All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 6, 2004 - Art Bell
02:50:51
Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell - Anthony Rizzi - Philosophical Physics
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
so so
from the high desert in the great american southwest i've been to all good evening good
morning good afternoon wherever you may be in the world's time zones all of them
covered like a great blanket by this program coast goes am i'm arch bell
and it is my honor and privilege to be your escort through the weekend
We're going to have open lines in the first hour, and then we're going to talk to Dr. Anthony Rizzi, I hope that's right.
I believe it's Dr. Anthony Rizzi.
And he is a theoretical physicist.
That's always fun stuff.
And speaking of theoretical physics, or maybe not so theoretical, if you want to go to coast2coastam.com, there's a really interesting story about a black hole eating a star.
And that's really it, too.
This black hole eats This star, and they've got an animation of what happens.
They've got a photograph up there, but then an animation, and it's well worth watching.
That's a star, folks, a sun, not the planets, which may have revolved around it, but it just goes, it literally disintegrates, ceases to exist.
You have to think, that could happen at any time to us.
You would just Everything would cease to exist.
There is a big fight, a big, big, big fight that's about to occur in Fallujah.
It's going to be urban warfare.
About 10,000 US troops are now massed to attack Fallujah, and it's going to be a very bloody urban battle.
Very bloody indeed.
Tough, awful, house-to-house, Door-to-door fighting and that's going to happen anytime.
Keep your eye on the news.
Now, my ham cam picture tonight is kind of an interesting one.
My dad was a Marine.
My dad passed away, as you may know, a few years ago of a cancer, skin cancer, and I just thought I'd kind of put it up in his honor.
That's Prior to his participation in World War II in Iwo Jima and across the Pacific.
As a matter of fact, my dad told me my mom was almost an Australian.
I guess he did R&R after Iwo Jima in Australia, and he almost married an Australian woman, which I guess might mean I wouldn't be here at all or look very different.
I don't know, but that's my dad, and you may see the resemblance or not.
He retired a colonel in the Marine Corps.
My mom, who is still alive, was one of the first women drill instructors in the Marine Corps.
And I was born on Camp Lejeune in North Carolina, the child of two Marines.
My mom, a drill instructor, you know, they're the tough guys that get you in basic training.
In this case, tough woman, one of the first.
And so you can imagine how she was as a mom.
But there is a picture of my dad.
Just prior to deployment in the Pacific in World War II.
Anyway, it's going to be a big fight and it's coming quickly now, I think, so stay close to news sources.
This may be the bloodiest of the whole war.
Elsewhere, French troops clashed with soldiers and angry mobs Saturday after Ivory Coast warplanes killed at least nine French peacekeepers.
And an American civilian in an airstrike.
Mayhem that threatened to draw foreign troops deeper into the West African country's escalating civil war.
France, though, hit back and destroyed what it said was the entire Ivory Coast Air Force.
Two Russian-made Sukhoi jets used in the bombing and five helicopter gunships.
France scrambled three Mirage fighter jets to West Africa and ordered about 300 troops to ready for deployment in the Ivory Coast.
Yasser Arafat, not in a coma, but remained in intensive care Saturday after undergoing more medical tests.
The doctors cannot figure out what's wrong with Yasser.
He's got some mysterious blood disease.
It's not any form of leukemia or Alzheimer's or anything like that, but some mysterious blood disease that they can't... well, the doctors just don't know, and some are speculating it may be poison.
The designers of the first privately manned rocket to burst into space were handed the $10 million check Saturday A prize designed to encourage technology that'll open the heavens to all of us.
Spaceship One's designer, Burt Rutan, accepted the, I'm sorry, X Prize money along with a 150 pound, 150 pound trophy?
Really?
As a chase plane flew over the ceremony in a field adjacent to the St.
Louis Science Center.
All right.
That's what's going on in the world.
It's never particularly good.
In a moment, we'll have, you know, the other stories.
Sound of a plane taking off.
This came from Matt Drudge's site.
I found this on Matt's site and I just couldn't believe it.
It was there last night and it says, Americans flock to Canada's immigration website.
Get this.
The number of U.S.
citizens visiting Canada's main immigration website has shot up six-fold as Americans flirt with the idea of abandoning their homeland after President George W. Bush's election this week.
Quote, when we looked at the first day after the election, November 3rd, our website hit a new high, almost double the previous record high, said immigration spokespeople.
On the average day, about 20,000 people in the U.S.
log on to that website.
A figure that jumped to 115,016 on Wednesday.
The number of U.S.
visits settled down to 65,803 on Thursday.
It's still well above the norm, so that's unbelievable to me that Americans disappointed at the re-election of a president would consider going north.
But, trill.
Now, I'm telling you folks, the shortwave bands, in fact the broadcast band for that matter, and I'm sure many of you are noticing it, they're undergoing some very strange conditions.
Indeed, this has been going on now for just about a month.
We may have hit a solar minimum.
We actually went to zero sunspot cycles.
The KB index at zero, another indicator.
Absolute zero and bizarre, bizarre conditions are occurring.
Not only in the shortwave band, but extending right down to what's called medium wave, where you listen on AM, so you may notice a lot of unusual activity.
And then this.
A series of explosions from sunspot number 696 on 3 November through 5 November have hurled coronal mass ejections toward Earth, racing toward Earth, and they're due to arrive this weekend Sky watchers in Canada, Alaska, and even northern tier U.S.
states had better get ready because there may be some bright, colorful auroras in your sky.
The sun is really doing some backflips.
Now, I don't know whether you're going to believe this or not, but the Air Force is going to spend seven and one half million dollars!
And they are going to study psychic Teleportation.
Psychic teleportation.
The Air Force Lab's August teleportation physics report, posted earlier this week on the Federation of American Scientists website, struck a raw nerve with physicists and critics of wasteful military spending.
In a report, the author, Eric Davis, says psychic teleportation In other words, moving yourself from location to location through mind powers is quite real and can be controlled.
That's cool.
The 88-page report also reviews a range of teleportation concepts and experiments.
Quantum teleportation, a technique demonstrated in the last decade that shifts the characteristics but not the location of subatomic particles at great distances.
So, the Air Force is going to spend seven and a half.
One of the principals in this, I think, is located in Las Vegas, and I would love to interview him, so please pass the word on psychic teleportation.
I mean, that's something right out of Star Trek.
But here we are.
This just in, as the famous saying goes, plane passengers shocked by their x-ray scans.
Well, An x-ray machine that sees through air passengers' clothes has been developed by, and now deployed actually, by security staff at London's Heathrow Airport for the first time.
So if you're headed for London, well, look good is all I can say.
The device at Terminal 4 produces a, quote, naked, end quote, image of passengers by bouncing x-rays off their skin Enabling staff instantly to spot any hidden weapons or explosives, but the graphic nature of the black and white images it generates, including revealing outlines of men and women, has raised many concerns about privacy, both among travelers and aviation authorities in America.
Transport officials here are refusing to deploy such a A privacy-piercing device until it can be further refined to mask the passenger's modesty.
The Terminal 4 trial, being conducted jointly by the British Airports Authority and the Department for Transport, became fully operational last month and is intended to run until the end of the year.
Its deployment has not been reported until now, since new security measures at airports are not normally publicized.
It's my understanding that this makes you look, well, completely naked, outlining every little aspect of you, and the officials viewing the pictures are saying that, well, it basically makes you look fat and naked, but you see all this stuff.
That's an exact quote.
Somebody who took a bomb through as a test, and they spotted the bomb and everything else.
Now, you've got to wonder, as some famous personalities pass through Heathrow, and it happens all the time, whether those pictures will remain... No, of course they won't.
Will they?
The U.S.
Air Force quietly has put into service a new weapon.
That's what we needed, a new weapon, this one designed To jam enemy satellite communications, a significant step toward U.S.
control of space.
That's right, we want to control space.
The so-called counter-communication system was declared operational late last month at Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado Springs, Colorado.
The Air Force Space Command said Friday, the ground-based jammer uses electromagnetic radio energy to knock out transmissions On a temporary or reversible basis, without frying the components, quote, a reversible effect ensures that during any time of need, the adversary's space-based capacity to threaten our forces will be severely diminished.
Following the time of need, the space-based capabilities used by the adversary can return to its original state.
So it just disables them temporarily.
Another weapon in our Arsenal.
Scientists have discovered what appears to be a tiny species of ancient human being.
One that lived about 18,000 years ago on an isolated island east of the Java Sea, a prehistoric hunter in a lost world of gigantic lizards and miniature elephants.
These little people stood about three feet tall and had heads the size of grapefruits.
They coexisted with modern humans for thousands of years yet appeared to be more closely akin to a long extinct human ancestor.
Researchers suspect the earlier ancestor might have migrated to the island and evolved into a dwarf species as it adapted to the island's limited resources.
This phenomenon known as The island rule is common in the animal world, but had never before been seen in human evolution.
In other words, you take human beings, and based on the resources available to them, they might get bigger and taller, and that's what's happening to the general American population, well-fed, even overfed, right?
Every year we get a little taller, a little bigger, but put us on an island with almost nothing and we shrink away into little beings.
And that's what they call the island effect.
Now, listen, I don't know whether you caught last week's EVP program on Saturday.
It was a very, very, very good one.
But it was followed Sunday by something that I know some of you considered mind-wracking, brain-torturing noise for about an hour and 20 minutes, but it is indeed.
It was one of the most exciting hour and 20 minutes that I've ever put on radio, and I know not for everybody, but for the technically-minded, and I got many, many, many emails from the technically-minded It was an extremely exciting, it was a two-way EVP conversation, just remarkable, and I'm going to have more on it.
I'll play more of it, I did plenty of that, but more on it indeed.
And you may also remember a reference to the fact that at one point the BBC, broadcasting in England, was taken over ostensibly by An alien presence of some sort that made a statement.
Well, guess what?
I am in possession now of that statement, and I'm going to read it to you tomorrow night.
The exact wording that was given when the BBC was taken over.
That was 27 years ago now.
I'll have that for you tomorrow night.
A Kent, Washington family came home on Thursday, looked around, discovered a gigantic gaping hole in their roof, apparently caused by a hunk of ice.
The ice, it seems, had slammed through the ceiling of Troy Halt's home and landed on his eight-year-old daughter Breeze's bed.
Good thing Breeze wasn't in it at the time.
A mystery piece of ice crashed through the roof of the Halt home in Kent, Washington, but no one knows where the ice might have come from.
The incident left ice crystals all over the girl's bed, as well as outside in the yard.
Roy Holt says his yard and house were peppered with what he called ice balls.
Just back from ballet lessons, Breeze discovered the hole in the ceiling above her head, and on it, three giant ice balls the family now has stored in the freezer.
She said, I was scared to death, actually.
I had no idea what it was.
Just glad my daughter was not home.
And in bed at the time.
The FAA is investigating, says blue ice is very rare, but that's apparently what it is now.
There's just nobody that knows where this stuff comes from.
So, there you have kind of a review of what I thought was interesting, save what I'm going to present to you tomorrow night and again.
I have the exact wording.
of the interrupted British broadcast, a very famous British broadcast, and I thought some of you might like to hear what was said to the people of Earth.
It's pretty dramatic.
All right.
So with that in mind, let's go to the phones.
East of the Rockies, you're on the air.
Hello.
Yes, Howard.
This is Wade calling from Louisville, Kentucky.
Listening to you on 1100 AM out of Cleveland.
Yes, sir.
Yes, I also heard where you mentioned the story about the psychic teleportation.
Have you read the actual report on the Federation of American Sciences?
I have not yet, but I'm going to do that and I'm going to try to get a guest on to talk about it.
I actually emailed you if it went through.
It's a big report, about 88 pages.
It was over a megabyte to you about this time last night.
The guy, Eric Davis, his office does have a phone number listed on this report.
Maybe you can clear something up for me since you've read the report.
How does psychic teleportation differ from what we call remote viewing?
There's certain different techniques and so forth.
I didn't get to go all the way through the report since it was so large.
But it does, there is a difference.
I guess remote viewing is Different techniques, too, I guess.
I'm not clear that it's a different thing.
In other words, remote viewers are able to, in essence, be in two places at the same time.
A quantum jump, if you will, as this is described, as quantum teleportation is described to be.
But, never fear, we'll get an expert in the area to explain it to us.
It sounds like, with the way I understood the fact of teleportation, it's actually using your mind to physically alter or to make a
physical capacity. Well, the way it hit me was to essentially physically be in two places at
the same time, but that's not all that
different from remote viewing.
It seems like the quantum, the psychic teleportation, may be a step up, or maybe two steps up.
Perhaps so.
One thing's for certain, sir, and that would appear that it would seem to be that we have a very quantum future.
It looks like that's where everything's going.
It's enough to interest the Air Force, so if something has apparently caught their attention enough to spill out that much cash.
Apparently seven and a half million dollars to study psychic quantum teleportation.
Beam us all up, Scotty.
What a world, huh?
from the high desert in the middle of the night I don't know when I'm back
I don't know when I'm back Living by so far I'm living alone
I don't know when I'm back Can you hear my heartbeat in this home?
Do you know that behind...
Don't you love her badly?
Don't you need her badly?
Don't you love her ways?
Tell me what you say.
Don't you love her badly?
Wanna meet her daddy?
Don't you love her face?
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?
Now tell me what you say Don't you love her as she's walking out the door?
All your love, all your love, all your love, all your love All your love is gone, to sing a lonely song
Of a deep blue dream, seven horses singing, to be on the moon
Do talk with Art 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.
From west of the Rockies, call Art at 800-618-8255.
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 your in-country spread access number pressing option five
and dialing toll-free eight hundred eight nine three zero nine zero three from coast to coast
and worldwide on the internet this is coast to coast AM with Art Bell. It is indeed a
great good morning to you. You know the way the shortwave bands have been they've been so
odd so truly odd that I'm beginning and I know this sounds a little paranoid but
remember Harp's main goal, Harp's main charge I guess was to attempt to affect the ionosphere
and affect shortwave communications.
shortwave communications.
Ionospheric communications.
And he thinks they're doing their job.
It's been really, really, really odd.
and harps been really active putting two and two together in this case definitely
comes out with a four hope you got those phone numbers they are a little
different on the weekend than of course on the weekdays
uh... since they are routed here to the desert where by the way it's quite cool
and we are expecting a number of days of additional rain here, only about 20 miles or so from Death Valley.
So, I think this year we have already surpassed our total annual rainfall, substantially passed.
First time caller line, you are on the air.
Hello.
Hello, what do you think about the new E.V.P.
movie?
Ah, you refer to White Noise.
White Noise, that's it.
Yeah, I have no idea.
I've, you know, seen the trailer and it looks absolutely fascinating.
The whole EVB subject, sir, just absolutely rivets me.
And if you had the time and the patience last week to listen to the two-way communication, it was startling.
Yeah, I heard everything is true in that movie.
Well, you know, who knows?
I mean, whether it's all true in that movie or all true at all, I'm leaning toward yes, it is absolutely true.
Now, I'm sure there was dramatic license taken in the movie the way movies do, but what I played for you last week was just... it really, I would say, shook me to my core.
And if you have the patience to stick with it, it demonstrated two-way communication with the dead.
Ongoing, responsive, two-way communication with the dead.
It was absolutely startling.
And I'm doing some follow-up work, and because of what I played, a number of people studied the schematics and the equipment, and they are going to proceed with the caution that in some ways, you know, you've got to know I understand that this has Ouija board kind of implications.
In other words, whether it's a Ouija board or it's an electronic device, anything that would establish meaningful communication with the other side, well, You don't know for sure who you're talking to, but it's still irresistibly interesting.
Wildcard Line, you are on the air.
Hi.
Hey, Art.
How's it going?
Just spiffy.
That's awesome.
I assume you saw the last episode of Dead Like Me last weekend?
I never miss Dead Like Me.
Oh, that's so sad.
We've got to wait another eight, nine months or something like that.
I know.
How could they do it?
Yeah, but I figured I'd call and... It's not fair that seasons end.
I mean, they should work all the time.
I very much agree with that.
I wish it would be like a 24 episode season instead of like 15.
Yes.
But anyway, I called to inform your audience, which is a fantastic audience, and I believe that most of them would be hip to this idea of the Horror Channel, which should be launching just before Thanksgiving.
But not a lot of cable companies are aware of this channel, and I think your audience should get a hold of the cable companies and say, hey... Are you a representative of a horror channel?
No, I am not.
No, you're just a horror fan?
I want to see this happen.
You want to see horror spread across every screen in America?
Yes, and it's uncensored.
They're going to play, like, PG-13 stuff during the day, and then, you know, at 7 p.m., they go all out.
Uncensored, uncut, no commercials, anything.
It's just like HBO, except for it's on expanded cable.
Well, we all know that in most good modern, even not so modern, horror movies, why, all dresses were low-cut, and a big, busty woman got eaten by monsters all the time.
So, there'd be lots of material for after seven or whatever.
Yes.
All right, sir.
Thank you.
So, the horror network is coming to America.
Soon we will have a network for everything, as the satellites scramble to fill up the promised 500-channel capacity.
What are you going to do with 500 channels?
So much entertainment that one doesn't know what to do.
East of the Rockies, you are on the air.
Hello.
Hello.
Let me turn my radio off.
Yes, all the way off.
Okay.
Yes, I was calling about the SPARACOM.
And I didn't get a chance to get a look at the information past the Mark IV, but in regards to the Mark IV, it would seem that if you took, say, a 16-track mixing board and fed 13 of the channels through with the 13 tones simultaneously, all at the same time, You should be able to get some sort of synthesis for the voice.
Very good, sir.
I see you did do your homework.
I mean, was all of that incredible or what?
Oh, exactly.
Now, I started working on some biofeedback equipment back in the 70s, and I used to work in broadcasting a little over 30 years ago and have an FCC license.
So, I've got a little background in electronics.
Yes, sir.
But I'd like to get on to past the Mark IV once I get a chance to read and see what's available as far as the Mark VI, etc.
Well, it does seem to me that if you took the effort that they pioneered and began to apply modern electronic techniques You could virtually have a interference-free, totally comprehensible, straight-on conversation with somebody on the other side.
Possibly with something like a Moog synthesizer.
Yeah, and then you begin applying DSP techniques, that sort of thing, to what you get and, my God, you would have a complete Completely understandable two-way conversation with the other side, and that's what could grow out of that research.
And that research was done, I think, without most Americans, most of the world, even knowing that it went on.
And that's why I thought that audio was so valuable.
I fully understood there would be a lot of the audience would sit out there and go, ah, this is killing my head.
I can't listen to this.
But for those who actually understood what they were listening to, It became increasingly dramatic until the hairs on the back of my neck absolutely were standing straight out when I previewed that stuff.
Incredible.
West of the Rockies, you're on air.
Hi.
Yes, hello.
Hello.
I must give credit where credit is due.
Remember in April, we were locked into Fallujah there.
We would kill 15 of them, and they would turn around and kill one of us, and we lost 55 Marines that month in Fallujah alone.
Yes, sir.
And that month I called in, and I spoke to you, and you allowed me to do an exorcism on the air, which I did.
And three days after that, we pulled our troops out of the killing zone, because we weren't able to decide whether we wanted to finish the job or not.
We were just sitting there trading lead and dying.
So I'd like to do another one this evening on Fallujah.
For our soldiers there in forthcoming battles.
I appreciate it, sir, but actually that would not have been me that aired that.
That would have been George.
Go ahead and do it, but it's not necessary that it be done on the air.
Its power is not carried in any better way by being on the air than if you do it in private.
So be my guest, and I hope you do well.
But as you know, I don't generally allow or pursue Mass Mind Experiments, which is what that basically boils down to.
We're in for a big fight in Fallujah.
There's no question about it, and you all need to watch the news very closely.
It's going to begin unfolding at any time.
About 10,000 U.S.
soldiers are poised to begin virtual house-to-house fighting in this city where, I don't know, a quarter million or near it have already left, but those who remain An estimated 3,000 insurgents are going to probably fight to the death, and it's all going to be urban warfare.
The very worst kind of thing we could be involved in.
East of the Rockies, you're on the air.
Hello.
Hi, it's Rick in Toronto.
Okay, welcome.
Long time no talk.
I want to mention, I want to talk about the program you had last weekend.
Yes, sir.
I think it's definite proof of life after death.
Well, it hit me exactly the same way.
The importance of that program can't be understated.
And I know that, you know, a lot of average listeners wonder, what the hell is this?
It was important to be aired.
I agree 100%.
You know, what Christ said is proven right there.
I mean, if you don't want to believe it, just listen to last weekend's program again.
Well, it'll be on, uh, thank you very much, as a pre-feed, uh, I believe tomorrow night.
And again, I know that not everybody got it, as it were.
But that's alright.
You know, I've been doing this long enough, and I'm just, uh, every bit cranky enough to, uh, to do it anyway, just because I understood the importance of it.
I understood the importance of somebody picking up the research and continuing with modern electronics.
And I believe if we do that, we're going to end up with something that will shake you and the world right to its very core.
First time caller line, you would have been on the air, but you're dialed to a wildcard line.
You're on the air.
Hello.
Yes.
Hi, Bruce from Tacoma.
Hello, Bruce.
I had a kind of strange story.
I've been trying to get ahold of you the past couple of days and tell you about it.
I was in the Marine Corps and I got out about four or five years ago.
Yes, sir.
And, uh, didn't go over Iraq or anything like that.
And it wasn't, wasn't any kind of high intensity type battles, but I was in a lot of smaller things.
I was in a couple of, uh, NBC rescues, such like that, things like that, and lost, uh, us more than a few friends over there.
Yes, sir.
And, um, something really weird happened to me the other night.
It's never happened to me before.
I was sitting in my bedroom and my wife works at night and I'm on my computer.
I'm listening here.
Show on Streamlink usually and just doing whatever on the internet.
I hear four loud bangs on my wall inside my room.
I've got two cats.
My two cats are on my bed and both the cats bolt out of my room.
My one cat comes back and just stares at the wall forever.
It's like a Friday night or something like that and I'm thinking, You know, people, I live in a apartment complex, someone's banging on the wall, drunk, whatever.
So I don't really think anything of it.
Next night, same thing, sitting in my room again.
This time I hear one bang.
Loud, loud bang.
It shakes the side of my wall.
And this time I kind of get mad, you know, and I jump up out of my chair and I go outside to see who's banging on my wall.
There's nobody there.
Anyway, I pulled the door, I turned around, and three of my friends that I lost are standing there in my living room.
And I sat there looking at them, and I was thinking, you know, the first thing that came to my mind is I'm dreaming.
You know, and they're standing there, and all in uniform still, you know, same gear, everything like that.
I just lost one.
One I lost in Iraq.
He was deployed.
I got out.
So do you think it, I mean, are you thinking this was the spirit of one of them or what?
Oh yeah, all three, actually.
See, you know, I wonder about this sort of thing.
Why would we necessarily attach banging on our wall to friends that we may have lost in a war.
I think that that kind of thing may well be a function of the human brain.
We try and attach meaning to strange things.
If we don't understand something, if it's outside our frame of reference, our brain struggles immediately to identify what it might be.
For example, a lot of people look at clouds and they see a certain formation And their brain scrambles to try to make sense out of it.
So, they see a demon, they see a face, they see God, they see all kinds of things.
But that's what our brain does.
So, I'm not saying that's not what it was, but I'm saying the odds are probably against it.
And I can understand, under those circumstances, why your brain, in reaching out and trying to figure out what the bangs meant, might attach it to something that has a great deal of emotional meaning to you.
West of the Rockies, you're on the air.
Hello.
Hello, sir.
How are you?
I'm Oogie.
I'd just like to offer up some credentials, because I keep getting cut off here.
Maybe if I offer some credentials.
Well, you're on the air, sir.
Well, I'm listening to the radio.
Well, thank you very much.
I'll turn your radio off, because there is a delay, and that will confuse you.
I appreciate it.
So, what's up?
Well, I'd just like to maybe touch base with The theory of MK Eltron, who's running Washington, you know, and who's fiddling with the computers on the voting system, that kind of thing.
There seems to be a lot of evidence that hopefully will be surfacing in the not-too-distant future.
Well, wait a minute.
If it's evidence and it has not yet surfaced, then you cannot call it evidence.
It's potential evidence.
You're thinking the election was rigged, huh?
I'm pretty sure that when you've been cooking the pot for so many decades, it wouldn't be hard to do, and I believe that the President's brother has something to do with Diebold, the computer... Voting machines.
Yeah.
I don't know about that, but... I'll also mention one of my friends, who's a computer genius, actually bid on a contract for making some new voting machines for the U.S.
government a number of years ago.
And the CIA circumvented his project because it was foolproof.
You couldn't monkey with the software.
And they told him to his face about five years later and invited him to go work for them.
I see.
Well, I guess we have no way of knowing about the up and up of an election.
We all know the stories of the dead, voting in Illinois, and all the rest of that, right?
But you know, I think by and large, it was what it was.
I think that President Bush won.
I stayed up every minute like I'm sure all the rest of you did and watched the election results come in and I think we got exactly what we seem to have.
This year, of course, the networks were a little slow, understandably, after being punished with a wrong result the previous year and calling too soon.
They called a little late.
Being naïve as I am, I still think that pretty much it was what it seemed to be, the re-election of the President.
First time caller on the line, you're on the air, hello.
Yes, Cyclops, Arlington, Texas.
Cyclops?
Do you have one eye?
Yeah, how'd you know?
Well, the name Cyclops is a dead giveaway.
So anyway, what's up there?
Talking to two of the ghost stories.
Actual one, and the second one proven.
Well, sir, I'm not taking ghost stories at the moment.
We did that last week, non-stop, and so we sort of reserved that away for, well, special occasions, ghost to ghost, that kind of thing.
Wild Card Line, you're on the air, hello.
Yes, hi, this is Bruce.
I think we just got cut off.
No, Bruce, I got the end of your story, but I appreciate it.
East of the Rockies, not much time, you're on the air, hello.
Oh, Art.
It's an honor to talk to you, sir.
Yes, sir.
We don't have a lot of time.
What's up?
My name is Ed.
I wanted to tell you about a little place in Hardy, Arkansas, a restaurant called Catfish House back in 1974.
Catfish House.
A girl in a band was singing, had real super long hair, and didn't know who she was at the time, but I was 18 years old.
I went over and asked her to dance, and she was taking a break, and she danced with me.
Let me make a wild guess.
Yes, sir.
Crystal Gale.
Yes, it was.
I remember that, and I cherished that to the day.
I'll take that to the grave with me.
She's quite a lady.
She really is quite a lady.
All right, listen, buddy, I gotta go.
We're at the top of the hour.
A theoretical physicist by the name of Dr. Anthony Rizzi is coming up next.
If you'll all just stay right where you are.
You get a shiver in the dark.
It's raining in the park.
In the meantime, Sound of the river, you stop and you hold everything.
A band is throwing, they say, double ball time.
You feel alright when you hear the music play.
I'm stepping into the twilight zone, faces in and out, fears like being gone, my weakness,
yeah, bruised, I'm now moving slow, where do I go now that I've grown too old?
I'm stepping into the twilight zone, faces in and out, fears like being gone, my weakness, yeah, bruised, I'm now
moving slow, where do I go now that I've grown too old?
I'm stepping into the twilight zone, faces in and out, fears like being gone, my weakness, yeah, bruised, I'm now
moving slow, where do I go now that I've grown too old?
I'm stepping into the twilight zone, when the bullet hits the bone, I'm stepping into the twilight zone, when the
To talk with Art Bell, call the wildcard line at The first time caller line is area code 775-727-1222.
bullet hits the bone, when the bullet hits the bone.
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 800-893-8253.
From coast to coast, and worldwide on the Internet, this is Coast to Coast AM, with Art Bell.
It is.
When the bullet hits the bone, that's definite notification.
No question about it.
Coming up in a moment, Dr. Anthony Rizzi.
Since Einstein first conceived general relativity about 80 years ago, over that now, physicists have sought a definition for angular momentum and general relativity.
In 1997, Dr. Rizzi discovered the first such definition, thereby gaining worldwide recognition for his work in theoretical physics.
So that's what he is, a theoretical physicist.
They're a lot of fun to talk to.
He is uniquely established as both an outstanding theorist and experimentalist, specializing in LIGO, that's Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory related areas.
Woo-hoo!
That'll take some explaining.
Prior to his current position, He was appointed by the California Institute of Technology, the first scientist at their Louisiana Illegal Observatory, LIGO.
He's taught graduate physics courses at Louisiana State University, has been a research scientist at Princeton University, was employed for 10 years as a staff physicist and design engineer for Martin Marietta in Denver, Colorado.
His work includes projects for the manned Mars craft and the Mars Observer.
Pretty heavy credentials.
Dr. Rizzi received physics degrees from Massachusetts Institute of Technology, B.S.
University of Colorado, M.S., and Princeton University, Ph.D.
Wow.
The author of The Science Before Science.
That's a good title, The Science Before Science.
I've got a copy here.
A guide to thinking in the 21st century.
In 2003, he founded the Institute for Advanced Physics and currently serves as its full-time director, where he continues his research in Einstein's theory and other gravity wave related areas.
in a moment, Dr. Rizzi.
Professor Rizzi, welcome to the show.
Hi, Art.
Great to have you.
It's always great to have somebody with the kind of credentials you've got.
Really heavy duty.
So, where are you, as a matter of curiosity?
I'm in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
All right.
We've been honored to have a number of theoretical physicists on the show.
I assume you're familiar with Dr. Kaku?
Oh, sure am.
Well, String Theory indeed.
Well, there's a good question.
How do you feel about String Theory?
Well, you know, I think String Theory is a very, very important contribution.
It really is the first time where we think we have some kind of handle mathematically on the different physical phenomena in the universe.
Although, you know, I think it's easy to say too much about it because of the fact that we don't have any data to support it yet.
And we don't even understand the theory as a theory yet.
And I'm sure that Dr. Kaku would admit that as well.
We're in the process of understanding it.
And in fact, it predicts a whole set of particles called supersymmetric particles that none of which have been found.
And people that support string theory like to say that, you know, there's the particles that we know of, and then there's the other particles that we don't know, the supersymmetric particles.
And they say, look, we found half of them.
Well, it's your business to deal in the... I mean, once it becomes general science, then it's really out of your purview as a theoretical physicist, once it becomes absolute fact, right?
No, we actually use that to help us go the next step.
So, once it becomes fact, once it becomes something accepted, then that's the platform upon which we stand to play more.
Sure.
Well, in a million areas, The people of your genre are fascinating to interview, and it's going to be... I've just got a million different questions.
I'm very tempted, and I'm going to jump way ahead, because I have been fascinated, absorbed, even... I've found it compelling beyond the ability to stop thinking about it at times.
Time travel has always fascinated me.
And I wonder how you feel about the subject.
Will time travel, ultimately, eventually, become possible?
Is it theoretically possible?
Well, it's a very interesting question, you know, and I think we have to back up just a little bit to talk about it, because, you know, my book, The Science Before Science, the whole point of it is to kind of bring us back to this platform upon which all the sciences stand, and that is the basic things that are right in front of us.
You know, the desk that I happen to be sitting at, or The microphone that you're talking into, those things that we have direct sensorial contact with.
The modern sciences have moved into a range where they've discovered that material things have this mathematical part to them.
And Aristotle found this out very early.
He said that the way he described it is the first property of all material things is their quantity.
Underlying every material thing is its quantity.
And this discovery that really only came to its fruition with Newton's great work in the Principia showed that equations could be used to describe this deep part of material things.
And so modern physics has been basically geared towards looking at things mathematically.
And so the mathematics, of course, everything isn't just mathematical.
And so one of the problems in interpreting to the public the findings of science is that you have to do a transposition from your equation To the language of laymen.
And I hope that you will be able to do that tonight.
I mean, some of the early stuff scared me a little bit.
The part about angular momentum, for example, and Einstein's work, I thought, oh man.
So is there any way you can explain what we're talking about here?
Time travel?
Well, we'll get to time travel, but I mean, is there any way you can talk about This angular momentum problem, for example, in a way that the average observer has some hope of understanding.
Sure, yeah.
The first thing we need to talk about is linear momentum, because that's what Newton discovered.
Everyone knows the story about the apple hitting Newton on the head.
Right.
Well, the thing that he really brought to the fore that actually came, people don't realize it, but it came from his medieval predecessors.
They knew about this concept of momentum, and he kind of brought it to its fruition.
But the basic idea is when you throw a baseball, it keeps going.
And that's called momentum.
And if it hits something else, then that something else gets the momentum from it.
And sometimes I'm angry.
And sometimes I'm angry.
And sometimes it comes running at you.
That's right.
And so this law of conservation of momentum, where the momentum doesn't go away, it keeps tending to go in one direction, is called the conservation of linear momentum.
Now there's a parallel law called the conservation of angular momentum, which you get from spinning a top.
And when I spin a top, if I were to try and stop the top, say I'm in outer space and I spin a top, well the top will spin one way and I'll spin the other way.
Right.
And so the momentum is conserved.
The angle of the spin is conserved.
Now that all makes fine sense in Newtonian physics, but what happens in Einstein's theory, it becomes very hard, because why?
You have gravity.
And gravity has this thing called, this wave phenomenon to it, in which the very Transmission of gravity involves a ripple.
So people don't often think about it, but if the sun were to just pop out of existence, gravity would have to transmit a signal to the Earth, and it would take eight minutes to get to the Earth.
So even though the sun popped out of existence, the Earth would keep going around the sun for eight minutes!
Right.
And so then, of course, the wave, when it went by, then the Earth would crane off into space.
Yes.
In this wave, what these do is these waves are floating all throughout space.
And so, imagine trying to be on a sea with many, many waves frothing up.
Well, you wouldn't find a place to stand to look at the rest of the world.
And that's what happens in Einstein's relativity.
That's why it's so hard to define any kind of momentum in relativity, because you don't know where to stand to look.
And this, of course, translates to a very complicated mathematical problem within the theory.
But as you can imagine, it's very interesting because everything is emitting these gravity waves.
The pulsars in space, going around each other, they emit huge amounts of gravity waves that hit us all the time.
Okay, and gravity waves, or gravity, is a function of mass, is that correct?
So in other words, the larger an object, the more dense an object, the more gravity and gravity waves emit from it.
Yes, that's right.
But it also is a function of motion.
The faster something's moving and the heavier it is, both those together will tell you something about how many waves are coming off of it.
And at some certain speed, then we do begin to encounter a type of time travel, right?
Well, no.
So that's in time travel, you're talking about bending of the space.
Do you want to go into that now, the time travel part?
I wouldn't be adverse to that at all.
The bending of the space.
The bending of the space.
So what happens in the time travel is the equations incorporate time into the equations for the first time.
Sort of, in Newtonian physics, time was kind of a side thing.
And Newton says time just flows uniformly.
He just really doesn't worry about it.
But Einstein, for the first time, brings time into it.
Because we know everything that happens, happens in time.
And so this, what happens is, and mathematically, is that two, it's like a line that gets bent into a circle.
So you take two ends of a line and you connect them up and you make a circle.
And what that can do, if you take time as just simply being a line, is that now you have the beginning of time hooked up to the end of time.
That's right, a circle.
A circle.
And, of course, the problem with that interpretation, of simplistic interpretation of translating the mathematics to the layman's language, is that time isn't a line.
I mean, time doesn't exist all at once.
I'm not a little boy anymore, I'm an adult, and the same with you.
So what happens in time, as Aristotle noted so long ago, is that time is qualitatively different than space.
And that is, you are something now, but in a few moments you'll be something a little bit different.
Or you might, in the case of an apple hanging on the tree, in a moment the apple might be part of you.
And so time is not the same as a line, even though we represent it as a line.
But, so, forward time travel would be intrinsically impossible, because it's saying you're going back to something that doesn't exist anymore.
But, backward, I mean, I'm sorry, backward time travel is impossible.
That's what I thought.
I thought forward was perhaps possible theoretically, and a lot of people, including you apparently, are saying travel into the past.
No, no, no.
Yes, but travel into the future is a different thing.
As a matter of fact, we do that all the time.
Well, by just standing, we go forward into the future.
We can't help it.
Things happen to us.
And so the question is, what is time?
That's really the key question.
And Aristotle actually got this definition right.
And that is that time is the measure of motion.
Where you have no motion, you have no time.
Right.
If there were but one planet Earth, and there were no other heavenly bodies, there would be nothing to measure against.
Exactly.
Exactly.
And in fact, we notice that That there's a central sort of time, a central sort of governing motion.
For example, the Earth going around the Sun creates a season, and the seasons create all the different motions, sub-motions that you have on the Earth.
So animals hibernate in the winter, and the rotation of the Earth creates the day-night cycle that, you know, that makes us go in the house and turn on the lights.
So then, theoretically, Professor, there would be, prior to the Big Bang, for example, theoretically, there would have been no time.
That's right, because Because of the fact that when there is no motion, there is no time.
If there is nothing there, then there's nothing to move, so there's no time.
Time is the measure of motion.
If you were charged with coming up with a device that would allow time travel, what avenue would you move down?
So time travel actually, in the sense that I think you're thinking about, which is getting in a capsule, pressing a button, and then waking up a hundred years later, we already have that in some sense.
Every time somebody takes one of these little embryos and sticks them in liquid nitrogen for five years, let's just take a hypothetical case of somebody who had cloned an embryo.
So you have two identical embryos.
One gets put in a petri dish and frozen, and the other one is implanted into his mother and grows up and becomes, say, four and a half years old, you know, just case in time, plus whatever's left of the five years.
And then what happens is that the one that grew up is five years in the future, and when this one is finally implanted, he will see that five years has passed, that he never lived, that his brother did live.
Okay.
So we already have that, but in special relativity, you have something else.
And that is, so in other words, what was happening to that embryo?
That embryo that was frozen, he was isolated from the other changes that were happening.
Right.
So the idea to move forward in time without yourself being affected is to slow down the changes that are happening to you.
Yes.
And what happens in special relativity is just that, is that if you travel fast enough, apparently you decouple yourself somehow.
And so now you can do the same analogy with the famous thing of the traveling twin.
One twin is like the guy that likes to stay at home, the other one likes to travel.
He goes off and he comes back and finds his twin 100 years older.
And that's because as he's traveling, he's somehow decoupling himself from the motions of the universe.
Less things happen to him than his stay-at-home twin.
But I am talking about the kind of device that you referenced.
In other words, the ability to... And I understand the parallels you've drawn with the embryo, for example.
It's a kind of time travel, sure.
But I really do mean creating some device or something that would actually allow somebody to move, presumably by what you're saying, permanently and irrevocably into the future.
So that would, the thing would be something that would decouple, in other words, the chamber would have to be something that would decouple you from the changes in the world without destroying your current, in other words, freeze your current state.
Uh, yes.
That's what it would be.
And so in other words, less has to happen to you, because what is time?
Time is a measure of motion, and if you have no motion, or you have a little motion relative to the rest of the universe, that means you're being held and not advancing in time.
Okay, I'll buy it, but again, so you're referring to some sort of suspended animation, for example?
Yes, for example.
But what about an actual device, he says again, that would thrust you into the future?
The time machine kind of thing?
And why would you consider that not the time machine?
I fully accept it.
So, as you've laid it out, I'm just trying to travel that step.
An electronic device, perhaps using a great deal of power, so much power we don't even have it right now, but something that would distort time and space and allow a jump.
Yeah, I mean, I would argue that that is that jump.
The problem is that we have a picture of time as a line.
And so, as soon as you picture time as a line, then you can imagine somehow jumping over the line.
But, in actual fact, time is not a line. Time is the passage of what actually is,
into what can only potentially be, but then it becomes actual.
So, I'm potentially able to get older, and then I do get older.
And so, basically, a time machine, in the sense you're talking about, is what we just said.
It has to be a machine that somehow decouples you from the rest of the motions of the universe.
Uh-huh. And what could you imagine in the theoretical world that might do that,
other than, I don't know, a medical...
Like a freezing thing.
Yeah.
Well, another thing, as I mentioned, was the moving, but that's not a fixed capsule thing.
Another thing is gravity.
We know that if you're in the Earth's gravitational field, that when you're deeper in a gravitational field, time goes slower.
Right.
The motions that happen to you are slower relative to the motions of the larger universe.
So, for example, astronauts orbiting the Earth are slightly younger.
I mean, slightly older than the rest of us.
They've traveled a little bit into time, into the future.
Right.
And so you can imagine creating a heavy, heavy gravity field.
Like a black hole.
Like a black hole.
in which you'd uh... in which you create the large field that slows the region of
time around for you very slow
now the interesting thing about black hole is that the bigger the black hole is
the uh...
the larger out the event horizon and they would be event what's the event horizon event
horizon is the place which when you cross through nothing can get out
not even light now there's some there's some quantum qualifications to the
fact but let me just speak simply for now and you can't get out
when she ran and uh...
but but what happened is that that if you want to be outside the event
horizon so you can go someplace else again uh... you
you have to have a big black hole because even writing being a larger
with a big black hole means that the gravity radiant is smaller which means the difference from gravity
at one point to In other words, if the difference between gravity at one point to another is too big, it can rip you apart.
All right.
Professor, I'll hold it right there.
There is a very interesting picture of a black hole, actually, at the coast2coastam.com website.
You might want to take a look at it.
And the animation of what it does to a sun is absolutely fascinating.
It just sort of changes the orbit, grabs it back, turns it to gas, and then absorbs it.
It's pretty weird.
But that's what we deal in here, isn't it?
I'm Art Bell.
I'm Art Bell.
Some velvet morning when I'm straight.
Some velvet morning when I'm straight I'm gonna open up your gate
I'm gonna open up your game.
And maybe tell you about Phaedra And how she gave me life
And how she made it in Some velvet morning when I'm straight
Flowers growing on our hill Drowning flies and daffodils
Learn from us very much Look at us but do not touch
Phaedra is my name you
To talk with Art Bell, call the wildcard line at area code 775-727-1295.
The first time caller line is area code 775-727-1222.
To talk with Art Bell from east 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 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 indeed Professor Anthony Rizzi is my guest, a theoretical physicist.
We're talking about time at the moment, and the possibility of time travel, and we'll get right back to it.
it's day where you are.
Well, assuming man could survive the ride through a black hole's event horizon,
then I guess you would just...
Jump in time, or it would be possible that you would jump in time.
I'm not sure.
Maybe you'd just end up in another dimension.
If you could survive the transition through a black hole's event horizon, Professor, what would likely be your state on the other side?
Well, as we were saying, the large gravity field, if the event horizon was large enough out in a big enough black hole, you wouldn't get ripped apart.
So your time would be slowing down for you, with respect to the rest of the universe.
But gradually, what would happen is you'd be pulled inexorably toward the center of the black hole, in which the strain forces, in which the forces pulling your head and feet apart, would get larger and larger.
So you're saying you wouldn't make it through?
You would make it through the event horizon.
You would indeed make it through the place where light cannot escape.
But eventually... But either would you... What's that?
I said either would you escape, that is.
No, you would not escape.
Because you would get in the event horizon, and then you would be pulled toward the center of the black hole, and eventually, before you got to the center, you would be pulled apart.
Pulled apart.
Yeah.
We've got an animation up on the website of a star that gets... first, its orbit gets perturbed, As it goes by a black hole, then it gets sucked into the black hole.
Actually, not in.
It got pulled apart and became gaseous before it was absorbed, really.
And then the black hole slowly absorbed the gaseous leavens of that star.
So that would be a black hole that would be small enough that the event horizon would be such that there would be large, what's called tidal forces, because these tidal forces Are from, as I mentioned before, the gravity of one place being weaker than the gravity of another place, and thereby creating a pulling from one part to another.
And that's what creates the tides on the Earth.
It pulls the water out from the Earth and makes an ellipsoid of the water.
And what that would do to the... You can imagine pulling the water of the Earth's oceans.
If you had a huge black hole there instead of the Moon, it would rip the oceans off, and it would rip the Earth apart.
And that's what happened to that star.
The tidal forces are so strong it pulls one end of the star away from the other end and rips it into gas.
Alright, let me try one more time.
If man were somehow able to amass enough power to create a gigantic gravitational field or waves, would there be a chance of a form of time travel following that line of reasoning?
Well, there is, you know, I do talk about in my book something that Kip Thorne brings up in one of his books and actually has written a series of papers on called wormholes.
And wormholes are this phenomenon which basically allows you to short-circuit from one part of the universe to another.
And we don't know if they exist.
In fact, there's all kinds of evidence that while they can exist in terms of Einstein's theory that quantum mechanics comes along, And makes them unstable and they'll just fall apart.
But if they did, in some hypothetical sense, if they could exist, then what they would be is they'd be these places that gravity causes enough curvature in the space that you do get this sort of short circuit from one part of the universe to the other.
And people have talked about using those for a type of time travel.
And this would have to be created out of, you know, even if it was possible, my opinion is that it's not possible, but there's other people who hold that there may be things that save the day at some point.
But I should add that even those people realize that you'd be dead because of all the gamma rays and x-rays that are created within the wormhole.
But if you did make one of these things, then there is a possibility... Oh, you'd need to... What I was going to say is that on top of that, you'd have to have some kind of weird matter that nobody knows exists right now.
There's all kinds of ifs in here that I think make it completely untenable.
But it's an interesting exercise in studying relativity.
You sound like a very skeptical theoretical physicist.
Skeptical of many ideas.
I'm a very skeptical person.
I like to get proof before I hold something to be true.
Well then, how do you manage to make it through life as a theoretical physicist, dealing in almost exclusively, theoretically, on things that are not yet proven?
Well, in other words, you allow yourself to brainstorm these things, but you want to bring them back down to some kind of experimental or theoretical Well, one of the great people who did that was Einstein.
Do you ever wonder, or maybe we do have and we just don't know it, but do we have a man today alive of the caliber of Einstein's thinking?
You know, I think that a lot of people would probably tell you that Ed Witten is a person like that.
He's a person that's really largely responsible for a lot of the advances that have been happening in string theory.
And, you know, this whole idea of a coherent mathematical theory that would include... See, the way theoretical physics works is you start with what you know, and then you try to brainstorm how you can include that in a larger mathematical scheme.
And so, there's all kinds of... You know, what happened first was Gravity.
Then came Maxwell with electricity and magnetism.
He unified electricity and magnetism in one mathematical theory.
Then came Einstein, who admired the electricity and magnetism, and came up with a theory that was kind of modeled after electricity and magnetism, but he tried to unite the electricity and magnetism and the gravity and failed.
And then came along the weak theory, I mean the weak force and the strong force and more forces, of the mathematical mathematically treated differently than the other two and in the eighties that was united in the electroweak force.
So that brought the strong and in the standard model you have the strong force, the weak force, and the electricity and magnetism all united in one, but gravity is the holdover.
Gravity, nobody knows what to do with it and that's what Einstein handled.
And Witten, so now the game is how can we come up with a mathematical theory to cover all of those five uh... of those five different things in one mathematical
period and string theory is the attempt to make a theory that
reduces to those five under certain conditions
you always start with the things that you know and that you know more than you can come up with
uh... bigger sort of more inclusive mathematical understanding of the fact
uh...
all right so you're pretty conservative on time travel describing to us
what it is we don't describe anything really between a cessation of
motion as in a medical
experiment uh... putting somebody in uh...
yeah i think that i could again if you think about what time is
you realize that time is measure of motion
And so then, the idea then is that one motion measured against another.
The most simplest measure It being the sort of universal measure and so in order to have time travel you have to have something where one motion is held fixed or one person or thing is held fixed with respect to the other motion.
That's what you mean by time travel.
So the whole thing in theoretical physics as in physics as a whole is to be very clear about your starting point and to be very clear about your distinctions so that you know what you're saying.
It is very easy to get confused from You know, take one thing and confuse it for another if you're not precise.
And that's the whole game in theoretical physics is to cut those lines just right.
All right.
Are we about to have a big quantum future?
I'm hearing so much about quantum things these days.
In fact, there's a recent story the Air Force is going to, what in heaven's name was it, the Air Force is going to sponsor Psychic teleportation, seven and a half million dollars they're going to spend on it, and that would imply quantum something or another being in two places at the same time, right?
Well, actually, the quantum teleportation, which is the real physics in this, I mentioned to you before, I don't think that that other stuff is worth any money spent at all, but the quantum teleportation is a real physical phenomenon whereby The quantum state of one object is able to be transferred to another object.
And so basically you have, as best as we can do, the state of one object being recreated in another object on the other side of the room, say.
Or being put another way, being in two places at the same time.
Well no, because they're different things.
There's one thing here and the other thing is over there.
It's just that they've been put into the same state.
So like if I had But these two different things are connected, right?
Yeah, that's right.
if every atom was the same if they're on different sides of the room they're not the same thing.
So they're not in two places at once, they're two different things that happen to be in
two different places.
But these two different things are connected, right?
Yeah, that's right.
They're connected by the correlations between the two of them.
So that when you measure one or you do something to one, you'll know what the other one will do.
Because there's some sort of communication occurring between the two.
Yes.
This is very interesting in that communication appears to occur Instantaneously, or without the measurement of time, near as we can determine, right?
Well, that's the so-called Bell's Theorem, which I actually discuss in my book, and the Bell's Theorem has a giant hole in it.
It's not true.
Does it?
What kind of hole?
Well, the hole is... You have to go through the whole theorem.
I don't think we want to do that on the radio, but basically the hole has to do with his translation of the mathematical, as the same thing we talked about time.
If you picture time as a line, just being the same as a line, which is all there at once, then you can get all kinds of errors about time.
Well, the same thing can happen with respect to looking at the communications and things.
If you take the mathematical theory and translate it straight into layman's language, you end up introducing other complications.
And that's basically where the hole comes about.
But it is still a weird thing.
It's something that we don't quite understand.
And quantum mechanics is something that people are kind of scratching their head about.
It's basically an area that you have to use probabilities in.
Whenever you're using probabilities, it's an admission already that you don't quite know what's happening.
Yes, right.
Right, but something is happening.
And you're saying you find a hole in the In the view that that communication, whatever and however it's occurring, is not, in fact, occurring instantaneously.
That's right.
That's right.
Fascinating.
But what is happening, what we know is happening, is that there is a state, a so-called quantum state, which is basically descriptive of what the thing is at that moment.
And that state, you can recreate it.
So that means within some Parameters, you're making an identical copy of this thing over here.
Right.
Not the same thing, but it's an identical copy over there.
Yes.
And that's something that is, you know, really very powerful, because you're saying at the very sort of levels of the electrons, you're not just making a copy that looks like something on the outside.
It's pretty much, you know, it's not all the way, but it's pretty much all the way down.
And where is not quite all the way?
I mean, how is that quantifiable?
It's quantifiable because you're talking about probabilities, always talking about probabilities.
And so you never quite know whether you've got everything or it is a limitation of your measurement.
I see.
You know, for example, if I flip a coin, when I'm saying there's a probability of 50% that there's heads and 50% that there's tails, I'm saying something about the flip.
But I'm also admitting that there's a lot I don't know about the flip.
Okay.
And that happens in quantum mechanics.
You're dealing with probabilities all the time.
Do you think that Human consciousness survives death?
Yes, I do.
You do?
Yes.
Do you think we have a soul?
Yes, actually.
I go through the book.
The whole point of the book is to start with the very basic physics that we know that we have to ground everything in, which is the things that we have immediate sensorial contact with.
Yes.
And so something like the human soul, you have to be very careful, as I mentioned before, to define your terms.
Well, as careful as you have been with respect to the other topics we've suggested, I'm quite amazed at this leap of faith.
Well, I wouldn't call it a leap of faith.
I think it's right in front of our nose if we define our terms right.
For example, think about the concept of justice.
How wide is it?
What color is it?
What shape is it?
It doesn't have any of those properties.
No.
It's a non-material thing.
Yes.
Well, how can a material thing Um, have a non-material thing.
I mean, we're already seeing that we have a non-material component to us in our ideas.
We don't often pay attention to it, but we directly have contact through thinking about things.
Alright, well I recognize that as a product of consciousness, not necessarily the existence of a soul.
But it depends on what you mean by a soul.
If you mean by a soul, that's where you have to be defining your terms very carefully.
Well, okay.
So what do you mean by non-material?
You mean something... What do you mean by material?
The first aspect of material things is that it has parts outside of each other.
Yes, let me go back to what I first said.
The continuation of consciousness following physical death.
Yeah, that's... So we have to kind of go in an order, right?
We've got to start someplace and go someplace.
If we jump all the way to that, then we won't see how we got there.
That's why I'm kind of going slow.
First, let's talk about the soul, the human soul.
How do we get to the human soul?
So the human soul, we first have to reflect on our knowing.
And knowing is already a variety of non-materiality.
All you mean by non-materiality is just what you said, not material.
So to say that, you've got to know what you mean by material.
And what you mean by material is things that have parts outside of each other.
If I can rip this book in front of me in half, I can rip my pencil because there's parts outside of each other in it.
But my desk, my pencil, can't have ideas.
But your desk and your pencil can't have ideas.
But think about the key property of material things is that they have parts outside of each other.
Whereas ideas, which we have, they can be on top of each other.
I can think of myself thinking about myself thinking about something.
I can be on top of myself.
The parts are not outside each other.
They're all in one place at the same time.
Yes.
That's what you mean by non-material.
It doesn't have this aspect of being extended.
Okay.
So that's how you come to understand that there's a non-material aspect to human nature.
A product, I believe, of consciousness.
Well, it's not a product.
You're noticing that you're conscious of, like if I pick up a glass.
So, I talk about this in the beginning of the book.
If I pick up a glass.
Yes.
My ice water that I have in front of me here.
Right.
Well, the first thing that happens is I feel the coldness of the glass.
And, well, what's happening?
Well, my hand's cooling down and the glass is warming up.
Mm-hmm.
But something else is happening.
It's not either of those things, and that is I'm aware of the coldness of the glass.
Yes.
That's not either of those things, because if it was one of those, then, in other words, if the coldness If my hand getting cold were that, then I could put the book up against it and the book would do it.
What's happening is somehow or other, I and the coldness are being united without the coldness destroying me.
Alright, hold it right there.
I'm absolutely going to understand this one before we're done.
That simple realization makes the leap.
But I guess he's here to make the leap for us.
Professor Anthony Rizzi is my guest.
from the high desert in the middle of the night You know it don't come easy
You know it don't come easy I'll defeat you if you wanna see the blues
And you know it don't come easy You don't have to shout or leap aloud
don't come easy You don't have to shout or leap aloud
You can even play them easy Forget about the past and all your sorrows
You can even play them easy Get up on the pad
and hold your sorrow The future will plan
The future won't last It will soon be all tomorrow
It will soon be all tomorrow I don't ask for much
I don't ask for much, I only want trust And you know it don't come easy
I only want trust And you know it don't come easy
And this love of mine keeps growing on time
And this love of mine keeps growing on time Now it just ain't easy.
And you know it just ain't easy You really don't know why
Baby, when you need a smile Your love will shatter in a way
You've come to me Baby, you'll see
But I'm still burning, baby Who's gonna hold you through the night?
But I'm still burning my heart Who's always got to make it?
But I do Who's gonna love you, love you?
Who's gonna love you?
But I do Who's gonna love you, love you?
Who's gonna love you?
Who's gonna love you?
🎵 Outro Music 🎵 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.
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 800-825-5033.
That's who I am.
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.
You betcha, that's who I am. My guest is Professor Anthony Rizzi, and what an interesting man
he is. He is a theoretical physicist, but I, my impression is a very conservative one.
very conservative one he He sees holes in string theory.
He sort of disses the concept of an actual time machine, as it were.
I mean, very, very conservative.
And then we get to the soul and life after death.
And I suggest it's a leap of faith for him to jump on that one.
And he says, oh no, as though it's a It's fact, and so we go from the conservative to the very, well, I don't know, in some ways way out there, Dr. Rizzi, who apparently believes in the soul and believes in life after death.
always is going to be interesting my desk my pencil there are things they can be measured
probably broken down to their mathematical components but
Bye.
An idea.
The power of an idea.
Well, that is apparently the beginning of the evidence that leads us toward the concept of the existence of a soul.
Right, Professor?
Professor?
Oh, Professor, have we lost you?
No, I'm here.
Oh, you are there!
Sorry, I had my phone on mute.
I apologize.
That's quite all right.
I'll repeat it, I guess.
No, no, I heard mine.
You did hear it, okay.
Yeah, so, you don't mind, I hope, if I back up a little bit?
Well, no, I don't.
Okay, I wanted to back up to make the distinction between proper knowledge and belief, because I think that's something that's out there that's a little bit confused, because when you mentioned string theory and opposing it to the human soul, You know, that kind of brought it to my mind, because string theory is something that most people have no concept of what it is, but yet they think they do, because we hear it talked about.
So I like to make the distinction between faith and belief, I mean, between faith and knowledge, in the following way, to remind people that there's lots of things that we think we know, but we really don't.
For example, in science, the Earth going around the Sun, everyone will say, oh, well, everyone knows that the Earth goes around the Sun, that's obvious.
But then, if you ask them to think about it for a second, You ask them, what evidence do you have?
Prove it to me.
And go through the reasoning.
There's only a few scientists who even have done that.
Who've done the experiments and gone through the reasoning.
So in fact, the earth going around the sun is a matter of faith based on authority.
And most of our thinking is that kind of thinking these days because we have such an information rich culture.
But we have to recognize it because that kind of faith is not just a faith.
It's a blind faith because it's a faith that masquerades as knowledge.
Well, we've got to believe each other, and that's the way culture advances, but we need to recognize when we're trusting and who we're trusting.
And so, string theory, you know, it's, of course, ten orders of magnitude out there.
On the other hand, the human soul is something everyone confronts.
I mean, everyone walks up to somebody, they don't want to murder him.
Why?
Why not?
They'd rip the book in half, but they wouldn't murder the guy in front of them.
They recognize there's something transcendent there.
It's because it's right in front of your face, and you do this spontaneous reasoning, you just don't often make it rigorous.
Perhaps we just overvalue life.
Perhaps, but the fact is that the life is right in front of us, and we have the ability to spontaneously reason about that, but we somehow think that that's further away from us than some of these esoteric things that we've never even spent more than ten minutes studying seriously.
So that's the kind of distinction we've got to be careful of in deciding, you know, and going back to what do we really know, and as you brought out the pencil, the desk, those things are in front of us, you and I are in front of us, And there's lots of conclusions that we don't spend a lot of time figuring out that we could with things that are right in front of us.
And that's what my book is about, The Science Before Science, is getting to all those things that you're then going to build upon these huge towers like string theory, which I think is a great theory.
I just don't think it's proven yet.
And all the other things that we're going to do.
But if we don't build the foundation, then the rest of the building could teeter and fall.
In fact, I think in our culture, a lot of people wake up one day And they start thinking, and they start seeing that they have had this blind faith, and they start throwing everything out.
So you get a lot of conspiracy theorists and all these things out of this sort of waking up one day and saying, hey, I'm just believing people.
And if you don't ground things, that's what tends to happen.
Well, with regard to the Earth rotating about the Sun, you're not suggesting, of course, that I should have doubts about that?
Oh, no, no.
Oh, good.
Not at all.
Good.
Not at all.
I'm just trying to get us to remember that lots of the things we think we know are really legitimate faith-based on authority, but that's what they are.
And what we need to do with as many things as we can is to ground them, figure them out for ourselves.
And the fact that the earth goes around the sun is something that people should think about and own it themselves.
The more you think about it, the more you can own it yourself, and you can really see then what it means.
And that's what I'm talking about.
That's what I do in the Science Before Sciences.
Get people to ground themselves so they can then make the right distinctions to even the things right in front of us.
We don't analyze them enough to even know to ground them enough so that we can then have a place to go.
If we doubt the existence of our own intellects and submerge them in some random chaos of atoms, then how do we expect that we're going to, you know, it's some kind of Craziness to then think we can understand it, because we're just a morass of mixed-up atoms.
But of course, that's what we do all the time.
We try to understand things.
So there's something transcendent there that we recognize.
And the things that I'm talking about here, they're new things, and they're deep things, so they take a while to think about.
And I recommend people spend some time thinking about them in the book, because you can kind of see the gist of it, but you can't get to the bottom without thinking about it for a while, like anything.
Yeah, okay.
So, let's go ahead and try to make the path.
I mean, from the fact that we can consider things, we do have ideas, and I guess you can say that there's a transcendent element in that, but I'm not sure you can say that transcendent element extends to a soul, or a life after death, or a... Get me there from here.
So the coldness of the glass example that we talked about, we showed that there's a radically different type of change happening than the physical change.
Yes.
In the physical change, my hand is becoming something different than it was.
But in knowledge, it better stay the same, otherwise I'm not knowing it.
Right.
So if I want to know a tree, and if I change into a tree, or if I change into the thing I'm trying to know, then there's no knowledge.
And that's what happens in all physical change.
In all physical change there is one thing, and it turns into something else.
There is an apple hanging on the tree, and it is an apple, but then I eat it, and then it's no longer an apple, it's a part of me.
Yes.
And it can't be both the apple and me, but that's not so with ideas.
Ideas can be on top of each other.
Yes.
And so that means that they, going back to what we were talking about, they don't have parts outside of each other.
That's a form of multitasking, right?
Ideas on top of each other.
What I'm saying is that they can exist at the same place at the same time.
They're right there.
And as opposed to physical things, if I try to put a baseball and a bat in the same place at the same time, one goes one way and the other goes the other way.
Yes.
That's what you mean by material.
That's the very definition of material.
If you analyze it deeply, you'll find out that the very thing that distinguishes material things is they have parts outside of each other.
One part's here and the other part's next to it.
Right.
And so what you have to say about ideas is they're not material, because they don't have parts outside of each other.
Okay.
Accepted.
Okay.
So we have a part of us that's like that, because we have ideas.
All right.
And that part of the main part, MacVac, that's the thing that drives us.
We have an idea and we go do something with it.
We tell somebody about it.
And now the difference with something that doesn't have parts is that you can't break it apart.
I can take a cat and rip it in half because the front part's here and the back part's here.
How are you going to destroy something that doesn't have parts outside of each other?
Can't.
You can't destroy an idea.
You can't destroy it.
So there you have it.
Since you have a power, which is the soul to know things, And that power cannot have parts outside of each other, it can't be destroyed.
So, when people say life cannot be destroyed because there are electrical impulses and they simply don't cease to exist, even though you physically do, those impulses in some manner continue?
Well, we're saying immaterially, because impulses, electrical impulses, are an aspect of material things.
So when we're saying non-material, we're talking about something that has no parts outside of each other.
So it's not electrical, it's not something physical, it's something non-material.
And that's the part that has to live because you can't destroy it.
Because it has no parts outside of each other.
The reason physical things are destroyed is because they have one part outside the other and another part comes and intrudes and breaks it apart.
But you can't have that once you have something that has no parts outside of it.
So then describe to me the kind of Immortality, you're referring to.
Are you suggesting, then, that we live on in the sense that our ideas live on?
In the sense that we live on as... So what happens, then, is that because the way we know is through our senses, that we wouldn't have anything in our minds if it wasn't for our senses.
What we do is we abstract things from our senses.
The first time we see a cat, we watch the cat, and we get the idea of catness.
Got it.
But unless we had seen a cat, we wouldn't have the idea.
Right.
So once our soul gets disconnected from our body, we have no way of knowing anything new.
So we're stuck with whatever we already knew.
Or dead.
That's what I mean, when we're dead.
Okay, so... When our soul is separated from our body, in other words, dead.
Yes.
In other words, we're just that non-material aspect of ourselves, which people call the soul, then we can't, by our own nature anyway, know anything else.
Indeed, we don't even know anything specific, because it's only through the senses that we know specific things.
That's another distinction between ideas and material things.
Through our senses, we know this specific coldness.
Okay, then consciousness does not continue to exist.
Consciousness does continue to exist, but only of ideas which are general, as opposed to sensorial knowledge which is specific.
So in that state, I wouldn't know Um, this specific cat, but I would know the general idea of Katniss.
Because if you think about the ideas... But would you continue to know the general idea of Katniss after you had physically died?
Yes.
Yes?
You would.
You would?
You would, because you already have that idea, and that's an immaterial thing.
But the specific cat is a material thing connected with the particular way it affected your senses.
But in what manner is that information conveyed, since the synapses, the physical stuff, is all gone?
Because we just already showed that it can't be.
That is a non-material operation.
The actual knowing is a non-material operation.
Although, to get it there, it involves the physical.
The actual act of knowing, the final point you get to, is a non-physical thing.
So the actual act of knowing, the Katniss, is independent, so you would keep knowing the Katniss, but you would not have the sensorial knowledge, you would not have the memory of the specifics to correlate it to, so you wouldn't have any general knowledge, any specific knowledge of that cat.
You would forget your pet cat, you would just know the general idea of Katniss.
Do you think that any of this could account for what people call ghosts?
Before we get into that, if you don't mind, go back a second, because I remember you had You, um, there was, uh, somebody talking to, uh, you, I think we're talking to somebody who was born blind.
Yes.
And was not able to, um, uh, dream and vision.
That's correct.
And that's what happens with, without that sense.
You never get that idea.
You never get those images and you never get ideas about color.
Quite right.
You can't know.
Yes, of course, you can't know.
And so you can't know.
And so when you dream, you wouldn't dream because you don't have that information in your mind.
Understood.
And so when the soul is separated from the body, you lose part of who you are.
Well, you lose additional sensory input of any sort, right?
You lose all additional input.
But I'm just saying the way we are made is to know through our senses.
And so all we know is what we already have.
And even there, we only know the general Because the intellectual side, as opposed to the sensorial side, is general.
So when I'm thinking, I get a general idea of the thing, and that's how I proceed, through the general to the general, and then I have to go from the general to the specific.
So this is why all children start out calling all men father, as Aristotle points out.
By the way, Aristotle did all this stuff in the 3rd century BC.
It's just that we've lost it.
This is not new stuff I'm bringing out here.
Right.
But the reason that you would lose this is because, through the senses, we know the specifics.
Now, to get to your question about... You know, I'm really not into this area at all, as you can imagine, but I would tend to think that this is not the case, because the way we act is through our bodies, and we don't have our bodies anymore, so there's no way for us to act.
The way that human soul acts, as we know it, by personal experiences.
If I want to pick up a book, I go and pick it up.
But if I don't have my body, there's no way for me to act except in my mind.
Yes.
Well, there you are.
Why exclude that as a possibility?
If something still exists with memory only of Katniss and everything else that it knew, but no new input, How can you rule out the possibility that that is in some way expressed in what we call a ghost, which is not necessarily a physical being?
I don't think I can completely rule it out.
I would agree with you.
But what I'm saying is the likelihood, because of the fact that the soul is associated with a particular human body, and everything we know is that that soul acts only through a particular body and can only act Do anything through that body.
If I want to pick up a book, if I want to do something and I really want to get it done, I'm not going to say, I'm going to sit here and think about it.
I've got to get up and go do it.
And so there's no reason to think, while it's true I can't rule it out, as far as I can see, there's no reason to think it.
And I think that's kind of what we have to go by.
I mean, if somebody asked me to prove there's not an invisible man sitting on the floor next to me, that would be a very hard thing for me to do.
I can only give lots of reasons why I think it's not the case.
Alright, do you think there is a God?
Yes, definitely.
That's another thing that you can prove.
Oh, by all means.
Let's prove it.
Okay.
Again, I want to put a caution out there.
These are deep ideas.
They take a while.
Don't talk about God until Chapter 8 in my book.
It takes a while to get to.
But let's do the shortcut like we did.
Sure.
As long as we have the warning out there that for people not to get frustrated, Because there's lots of thinking that goes on here.
Aristotle was a first-class genius, and he did this, too, by the way.
And you don't get these ideas just at a moment's notice.
They've got to be thought about and meld over and, you know, kind of go through the book slowly and absorb it, because it's all really cool stuff.
But the simplest way to see it is to note that everything you see, everything is in motion in the physical world.
And every motion is caused by something that moves it.
And something must, in turn, move that.
And on and on.
Now, somebody might say, well, maybe it just goes on to infinity.
Well, on to infinity is just a way of pushing the question out, so I don't have to worry about it.
It would be like a lawyer saying, an infinite number of bad arguments makes one good argument.
Of course, it's just not true.
You have to come to some point which you say, Well, there must be a mover that is not itself moved in any way, and must be completely actual and not in any sense potential.
God.
That's God.
If it had any potentiality to it, in other words, if it could move, it would move, and then it would need something to move it.
So, because of what we are able to know we are, there has to be a God.
Yes.
Because of what we know is here, We have to say there must be a God, or otherwise what we have here isn't here, and it is.
Absolutely fascinating.
This is going to provoke a little thought on my part.
No question about it.
All right, Doctor.
Hold on.
We'll be right back.
Dr. Anthony Rizzi is my guest.
He's a very conservative theoretical physicist in some ways, but in others, I don't see how you could not call it a leap of faith.
Maybe if you'd made it, you know, past chapter 8, you could put substance to it.
It's above a leap of faith.
But for me, I'm still on one of those early chapters.
We'll be right back.
Find out more about tonight's guest.
log on to coasttocoastam.com log on to coasttocoastam.com
back to the sun again.
Or to fly to the sun without burning a wing?
To lie in a meadow and hear the grass sing?
To have all these things in our memories?
Or, can they use them to help us to fly?
Oh, I'm gonna miss you.
Just for me I'll take a pill
In my eyes I'll proceed
It's for free Wanna take a ride?
To talk with Art Bell, call the wildcard line at area code 775-727-1295
The first time caller line is area code 775-727-1222 To talk with Art Bell from east to the Rockies, call toll free 800-825-5033.
From west to 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, that was a question, wasn't it?
Want to take a ride?
That, of course, plucked from the movie Contact.
Just an incredible movie, I thought, Contact.
And I remember, of course, the committee that was judging the scientists that sat in the seat and had to answer the $64 billion question, Do you believe in God?
And, of course, The scientist sitting there had to say, in the end, no.
Dr. Anthony Rizzi, on the other hand, would be able to answer, in the end, the affirmative.
Without question, yes, there is a God.
But then, he would also have to believe, I guess, if I've been listening carefully,
that the machine he was about to enter wouldn't work anyway.
Not fear, you will have an opportunity to ask questions of Dr. Rizzi at the top of the hour.
For now, though, I want to take a little jog from where we've been and ask about something else.
It's my understanding you've worked on Mars or some of our Mars missions.
Professor, what did you do?
What can you tell us?
Well, the two things that I worked on to do with Mars are the Mars Observer and when we were initially planning the manned Mars Mission, which has kind of gone in and out of popularity, which is back in popularity now.
I mean, Bush has declared that we should get to Mars by 2030.
But the first one was this Mars Observer.
It was a very interesting experiment to look, to try and see what elements are on Mars.
And one was done with gamma rays, looking at the surface with the gamma rays that the nuclei emit, the characteristic gamma rays that you can identify the elements of the spacecraft.
uh... uh... goes around mars sample where the different elements are another one of the
Yes.
neutron experiment uh... which was not that which i was specifically
running uh...
and that was to look for water and and
uh... from from the period uh... indeed frozen water on mars
and people may know that the rovers have just discovered that there have been
liquid water on mark yes in fact they've seen sediment
sedimentary deposits that indicate that water some some amounts of water must
have been there Professor, is there any way to estimate from what we know so far how much water actually might be there?
Well, I think that we know, I can't spout the number right now, but we know that there's quite a bit on the poles in frozen form.
And from what used to be thought to be these canals that civilizations had made, we now think that they're either from lava flow On the planet, or sometimes from water flow, from underground water coming up and flowing around and making these river-type patterns.
So, for all we know, there could be aquifers running under the surface of Mars still.
Yeah, that's right.
That's right.
And these aquifers are not active anymore.
We know that.
In other words, coming to the surface.
But they may be doing something underneath.
Right.
But it's probably not very...
Likely because of the temperatures, but temperatures would mean that they would be frozen.
But we just don't know for sure yet.
We haven't verified that.
But it looks like that there has been water flow.
and significant water flow to make this sedimentary deposit, which means the possibility for microscopic life
of some kind, which has got people very excited.
And evidence of perhaps even volcanic activity, as you pointed out.
And we know deep in our own trenches, the very deepest part of the oceans,
There's life where there ought not be.
Merely because we have A, water, and B, volcanic venting.
These, I forget what they call them, black something or another, that are volcanic.
You get the bottom very warm, and by God, there's life.
Yeah, instead of sunlight, they use the heat from the volcanic vent.
It's amazing.
And it seems to be that on Earth, And they find these things in these really, really boiling hot hot springs.
Black smokers.
That's what I was trying to think of.
Oh, okay.
Smokers, yes.
So this microscopic sort of life might be, looks like it, you know, that this is a worthy thing to pursue the next step.
And in terms of the manned Mars thing, what we were doing there is we were trying, I was specifically looking at that, you know, the trip to Mars can be long.
Matter of fact, The time to travel for light to go to Mars right now is 20 minutes.
So it's a very interesting sociological problem, because if you're on Mars, if I was having this conversation with you from Mars, then it would take 20 minutes before you heard me, and then another 20 minutes for me to wait for your response.
This is a 40 minute time between the time I finish talking and the time I hear from you.
Right.
So sociologically, that's not really a conversation anymore.
And so you're really going to be isolated, at least for some part of the year, very isolated when you're there.
But one of the big issues is that the time to get there, as you can imagine then, not by light travel, but by a spaceship, is long.
Typically we're talking, at the time we were talking, nine months or something.
So you want to have some form of artificial gravity.
And as you can maybe guess, my favorite topic of angular momentum comes in there because we were talking about spinning the spacecraft and trying to see how we could make some kind of artificial gravity.
That's a long time to go with your bones and such without any kind of... And it's very hard to work when things float around.
Yes.
You want to be able to put things down and then pick them up and put them back in there right where you left them.
If we're able to achieve the artificial gravity, and I assume we can do the spin, do you see any other scientific immediate blockades to man going to Mars?
No, none at all.
None at all?
None at all.
I mean, basically, the things that we were looking at at the time were trying to find out good plants, because what you'd want to do is if there's water there, What you want to really be able to do is, when you get there, because it's so long, you want to be able to use the stuff on the planet so you can survive, because you can't bring a lot of stuff with you.
Right.
And that's really the gotcha right now, is figuring out how to make huts and things that wouldn't be huts, because they have to be something that you maybe make a hut and then blow up something inside to make an atmosphere.
But you want a biosphere inside there, and you want to be able to go outside, get dirt, and do things with the planetary And that's really the gotcha right now, is to get enough so we can stay there.
With the assumption there is water, Professor, how would you compare living on Mars, or attempting to live on Mars, in terms of difficulty with living, for example, at, I don't know, an Antarctic, perhaps, location?
Well, for one thing, the water is going to be much harder to get to.
than it would be in an Arctic location.
Another thing is there's very little air, and what there is is there's almost no oxygen.
So you would have to break apart water or something to get your oxygen.
Right.
And so that would make it much harder, and it's going to be much colder than the Arctic regions.
And so those two things, you can't step outside.
Sounds like a pretty harsh environment.
Very harsh environment.
But because there is the water, and because we are finding out the rock composition and such, and you can bring certain things with you, you should be able to create a biosphere in which, while you wouldn't want to go outside very often, you might be able to do something with the materials there so you can create a comfortable living environment for some short period of time at least.
If you were the scientist, and I was a congressman on an important, or a senator, let's say, on an important appropriations committee, and you were trying to talk me into, man, going to Mars, and why I should authorize the money, taxpayer money, to put together a program to go to Mars, how would you argue that, Professor?
Well, I would argue it in terms of that all the things that we learn by going to a different planet, it gives us sort of What physicists like to say, we're orthogonal information about our own planet.
And by learning about the planet, that planet, it works backwards and we learn about our own ecosystems and about our own planet and what we can do to preserve our own planet.
And then there's just, I would also argue, the sheer increase in knowledge that you get, whether it ends up giving you practical benefit, just the man's desire to know and But you would argue for a manned mission?
that we would learn from that would be order of magnitude faster than if we
and i do think that that there is a better and better fit for the actually
spending uh... that man vehicles rather than unmanned
although uh... i would probably argue stronger for more on man because you can
do it cheaper and get much more bang for the buck at least initially
but you would argue for a man mission i would argue for a man mission and and
aspects of the man's presence would you argue would justify the additional cost
if you if you're trying to argue it Okay, if I was trying to argue it, what I would argue is that the way you're going to get people to really be interested in the science is not going to be with robots, but with men actually going there.
And you can get people to really talk a lot about this and actually get the money if you do, and to really do it if you make it an adventure rather than a dry scientific So then your argument is the adventure, the human drama aspect of it would justify it to the people?
Yeah, that the people would be able to, not just justify, but the people would be able to participate more.
Well, you're right.
You're right.
It would be extremely exciting.
I mean, we get a certain level of excitement when we have a robot touchdown, but it'd be nothing like a man.
Nothing like a man.
No, nothing at all.
And then there's the intangibles of just being there, being able to pick up the soil, having to go through your fingers and all the other things that you would learn that you could just do.
20 minutes communication time to a robot is really handicapped.
All right, well, the fact that microbial life on Mars in the past, or now, even now, is an amazing thing, because we have Earth, and then next over we've got Mars, and oh, God, look at that!
Already, life!
And it seems... Well, we don't know that there's life.
Well, I know we don't know there's life, but we're pretty... we're getting pretty sure.
It sure does look that way.
Well, it looks like there's a possibility now.
I mean, wouldn't you be surprised if they could really take a look-see and they didn't find microbial life?
Wouldn't that actually surprise you?
Yeah, actually, it probably would.
Well, there you are.
So, Professor, if there's microbial life on Mars and there's complex life here on Earth, then that makes the probability of life really, really high.
As you look around the universe and all these suns and all these planets, The probability of life out there is more likely common than uncommon.
Well, I'm going to get back to my skepticism here.
Oh, well, go ahead.
I think that while I think that the probability of microscopic life is going to be, as you say, lots of places around the galaxy, I'm not quite convinced that we've got it on Mars yet.
If somebody were to ask me to bet, I would say, okay, Because it would be very interesting for one thing, I would probably lean it a little bit over 50-50 and say I think that there's going to be some.
But now if I go to the step of more complex life, then it becomes much more iffy of a thing, because with the more complex life, you don't find, for example, on Earth, that when things get to a certain point, you don't get that more complex life.
It's kind of the opposite of the microbial life, which survives all over the place on the Earth.
The more complex life doesn't.
And then we find that you have to find the star systems that can support sort of a habitable planet zone and all those things.
I'm no expert in all those, but what I've looked at, it looks like very unlikely that there is complex life in our galaxy.
But it's hard to talk about those things, so I really don't want to...
It's a really hard position on that, because, again, A, I'm not an expert, and B, I just don't think we have enough information, even the experts, yet.
Well, we don't say anything definitively, but the fact of even life at the microbial level on two planets right next to each other, that's... Yeah.
The microbial level, I agree.
The microbial level, I think, is... I mean, already on Earth, you see the microbial level is very, very robust.
But I think there's a qualitative difference when you get to more complex life.
That's all I'm saying.
Alright, but you wouldn't be shocked, would you, if someplace at the other end of the galaxy there was intelligent life as we know it?
I wouldn't be shocked, no.
I just don't think it's likely, that's all.
You are a pretty big skeptic though, aren't you?
A pretty big skeptic on just about everything in your field, and I guess that's alright.
I've certainly interviewed many of the other sorts.
Do you believe there are multiple dimensions?
Professor, I mean, so many theoretical physicists now are just concentrating like crazy on the possibility of multiple dimensions.
Eleven?
Eleven or twenty-six?
Yes.
Ten?
Yes.
This is all string theory.
And this has to do with trying to bring in These five forces, if you count electricity and magnetism as separate forces, they've been unified so long people sometimes count them as one, but those five forces, then you end up introducing all kinds of other mathematical dimensions.
Now, I'm very interested in string theory, and I think that it's It's really the best bet that I know of right now that we have to unify the forces.
And, you know, the only caveat that I have is I want to wait and see.
I don't think, I don't see any particular reason why it has to be wrong.
And, as a matter of fact, I see lots of reasons why it gives insight into a lot of different things.
But because of the fact that the theory itself is still being formed, and mathematically I mean, and because of the fact that we're still looking for any of the predictions the unique predictions it makes outside of the fact that it
seems to capture some aspects of these five forces makes me want to wait and see.
Well, about certain things we have no choice but to wait and see.
But usually theoretical physicists tend to, oh I don't know, kind of err on the optimistic
hopeful side.
I mean, I think there's several segments.
The segment that tends to be more like me tends to not talk very much about it, I think, is more what tends to happen.
So the more vocal are likely to be the more progressive, I guess?
and there's several segment segment that and to be more like me and cannot talk very much about it
but i think it more what kind of bathroom
uh...
so so the more vocal are likely to be the the more more progressive i guess
you know the more aggressive Yeah, right.
Um...
How does that work out at, I don't know, seminars and meetings that you have with colleagues?
It must result in a lot of heated discussions.
No, really, you stick basically, within the field, you stick largely to the mathematical end of things, and their things are very precise and clear.
It's only in the interpretation, when you happen to go off to lunch and you talk about these things, I see.
the the conversation comes up but typically uh... physicist
uh... like to concentrate on the area where they were which is within the
mathematics where they feel comfortable and don't like to wander too much
outside in my conversations uh... with dr kaku one thing he suggests or admits
reluctantly is that you've got to revert his uh...
uh... what is it a theory regarding it's like civilizations You know, 0, 1, 2, and 3, and so forth.
And he thinks it's quite likely that we will blow ourselves up, Professor, before we're able to move on to the next, or very far from now.
That we now have, with the development of Element 92, why we can blow ourselves to smithereens.
Do you think that's likely or not so likely?
I'm actually more optimistic on that.
I don't think... Really?
Yeah.
I'm more worried about the Brave New World scenario than, in other words, the social sort of cataclysm that comes from the misuse of the sciences rather than the direct technological aspect.
You know, then Brave New World is a really scary world where all human love is sort of evacuated out of the mix.
And families are gone, and everything human is gone and replaced by a sort of mechanistic culture.
And that's more scary to me.
That's where I see us, you know, sort of heading towards one of these Egyptian-type cultures that sort of ossifies, but we ossify into this mechanistic, technological-type culture.
Then you must see the signs of that developing all around you right now.
Yeah.
I just read that at Heathrow in London they now x-ray you.
They x-ray you right down to your privates.
So there are some strange things going on.
Hold on, Professor.
From the high desert in the middle of the night with a theoretical conservative physicist, I'm Art Bell.
Get it in writing with the After Dark Newsletter.
Subscribe by calling 1-888-727-5505.
Here they come!
To talk with Art Bell, call the wildcard line at area code 775-727-1295.
The first time caller line is area code 775-727-1222.
To talk with Art Bell from east of the Rockies, call toll free at 800-825-5033.
From west of the Rockies, call Art at 800-618-8255.
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 my guest, Professor Anthony Rizzi, and he's all yours in a moment.
So any questions you have, the time, that linear old thing we all have to live with, would be now.
I'm going to go ahead and get started.
I am interested, just before we go to the lines, Professor, how you think with, boy, with the abilities we have with radiation, atomic weapons, the development of biological weapons which are really hair-raising, the science we have now working on, the miniaturization of things to the point that we might get ourselves some grey goo or something.
I mean, something catastrophic from science.
You're optimistic, why?
Well, just from the past, we've had opportunities to do this many times, and we haven't done it.
And some of the things that, you know, recently a physicist from England, well known, I forget his name, mentioned that the collider that's getting ready to go online was going to be tested to test some of these predictions of some of these unified theories.
He mentioned that there's a possibility that a little Um, sort of mini explosion, mini in the sense of, on the scale of a big bang, but sort of a little big bang that would wipe out half of the solar system, might happen.
Right.
And he calculated that it was one chance in 20 million, but with such huge odds, he claimed that, well, why are we doing this?
And, um, but you know, actually it's again based on a theory that we, we don't really understand too well, so it's not really, it's one in 20 million, but we don't know what the odds on the one in 20 million are.
You know, it's not impossible, and I think that we could easily do it if we're not careful.
It seems like we're smart enough to keep ourselves from the bigger ones.
It's the more subtle ones we seem to be not so good at.
The ones where we shoot ourselves in the foot on a daily basis.
I mean, like Huxley, when he wrote his book in 1932, he predicted that his scenario would happen in 600 years.
There's a radio show that's actually available on the web that your viewers might want to Well, what about the questions of the ethics part of it?
was originally broadcast in nineteen fifty fifty six with huxley himself
narrating it and on that
version of it he said that he were doing writing a book during the nineteen
fifty six instead of writing ninety thirty three he said this scenario will happen within two hundred years
i think if you have been talking now you would say what happened in a hundred
uh... well what about the of the questions of the ethics part of it in
other words somebody's about to conduct an experiment like when you
talk about whether the possibility of a
i don't know uh... many uh... explosion uh... from the big cosmically many big bang
I mean, big enough to virtually erase us, certainly.
What about the ethics of throwing the switch on that one?
Yeah, and that's a worry, is that we get so interested in what we're doing that we forget what it's all about.
So, I mean, that's basically what happened with the nuclear thing, is that physicists didn't think much about the consequences, they just thought how interesting the physics was, and then when they saw what resulted, they were universally horrified.
I wonder, then, what gives you so much optimism for the future?
Well, because, though the physicists don't often think about it, the rest of the culture seems to think about it, and it seems that we've The bigger things like that get enough pressure that they don't happen.
It just seems to me that what we're not good at is the complexity of a culture and how little things, giving up little principles here and there, can end up defectively doing the same thing to our human nature.
Well, I hope you're right.
First time caller on the line, you're on the air with Professor Rizzi.
Hi.
Yes, this is Nathan from Little Rock.
Yes.
Are we on the line?
We are.
Oh, yes, we are.
Yeah, Art, I'm just a plain-Jane mechanical engineer, but I do feel I've made a major scientific discovery about antigravity.
And it'd take a minute to go through all the theory of it, but my principle is based on the scientific principle that for every force, There's an equal and opposite force.
And if gravity can cause light to be in, which we know it can.
OK, then obviously gravity has a force against I'm a little nervous.
Gravity has the potential to be in life.
Then light has the potential to have an equal and opposite force against gravity.
OK, Professor, anything?
Well, that's a pretty serious consequences.
Because I think that the reason we have anti gravity is not because of dark energy and dark matter.
But because of the light, meaning radiation, light is just one form of radiation.
That the light is actually pulling the universe apart or making it expand.
caller uh...
Should I answer?
Yes, please.
I'm not quite sure how you're arguing there, but the principle of every force has an equal and opposite reaction comes from Newtonian physics, where you have You know, if I push on a ball, then the ball pushes back on me with the same force.
And so, you know, when you're talking about light, you're talking about, well, the way the general relativist would explain it is you're talking about the space bending and the light moves in that bent space.
Or another way to think of it is the light is being acted on by the gravitational field, but the gravitational field is acting on It's hard to talk about light because we haven't defined what light is.
Light is qualitatively different than a heavy body in that it's energy flowing rather than a massive body of some particular type.
But in any case, let's put a massive body there to make it more clear.
If a massive body was being pulled, By the Earth's gravity or by the Sun's gravity, then the massive body resists.
And light does resist in that way.
Resists in a sort of analogical way to being pulled.
And we call that, you know, that property inertia.
And because light has an energy, that energy corresponds to a certain amount of inertia, a certain amount of resistance to being pulled.
So that's a sort of parallel way of looking at it.
You can look at it in a more mathematical way So there is already that resistance taken into account, that reaction already taken into account.
Well, for example, on black holes, I have a little different theory about a black hole than the prominent way that current scientists would look at it.
The way I see a black hole is simply the gravitational pull inside the black hole is so strong that it's not that the light can't really escape, it's that the light goes in orbit around the black hole.
It can't escape because the light is actually in orbit, just like a satellite would be in orbit.
Actually, there are orbits for light that are plotted in sort of standard general relativity introductory text, where you do have orbits.
The orbits, though, tend to... To get in a perfectly circular orbit, you could do it, but sooner or later something's going to perturb you and you're going to get out of the orbit and you're going to decay and fall in, which is the same thing that happens to massive bodies.
Yes, this is Mark.
I'm calling from, I guess, outside of Shreveport, Louisiana.
I've got two questions for him.
The first question is, I know that the molecular motion of objects when they approach the velocity of light slow and come to a near stop.
The question I have is this.
Is it proportionate to the Doppler shift, or is it independent of that?
In other words, if an object, say, is moving at close to the velocity of light, but has no radial velocity, I would think that he would know what I mean by that, does the molecular motion still come to a stop?
And I was wondering, is the proportionality of it, say, for instance, excuse me, I'm a little bit nervous here, is the proportionality of it, say, for instance, if an object is traveling at two-thirds the velocity of light, Would it slow down to one-third and its mass increase three times?
Is it kind of like that?
Let me answer the first one.
Can I answer the first one and then tell me the second one again?
No, no, no.
Let him answer number one.
Go ahead.
Number one, the Doppler shift is really an interesting thing.
It's a good question.
The Doppler shift is really a different thing than the deletion we're talking about.
Usually it takes students a while to sort that out, and I'm not sure how many people really ever sort it out.
It's one of those things that kind of takes you to fiddle with it a while.
The way you can see it, though, in a little bit is that in sound, like with the train going by, you hear that as the train's coming towards you, the whistle goes higher in pitch, and as it goes away from you, it goes lower in pitch.
That's the Doppler effect that you're referring to.
That happens as well, but on top of it, there's the time dilation.
So then your second question?
Well, the second question is the proportionality of it.
Say, for instance, if an object is traveling at two-thirds the velocity of light, would the molecular motion be slowed down to one-third normalcy?
And would the mass increase three-fold?
You're going two-thirds of the speed of light is your question?
Right.
And you want to know what happens to the mass and what happens to the time?
Right.
Okay.
At two-thirds of the speed of light, you'll be going Let's see, I've got to calculate this real quick.
You'll be going about, oh say, 3 quarters.
The mass will be increased by about 4 thirds and your time dilation will be about 3 quarters.
The formula you use is 1 over the square root of 1 minus the square root of the ratio of the speed to the speed of light.
Square root of 1 minus v squared over c squared.
That whole thing in the denominator.
Oh, I got you.
Okay, the second question I had, that was part of the first question.
The second question I have is, I wonder, what is the gravitational field anchored to?
I know that if you spin an object, its gravitational field doesn't spin with it.
Is it uniformly anchored throughout the universe, or are there parts of the universe where it's not anchored?
If the gravitational field is not uniformly anchored?
No, so gravitational fields are anchored from the particular mass you're talking about.
So the sun, for example, generates a gravitational field around it.
But what can happen if the sun moves, then a kink generates in the field.
And that's what we were talking earlier about.
That's related to what we call gravity waves, a wave in the gravity.
And so, it can look like the anchor point is someplace where there's nothing there, but that's just because the object that's generating the field has moved.
Professor, would there theoretically be a way to generate and or amplify gravity?
To amplify gravity?
Yeah, actually, there is sort of an amplification in the gravity way.
The gravity waves end in light due to gravity, and that's sort of this gravitational lensing phenomenon.
It's very interesting, whereby if you have a massive object, say a black hole or say a cluster of a bunch of stars, what happens is the objects behind them that are generating gravity waves get bent around it and can be focused to a point, just like you might, you know, as every boy does, Fascinating.
All right.
These are the Rockies.
You're on the air with Professor Rizzi.
Hello.
Hello, Art.
Professor Rizzi.
gravity with an actually on some from
Yes.
light in the light spectrum the same thing that happened to the gravity
fascinating uh... alright is the rockies you're on the air with professor is a
low uh... lower
uh... professor is the i have a little time travel scenario i'd like to uh... run
by uh... you it
well let's say i'm in my head they have a pet
and uh... i've got uh...
and anti gravity uh... generator
It's going to neutralize me from, uh, all the physical forces of the universe.
And, uh, of course, I'll, I'll need my, uh, my, uh, ion thrusters to zip me around in a hundred thousand K, but just to avoid things.
When I hit the switch.
Okay, I hit the switch.
And the Earth flies off at 50,000 miles an hour.
The Sun flies off at a fraction of the speed of light.
But essentially, the galaxy flies off at whatever its speed is.
Okay, so I'm not... Relativity comes into play, correct?
Yeah, so if you're traveling close to the speed of light, special relativity comes into play.
Okay, but in order for me to time travel on the spot, I have to jump into the old freeze arena, huh?
Yeah, to time travel on the spot, in other words, to go forward in time, you have to isolate yourself somehow from the motions by suspended animation, or gravity field, a heavy gravity field like near a black hole, or so forth.
Okay, I just wanted to run that by you.
All right.
Well, you have.
Thank you.
What's for the Rockies?
You're on the air with Professor Rizzi.
Hi.
Hello.
Going once.
Going twice.
Gone.
International Line, you're on the air with Professor Rizzi.
Hello.
Hello there.
Well, we've got another one apparently not listening.
First Time Caller Line, you're on the air with Professor Rizzi.
Hello.
Thank you, Art, for another terrific show.
I'm Gil from Far Rockaway.
Hi.
Hi, sir.
Professor, do gravity waves propagate at the speed of light, and what is the quantum of angular momentum?
Okay, good question.
Yes, as far as we know, and this is Einstein's prediction, is that gravity waves do travel at the speed of light.
This is one of the things we want to check with the LIGO Observatory, the laser interferometer that Art mentioned at the beginning of the show.
And when we actually detect gravity waves, that'll be a major thing that's not been done, direct detection's not been done.
But the next thing we want to do is actually look at the universe, see what it looks like in terms of gravity waves, and learn more about the nature of the gravity waves, for example, the speed.
But we think the best evidence we have, and it seems pretty certain, that gravity waves do travel at the speed of light.
The quantum of angular momentum, it depends on the particular Yes sir, I thank you kindly.
but the sort of basic quantum that people talk about is called Planck's constant.
And Planck's constant was originally developed by physicists
who were noticing that the atom could only work if you quantized the angular momentum of the atom
in terms of the smallest unit being what you call h-bar, which is Planck's constant.
Yes, sir. I thank you kindly.
All right. Thank you, Kaller.
How... We were sort of puzzling about that recently, Professor.
measuring the speed of gravity since all that is exists already and gravity is the companion
of mass and the mass is already there, it's unimaginable to me to wrap my mind around
the concept of measuring gravity because the object is already there and the speed of its
being already there, its wave is already there.
That's why the wave itself is a kink in the field.
So if you imagine, if some giant grabbed the sun and shook it, then you can imagine while the sun is displaced from where it is, that it would generate a field slightly off center.
Yes.
And that would create a kink relative to the field that was already there.
Something that would be measurable.
I get that.
But nobody does that for us.
They don't shake the sun.
No, but what happens is, and one of our key sources in LIGO to look for is two black holes spinning around each other.
And as they spin around each other, they shake each other.
I mean, that's what you mean by going around each other.
They're moving relative to each other.
And in fact, what happens is the orbit decays, as we talked about before.
The gentleman asked a question about lightning.
They decay faster and faster and faster and faster until they crash into each other, and they're really going fast at that point, and they generate a lot of gravity waves, and that's one of our key sources, that so-called last moment of in-spiral, where the two gravity waves annihilate each other.
And that we've actually been able to measure, and so we can say with some confidence that... No, we haven't done that yet.
That's the sources that we're trying to quantify, and we have some kind of idea, some kind of guess, and now we're trying to measure it.
That's what this experiment is about, is to try and measure that And once and for all, nail it down.
And that'll tell us a lot about the nature of those sort of collisions, and therefore the nature of the black hole.
Absolutely fascinating.
All right, hold on, Professor.
Professor Anthony Rizzi is my guest.
He wrote a book, by the way, called The Science Before Science, A Guide to Thinking in the 21st Century.
We'll tell you more about the book and how you can grab one and begin to understand some of the concepts you've been hearing about tonight.
In the middle of that darkness we talk so much about.
This is Coast to Coast AM.
I'm Mark Bell.
should be reckoned with.
Everything's the same back in my little town Nothing but the dead and dying back in my little town
Nothing but the dead and dying back in my little town To talk with Art Bell, call the wildcard line at area codes
The first time caller line is area code 775-727-1222.
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.
Giving you just a few things to rattle around in your mind in your small little town.
Or perhaps your big one.
Good morning, I'm Art Bell.
My guest, Professor Anthony Rizzi, will be right back.
Once again, Professor Anthony Rizzi.
Professor, are you at all aware of the experiments, interesting experiments being done by Princeton and others in which They have these little, well, they call them eggs, and they are geographically scattered, and they all are random number generators that are reporting their results back to the mother egg, as it were, at Princeton, and they're measuring, perhaps, streams of consciousness that surround large events like 9-11, that sort of thing.
Have you... No, I'm not familiar with that at all.
What seems to be happening is, or there's speculation is, that these events, these large events, are registered in a stream of mass consciousness that then will affect things like a random number generator, and they measured these incredibly large spikes in sudden non-randomness associated with these large events.
It's a very interesting experiment.
And do you think there might be anything to this mass consciousness thing?
I really don't.
I think that from what we talked about before, that our soul works through the body, and disconnected from the body, we can't do anything or know anything.
So I don't see any evidence for that.
I'm not an expert in that area.
That's my opinion.
Okay.
Good enough.
First time caller on the line.
You're on the air with Professor Rizzi.
Hi.
Good morning.
How are you today?
Just fine.
Good morning, Professor.
Good morning.
I have a quick statement and question.
I know, you know, you can't go much on the testimony of witnessing, but back in the early 80s, I was fortunate enough with my family.
My name is Dave and I'm calling from Toronto.
I was fortunate enough with my family during a meteor shower in the summertime to be sitting in the right place at the right time To see what eventually, after much research, turned out to be a galaxy.
At arm's length, it would have been about the size of... I guess about a... just a little bit bigger than a quarter, which is kind of remarkable.
It's not something that you see every day.
And the way this thing phased in and phased out of visibility was as if it was through a hole.
Which, after some research into, you know, physics as a young teenager could do, I believe it was a wormhole.
Which is kind of ironic because there was nothing on the sides of the hole, just the light coming through.
Which, I know it's hard to put your mind past, okay, you know, there's Well, look, let's try it with the professor.
Is there anything, professor, that would lead you to believe that something as fantastic as you just heard could have some basis in a reality or function that we don't yet understand?
And things like that could have explanation, or are they pure flights of fancy?
I mean, I think that you have to be very careful before you say something is a pure flight of fancy.
I didn't quite get enough data from the caller to figure out what exactly he saw, and I would not want to jump... you know, the idea is to go very cautiously in explanations.
Well, I think quite clearly he said he saw what he interpreted to be a galaxy, a very small size, that came through some sort of ripper tear or something in our current reality or dimension.
So he interpreted it as a... That was his interpretation, yes.
So there was like interpretation mixed in with a lot of these sort of witnessing interpretation mixed in with facts.
Right, so I'm just trying to broaden the question a little bit, really, and ask if there could be these kinds of things.
I definitely think there could be these kinds of things, because, you know, for example, meteors, for a long time, were looked upon as completely made-up things.
People just could not believe That they existed.
And they would attribute this to hallucinations and all kinds of things.
I'm talking about meteors that hit the atmosphere and then land somewhere.
Yes.
And people were seeing them all over the place.
Respectable people were seeing them and they were ignoring the fact because it just seemed too weird.
And it was just against what people had always thought.
So you have to be very careful.
Another example is ball lightning.
For a long time, ball lightning was considered to be a complete fantastic thing.
Most people acknowledge that it's a real thing.
We don't quite understand it, though.
So, in other words, we should be very careful about dismissing observation.
Yes.
That's right.
All right.
Wildcard Line, you're on the air with Professor Anthony Rizzi.
Hi.
Hi.
This is Gary at Bakersfield, California.
Yes, Gary.
Professor, privileged to talk to you.
Thank you.
You're welcome.
Let me see if I can phrase a question regarding a time machine.
And I'm sure I'd have just a quick follow-up, but Einstein, rather than just slowing down, pardon me, let me start over, rather than just slowing down our process of aging in relation to the aging of other things around us, which then makes us age slower, I mean an actual contraption.
I believe Einstein said that it was possible to be somewhere before he left.
I know there was work done in the 80s that Postulated if we could, for instance, get an object, the mass of the sun spinning near the speed of light, we could then traverse to a mathematical point.
And you had said earlier, a timeline to a mathematical identified point in time.
And perhaps we could navigate backward in time.
So this contraption in that I'm speaking would be pretty huge.
But what are your thoughts on that?
Well, you know, the spinning... I'm not sure exactly what work you're talking about, but spinning black holes, and called by professional physicists, Kerr black holes, do have a very unique type of hole in the middle.
We talked earlier about if you fell into a static black hole, what would happen to you.
Well, actually, in a Kerr black hole, you have a ring, what's called a ring singularity.
So if you have a big enough Kerr black hole, spinning black hole, You might be able to go through and avoid at least a ripping apart.
You're having your body ripped apart, but you wouldn't be able to avoid all the quantum generated Hawking radiation in any case.
But the issue there in this wormhole is that the stability of it is questionable.
But the bigger issue is that time is the measure of motion.
If you keep that definition straight in your head, then you know that because it's not a line, it's not like a line, that you can't jump past it.
And that's the key thing to remember.
So whatever you do is going to be equivalent to slowing yourself down or speeding up the rest of the universe, one or the other.
I see.
So in your view, then you can't construct a contraption or device that would... That seems quite clear.
In other words... No, I think that you can construct a device as long as it's a device that That in the end does what I just said, that it slows down time for you.
And that, you know, so traveling in a spaceship near the speed of light does that.
But not the kind of device that he was talking about.
He's talking about a wormhole of some kind, and a wormhole of some kind, while it doesn't look possible in terms of, let's say, let's just ignore the fact that it doesn't look possible because of other physical things.
If the wormhole could be made, it may be an equivalent way of slowing your body down And then it would be ineffective for time travel.
Only, you're saying you'd be ripped to shreds, so... I'm saying you'd be ripped to shreds, and if you weren't ripped to shreds, you know, in a curved black hole, you do have a circular singularity, as opposed to a point singularity, so you can go through the circle.
You can avoid that part, but you can't avoid the radiation that's generated by the circle.
Gotcha.
East of the Rockies, you're on the air with Professor Rizzi.
Hello.
Hello, Tracker.
This is Tracker from St.
Louis.
How are you doing this evening, Art?
Quite all right, sir.
I was wondering if the professor had any familiarity with the David Weber series of Honor Harrington and their use of stress gravity bands as propulsion system to travel in excess at the speed of light.
No, I'm sorry.
I'm not familiar with that at all.
Well, they had what they called alpha nodes and beta nodes that actually ...would grab onto gravity and they would use gravity bands at the top and bottom of the ships to actually provide propulsion.
They would also, when they'd enter a gravity wave, extend these special sails from the alpha node that would grab onto the gravity wave to provide all the propulsion that was necessary.
It's a very interesting concept and I've talked to some people here at the University of Missouri-St.
Louis who have read the books in addition to me, We're friends of mine, and they said that it is highly plausible and theoretical at the moment, but the technology just isn't there at the moment.
Yeah, the thing that doesn't, I mean, I'm not sure quite what you're referring to, as I mentioned, but going faster than the speed of light is really a problem within the theory that we understand now.
It really, for one thing, it would require infinite energy to try and go faster than the speed of light, and it doesn't It doesn't seem to be possible in any way from what the theories that we have now.
And if you're right about gravity, it wouldn't get to sailing faster than the speed of light anyway, would it?
Even if you could use it as a propulsion method or... Right, that's what I'm saying.
If Einstein's right, then the fastest you can go is light.
Light speed.
All right.
Wells for the Rockies, you're on the air with Professor Rizzi.
Hi.
Hi.
It's a pleasure to speak with you, Dr. Rizzi and Art Bell.
Thank you.
I have two quick questions.
The first deals with nonlocal activity and entangled particles.
I'm a little bit confused as to some of the things you said.
It's my understanding that nonlocal activity has been proven in the sense that even back in the 80s, like with the Elaine Aspect experiments, where twin particles or twin photons were created, shot out a few meters of pipe, Polarizer would alter one, and the other one would be measured, and the other one would be observed to be altered immediately at the same time.
In a sense, more recently with quantum computing, just a rudimentary read of a new scientist talks about how they've actually trapped entangled particles, and manipulation of one particle affects the other.
So my first question is, Are you suggesting that this is too literal of an interpretation of something that's more mathematical?
Yeah, that's exactly right.
I mean, what happens is that, you know, in the popular descriptions of this thing, the thing is reduced to what something might appear as if something in front of you might all of a sudden appear different.
As if, if I picked up this book and slammed down the book, the book and wherever you're standing would do the same thing.
It's not that direct of an observation.
It involves A mathematical interpolation.
So in other words, they're not sitting there looking at the particle and they hit the particle and the other particle instantaneously moves.
It involves a series of deductions based on the mathematics.
Okay.
And it's now, um, most people acknowledge some, that there are, um, that this is not airtight proof.
But what happens is that in the translation from the mathematics, there's a lot of things left out because you're talking about a causal thing rather than a mathematical thing.
Mathematics is all there at once.
Two is two and it's always two.
Whereas in causal things, it's one thing and it changes to another.
So you have different types of reasoning that has to happen.
And in the Bell Theorem, for example, that's not respected.
And so you get a conclusion that doesn't... I mean, while it may still be true, it doesn't follow.
Okay, I understand.
Okay, if I can ask a second question really quick.
Very quickly.
In regards to the Princeton research that Art just mentioned, There's the Princeton Engineering Anomaly Research Lab, which in their initial days, they discovered that human consciousness has an effect on random data generating machines.
So if Art Bell was in a room in Princeton focusing on a machine, he would have an infinitesimal effect on the data that's being spit up on the machine, which was the initial phases of the investigations.
But then when they realized that not only that was that profound, but also a certain like Art Bell algorithm of a data set would be created.
So they would be able to recognize Art Bell's consciousness through this sort of experimentation.
But then beyond that, they realized that it wasn't confined to just that room.
He didn't need to be in the room.
He could be any place, not only in In space, spatially, like on the other side of the country, but they realized that time wasn't a factor.
So the experiment could be two weeks ago, and I could tell Art today, hey, focus on the experiment two weeks ago, and the algorithm of Art Bell's consciousness would be recorded, so long as he was told of the experiment.
I would think there would be a lot of parallels that he would find crashingly familiar.
Wouldn't you, Collar?
Yes, I do.
All right.
Thank you very much.
International Line, you're on the air with Dr. Anthony Rizzi.
Hi.
Hi, Art.
Where are you?
I'm in Sarnia, Ontario.
Okay.
I have a few things to ask.
This has, like, what I'm about to say has something or is paralleled by the John Titor thing.
The John Titor time travel?
Yes.
Anyway, what is your question?
Does your guest believe that time is the fourth dimension?
Okay, all right.
Perfect, actually.
You did allude earlier, Professor, to the fact that there may be more than one dimension.
Could it be?
Do you think eventually that we will come to understand the nature of, or be able to tap into, for information or any other reason, another dimension?
I mean, I think to answer the caller's question, the word dimension has to be carefully Defined and understood.
And of course, what I already said needs to go back on the table, and that is that time is not a dimension in the sense of a space.
In other words, the space is there all at once, and the time isn't.
So it's not a dimension in that sense.
It's a dimension in what we call an analogical sense.
And so there's all kinds of dimensions in that analogical sense.
Every possible thing that can happen can be considered a dimension, so I can consider Different colors, each different color dimension.
And in that sense, and the things that these mathematical theories are bringing out, sort of pulling out things that we can't see out of the depths of the information we have, there probably is, there definitely is new information that we're getting as we progress forward in the mathematization of our understanding of the universe.
So it's like you've got to be careful what the distinction is, and that is that all dimensions aren't spatial dimensions when we're looking at a physical theory.
They're analogical things.
And in that sense, they are presenting us with new information, and we can learn new things from them.
All right.
We're running a little short on time, and I want to get a plug in for your book, which we're going to do.
Wildcard Lion, you're on the air with Dr. Anthony Rizzi.
Hello.
Hey, good evening.
Good evening, sir.
Quick comment.
There's many cases of information traveling faster than the speed of light so far in laboratory experiments, and I thought that critically Einstein had said that things can travel faster than speed of light perhaps, but it was information that could not.
But anyway, a quick question.
The effect of Lorenz's closed surface integration of the EM energy flow vector You might want to keep me on the line, just to clarify that.
You know what?
We're not going to have time to clarify that.
Was there a question?
Well, it dealt with MAP, which is why I was so interested in asking the question with regards to your guest, because he spends a lot of his time doing that.
The gist of the question is that in electrodynamics, we've thrown out the very thing that, or Lorenz threw out the very thing that, you know, gives us over-unity, gives us a lot of over-unity machines, and perhaps even space travel.
And I thought it was interesting that many of your guests had broadened that up.
And of course, this is work done by Tom Bearden, at least one person that I know who's doing the work, and pointed out the math error that Lorenz made.
Well, we could do an awful lot on the possibility of an energy source, and that would be a whole other program.
Unfortunately, this one is coming to an end.
You wrote a book called The Science Before Science, A Guide to Thinking in the 21st Century.
How long has the book been out?
The book has been out about three months.
So it's a baby.
A baby.
And where might people grab one up?
I mean, the usual, Amazon.com?
Amazon.com, our website, IAPweb.org, Barnes & Noble is carrying them on their shelves.
Barnesandnoble.com.
Alright, is this book written in a way that the kind of listeners we've had calling tonight Yes, I think so.
I think so.
You know, be ready.
It's going to take some thinking.
You're going to want to read a chapter and then sit back in the armchair.
Yes, yes.
Well, listen, I want to thank you.
You've been a pleasure, a joy to have here, and we will have you back again.
Well, it's been good to be here.
Thank you.
Have a very good night, sir.
You too, Douglas.
All right, well, there you have it.
Dr. Anthony Rizzi, I'm Art Bell, and tomorrow night's Bill McDonald will be here, but prior to his appearance, you remember that interrupted message on the BBC?
Well, I was sent the text of what was delivered to the planet Earth, the people of the planet Earth, in that message.
Tomorrow night, I'll read it.
Until then, have a great night.
Good night.
▲
Export Selection