enrico Fermi, Nobel Laureate, it was a gyroscope, realizing that gyroscopes did not fall the way that they normally should fall.
	For Nobel Laureate Steve Weinberg, it was a chemistry kit, uh... learning that they're all the laws of chemistry that
	you could master right right in your own backyard
	uh... with nobel laureate is it or i'd be it was an astronomy book
	realizing that their whole world out there beyond uh... mommy and daddy whole world out there
	The first ingredient is the shock they feel realizing that it's a whole new universe beyond the home and the family.
	Dennis, just before you go on, Dennis in Dallas, Texas writes, if there is a trigger, it has to do with relationships.
	Einstein understood that the fabric of family would limit his theoretical horizons.
	He was not held down by family ties.
	His genius was allowed to fly.
	Much of our energy is tied into family ties.
	Agreed?
	Well, that was a little bit later, because in the early days, of course, Einstein was very much tied to his family.
	His father was an electrical engineer, a failed businessman.
	It was only later that he just burst forth and went on his own and, you know, became a pioneer all by himself.
	But I think the second ingredient is you need a role model.
	You need a mentor, somebody who guides you along.
	Sometimes that's mommy or daddy.
	But for Einstein, it was actually a medical student who came by and, you know, tutored him a bit and gave him textbooks.
	And every week they would do a different textbook and it kept getting more and more advanced.
	And pretty soon Einstein was devouring material that even he didn't understand.
	So it requires a guiding light, a mentor, a role model.
	The role model, of course, doesn't have to be a family member.
	For me, it was Einstein himself, reading books about Einstein.
	That was my role model.
	For other people, it's a family relative, perhaps an engineer, or a scientist, or a teacher in the family, who gives you books to read.
	And that is the second thing, the second booster rocket, which then launches you into a realm of thought, a realm of mathematics, and a realm of physics.
	And this means that children that we see around us could become another Einstein if they have the right temperament and the right opportunity.
	But unfortunately, most of us don't have the temperament and most of us don't have the opportunity to launch off into these abstract directions.
	But I firmly believe that genius is made, not born.
	There's nothing in Einstein's brain that makes us believe that there's a genius brain.
	If it's not developed during the magic years, then it's probably not going to happen.
	If it has developed, it's going to stay with you.
	So, for example, Professor, do you still feel as though you have the ability to move in the realm of such abstract thought that you might stumble across that equation or some other great discovery yet in your life?
	Well, we all have that hope.
	You know, we physicists and mathematicians are productive into our 70s.
	The brain does not degenerate like the body.
	The brain is just as sharp as it is in the 70s as it is when you're a youth.
	The problem is that as you get older and more established, you have more distractions.
	More committee work to do, more letters to answer.
	Yes.
	That's the problem.
	You don't have time to concentrate, because when you're young, there are no distractions.
	You're not married, you don't have kids, you just concentrate on one thing and just blast off and create great discoveries.
	So Einstein, later in his life, had many distractions, but even then he was still productive.
	He was productive until the day he died.
	His unfinished manuscript, he was working on his unified field theory, even on his deathbed, practically.
	So that, I think, is an inspiration.
	If you take a look at the history of mathematicians and physicists, they're quite active into the 70s.
	Maybe not as spectacular as they were in their 20s when they won the Nobel Prize, but still very active, very productive, even into the 70s.
	Eugene in Santa Barbara asks, is it true that before Einstein died, He did state a belief in a higher power.
	I believe he said, quote, how could there not be, end quote?
	Well, throughout Einstein's life, he had a belief in God.
	In fact, when he was a teenager, he actually got very religious all of a sudden, until he began to read astronomy books and science books, and then began to realize that many of the tales that he was told probably violate the laws of science.
	But Einstein made a distinction between two types of God, and this is very important.
	The first is the God of intervention, the God that parts the waters, the God that walks on water, the God that answers prayers, the God of Isaac, Moses, and Jacob.
	That's the first God.
	The second God is the God of Spinoza, the God of logic and reason and harmony.
	And so Einstein believed that the universe was so gorgeous, it was so elegant that only a few equations could describe most
	things around him, that he thought that there was a God. He called him the old
	man or the old one.
	In his writings, he often refers to the old one.
	And his goal was to read his thoughts, to read the thoughts of the old one,
	and to figure out whether or not the old one had a choice, had a choice in making the universe.
	So when he woke up in the morning, he would ask a question that most of us don't ask.
	Most of us ask the question to where's breakfast.
	When he woke up in the morning, he said, I am God.
	I am going to create a universe.
	What universe would I create if I were God?
	And that was his guiding light for much of his life.
	He would ask himself the question, the universe that I would create would be simple, elegant, pictorial, based on a few physical principles, rather than a jungle of just pure mathematics.
	Professor, do you think that Einstein's God of logic, reason, and harmony Did he believe that this God would provide a life after physical death for him?
	I don't think so.
	In his will, he said that he wanted to be cremated and have his ashes distributed by his family members.
	And basically, he, in interviews in his latest years, showed that he was satisfied with life, that he did his share.
	He said he's done his share and it's time to go.
	That we all have our, you know, we all have our run on the planet Earth, and after that we should go gracefully.
	Rather than trying to, you know, cling to something that is not tenable, he realized that there is a time to go.
	But he did believe that we're all part of a cosmic order that could not have been by accident.
	And, you know, we physicists, when we look at the universe, realize that it's very finely tuned.
	This is called the anthropic principle.
	The constants, the physical constants, the speed of light, the mass of the electron, the lifetime of the proton, all of them are very finely tuned to allow for DNA to exist and for intelligent life to be created.
	Now, whether or not that means that the universe was created just for intelligent life, we can debate, but it is quite remarkable that the universe is so harmonious and the physical constants are tuned, in some sense, just precisely to allow for life.
	If the physical constants were not tuned so precisely, then protons would be unstable.
	Our atoms would disintegrate and DNA would never get off the ground and we wouldn't be having this phone conversation.
	Professor, if just prior to your physical death, you were offered the opportunity to virtually be downloaded into some form of computer that would allow your consciousness, your brain, to continue to exist in a machine, Would you avail yourself of that opportunity?
	I might.
	I think in the future, when we do have quantum computers, and we do have fantastic computing ability, it may be possible to download our physical thoughts into a machine.
	This, of course, is not going to happen in a century.
	But beyond that, there's nothing in the laws of physics or mathematics to prevent that.
	Some people, like Hans Moravec, believe that we could do that neuron for neuron.
	That as we Yes.
	Age neuron for neuron.
	Duplicate that transistor for transistor.
	Yes.
	So we wake up one day and we find out that we're inside a robot and we live forever.
	We become immortal.
	Other people say that perhaps intelligent life in outer space, they've already done that.
	Who's to say that when we meet aliens from outer space, if and when that happens, they have to look like us.
	They have to look like three-dimensional, physical, biological beings.
	They could be part mechanical and part biological.
	There's no reason why a carbon-silicon merger, a carbon-silicon merger cannot occur.
	We have the world of carbon, that is, biology.
	We have the world of silicon, that is, cyberspace and computers.
	And there's no reason why in the future there can't be a merger of silicon and carbon.
	Well, that would certainly allow for trips in space at or near the speed of light, which might be practical because you would have An ageless intelligence driving the machine.
	That's right.
	We would be immortal.
	My only reservation, of course, is that with immortality comes stagnation.
	We don't want to stagnate.
	Most of our personalities are pretty much fixed by the time we're like 17, 18 years of age.
	We don't really change much in personality after our teen years.
	So I would hope that stagnation is set in once we start to entertain thoughts about immortality.
	Again, I think that perhaps our children and grandchildren will have an extended lifespan using DNA research, but on a scale of 100 years, 200 years, it may be possible to, as you mentioned, create cyber-immortality so that our thoughts and our dreams still exist long after the normal physical lifespan.
	That's well within the laws of physics.
	I certainly wonder if the human brain could sustain Without becoming literally bored to death or itself just going insane in not being able to... On a spacecraft, perhaps, would be certainly a wild example, but without the ability to continue to think and encounter new things and contemplate new things, without that ability, it might be unsustainable.
	Well, you know, our astronauts in outer space, when they go there for long periods, from months to almost a year, some of them almost go nuts, unless they have contact with new ideas, new thoughts.
	You know, our brains are learning machines, and when we don't learn anymore, we begin to get very bored and suffer all sorts of depression, and mental illness is a real problem in outer space for long missions.
	And so I think that will be a problem, that we have to always face new challenges, Or else we will stagnate.
	But again, I think that our children and grandchildren, via DNA research, could expect to extend their lifespan.
	I think that's conceivable within another generation, and within several more generations.
	It may be conceivable to create immortality itself.
	There's nothing in the laws of biology or physics to prevent it.
	And our brains don't necessarily age that rapidly.
	As I mentioned, the body ages quite rapidly, and by the time you're 80 years old, you can barely walk.
	But your brain, unless you have Alzheimer's or Parkinson's, your brain is rather normal in terms of its ability to function.
	Mental abilities keep on going much longer than the physical body.
	Yes, it's an incredible future to contemplate and that's where the people on the metaphysical side just refuse to consider science and science so much refuses to consider the metaphysical and I think there is some possibility that eventually The two will merge or find some common ground, but it's not anything that's going to easily happen.
	As I hear these statements from scientists and I hear the metaphysical people scoffing at science, they seem worlds apart and yet they may be moving toward the same endgame.
	Well, let's hope that it's like your left hand and your right hand.
	You know, your left hand or your right hand can argue as to which is more superior, but it really does help to have both dimensions so that You can grasp objects, you know, in their entirety.
	The brain, of course, has two halves, and there is a more spiritual part of the brain, there is a more analytical part of the brain.
	Let's hope that the brain functions as a unit, rather than having two separate pieces that war with each other.
	How much of our brain do we really use?
	Well, we use... we now realize that most of the brain is unconscious.
	The conscious part of the brain is only the tip of the iceberg.
	When you walk into a room, You scan the room, you figure out which direction is up, down, you figure out the objects in the room, you figure out if there's a carpet, a floor, left, right.
	That requires an enormous number of calculations, trillions of calculations that you're not even aware of, because Mother Nature didn't want you to be aware of it, or else you couldn't hunt, you couldn't find mates, you couldn't survive.
	We'd be paralyzed realizing how many calculations our brain was performing.
	And so, the conscious part of the brain is actually the tiniest part of what the brain actually does.
	We now realize, people who work in robotics, in artificial intelligence, realize that, you know, solving algebraic problems, that's actually easy for a computer.
	The hardest part of a computer is to duplicate the unconscious mind, which we use when we walk, when we navigate, when we sit down, when we analyze three-dimensional space, and common sense, when we talk to our fellow humans Well, are we actually able to measure the amount of our brain that is active?
	I assume we can look at electrical activity, or do you think we are not told the whole story?
	I mean, I hear, oh, we only use 10% of our brain and all the rest of it.
	Well, are we actually able to measure the amount of our brain that is active?
	I assume we can look at electrical activity, or do you think we are not told the whole
	story?
	I mean, I hear, oh, we only use 10% of our brain and all the rest of it.
	Can they measure?
	Well, we don't know.
	We just know that the conscious part is very small.
	No one's ever proven that 10%.
	I've heard it so many times.
	No one has ever proven that.
	The brain computes at roughly 500 terabytes a second.
	Roughly, you can calculate the speed at which thought takes place.
	500 terabytes per second.
	However, the brain is a parallel... It works in parallel.
	Right.
	It's a parallel processor.
	And it is a neural network.
	The architecture is different from a single processor like a Pentium chip.
	A Pentium chip only says 1 plus 1 is 2 sequentially.
	Your brain calculates simultaneously.
	Your brain analyzes your heartbeat, the temperature of the room, the balance of the body, all simultaneously, requiring trillions of calculations.
	And so the brain is really a parallel processor and it's a neural network.
	It's a learning machine.
	And so it's quite difficult to compare it to silicon.
	Silicon is much faster, but there's a bottleneck.
	And that bottleneck is the Pentium chip.
	You know, all calculators have to go through that one Pentium chip, which calculates 1 plus 1 is 2.
	And our brain has no bottleneck.
	That's why our brain is quite slow at the neural level, but as a whole, computes much faster than digital computers.
	And that's why, in the DARPA race, most of the vehicles pooped out pretty quick, huh?
	That's right, the smart truck, the smart soldier, they were all mentally retarded.
	They had the intelligence of a cockroach, a retarded cockroach.
	The military spent billions of dollars trying to create the smart truck, you know, the intelligent truck that could navigate all by itself, and it had the intelligence of a cockroach.
	And so we now realize the brain is much more sophisticated than we previously thought, and it will take decades, you know, a good chunk of a century to begin to approximate the The functions of what sits on our shoulder.
	What sits on our shoulder is the most complex object known to nature out to four light years of the sun.
	We're talking about the most complex object known to science.
	All right.
	Professor, hold it right there.
	I wonder if we can create more Einsteins.
	What do you think?
	We're going to open phone lines shortly.
	And allow you to ask any question you want of Dr. Kaku in the middle of the night, which is exactly where we do our best work.
	This is Coast to Coast AM.
	I'm Art Bell.
	you With his dying knees
	Turning gold But the white bird
	Just sits in her cage Growing old
	White bird must fly For she will not die
	Bell, call the wildcard line at area code.
	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.
	his 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.
	That's what it is.
	And of course, Dr. Michio Kaku.
	Good morning, everybody.
	I hope you're having a grand weekend, what's left of it.
	As that timeline continues to move inexorably forward.
	We're going to go to the phones with Dr. Taku in a moment, and I trust you have good questions.
	You always do.
	Stay right there.
	If you have enjoyed listening to this brilliant man...
	Then surely you will enjoy his books.
	And there are many to choose from.
	Hyperspace, A Scientific Odyssey Through Parallel Universes, Time Warps in the Tenth Dimension.
	Visions, a very, very popular book.
	You can look that one up.
	How Will Science Revolutionize the 21st Century?
	And now Einstein's Cosmos.
	Professor, if we wanted to create more Einsteins in the world, How would we change the world if we had that power?
	And maybe we do, I don't know.
	But I mean, what would we do socially to set up a situation where the world was gifted with more Einsteins?
	Well, I think there are definite lessons to be learned from his life.
	I think that, you know, the years before puberty are very important, that we should encourage A fascination with telescopes and chemistry kits and compasses, gyroscopes, planetariums, whatever, you know, before they hit junior high school.
	And by the time they hit high school, of course, science is literally crushed out of them.
	Any interest in science turns to rote memorization, which is brutal.
	And they cease to have any interest in science at that point.
	And then also mentors, role models.
	We need to have more adults take interest in our kids.
	Cultivate an interest so that they see that being a scientist or becoming the next Einstein is not such an abstract thing.
	We have to have mentors for these people to nurture them, to identify them.
	And then, of course, it's a question of temperament.
	Not everyone has the temperament to sit down and plug through the math and spend hours and hours and years struggling on a few key problems.
	So not everyone has the temperament.
	But I think those are the three key ingredients.
	One is the Fascination with science that you can encourage before puberty, and then having a mentor to guide them through puberty, and then, you know, the encouragement that we need from the larger society to make sure that these people continue to grow.
	And the temperament, of course, has to match.
	From a scientific point of view, Professor, would there be a way to identify I think so.
	possible or even probable einsteins and uh... as segregate and treat them in
	a more favorable way to encourage this would there be a way to do that i think
	so uh...
	when i'm trying with young the other kid you can make fun of them and called him
	a nerd of course in german and today you know in high school we have this upset at
	upside down world the nerds or at the bottom of the social totem pole.
	Yes.
	But in real life, look at the Bill Gates of the world.
	The wealthiest men in the world do not look like movie stars.
	The wealthiest people on the world are, if anything, a little bit nerdish.
	And so I think that in high school, a lot of kids have this upside down opinion that you have to be this football jock in order to get the girlfriend.
	When in reality, it's the people who are smart and ingenious who are the ones who do well on Wall Street, who do well at law firms and amass huge fortunes.
	So I think that unfortunately our educational system is upside down, that in high school we enforce this fantasy world where if you're very good looking and have lots of muscles or what have you, then you're going to be the top of the ladder.
	So I think that a lot of, you know, nerdish people uh... drop out of fight at that point they give up
	and they say we know what why bother to struggle moment to be at the bottom of
	the totem pole you know i think
	i don't think it has to be that way you know could unite them that most of us
	are nerds how many of us are football stars after all right
	with the return of the poster but i have nothing against football
	i'm just saying that the social problem for the high school uh... is not
	did not reflect society as a whole But on the other hand, if the nerds suddenly got the babes, they might be so distracted that they'd never become Einstein's.
	Yes, that's a problem, too.
	If the nerds get the babes too early, they have to get the babes later in life, after they've created relativity theory, quantum mechanics.
	Exactly.
	If they get them too early, then they lose all interest.
	Professor, look, I'm going to bring you back here.
	Because I can't help myself, I just feel it's in you to do this.
	Carl Sagan had a series.
	If a large television network came to you and wanted you to do a series like Carl Sagan, in which you explain the kind of things that you talk about on this program and others, is that something that you would do?
	I'd be tempted to, yes.
	You know, when I was a child, it was so frustrating realizing that there were no good TV programs, there were no good textbooks, I wanted to learn about the fourth dimension.
	I wanted to learn about hyperspace and things, but there was nothing available to me as a kid.
	So I had to seek it out.
	So I think that if there were science specials on the level of a Cosmos series, then another generation, a whole other generation of young people could aspire to become the next Einstein.
	I mean, after all, that would be the mass mentoring Yes, but realistically speaking, it takes a lot of money.
	the einsteins you might set on path and so i'm anxious for that to occur because
	i think we need it yes but uh... really speaking it takes a lot of money it uh...
	uh... you know pretty coin too
	uh... create uh... gigantic t-v special special effects computer animation and stuff like that that will really
	doubtful the young kids yet to compete against all the other stuff uh... you know
	the cartoon shows and the fantasy shows on television
	But I think it's possible.
	And, you know, if a big television company were to offer that to me, I'd be very tempted to do that.
	Great.
	It'll happen.
	Mark my words.
	To the phones we go.
	First time caller line, you're on the air with Professor Kakuhai.
	Yes.
	How are you doing?
	Doing all right, sir.
	What's up?
	Hey, my name's Andrew, and I had a question.
	He was talking earlier about time travel.
	I'm by no means like a Star Trek fan or anything like that, but he sparked an interesting concept by saying that your body would be intact, like frozen at a point.
	I was wondering if there's a difference between a biological clock and quote-unquote real time, I guess of what he was talking about, and in fact if If time travel is feasible, is that inevitably a source of, I guess, you know, fountain of youth, or some rather?
	Okay, I think I've got that straight.
	Professor, it's not a fountain of youth, is it?
	The biological clock continues to tick at the regular pace?
	Well, your brain slows down.
	So even though you will live to be, you know, let's say a thousand years, it appears as if you had an ordinary lifetime.
	So, it is a fountain of youth, but it's an illusion, because your brain and bodily processes also slow down.
	Now, in the old days, we used to think that the biological clock and the physical clock were different, and that's why many people missed relativity in 1905.
	What Einstein said is that they are really the same clock.
	Time itself slows, and with it, all biological processes slow at the same time.
	I went to a science fiction movie where earthlings were rocketing at the speed of light, and they looked at their wristwatch, and the wristwatch was stopped.
	And then one gentleman says, look, Einstein was right.
	My wristwatch has stopped.
	Well, that's not possible, because your brain also slows down at the same time.
	So you cannot enjoy the fact that you can now live to be a thousand years of age.
	Alright, Wild Card Line, you're on the air with Dr. Kaku, hi.
	...physics major at the University of Nebraska, Carnegie.
	This is a very... Eric, I'm going to have to eliminate... ...physics major at the University of Nebraska, Carnegie.
	This is a very... Eric, I'm going to have to eliminate your last name there, but welcome to the program anyway.
	Thank you.
	And turn your radio off, please.
	Okay.
	That's a must.
	We have a six or seven second delay here and it's horrendously confusing.
	Okay.
	All right, the radio's off now.
	This is such an honor for me to be able to talk to some professors esteemed as Dr. Kaku.
	Thanks for the opportunity for me to be able to do this, Dr. Bell.
	I'm not a doctor.
	I'm just art.
	Anyway, go ahead.
	Go ahead, sir.
	Okay, Dr. Kaku.
	Yes.
	I have read a couple of things on strength theory, which you have had a very huge hand creating.
	That's right.
	I myself am currently Helping a physics professor by the name of Dr. Theresa Marcus here in Kearney, Nebraska at UNK, some educational research on learning physics.
	And what we're doing is we are looking at the way students learn physics in lecture-based classes and the experimental mental activity-based courses where students are pretty much in lab all the time, mixed in with lecture occasionally, seeking out in learning the concepts of physics with their own two hands and their own mind and groups but my question for you is what are some of the applications that they've come across with in string theory and how can some of the concepts of string theory be applied to everyday life for example in explaining like the acceleration of a sports car
	Or explaining why objects fall down to the earth the way they do off of tall buildings, etc., etc.
	Well, first let me say that the interactive way of learning physics is the way to go.
	So often in physics courses we crush interest in physics out of them because we just teach them a bunch of equations and we learn about friction and pulleys and things that were, you know, science fiction 300 years ago, but today are of no relevance to modern society.
	So, we teach physics incorrectly.
	We really teach it like it was 300 years ago, rather than the way it is today with space satellites, laser beams, atomic bombs, reactors, and things like that.
	And second of all, string theory is really a theory of the future.
	It's not a theory that's going to give you better color television or better baseball bats.
	Isaac Newton and Maxwell's equations are very good in terms of getting you better color television and better laws of motion.
	However, string theory is a theory of the universe.
	Each solution of string theory is an entire universe.
	And we physicists are trying to find our universe among the many universes that are predicted by string theory.
	There are millions of these universes that have been found.
	So far, we haven't quite found our universe yet.
	That's why, of course, we're not getting phone calls from Sweden, Stockholm, saying that we won the Nobel Prize yet.
	But we're hot on the trail.
	So in other words, all physical reality may eventually come from string theory.
	So where does Newton's laws of motion come from?
	Where do Maxwell's equations for light come from?
	All of it may eventually come from string theory.
	So even though string theory is not going to get you better color television, it makes television possible because it makes atoms possible.
	Physical reality itself is possible because we think of string theory.
	That kind of sounds like an ad on TV.
	We don't make the floor, but we make it stronger.
	And we make it possible.
	We make physical reality possible.
	Otherwise, atoms would dissolve.
	Ease to the Rockies.
	You're on the air with Dr. Michio Kaku.
	Hi.
	Good morning.
	Thank you for taking my call.
	Sure.
	I'm afraid my question is going to be kind of simplistic compared to that last one, but I hope you'll bear with me.
	Fire away.
	Dr. Kaku, I really enjoy your books and Quick plug, they're wonderful books for non-scientists.
	I'm certainly a non-scientist.
	What I'd like to ask you is in regards to the Moon.
	We've heard some other guests make some very fantastic claims about our satellite, and I was wondering if you could give us a physics-based reason as to why the Moon has no rotation.
	Well, the moon is in lockstep with the earth, similar to the way Mercury is in lockstep with the sun, because of what are called tidal forces.
	Now, when you look at the moon, it's always the same moon.
	It's always old man moon, old devil moon.
	You've never seen the back side of the moon.
	And when the Russians, in fact, took a picture of the back side of the moon, it created quite a sensation, because you've never seen the back side of the moon, which is quite different from the front side of the moon.
	And the reason for that is tidal forces.
	You see, because of tidal forces, the moon is not actually round.
	It's slightly football-shaped.
	Not by much, of course.
	We're only talking about a few feet.
	But it's slightly football-shaped.
	And the most stable configuration of a football going around the Earth is to have one end of the football always point toward the Earth.
	This was shown, by the way, first by the mathematicians of Napoleon.
	Napoleon's mathematicians were quite advanced in Newton's laws of gravity.
	And they were the first ones to demonstrate the fact that the stable moon is the moon with one side always facing the Earth.
	So then why don't all moons have one side facing the Earth?
	Well, Mercury is very close to the Sun.
	It is almost synchronized, but not quite to the Sun.
	And it takes, of course, billions of years for tidal forces to slowly synchronize the moons until they match that of the Earth.
	By the way, because of tidal forces, the moon is also leaving the Earth.
	We're privileged to be alive in an era when we still have a moon.
	The moon is actually leaving the Earth, not very fast of course, I think a few inches every year, but over millions of years it does accumulate.
	So because of these very tiny tidal forces due to gravity, one side of the moon always faces the Earth, and also the moon is gradually leaving the Earth.
	Professor, a follow-up on that, how important to life here on Earth is the moon?
	Without the moon, the Earth would tumble over a period of millions of years.
	Computer programs, you can show using Newton's laws of motion, that without a moon, the Earth's axis will eventually tumble, which means that the weather will go absolutely bonkers, and life will be impossible on the Earth.
	Now Mars has small moons, which means that Mars probably did tumble in the past, and probably will probably tumble again.
	In which case, the weather on Mars will also go very crazy when that happens.
	So we are lucky to have a moon that is large enough to stabilize the motion of the Earth so that the Earth doesn't tumble, and North and South then begin to tumble in outer space, making life impossible.
	So the moon is...
	Absolutely essential to life, and without the Moon, we would not be here.
	That's right.
	And also, for that matter, a Jupiter.
	We need a Jupiter, because Jupiter's gravity flings comets into outer space, cleaning out the solar system.
	Without Jupiter, there would be comets hitting the Earth right now, and without the Moon, the Earth would be tumbling in outer space.
	So we realize that the solar system that we have is rather finely tuned, finely tuned to make life possible.
	Yes, it's so interesting.
	You look around and everything is exactly the way it has to be for us to be here right now.
	That's right.
	Some of us attribute that to the hand of God making everything so perfect, but then that's how we would observe it because we are here.
	It's just a fact that we're here and so Doesn't that make us automatically think there's a maker?
	How could we not think that there's a great intelligence behind it, but it could simply be a product of evolution?
	Of course it's perfect, otherwise we wouldn't be here.
	Well, there are two ways you can look at it.
	One is you could say that in outer space there are dead planets, there are planets without moons, they do tumble, they have no life, they have elliptical orbits, so they don't have liquid water, and so there are dead planets out there.
	So, when we look at outer space, we've identified over a hundred dead planets now, circling stars.
	They're Jupiter-like, so we don't think there's any life on them.
	And, in fact, most of the planets that we've seen so far are probably dead planets.
	So, on one hand, you could say that there are just lots of dead planets, and we happen to be on one where life is possible.
	The other way to look at it is that God exists, and that God created the Earth just right, with enough liquid water, in the Goldilocks Zone, from the Sun, not too close, not too far.
	And with circular orbit so we don't crash into each other, with moons to stabilize the spin, with Jupiter to clean out the comets, all these accidents because God loved the Earth.
	So there are two ways to look at it.
	There sure are.
	They're probably about to announce life on Mars.
	They're finding methane and all kinds of things now, water and things that really lean toward Guess what, folks?
	There's life on Mars.
	At some level, perhaps a much lesser complex life, but indeed some kind of life on Mars.
	If they announce that, will you be surprised?
	Well, you know, liquid water is where you look for.
	And water is underground in Mars.
	And if I were a Martian, and I realized that my atmosphere was spinning, that the water was going to the polar ice caps and underground into the permafrost, If I realized that, where would I go?
	You'd follow the water.
	I would go A, into outer space, B, to the ice caps, C, underground.
	Right.
	Now, our space probes do not land on the ice caps.
	It's too dangerous.
	Our space probes cannot go underground because it's too difficult.
	But if you really want to look for life, that's probably where life would be, is in the ice caps and underground.
	But you won't be too surprised if they find a less complex life on Mars.
	Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised.
	With all the arrows indicating that the conditions for life are possible, that oceans once existed the size of the United States, then yeah, it's very conceivable that life may have started on Mars.
	Hold it right there.
	We'll be right back from the high desert in the middle of the night.
	What a brilliant mind.
	Dr. Michio Kaku.
	I'm Art Bell.
	I don't remember, I don't remember If he has the fire in me, no, no
	Don't you love her as she's walking out the door Like she did one thousand times before
	Don't you love her ways Tell me what you say
	Don't you love her ways, tell me what you say Don't you love her as she's walking out the door
	Don't you love her as she's walking out the door This is an encore presentation of Costa Costa Yachts with
	All your love, all your love, all your love one thousand times before
	Art Bell All your love
	All your love All your love
	All your love All your love is gone
	It's a single lonely song Of a deep blue dream
	Seven horses sing To be on the moon
	Do talk with Art Bell Call the wild card line at area code 7
	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.
	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 Sprint Access
	number, pressing Option 5, and 800-893-0903. From coast to coast and worldwide on the
	internet, this is Coast to Coast AM Good morning, everybody.
	I am Art Bell, reminding you one more time that next week I'll not be here for the weekend.
	I'll be in New York for the premiere of The Day After Tomorrow, joyously taking it in.
	It should be really something.
	And I will be back the following week.
	Just keep that in mind.
	If you want to get in touch with me by email, speed of light, minus, I guess, A few electrons getting clogged in servers along the way.
	It's Artbell at AOL.com, or Artbell, that's A-R-T-B-E-L-L at Minespring.com.
	Both will come my way.
	A couple of quickies for you, Professor.
	I had a guest on last night who was documenting Or seem to be documenting an increased energy output in our planet and all the other planets we're able to be observing in various forms.
	But an apparent increased energy output resulting, for example, in global warming, the melting of the ice caps on Mars, and he gave many other examples.
	Is there any indication that that's going on?
	Well, it depends on what form of energy.
	Energy can be electromagnetic, energy could be nuclear, energy could be gravitational, and there are many frequencies of energy as well.
	If you could be more specific, perhaps we can then analyze the spectrum of energy being emitted.
	But global warming, as you mentioned, that already takes place on Venus.
	So we know that global warming is a fact of life.
	The temperature of Venus is 900 degrees Fahrenheit, hotter than a baker's oven, and it's actually hotter than Mercury.
	Mercury is the closest planet to the Sun, but Venus is actually hotter on average than Mercury because it traps sunlight because of its carbon dioxide atmosphere.
	And carbon dioxide alone, without any extra radiation, is sufficient to trap sunlight on the planet Earth.
	And every major glacier on the planet Earth is receding, and the polar ice caps are only 50% as thick as they used to be.
	It's incredible what's happened to them.
	Absolutely incredible.
	The snows of Kilimanjaro will not be the snows of Kilimanjaro in another generation.
	The Alps, it'll be impossible to ski in the Alps in perhaps another generation or so.
	And huge chunks of ice, the size of Delaware are breaking off the South Pole
	and uh... the largest ice shop in the North polar region cracked at half just a few months ago
	so we're seeing things that I thought I would not see in my lifetime I mean I was
	aware of global warming years ago but I didn't think I would see it in my lifetime. There was
	a chief scientist in Britain who just said that rapid climate change
	is a bigger issue and and should be to the world than the threat of terrorism or
	anything else, that the possibility of a rapid climate change should be looked at as one of the
	biggest national security risks we face.
	Yeah I think it's an insurance policy.
	With just a few more million dollars extra funding, you can get a hell of a lot more
	information about what could plunge the entire earth into a deadly, absolutely devastating
	era of climate change.
	And like I said, it's happened before.
	It's not science fiction.
	It's happened before.
	We see it in the geological records.
	And right now, for example, the very fact that we're speaking to each other is because we're in an interglacial period.
	By accident, 10,000 years ago, the ice melted, and that spawned modern civilization.
	We don't know why, by the way.
	We physicists and meteorologists are totally stumped as to the reason why The Ice Age ended 10,000 years ago.
	Perhaps small perturbations in the Earth's spin.
	That's the leading theory.
	There was a story the other day that indicated that the Great Dust Bowl, which must have been something incredible to experience in this country, was created by a couple of degrees of ocean temperature change.
	It only takes a fraction of a degree of temperature to cause, on average, a global change.
	El Nino, for example, cost hundreds of billions of dollars in property damage.
	Again, just caused by a few fractions of a degree in temperature.
	And only six degrees or so separates us from an ice age.
	And so we realize how delicate the weather is that we didn't appreciate before.
	It's really mind-boggling and an eye-opener to see the rapid changes in the Earth's climate over the last hundred
	thousand years.
	When you look at the ice cores, as I have, and you look at the rate at which the atmosphere is plunged in terms of
	temperature, high, low, you realize that we're on a roller coaster. The Earth is
	not as stable as you think it is.
	Well, maybe that movie will wake some people up.
	Here's somebody going in a totally different but interesting direction.
	There is this place called the Coral Castle in Florida.
	I bet you know about it.
	It's this place in Florida that this man built, having, you know, moved stones, Professor, as the Egyptians must have.
	But he did it all by himself, and at one point he even took this entire coral castle he built with these tons of rocks and transferred it mystically or somehow from one place to another he could not have moved those stones and yet he did is this something that that science sort of I don't know they they they don't look at it at all or they look at it and say that's impossible he couldn't have done that yet we all know he did or how does science treat such
	Well, I'm not familiar with this.
	You're not?
	However, you know, science is based on reproducible experiments, and when things are not reproducible, then of course we start to get flustered with the Egyptian pyramids, for example, that you mentioned.
	If you read Herodotus, the Greek historian, who actually journeyed to the pyramids thousands of years ago, but again, thousands of years after it was created, He mentions that there were large wooden planks, basically the docking sites and the roads that were used by the ancient Egyptians.
	However, the very sites that Herodotus mentioned today are nothing but sand.
	They eroded thousands of years ago.
	But thousands of years ago, they were intact and you could see them.
	And unfortunately, he did not describe them in detail.
	Otherwise, we could sort of begin to reconstruct how the Egyptians created the pyramids.
	It was a fantastic achievement.
	You can't even put a razor blade through some of those stones.
	But unfortunately that record is lost.
	Herodotus did not write down diagrams and charts as to how the wooden structures allowed for the building of the pyramids.
	We've tried to reproduce it and we can't.
	Yeah, I've seen a number of science specials where you get a bunch of stone cutters together and using surveying techniques of 4,000 or so years ago And you try to get them to reconstruct the building of the pyramids.
	And they do a very bad job, I must admit.
	Yes.
	West of the Rockies, you're on the air with Dr. Kaku.
	Hello.
	Yes, Dr. Kaku.
	Good evening.
	Good morning, Art Bell.
	Good morning.
	This is Gary from San Diego.
	Listening to you on 600 AM Kogo.
	Yes, sir.
	Speaking on the topic of time travel, loved watching your interview on ChronoTrip, by the way, Dr. Kaku.
	Great film, Mark.
	You should probably get a copy and check it out.
	You bet.
	Anyway, Dr. Kaku, I wanted to get your thoughts on cold fusion concepts that the late Eugene Malov was advocating, and if you would be willing to consider investigating the data that his supporters provided.
	All right.
	Dr. Malov was just tragically murdered yesterday.
	Is that right?
	Dr. Kaku, yes.
	I didn't realize.
	He was an acquaintance of mine.
	We're thinking of writing a book together.
	I'm very sorry to be giving you this news.
	He was bludgeoned to death in Connecticut in what the police are calling an apparent robbery.
	So I'm very sorry to be giving you that news.
	I see.
	Yeah, because I had corresponded with him and talked to him on many occasions.
	Well, about Cold Fusion, I had long, long talks with Eugene.
	And where we differed a little bit was on, again, the question of reproducibility.
	He said that he had devices that could produce energy from almost nothing, it appeared.
	Yes.
	And my attitude was that if you're going to build a Toyota car, you want to make sure that when you turn the ignition key that the engine turns on, not 50% of the time, not 70% of the time.
	You want it to be turned on all the time.
	Yes.
	And that's what he could not guarantee.
	Reproducibility, that is, other experimenters had difficulty Reproducing the results of any given experimenter.
	And so I said that it's not quite ready for prime time yet.
	Are you sure the rejection of cold fusion was across-the-board legitimate stuff, Professor?
	I mean, there are rumors out there of falsified data reports and rumors of all kinds of dark things that may have cast this, you know, possible energy source and its discoverers into Europe because they're so fed up with what's going on.
	I mean, how do you see it now?
	Well, again, I think of it as an insurance policy.
	It's worth, you know, paying some attention to this in case there is a revolutionary new quantum mechanics that comes out that makes cold fusion possible.
	My only disagreement with Eugene was the question of marketability, that you want a reliable technology that works every single time, otherwise you can't market it.
	And, again, some experimenters made these very impressive claims, very impressive claims, But they could not be duplicated by other groups.
	And until we have something that is 100% reproducible, then it's very hard to talk about a second Industrial Revolution that could take place.
	Now, as far as the physics of co-fusion, it was speculated that perhaps there was a quantum transition that brought the protons together.
	In other words, the palladium would squeeze the protons, and then you would have what is called tunneling effect.
	Tunneling is allowed in quantum mechanics, but the rate of tunneling is very small.
	It's a very small tunneling rate.
	Tunneling makes even fantastic things possible.
	For example, you could tunnel right through a brick wall.
	So you thought there was something to it, didn't you?
	Well, I kept an open mind.
	In fact, Julian Schwinger, winner of the Nobel Prize, also kept an open mind and wrote articles, in fact, saying that we physicists should not snicker so much.
	We should keep an open mind because there could be a new law of physics.
	But the rate of tunneling is very small.
	Again, you could tunnel through a brick wall, except you would have to wait longer than the lifetime of the universe to tunnel through a brick wall.
	But Julian Schrodinger kept an open mind, and he said that we have to rely ultimately on experiment.
	That if experimenters could give us a reproducible cold fusion machine, we cannot laugh anymore.
	However, that hasn't been done yet.
	No one has given to us a cold fusion machine that works every time, 100%.
	That's the acid test for science.
	What I had Dr. Milov done that drove you to the point where you might have been involved in writing a book with him.
	I mean, he obviously was impressing you mightily in some way.
	Well, he was interested in physics as well.
	Not only was he interested in cold fusion, but he was also interested in physics, higher dimensional physics.
	And that's why we chatted together about perhaps writing a book on the latest advances in string theory and theory, which are so fantastic.
	So I would talk to him about these things, and of course he was the editor of one of the major magazines talking about cold fusion.
	But, again, he was also cognizant of the fact that his scientific peers would snicker behind his back.
	Sure.
	There was that giggle factor.
	And so I think that bore down on him.
	But, you know, he had this tremendous enthusiasm.
	You could not deny that this person was convinced he was going to be the person that shed light to the scientific community and to the world.
	Right, exactly.
	The technology worked.
	I told him that I had my doubts, but he was a true believer.
	I'm so sorry to give you that news.
	First time caller on the line, you're on the air with Dr. Michio Kaku.
	Hi.
	Yes, sir.
	I had a question about string theory.
	I've studied Einstein's work for many years now, and I've been an amateur physicist for
	a long time.
	He, in his work, he came up with the theory of relativity and the special theory of relativity.
	You know, which you could actually apply to the very large, but when you do a quantum mechanics, you have the three forces that you measure, which is the strong force, the weak force, and the electromagnetic force.
	Very good, right.
	Is, for the last 30 years of Einstein's life, he looked for the unified field theory or the grand theory of everything.
	That's right.
	I've studied super-string theory and string theory.
	How does that apply to the Grand Unification Theory?
	Well, string theory, we think, is the Grand Unified Theory of everything.
	We want a theory, as you correctly pointed out, that summarizes not just gravity, which Einstein did, but also light and the two nuclear forces.
	Now, when Einstein was alive, the nuclear force was very mysterious.
	I mean, after all, the atomic bomb was Essentially a catastrophic release of the nuclear force, but we didn't really understand the dynamics of the nuclear force at the microscopic level.
	Today we do.
	We have a very good handle on the nuclear force.
	We have something called the quark model, or the standard model, as it's now called.
	And the standard model allows us to use quarks to understand the nuclear forces that are unleashed in the sun and unleashed in a hydrogen bomb.
	But now we want to marry the quarks with relativity theory.
	That's a problem, because the quarks don't look anything like relativity theory.
	String theory treats both of them on the same level.
	A quark is nothing but a note on a string, and the same thing as a graviton.
	A particle of gravity is nothing but a note on a string.
	So the subatomic particles are nothing but notes on a string.
	The laws of chemistry are nothing but the melodies you can play on strings.
	The universe is a symphony of strings.
	And the mind of God, that Einstein eloquently wrote about, is Music.
	The mind of God is music resonating through 10, maybe 11 dimensional hyperspace.
	And then, of course, that begs the question, is there a composer, if the mind of God is this cosmic music that we've been talking about?
	But if this theory is correct, then all the forces are nothing but musical notes.
	And we have mini-particles.
	I believe that when we break it down to its smallest level, that everything acts as a wave, and not as a string.
	Oh yeah, but you see, the waves and strings are basically the same thing.
	Even particles have wave-like nature.
	And the strings have wave-like nature.
	So ultimately, you're right.
	Everything can be reduced down to a wave.
	But what is waving?
	What is waving is a string, we think.
	Now, we can argue as to what the string itself is.
	My personal point of view is the string itself is the condensation of space.
	Einstein believed that there were kinks.
	Kinks that you could make in the fabric of space and time.
	You have a bedsheet, many times kinks form.
	And Einstein thought that maybe these kinks correspond to particles.
	If this is true, these kinks could actually be strings.
	In which case, strings are nothing but the condensation of space.
	The condensation of space?
	Yeah, that's Einstein's direction.
	That's where he was going in the last decade of his life.
	He was leaning toward the idea that kinks in space are represented as particles.
	And the particles, of course, are electrons and atoms.
	Is there on Earth now that we recognize an Einstein?
	Is there somebody at Einstein's level now?
	Well, one of the main engines behind string theory is Ed Witten.
	He is hands down the leading string theorist, and he believes that this theory is a hundred years more advanced than we were supposed to see.
	We were not really supposed to see this theory in this century.
	It was really a theory for the next century.
	But no one on Earth is smart enough to solve the theory.
	The basic equations of strength theory, some of them, many of them I wrote myself, but the basic equations of strength theory cannot be solved completely.
	And Witten, of course, has given us tremendous insight into these solutions that has staggered the world of science.
	But no one has gotten our particular universe yet out of strength theory.
	And no one knows where string theory comes from yet.
	It's not a solvable theory, because it's too complicated.
	The human mind has a very hard time grasping the mathematics of string theory.
	Even the mathematicians were shocked when this theory was proposed.
	Yes.
	It's bowled over, though, the world of mathematics.
	Well, Professor, our time is up.
	I hope your book rages out there, and I trust it will, and I really hope that network And I know that they listen, these large networks.
	One of them comes to you and offers you an opportunity to do a prime time something, because our nation needs it, and you're the right one to do it.
	And I thank you for being here with us tonight.
	My pleasure.
	Anytime, Art.
	You never know, maybe I'll see you in New York.
	Take care, my friend.
	OK, I'm right here.
	There you have it, Dr. Michio Kaku.
	And there's just nothing quite like it, is there, to have an opportunity to chat with that man?
	Well, it's been a pleasure, and one last time, I will mention to you that next week, Ramona and myself will be in New York attending the premiere of this wild movie called The Day After Tomorrow, so...
	Y'all take care and I'll see you in two weeks.
	From the high desert, Crystal Gale is her name.
	Just the right words to get us out of here.
	Good night.
	Shooting stars across the sky.
	This magical journey will take us on a ride.

▲